comment: >
  
  We can agree that the left has its extremes. In the context of this particular CMV, the term is being used academically. Do they actually teach "nothing good ever came from whiteness" or "whiteness is evil"? If yes, please provide me an example.
context: /u/i_havent_read_it (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  I don't think terms like white and black are very productive. Skin color is simply an adaptation to varying degrees of UV exposure in different parts of the world. A person from India, Africa, and South America may have the same skin tone, but are they all "black?" No, only the African is considered black. Ok, then why not just call that person a Ugandan or Moroccan or wherever else they originate from? We should be grouping people based on ethnic and cultural decent.
  The thing is, there are inherent morphologic differences between humans depending on which region of the world they originate from, and skin color is just one of those features. We don't really talk about all the other ways that human beings differ in terms of appearance. Why? Because skin color is easiest to identify and describe. But thats about it...its purely out of convenience. At the end of the day skin tone is a crude and fairly useless way to categorize people.
  Black and white are terms that stem from racist ideology and should be rooted out. >
  
  As I understand it, the notion of whiteness as a point of study is understanding how societies have conceptualized race, what constituted being white over time, and whatever status/privileges went along with it - namely in the United States. 
  And American society hasn't actually been shy on the topic either for quite some time. Statehouses and courts have proven to be happy to weigh in on the matter. Its been not only a matter of social and cultural importance, but even legal. If the topic wasn't taboo for legislatures and courts for centuries, universities should be fine. 
  Anyway, the problematic parts you're talking about aren't all that different than any other student being obnoxious after learning something in school. Psych students think they've got the human condition figured out, guy reads Das Kapital and suddenly knows more than modern economists. That doesn't mean its a net negative to try and understand these topics more. 
  Where these people are going wrong is they're taking a field of study meant to explore cultural phenomena over decades and pointing fingers at individuals. Not good. 
  Anyway as far as social constructs go, it's been pretty damn influential throughout history.  I think it's fair to at least explore the concept as a matter or inquiry. >
  
  It's only problematic because it's demonized. Otherwise, we'd treat whiteness like any other sort of culture/ethnicity mass and acknowledge the pros and cons, instead of just cons. Like bruh the way I see people talking about white people these days makes me think of how people used to talk about jews, based on my knowledge that casual antisemitism was super common world-wide back in the day. I don't wanna hear this whole "racism is prejudice plus power" bullshit either. Power can change hands in less than a generation. We've already seen that in how redneck this country was in the 90s to how yuppie-ish it is today. Like bruh there's people who think lifting weights is racist. >
  
  I think any cultural studies class where they talk only about the negative or positive of said race would be harmful for that race and all others.
  I can not definitively say if that is the case but in the political climate we live in in the US I find it unlikely they are talking about any good things accomplished from "whiteness" in whiteness studies or any bad things accomplished from blackness in blackness studies. It breeds division, helplessness, and guilt- none of which is useful for the purposes claimed. This is the reason so many parents- of all races- have a problem with CRT being taught to children.
  Teaching a huge swath of society that they have no identity other than "oppressor" and another that their identity has always been that of the "oppressed" is just psychologically smarter Jim Crow. How do we continue keeping people down? We teach them they have always been down and they have no chance of rising up unless another group, in this case whites, feel like putting in "the work" or accepting their lumps and moving aside for others to rise up. Regardless of what side they fall on the message is the same - you can't get ahead because of whites and you can't get ahead without whites. A very gross and dangerous message. >
  
  Well spoken, I agree >
  
  My opinion: In an ideal world, many of the concepts presented in a "critical race theory" or "whiteness studies" course should be introduced to most folks globally prior to participating in the workforce, particularly for those who plan to lead people at some point during their career. I also this this course would be beneficial for folks planning to enter healthcare, social work, and nonprofit related industries with understaning their patient and client populations. And I think it is important to approach the material through a rigorous academic framework such as whiteness studies.
  But at the same time-
  1.) I think selection bias causes folks who already understand and agree with the course material to opt in to the course, whilst those whom I assume are the intended audience (e.g. folks who either aren't aware of or are skeptical of the accuracy of the concepts presented in the course material) opt out of the course. So what's the point? You could learn the material in your free time easily enough just by talking to POC if you're so inclined. So I wouldn't necessarily wanna pay for this course if I were still in undergrad (unless I were in one of the majors called out above.) But at the end of the day: That's just how some elective  GenEd courses are. Maybe it's just an easy A for some people, and I don't have a problem with it.
  2.) Clearly there is a branding problem based on the fact that so many people are upset about the names of the courses. I wonder if it would be beneficial for schools and universities to organize a more general course that allows you to cover the same topics. Something like "Social Constructionism vs. Systematic Observation in the 21st Century." I think this would allow for more customization based on geographic area, plus you could learn to apply the principles learned to other social constructs such as gender that way.
  So I am not sure if this response is really going to change your view. But basically I am saying it may be helpful in the workplace for some people, and some of the principles learned I think could be valuable to others (though the material may need to be approached differently or rebranded to achieve this goal, assuming the goal of the course is to get a broad audience to enroll.) >
  
