Is this for Real? (2 Viewers)

Farb said:

That is true. You mean like in asian(yellow?) and maybe hispanic(brown?) cultures tend to be modeled on a larger family unit? Also the Spanish tradition of the siesta maybe? I get there will be degrees of separation between other cultures, within the same culture and the 'white' culture on certain things (probably due to geography and natural environment) but some I cant see how it is only desirable in the 'white' culture. Universal concepts, like being polite for an easy example.

Click to expand...

What is “white” culture? Is it really valuable to try to delineate culture by skin color? It seems to me to be more of a religious and/or nationality type of thing.

Farb said:

Universal concepts, like being polite for an easy example.

Click to expand...

While politeness and manners are universal concepts, what is considered polite and proper manners vary greatly between cultures. Foreign diplomats have cultural experts that coach them on how to avoid insulting leaders of other cultures. That wouldn't be an issue if there was a universal standard across all cultures for being polite.

Farb said:

So 'whiteness' is actually western civilization?

Click to expand...

As a generality, yes. Absolutely. It’s metonymical. In the same way that “inner city” is code for black. When Ben Shapiro praises “scientific experimentalism” as a “Western” invention, it means white. Same with Math. It ignores brown contributions in both because the intent is to elevate whiteness as development and civility and advancement.

This has been the case for hundreds of years and in the West it was even codified as racism masquerading as science and anthropology

MT15 said:

What is “white” culture? Is it really valuable to try to delineate culture by skin color? It seems to me to be more of a religious and/or nationality type of thing.

Click to expand...

The National Museum of African American History and Culture was the one who published that graphic on their website. I agree that it seems like religious or nationality would be a better way to look at it.

SaintForLife said:

The National Museum of African American History and Culture was the one who published that graphic on their website. I agree that it seems like religious or nationality would be a better way to look at it.

Click to expand...

unless there is part of the graphic that I cannot see, it doesn’t say white culture. I’m on my phone though so maybe I cannot see the whole thing.

I think when the museum chose to take it down, they torched it. I can't find it anymore easily (have not had to time to hunt it down) but on the first page of the chart, it said something about 'white culture/whiteness that is embedded in the United States'. From there the 2 pages read like something that would be up on the wall in KKK break room right next to the Dept of Labor poster.

Edit:found a shot of the first page



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12142926/african-american-museum-whiteness-chart-protestant-values/

This link has the full poster available to view and read. I have no idea about what the Sun is, didn't research because I don't care. I was just trying to find a screen shot of the entire chart. This has it.

Farb said:

I think when the museum chose to take it down, they torched it. I can't find it anymore easily (have not had to time to hunt it down) but on the first page of the chart, it said something about 'white culture/whiteness that is embedded in the United States'. From there the 2 pages read like something that would be up on the wall in KKK break room right next to the Dept of Labor poster.

Click to expand...

So it's something different than what you attached to the first post?

The title of the document is "Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness & White Culture in the United States"

The first three words after the title are "White dominant culture . . . "

The document the museum used to make their document has the same title: http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/ab...ons of White Culture in the United States.pdf

cuddlemonkey said:

So it's something different than what you attached to the first post?

Click to expand...

Yes, apparently. Sorry. I originally posted the 2nd page. I have edited and posted the first page with the title.

Farb said:

Yes, apparently. Sorry. I originally posted the 2nd page. I have edited and posted the first page with the title.

Click to expand...

I see it now. Shame it's so blurry. I would love to see the bullet points.

JimEverett said:

The title of the document is "Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness & White Culture in the United States"

The first three words after the title are "White dominant culture . . . "

The document the museum used to make their document has the same title: http://www.cascadia.edu/discover/about/diversity/documents/Some Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States.pdf

Click to expand...

My eyes aren't the best, but it looks like this might be the same text from the blurry first page. Nice find.

cuddlemonkey said:

My eyes aren't the best, but it looks like this might be the same text from the blurry first page. Nice find.

Click to expand...

I don't think so - but I might be confused.

For the museum piece try this:

My link was to the Judith Katz work that the museum apparently used to create its doc.

JimEverett said:

I don't think so - but I might be confused.

For the museum piece try this:

My link was to the Judith Katz work that the museum apparently used to create its doc.

Click to expand...

It is. I can see it better in that Twitter link. Everything on the museum's flyer matches the pdf you linked a few posts above. At least it gives us a place from which we can discuss this.

