comment: >
  
  Sorry, u/Liamkeatingwasere – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
  
  Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.  
  
  If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. 
  Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  I just had a watch.
  I don't know if that's what I'd call "academic" setting. The audience clearly have lanyards/passes which which makes me believe this is some sort of convention, not a university. The presenter also has a paypal written on the whiteboard.
  I'd chalk this up to fringe left extremists. >
  
  Definitely not what I'd call an academic setting but it's reflective of the topic and the current discourse. What is taught in the academic setting is largely irrelevant if this is what gets disseminated to the public. These extremists were educated somewhere and if this is the take away people with formal education get out of it what do you expect kids getting taught in school to take away from it? >
  
  There's too much conjecture here. Anyone can hold a seminar on anything. You don't learn how to conduct pyramid schemes, time shares, or MLMs in universities either, but wouldn't you know it, they'll have someone behind a whiteboard with their paypal written on it. >
  
  The questions you are asking are precisely why whiteness as a social phenomenon needs to be studied and understood. The concept of being white has *never* been static and it goes beyond having pale skin. For example, Irish people in the U.S. were no initially considered white. Another example: being “middle eastern” has been designated as “white” on U.S. census records, but one would not consider this group of people phenotypically white in person, so there is a tension between political whiteness and societal whiteness. There are countless examples of this, from the concept of “passing” to blood-quantity levels + the One-Drop Rule.
  
  What it means to be white has been argued in several Supreme Court cases. Whiteness dictated one’s access to voting rights, healthcare, mortgages, education, you name it. The concept of whiteness in the U.S. was adopted *specifically* to create an “us versus them” dynamic during the era of chattel slavery, and its vestiges remain domestically and globally today. Note that I do not say that the U.S. created whiteness. The foundations of biological whiteness were created by European philosophers and scientists who developed pseudo-scientific reasonings to justify the conquest, rape, and enslavement of other people. While you may notice a lot of U.S. centric discussion of race in the curriculum, please understand that whiteness originated in Europe and disseminated across all continents through colonization. India, South Africa, Dominican Republic + Haiti, and Brazil are just a handful of places I can think about that were influenced by the creation and implementation of whiteness.
  
  More likely to harm race relations according to whom? I, as a Black person, would LOVE if white people understood where their white status came from. We are witnessing the effects currently of white people not knowing about the development of whiteness. It results in the reinforcement of the idea that whiteness has a basis in biology; that there is a unified “white culture” that needs to be preserved and kept pure; that whiteness must be continued to be centered as the norm instead of sharing space with the hundreds of other racial/cultural identities that exist; and that non-whiteness is a threat to the social and global order. THAT encourages racial hatred. >
  
  I really don’t think you will love it lol >
  
  Out of everything I said, this is a weird thing to latch on to. But I'll take that to mean I made my point well enough. >
  
  Ok lol >
  
  You’re completely right. And the damage that will come from it won’t be apparent to the masses for years and years to come. It will carry a heavy toll to I believe. >
  
  The damage from... a handful of academics studying the history of whiteness as a socially-constructed racial classification? What kind of "heavy toll" will that create? >
  
  I'm from the US where we talk about race because we are aware we live in a racial system. Off the bat and honestly, I don't think I hear about race from the UK usually or ever. Racism, prejudice, and unfair treatment definitely exists in the UK (and its territories), which leads me to believe that there's a "don't talk about it" complex and a lack of awareness that you live in a race system. 
  Because historically you don't talk about it, it makes sense that vocabulary of talking about race lacks there. And thus, such terms that are direct like blackness and whiteness seem offensive. But they're not, they're just direct.
  You mention your goal is colorblindness. The real goal is to not belittle others (consciously or subconsciously) by their skin color, culture, or else. It's ok to recognize everyone's physical differences and their cultures.
  Ultimately (and honestly, the immediate goal for white people), it's about being more aware of how your identity as a white person affects the people your ancestors and people who look like you have and continue to oppress others that are not white. >
  
  It’s a history of the invention and application of racial ideology, it’s no more or less “objective” than any other history. >
  
  What is the purpose of the class if not to perpetuate an ideology? Or to put it another way how do you suppose any teacher teaching this subject would want their student’s mindsets changed by the course? It is certainly not just a history class nor does it simply lay down impartial facts. There is a reason history is the first thing targeted by any dogmatic power, and that is precisely because it melds the objective and subjective quite nicely. >
  
