Talk:Whiteness studies/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV tag

Hi. Could someone explain the NPOV tag for this article? It seems pretty good to me. It reports on what is being said in a controversial but important field of academic study and avoids making any judgments about this field's validity (and isn't that what Wikipedia articles are supposed to do?). A couple of critical viewpoints are mentioned, and most everything is attributed to individual thinkers, not stated as though it's universally accepted as fact. I also added a paragraph that mentions the Australian point of view, so it's a little less US-centric. Anyway, I don't see any need for the tag. --The Famous Movie Director 02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Look higher up on the talk page. It's under "Consolidating Race Traitor and Whiteness Studies." Jwadeg

Neutrality

An anonymous user changed "the very concept of race is said to have been created by a white power structure"

into "the very concept of race is said somehow to have been created by a mysteriously pre-existing white power structure"

I reverted to the original. I think it's obvious that "somehow" and "mysteriously pre-existing" are POV edits from an opposing perspective. The original describes the concept neutrally, allowing readers to decide for themselves what they think about this idea. The second version suggests an ironic, critical view inappropriate to an encyclopedia. Even ideas you strongly disagree with should be expressed without implicit criticism in the wording. --Grace 23:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't understand in what capacity the concept of race is said to have been contrived, constructed, or invented if we are scholarly enough to know that it was the white power structure that created it. The article certainly affords the reader no such explanation and it clearly needs one. A.G. Pinkwater 14:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed -reverted. 68.197.153.198

What I've understood about it (and admittedly, it's not that much) is that the categories of "white" and "nonwhite" were more or less invented during the colonization of the Americas, whereas previously Europeans perceived themselves in different ways (Anglo, Celt, whatever). Not as "white." Over time whiteness became a way for certain groups to bond in the Americas against other groups, and also as a way to justify atrocities. Of course, that's not the same as "inventing the concept of race" -- it's more like "inventing the category of white."

Off topic, A.G., you're not related to Daniel Manus, are you? Katsam 09:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I partially reverted the revert, and did some copyediting. The part that I reverted was the criticism in the initial section about race, according to theorists in whiteness studies, not existing. This isn't the case. That race is a social construct doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it is based on nothing. It means, roughly, that its existence can theoretically be undone. Although its far from complete, see the article social constructionism for more detail. -Smahoney 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - seems a reasonable reverted reversion, Smahoney! 68.197.153.198 05:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Smahoney - I'm afraid I felt compelled to revert your partially reverted revert. Your comments about social constructivism are appreciated but do little to remedey the problem here. It remains true, as another critic mentioned above (whom I paraphrase here), that Whitness Studies begs the question - in what capacity could the concept of race be said to have been constructed if we are scholarly enough to know that it was the white power structure that created it? It remains true that the article affords the reader no such explanation and it clearly needs one. 211.118.218.249 00:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Nonetheless, unless the criticism is cited to some source it is original research. Further, criticism belongs in a criticism section, not in the introduction. Also, I removed the quotation marks sprinkled across the page, with a probably inappropriate edit summary (cut me a break! Its really hot here!). Quotation marks are appropriate when you are quoting someone (in which case a citation is necessary), when you're being derogatory (which is inappropriate), or when you're referring to the word itself (which isn't the case here). -Smahoney 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'm moving this bit of "criticism" here. If someone wants to re-add it, go ahead and do so but ONLY if you provide some source for it, and it belongs in a criticisms section, not in the opening section, as is the case with most every other article.

Critics deride the field as a fad, as divisive and antithetical to the traditional left-wing emphasis on the working class (including the white working class), or as a façade for racism against whites.

If you can't say who these critics are, then this is original research (meaning you're the critic), and doesn't belong here. -Smahoney 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement about 'many scientists say there's no such thing as race' until some external references are provided. Blowski 07:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect something like this is what the author had in mind, though the statement you removed would be a gross oversimplification. -Smahoney 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

US-centric?

I've made a minor edit to note that this 'subject' is only known in the USA. If this is not the case, and so-called whiteness studies are found elsewhere in the world, then please make a suitable edit.

This article is (or was) typical of much on what is written in Wikipedia; written wholly from the American point-of-view, and as if the rest of the world just doesn't exist. Arcturus 22:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I had something to do with this article—I've forgotten the origin, I seem to have made the first edit but I know it was some kind of VfD rescue. I think the original article was called simply "Whiteness." The whole discussion was in an implicit U. S. context and I never mentally stepped back. Anyway, you're right, and I apologize for whatever part I had. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've done a good deal of work in Whiteness Studies myself, and re-edited it, or edited it back to what it apparently said before, by taking out "in America." There are many scholars in other countries that do such studies, most particularly England, Australia, South Africa. While the majority of such work does occur in and get published in the US, it does the broader field a disservice to say that's the only place where such work occurs.

javascript:insertTags('\n----\n',,);

• Id like to say there's a lot of latinamerican theorics who work about the problem of the social construction of races, there are Anibal Quijano, Guillermo Castro, and various others. This isn't called "whiteness studies" in AL, but neocolonialism, with emphasis in the colonialist culture of the dominant ethnic groupes in AL.

I think the article must talk about the local character of the "whiteness" concept, but talk about the international character about the problem and theoric preocupaction about it.

By other hand, I don't think there's a so univoque link between postmodernism and the social construction of the racial categories. There's a lot of previous work and concepts about this in marxist theorics. The historicism in a social concept of the races its evident.

PD: sorry about my poor english.

IsmaelPR 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Consolidating Race Traitor and Whiteness Studies

The text brought into this page from Race Traitor (the publication)--which is once again a stub, and definitely needs a link to this page--doesn't represent the viewpoints of all people doing whiteness studies, but only the Race Traitor perspective. _RT_ writers have in fact been cautious about endorsing whiteness studies, seeing it as a potential naturalization of what they see as an artificial social category ("The point is not to study whiteness, but to abolish it", they argue). So, either we should differentiate this as one school of thought within WS or restore the text to RT, or both. -User:Carwil, a long time ago.

re: BIAS

This is my first time contributing to wikipedia, so I hope i am doing this right (apologies if not!!).

Please review the following statement to check for bias / non-neutral POV (has postmodernism been largely discredited?):

"...the now largely discredited (see related article Sokal Affair) 'Post Modernist' (hereafter 'PoMo') school of philosophy..."

Also, I question whether a balanced view of the field of Whiteness Studies is presented given that a substantial portion of the article, i.e. the entire "schools of thought" sections which details "adherents' " views, comes entirely from one source, "Race Traitor" (as noted also in the comment above), from which some fairly extreme-sounding/inflammatory quotes have been taken, which may not fairly or accurately represent the general outlook within the field as a whole.

Also, could someone (with better background in this area than me) please clarify further the meaning of the James Baldwin quote, which reads atrociously as it is presented at the moment!

many thanks

jcw

I agree that this information would be much better in a broader context of minority studies article of some sort. Amirman 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Naive visitor "jcw" said:

"Also, I question whether a balanced view of the field of Whiteness Studies is presented given that a substantial portion of the article, i.e. the entire "schools of thought" sections which details "adherents' " views, comes entirely from one source, "Race Traitor" (as noted also in the comment above), from which some fairly extreme-sounding/inflammatory quotes have been taken, which may not fairly or accurately represent the general outlook within the field as a whole."

