This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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'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)
javascript:insertTags('\n----\n',,);
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)
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!"
-- 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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
The following attempts to break down various currents of thought in WS. Lots to work with here.-- Carwil 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Communication Studies, Summer 2000 by Moon, Dreama, Flores, Lisa A
I'm moving this section here for the reasons stated below:
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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
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)
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.
Link to similarlrly themed Wikipedia article on 'racist mathematics' added.
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)
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)
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.
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)
From the White Privelage section of the article:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
@ 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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
"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)
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":
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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'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)
javascript:insertTags('\n----\n',,);
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)
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!"
-- 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.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
The following attempts to break down various currents of thought in WS. Lots to work with here.-- Carwil 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Communication Studies, Summer 2000 by Moon, Dreama, Flores, Lisa A
I'm moving this section here for the reasons stated below:
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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
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)
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.
Link to similarlrly themed Wikipedia article on 'racist mathematics' added.
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)
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)
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.
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)
From the White Privelage section of the article:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
@ 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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
"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)
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":
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)