Wherein I Finally Understand White Privilege
April 16th, 2008 | by Craig |One of the major beefs I have with education is that higher education seems to want to spend money on bullshit, and not things like, oh, math, science, engineering, economics and things of that nature.
And, being a bullshitter myself, I do consider myself somewhat a connoisseur of male bovine fecal matter, so I’m always on the lookout for bullshit that’s Piled higher and Deeper.
Higher education rarely disappoints in that regard.
Today’s adventure in Political Correctness comes from University of Colorado’s Women’s Resource Center. (Remember that: Women’s Resource Center.)
The Women’s Resource Center at CU recently sponsored a workshop entitled, “White on White: Working to Dismantle Racism.” (Not sure how this relates to Women, but there you go.)
Some gems from the “coursework,” which can be found at the link above. From the definitions document:
45. Whiteness — A racial identity created by upper-class colonialists to distinguish themselves from indentured servants and slaves. A guarantee against being enslaved.
Yeesh.
Here is the “List of Assumptions”
- You have already begun the work of dismantling racism, or you wouldn’t be here.
- Racism exists and exists on our campus.
- White privilege exists and exists on our campus.
- “Reverse Racism” is impossible. (See definition of racism.)*
- Racism is a system of interlocking oppressions, including sexism, heterosexism, economic oppression and able-body-ism.
- Racism takes individual, interpersonal, sociocultural and institutional form.
- There are many people doing this work; you don’t have to do it alone.
- The work of dismantling racism will continue after we leave this room.
*38. Racism — A system of privilege based on race**.
**34. Race — An ever evolving [sic] social, legal and political construct that has no basis in biological fact.***
***You can’t make this shit up.
Make sure, while you’re over there to read the “Users Guide for White Privilege.” If, after reading all of the materials you don’t believe that those folks have a dizzying intellect, then I think you may be prone to getting involved in a land war in Asia.
I’m just glad that I have a users guide now. Maybe I can start making things pay off in a big way.
29 Responses to “Wherein I Finally Understand White Privilege”
By DMerriman on Apr 17, 2008 | Reply
Went and read it, and had a look at the ‘workbook’.
This isn’t just out in left field, it’s clear out of the ballpark and into the next town over. Sheesh.
By Shane C. Mason on Apr 17, 2008 | Reply
Maybe I am missing something here. What is the issue your having Craig?
1. You have already begun the work of dismantling racism, or you wouldn’t be here.
-OK.
2. Racism exists and exists on our campus.
Would you claim that racism doesn’t exist? I have seen it. I know that it does.
3. White privilege exists and exists on our campus.
Would you claim that white privilege doesnt exist? It was just a little over 40 years ago that black people had to sit at the back of the bus and were not allowed to eat in many diners with ‘white folk’. Thats less than a lifetime. Would you say that all of the institutions that held that system are already broken down and gone?
4. “Reverse Racism” is impossible. (See definition of racism.)*
If we accept their definition of racism, is this false? I don’t think their definition of racism is encompassing of all the ideas of racism, but if we accept it for the purposes of this document, do you disagree with that sentiment? I mean, we know that it is possible for people of other races to hate white people, but that is not what they are saying here.
5. Racism is a system of interlocking oppressions, including sexism, heterosexism, economic oppression and able-body-ism.
-See above
6. Racism takes individual, interpersonal, sociocultural and institutional form.
-This is in keeping with most definitions of racism. Do you disagree?
7. There are many people doing this work; you don’t have to do it alone.
-There are many people working to end racism. Do you disagree?
8. The work of dismantling racism will continue after we leave this room.
-Once the class is over, don’t you think that people will continue working to dismantle racism?
So… What am I missing? What are you getting at here.
By Colby Natale on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Shane,
I think it is mostly based on how they classify race (item 34), which in no way resembles the definition most people use.
How useful is a ‘higher’ education class if they base their tenants on definitions no one in the ‘real’ world uses?
By Shane C. Mason on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Colby, that is often the case in specialty studies, where a word takes on a specific meaning for the purposes of study. We see this in a broader range in all the fields. For instance, consider computer science terms. ‘Beta’ does not mean ’second’ in computer science, it means ‘unstable’ or ‘tentative’. To the public at large, ‘hacker’ means someone who breaks into computer systems, but we know they are actually referring to ‘crackers’.
The best example I can think of is the word ‘theory’. When people say things like “Evolution is just a theory” or “Global warming is just a theory“, it becomes very clear that they have no idea what the word theory means in the scientific method. In everyday speak, a theory is just an idea. That is what the scientific model refers to as a ‘hypothesis’, where as a theory is based on evidence and observation.
What we have here is a situation where a specific course has tweaked the at large meaning of a word to have a specific meaning in their context. Not really a WTF moment.
