It’s probably the equivocation necessary to make the term work.
Issues around transgenderism are analogous here. To delineate between populations being discussed, the term “cisgendered” was coined. It was defined, and made perfect sense in the context being used. But what if instead of “cisgendered”, a group of people called in “Real Gendered” instead, with the exact same meaning as cisgendered? I think that would be pretty offensive, regardless of the stated meaning of this term because it would equivocate a common word and use it in a non-standard way.
That’s what you’re doing. Sure, that’s what the other people and academics that you’ve referenced are doing to. If as you say, that whiteness isn’t about being white, why is white in the name? Structural orInstitutional Racism is much more informative and I’d say accurate a term.
But those are separate concepts. Related, but not the same. Something got started around 1700 in the colonies that would become the USA - policies and practices specifically designed to push apart working class whites from black people, when before there were fewer barriers, legal and cultural, between them. “White” is in the name because this concept is the origin of the way we think about white and black in this country. But I’ve suggested “whiteness/blackness”, since the concept is also the origin of the way we think about who is black and what that means in the country, which you’ve ignored. ISTM that this would at least avoid any perception of blame or responsibility on the part of any particular group, which, if I understand you right, is your main objection.
No, I don’t disagree with him. It’s not about “being white.” It’s about “the existence of the concept of being white.” That’s a significant distinction.
I don’t think there’s any “redefining” going on here. Before Coates and others started talking about the existence of the concept of being white, “whiteness” wasn’t exactly an everyday word for “being white.”
(And of course to no small significance that if there are people who commonly use the word “whiteness” about themselves to mean “the state of being a member of the white race” would find themselves quickly under the suspicion of being a white nationalist or other racist ideology.)
It’s not really something that comes up a lot to make it a word that’s strongly bound to a single definition. And, as I said, it’s very logical to shorten “the existence of the concept of being white” to “whiteness.”
New, specialized definitions that become necessary or important often overtake general definitions that aren’t so critical to day-to-day conversation. That’s just how language works.
Perhaps. But words find their own travels based on how useful people find them. Coates and others have a pretty broad influence in this case. We’ll see if it sticks.
As Andy said, structural or institutional racism is not the same thing. “Institutional racism” is not a reference to the creation of the concept of being white." That can exist with or without institutional racism. It’s about the socio-historical phenomenon that saw large groups of people start to think of themselves as white and then using that concept to change the way how the resulting white and non-white people interacted and related to each other.
We talk a lot about the fact that race doesn’t exist as a biological phenomenon, but does exist as a social phenomenon. The idea of whiteness is directed to the origins of that social phenomenon, and specifically targets the fact that race started becoming a thing in human societies when a group of people specifically came up with the idea of being white.
I don’t think we are understanding each other actually. Certainly it’s appropriate and legit to blame white colonialists and a great deal more people up through the early and mid 20th century for their role in the systematic destruction and plunder of black peoples and families. For creating a culture through actions and laws that devalued black people generally. So no, I’m not opposed to blaming or attaching responsibility to a particular group. I simply think the term “whiteness” is a poor vehicle to do that because it inherently includes those that shouldn’t be included.
If it really isn’t about all white people, then why must a term to describe what you are talking about include some derivation of “white”? The idea of creating a social divide to treat people differently and badly isn’t unique to white people, and it dates much further back than the 1700s.
I think word choice and messaging matters. Effective communication means using language well to persuade. Whiteness doesn’t do that. If your goal is to rail against white people, then sure good choice. But if you actually want your ideas to have traction, it’s a terrible choice.
Using the term “whiteness” in the way you are gives the impression that you simply don’t like white people. It takes the simple construction of adjective-ness where the suffix is added to indicate the state of being the adjective. Your usage doesn’t conform to the way the suffix is typically understood. Yes language is fluid and meanings can change over time, but not all changes stick and sometimes things don’t work out. Not all attempts to shift the language will be successful - they can’t all be winners.