"Also, could someone (with better background in this area than me) please clarify further the meaning of the James Baldwin quote, which reads atrociously as it is presented at the moment!"

I've tried to write in enough context to make Baldwin's statement clear. I can't find a citation or my copy of the essay though. Hope it clarifies.

--Carwil 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear JCW,

Perhaps your instinct is correct, and James Baldwin's words are atrocious.

JCW, did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is not the view of 'Whiteness studies' that is imbalanced, but Whiteness Studies itself? Perhaps the basic premises of 'Whiteness Studies' are themselves Imbalanced? Extreme? Inflammatory?

Some one said once that all that is neccessary for evil to triumph over good is for good to do nothing. Perhaps all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good to naively assume that it is evil.

I have to agree with JCW, and disagree very strongly with the sentiments expressed in the previous reply.

Measuring very roughly, the article at present devotes 35 to 40 percent of its content to "Race Traitor." Which is an unreasonably large amount to devote to what is clearly the more extreme view. In comparison, think about African American Studies, which is a less controversial and more developed field and has little more than a stub. How would people react if the article was suddenly filled with the views of the Black Panther Party. (That's not intended as criticism of the Black Panthers, but as an example of allowing a field to be defined by its hard line rhetoric.) Similar examples could be made about Feminist theory, Queer Studies, and Gender Studies in general.

At present, the article seems to focus on the opinions and judgments of those involved in whitness studies, not the actual practice itself. There is a yawning chasm of difference between analyzing the history of white priveledge and advocating "race treason." Jwadeg 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a second... On a whim I decided to track down the addition of the huge "Race Traitor" section. Though later rewritten by Carwil into a much more reasonable "Schools of Thought" sub-section, almost all of the objectionable content of the article was added anonymously (with the comment "this stuff belongs here"), 7 months ago, by 24.0.91.81 (a user who, according to his history of contributions, focuses almost exclusively on lists of "stereotypes," "ethnic slurs," and "derogatory phrases").

I would argue that the entire article was unstubbed using nothing but Race Traitor as a source, and has been POV since then. I'd vote for the complete removal of the "Race Traitor" section (placing it on its own page), and simply linking to it. I also believe that the phrase from the lead section "they seek to change white peoples' view of their own racial identity" should be dropped as it ascribes a uniformity of subversive behavior to the group which isn't necessarily true.

I won't make the changes myself as the questionable wording has been here for quite some time and has passed through many hands already. I just wanted to help clarify the situation and add my two cents. Jwadeg 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Whiteness and the creation of the united states

Whiteness and the creation of the united states seems to be written in the style of an essay and not so much in the style of an article. I had considered sending it to AfD, but I thought I'd see what other people think first. Perhaps we could merge some of the info into Whiteness studies. Jay†Litman 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Postmodern twist to logic?

One of the opening paragraphs begins "The central tenet of whiteness studies is a reading of history in which the very concept of race is said to have been created by a white power structure in order to justify discrimination against nonwhites." I would have thought that somebody else would have jumped on this contradiction immediately, but I guess I'll go ahead and point out that this summary, if serious, is naturally self-defeating. If the very concept of race had to be created to justify discrimination against nonwhites, how, may I ask, did the Europeans know who the nonwhites against whom they wanted to discriminate were? And besides, isn't such a study a mere homage to and promulgation of those oppressive categories the Europeans/whites invented? How do they know the whites invented it if there is no independent standard of race? -- 5-30-06

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

Race, with all its social, political, cultural, and other aspects doesn't immediately follow from just skin color. So no, not immediately self-defeating. -Smahoney 01:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but the article says "the very concept of race" was apparently engineered to fit the whites' propensity to ravage and enslave; so then it ought to follow from your remark that there existed no cultural, social, and political differences amongst the varied peoples of the world before the Europeans came and colonized them and forced upon them an identifiably different social format by which they might justify oppression--this seems almost equally absurd. A.G. Pinkwater 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That should be changed. The sentence - "The central tenet of whiteness studies is a reading of history in which the very concept of race is said to have been created by a white power structure in order to justify discrimination against nonwhites" - implies that race was a conspiracy that some Europeans sat down and thought up one day. Whiteness studies scholars would certainly see it in a much more complex way than that--the social construct of race didn't come into being overnight. But I thought the central tenet of whiteness studies was that whiteness has tended to see itself as a background or default (eg. we sometimes refer to "a black politician", because that's "unusual", but rarely "a white politician"), therefore exempt as an object of study, and that it should be studied in order to understand the power structure better. --Grace 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its not that cultureal, social, and political differences didn't exist - of course they did - its that they weren't wrapped into the concept of race along with, say, skin color (granted here, skin color is far from the sole determinant of race - there was certainly sufficient 19th century, for example, discourse on race where 'race' mirrored contemporary concepts of 'nationality' or 'ethnicity', and thus talk of "the German race"). Although there were perhaps cultures that used concepts analagous to race, culture itself was a much more likely candidate for that sort of packaging early on.

You're of course right, The Famous - insofar as the intro sentence implies a conscious and wholly intentional construction, it should be changed, although it certainly isn't as if no one intentionally used the concept of race, so the water is perhaps a little murky here. -Smahoney 23:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't take an oppressive and belligerent soul to find that in some distant land people have different skin color and appearances and also have different customs and social/cultural/political structures in place; to me this fact seems insultingly redundant. The claim that there is something exclusively "white" and inherently oppressive about saying "Look, these people in the Amazon River Basin have brown skin and they also have ornate facial piercings and eat different food from us and are organized in tribes that rarely exceed several hundred members" is equally insulting. I don't see anything oppressive or derogatory about that. I will comment again on how ironic I find it that those who claim it repugnant to view race as anything more than social construction don't have any qualms about labeling their craft "whiteness studies" and finding so many remarkable injustices for which the whites are responsible when, in fact, they deny the meaningfulness and utility of the category of race. A.G. Pinkwater 02:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. No one is denying the meaningfulness or utility of race (in fact, its meaningfulness and utility should be one of the central concerns of this article). No one is denying that people saw peoples of different colors behaving differently (and even the same!). No one is saying there is anything inherently oppressive about saying that there is a group of people with brown skin who have ornate facial piercings, etc. While I understand that it is easy to see something, get irritated, and then find it difficult to see anything of value in that thing, its something you really have to get over if you actually want to understand what that subject is about or what that group of people are saying (agree with it or not). -Smahoney 05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing the point, so perhaps you should make it clearer; the quote I cited still says that the concept of race was created by white people for their own imperialistic musings--if you're not denying what I said above about the relationship between skin color and culture, then what is it about the whites' concept of race that is so objectionable and why are they (whites) being singled out for having brought such a concept into existence? What aspect of race has been socially constructed? A.G. Pinkwater 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that what's objectionable is that the concept of race has been used for centuries (and is still being used) to unjustly negatively discriminate against entire groups of people. And it isn't a part of race that has been socially constructed. It is race itself that has been socially constructed. -Smahoney 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, but you understand that when you say that the concept of race has been used/is used to unjustly negatively discriminate against groups of people, you're not objecting to something about the concept of race itself, rather the appropriation of that concept as a license for unscrupulous behavior by, perhaps most notably, the Europeans. But you'll see that there is nothing that has been said about race (at least not by me) that justifies such actions per se; we have both agreed that people of different skin colors may also have different social, political, and cultural surroundings--but that in no way justifies someone else wiping them out of coherent existence. And I still don't understand how you can say that race itself (and presumably the entirety thereof) has been socially constructed if you [understandably] grant the independent factuality of the varied cultural, social, political traditions of the correspondingly varied skin colors on people. I absolutely agree that this variance exists, but I whole-heartedly deny that if we reached a social consensus to ignore these differences (that is, stopped socially constructing them) they would simply disappear. And given that, it still troubles me to hear that you hold the that the whole concept of race has been socially constructed. A.G. Pinkwater 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, maybe this will be more clear if we take a step back for a second: How are you using 'race'? -Smahoney 15:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in order to convey the precise sense, it would depend upon context and I could not do the discussion justice to try summarizing all the complex sides of the question; I think race can be used several different ways. I would probably need a better laying out of the social constructionists' account of race so that I could differentiate my views therefrom (if even necessary)--I know that's not especially helpful, but that would make it easier. Since you are making a positive claim about the concept of race, namely that it is socially constructed, I assume you have a more substantial definition and account of that concept. I know I agree that certain things definitely are socially constructed (for instance, Searle's examples of money, marriage, the government, language, etc.--but I view these things as distinctly disparate from something like race as far as I understand them all). A.G. Pinkwater 17:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's an error in the firsts of this topic; "the very concept of race is said to have been created by a white power structure in order to justify discrimination against nonwhites" isn't a contradiction.

