Get Whitey

The Washington Post details something called "whiteness studies," a branch of study dedicated to making impressionable white college kids feel guilty, uncomfortable, and question the legitimacy of other academic disciplines.

I see a bright future for it.

Comments

[Dakota Loomis]

Howard Winant, a white professor of sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara and a strong proponent of whiteness studies: "It's a great advance to start looking at whiteness as a group."

My brain hurts. Excuse me, my white brain hurts. But, wait, there's more.

Winnie Chen, 22, the daughter of Chinese immigrants:
She tried to discuss race with a white friend once, she said, but he felt ambushed.

"[My friend] said I was pulling a Pearl Harbor on him," she said. "It is so difficult for them to think there is another lens. He talked about Irish oppression. I asked, 'Have you ever considered why you're no longer oppressed here when Asians, blacks and Hispanics still are?'"

Okay, granted, her friend is funny, but someone please show me statistics on Asian oppression compared to black and Hispanic oppression.

Finally, we have the mandatory bashing of Thomas Jefferson. I'm not going to sit here and apologize for Jeffersob, but this is the most ignorant, manipulated statement I've ever seen:

"Jefferson believed in majority rule, but what majority was he in?" said historian James O. Horton of George Washington University. "He wasn't in the majority in terms of gender. He wasn't in the majority in terms of class. The only majority he was in was race."

Well, when you put it that way... Jefferson's political beliefs and decisions all rested upon his whiteness (euphemism for evilness) and how to best keep black people down.

Scholarship at it's finest. I weep for GW undergrad students. WEEP.

[Dusky]

Remember when it was racist to use the term "colored"? And now it's perfectly acceptable to use "of color" which is the same damn thing!

[Peter]

"The exercise, which recently involved Cairns and her classmates in a course at the University of Massachusetts, had two simple rules: When the moderator read a statement that applied to you, you stepped forward; if it didn't, you stepped back. After the moderator asked if you were certain you could get a bank loan whenever you wanted, Cairns thought, "Oh my God, here we go again," and took yet another step forward. "

Why do I get the feeling that Ms. Cairns perception of racial preferences is strongly informed by that old Eddie Murphy sketch from Saturday Night Live, where he dresses up in white face and goes to a bank? Honestly, what do college students know about their eligibility for bank loans? Most get Direct Loans---or rather their parents do. And if they didn't get a loan, whether from the government or a bank, they probably wouldn't be in that class with the opportunity to take a step forward.

Honestly, I hope one of the other questions in this game was: "When you get on the bus, do you expect there to be music and dancing, with a waitress serving you drinks?"

[Anonymous]

As a freckly redhead, I refer to myself as a person of color and it's generally not well-received even after I point out how much more colorful I am.

[Anonymous]

dont worry when summer vacation ends all these racists will go away and back to skool

[Anonymous]

"After the moderator asked if you were certain you could get a bank loan whenever you wanted, Cairns thought, "Oh my God, here we go again," and took yet another step forward. "

Yeah, I'm always ashamed of myself whenever I get a bank loan, too!

[joe]

Brad S - I trust your detached skepticism towards political activism extends to wealthy people with ties to Wall Street arguing for dividend tax cuts.

JDM,

I don't believe Bush is being cynical. I think he really, in his considered, prayed over opinion, believes the Iraq War and Patriot Act were really, really good ideas - the kind of actions he was chosen by history and God to take. It's not the hypocrites that scare me - it's the true believers.

[Brad S]

Joe - absolutely, just as it extends to poor people with no ties to Wall Street for arguing against the same dividend tax cuts.

[joe]

Brad - You think poor people with no ties to Wall Street are even part of the debate?

[WS]

I used to play a little game in my Women's Studies class to help keep me sane. The excercise was to keep count of how many different categories of 'White Devil' I fell into. By the end of the semester I learned I was evil because I was:

1) White
2) Straight
3) Jewish
4) Male
5) Lived in the West End of Richmond, VA
6) Had a father who was a research MD
7) Grew up as an army brat

To the professor's credit I did get an 'A' in the class, even after I pointed out to her that I entered the semester as a liberal and by the end I was all of the sudden agreeing with everything that came out of my right-wing grandfather's mouth. I told her I wanted my youth back, dammit.

[Brad S]

Joe - in general, here's my argument. Generally, rich people will favor tax cuts because it benefits them. Generally, poor people will oppose tax cuts because it hurts them. Of course these are blanket statements, so there will be exceptions. But in general, both act largely based on their self-interests, as one would expect rational political entities to do.

