I was really surprised by the piece on white and male privilege. I feel as though, as I think Professor Cleland does by some of her similar ideas written on the pages, the article is dated. Many of these things I thought were "old-school" and were not quite so applicable as when they were written.
I see that there was white and male privilege, and some still today, but also disadvantages that come along with being white. McIntosh talks on page 291 about how white privilege (and male for that matter) is "an invisible package of unearned assets." It is, but I feel that all races or ethnicities have their own disadvantages and advantages. For example, if I were to apply for a job with a black woman and we had equal credentials, assuming the business uses affirmative action; the black woman would get the job. There has been no determining factor to decide who is better for the job, other than using race as that factor. That would give me the racial disadvantage in this case. It is even possible that without affirmative action, the black woman would be hired because of the company being worried about the potential employee screaming race as the reason for not being hired. It would be harder for the white person to use their race as a way to fight the situation. I think in America, it is very hard to say who really has “privilege.” Different races are given different privileges and have certain disadvantages for being a part of that group.
I think it is really important to think of where this author grew up, whom they were raised by, and how they interacted with people of other races and cultures. Also, with things like affirmative action, I feel as though time has definitely changed the way racial advantages and disadvantages are arranged in society and people should definitely keep that in mind.
I see that there was white and male privilege, and some still today, but also disadvantages that come along with being white. McIntosh talks on page 291 about how white privilege (and male for that matter) is "an invisible package of unearned assets." It is, but I feel that all races or ethnicities have their own disadvantages and advantages.
One thing that does seem disadvantageous about whiteness is the lack of a clear way to be white, socially conscious and not racist, yet proud of one's background (as, for example, "the things that [McAlister] liked best about [her] grandmother were the things that were reflections of her ethnicity" [19]). Pierce feels "ashamed of [her] whiteness" and "confined" by it (50). Clearly Pierce understands her whiteness as unearned privilege, on McIntosh's model, but it may be difficult for people to surrender unearned privilege if all it leaves them with is a sense of guilt. I'd be curious to know how many agree with Kristen that things have changed since McIntosh's article in 1988 (and in what ways and why), and what work is still to do and how it might be accomplished. (Big question!)
Another thing I wonder about: In our last class we spent a little time discussing the extent to which it makes sense to talk about Jewishness as an ethicity. I think we can ask the same question about whiteness (although possibly for different reasons) -- what, exactly, is it, and does it make sense to talk about whiteness in the context of a class on ethnicity?
Having read the piece on the invisible knapsack once before, I'm reminded that it should be taken as an essential context piece for contemporary studies of ethnicity and gender. Given that it's almost twenty years old, thinking on the subject has since greatly advanced and changed (we see this in saying that she is a professor of Women's Studies, which would now be called Gender and Sexuality studies). Her points are still well taken, save one that I find somewhat inconsistent in 2007--she writes "24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to speak to the 'person in charge,' I will be facing a person of my race." I have my doubts about that--managerial positions in places like restaurants, banks, stores and such are increasingly being filled by people of color, though they are just as frequently come from groups that are comparatively privileged (East and South Asians come to mind for me).
A question on the issue of passing--Lopéz McAlister doesn't really address the issue of people of color passing as being of other ethnicities or nationalities. I have, at various times in my life, passed as French, Saudi, Indian, Colombian, Basque and Moroccan as it served me (usually to get discounts on one thing or another). In a time when visible ethnic ambiguity is on the rise, what are the socio-cultural implications of passing as a person of color, whether or not you "actually are one" or not?
(This is Carter, by the way. I'm having major technical difficulties.)
Talking about whiteness is certainly difficult because there is a stereotypical figure that plays along. I think that the major step towards understanding the topic is not thinking about the stereotypes because today everyone has the same opportunities (affirmative action and all that….. it’s all the same at the end. Anyone who tries hard enough in this country will get what he wants). What happens is that people connect things to being white that are no longer true. For example, there are no truly poor white people whose parents were poor and so on. I think that the only time that I can think this was true was when the Spanish colonized South America and the only white people were the Spanish. Not even then because the indigenous people weren’t really ‘poor’ before being colonized. So I think that it is just a matter of labels today. Twenty years ago there was certainly more racism and people did not have the opportunities they have today. Being white is getting closer and closer to being any race. The problem is that people still think about the stereotypes tied to whiteness and being colored. In my country I am considered white, here I am not, but one could say that I have ‘white’ privileges.