To describe the concept of pushing people apart through policies and practices that created legal and cultural barriers for folks, then “Othering” works just fine. To describe some of the systems created to further those ends, structural racism works fine. To describe the long history of behaviors and practices that manifest as a result and as a cause of these mistreatment, institutional racism is fine.
I mostly disagree, but we already know that. So what about “whiteness/blackness”? That avoids any impression that white people are being attacked, right?
Damuri, we’ve debated this internally for a day or so and I’m going to give you a warning for this one. While phrased carefully, it’s hard for me not to see this as a direct attack on MrDibble.
The issue is - how do you most succintly describe the specific kind of Othering that focuses on melanin content as the ingroup/outgroup delimiter? “Othering based on skin colour” is clunky. “Colourism” is already something else. Unfortunately, my favourite, “melanism”, already has a biological definition. But then, “whiteness” has a general sense as well, so maybe “melanism” or something derived from it would do…
I’m not certain “whiteness” works all that well, myself, but andy is right that academia has been using it for a good while now.
Neither of those include the non-structured, private social side of the concept, though.
And they definitely don’t cover the other side of the coin - “whiteness studies” as a field isn’t just about how Whites oppress non-Whites, it’s also (possibly more importantly) about how Whites conceive of their own selves.
I don’t think objective reality needs qualifications to observe. Your arguments so far have been weak (I mean seriously, you think that
But in any event, I responded to your horribly formatted post (which I was ignoring as a favor to you). Let me know if there is more misinformation you need me to correct.
For someone that objected to “toxic black culture” as an attack on all black people even when it was stated that wasn’t the case, you seem to have a blind spot on this one. If “whiteness” includes all white people, adding “blackness” doesn’t suddenly include less people, it is additive.
Why do you feel the need to include a race in the descriptor when the idea you are pushing isn’t limited by race?
The concept is about the origin of how race is determined/discussed/perceived in the US, so it’s quite obviously linked to race. You haven’t suggested anything that wouldn’t confuse this with other, separate but related concepts.
But your chief concern about the term was (if I understand you correctly) that people would perceive it as attacking them. Do you honestly think someone, observing or taking part in a discussion about the history of racism, will look at the usage of “whiteness/blackness” and think “that’s an attack on white people”? Or “that’s an attack on both white and black people”? That seems nuts to me.
If this is about perception, how will “whiteness/blackness” be negatively perceived? What negative signal, or attacks, does this terminology send out? It seems crazy to me that any significant number of people could look at “whiteness/blackness” in a serious discussion and think “this person hates/is-attacking both white and black people”. It seems as clear to me as can be possible with muddled and difficult subjects like this that this term would send out a signal “this person has a problem with the idea of a white/black dichotomy and division”, which is a pretty decent signal to send, right?
It’s uncomfortable. I agree with that. To hear a term that at first seems an attack upon one’s own, for no reason but the color of their skin? How is that fair at all, right?
But, as a white guy, I have found that when it comes to issues of race and racial relationships, when I am feeling uncomfortable, that is when it is most important for me to pay attention and listen. The natural reaction to feeling uncomfortable is to try to remove that source of discomfort, in this case, by censoring language. Some go further to become highly aggressive towards those who are causing the cognitive discomfort in an effort to shut it down.
Even those who agree with the ideas expressed with a term will join in with those who wish to shut up those making them uncomfortable, because in their efforts to try to convince bigots not to be bigots, they think that getting rid of uncomfortable language will appease the bigots, and get them to stop being bigots. Nice idea, and if it were true, then I would see the merit. But it has never worked. Never, not once has appeasing a bigot caused them to stop being a bigot, it just enables and emboldens them. It is a strategy that is doomed to failure from the start, yet is a natural and common strategy chosen by those who think that we could all just get along if we just stopped doing anything that the bigots claim to find objectionable.