  
  Using the term casually promotes colourism; I find 'whiteness' as problematic as 'blackness'. Now of course, there may be instances where it's beneficial to talk about it, such as if those with black skin are suffering from more discrimination in the US. But fundamentally these are simply skin tones. There are a huge range of cultures and ethnicities that have white skin: this ranges from people from America, to those with Jewish heritage and people from Eastern European countries. I think many would agree that referring to blackness is an insult to hundreds of different cultures and backgrounds this entails, so why is this okay for those with white skin? 
  
  “Simply skin tones” is false. Having paler skin does not automatically make you white. Pale skin is a feature seen in pretty much every racial group. It also does not change the fact that race is a very important factor in a lot of aspects of culture. 
  In the United States specifically whiteness refers to people of European descent. Not anybody on planet earth who happens to be pale. 
  Furthermore, seeing blackness is not inherently an insult. Even Black people use blackness to refer to other Black people. Black is a socially recognized racial group. I don’t really understand why you are of the believe that this is something people only do towards white people. 
  
  It's US-centric. I am not from the US and neither are the people I am talking about - we are from the UK. I can't speak for the statistics in the US, but the UK prime minister is not white and neither are the highest earning income group or those who are most likely to own a home. Do I think racism exists in the UK? For sure, but 'whiteness studies' primarily focuses on US-specific race issues, but the ideas are currently being imported across the globe when they are not necessarily relevant. 
  
  I mean, I don’t know. I’m not American but this is a sentiment I hear all the time when it comes to racism when people pretend like certain aspects of racism is uniquely American. It’s really not, Americans just talk about it more. But that’s just my personal experience.
  
  I am not pretending the world is completely colourblind, but I view a colourblind world as the ultimate goal. It would never be acceptable to use 'blackness' with negative connotations today and we shouldn't be creating a society where we can talk negatively about one race and not the other. 
  
  The reason why being colorblind largely doesn’t work sometimes is because race can be socially ingrained in whatever you’re talking about. For example, you can talk about the race relations in a specific area. But if you come out of nowhere and start talking about how you’re colorblind I mean, cool, but that doesn’t erase the very real prevalence of race relations in the area. You’re not really helping anybody by just not seeing race. Racial tension, race relations, treatment of races, etc. etc. doesn’t go away because you specifically live your life colorblind.
  I am mixed race. I grew up in an east Asian country where some citizens have never seen a black person before. Some of my constituents growing up hated me pretty bad. Some people within east Asian countries are very hostile towards people who are of a darker complexion/black. If you come out of the woodwork saying that you’re colorblind and also lived in these particular areas. The existence of people who treat me lesser than because of my skin color don’t all of a sudden stop being a problem. You have to recognize that race relation is a problem to actively fix it. Unfortunately, just ignoring race doesn’t really fix stuff sometimes. >
  
  I believe the politically correct term for whiteness to be Caucasian. It certainly feels less provocative to say. More like a genuine label should sound. >
  
  That's interesting. We don't use the word on the census in the UK, just White British or White, the word just feels ugly to me now. It meant nothing to me growing up but now it is obviously often used as a derogatory term (not by everyone ofc!) and I had just heard it used interchangeably with caucasian during my childhood but now my brain sees the word White and goes oh they mean racist, which my brain then says means white supremacist and that's not something someone should go around casually saying about people in polite society.
  I'll definitely check out the Wikipedia page about caucasian though, thanks for the info! >
  
  Wow that’s super interesting to me as well! I’m not actually from the USA im from Australia, and filled out the census for myself for the first time last year. They make an interesting choice of word and ask not for your race or ethnicity, but instead, “ancestry”. I’m not sure whether this is a better option though, while it allows for nuance for someone whose ethnicity kind of sits at the fringe of “whiteness” like, for example Cyprus or Lebanon, you also get lots of Anglo descended people putting “Australian” as their ancestry which doesn’t really make sense 😆 but I like that it doesn’t treat the classification of race which is used in the USA as the default. While racist pseudoscience is definitely a legacy of colonialism here as well, definitions of “whiteness” were a lot narrower for a lot longer which leads to some people still being a lot touchier about the term as an identifier. >
  
  Perhaps it would be a good balance to ask what culture a person identifies with, which would be very broad (American, western, Australian, British, English etc) but then also ask where they descend from, like where were you born, where were your parents and then grandparents born. To try and separate culture and country from biology. I suppose you'd hope the census would know to account for the difference between someone who is Australian (of the state) vs native or indigenous to Australia (having ancestors who were in Australia before the Europeans arrived), so some people could be both or only one or the other. What do you think?
  Also when it comes to the census, I wrote that I was a jedi in 2011 as a joke. It's still funny to me that I wrote it but it does mean I have to take everything in the census with a pinch of salt now haha. Speaking of, isn't Australia where more people wrote that than anywhere else? >
  
  
  Using the term casually promotes colourism; I find 'whiteness' as problematic as 'blackness'.
  
  That's kind of the point. Most white people don't think about their whiteness. They recognize racism and problems how we treat POC but they never question how this effects them. Whole point of these studies to show that "whiteness" is as problematic as "blackness". That they are opposite sides of same racist systems. When you oppress one population you are always giving a free pass for other. You can't do one without the other. >
  
  Sure, have you ever taken a college level course before? Questioning premises and claims is usually essential in these classes. >
  
  Jeez, I thought we left the whole STEM arrogance thing back in the 2010s. But anyways, a class isn't "nonsense" just because you don't like or understand it, and you haven't presented any evidence that these classes reject "critical thought." >
  
  There's a lot of misguided anger in your post here. Liberal arts majors don't "hate whites," there are plenty of important majors under the liberal arts umbrella outside of "basket weaving," Muslim slavery of Europeans in the Middle Ages is not relevant to American conceptions of race and ethnicity, and it's weird that you are implying that you should get reparations as though black Americans got them (they didn't). 
  And none of what you've demonstrates that these classes reject critical thought, nor does it even form a coherent argument in support of that statement. 
  
  What does your degree in basket weaving have that my degree in chemistry lacks?
  
  It appears to be a basic understanding of American history and the ability to form a relevant, coherent argument, for starters.
  
  A lot of lib arts majors claim bullshit like, "learning lib arts teaches critical thought and reasoning," as if science doesn't. Lol.
  
  Considering that the way you responded to me was a non-sequitur rant, maybe your degree didn't teach you enough critical thought. So I'll just repeat, "you haven't presented any evidence that these classes reject "critical thought." Since, you know, you didn't actually address that. >
  
  
  I get it. Black people suffered a a couple of centuries ago in America.
  
  This is a pretty woeful understanding of race in America. Sounds like these classes may be perfect for helping you gain knowledge in a subject that you appear to be completely ignorant in. 
  
  Btw, your response is exactly how a religious person defending their religion sounds. Might want to reflect on that. Idk. Don't really care.
  
  Can you explain why you think this, or is this you bailing out because you don't actually have a substantive argument? >
  
  I'm going to steelman your position and say that all of your issues are true.
  However, shouldnt ideas, good and bad, be subject to discussion and academic/social darwinism?
  Surely if there is great flaws and issue with these concepts our institutions should be robust enough to safeguard against radicalization and allow for honest and good faith intellectual inspection.
  And if the academic institutions are lost, then surely a free western society should be robust enough to be able to push back and self correct against clear signs of progressivism gone too far (such as how eugenics went from being the science of the times to eventual discrediting of validity) >
  
  The trouble is, it gets piggybacked onto other things people do agree with.
  For instance if you're a gay guy who thinks that the whole "gender being separate from sex" idea is silly. Good luck speaking out about it in your circle. They will think you're some traitor. Which makes it hard to counter.
  It's like when in congress they try to pass a bill. They tag on a bunch of other smaller bills in order to get enough votes. The other bills may have absolutely nothing to do with a topic. You're trying to ban lead in gasoline and you're tagging on a provision that bans scuba diving in Key West. Just because you need the vote from the guy in Key West to get your original plan to pass. 
  Being racist towards white people is not required to accomplish any of this. In fact it is detrimental in the long run. >
  
  While pork in legislation can be frustrating and there is certainly room for improvement in western government systems, at the end of the day the legislative branch is functional, government is functional, and the country and society have not collapsed.
  Just because there are flaws in systems doesnt mean that the system isnt performing well and should be stopped. In this case there's racism making another rise in popularity in society - why wouldn't this just be more of our system running its course? The pendulum will swing back so to speak for any overcorrections.
  Again. At the end of the day, are these systems not functioning as intended? Do they not have natural abilities to self correct? >
  
  I was simply pointing out how this anti white racism is getting paired with many other things that people do agree with.
  But you don't really have a choice but to go along with the whole shpiel. Because otherwise you can be viewed as an outsider. 
  Say you're really passionate about black issues. You think it's a huge problem and you want something to be done about it. You get introduced to this anti whiteness horseshit. You instinctively see that it's wrong. But many of your compatriots are on board with it. You don't want to jeopardize the thing you're after by going against them. So you just tag along with it. >
  
  
  But you don't really have a choice but to go along with the whole shpiel. Because otherwise you can be viewed as an outsider. 
  
