Support NeoGAF

[Stumpokapow]

Shouldn't the question be "did the professor lob side her class lessons too much about racism to he point that it failed to cover other necessary topics of the class?" That seems to be the students' argument.

To what extent would an undergraduate student have the holistic knowledge of the field necessary to know whether or not a given theme is a "necessary topic", or whether or not other topics were being "failed to be covered"? It's an introductory course, it's hard to imagine the students are aware of canonical authors, or of major approaches to course design for an introductory course, or that they themselves are ready to write comps. And the story certainly provides no context about whether the students wanted to study McLuhan or greek oratory or journalistic regulatory capture or ethics of public-versus-private broadcasting or the history of propaganda--only that they did not feel racial themes were acceptable. Because they didn't think that was a valid approach to the course.

What I'm saying is, stepping aside from this example, do you think it would be unethical for an introductory to mass communications course to focus on how communications media are used to perpetuate inequality in society? Because that to me seems like one of many valid approaches for an introductory course. So would an emphasis on 20th century propaganda and totalitarian governments. So would the use of emerging media technologies. I'm no expert in this field, of course. But do any of these sound, prima facie, unacceptable topics of focus for an intro course?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Shouldn't the question be "did the professor lob side her class lessons too much about racism to he point that it failed to cover other necessary topics of the class?" That seems to be the students' argument.

whynotboth.gif

 

[Mr. Patch]

Maybe people wouldn't get so pissy if it was "black unashamed" rather than "pride".

Or they could stop acting like they don't know how historical context works.

 

[pompidu]

To what extent would an undergraduate student have the holistic knowledge of the field necessary to know whether or not a given theme is a "necessary topic", or whether or not other topics were being "failed to be covered"? It's an introductory course, it's hard to imagine the students are aware of canonical authors, or of major approaches to course design for an introductory course, or that they themselves are ready to write comps. And the story certainly provides no context about whether the students wanted to study McLuhan or greek oratory or journalistic regulatory capture or ethics of public-versus-private broadcasting or the history of propaganda--only that they did not feel racial themes were acceptable. Because they didn't think that was a valid approach to the course.

What I'm saying is, stepping aside from this example, do you think it would be unethical for an introductory to mass communications course to focus on how communications media are used to perpetuate inequality in society? Because that to me seems like one of many valid approaches for an introductory course. I'm no expert in this field, of course.

a syllabus. all classes have them and if the prof is going off the rails yoy have every right to bitch and complain. but we dont know if thats the situation

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Or they could stop acting like they don't know how historical context works.

Let's be honest though, what are the odds of that happening?

 

[Valhelm]

Stupid disease, always deciding the course of history without asking.

To be honest, if it was not for disease, Western Europeans would be no more guilty than any other cultural group. Full colonization of the New World would have been impossible, otherwise. The Vikings tried, but without any diseases or other means to enact genocide, they were driven out by the native population.

 

[Skellig Gra]

White males between the ages of 12 and 35 are just the worst.

so what happens at 36 and with women? Honestly, from my experience the older and white you are the more racist you are. Also, some of the worst racists I've encountered have been women.

 

[Byakuya769]

Shouldn't the question be "did the professor lob side her class lessons too much about racism to he point that it failed to cover other necessary topics of the class?" That seems to be the students' argument.

Where did you see the students' arguments fleshed out?

 

[shanshan310]

Eh. Enjoy it, I guess. My full thought process below:

I was going to start by saying that the reason minority races are proud of their skin color is part of a way of standing up against racism and embracing the culture that the came from as well as what their ancestors have done to get them so far. Then I was thinking, "why would a white person have pride coming from their race?" Then I thought "well maybe in all of this, they just want to be proud to be themselves." Y'know, like I "I'm proud to be me sort of thing." And then I decided, fuck it - why not let him be proud to be white? In the end, there's a lot of history there that doesn't necessarily deal with racism (directly). And really, he could also be proud of strides made by his ancestors to help stand against racism as well. Who knows? It's nothing directly harmful either way.

I think this is it. Looking through the thread it seems like a lot of people seem to be equating pride to superiority and "white power" assholes. A lot of terrible things happened in the past but I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with reasons why people might feel proud. I'm proud of who I am, and I'm proud of my family, and my European heritage is a part of that. That's all. I think it's cool that my family came from England and Germany and such. It's no different to my pride in being an Australian in my eyes. Things other white people did aren't related at all.

 

[IHaveCandy]

To what extent would an undergraduate student have the holistic knowledge of the field necessary to know whether or not a given theme is a "necessary topic", or whether or not other topics were being "failed to be covered"? It's an introductory course, it's hard to imagine the students are aware of canonical authors, or of major approaches to course design for an introductory course, or that they themselves are ready to write comps. And the story certainly provides no context about whether the students wanted to study McLuhan or greek oratory or journalistic regulatory capture or ethics of public-versus-private broadcasting or the history of propaganda--only that they did not feel racial themes were acceptable. Because they didn't think that was a valid approach to the course.

What I'm saying is, stepping aside from this example, do you think it would be unethical for an introductory to mass communications course to focus on how communications media are used to perpetuate inequality in society? Because that to me seems like one of many valid approaches for an introductory course. So would an emphasis on 20th century propaganda and totalitarian governments. So would the use of emerging media technologies. I'm no expert in this field, of course. But do any of these sound, prima facie, unacceptable topics of focus for an intro course?

It should be as simple as the administration reviewing her coursework and determining if it fit the class requirements. I don't know if that is a class that has strict course topic requirements or if it gives a professor more control. But that would at least be a simple and objective way to determine whether or not the students' complaints were valid.

 

[Byakuya769]

I think this is it. Looking through the thread it seems like a lot of people seem to be equating pride to superiority and "white power" assholes. A lot of terrible things happened in the past but I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with reasons why people might feel proud. I'm proud of who I am, and I'm proud of my family, and my European heritage is a part of that. That's all. I think it's cool that my family came from England and Germany and such. It's no different to my pride in being an Australian in my eyes. Things other white people did aren't related at all.

Are you proud to be white? If so, why?

 

[Stumpokapow]

a syllabus. all classes have them and if the prof is going off the rails yoy have every right to bitch and complain. but we dont know if thats the situation

While it would be appropriate for a syllabus to contain the thematic framing of the course, it doesn't necessarily have to. And it's acceptable for classroom discussions to depart from readings. I mentioned above some of my own experiences working with profs teaching Introduction to Political Science classes. The course that I mentioned focused on "democracy in the world" had the following syllabus claim:

Politics is... the study of... who gets what, when and how... This course is an introduction to key concepts and debates in the study of politics. The main objective is... an overview of the discipline of political science. The course focuses on three aspects: 1) key concepts in political science; 2) types of political systems, and 3) forms of political participation.

It doesn't use the word democracy, although someone experienced with polisci would understand that it has a comparative approach and likely would discuss democracy. Later on the syllabus includes the claim:

[Readings are built] around the theme of “Democracy”: the different types of it, the struggle for it, the conditions under which it can flourish and whether it is a universal value.

One of the discussion groups focused on readings by Amartya Sen and Francis Fukuyama on inequality. