Whiteness Studies

Fishin', I will read the thread agin when I get home from work - I had not seen anything leading me to believe that this would not happen, but I have skimmed some posts.

Tremendous burst of applause for the bunny's 1st, especially, of her 2 recent posts!

dlowan- I know very little about the Australian aboriginal people, so I would not even venture a response. Are you trying to connect the actions and mindset of the white people in Australia with those in America?

I saw an interesting exchange between George Will and Michele(I can't remember her last name)on This Week this morning. The announcement was made that Hispanics were now the number one minority, in terms of numbers, in the country, and it was asked of the panelists what impact they thought this would have.

Will's response was, I think typical of what the rights' overall response is to this demographic shift: that now, perhaps, since the number one minority is one "which is not even interested in being a minority", the country might settle in to the real business at hand. It was sort of like he was saying "Now we can dispense with all that silly black/white stuff, and move on". Michele's reply was heartening to me (I'm so glad she's on that show - I think she is brilliant, and unafraid of all of Will's bluster). She reminded George that conflicts between blacks and whites haven't been a function of numbers anyway, that the task of dealing with the relationship between this country and black Americans has always been about righting wrongs, healing misunderstandings and balancing inequalities, and that doesn't go away just because the population shifts.

It seems to me that there is always someone talking about how "this isn't really a black/white thing", or how "we've already covered all this, why can't we move on?" whenever the very hard subject of white preference is raised. In this way, the struggle is the same as it ever has been: From the 60's, when you were a "race agitator" if you pressed against the status quo, to now, when we're supposedly "above" all that - but now those who raise the issue and attempt to keep it in the spotlight are labeled "race baiters", accused of anti-americanism, or bombarded with a hundred tangential or parallel scenarios. All of which only serves to keep that wound festering... The wound that Steissed and Phoenix keep protesting should hold "no guilt" for them. The one that sits in the American living room like a big stinky elephant, and only gets acknowledged when something like Benton Harbor explodes, or some idjit like me insists on talking about it.

Yes, I happen to think the relationship between whites and blacks (or those who self-identify as such) is a peculiar beast - not like any other on earth. You can see it in some Anglo dictionaries, which define 'black' in part as "gloomy", or "evil", and 'white' as "pure" or "innocent". It is an incestuous relationship, replete with everything from skeletons in Thomas Jefferson's closet to a hundred unresolved police brutality cases.

And I happen to think that things like this "whiteness studies" class are just the kind of thing that can cut through alot of the pure denial bullshit, and make people actually talk outside of their comfort zones.

snood, Your last post was what really brought out the issues that I wanted to see you 'breach.' Now that you have put some meat on the bone, how do we make sure that "whiteness studies" will progress beyond their comfort zones? IMHO, it needs people like you to be in the classroom to help direct the discussion. c.i.

No offense c.i., but I found your last post disingenuous. You see, if you needed me to say what I just said to "put meat" on the bones of this discussion for you, I'm afraid you're not really in the discussion at all.
You're always reminding us that, while you're a "minority", you see the "glass" as "half full", and up to this point you've basically treated the whole topic as a needless stirring up of trouble.
For you to say something like "what can we do to insure the whiteness studies class..." just strikes me as disingenuous on a couple of levels. One, neither of us are in any position to do anything at all about what gets taught in those classes, besides talk about it. And also, am I to believe that now you suddenly have a change of outlook, and believe there is something appropriate for minorities besides absolute assimilation, as quickly and fuss-free as possible? Because that's all I basically hear you saying.

I reiterate, "Real History 101", is what really needs to be studied. When I was in school, World History, for the most part concentrated on Europe,, and it's forays into the "netherworlds" of Africa, and Asia.

Yup - and when I retire from the Army, I want to get involved in shaping those curricula.

Booman- That makes a lot of sense. Americans need to learn that Europe not the center of the universe in terms of history. I do think that the achievements of the people from other continents have been given a once over lightly in American history classes. A history that really covers the WORLD, and not just Europe, is something with which I heartily agree!

I happen to think that while the exact city changed every now and then that Europe was largely considered to be the center of the world. Now that would be America.

No offense taken. Whatever I state on A2K may sound disengenous to you, but FYI, my philosophy of life has been to treat all living things with respect and dignity. When I say that I see the glass as half full, I'm talking from my personal observation and experience. I'd also like to see you produce anywhere on A2K where I stated that this topic "needlessly stirred up trouble." As for my question, "what can we do to insure the whiteness studies class...," it's too bad you see it as "disingenous on a couple of levels." I was inquiring whether there might be some possibility only asked for your ideas if you had any, and the "we" was rhetorical. Too bad you missed that! As for your hearing, I'm afraid you heard wrong. Where you were able to interpret "as quickly and fussfree as possible" is a mystery to me! c.i.

