Whiteness Studies

fishin' wrote:

snood wrote:
It's a little ironic to me to be saying that classes on "white studies" (which, by the way, are in my estimation not a treatment generally on "racism" as much as they are a tutorial about white privilege in the US)

How does one seperate "white priviledge" from "racism"? They seem, to me at least, to be terms for opposite sides of the same coin.

Quote:
...should strive to be inclusive of the entirety of the spectrum of events and perspectives encompassing the race issue, when their very existence is an attempt to address omissions and inaccuracies in all of American education, since before blacks were whipped for trying to read, until now.

Shouldn't the coverage be complete? If Jefferson's views on race are going to be brought up shouldn't there be a discussion of how he came to hold those views? Jefferson was a great writer and orator but he had few original thoughts.

Earlier in this thread I mention Dr. William Petty and Charles Linnaeus. These are the two people who wrote the theological and scientific works that created the concept of race we have today. Linnaeus was the one who first wrote of the 4 races in the world ("White" Europeans, "Red" Americans, "Yellow" Asians and "Black" Africans..) in his 1740 publishing of "General System of Nature". The works of Petty and Linnaeus were a few of many that were published during the European Enlightenment which were read by many, inculding Jefferson. How can they cover Jefferson's thoughts and writings in these classes without covering how he came to his ideas? If they don't, another incomplete history full of ommissions and inaccuracies is being taught.

Then I take it you've been this thorough and passionate about all the countless omissions from all the history books and curriculums prior to this one class on "white studies", yes?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Then I take it you've been this thorough and passionate about all the countless omissions from all the history books and curriculums prior to this one class on "white studies", yes?

Yes, I am. Why aren't you?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

fishin', How about black and Asian Jews? c.i.

Although not directed to me, may I be so bold as to respond?

Of course there are black and Asian Jews. Geesh, my point exactly.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

snood wrote:
Then I take it you've been this thorough and passionate about all the countless omissions from all the history books and curriculums prior to this one class on "white studies", yes?

Yes, I am. Why aren't you?

Why do you assume I'm not? If I hadn't started this thread, how would I even know if anyone cared about it at all? Where are your threads and posts addressing the inaccuracies of history? You take a very presumptuous position there, buddy. I've had to navigate through the US school system as a student and a teacher as a black man, so you shouldn't really be so flip about assuming what I have and have not been passionate about, or the battles I've had. At least I had the courtesy to ask if you've been as passionate in the broader picture, rather than assume you haven't, as you did me.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

fishin' wrote:
snood wrote:
Then I take it you've been this thorough and passionate about all the countless omissions from all the history books and curriculums prior to this one class on "white studies", yes?

Yes, I am. Why aren't you?

Why do you assume I'm not?

Perhaps because you've indicted in this very thread that the historical context is "ironic", and comments such as "It seems so much simpler to me to just say racism is based on ignorance, rather than constructing a whole working paradigm to support certain groups' ignorance.
"???

Quote:

If I hadn't started this thread, how would I even know if anyone cared about it at all? Where are your threads and posts addressing the inaccuracies of history?

If you bothered to go back and read any of several of my threads on US history, the Consitution, etc.. you would see where I add in comments and links that detail some of the background thinking and history that went into the topic being discussed. There are no portions of history that stand by themselves.

Quote:

You take a very presumptuous position there, buddy. I've had to navigate through the US school system as a student and a teacher as a black man, so you shouldn't really be so flip about assuming what I have and have not been passionate about, or the battles I've had. At least I had the courtesy to ask if you've been as passionate in the broader picture, rather than assume you haven't, as you did me.

Courtsey? Reread your words again! It sure looks to me like you came out spoiling for a fight just as you have on other occasions in this thread.

0 Replies

When I "came out" with this thread, I wasn't spoiling for a figtht, and I have no interest in fighting right now. I suspected some people couldn't handle it, and I think that's true. You've spent more time trying to find issue with my credibility and intent than anything else. If you thought I was spoiling for a fight, wouldn't it have been the mature thing to do to just ignore me?