[joe]

Now you're writing about "rational political entities" seeking the best interest of their constituents. This is different from political hustlers exploiting a political issue to puff themselves up, which is the original charge you hurled at the professors.

[Warren]

"David Horowitz, a conservative social critic who is white..."
First if was the Irish, now it's the Jews, next it will probably be the Latinos. Nothing burns my fritters like some half-breed claiming to be white.

[Brad S]

Actually, I'm talking about "rational political entities" taking a political stance that benefits them personally. The professor wants racism to remain a crucial issue in society so that his class on African-American studies remains vital - it benefits his employment situation. Rich people with ties to Wall Street want the dividend tax reduced because it benefits them personally. Poor people with no ties to Wall Street do not want the dividend tax reduced because a reduction would harm them personally. The issue in all cases is personal interests.

[Anonymous]

My opinion is that poor people generally dislike tax cuts because they help rich people. It's jealousy more than common sense. "Yer only givin' po' ol' me $200 but Bill Gates gets $20 mil. 'T'ain't fair!"

The only people who dislike tax cuts are people who are sucking on the tax teat in the first place, rich or poor. And even then, most of the sucklings are placated as long as the teat is supported with deficit spending. If we could tax all foreigners living abroad, we would.

[Anonymous]

Many of these teat suckers are university professors, btw.

[Anonymous]

it's because women are sexually confused:

A new study confirms what researchers have suspected for some time -- women may prefer to date one gender or the other, but they get sexually aroused by both.

[Anonymous]

"Winnie Chen, 22, the daughter of Chinese immigrants, wakes up every morning and says to herself: Oh woe is me! I'm Chinese-American! Thank Buddah there's a bevy of white college professors who also suffer from low self-esteem. At least THEY have some empathy."

[Anonymous]

Remember: Two Wongs make it white! :E

[amr]

WS:
I agree. There's nothing to make you second-guess feminism like a Women's Studies class. I was one class away from a WS minor in college before I gave it up because I stopped believing in it. I was just too inherently libertarian to believe everything that was supposedly a grievance.

I took a "queer studies" course in there too, and that really soured me on the very pro-gay viewpoint I had. By the time the class was over I was convinced that it really is all about sex. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan and others for helping me back off that. Now when people ask my politics I say "pro-gay Republican" so make it short and mostly accurate.

amr

[joe]

The number of people around here who are scarred by having had some obnoxious professors makes it impossible to have an interesting conversation about certain issues. Instead of talking about feminism and women's changing roles, I read sob stories about wimminz studeez professors. Instead of discussions about how racism effects America, you all open up about this one black girl who sat next to you in Lit Crit.

It's really too bad.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, why talk about actual events when you can wax poetic about generalities.

[Anonymous]

yes, can we get back to discussing how the US is the most racist and sexist place on earth?

[tonio-k]

what's wrong with being sexy?
people get weirded out when talking about race. in order to get to that colourblind society, we do need an open and direct discussion. anon, since youre obviously the informed, intelligent and mature member of this thread, go ahead. hold forth.

[JDM]

I don't want to let this thread go by without pointing out that the poor oppose dividend tax cuts and the like because they *believe* it's in their interest, not because it actually benefits them.

"It's not the hypocrites that scare me - it's the true believers."

Perhaps that's why you don't worry about the white studies professors. It is one thing to say a charge can be leveled against anyone, it is quite another to refute it.

[SM]

This board is full of guys who took women's studies ?

[Plutarck]

Race, as far as I use the term, is almost entirely appearance and physical feature based. Dark skin, ridges over the brow, typically a large/broad nose, largish lips, etc - black, or simply "of negroid decent". Rounded face, no ridges over the brow, usually a staight flat face, etc - of mongoloid decent, particularly refering to american indians, and as such the ancestry of central and south america. Etc, etc, etc.

Race OBVIOUSLY exists, at least as far as appearance goes - and yes, no one is "pure" anything anymore, and even the concept of racial purity often borderlines incoherant. But regardless, one needs only look around in a croud to pick out race-as-appearance, and the more "skilled" can pick out greater details, such as greco-roman features, etc. But that is about all its good for.

In other words, I treat race in the same way as an anthropologist would, with the addition of using it as a statistically-useful sort of way of predicting beliefs, inclinations, desires, and behaviors (in a purely intuitive way - intectually I've little use for it).

[Holly]

QUOTE: ?A new study confirms what researchers have suspected for some time -- women may prefer to date one gender or the other, but they get sexually aroused by both.?

If men could give birth, and you (a male) came out of a male, you'd be sexually aroused by both genders, too.

That's not "confusion," it's the "constitution" (of nature.)