The concept of "race" immplies a category where a groups of people fit, who share a groups of exclusive physic/mental characters inexistant on pure individuals of other races. THAT's false. There's a lot of genetically conditioned variables who can describe a particular phenotype, but there's no pregenerated groups of values in this variables who conform a race. There is of course, in history, contingently generated (and geographically conditioned) semi-locked communities who share a genetic pool where certain values become extremely frequent, but, the simultaneous frequence of two values doesn't mean any direct relation between the values. That's a reification, an ideologic construct functional to a domination structure.

So, a race isn't just a skin color. It's a social concept who associate with certain physic phenotype, a lot of others characters who can't be, genetically talking, directly relationed with the aspects of the phenotype, because there isn't groups of essentially associated genetic characters. So, you could find "whites" (people who share certain phenotype characters you can associate as a "white appearance") without existing a "white race".

IsmaelPR 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ismael,

While I acknowledge that there are some valid questions that can be raised about the relevance of the categrory of race, I think the current trend of dismissing the concept as a politically motivated, unscientific social construction is overstated. There are real genetic differences associated with racial differences - they are not merely differences of phenotype. These differences are on the order of subspecies, and would most likely be uncontroversially acknowledged as such were we talking about any other animal species but humans. The main argument against the validity of the concept of race is that there are more variations within races than between them. Even if this were true, it is also true of many other closely related subspecies in the animal kingdom, yet no one claims the concept of subspecies is invalid or meaningless - or socially constructed. There are, I believe, social constructs about race, some of which have contributed to racism, but the notion that race itself is a socially constructed concept with no basis in objective reality sounds like a throwback to the days of the "science wars", when it was fashionable amongst postmodernist academics to declare that everything was 'socially constructed' (even gender) and that there was no such thing as an objective reality. If race were a mere social construct, motivated by an attempt to separate and empower 'whites' over 'non-whites', why were blonde Scandinavians, tan Mediterraneans, brown Arabs, and black skinned south Asians all classified as members of the same caucasian race? Surely, if racial classification was some sort of scheme to justify separation and oppresion of the darker people's by the lighter, they (white Europeans) would not have placed themselves in the same category as brown Arabs and black Asian Indians. No, they were grouped together because when viewed objectively, they do in fact share certain objective physical characteristics, just as East Asians ('mongoloids') and sub-Saharan Africans ('negroids') do. The broad similarities shared by races may be loosely described as those features that may be captured by sculpture. The race of a life like sculpture is usually obvious, whereas it's precise ethnic or national origin is not. The Statue of Liberty is clearly a caucasian women, not a black African or Mongoloid. Yet, she could just as well be Irish as Italian, or even South Asian for that matter. The same could be said of many of the various Buddha statues (clearly 'mongoloid') found across Asia or sculptures found in black Africa (clearly 'negroid'). It is important to keep in mind of course that all humans belong to the same species, regardless of subspecies (which we call 'races'), and that the period of the existence of human subspecies is almost certainly limited, as the formerly isolated populations increasingly interact and intermarry. Note that when race or subspecies disappear in this manner, it is due to intermarriage of persons of different races, not social 'deconstruction'. Again, I am not saying that there are not social constructs about race which can be deconstructed, but that the notion that race itself is purely a social construct is at odds with objective reality.

Respectfully yours, Joseph JosephWikipeditor 14:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joseph

I understand the preocupation about postmodernism and "science wars", but this is not the case.

First, I was attempting to illustrate there's not internal contradiction between two arguments; a) race isn't natural reality; and b) was functional to white interests. That's the first point in this section, and I think we can both agree with that.

Second, we're not in the same grounds when we talk of races and subspecies. The subspecies classification its scientifically strong because "The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent". That isn't true between races, specially if you "discard" experimentally the social factors associated with race. In fact, it's widely accepted that individuals of any same subspecie will tend to choose the more genetically distant breeding companion between the availables.

Subspecies are distinguished through observation of factual behavior, nor supposed essential links between differents genetic values. This link it's questioned, from my POV, with reason (but this discussion isn't about that).

Third, interestingly, the problem with the concept of race doesn't come from social and humanistic sciences, but initially from genetics.

Regards, IsmaelPR 02:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

What attention is paid in "Whiteness Studies" to religion? Does anyone discuss the historic elimination of indigenous religions by European Christians, as it relates to the construction of the power structure and its inherent whiteness? 68.124.30.232 18:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Try Bonnett, A (2000) Historical and International Perspectives, London: Prentice Hall, or Dyer, R (1997) White, London: Routledge ... for a start.Eyedubya 02:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Academic Source

The following attempts to break down various currents of thought in WS. Lots to work with here.--Carwil 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Antiracism and the abolition of whiteness: Rhetorical strategies of domination among "race traitors"

Communication Studies, Summer 2000 by Moon, Dreama, Flores, Lisa A

"Critics say" section

I'm moving this section here for the reasons stated below:

Critics deride the field as a fad, as divisive as and antithetical to the traditional left-wing emphasis on the working class (including the white working class), or as a façade for racism against whites.

1. Which critics? Is this a real criticism (in which case sources should be easy to find) or is it original research (in which case it should be removed)?