And if you think I'm going to sift through all your pontifications to find slivers of reference to inaccuracies about race, you're daft. If there was any truth to the fact that you have expressed opinions on this matter before, you'd fall all over yourself quoting yourself to prove it.

I will now only reply on this thread to posts directly in reference to the "white studies" class - not references to my ulterior motives, not provocations about my supposed racism against whites, not personal attacks toward me in any way.

"Moderator"? That's funny! Moderate yourself.

0 Replies

(applauding for snood)

0 Replies

Fishin', why should Snood be " this thorough and passionate about all the countless omissions from all the history books and curriculums prior to this one class on "white studies"?

I am aware this was his question to you, but your response was "why aren't you?"

As it happens, Snood says that he is - but, given that he has an obvious reason to be especially interested in racial matters, and has often indicated his interest in such, I am wondering why you would see an absence of "thoroughness and passion about all omissions", if it existed, as especially problematic?

It would seem to me that race (or the construct thereof) has been such a huge issue, having so much impact on so many lives, in so many places, that it would be quite reasonable, for those interested in history, to be focussed on righting this omission to the exclusion of others.

This is not to say that other omissions are unimportant, but it would seem to me reasonable, in countries like yours and mine which in many ways were built on racism - (taking of land from indigenous peoples in both, exclusion from immigration for many years of "non-whites" in mine and slavery in yours - just as obvious examples) - that one could easily defend an exclusive focus on race - though not a denial of the importance of other factors.

0 Replies

dlowan, The US also had exclusions from immigration for many Asians towards the beginning and first half of the last century. They/we could not own land, nor find jobs in the professions. c.i.

0 Replies

There was a "quota" for Jews in medical schools. Hotels and country clubs were "restricted", and Jewish people could not stay there. They could not buy homes in certain neighborhoods.

So you see, at one time or another, many groups besides African Americans suffered institutionalized prejudice.

0 Replies

aaaggghhh

Thank you, Phoenix, seriously, for pointing out just some of what Jews have had to deal with as well in this country, and, yes, I realize there have been many other inequities as well, ci. However, I must repeat:

aaaggghhh

This particular thread is about 'white studies' which, by implication, means everyone needs to deal with white skin privilege among other difficult topics.

Apparently, no one is able to stay on-topic. Why? Why do some of you take it personally when Snood has challenged you? Could it be that you take it personally because it really does apply to you, you know down deep that it applies to you, and therefore you either fight with Snood or make jokes or in other ways stay away from the big bad topic?

aaaggghhh

0 Replies

If you want to get a sense of how it was for Jewish people in the US in the middle of the 20th century, check out:

Link to "Gentleman's Agreement"

At the time, that film, and book, was considered very revealing!

0 Replies

Phoenix, I love ya, I really do; I also can't tell you how many times I have watched "Gentlemen's Agreement"; then read it; then read other books by the author, Laura Z. Hobson. Thank you again for having sensitivity to the 'Jewish issue'; but, honey, I would like you and all to go back to my aaaggghhh post and deal with the issue at hand, ok? Thanks!

0 Replies

Whiteness classes do focus on the non-whiteness of all ethnicities: So, experiences of Jewish and Asian Americans are part of the course.

Its not so much about black Americans--as the white experience of preference. Its designed to show whites that they are a race, and that their lives are colored (pun, not originally intended) by their whiteness. This is designed to lead to an increased sensitivity by whites to the reality of life for non-whites.

I think c.i. and Phoenix's remarks re on topic.

Sweet-- I'm not trying to frustrate you, but I must say it is sort of frustrating for me, and I imagine others, to be a part of this thread and be redirected away from what we're saying--but not directed to anything.

Gentlemans' Agreement is precisely an example of A Reality Whiteness course. I don't get your aaargh. Question

0 Replies

sweet, I don't appreciate your to telling me what I can say or can't say on A2K. If you don't like my posts, just skip it. I was responding to dlowan's post. If you're not familiar with A2K, most forums have tangents. Even white ones. c.i.

0 Replies

Sofia, interesting point, well-taken;

ci: pls accept my apologies, I didn't mean to offend you.