BTW, why do you suppose breasts arouse you sexually?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: "Remember when it was racist to use the term "colored"? And now it's perfectly acceptable to use "of color" which is the same damn thing!"

RESPONSE: Remember when it was racist to use the term "negro"? And now it's perfectly acceptable to use "black" which is the same damn thing, in Spanish!

[Tiger Forest]

Well now! After having plodded through this entire thread, who comes along, but wise old Plutarck ? saying the exact same things I have been thinking all along the way.

That?s really all it is, isn?t it, Pluto? It?s PACKAGING! This world is replete with people with different physical features, yet we keep conflating race and culture. We tend to confuse skin color (the packaging) with cultural identity.

To ?act black" or to ?act white"? What does that really mean? Is race a personality construct?

Someone may not like something about another individual?s behavior, or the way she smells, or the way he carries himself. But that someone can be of any skin color. Conduct may be culturally influenced, or it may not; but it doesn?t necessarily emanate from being Mongoloid, Negroid, or Caucasoid.

As Neal Boortz would have it, he says, ?I?m not a racist; I?m a culturalist.? (He?s got a point.)

And as was so astutely observed earlier, ?Assimilation into another culture does not necessarily require losing one?s cultural identity," although it frequently does happen ? especially in a ?melting pot? like the U.S.

Mayhaps a good idea if we all took more courses in anthropology and dropped all those Marxist-influenced studies, hmm?

[Anonymous]

I'd be all for white studies if it worked the way black studies did when I was in college - just show up to class, raise your hand to complain & you get an A. A white guy could get a B if he blamed everything on white europeans.

[amr]

Not quite sure I understand the concept of "whiteness studies." The says that its point is to "dismantle race" calling the concept "was created by a rich white European and American elite." (I would be interested in seeing where such studies went, sounds less likely to be "grievance studies".) But then it points out that whites don't see themselves as racial as if they should. So is race a construct we should leave behind or something that whites should finally understand they are a part of?

Me? I see myself as ethnic, not racial. A Kraut married to a Polack. Maybe we'll tell our kids they're "Prussian."

[Brad S]

I agree with the first comment. I had a women's studies course when I was in college. The grading scale was something like this:

If you're a woman, and blame every problem you have on oppressive phallocratic society, you get an A.

If you're a woman, and don't blame every problem you have on oppressive phallocentric society, you get an A-.

If you're a man, you get a B.

[joe]

White is an arbitrary category whose definition has changed considerably. Irish people were once considered non-white, complete with newspaper cartoons depicting them with simian features. This, despite the fact that we burst into flame if exposed to direct sunlight. Whiteness, unlike blackness or Latin-o-uh-icity is not something that people identify with or are aware of, despite their membership in the group being as important in their lives as membership in any racial minority. The history of this concept and the way it has influenced our society is well worth studying.

[Anonymous]

"If one lives in a country where racism is held valid and practiced in all ways of life eventually, no matter whether one is a racist or a victim, one comes to feel the absurdity of life....Racism generated from whites is first of all absurd. Racism creates absurdity among blacks as a defense mechanism."
chester himes

We're slowly but surely copulating this absurdity away. I have "white" nieces & nephews who act "black" and "black" nieces & nephews who act "white." My "black" nephews are culturally & economically advantaged, the "white" ones disadvantaged.

PS - Read Chester Himes if you haven't - he's amazing.

[Anonymous]

When I was in school, I had to attend two whiteness studies classes if you can believe that.
History 101, and English 101.

[Madog]

I don't know why they're acting like it's a big secret that whitenness was a way to promote privilege historicly. Pretty much every immigrant from a European nation outside of England, Germany, and France were discriminated against at some point until it was decided they were white - usually when they lost most of their cultural identity.

I don't see a big sinister conspiracy like they do either. For centuries most Europeans saw themselves as part of Christiandom, as the power of the church and religion wained, the concept of race began to fill the void.

[Madog]

Don't be so hard on Women's Studies programs, it's the bias of the professors that makes them good or bad.

I took a Women's history course and got an A without blaming men. In fact, I blamed women for most of their problems - the conservative and privileged women in most countries liked things just the way they were.

[Brad S]

Here's my issue with racial studies courses: if we really do want to live in a society without racism (which I think virtually all of us do), then why do we insist on having these courses that continue to promote the idea of race as some sort of personality construct? The whole idea of a racial studies course is "you are black, therefore you are (fill in the blank)." Or "you are white, therefore you are (fill in the blank)." Why can't we all just say "you are a human being, therefore you are (fill in the blank)."...?

[Anonymous]

Only in America could we be so full of ourselves as to think we invented castes.