By Colby Natale on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Not bad,
except that in a search of any respectable dictionary, BETA and THEORY return all of the possible definitions you mention (and more). That is to say, that any of your listed definitions are fairly well acknowledged. It seems academically disingenuous to specifically define race in a way that is no captured in any widely used dictionary. This seems like an attempt to preemptively tilt the discussion and the attitudes in a desired direction.
It would be like me started a class to discuss modern conservativism, and then pre-define Conservative as a ’social movement highly biases against the poor and needy’. While that might be what some people actually think, it is certainly not a definition that holds much academic weight.
By Shane C. Mason on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Oh, there is not doubt that you are correct here Colby, the point of the definition was to bias the reader against racism. However, look at the definition again:
*38. Racism — A system of privilege based on race**.
**34. Race — An ever evolving [sic] social, legal and political construct that has no basis in biological fact
Now, look at some common definitions:
Where is the difference here?
However, we are presupposing something here: that this is even what has Craig’s hackles up. I was told not too long ago that I should not try an interpret things he writes, so I am asking him to explicitly what he was getting at here. Just because he annotated those lines as ‘bullshit’, that doesn’t mean that was the point of the post. We can continue our conversation, because I think that it is important, but I also think that it is important that we not read into what Craig did or did not say here.
By Chad on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Shane,
What I took from what Craig wrote is that the idea that reverse racism is impossible is BS. Whether that is what he was getting at or not, I would agree with that statement and I don’t see anything in their definition of race that would cause me to think otherwise, and if it does anything, it just underscores the point that the whole thing is BS.
Discrimination based on sexual preference is not racism.
Discrimination based on gender is not racism.
Discrimination based on physique is not racism.
Conversely, if all of those things are to be viewed as racism, then discrimination based on one’s inability to string together coherent sentences is also racism. And if that makes sense to you, then President George W. Bush is the most unfairly maligned man in America, the people who target his inability to speak clearly and coherently are racist and Senator Barack Obama is the recipient of a whole lot of white privilege.
And that’s why its BS.
By Shane C. Mason on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Chad, well put. However, if we accept the definition of racism as “A system of privilege based on race”, then it is indeed impossible for reverse racism to exist. I do not accept that definition, because that make all white people who have benefited from the fact that they are white, witting or not, as though they were willing participants in the system.
You and Colby (and Craig if that is what he is indee saying) are 100% correct on the point that #5 is bs
What if we made one small correction though:
Would that be true?
I will go ahead and say it, I agree that it is ill conceived and poorly executed (AKA bs). I was attempting to have Craig say what the issue was.
By Craig on Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
Lotsa irons, lotsa fires.
For now, I’ll say this: If you start with a bullshit premise, “Race — An ever evolving [sic] social, legal and political construct that has no basis in biological fact.“, you’re bound to end up with bullshit conclusions.
By Chad on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Shane,
I think I see what you’re saying, but I still don’t think that definition of racism precludes reverse racism from existing.
In accordance with the definition of racism you wrote, one could define reverse racism as something to the effect of being a retaliatory policy or action the discriminates against a person or institution because that person or institution is or is perceived to be racist or is perceived to enjoy privileges because of their race.
Actions that fall under this definition I’ve made for reverse racism may, and probably should, fall under the definition of racism that is in your post. And that makes sense; reverse racism is a subset of racism, but not it’s opposite nor it’s equal.
Beyond that, I’m not going to agree that racism interlocks with anything. I can be a racist without being a sexist.
What I think these people in Colorado did was make the conscious decision to lie. They made the conscious decision to use the word “racism” instead of the more correct word, “discrimination”, because there is more emotional charge with the former. They know what racism means, and it was insufficient for them, so they changed the definition to mean what they wanted to mean. Then, they defined reverse racism out of existence so they would have a ready-made answer if they were ever charged with being reverse racists; we can’t be reverse racists because reverse racism does not exist.
Bullshit.
By Shane C. Mason on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Ahhh Craig. Thank you. I thought they had the point of your piece wrong. That’s why I asked.
You highlighted this statement:
and then made the statement that this was a bullshit premise. Those are your words.
The science just doesn’t agree with you here Craig. Sorry, but it doesn’t.
But what do scientists know?
So, who has the bullshit premise here?
By Craig on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Do you have any peer-reviewed sources from, say, the past 10 years to bolster this one-off article? That’s pretty weak Google-fu if that’s the best you can find.
If only there was an area of scientific that studied how things like skin color, hair color, eye color and things of that nature are determined. And was based in fact.
I will agree that, to some extent, race is a social construct, but there is also a biological component to it as well, and that resides in genes.
Chad’s explained things pretty well, and I can’t find anything in his thoughts to quibble with.
Are you just trying to score some sort of intarweb points against me? Or do you really buy into this?