2. Criticisms should generally belong in a "Criticisms" section, as they aren't the central concern of the article. The criticisms section, again, should contain only sourced criticisms explicitely attributed to a person or group and once again, they should be referenced. It should not contain original research. -Smahoney 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. --Grace 23:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

there are still no SOURCED criticisms and the original ideas that have been placed in that section are ridiculous. there is a mention that in these whiteness studies there is somehow the assertion that white people are "inherently flawed" because of their race. this sounds like it was written by someone who felt very defensive after very quickly scanning the basic ideas in this article and felt hegemonically challenged. there is absolutely no notion whatsoever in any of the studying i've done (i'm a sociology student who is interested in this topic) that white people are "inherently flawed" in any way. in that case the only thing i can think of to do is to delete the entire criticisms section. it has been over 6 months since it has been decided that the criticisms section should include sourced criticisms from people who've actually studied this stuff. the whole section is embarassing and makes wikipedia look bad so here it goes. Amirman 17:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the reference to Fjordman's blog entry? The last time I checked this fellow isn't a scientist or even a public intellectual of any sort. It's like posting a link to my blog. Isn't that ridiculous? Someone come defend Fjordman or I will remove the link to his blog within 48 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.15.59 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I have suggested that this article ought to be merged with the article on Critical Race Theory because it is an outgrowth of that school of thought and, to put it plainly, this particular subject is too obscure for its own page of this size. W.M. O'Quinlan 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just plain wrong on the facts. CRT is probably the more specific field; CRT is exclusively grounded in legal studies (i.e., law schools), whereas whiteness studies crosses into sociology and anthropology; whiteness studies did not emerge from CRT, though it did appropriate its insights on whiteness's legal constructionl. Also WP:NOT#PAPER leaves plenty of space for these two pages.--Carwil 05:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I may have made the mistake of proposing the merger with Critical Race Theory, but "whiteness studies" is apparently just a very new label for rather unoriginal ideas that have already been circulating for decades in the fields of critical theory, cultural anthropology, post-colonial theory and a slew of other 20th Century and post-modern "theories" and systems of thought. The extent to which this "study" has offered new, significant, and durable contributions and interpretations to significant issues is highly uncertain. Even if so-called "whiteness studies" claims roots in the work of W.E.B. Du Bois and other early modern writers, the distinction between this new breed of ideas (which, by the way, is primarily oriented in terms of the education system) and the better-established work of the aforementioned fields is minute.

That's just wrong. It's taken methods from a variety of disciplines but that doesn't make it dividable between them. Would you also suggest that we discard or 'merge' medical studies into biology, or that biochemistry be divided by biology and chemistry because the basis for their ideas are found in the parent disciplines?

Furthermore, nothing in the article describing exactly what whiteness studies is or how it is different from these other fields is referenced. Also, you are wrong about critical race theory being confined only to issues of law. I am open to changing the merger proposal from Critical Race Theory to some other article, but my objections still stand. W.M. O'Quinlan 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

While it would be grand if the article did presently do more to differentiate, the lack of WP:V material in the article differentiating it from PoCo, Critical Theory, etc. is immaterial to whether the article should be merged. The question is, is it different conceptually, and does the material entirely overlap. It wouldn't be a horrible idea to give it a paragraph in CRT and some other pages, but there clearly is a lot of material here, enough to not be merged back in.

The real question for Wikipedia inclusion is notability, and without engaging in comparisons to the many many pages on WP, we should consider the wide academic presence of Whiteness studies as a course. See this reference for example. We have something being taught in many universities, the subject of multiple academic conferences, producing an academic literature. It seems comparable to Subaltern studies, which it would be foolish to try to devolve into articles on Gramsci, literary theory, history, and critical theory.--Carwil 20:49, 12 November 2007

(UTC)

The 'unoriginal' argument could be applied to many academic subjects currently on offer at universities around the world. Its a version of the 'nothing new under the sun' argument, often used by people who see the problematics of the ancient Greeks in every philosophical discussion they come across, or that everything is merely footnotes to some great foundational thinker or other. At the same time, the argument that Whiteness studies is 'obscure' contradicts the premise upon which the 'unoriginal' argument rests. In any event, obscurity is very much a matter of perspective and is not an objective category. Furthermore, 'obscurity' shouldn't necessarily disqualify an article for inclusion in WP - surely this is partly the function of an encylopedia, to render the obscure a little less so and broaden access to the world's knowledge. Finally, Since "Whiteness studies" exists as distinct academic courses of studies, and is the subject of an increasing number of publications from various parts of the world, it is appropriate that it has its own article on WP. Those who wish to draw out the links between Whiteness studies and CRT, PoCo, etc can insert appropriate edits into the article itself - these are issues of content, not notability or verifiability. Eyedubya 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources themselves don't have to spell out the difference between whiteness studies and the other studies, but the matter of differentiation is not at all immaterial to the question of merging; that is exactly why merging exists: to unite two similar or redundant pages. As it stands, nothing defining exactly what whiteness studies is sourced, but it is apparently interested in the relationship between white people and the oppression of other racial groups, which is exhaustively covered by the other fields I've mentioned and many others, especially that of White privilege (sociology) (I would suggest changing the merger proposal from CRT to White privilege (sociology) because I think the two subjects have a more tangible relationship than the other studies).

With regards to the idea that unoriginality is not a reasonable criticism, it's fairly obvious that this is just my characterization of a very valid criterion of the process of article merging. If, in fact, an article is just rehashing and duplicating material and ideas that are found in other articles, then it makes sense to condense the material and present it in a more intelligible format. And there is no contradiction between obscurity and unoriginality; my point was only that if there is a distinction to be made between whiteness studies and all the other more notable fields is an obscure one at best. But I don't see what's wrong with just writing a paragraph or section about whiteness studies in the article on White privilege, since there apparently aren't enough sources to support an entire article. W.M. O'Quinlan 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How many articles need there be for the threshold to be met? This is a new one to me, and I suspect many others. There are many, many, many articles on WP with way fewer sources than this one! Just look at the 'further reading' list - all those books and papers with 'whiteness' in the title. It may be less popular than 'Gender Studies' for example, but it does exist as a course of study, and thus, it deserves an article so that when someone types 'Whiteness studies' into a search engine, they get, among other things, this article. Now, having said that, I'd comment that the article could be much better written than it is, but that's not the same as merging it. And also, there needs to be a link from the WP page on 'Whiteness' to this article. I'm concerned that this proposed merger will bury the topic - its an encyclopedia, not a text book. Eyedubya 13:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The 'further reading' list does not prove your point. Just because "whiteness" appears in a number of the titles does not mean that the books are part of something that could rightly be called "whiteness studies". I've never in my life taken a college course that claimed to be a study of whiteness but believe me, I've heard the terms "whiteness" and "white privilege" so many times in classes that I could probably write a book about the academic obsession with the topic. And this is part of my point; I'm not saying that the content does not belong on Wikipedia, I'm just skeptical that "whiteness studies", which is only mentioned by one independent, reliable source--the Washington Post-- is a robust (read "notable") enough term to warrant its own page (if you'll remember, one of the main criteria for Wikipedia:Notability is that the topic have significant independent coverage detailing precisely what the topic is about such that no original research is required to understand what it is; at this point, because none of the statements defining what "whiteness studies" is are sourced or referenced, one is required to do original research to find this out). And also, there are plenty of hyperlinks in WP articles that only lead to paragraphs or sections on other articles, so you don't have to worry about this topic being completely swept under the rug if it is merged. W.M. O'Quinlan 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

An obituary in the Guardian (London) finds is headlined "" and notes

Ruth's work helped define a new field called "whiteness studies", evident in the essays in social and cultural criticism that she edited, called Displacing Whiteness (1997). Her work shaped a strong scholarly and activist agenda to explore how white racial power continues to operate: she insisted on thinking about race as a question of how power is exercised when those who have it can see only others as different.