[fredH]

Madog:

Don't exempt the Germans from European groups that were discriminated against. Read some of the stuff that was written about and done to German-Americans during WWI. Also about the beer riots in Chicago in the 1850s.

Brad S.:

You've hit the nail on the head. We'll never get beyond race if we keep harping on it.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I can believe it: You're in AMERICA, moron! If you had been in Africa, you'd have had to attend two blackness studies classes: Zulu History 101 perhaps, and Nagu-Nagu 101 -- or whatever language it is they speak over there.

[david f]

hey Maddog, hey all! happy friday!

Maddog, when you comment about the decline of the "christian vs. non-christian" and the "white vs non white" there are two events i can think of that may have contributed to that change: the voyages of discovery and the reformation. All of a sudden, we have an "us and them" right in the middle of christianity. and then there's a whole world of people with different physical features. a whole new "them"!. (this was probably used by new immigrants in the us against the slave/former slave population as well -- we're not "them", at least)

but assimilation into a new culture does not necessarily require "[losing] their cultural identity".

that one i've a bit of trouble with. and please forgive me for any misunderstandings (this was a phrase i heard often in grad school when students or profs attempted to show the entire US culture and history to be bullshit and terrible and inferior to the postmodern Post WWII europeans)...

i live in the germantown area of chicago. there are virgina postrel-style adaptations of the original german culture to fit into how things work here. ditto in andersonville/swedentown a little north of here.

being fluent in the presteige version of the language is a major component of being a part of the culture as an "us". for many northern europeans, this task was relatively easy: ours is basically a germanic language, too.

then we have the irish, as noted. again, in chicago, there's a huge irish population. and even though the irish spoke the language, it wasn't the presteige version, but St Patrick's day etc. are and have been big celebrations. and the city's first family has some sort of irish blood.

little italy is celebrated, chinatown, too. we have a patchwork of elements of different cultures strewn across the major metropolitan areas. it would be impossible for someone to keep all aspects of culture when living elsewhere. the language alone would be more or less frozen in the vernacular of the last moments in the "old country". slang terms would come and go without the emmigre's knowledge of it.

when was your Women's studies class? was it a course requirement to use the word "womyn", too?

happy friday and cheers,
drf

[Morpheus]

No, not full of ourselves, full of self-loathing. The "liberal intellectuals" are dead set on blaming Western European culture for all the evils of the world. They conveniently forget that slavery dates to before the Egyptian empire and that the Mongols and Chinese practiced racial discrimination. It's disgusting, that's what it is, and it's distressing that it's working. And this is, yet another, reason why, if I am ever in the position of raising a child, they will not be going to public schools.

[joe]

"You've hit the nail on the head. We'll never get beyond race if we keep harping on it."

We don't solve problems by sticking out heads in teh sand and pretending they're not there. This country has a racism problem. We need to be aware that it exists, and of the way it manifests itself, if we're ever going to get past it.

[Anonymous]

One thing you'll never hear about in Black Studies is that white Europeans were the ones who finally had the notion to outlaw slavery & they had to fight to convince black Africans to end the practice since it was so economically important to African rulers.

[dude]

Brad S - keeping the problem alive? The professors and black leaders* and racial bureaucrats and lawyers and politicians and guilty white liberals, a whole industry at this point, is dependant upon the concept of race. They don't want it to go away, despite all the protestations to the contrary. They get money and jobs and votes and celebrity off the whole thing.

* I've always found this concept peculiarly insulting. Do black people have some special need to be lead?

[Brad S]

dude - I suppose you're right. There is a set of people (many of whom you mentioned) with a vested interest in keeping the construct of racial identity (and hence, racism) alive.

[joe]

That's a bs charge, Brad and dude. Does Grover Norquist have an interest in keeping income taxes high, so he can have a career? Did Ronald Reagan have an interest in keeping the Soviet Union strong and together?

You've thrown out a meaningless insult that can apply to anyone who takes a position on any political issue.

[dude]

Race is bunk. It doesn't exist. It's a social construct. What makes one person white and another person black? As was mentioned above at one point the irish weren't really considered "white" . . . there used to be the "one drop" rule: one drop of black in you and you were black. There were even racial categories we don't use anymore: quadroons (1/4 black), octaroons (1/8). . . (I swear I'm not making that up).

But it's bunk and will vanish as a concept at some point. "We're slowly but surely copulating this absurdity away." Well said. Some people don't want it to go away though.

(I don't think anyone would say taxes and the USSR didn't exist).

[The Mountain Goat]

In corporate america, we have diversity training. Sometimes this is designed only to engender white guilt. I enjoy chewing up these trainers and dismantling all their arguments in full view of fellow employees.