By Mark T on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Racism is part of the human experience. It is part of us. When we acknowledge it, we minimize its impact. On the right, like back in the 1950’s, they used to be openly racist. But that doesn’t fly anymore, hasn’t for decades, so their racism is usually of the coded variety, and hung on things like affirmative action and welfare – think of those terms, think righty, and you’ll think black. When they talk of “reverse racism”, they mean that blacks are getting a good deal, and some white guy is getting screwed, and that is unacceptable. Racism is always about blacks getting ahead at white expense.
Anyway, that’s how it is – racism is alive and well on the right. Craig is of course right when he says there are characteristics among various groups that are different, but misses the point entirely that to place a value on those differences is a cultural construct, and not based on science.
By Craig on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Speaking of bullshit…
By Shane C. Mason on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
Craig, that quote this is the position of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists as published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
You said:
This is patently false Craig. From the American Association of Anthropologists say:
That is the groups official statement on race, and if you know anything about how an official position is arrived at by a scientific group, you will know that is doesn’t get any more ‘peer reviewed’ than that.
Craig, I really take no position on this groups ‘workshop’. What I am taking a position on is that you have critiqued it based on a false premise, and I thought you would want to know the facts.
By Craig on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
I have many critiques of it, some of them I even put in the body of the post.
That definition of race is but one of them.
You’re arguing technicalities, I’m arguing the larger context of race, and what it means in relation to the workshop I pointed out above. You did go over and read all those documents, right?
Spin it how you want, but the whole notion of racism in the US today is based upon skin color. That is determined by genetics. Otherwise, why have things like the “Black Congressional Caucus,” or “You Just Hate Brown People™.”
I felt no need to reiterate my points made above or the ones that Chad made later on.
By Shane C. Mason on Apr 19, 2008 | Reply
No Craig, by your own words you were arguing against their definition of race, among other things. By all scientific accounts, your argument is not based on fact.
Again, not true Craig. You are doing exactly what the documents I pointed to said is incorrect. Did you read them?
If that were the case, then someone who holds prejudice against black people (they are lazy, criminals hatever) would automatically hold the same opinions of folks from India (who are often darker in skin tones than those from Africa). This like the ‘black caucus’ are also defining race from a cultural, geographical and social standpoints, not really based on genetic traits at all.
By Rita on Apr 20, 2008 | Reply
Ah but it’s how that 6% genetic difference is expressed that defines race, isn’t it? For example, no one would think I am bloody British, but I am defined as white. Cherokee and Apache are fairly distinctive from each other, but both are defined as American Indian (or whatever the hell the correct term is these days). Guatemalans & Mexicans differ physically but they’re both considered Hispanic…and brown is the new black btw.
OTOH I don’t think anyone would confuse a Nigerian with a Pakistani, regardless of their skin color. I think what Craig really means, if I can put words in his mouth, is that race is based on a set of specific physical characteristics, one of which is skin color. It’s the assumptions we make about a person based on a certain set of those characteristics that are a social construct…which may or may not be true.
Nothing new, been going on since time began. One of the most basic tenets of sociology is that in order for there to be an ‘us’ there must be a ‘them’. And no, I didn’t RTFA. I had enough of that nonsense in undergrad.
People are just people…some are good, some are bad, and most of us fall somewhere in between.
By Mark T on Apr 20, 2008 | Reply
Yes. I know it when I smell it. I don’t even have to see it.
By Shane C. Mason on Apr 20, 2008 | Reply
By Robfunk on Apr 21, 2008 | Reply
Shane is absolutely correct on all counts. Proof? Simply look back on the history subject at hand: “whiteness.” You will quickly realize how race is not grounded in biology (science simply cannot prove that it empirically exists) and how it does EVOLVE through societal, institutional, political channels.
By Rita on Apr 21, 2008 | Reply
You’re hopelessly confusing biology with sociology. The particular expression of genes is biology…..which is why my pug will never be confused for my Akita. The assumptions we make about a particular expression of genes is sociology….which is why I don’t expect my pug to understand dogs on tv aren’t really a threat but I do expect my Akita to ignore them. Pugs are generally stupid. Akitas are not.
Interesting though that you picked my one example of black skin.
By Robfunk on Apr 21, 2008 | Reply
Rita, it is you who are “hopelessly confused.” Considering the overwhelming majority of Biological Anthropologists say that race IS NOT biologically sound, thus race IS a sociological construct.
Name ONE, just ONE, trait that is UNIVERSAL in a race and I will believe you, but that is simply untrue, unscientific, and ignorant.
By Craig on Apr 21, 2008 | Reply
Seems to me that if, as you folks argue, that there is no basis for race in physical traits acquired through genetics, then there can, by definition, be no such thing as racism.