What bigots find to be objectionable is the ideas behind the concepts. The idea that they should not consider themselves above those defined as “other”. The only appeasement that will make them happy is to roll back all civil rights, and that is the only destination on the path of appeasing bigots.
So, anytime you (plural) feel the need to tell someone else to shut up, it is quite likely it is you (plural) yourself (plural) that needs to shut up and listen.
Not really. That’s the reason for having a term for a concept. Try to explain to someone how a car engine works, if they find words like piston, rod, spark plug, or cam shaft to be offensive. You could get the job done, but it’s going to require far more explaining, and there will be more misunderstandings. They may even accuse you of equivocating or not being clear because you are using ambiguous concepts in order to avoid using the specific words that best describe them.
It is a strategy that is intended to make the conversation about race harder, more ambiguous and frustrating, and move energies from focusing on problems and solutions to social and economic stratification that correlates to minority statuses, to talking about whether or not a word is acceptable to use in a discussion about the concepts that the word describes. That the intent of the strategy is created by bigots, for bigots, for the promotion of continued bigotry is not in question.
The difficult part is that well meaning people also get caught up in it and perpetuate it in the optimistic but unrealistic belief that the mere existence and use of this word is the only sticking point that is keeping bigots from no longer being bigots.
The reason this concept – whiteness or whiteness/blackness or whatever you want to call it – is so important IMO, is that in my understanding, the fact that the modern concept and understanding of a white and black race was entirely and purposefully manufactured relatively recently – not millenia, but a few centuries ago – is rather sparsely understood. And without that understanding, I think it’s extremely difficult to approach the dismantling of the concept, which is the ultimate source of the vast majority of the atrocities and related great injustices in American history, which obviously have huge ramifications today.
It’s not just that policy and practices and institutions tend to have various biases that negatively impact the daily lives and chance for success of black and brown and other people. It’s that this was a positive and purposeful attempt at manipulation of the lower classes by the upper classes a few centuries ago – by ensuring, as much as they could, that poor white people would never feel linked and allied to the concern and plight of poor black people.
It’s a massively successful generation-spanning hoodwink. And it’s resulted in incredible brutality, destruction, and horror. And it needs a name – not something that’s used for some other related but different concept, but it’s own name. The academics and relevant journalists already have a name for it, and the alternative I’ve offered modifies that term in order to try and wash off any hint of feelings of being attacked.
I’ll note that the term, as I use it, specifically relates to US history. I imagine that similar and related concepts exist in Europe, South Africa, Australia, and elsewhere, but I’m less familiar on the history of how it may have originated and evolved in those places.
And I am asking for a cite for the fact that this is a common enough dynamic to affect the general demographics of the Vietnamese refugee population. Of course there are SOME wealthy refugees but you are trying to explain away the accelerated pace at which the Vietnamese achieved parity with whites by saying they were rich, or had some other advantages.
The Vietnamese refugees lived through a pretty brutal war, communism and a transit that involved attacks by pirates that raped their mothers, sisters and daughters. The pirates also killed and kidnapped family members, never to be seen again. They came to America and lived in the same shitty dangerous neighborhoods with dangerous people. There was pretty bad trauma within the Vietnamese refugee community as well. And yes some of them came over on first class airline seats but I don’t think it was a lot of them.
Yes but when we look at how other groups of human beings react to adverse situations, this inability to break out of this cycle is not nearly universal.
Is it possible that the conservatives are right and the victim mentality combined with well intentioned coddling by some liberals is creating too easy an excuse?
And there is some metaphorical coddling going on from the left. I know its well intentioned but it may be counterproductive to have wypipo jump to their defense and excuse everything all the time. I believe you can be critical without being a racist.
The simplicity of your summation and paraphrasing is brilliant only in its utter inaccuracy.
Please tell me, what part of what you quoted there did you disagree with?
The only thing that there is to agree/disagree with in that phrase was “…that they should not consider themselves above those defined as “other””, and yes, if someone disagrees with me on that, then they are the definition of a bigot. Would you disagree?