There is no reason to feel guilt for being born lucky. Some have more brains, some have more skill, some can run faster or bowl better, we are all different. I have more of some things, and less of others. I'm quite superior in some areas, and quite inferior in others. But I assume no guilt for the way I was born.

Thomas Sowell has a trilogy where he points out we conflate race and culture. We could probably better discuss these issues if we replaced the word race with tribe. Tribalism existed long before white europeans did.

Jared Taylor (can't read his books!) point to this oppression, and asks how you could possibly oppress someone today, and what you could do to stop oppressing them. (I dunno, not hold the door?) If a segment of the population is waiting for us to stop doing what we are not doing, there's going to be a long wait.

[joe]

The fact that something is socially constructed doesn't mean it's not real. We are social animals.

And goat? Why exactly did you feel the need to write "There is no reason to feel guilt for being born lucky. Some have more brains, some have more skill, some can run faster or bowl better, we are all different. I have more of some things, and less of others. I'm quite superior in some areas, and quite inferior in others. But I assume no guilt for the way I was born."

...in a thread about race? Is there something about more brains, more skill, etc. that you think is relevant to the discussion of race relations?

[david f]

hey Joe,

in college, the "born lucky" syndrome was used to create white guilt. and those types of examples (intelligence, physical prowess, and other abilities) were used in diatribes about race, too. for the hamilton college of the late 80s crowd, "democracy" and "freedom" meant positive rights and guarentee of outcomes. being born lucky, including on intellectual levels but especially on financial levels, meant having to apologize constantly for the perceived behavior of others of that ilk.

in one course, the discussion was about how the students tried to overcome their guilt of social/financial status. absurd.

cheers,
drf

[Brad S]

Once again, disagree Joe.

Does Norquist have an interest in high income taxes? To an extent, yes.

Did Reagan have a vested interest in keeping the Cold War going? To an extent, yes.

Just as many Liberals will make the argument today (not without merit) that GWB has an interest in keeping the "War on Terror" going, since it seems to serve him well in terms of his popularity and in terms of people giving him and his administration a free pass to trample on the Constitution and any semblance of checks and balances.

When considering someone's stance and actions on a political issue, I submit that ignoring that person's self-interests is, well, ignorant.

[Tim Stich]

These racist college professors can't even get a grasp on the global extent of racism. Oh yeah, it's all a white Euro-centric idea. Idiots. Why do the Japanese have special geneology investigators that families hire to research their prospective son and daughter-in-laws? It seems being a mainland Japanese citizen is more desireable than being an islander. Oh, and they certainly can't have any ties to Korea or China.

Did they get that idea from the Queen of England?

"We generally hold those denizens of the Isle of Wight to be substandard and of lowe breeding."

[John]

Here is the most important quote:

"Winnie Chen, 22, the daughter of Chinese immigrants, said it pained her to deal with race every day when her white peers seemed to rarely think about it."

So, better to have more people obsess about it?

[JDM]

"That's a bs charge, Brad and dude. Does Grover Norquist have an interest in keeping income taxes high, so he can have a career? Did Ronald Reagan have an interest in keeping the Soviet Union strong and together?

You've thrown out a meaningless insult that can apply to anyone who takes a position on any political issue."

That's quite the counter argument. I'll keep it in mind the next time your expounding on the Bush administration's need to keep the "War on Terror" going to keep the sheeple in line and themselves in office.

The difference between saying Reagan had an interest in keeping the Soviet Union alive, and that professional race baiters have an interest in keeping racism alive is that Reagan's actions were obviously directed at ending the Soviet Union. The people responsible for absurdities like "whiteness studies" courses act only to continuously expand the definition of racism and its hold on culture and white guilt liberals like you.

[JDM]

err... what Brad S said...

[Anonymous]

The standard "world" history a student is required to take, does not make any or much mention to non-european countries, or non-eurpean peoples.
The standard liturature class a student is required to take, does not include storys by or about, non-europeans. You cant use the English language as an excuse because they are more than happy to translate Beowulf or whatever other important pieces. (as long as they are authored by europeans.)

[Anonymous]

Yeah, and welcome to WESTERN CIVILIZATION (necessarily biased toward western culture.)

To get an Eastern Civ. bias, move to China, or Indonesia, or any of the Mid-East nations. There you will get plenty of stories by or about non-europeans.

[Anonymous]

Currently, in the United States, the racial structure is just over 30% non-white. To ignore the history and culture of such a large portion of population is nothing but racism.