  The purpose of the field of study is to examine a topic that's extremely relevant to history and politics. I don't know anything about the content of this particular class, because I haven't taken it. What kind of indoctrination do you imagine is happening? >
  
  Frankly it’s not so much a doctrine I am worried about as the infiltration of ‘objective feeling tones’ into academia. Where collective assignments of value become absolute and more heavily weighted than inspection. For this reason I think emotionally charged courses should not take place. It is a way of thinking that is dangerous, the ideology itself is secondary. >
  
  
  White people talk about black people in this way because it is socially acceptable to be racist towards them 
  
  what? how on earth is is socially acceptable, the mere accusation of racism is often enough to have people lose their jobs, families etc, it is far, far from sociality acceptable, in fact I'd argue it's one of the most unacceptable things currently.  
  
  but the alternative is not true - evidenced by this very post; getting really upset that you’re being treated in equal terms.
  
  no racism against white people is acceptable unfortunately, just look online with racist trying to change the definition of racism to "prejudice + power"
  idk if you know about this but twitch is currently in hot water because they expanded their rules that makes being racist against white people also against TOS, racism used to only be ban-able if it was to a minority, this has also lead to a few racist black streamers being banned, like cash cole and one yesterday called Bruce, who are extremely racist towards white people.   
  
  Saying “two wrong don’t make a right” is great in theory but in practice you’re both holding the oppressed to a higher standard than the oppressor - 
  
  no they're not? one person being racist to a group doesn't give that group the right to be racist to a random person of the oppressor group, 
  
  and tacitly supporting the oppressor by deeming their “bad thing” to be fine but the oppressed’s to be beyond the pale.
  
  who said that racism against minorities is okay? 
  
  Which is both a logical fallacy 
  
  i don't think you know what that is. 
  
  and exactly the kind of thing this idea is meant to be bringing attention to and instead of recognizing it you’re arguing against it.
  
  because it's ridiculously moronic. 
  
  Which sort of makes its point perfectly - because it’s literally just identical treatment.
  
  so you're argument is a circular argument, which is ironically a logical fallacy. 
  
  You don’t like “whiteness” not because of what it expresses, but because of the feeling that it’s;  
  Clinical, somewhat dehumanizing, detached, a bit amoral and not really considering of what it’s like to be that person.  
  Which is - say it with me now - the entire point being raised by anti racism activists in regards to use of the term “Blackness” and is why they are flipping the script
  
  so you agree that it's being racist to white people? you literally just said that it's "flipping the script" i.e. white people were racist to us so we're going to be racist to them. 
  
  Almost as if this was the intention of doing so? So that white folks might consider and reassess the way they go about spreading that rhetoric? And maybe stop?
  
  except most white people aren't racist, most white people have "stopped"
  
  There are loads of great comments trying to walk you to this slowly but I’m not interested in that - you’ve clearly demonstrated you don’t see the full scope of the picture by essentially admitting “racism that happens now is fine, we need to prevent future racism” which is what “it’s fine for the whites but not anyone else” logic boils down to.
  
  what? they never said that and yes we should stop and slow racism of all kinds, you seem to think that because white people were racist that it's now black peoples turn, how about we just try and get rid of racism entirely? 
  
  Why would we be even slightly concerned that this might lead to future racism against white people if the way they talk about everyone else is currently facilitating their own racism towards everyone else?
  
  you need to prove that this is actually real, how to most white people speak in a way that is racist? 
  
  Seems like your concerns on racism are somewhat in the wrong place.
  
  speak for yourself. >
  
  This is extremely frustrating that you refuse to interact with the parts of the argument you can’t refute and just keep repeating yourself.
  You acknowledge that;
  
  
  racism against black peoples exists, is endemic, makes up both interpersonal interactions and the very structure of the institutions that make up the nations of the west, that it’s a reality of the lived experience of black people in white-majority countries, that it’s real and affects people’s lives
  
  
  you then claim that “saying racism is bad” is the same as addressing all these issues. Which is not only stupid - you didn’t actually say “racism is bad” in your post, you just said “saying whiteness is equally as bad as saying Blackness”, which means you explicitly accepted the above conditions for anti-back racism only for you to then immediately reject them on the grounds that “it’s doing the same thing”;
  
  
  Except - it’s not. Referring to “whiteness” will never reduce the material life outcomes for white people, it won’t make them more likely to be stopped or arrested for crimes they didn’t commit, it won’t instill an inherent bias against them in the way systemic racism does. 
  Your entire argument hinges on the idea that “it’s equally bad”, which, in terms completely removed from reality, in a hypothetical situation in which the realities of the world we live in today do not apply - then yes. 
  But that’s identical to saying abortion and murder are the same. 
  Because if you remove the context, isolate only the very basic premise (both involve ending a life) and refuse to acknowledge any of the context surrounding it (that one is in fact an already-living human with needs and desires and the other is actually really a clump of cells) then yes, they do appear the same.
  But in order to do that you must reject the entire context in which the question exists, rendering it meaningless.
  Within the context in which it exists, it is literally just talking about white people the same way they talk about black people. That’s it - that’s the whole thing. 
  Because unless you first actually address the realities of racism, claiming another form of racism that does not include any of systemic injustices is “the same” is factually and fundamentally incorrect. For that reason - it ignores reality in favor of a thought experiment. 
  Everyone knows “racism is bad” - even racists, which is why they need to try to justify their racism. That’s done through things just like this - ignoring the wider context to try to shoehorn facts into your justification.
  Crime rates are the obvious one - “there are more instances of black crime” ignores the systemic injustices which create that reality, and assigns causality on the basis of “they must just be like that” instead of interrogating why anyone would be like that. 
  It is it’s own form of dog whistle - much like this post - where you posture morally whilst also blaming people for the system in which they reside. 
  The fact that you haven’t actually addressed any of the points I’ve made and instead seem to think it’s a personal attack speaks volumes for the fact that this isn’t a genuine attempt to change your mind but a soapbox exercise in preaching your own rhetoric - one that is hell bent on ignoring reality in favor of some embarrassing attempt to appear morally superior. >
  
  I would love to live in a world where these conversations didnt need to happen in the first place… why does it have to be whiteness, continuing to single out specific ppl 😭 >
  
  I'd like to add that "white people" is a bullshit term that didn't mean anything until the Jim Crow era.
  Allow me to explain:  For over 1000 years, Europe was a meatgrinder of war and death.  The Saxons hated the Norse.. England and France hated each other so much they fought for centuries.  Everyone hated the Irish.  Etc.
  We were not "one big happy tribe" in Europe pre the modern world.  We all hated and killed each other with wanton abandonment.
  White people became a thing here in the U.S. because our 'leaders' needed us to coalesce around a particular outlook, that being that they were superior to people of color.  
  "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - Lyndon B. Johnson
  Whiteness is a thing and we do need to learn about why it exists.  It's not to make us hate ourselves, I certainly don't hate myself or my family, but to better understand what the people who aren't white went through.
  This may not be as obvious to you as a UK native.  Your country ended slavery and such long before we did.  Y'all still had your oppressive ways, but it was less directed at England's black people than it has been here, meaning they didn't start their race three miles back like has often happened in the U.S.. >
  
  “White didn’t mean anything until the Jim Crow era
  It was literally used before the Civil war
  
  The UK ended slavery long before America
  
  They ended chattel slavery and feudal slavery. The UK would continue to practice colonial slavery until the mid 20th century. As would most European nations >
  
  
  It was literally used before the Civil war
  
  Yeah, I misspoke a little there.  I was kinda referring to the point "whiteness" covered all of Europe's descendants rather than some.
  The Irish were still considered less white than other whites well after the Civil War and into the 20th century.  We had whiteness before that, yes of course, but that blanket didn't cover every one considered white today (going back to our fractured roots of hating each other in Europe).
  But yes, you're right, it was used well before the Civil War.
  
  They ended chattel slavery and feudal slavery.
  
  Yes, I was referring to slavery within their own nation.  Which it's why it's less of an issue in England (where the poster is from) than the U.S., because UK black people got out from under that yoke sooner without an extreme era like Jim Crow to deal with after.  Not saying it was easy there, just easier than in the U.S. >
  
  They obviously want all white people to suffer from white guilt and be ashamed of their ancestors. If they're trying to destroy our constitution the best strategy is to demonize the people who are most likely to stand up for it. White men >
  
  I say be proud of who you are whether it be black, white, brown or whatever. Be proud to wear that colour or shade because we all can't be the same colour or have the same history as that would be to boring. Everyone has different shades/looks. Does that make one race better than the other, no way. Or make you less of a person, less smarter or whatever due to colour or history, no way. You can always learn people's history no matter who you are, what shades you wear or what you believe. Having history about how aborigines lived for example, were good with how they coped with minimal stuff around but does that mean it has to stay like that and no-one else can learn how they went about things, no. We can all learn from one another without it just being about colours, history etc >
  
  1) I don’t see why either would be problematic, referring to racial categories isn’t racist and in fact is often necessary. More importantly, the whole idea is that these aren’t ‘simply skin tones,’ whiteness and blackness refer to social categories created by people for particular reasons and adapted over time. This is an incredibly important part of global history and there is no reason not to study it.
  2) Whiteness as a racial category originated in Europe and spread throughout the globe over a period of centuries. If it’s being taught in a US-centric way, that’s a failure of teaching, not an inherent constraint on the subject.
  3) There’s certainly an optics issue, but an academic subject being hard to explain to most people is kind of the norm. Mostly it just shows the need for better communication.
  Fundamentally, whiteness and blackness are both social categories. The thing that’s being studied is the category itself, it’s an idea, not a group. >
  
  
  
  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... 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? 
  
  
  Some people are white, some are black, some are neither, there's no issue with stating that. In many western countries being white brings some privileges over other races, it's ok to acknowledge that. I've not met anyone who thinks that's an insult to any culture.
  
  
  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. 
  
  
  The UK definitely still has some structural racism, there's a reason the government had to do ridiculous things and outright lie when it made it a report suggesting there wasn't any. Studying white privilege in the UK still makes sense and how race and generation wealth interact can certainly be interesting.
  
  
  It's antagonising and more likely to harm race relations. 'Whiteness' is usually said with negative connotations. I have seen little evidence that these attitudes promote a society with more racial equity. Rather, we are encouraging racial hatred and anger between races. 
  
  
  This seems to be something you're projecting, whiteness studies doesn't suggest anything negative to me. >
  
  
  Some people are white, some are black, some are neither, there's no issue with stating that
  
  Hard disagree. Skin colour does not define a person. Building your worldview around people's Melatonin levels is toxic as hell. >
  
  Wealth or height don't define a person either, does that mean we shouldn't build a world that works for short and tall people, rich and poor people. Or would looking at issues that prevent that be toxic? >
  
  I don’t recall the public discourse and multitudes of studies on peoples heights and how it affects society. Perhaps skin color should be treated the same way… thanks for making my point. >
  
  That's because people weren't as defensive about their height as some are about their race. Although there are a fair few studies about it.
  Short people are less likely to get certain cancers, white people enjoy systemic advantages in life. Both things are true, no need to feel moral outrage about people learning about it. >
  
  I really don’t get the necessity to put large groups of people in boxes…
  Averages are useless when judging an individual. However averages will lead to discrimination. 
  There are fundamental differences that can be addressed that are societal. Access to school, jobs, healthcare. Make it accessible to all regardless of skin color. Solve it at the root instead of making society believe it fundamentally stems from “race”.
  Also the world is larger than the US and this worldview definitely doesn’t fly in most other places. >
  
  
  I really don’t get the necessity to put large groups of people in boxes…
  
  It helps in many ways, we put people in a box called parents to toddlers and then make sure they get information relevant to that group. We put people in a box called Italian speaking only and make sure things they need to be able to read are translated into Italian. Boxes are very useful.
  
  Averages are useless when judging an individual. However averages will lead to discrimination. 
  
  I disagree, when you have children you compare them against the average for their age to see if they're falling behind on any milestones and get them any help they need. Either way this is non sequitur as no one is judging anyone here.
  
  There are fundamental differences that can be addressed that are societal. Access to school, jobs, healthcare. Make it accessible to all regardless of skin color. Solve it at the root instead of making society believe it fundamentally stems from “race”.
  
  That's a great start, however in many places even after accounting for wealth, education, etc there's still an unexplained gap between various measures of achievement for different races, studying why that is in order to fix it is a good thing.
  
  Also the world is larger than the US and this worldview definitely doesn’t fly in most other places.
  
  I'm not from the US, the world is bigger than the US and many of us live in other countries. >
  
  Your examples like “Italian speaking” or “toddler” are actual real factual states of being. 
  Race is a made up concept with a vague definition based on skin color ignoring cultural background, language, values etc. Oh you are from Africa, go in this race box.
  It is not comparable in the slightest.
  Let’s say as an example that 70% of “dark skin” people are below the average income level and 30% of “light skin” people are. 2 ways to solve this. A program based on skin color, or a program that works for people that happen to be under the average income level. Obviously the second option is the right one.
  Do you see why skin color is different than raising a toddler in discrimination >
  
  So now your issue isn't putting people in boxes it's that you feel the boxes aren't 100% objectively measurable, do you think that stops the categories impacting people though?
  Let's take another example, of the people below the poverty line, the current program has 80% of light skinned people above it in a years time but only 20% of dark skinned people. Do you think maybe we should take a look and see what's going on, maybe see if there's any systemic issues that could be resolved? >
  
  That means the program did not take into account the right socio economic circumstances of 70% of the subjects, so it was designed by idiots.
  Skin color still isn’t the issue, it is the effectiveness of the program for a given socio economic situation.
  The only way this could be the obvious outcome is if the program itself discriminates based on skin color, because society has decided it should. Wrapping right back around to why skin colour should be treated like height and not like “race” and “them”. >
  
  Can you explain what's "problematic" about colourism? I know this might sound like a stupid question but I want to understand your view. >
  
  It almost always leads to stereotypes about people with a certain skin colour, and naturally negative stereotypes too. Colourism is the basis of all racism. >
  
  And there's nothing one can do to eliminate false racial stereotypes even... Formal education and in depth study on those races? >
  
  "races" are not a thing.... that is the problem. You are studying something that was made up. Therefor you are reinforcing stereotypes >
  
  So nothing that was created my human minds can be studied? Race *is* a thing, and that thing is a social construct created by human societies. That is more than enough to be studied and analyzed. If nothing else, we can study why the construct of race exists and how we interact with it today. There is literally an endless amount of study to be had in this topic, which is why there's entire academic fields around it. >
  
  If you have time you can read the below long ass thread. But in short, no one agrees on the definition of "race" because there isn't one, it is either misused instead of "ethnicity" (cultural grouping), or used as synonymous to skin colour which is objectively a shitty way to judge people. This doesn't lead to any useful analysis or outcome on a worldwide scale. If you want to study a specific social/cultural/ethic group, like descendants from slaves in the USA that is one thing, but you can't extrapolate beyond that to a random dark/light-skinned woman that lives in Switzerland or Cambodia.
  The term "race" comes from the old belief that humans had different "races" like in animals, with some "superior" to others. The fact that we still use this nomenclature is horrifying and leads to people categorizing different looking people as "the other" which reinforces discrimination instead of battling it. The words we use have meaning.
  Can you study the fact people categorize others in "races", of course, it is a societal phenomenon made popular by colonizers hundreds of years ago and perpetrated by the USA because they have a massive African cultural group that lost their roots and were treated like lesser humans. Hollywood then contributed to spreading that specific way of categorizing people to the world. Sounds interesting enough to study.
  Should you study anything else using "race" as your base framework, no that makes no sense. Study the social phenomenon, don't use it as your worldview.
  Should we run away as fast as possible from the concept of "races" in modern society? Definitely. >
  
  Studying race does not imply that race has a concrete definition or the concept of race is a good thing that should be maintained. It merely means studying how the social construct of race manifests in society. Just because you believe that categorizing people into races in ultimately harmful (which may be true) doesn't mean that we shouldn't study race. When I see "the study of race" I assume they mean "the study of the socially-constructed phenomenon of race". They just don't say it in as many words. >
  
  I mean, if you read what I wrote, i agree with you. >
  
  
  we shouldn't be creating a society where we can talk negatively about one race and not the other.
  