A quick JSTOR search produces the following, among others:

• Whiteness Studies: The New History of Race in America, Peter Kolchin, Journal of American History > Vol. 89, No. 1 (Jun., 2002), pp. 154-173
• The Emergence of Whiteness Studies on America's College Campuses, The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education > No. 42 (Winter, 2003), pp. 60-61
• Review: The Current Dialogue on Whiteness Studies, Lawrence J. Oliver, 1949-, Callaloo > Vol. 25, No. 4 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 1272-1278
• What's White Got to Do with It?: Teaching Whiteness. Part I

Irma Maini; Jeanne Phoenix Laurel; Jane Wood; Yasmin DeGout; Deborah Thompson Modern Language Studies > Vol. 32, No. 1, The "White Problem": The Critical Study of Whiteness in American Literature

Also see:

• World Without 'White', Newsweek, July, 2003 by Peter Bailey

It's still unclear to me where you might fold "whiteness studies" into another page. Third opinion anyone?--Carwil 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if the argument for a merger is slim. If the accademic community generally seems to think it is a different area of study to CRT, we should probably listen to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.214.70 (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have reasonable sources that you think might enhance a reader's understanding of the topic, as well as reliable independent coverage of said topic, then why don't you go ahead and include them in the article instead of putting them on the talk page? I'm not sure if a couple of entries in a couple of journals should equate to an article of this size, given that there is such a limited amount of independent coverage of this topic, which is a major requirement for something to get its own article. The point is this, though: if in fact whiteness studies is notable enough to get its own article, there should be no problem in proving that it is notable vis-à-vis Wikipedia guidelines.

As far as to where this article might be relocated, I think a section within White privilege (sociology) would be appropriate, since (from what I can gather) whiteness studies is a purported analysis by academics of white privilege. How about this: until there is enough referenced material and significant independent coverage of whiteness studies provided, we relocate it to a section in the article on white privilege. If you think there is enough material available to source what the article currently says, then go ahead and add it and I will back off the merger proposal. Someone else pointed out the extensive "further reading" list, to which I'll say this: if that list says something meaningful about whiteness studies (as opposed to post-colonialism, sociology of race relations, critical theory, economics, etc.) then put it in the article and don't waste time trying to prove it on the talk page. But as I said before, just because some book or article discusses white privilege doesn't make it a part of "whiteness studies"; vast archives worth of books and journal articles have already been devoted to the subject of white oppression of minorities and so forth long before anyone thought to name a curriculum after it. W.M. O'Quinlan 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The White Privilege (Sociology) article doesn't seem to be any more widely supported than the Whiteness studies article - though that is not to say that either are poorly supported, only that they are about the 'same' in terms of shee weight of references out there. Though having said that, It seems to me that perhaps this is being approached from the wrong angle - maybe a merger of White Privilege with Whiteness studies is apt - i.e. so that White Privilege becomes a subset of Whiteness studies. Most of the references in the reading list for White Privilege refer to 'Whiteness', not 'white privilege'. The thing is, Whiteness isn't only about privilege per se, its about a lot more than that - the privilege afforded to whites is only part of what Whiteness studies is about. Also, Whiteness studies isn't limited to 'sociology' - it crosses into cultural studies, literature, film & media studies, anthropology, medicine and history of science to name a few. Eyedubya 12:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What if we combine both independent articles into a new page and just call it "Whiteness (social theory)" or some such name indicating that it is about "whiteness" as commonly understood by many sociologists, social theorists, critical theorists, literary theorists, etc. That way, we could short-circuit this whole problem of having an article merely about the study of whiteness (which is what this current article purports to be). But if this plan doesn't find support, then I still think this article should be subsumed under White privilege (sociology) and not vice versa. If the current "white privilege" article is not referenced any better than this one, I don't think that amounts to the same problem because the idea of "white privilege" is in such common currency that I know there exist plenty of sources that can support what I expect is written therein. However, I don't think that this is the case for "whiteness studies" for the reasons I have already stated. W.M. O'Quinlan 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to merge the two articles under a single heading "Whiteness (social theory)". I disagree with the proposition that "white privilege" is as commonly understood as User: W.M.O'Quinlan would like to think - that is part of the issue about the topic(s) - have there been studies about this aspect of these topics? I doubt it, yet this seems to be a major component of User: W.M.O'Quinlan's merger argument, and in particular against "Whiteness studies" and for "White privilege" - i.e. one person's perspective on their relative ubiquity or obscurity. Its somewhat paradoxical that a person can claim the ubiquity of the former and the obscurity of the latter, given their intimate relationship as topics! Its like saying you see buildings everywhere, but you've never come across any architecture - a wilful attempt to maintain some kind of arbitrary distinction without articulating its foundations. In any event, a single article on Whiteness would be far superior as it could deal with the components of the topic that are currently missing from both topics. Eyedubya 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case you forgot, but this article is entitled (and is thus about) whiteness studies, not "whiteness" per se. That's my argument; "whiteness studies" is obscure—it's a kind of academic program found at roughly 30 universities in the U.S., etc.— and there isn't much literature about the study of whiteness, but there is plenty of literature about "whiteness" itself and the related topic of white privilege (I'm not sure how you can doubt the ubiquity of this topic compared to whiteness studies), though most of it comes from disciplines like sociology, anthropology, critical theory, cultural theory, etc., etc. and not from "whiteness studies" proper—I feel like I've repeated myself for the umpteenth time so I'll try to stop.

Anyway, I'm glad you agree with the idea of creating a new article and hopefully others will weigh in on this. W.M. O'Quinlan 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget at all the title of this page. I think we agree on the main issue, which is that a new page titled "Whiteness (social theory)" needs to be created from the merger of this page, and the "white privilege (sociology)" page. Where we differ is POV regarding general awareness of "Whiteness studies" and "white privilege (sociology)". While there may be a general awareness that white people are privileged, that does not mean that there is a general awareness of the sociological construct of "White Privilege". Most people do not think sociologically, nor use words like "construct" even, and it is dangerous to conflate academic terms with popular meanings and usages. While perhaps many more people study sociology than Whiteness studies, that has little to do with whether or not either should have a page on Wikipedia. The issue of whether WP needs to get into policing academic disciplinary boundaries and tracing genealogies of thought when determining whether a course needs its own page or not seems moot. Boundaries shift, agglomerations of subjects come and go under different banners and course names. In some more traditional universities, there is no such thing as "sociology" on offer, and in others, there is no "English" department - but there may be "cultural studies". If 30 universities offer a program called "Whiteness studies" then that's reasonably notable. Eyedubya 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

W.M. noted earlier, "Furthermore, nothing in the article describing exactly what whiteness studies is or how it is different from these other fields is referenced." Which poses a clear challenge to editors to include such material. Diving in a little bit, I've found a rich history in Fishkin's history of the field. As it turns out, white privilege, while frequently discussed, is not the sole or central object of inquiry. Identity construction, the imaginative and literary aspects of white identity, the role of black cultural and linguistic forms in the construction of white culture are also topics of inquiry. I think you'll find it a RS, please check it out before you conclude WS is simply the study of white privilege.--Carwil (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

oK I read through this entire article, waded through a lot of the "sources" and "theory" only to conclude that it is another attempt to demonize and marginalize a race of People. The text seems to have an absence of recognition of the fundamental equality of all Peoples. While being Humane may not be a requirement for Wikipedia standards, it does speak to the lack of objectivity of the article. There is only one opposing view listed in the article, by a "conservative". I think it is safe to say this is hardly a "liberal" idea, and seems to have a political agenda. It's disturbing that nobody has really jumped in here and set some of these pseudo-intellectualized crazy people straight.BGMNYC (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is alarming that unlike other racial and ethnic studies, this one is created by primarily by people of color, but it's about white people. What do they know about the experience of being Caucasian? This idea feels suspect.DATBUS (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