[SM]

As someone who is not white yet, i say whiteness studies lost any value it might possibly have had the minute its proponents used the word "construct" to describe what previously used to be captured in the concept of a "melting pot".
The war against post-post-post-close reading continues.

[SM]

To the anonymous poster who contributed the > 30 % non-whites statistic - you have to be white to read Beowulf or otherwise feel an affinity to "western" civ & values ie liberal values ? How racist is that ?

[Anonymous]

Hey Plutarck -- Just because people look different doesn't mean they're of different "races." The term "race" refers to definite categories -- the old notions that there are 3 races, 7 races, 132 races, whatever. Those categories are bullshit. They don't exist. People's "racial" traits aren't distributed that way.

[Anonymous]

Let's paraphrase that. The old notions that there are 3 types of packaging, 7 types of packaging, 132 types of packaging, are all bullshit. They don't exist. People's packaging isn't distributed that way.

There are many different combinations of packaging. Some are green with purple ribbons, others are orange with blue bows.

Still, it is very important that we look at the packaging -- not at its contents.

[Anonymous]

That 30% non-white number is bogus. It's more like 12% or so. Still, why juxtapose a statistic against a negative standard (non-white.) That's like saying "not bad" instead of simply saying "good."

Besides, YOU don't have to ignore cultural histories. If you want to study cultures, have at it. Nobody's stopping you. Knock yourself out. Sources abound.

Just don't force the subject down OUR throats.

[David Nieporent]

Currently, in the United States, the racial structure is just over 30% non-white. To ignore the history and culture of such a large portion of population is nothing but racism.

First, the "30% non-white" can only possibly be true if one includes Hispanics, who are, by definition, of European descent. So studying European history would be fitting, even by your definitions.

Second, the "racism" is in pretending that skin color determines culture. America is a western society. Blacks are Americans. Hence, they have just as much claim to Beowulf as part of their heritage as whites do.

[$2.95]

A new study confirms what researchers have suspected for some time -- women may prefer to date one gender or the other, but they get sexually aroused by both.

This study rocks!

[LM]

The college class I've taken that most impacted my view on race was called Human Prosection, which refers to the process of preparing/dissecting human cadeveric specimins (A most fascinating course of study. the human body, in all its shapes, sizes and colors is an amazing machine).

The most labor intensive process in this is removal of skin/subcutaneous fat and exposing/cleaning the muscular system underneath. One day it struck me how you could have three tables, two for a cadaver each, and one for discarded skin tissue, tissue from each cadaver neatly seperated into its own pile. Then bring in an outsider who didn't see the process and have him/her match the skin tissue with the appropriate cadaver. He/She probably wouldn't be able to tell which skin came off of which cadaver as is their skin-less state they both for the most part would look exactly the same.

I stood there in the doorway of the lab for a second astounded again how science and rational thinking destroys these irrational and ideological religions that are "race" and "race"-ism, and how these irrational ideologies could cause such strife and torment over such a stupid thing as skin pigmentation. That class truely illustrated to me that differences between human beings truely are only skin deep.

So now I tell all the intelectual-crats in classes with me to take Bio 289 and then come back to debate. If that class doesn't rip their viewpoint a new one, then there ain't no hope for 'em 😉

[Anonymous]

For the same reasons that communism and facism have been desastrous experiments (56 million people died with fascism and about 60-80 millions from communism especially in Russia and China), one can no longer propose universal theories without taking into account several anthropoligic discoveries made in the 19th and 20th century.

In the 19th century a French polytechnician called Le Play discovered that there existed 8 great types of family fabrics which deeply impacted social psychology. His work was further extended by Emmanuel Todd, professor at Cambridge who said that Soviet Union was ready to collapse in 1975, 24 years before the event and according the mechanisms he had discovered. His global study of family types was published in 1983/84 under the name La Diversit? du Monde/The Diversity of the World.