  But you do have a choice. You can be an outsider and speak out on what you believe to be truths.
  
  Say you're really passionate about black issues. You think it's a huge problem and you want something to be done about it. You get introduced to this anti whiteness horseshit. You instinctively see that it's wrong. But many of your compatriots are on board with it. You don't want to jeopardize the thing you're after by going against them. So you just tag along with it.
  
  Why do you need to tag along with it? One can be moral and stand up for what they truly believe. Is this not the very foundation upon which the closed secret ballot vote is predicated upon? >
  
  In theory yes. I don't disagree with you that it SHOULD BE this way. But in practice it's often the opposite. You go join some communist cult. Try to teach them about what a monster Stalin really was. At best you'll be looking for a social circle. They might just beat your ass on your way out. >
  
  It didnt always use to be this way, with McCarthyism, and anti-Vietnam war sentiment, and USSR collapse, and then global financial crisis - there's always been a pendulum swing based on the times.
  This is all of course from a western perspective, as in the east there's plenty of folks who still remember living through murderous communist regimes.
  Again, just because that's how some university campuses may be in the west currently doesnt mean it wont self correct I'm a few years' time... or even decades' if it takes that long >
  
  Myself, growing up in South Boston... I learned racism from white folks. I was the only kid in town that had brown skin. I was beaten daily at school from the 1st-6th grade by white kids. I was called 'nigger,' 'tar-baby,' and hundreds of hateful other words that make a colour distinction. People with a colour of skin (other than white) should be aware of the whiteness of the whites, especially if you're immigrating to the USA from a country that dominantly has every skin colour except white, that, you put yourself, 'in the know' and know what to expect, should it happen. If it never happens, then let the sleeping colour conflict be, let it sleep. >
  
  I feel like if you can scan this overview of whiteness studies and still believe that it's a totally pointless, entirely meritless field of study then you're being purposefully stubborn. >
  
  It’s not a real “academic discipline” OP.. it’s usually just lefty people moralizing about people they hate. >
  
  I would contend that "whiteness" is less problematic than the word it replaced:
  Normal
  We have black people, Asian people, indigenous people, Hispanic people (many more, but you get the point) and normal people.
  White studies was just called studies up to this point. At least now you know which perspective it comes from. >
  
  The point of "normal" is that normal is what allows privilege, which isn't inherently tied to race. "White" people have been the majority. This majority controlled cultural norms. That's not unusual. And it's not about being white, it's about belonging to the majority class.
  Normal is quite different from "whiteness". The problem is that many things are getting attributed to "whiteness", that can simply originate from being the majority. >
  
  Academia has no issue with, and in fact has a very long tradition of, objectifying all other races and nationalities, though. You can find Oriental or Asian studies, or African studies, or Middle Eastern studies, at nearly every University with a humanities department. So why then is it so problematic to use those same tools and frameworks to explore not the other, but instead the dominant group of the local country? I don't think you could argue that the UK doesn't have "white people" as a concept, or aspect of it's culture, which everyone would agree is a thing. So why not study that thing >
  
  I actually would argue that the UK doesn't have 'white people' as a concept, at least not in the monolithic way that the US does. You'll never see Reddit posts from Brits about 'shit white people say' or 'bland white people food' or any of that stuff. Perhaps because we tend not to generalise across European cultures so much, being one of them. >
  
  Okay well that's a very good reason to study it, right? Why is it different, how is understood and socially constructed differently than in America, and why? >
  
  Perhaps, but I'm not convinced it's worthy of its own subject. I would think that it would fit in just fine as a small part of a sociology course or American Studies.
  I think most Europeans know quite a bit about racism in America being mainly black vs white (with Hispanic in the mix somewhere too) anyway. >
  
  But it practice, it wouldn't be it's own discipline, it would be a focus or object of study within a much wider discipline. >
  
  The title says whiteness as an academic discipline, so that's what I'm talking about. >
  
  OP may have said that in the title, but it made it very clear that their issue here is not the academic question of whether whiteness is an object of study worthy of an entire department, their issue is that whiteness is studied at all and that the word "whiteness" is used at all >
  
  The word "whiteness" is only problematic if those who identify with (or is accused of being) white takes offence. You might be one of them. But it's their sentiment that matters. It would otherwise be wrongly appropriating offence where none was warranted. Your opinion would hold more water if you could demonstrate more people of that identity share your views. >
  
  I have no problem with being called white and neither do most white people. What I have a problem with is "nothing good ever came from whiteness" or "whiteness is evil" or "white people are raised to be demons." It's the association with "whiteness" and universally negative attributes. Aside from a few nutcases in the extreme left all the white people I know would take offense with being called evil and associated with being a bad person.