'The fundamental equality of all Peoples' is not an objective statement of fact but a statement of an ideal. It is objectively true that there is great inquality among Peoples, on any measure you care to use as a comparator. WP has many articles about ideas that in themselves are 'biased' or driven by a particular POV. The only ideas that don't have a POV are ones from 'nowehere', since all ideas have to come from 'somewhere', have a history, but that history doesn't necessarily limit the sphere of application of those ideas to the places and people they came from. The article has many flaws, and one of them is that readers may be left with the impression that the subject of the article is 'White people'. This is a narrow reading of Whiteness and Whiteness studies. It is about the topic of Whiteness more generally - and when understood as a more widely dispersed cultural phenomenon, it will be seen that it can be as much about 'people of color' as those who have no color. For example, the common idoimatic term 'Banana' used by many Asian Americans means a person who is 'yellow on the outside, white on the inside', in ortherwords, someone who looks Asian, but acts and thinks like a 'White' person. In such cases, there is clearly something going on about 'Whiteness' that is not only about White people.Eyedubya (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether you agree with a theory and whether the encyclopedia article is written from a neutral point of view are two different matters. Neither of you have explained why the article violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, nor have you raised any factual inaccuracies in the article. I'm removing the "totallydisputed" tag, which is inappropriate if NPOV and accuracy problems haven't been identified on the Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Only took me about 15 seconds to find a non-NPOV phrase: "Since that racism involves the awarding of various forms of white privilege," It's clear this article is written from a "white = bad" or "whites have it easier" POV. Blackworm (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is unquestionably POV. The whole article is, as is above-noted, written from the ideological position of the discipline it explains.

Racist mathematics link added

Link to similarlrly themed Wikipedia article on 'racist mathematics' added.

Um. Why? Whiteness studies is a field of scholarship on the university level, anti-racist mathematics is a pedagogical method at the primary and secondary education levels. Although they both concern race, I don't really see a strong connection between the two - at least, not so strong that the articles should link to each other. I could concieve of an overarching article called, say, Race in education that might mention both. Snowspinner 15:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your initiating a dialogue, rather than hastily removing the link. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with you and think the link is entirely appropriate. I don't see the fact that Whiteness studies is at present primarily (or entirely) a university level phenomenon as particularly relevant (its not that long ago that multiculturalism was similarly limited to the universities). More importantly however, one of the central tenets of Whitness studies is the notion that whites are often blind to the 'white' aspects of things they see as race neutral but people of color see as 'white'. I think racist mathematics is a perfect example of this. I say leave it for now, perhaps we can agree to replace it with a more appropriate link later. Aside from this, I like your suggestion about a new article dealing with race in education - such an article might prove an excellent context for a deeper presentation of these issues, and make for a nice complimentary link to both the 'Whiteness studies' page and the 'Racist mathematics' page.WikipediaEditor 06:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Black people can't learn math? What rascist/postmodernist rubbish. There are many famous black mathematicians. How can numerals be racist?

To above: please to mention any examples of "famous black mathematicians". Lol. 24.61.40.27 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User 24.61.40.27, going by this and your other writings on Wikipedia, you are so blatantly racist it is frightening. You are a blight on humanity. RyokoMocha (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"White" architecture

The final paragraph is bizarre, and more than a bit extravagant in its historical and exegetical claims- was there some vogue of non-European/non-white design prior to Modernism ?

Moreover, is the content of this part of the article the concensus among art historians ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.36.158 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The section sounds like pure BS. It seems to me that it is based off the musings of one person (I. Woodcock) rather than a mainstream school of thought, so it should not be presented as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.55.209 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Whiteness studies: pseudoscience or anti-liberal/anti-modernist plot?

This article seems to be about another crack pot Postmodernist theory. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jmm6f488 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong.

Couldn't both of you try to explain why you think this? Aaker 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is insane. Hateful rhetoric designed to marginalize and dismiss the humanity of an entire race of people, motivated by that age-old payback mentality that is finding it's way out of the hood.BGMNYC (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The world isn't that simple. It's about recognising the way the world is and stop living under the delusion that being white doesn't mean that you have privileges. You do. I do. I got my job easier, I don't feel superficially judged, I've never experienced racial abuse, and I've never not felt uncomfortable with who I am in society. But that's because I'm surrounded by class (middle), gender (male) and racial (white majority in UK) privileges. These privileges are socially constructed and unfair. Wouldn't you agree?

If you want to criticise something, please try to understand it first.

You're wrong. Hateful rhetoric? Yet some of the leading minds in the field would ordinarily be classified as "white". These few have taken on the challenge of understanding this "condition" called whiteness, examining the privilege (or conversely the demonization) that has arisen from it. It's not "crackpot", but rather very well researched, and only "post-modernist" in the sense that it requires very critical analysis. Godheval (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do some visiting around McDowell County, West Virginia or Hancock County, Tennessee some time and try telling those folks about how much white privilege is working for them.74.47.29.141 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I echo the sentiment that it is hateful political rhetoric - nothing short of contemptuous. But the article isn't a place for point of view editing. Criticism of the theory can be included if some other reliable sources have already written it. The criticism section could stand to be enhanced - the article seems to lack neutrality and reads much like an endorsement of the course of study. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

White privelage/poverty

From the White Privelage section of the article:

• "Writers such as Peggy McIntosh have sought to enumerate the social, political and cultural advantages accorded to whites in American society. They argue that these advantages seem invisible to most whites, but obvious to others. They often call for whites to acknowledge, renounce or betray these privileges by using them against racism.

• Critics counter that most persons living in poverty in the U.S. are white [3] and that the only group with a growing poverty rate are likewise non-hispanic whites [4]"

Poverty has nothing to do with racism. The rich and the poor of any race are capable of it. I'm thinking that "critics" (first word, last sentence) is a person here who is expressing their disagreement about race on wikipedia by putting a subtle reference to poverty. The notion of white people being more privelaged than black people may in fact be stronger among the poor white people, who are bitter. Therefore, I don't think it's all too appropriate to be counter-arguing the fact that white people oftentimes somehow think they are granted higher privelages than other races, by pointing out how poor some might be, or what "critics" say. This article aims to diminish white ignorance, not justify it.