  "whiteness" is not about you as such. It is merely describing some overall social rules. You're white, sure, but you are yourself, your are not the social rules tied to your white identity. >
  
  Isn't that very horrible marketing than? When you have to say "this negative connotation doesn't apply to you even though it includes your race in the phrase"? >
  
  Perhaps. But the wikipage the OP links to litarally start with:
  
  Whiteness studies is the study of the structures that
  
  so it doesn't take a lot a research to find out. Also, this is the way social science generally works, figuring out the overaching mechanics at play. >
  
  And congratulations, you just did more research than 99% of Americans, reading the first sentence of a Wikipedia article. Don’t you think that terms like these should be either rebranded or not used for general politics? >
  
  I wouldn't say it is problematic, so much as silly. By "Whiteness" do we mean the history of the Slavs? Or the Germanic tribes? The Britons? The Danes? Are we talking about the Gauls? When do we stop counting the Mediterranean as part of the history of Whiteness? Or does this only look at white colonial slave traders and their direct ancestors?
  ​
  
  Zeus Leonardo defines whiteness as "a racial discourse, whereas the category ‘white people’ represents a socially constructed identity, usually based on skin color". Steve Garner notes that "whiteness has no stable consensual meaning" and that "the meanings attached to 'race' are always time- and place-specific, part of each national racial regime".
  
  Based on the wording of the wiki, my understanding is that "Whiteness" is going to be a "cultural and social phenomenon we identify as the American status quo in opposition to those who feel othered." Is the Constitution part of Whiteness? What about the notion of a Democratic Republic? Is the IRS part of Whiteness? Hotdogs and Baseball? Police brutality? Slavery?
  Reading through the wiki and following some of the source links, you can tell that the material pulls from intelligent sources, and I'm sure that there is good philosophy being done at some level. 
  But it's just another reiteration of the phenomenon that when some people envision the future, the idea is that we have moved past these topics, and when other people envision the future, the idea is that we are able to perpetually engage in these topics.
  Are these distinctions important? Yes, I believe so. When someone takes a Black Studies course, they are learning about phenomenon, peoples, and processes which have been rendered invisible by oppressive [intentional and unintentional] forces. This has merit, both in the catharsis of being seen, and in the humbling of seeing]. The intentionality of the Whiteness studies is otherwise, not to render the invisible unseen, but pull some Platonic trickery, to say "Ah, what you've seen all this time was but shadows on the wall of the cave, not this but that, a racial thing, a bad thing, and here too, and there also, wicked." 
  There is a marked difference in learning to see what has been hidden, and being trained to see one thing for another. 
  So far, perhaps, I've only helped your case, this all sounds at best dangerously misleading, and at worst the set up for some awful Orwellian doublethought!
  Black Studies has an audience, it sells seats, it offers an experience that is perpetually engaging so long as blackness needs to be a thing revealed or celebrated. As long as there is mystery in Blackness, there's money in teaching it. 
  Whiteness, so defined as the status quo, only engages people so long as they feel othered, and while there are plenty of folks who do feel othered, the specific racial foundations are only engaging so long as the othered-subject can express their minority status in racial terms. 
  As long as you can keep using the terms "rich old white guys," you can sell that seat. But vastly more people are concerned with "rich old guys," and more still with "rich." The primary, fundamental cornerstone of the status quo isn't race, but wealth. That wealth is associated with race and with sex, but it isn't limited there. The wealthy grow their power through the channels which best serve them, and a "Whiteness" studies course, focused on exploring and exploiting a sense of an oppressive other, only maintains the veil of illusion so long as "rich old white guys" can be handwaved into "white culture." 
  As more people interact with wealth, rather than with race, they will see again as they have in the past, that the primary forces of oppression are economic. The rest is just window dressing. 
  So, does all of this move "Whiteness" studies from "problematic" to "trivial"? I certainly think so. It's hard enough getting people to sit down in a class and focus on something that's real. So long as the point of a Whiteness study is the cathartic deconstruction of the status quo, well, there are both easier ways to do that [racial arguments online, no citations needed], or more fulfilling ways to do that [taking a philosophy course, studying history, economics, political theory, etc]. 
  I know a few people would take a class like this. I know a few who would take it seriously. They are the types of folk who are always looking for a Top Dog to fight, who oppose the status quo because it is biggest thing they can see. The fight gives them merit, and if the status quo was something else, they'd still fight it. 
  The vast majority of the rest of folk don't have the time or energy for nonsense. 
  So, for me, not problematic, so much as exasperating. Another "this thing again, my old friend, I thought we'd put you in a home." >
  
  I recall a book titled « How the Irish Became White ». When they first came to America they experienced more discrimination than some blacks but were slowly accepted over time for various reasons. It explores how they overcame that « otherness ». I don’t think whiteness is only about the color of your skin…. >
  
  White people talking about things they know nothing about. >
  
  Can you tell us how the existence of these studies ever affected you negatively? >
  
  The solution is just to teach "racial studies."