0 Replies

This thread has exploded since last time I was here. Thus far I've read through page 16. I've noted that until now it has been pointed out that slavery is not unique to America. What I did not discern in any posts I read - forgive if I missed it - is that slavery in the good ole USA was unique in that it systematically tore down the family and the idividual - not just oppression of the body, but a three hundred year assault on the mind. Slaves, and, later, their descendants, were force fed the notion of inferiority, forced to play and as often as not believe they were stupid and could not think for themselves, so did not deserve good jobs and equality - enforced by lynchings and other forms of physical assault.It was not until after I was grown up this part of the slavery began to slowly be eradicated. I recall very well when the brutality was in the form of breaking stories, not 'history.' People who expect it to be over and forgotten with know good and well many of the perpetrators are still alive and have influenced younger Americans - their own children if nobody else. It's one thing to say, "My ancestors were slaves in the distant past," quite another to say "I had close relatives tell me about when their parents were slaves."

0 Replies

Sweet- I do not believe in Original Sin................even for white people. I do believe that the dominant classes in America have run roughshod over other groups, mainly African American and immigrant groups. I do NOT believe that "Whiteness Studies" will do anything positive for whites, or for blacks, or for any other group. (Am I on topic now? :wink: )

Attempting to achieve parity for blacks by engendering guilt in whites, IMO, is NOT the way to go. If anything, it may create a backlash which would not be in the best interests of black people.

Now I am going to pull age on you. I have seen the differences in the ways that blacks are treated, both socially, and in terms of opportunities in the US, just since I was a kid. There is a huge difference, and it is all on the positive side. I don't know what these professors are attempting to do, but I think that the results will definitely not help race relations.

Now that I have offered an example of my "media as a reflection of society kick, have any of you seen the movie "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" It was considered pretty DARING at the time, in 1967! Ten years before, that movie could never have been made.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

...I am wondering why you would see an absence of "thoroughness and passion about all omissions", if it existed, as especially problematic?

It would seem to me that race (or the construct thereof) has been such a huge issue, having so much impact on so many lives, in so many places, that it would be quite reasonable, for those interested in history, to be focussed on righting this omission to the exclusion of others.

This is not to say that other omissions are unimportant, but it would seem to me reasonable, in countries like yours and mine which in many ways were built on racism - (taking of land from indigenous peoples in both, exclusion from immigration for many years of "non-whites" in mine and slavery in yours - just as obvious examples) - that one could easily defend an exclusive focus on race - though not a denial of the importance of other factors.

I see it as problematic because one can't truthfully expose the issue, IMO, without dealing with the motivations behind the actions as well as the actions themselves.

You'll note that the points of history I brought up in the discussion which were termed "ironnic" have a direct bearing on the issue of race as it exists today. The shift in racism from being an issue of religion and nationality to one of skin color came from the "best science" of the day (or so it was believed) in an era when there was heavy influence on the sciences across Europe. Those sciences were what those who founded this country (and others) and codified racism into law were taught and believed.

If someone is going to attempt to expose the ugly, naked truth of such a divisive issue like racism then IMO, it has to be as complete an exposure as possible or, as I said earlier, it likely becomes "historical revisionism" and is open to plenty of questions. If there are going to be classes on white studies that attempt to expose white priviledge in society shouldn't those classes give a complete explanation of how that priviledge came into being? How can they do that if they ignore the basis for the racial classifications to begin with?

0 Replies

Well, I, for one, am perfectly happy to say that I do get defensive and uncomfortable and sometimes even angry when confronted with the realities of white privilege. Why not? It is always horrible to be confronted with this reality - and Aboriginal Australians are confronting right, left and centre. Personally, much as I may squirm and want to turn away, and feel like it isn't fair, and I didn't do it and such, the reality is my country is based upon the legal fiction that Aboriginal Australians did not exist - (terra nullius) and everything I have is based upon that terrible injustice, and the awful racist crap did not stop there.

I believe that reconciliation cannot occur until injustice is acknowledged and understood, apologised for and what reparations can be made are made. I would see things such as "whiteness studies" as part of the process of acknowledgement and understanding.

None of this denies what other groups have endured, or, in my opinion, seeks to do so. It is not a competition.

0 Replies

Whiteness Studies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know