I'm white btw, nice to meet you

I opt to take that one little sentence down, until you can expound upon why not.

i'm not going to insult your intelligence by giving sources but i'm sure you know that slavery in the USA was a system of ascribing terminal poverty to people based on race and i'm sure you know that in the USA people are allowed to inherit their parent's and families' wealth. in that case how is it illogical to say that there is a clear connection between the poverty experienced by "black" people in america today and their "race" Amirman 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How stupid are you? Quote from your own user page: "This user is of Iranian ancestry." It's funny how all this anti-white racists always claim to be white themselsfes to avoid being called what they are: Nothing but racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.193.47 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this is late, but Iranians think of themselves as white. Lots of people who are identified as colored in the USA are considered white elsewhere. Mulattoes are generally considered white in Brazil, for example. For many Latin Americans, coming to the USA means that their identity or self-image is turned upside down. They used to be white. Now they are not. The American "one-drop rule" may have something to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations

The lead of this article concerns me with uncited references to "Jewish" leaders and a specific intent to demoralize white people, etc. This needs to be rephrased or citations found. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism, is a self-proclaimed extreme leftist, with a confirmed Jewish dog in the fight, covering up the undisputed cultural Marxist and Frankfurt School origins and focus of Critical Race Theory (which so-called "Whiteness studies" is a subsection of). Specifically he is attempting to cover up its anti-European, racist focus. For instance Noel Ignatiev, a Jewish Marxist extremist and one of the most prominent figures in this area of pseudo-studies says this of white people; "The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists." Malik Shabazz is simply trying to cover-up for a co-racialist, fellow Marxist and fellow ethnic European hater (as the Malcolm X image on his profile confirms). - 92.17.37.223 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to include criticisms of Ignatiev and the "anti-European, racist focus" with mainstream sources and citations in the appropriate section.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you wearing your tin-foil hat? I think you forgot to mention The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Trilateral Commission.

If you do add anything to the article, be sure to follow our neutral point of view and verifiability policies or it will continue to be removed as vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't attempted to address any of the points, just blurted out some ad hominem attacks. Neutral point of view, doesn't mean "Jewish Marxist, anti-European point of view". Lets see you actually attempt to address the specific points raised first; specifically what "Whiteness studies"/Critical Race Theory is a branch of and how it is derived from the Frankfurt School. Obviously you think you WP:OWN this article looking at its history. A person with a black-supremacist username, who is here to cover up quotes by genocide baiting Jewish extremists such as Noel Ignatiev is clearly the partisan and the vandal here. - 92.17.37.223 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If Whiteness Studies is specifically a branch of of the Frankfurt School, then it should not be a problem to find a mainstream source that supports the connection.

Certainly Noel Ignatiev could be considered an extremist. If you have sourced material that connects him to this article, feel free to include it. Also, if there has been mainstream or academic criticism of Peggy McIntosh or her essay, feel free to include that at the end of her paragraph.

Consider also the criticism section at the end of the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays, but a collection of published information. If there has been mainstream, published criticism of "whiteness studies", this would be a good place to include it.--Knulclunk (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If Whiteness Studies is not a pecifically a branch of of the Frankfurt School, then it should not be a problem to find a nonmainstream non political correct establishment source that supports the connection.

"Certainly Noel Ignatiev could be considered an extremist. "then im glad you admit you are wrong and that he is a extremist. unless you could however find evidence or a source and sourced material that contradicts that he is not an extremist do so, if not he should be considered one and a vandalist for disrupting wikipedia. Also, if there has been non-mainstream and non establishment non-schooled and instead academic proof of Peggy McIntosh isnt unreliable or corrupt on any of her her essay, feel free to include that at the end of her paragraph.

Consider also the criticism section at the end of the article. Remember, Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays, but a collection of published information. If there has been non-mainstream,non-establishment or in other words reliable sources [RS] published debate of "whiteness studies" and about the whole "white privilege conspiracy theory" that you in your tinfoilhat believes, this would be a good place to include it.77.53.83.148 (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted the omissions of Italians

Hi all, as you can see in the history I have again included the paragraph that included Italians in the "white ethnics" reference. This article represents an Anglo-saxon view on "whiteness" that was/is popular in the US, and with that in mind refering Polish and Portuguese and ommiting Italians is bizarre since the last have had a much higher impact to to their number. Bear in mind that I'm Portuguese (from Portugal) and so I find all this concepts rather amusing and alien, since around here "white" is more or less equivalent with Europid/Caucasoid/European. Nonetheless, since we must use an Anglo-saxon perspective which is a remnant of the "Black Legend" I think that the subtil deletion of the references to Italians has been made by an overzealous italian that didn't what to see it mentioned. This doesn't mean that I have a personal opinion in line with their inclusion. But I'm not going to remove the reference to Portuguese and leave Polish in there just for a polish wikipedian to delete it latter... Also, Spaniards should probably be included since part of the concept is a reaction to the antagonism between anglo-saxon USA and Iberian Spain that lead to the Black Legend (there is a great book on the subject). I hope I'm being clear in my reasoning here... Fred (--89.26.145.115 21:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, in certain groups and areas, Italians are still not considered "white." As an Italian with dark skin (from an Italian neighborhood wih mostly dark and/or olive skinned Italian friends) I know that I have been considered as non-white on more occasions than I can count. -- 8 November 2006

I am in agreement with the later post. I, being of a substantial amount of Sicillian-Italian ethnicity, do not see myself as being "white" or being accepted as such most of the time. INO Exodus 13:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Read "White On Arrival" by Thomas A. Guglielmo (A Popular "Whiteness Studies" title). Italians have always been classified as 'white'. As an Italian-American myself, I am aware that Italian immigrants were not always accepted warmly on arrival. However, to deny that the experience of Italian-Americans in the US has been overwhelmingly one of success and acceptance would be revisionist and innacurate. Moreover, how exactly would one know they were being perceived as 'non-white'? How would this be communicated? The only plausible scenario I can imagine would be one in which a swarthy Italian were taken for 'Hispanic' or Middle Eastern (by one ignorant of the fact that neither group has historically been regarded as 'non-white', or that 'Hispanics' who are not mixed with Native American or Africans are and have always been classified as white). There are many examples that can be cited from history that put the lie to the notion that Italians were ever widely regarded as something other than white/caucasian. For instance, the notoriously racist state of Mississippi elected a swarthy Italian-American (Andrew Longino) as governor way back in 1900-1904, and a man named Fiorello LaGuardia was elected mayor of America'a largest city way back in the 1930s, when most Italians were still relative newcomers to the land. There was an Italian-American signer of the Declaration of Independence; would a 'non-white' be granted this privelege? Heck, the country is named for an Italian. None of this would be possible if Italians were regarded as non-whites. Sure, we could cherry pick incidents of Nordic or Anglo bigots insulting Italians by saying they aren't white, but the suggestion that this was ever the general consensus in America or Europe is revisionist. It'd be like trying to argue that whites once believed black Africans to be a species of dog because, after all, there are doubtless many cases which can be cited in which a bigot characterized blacks as dogs. Whiteness Studies advocates have clearly stated their goal as 'deconstructing' (ie. getting rid of) the concept of a 'white race'. They have an agenda, and as often the case with postmodernist/poststructuralist ideas, it involves denying objective reality. JosephWikipeditor 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, I agree with everything you said :). But this isn't about the actual truth, in a way. It's about perception, even if a minority perception, and cultural constructs. What you said would be applied to any of the other groups mentioned. E.g. in the old British Police identification system most people from Southern Europe are "Dark Europeans" as opposed to "White Europeans". The anglo-saxons in particular have been very adept at reserving the term "white" for them and no others, and the US - and Australia - inherits that paranoia and distortion (see the "index of Negriscence" where a XIX english writer basically says that the celtic home nations are basically africans, or many other examples - in the US there's a peculiar document about nobody elese in Europe being white apart from anglo-saxons, they are all "tawny"). Again, it's not a matter of agreeing (personally it makes me laugh to even talk about this subject, such is the idiocy of the concept. I also believe it stems for a "catch up" mecanism due to the Southern roots of Europa, civilizationaly-wise, but that's another matter). This is more related to socio-economic supremacy and historical tides then actual genetics by the way. I also agree with you in that, putting this apart, an attempt to get rid of the "white race" by saying everything is relative. Spike Lee, for example, thrives in this, never letting an opportunity pass without having a go at Italians in particular. To sum it up I also agree that this isn't about a widely held view, it's a minority view that uses this "distinction" more as a way to be offensive than anything else (with Italians prompted by immigration rivalries, Iberians by the "Black Legend", etc). I hope you understand my position in this. Cheers, --Bellum sine bello 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely incorrect. There is no evidence William Paca or any other signer of the Declaration of Independence was Italian. And the CONTINENT was named after an Italian... almost 300 years before the founding of the United States. It's not like the Protestant Anglo-Saxon founding fathers wanted to name their country after a Catholic Italian, they were just 300 years too late to give it another name. 199.102.172.162 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a citation regarding Darwins beliefs, In his book the Dissent he writes that there are differences in the mental capabilites of different races so I'm not sure what is written is a correct portrayal of his views on race.