Those 8 family types are: - The authoritarian family, elder inherits all to preserve family assets, cadets have to find a living for themselves but a long time is dedicated to their education to find a living. These are the dominants type in Germany, Austria, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Korea. They also exist in French Flanders, Alsace (former Holy Empire territories), Savoy, South-West France, Northern Spain, Northern Portugal and Scotland, Venice, Quebec. These are the countries of engineers, stable governments (1 or 2 changes in a century), the highest IQ and mathematical studies, relative equality in society despite fundamental inequality, massive positive trade balances (Japan $128 billion), large corporations (Konzerns in Germany, Keiretsu in Japan), high income (Switzerland, Luxemburg, Sweden, Japan). But also societies that can become extremely bloody when attacked, being destabilized or feeling materially insecure: Venice was nicknamed the violent by the Arabs (sack of Constantinople 1204), French made the mistake to remove German emperors twice (1806 by suppressing the Holy Roman Emperor and 1918 by suppressing both German and Austrian Emperor) and they paid it very dearly (1870, 1914, 1940), Israeli Mossad is not exactly friendly when Israeli are attacked, Japanese forces in Asia left souvenirs, Basque, Irish and Korean terrorists are known for their efficiency not too mention Nazi genocides. Once society is safe again, everybody becomes an obedient employee supporting a stable country where private property is sacred. But whatever situation they have a cult for differences, even those which do not exist: Jewish and Germans, Flemish and Walloons, Quebec people, Japanese and Koreans, Irish, Catholic and Protestant, etc... Despite official inequality, women have power and importance in the group (Basque, Jewish, Japanese women, European aristocracy).

-Absolute nuclear family. No equality among brothers, father can decide wether assets goes to a specific child, the buttler, the dog or a charity. This is England, the United States, Canada except Quebec, Holland, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand. Open for innovation and flexible, appeal for communism near absolute zero, universal beliefs but no requirement to have people with equal material means, indifferent to other people and cultures (live and let live mentality). Preferred international policy: Splendid isolation.

-Egalitarian nuclear family. Brothers are equal and will have same share of heritage. This is the dominant type of Northern France, Northern and Southern Italy (except Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna), Southern Spain and Portugal, Poland, Roumania, Greece, Ethiopia and Latin America except Cuba. These are the lands of universal freedom '? la fran?aise' (Libert?, ?galit?, fraternit?), strikes, revolutions, social protests, coups. Solidarnosc in 1980, coups in Latin America, a constitution change in Paris every 20 years, heated debates in Greece, etc...

- Communautarian exogamic. This means equal brothers living under the same roof, spouse taken outside the group. Largest human anthropoligical groups and covers China, Russia, Vietnam, Northern India, Eastern Europe except Poland, Roumania, Greece, Slovenia and Czech Republic, Cuba. Also found in Central France, French Mediterrannean seaboard, Central Italy (Tuscany, Emilia-Romagna). These are the regions were communism managed to stay for more than a generation. Once in a while they kill God, social structures and everything reminding the past, tend to be the opposite of absolute nuclear families (Holland, England, the United States) but because they generate large societies which can stand millennia (China, Russia, Vietnam, India) and mighty enemies (Vietnam, Cuba) and are world's largest group, their opinion counts.

- Communautarian endogamic. This means equal brothers living under the same roof, spouses are taken inside the group. These are all the countries of Islam, except in India, South East Asia, South East Europe and Africa. They have their own book, Quran and do not need to have a replacement, consider themselve one great family without borders (Ummah) and women tend to have a lower position in the group.

- Asymmetric communautarian families of Southern India. The difference with the other communautarian groups is that children of a same brother cannot marry but well the children of a brother and a sister. This is the founding stone of the Castes system: a world based on hierarchy that neither the Muslims nor the British could shake and which despite Northern Indian advantage still shapes the lives of 1 billion people.

- Anomic: equality among brothers is uncertain,cohabitation of parents and children discouraged but accepted, possible endogamy. Present in Ancient Egypt, South East Asia except Vietnam, Sri Lankan, the Himalayas and the Indian civilisation of Latin America. Two forces conflict in those societies: centralization-decentralisation. This explains the history process in Indonesia, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Ancient Egypt. Discipline imposed by Communism or Islam never really fit in those societies.

- African type (everything south of Sahara and Ethiopia, and African communities of the Americas), where the domestic group is very unstable, both men and women allowed to have several spouses and children from each of them. A fatherless world where women are usually much more educated than men.

Huntington intuitively grasped this in his book Clash of Civilisations, although he mixed anthropoligical elements with political and religious elements. He noticed Japan was distinct from East Asia, that Latin America was different from the US like France and Italy are different from England and the Netherlands. And that East Europe + Russia formed a uniform world he called Orthodox. He also pinpointed Islam and differentiated it from Africa.

As showed by 20th century, ignoring human anthropoligical fundamentals is dangerous. You cannot raise rice like you raise corn because in one case rice would dry and in the other corn would rot.

[Handel]

Ralph Moorer, why bother? Just say something like, "Anon above who said ...," (and then copy about 3 lines from her quote.)

What's the big deal?

See? In an attempt to apprehend a concept, an idea, or to spout ad hominems, most of us are always looking for some sort of HANDLE to grab on to, -- be it skin-color or username -- don't we, Doctor LM?