To what Boo wrote, i would add an observation: I've made it my object for 40 years to get a handle on European history, in which i include the Americas, as essentially European nations. I am largely an autodidact, because the history courses i took at university, even though designed for history majors, did not provide sufficient background or detail to satisfy my needs. I'd say i've gotten a good handle on this up to about 1650 or 1700. It's not that i haven't studied later periods, but rather, even an outline requires an enormous amount of reading.

Which brings me to my point: European history cannot be studied in a void. I don't say this to contradict what Boo has said, but to point out that "Real History 101," even if it were only the European section, could not be real while ignoring Africa, Asia and the Americas. Asia and Europe are concepts, they are not separate land masses. The so-called cradle of civilization is the Eastern Mediterranean--which is northeast Africa, southwest Asia, and southeast Europe. One cannot thoroughly understand the rise of civilization in that area without understanding the semitic empire of the Akkadians, who influenced and were influenced by the the Egyptians, who influenced and were influenced by the Nubians to the the south and west of them, who influenced and were influenced by the Central African kingdoms--you take it from there, as we are obliged to bring the Europeans into the equation quite a bit earlier than traditional historians recognized in the past. The "Sea Peoples," who are only now being thoroughly studied, were likely the Philistines mentioned in the Old Testament--and either derived from or caused the collapse of Mycenean civilization. The Cretan kingdom traded with and disseminated into Europe the productions of Egypt and the Akkadians. It now appears that the bronze age began, not in the middle east, but in the hill country of what is now Bulgaria. There is a great dynamic of trade--trade in goods, and trade in ideas--which is only now being realized. African gold, long before African slaves, had a profound influence on the balance of powers in the middle east, and classical Eurasia. "Real History 101" can no more ignore Africa and Asia in the study of Europe, than would be true for the corelaries.

I'm not real positive but would think Whiteness Studies could keep alive something in history that should never happen again. Also, when there's a deep hole in your gut from some wrong done you and your family

Obviously, continuing to talk about it does, simply, heal. I see this class as a good thing, why not?

On the same note, women will never forget how females were once treated, will we?

I am a white lady who spent 10 years in a childrens' home. All 180 kids were white European type beings. But, nobody ever said ANYTHING about any other "nationality," color, creed, sex, or whatever. Entering the world at 15, Lordy, what a surprise that some people because they were black, or dark brown, were treated so damn badly. I will NEVER recover from that realization, why should they who experienced it?

Craven,
....At one time such places as Timbuctu, and The Sudan, were the centers of the world.

I agree. And I don't like the History taught in American schools. In my personal experience it's horrid (taught poorly, such a focus on American history so as to leave out other history. In other nations they know of our Forefathers but how many Americans know of the others'? People like Setanta excluded). My point is just that it's not all intentional. Historically there were perceptions that some places were the center and just or unjust that is an inexorable part of history IMO.

Newer members will not know of a thread I started just after coming here, about civil rights and anti-war protests. There are some very good posts pertinant to the subject, by BillW, Joannedorell and others on there. Please check it out.civil rights and anti war

To use Freud's famous phrase, the civilized are, therefore, the discontent. We do not beome losers in civilization but become civilized as losers. The collective result of this ineradicable sense of failure is that civilizations take on the spirit of resentment. We write our histories from a defensive posture in order to placate our sense of self worth and thereby denigrate histories not of our own retrospective making. Asians, Africans, Amerinds are historically incidental only to be acknowledged as an amusing sideline of OUR history.

Considering the last sentence, I don't get why this should be so. I have some privileges stemming from being a man, from being a Dutch and a EU citizen, from being the son of well-(auto)educated parents, etc. All these things, which I didnt do anything myself to bring about, give me a headstart on other people in different areas of life. Its good to realise this - and nothing in realising it, itself, implies that I am somehow "guilty" of anything.

As for, "Which privileges do I have as a White man?", some here have already responded that, in America, this/that specific historic background etc; but of course Europe has its own comparable historical backgrounds, too. And how is it in Israel? I dont know a whole lot about this, but I do remember reading something about how Sephardic Jews were long considered (and treated) as somehow 'second-rank', compared to Ashkenazi Jews - and that this in part explains the rise to popularity of Shas, as a kind of reaction to that? Whats the story there?

Thank you, edgar. I love you, guy. c.i.

I may have bunches of things to say but I simply can't follow this topic fast enough..
Think of me as Slow Osso.
But not less wise.