Appropriateness of links

I'm not certain about the appropriateness of the National Review link. I'm skeptical to begin of a non-peer reviewed partisan press article being used to refute an academic concept (It seems to me akin to using a Jack Chick tract to refute evolution), but I think this article is particularly bad. Referring to people in whiteness studies as "self-flagellating dipsticks" seems to me more hysterical than meaningful - I have a real problem at least, presenting it as a source on the same level as academic books. Surely there are some academic and peer reviewed critiques we could link? Instead of the National Review, which just doesn't seem notable as an academic humanities publication.

Reasonable enough - I will provide links to a more scholarly source when I have the chance. You can remove the National Review and Front Page links. WikipediaEditor 12:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• You say that as if being a self-flagellating dipstick were a bad thing... :-) Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You're questioning use of National Review as "partisan" yet don't see a problem with the politically biased nature of nearly every other publication used to source this disturbingly racist "academic" idea? Please do explain. I can't wait. EyePhoenix (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

{{NPOV section}} tag

@Acone: There doesn't appear to be any recent discussion about the 'neutrality' of this article. Can you explain why you added the {{NPOV section}} tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarble (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Jarble, your ping won't have worked, as you forgot to sign your comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Acone and Cordless Larry: I hope it'll work this time, then.Jarble (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Whiteness outside colonial nations and the anglosphere

Hello! I noticed that the article deals mostly with North/South America and the anglosphere and the sources are from there too. Does this field of studies exist outside former colonial nations and the anglosphere? Does it study whiteness outside former colonial nations, e.g. continental Europe or China? If yes, shouldn't this be specified? I'd expect continental Europe to view races quite differently that the US, not just because of anti-nazi stances thus totally against the existence of the racial classification, but also because it is unlikely most Europeans would distinguish white and hispanic people as US society tends to do, especially outside the Northernmost Europe.--Nickanc (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whiteness studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428181555/http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au//dialogue/vol-1-2-4.pdf to http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/dialogue/vol-1-2-4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Candidate For Deletion/Merger

"Whiteness studies" is not a legitimate academic discipline and does not deserve to be labeled on Wikipedia as such. It has no justifiable academic following and is simply a number of claims made by radical individuals, unsubstantiated by any proof.

I therefore propose that this article be either deleted entirely as a series of unverifiable claims OR be merged with "Race Traitor" or the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.195.47 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite your opinion to the contrary, Whiteness studies is considered a legitimate academic discipline. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But if you have reliable sources (WP:RS) that suggest Whiteness studies is not or should not be a legitimate academic discipline, you can certainly add them.--Knulclunk (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Whiteness studies is a legitimate academic discipline. The sheer volume of work that you find when you go to any of the journal databases about this field I think is enough proof to consider it a discipline. Just wanted to also share a reference that attests to the importance of "Whiteness studies":

In antebellum America, "drapetomania" was likewise considered a legitimate area of study. We now know better, which we should when dealing with bogus concepts like "whiteness," especially as its proponents no doubt deny that there is any genetic component to such things as IQ (i.e. the only truly heritable trait is malevolence, possessed by white people). Incredible to see how human bigotry doesn't vanish - it just changes its spots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.236.138 (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The Matter of Whiteness: Or, Why Whiteness Studies Is Important to Rhetoric and Composition Studies/ Authors: Tammie M. Kennedy, Joyce Irene Middleton and Krista Ratcliffe/ Journal information: Rhetoric Review , Vol. 24, No. 4 (2005), pp. 359-373. One can find this article on JSTOR.Scifilover386 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Part about the Netherlands

The part about the Netherlands (Gloria Wekker) is really far off any conventional opinion about the Netherlands.

The Netherlands are a country and is not a 'post-colonial metropole'. Also there is still a large majority of ethnic Dutch people and they are most certainly not considered a minority (in their own country).

Gloria Wekker resides to the utmost left of the political spectrum and her opinion about the Netherlands is very unbalanced.

can we archive this discussion?

None of these threads are currently active or relevant to the current state of the article. I think it would clean things up for any new topics if we just archive the whole discussion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to archive the two unsigned comments? IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If you think it's important, you could archive them manually. There are instructions here. Wham2001 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

please stop editing to refer to white privilege as a myth

it is a sociological term, and doesn't meet the criteria to be referred to as a 'myth.' even if you disagree and don't think it exists, that doesn't qualify it as a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:3740:7E:184:2623:AE00:7224 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

where is the criticism in the lede

Whiteness studies is heavily criticized as being just a bunch of racist bigotry, not unlike anti-semitisam of nazis and such — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, § Criticisms cites a number of critics of the field, but no secondary or tertiary sources analyzing the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint (and none at all comparing it to Nazism). Hence these criticisms would be unduly weighted in the lead. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The article ignores the crucial issue of shifting definitions of whiteness

For decades in the US, Italians , Greeks , Irish and others were not considered 'white'. Genetically, [ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans/ whites in the south] are on average 0.1% African (more than one drop) and African-Americans are 25% white. There is a lot of room for shifting definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.72.214 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No, the argument that European immigrants weren't considered "white" in US history is controversial in the Academy. I can't speak for those other groups, but I've read the scholarship in Irish-American studies and the Roediger/Ignatiev hypothesis (ie that the racial position of Irish immigrants shifted) is regarded as nonsense by most of these historians. Read this review by Kevin Kenny [1]. About halfway through he devotes 2 -3 pages to 'white studies' and explains why most of his colleagues find these arguments unpersuasive. The Columbia Guide to Irish American History devotes an entire chapter to "Irish Americans and race" (p. 215 [2] ) and similarly describes white theories as ahistorical (ie Ignatiev's claim that Irish immigrants acted racist to 'become white' is wrong - antiblack racism among Irish immigrants intensified anti-Irish prejudice in the antebellum Northeast, not the other way around).

Tread carefully here. In an age when stories of "white suffering" and victimisation are central to white supremacist ideologies, we need to take extra care in presenting this material as accurately and neutrally as possible. Content sourced to 'white studies' that says European immigrants weren't initially classified as 'white' should be balanced with an equal number of references that dispute this (and these are easy to find [3]). Content that says Irish immigrants weren't "white on arrival" should be presented with the caveat that this is the opinion of 'white studies' scholars, who are mostly labour historians, and not conventional historians who specialise in Irish-American studies, who don't find this method of analysis credible.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)