One interesting thought that came up while reading the essay is how we would classify the “white” race; which groups would fall under being white? For example, would we consider Jewish, Irish, Italian, Germans, and etc. “white” people? Also, some of the “white privileges” that McIntosh lists don’t apply to Jewish people under the “White category” such as:
“I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me” (293).
“I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind of me” (293).
I agree that things have changed since the 2 decades McIntosh wrote the article. Work places and schools have become more diverse with equal opportunities in terms of race, sex, orientation etc. The judicial system has become more just in their trials and cases. Women have definitely come a long way as well representing and having acceptance in the sports, media, and political areas. But there are still a lot of problems in the world that persists. “White privileges” are not seen by “White” society because their privileges are “taught” to be invisible. This works the same as “Male privileges”. By uncovering these veils of unearned privileges, it might give the dominant race of a society the opportunity to understand that their involvement is just as crucial. (?)
I've read the piece on whiteness and male-ness before and even posted it to the discussion board the last time we talked about Affirmative Action and the first time I read it I laughed and I commented on each statement. However, thinking about what race really is. I think that whiteness is a social construct and can thus be considered as a race. People are taught to believe that they are better or that they must manipulate others to give them what they want. When thinking about economic priviledge I think that people do have this shame associated with it. No one wants to flat out say their parent makes over 100,ooo a year.especially if you are black because you want to be just as "street "as everyone else. I think
the same does tend to happen with race. There is such a thing as "white guilt" and it manifests itself in different ways maybe even in Affirmative Action. About Peggy Mcintosh, I think its great that she decided to write on the subject, maybe it was a great feat twenty years ago but I also feel that people need to take things a step further rather than just talking about it. As for saying all races are disavantaged, that is definetly true but tell me the race that was legally discriminated against, that was 3/5 of a person in law books, tell me about people being told that they were not citizens and not even men and that the bible is right and all your native culture is wrong Tell me
that the target high schools in nyc are not full of blacks and latinos. Tell me that there are not more police in certain neighbors than others. Tell me about the rate of incarceration in this country and I will tell you about America and where to take your notions of the word "disadvantaged". I'm sorry if I offend anyone who is sensitive. It's just my opinions and so they don't matter much to anyone but me.
I admit that I feel bad about the situation Kristen described but then I think about the fact that it disadvantages that black woman also. No matter how many degrees she has or whether she went to Harvard doesn't really matter because when people look at her they will always think she's black and that's why she was hired. I can talk till I'm blue in the face about my Sat score and my grades in high school but when some people see me they go oh she's on scholarship. To which I want to scream "SO WHAT!". As for preconceived notions, everyone needs to let go of them. There are poor white people. There are poor black people. Don't assume that some "minority" person is going to steal or whisk away
your job from you or your higher education placement.
And now for the readings. I think Linda Lopez Mcallister's piece is not about the issue itself but about her history and her grandmother. "It was certainly, at least in part, Gabriel Velarde's doinhat his seven daughters grew up thinking that white was beautiful and darker skin tones were not"(15). I actually find this notion very interesting. Especially since it was so true when I was growing up ( I had one, two experiences with skin bleaching cream) and still is now in American culture as well as
really ravaging Indian woman in India. However, I also find the opposite, that some "light" people want tans so badly. How is it that the dark want to be light and the light want to be dark? Mcallister talks about not only whiteness being beautiful but the key to social mobility. Alot of women in media, are light ( or as close to the standard as they can be)...the representations of " beautiful black
women" that come to mind are
Tyra, Beyonce, Halle Berry and they all seem to be the same caramel skin tone. Alicia keys is a little lighter. So we cannot say that we have rid ourselves of "eurocentric notions of beauty". However, especially in NYC, we have this desire to "africanize america". Everyone has dreads, afros, and loves this whole idea of multiculturalism. I mean I never felt so much love for my hair, and also when I came back from spring break I had comments like I think you're prettier when you are darker. At the same time, there is this subculture and counterrevolution that exists. As for the regard for culture, Sharon,Linda's sister doesn't make any effort to be Mexican because she's perfectly happy being "an Angla". I think that she's passing judgement on her and I don't think that's right. I think everyone should be allowed to do what they want. Mcallister finds her whole self and that is wonderful but some people ought to be allowed to live as half a person.