It seems that the pdf Jim linked in post #26 is the exact text in the museum flyer with the exception of this, which was added to the museum flyer:

"White dominant culture, or whiteness, refers to the ways white people and their traditions, attitudes, and ways of life have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practices in the United States. And since white people still hold most of the institutional power in America, we have all internalized some aspects of white culture- including people of color."

cuddlemonkey said:

It seems that the pdf Jim linked in post #26 is the exact text in the museum flyer with the exception of this, which was added to the museum flyer:

"White dominant culture, or whiteness, refers to the ways white people and their traditions, attitudes, and ways of life have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practices in the United States. And since white people still hold most of the institutional power in America, we have all internalized some aspects of white culture- including people of color."

Click to expand...

I don't understand the objection here. There's a definite dominance - it's not assigning blame to individual white people. It's not designed to make white people feel guilty. It's about how power has manifested itself the last 400+ years

It's like when I talk about de-centering whiteness or de-colonizing my curriculum, it's not about making white people feel guilty - that would be counter-productive and a waste of time anyway. But I find that people are so often too quick to jump to that 'white guilt' or personalizing the blame.

And then many times, will turn around and deny systemic.

I find that odd, because it's the systemic nature that insulates the individual from guilt/blame. Instead, it's about awareness and small, individual actions.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a really good book. But I can replace it with something more contemporary, something more local by a black writer who has experienced something firsthand, that is of comparable literary merit, so why not? Esp if I have a kid in my class from Scarborough (a lower class, ethnically diverse part of Toronto).

If I want to teach comedic drama, why not do Kim's Convenience, which is local and current and hilarious - and award winning. It's great.

People act like de-colonizing the bookshelf equals banning books and that's so stupid.

And de-centering whiteness is the same thing. In Harry Potter, we are told which characters are black. Cho Chang is given a really Asian name. But the whiteness of Harry and Hermione is sort of taken for granted - because it's normalized. That's a minor thing, but it's indicative of the assumption.

Now, maybe we can go statistical and say, "Well in the UK, XX% of the population is white, so we can reasonably assume a character is white."

Sure. But there are a lot of visible minority kids that would like to see themselves in text without it having to be pointed out that color is a feature that defines a character, explicitly.

I mean, these are little things that mean a ton to people that they mean something to. And whiteness is in retail management when you ask to talk to a manager. It's on store shelves. It's on television shows. It's teachers and police officers. Of course I am not saying that there aren't people of color who do these jobs. What I mean is that there is a default assumption and it gets embedded in routine, banal, day to day things.

All we're trying to do is make it less assumptive re: white so that people can feel more included.

And when I see people who act like they are so put upon by these minor things, I wonder what would happen if they lived a life of actual oppresson.

We need more empathy, folks.

Ayo said:

And de-centering whiteness is the same thing. In Harry Potter, we are told which characters are black. Cho Chang is given a really Asian name. But the whiteness of Harry and Hermione is sort of taken for granted - because it's normalized. That's a minor thing, but it's indicative of the assumption.

Click to expand...

The same is true in film and television writing. It's assumed a character is white unless written otherwise, even a lot of non-white screenwriters write their characters this way.

LA - L.A. said:

The same is true in film and television writing. It's assumed a character is white unless written otherwise, even a lot of non-white screenwriters write their characters this way.

Click to expand...

So I played a lot of wow in my day and still
Follow it a bit. There are new character models coming out that are more Black and Brown and Asian. And not just skin tones, but facial features. And the responses to them by some of the players are really deep.

I mean, I main a green female orc rogue so it doesn’t matter to me. But to people who really identify with their character it means a lot.

And that doesn’t mean white characters are banned.

Ayo said:

So I played a lot of wow in my day and still
Follow it a bit. There are new character models coming out that are more Black and Brown and Asian. And not just skin tones, but facial features. And the responses to them by some of the players are really deep.

I mean, I main a green female orc rogue so it doesn’t matter to me. But to people who really identify with their character it means a lot.

And that doesn’t mean white characters are banned.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's addition, not subtraction. Some people fear that it's subtraction by addition. I think it's mostly the people who have bought into the mistaken idea that the only relationship dynamic that exists between people is dominance and submission.

One of the inherently unhealthy aspects of unchecked capitalism is it promotes a world view of dominance and submission versus equality. A world view of competition versus cooperation.

That's why there's so much resistance to the efforts toward building a more inclusive society. Some white people see it as becoming submissive and dominated. Some see it as losing the competition for dominance, when it's actually an effort to cooperatively build a more equally inclusive society for all.