[Plutarck]

Wow, that was really fascinating. I think I'm going to see if I can't find some good books on anthropology - more and more it sounds like a really interesting sort of subject to know about.

Sort of like Historical Sociology, hopefully with less BS 😉

[Ms.McKillicuddy]

Oh, cut it out, will you! (Anonymous at 04:23 PM.) You totally lost me as early as the very first paragraph, with your "desastrous" and your "anthropoligic" (sic, sic.)

We don't usually take kindly to such lengthy, drawn-out diatribes, especially when they're thoroughly muddled and confused.

If you wish to share something you found on the internet, just give it a brief mention and then paste in the link; we can read the rest on our own -- especially when it may have been written much more clearly than this.

I have absolutely NO IDEA what you are trying to say here. And furthermore, your closing analogy stinks: Human beings are neither rice nor corn.

Sorry to be so harsh, but you wasted my time (and yours.) Next week, if you want to do something like this again, try composing it in your word-processor first, run the spell-checker, and for heaven's sake, keep it shorter. As it is, your exposition spans the whole of FOUR PAGES in MS Word. Sheesh!

[Yehudit]

Actually, forensics experts can determine race and gender by bone structure - they don't need skin samples.

[Ralph Moorer]

Handel,

Huh?

Do you even understand what I'm complaining about? I'm talking about following the conversation as a reader. Your quoting three lines of a post doesn't solve my issue, which is knowing which " " poster is posting when.

[Ralph Moorer]

Handel -- sorry. Just woke up on a Sunday, no coffee yet, sarcasm radar not yet clicked "ON." My apologies.

[Plutarck]

Oh, the ever interesting Fred On Everything just posted his new article on his website, which just so happens to be "Whiteness Studies"!

Check it out: http://www.fredoneverything.net/WhitenessStudies

Quote:
"""
Oh good. In the Washington Post,* the trade journal of the coming vacuum, I discover a story on "Whiteness Studies." These, at what used to be the University of Massachusetts, are yet more un-courses that grow like mold on the wreckage of American education. They endeavor to make white students ashamed of being white. How useful.

An implement wielded to this end, saith the Post, is the Privilege Walk. In this the students or, more accurately, indoctrinees, are asked to take a step forward if they can answer "yes" to such questions as "Can you get a bank loan whenever you want?"

...

Now, I like the idea of a Privilege Walk, but I believe we ought to make it an Earned Privilege Walk. What do you think?

"Take a step forward if the following statements apply to you:

You got into the university without benefit of affirmative action.

No one in your family has a criminal record.

You have read three books this year you didn't have to read.

You have ever read any book you didn't have to read

You have ever read any book.

You are majoring in a hard science, mathematics, or engineering.

You had 600 math boards or better.

You had 600 verbal boards or better.

You study more than an hour a day."

Since Whiteness Studies is explicitly aimed at segregating the races, how about this:

"Your racial or ethnic group invented (take one step for each): Computational fluid dynamics. Tensor calculus. The harpsichord. The theory of finite automata. Cardiac surgery. Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism. Writing. The wheel. Counting past ten. Fingers. (OK, OK, I'll give you that one.)"
"""

[Ralph Moorer]

I wish Reason would require posting with a user name, even if a fake one. These long threads would be a lot easier to navigate if there weren't five people posting as " ."

Actually, why blame it on Reason ... the fault lies with the users here who want to be anonymous -- fine -- but can't take the half-second to concoct a pseudonym and help the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

"Counting past ten fingers."

And peanut butter. Let's not forget peanut butter.

[joe]

I don't know who you're talking to, but I make value judgements all the time - sorry to knock down your straw man.

I'm afraid the enemy you're facing is a bit different from the one you trained for.

[joe]

I think Pluto's nailed it - the biggest problem with Whiteness Studies is that it doesn't recoginize the cultural and intellectual superiority of white people.

Shocked, shocked am I that there is a connection between anti-anti-racism and actual racism.

Shocked.

[Anonymous]

uh, that's a value judgement joe. you should't be making those. it's just a condition, not better or worse.

[Bauer Seth]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.QUALITY-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT-PILLS.NET

DATE: 12/11/2003 01:19:56
Gratitude is born in hearts that take time to count up past mercies.

[Lieber David]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://penis-enhancement.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/21/2003 02:55:38
Those whose paths are not the same do not consult one another.

[Randall Suzanna]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 68.173.7.113
URL: http://privacy.privacy-online.biz
DATE: 01/10/2004 05:59:50
If I could get my membership fee back, I'd resign from the human race.

[Still Doug]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 212.253.2.205
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 09:15:45
[In] mourning, it is better to err on the side of grief than on the side of formality.