As for Pierce's piece , I really enjoyed reading it because of all the interjections of dialogue and basically all the more storytelling aspects of it. Do limitations placed on us have an effect on how we see ourselves? She talks about racial reverse discrimination which is of course an interesting but true concept.She talks about the pain of alienation. I think the same alienation can occur with economics or geography, or education rather than
just being lighter than other people. Example : You are not black because you make a certain amount, or you live in a certain neighborhood or you talk a certain way. Anything that makes you stand out, is grounds for alienation.
If you want to read more on this idea of privilege there is a nice comic book that you can download
at Classifiedbook.com. It's called How to Stop Hiding your privilege and use it for social change.
[quote="peterw"]One interesting thought that came up while reading the essay is how we would classify the “white” race; which groups would fall under being white? For example, would we consider Jewish, Irish, Italian, Germans, and etc. “white” people? -peter
I also struggle with that question and I am so guilty of considering everyone who looks a certain way as white. Who is white? Why does this social construct, this eugenistic notion of race still assault our modern "progressive" ways of thinking?- Sarah
“I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind of me” (293).
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. I have been taught that I can't trust white people. Not only from family, who used to work in the factories but highly educated and highly paranoid family as well. We were taught that it is not enough to be equal academically or intellectually but you have to be better. If the white person next to you is making a Bt, you have to make an A-. These are the kind of notions that can drive people crazy. What if we're both making A's do I have to beat her in racquetball? We were also taught plain stupid things. If I stepped on the grass or something someone would say yo why you stepping on the white people's grass. The utmost reverence for all things associated with white people. Also leads to hatred, I've known several people who are in recovery from hating white people. It's not like you can avoid all white people. I also think that the Sean Bell incident is an echo of mistrust. I'm pretty sure Sean Bell was taught to mistrust cops and Police officers are taught "reasonable fear". These ideas lead us all nowhere. I have respect for Mcallister because she has re-educated herself and almost gone against her families' training.
I agree with Sarah about McAlister. I think that she is very brave in coming out of what her family has taught her because that is probably one of the hardest things to do. What we learn in our families is a huge part of who we are and it can be either very positive or very negative. In her case she overcomes her family’s ideas about color but most people can’t accomplish that and that is where the problem lies. The ideal would be that people learned to get away from what Sarah was explaining (not to trust white people or not to trust black people). And also the idea of who falls into a certain race is also very interesting because society has been making assumptions based on things that are not necessarily true.
And now for the readings. I think Linda Lopez Mcallister's piece is not about the issue itself but about her history and her grandmother. "It was certainly, at least in part, Gabriel Velarde's doinhat his seven daughters grew up thinking that white was beautiful and darker skin tones were not"(15). I actually find this notion very interesting. Especially since it was so true when I was growing up ( I had one, two experiences with skin bleaching cream) and still is now in American culture as well as
really ravaging Indian woman in India. However, I also find the opposite, that some "light" people want tans so badly. How is it that the dark want to be light and the light want to be dark? Mcallister talks about not only whiteness being beautiful but the key to social mobility. Alot of women in media, are light ( or as close to the standard as they can be)...the representations of " beautiful black
women" that come to mind are
Tyra, Beyonce, Halle Berry and they all seem to be the same caramel skin tone. Alicia keys is a little lighter. So we cannot say that we have rid ourselves of "eurocentric notions of beauty".
Sarah's post reminds me of one thing I found particularly interesting about McAlister's piece -- it's clear from the essay why the women wanted to marry white men, but what was the men's perspective in wanting to marry women of Mexican heritage? Both essays also featured white men who adopted some of their wives' traditions, and I wonder about things like their motive, their degree of sincerity, and the degree of success of the enterprise.
About the issue of "light wanting to be dark," I think this gets back to a class issue. Today the tan is a sign of leisure. Recall Rodriguez -- people asked if he had been skiing, but what if he had come in to the building through the service entrance? Richard Dyer observes in White (worthwhile reading if you're interested in this subject, particularly for those of you interested in the media) that nobody ever really mistakes a tan white person for a nonwhite person.
Quickly--we now also get into the notion of being a minority as a nominal convenience. To be clear, this is not to say that racial roles have been reversed, but rather that in many communities (most of them liberal urban communities) being perceived to be "of color" in one capacity or other has its certain advantages. Most noticable amongst these is that one is understood to be more attractive (as Sarah notes) because one is perceived to be more exotic, and much goes with that.
One interesting thought that came up while reading the essay is how we would classify the “white” race; which groups would fall under being white? For example, would we consider Jewish, Irish, Italian, Germans, and etc. “white” people?
The word on the street is that Asians will be the next whites. What do you guys think?
The word on the street is that Asians will be the next whites. What do you guys think?
This is quite a valid question. In the past few weeks I have been reading about the construction of “whiteness” and assimilation to American culture. It is incredible to see how many Europeans (who we now consider white) when they first arrived to the United States were considered as part of the black minority group. Among these were the Greeks and the Italians. They were marginalized by those that were the “real whites”, the Anglo- Protestants. With time these formerly “black” Europeans became mainstream whites as they assimilated into the American language and culture.
For this reason I’m not sure that you can say there is such a concrete thing as “white privilege” because “whiteness” is a social construction. The sad part about all this is that it almost seems like attaining whiteness is a goal for certain groups. It almost seems that races that may not be classified as white right now might see becoming categorized as “white” as their goal and as their ultimate assurance that they belong to American society.
In working towards “whiteness” I also think certain races are in a way distancing themselves from the other side which is being black. It antagonizes the two races and creates a larger gap and even more oppression.
One of the main things I noticed while reading was the fact that, as mentioned earlier, the white American men seemed without hesitation when it came to marrying these Mexican and Filipino women. There didn't seem to be a problem for either parties involved, so I really wonder why all of this backlash has come from their children?
Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I really think that the main reason why their children are so upset about this situation (seemingly more than their parents) is because of the fact that they found themselves in limbo, not having the usual easy and single "white" way in which to describe themselves as Americans.
I also at times find their stories a bit hard to fully swallow, only because as I am sure that there is much truth to them, we also have to remember that writers are able to manipulate things, being able to exaggerate certain aspects more than what they really were. I think it's very important to remember to not always take every account for granted, there are two sides to every story.
One last thing for now: On page 25 McAlister states, "It seems obvious that change is possible here and that thinking you've changed your sexual orientation doesn't seem to require the same wholesale change in language, culture, and tradition that changing your ethnic identity would require."
I disagree with this statement in its entirety, for she is naively ignoring the fact that many people who decide to change their sexual identity have lived most of their lives with this true identity suppressed by some other ethnic or cultural identity they were initially taught to become. When they finally make public the decision to change their identity, they must leave the only cultural/ethnic identity they have known and restart, thus forming a whole new, truer one.
“One last thing for now: On page 25 McAlister states, "It seems obvious that change is possible here and that thinking you've changed your sexual orientation doesn't seem to require the same wholesale change in language, culture, and tradition that changing your ethnic identity would require."
I disagree with this statement in its entirety, for she is naively ignoring the fact that many people who decide to change their sexual identity have lived most of their lives with this true identity suppressed by some other ethnic or cultural identity they were initially taught to become. When they finally make public the decision to change their identity, they must leave the only cultural/ethnic identity they have known and restart, thus forming a whole new, truer one.”
I would say I definitely agree with Tiffany. When a person decides to “come out” and change their public identity many times they can no longer be part of the culture they have grown up in. Many times people are marginalized because of their orientation and are shut out from their own cultures and families. Just because a person can “pass” more easily as something that they are not does not mean that the change is less severe. It is true that there is no change in language when a person admits that they are homosexual but in effect there is a change in the way one uses language; one becomes free to say who one really is and is not constantly hiding behind words.
Asians at the "new Whites" needs to be understood in the context of the creation of the "Model Minority" myth--the notion that Asians are an intrinsically "good" minority group, as compared to Blacks or Latinos, because they are thought to be timid and academically excellent. This was, in fact, a concept intentionally bandied around in order not to glorify Asians on the whole but to "motivate" (read--demean and castigate) other minorities to be "better."
It's also my understand that, next semester, a class called "The Yellow Peril" will be taught directly towards this issue.
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
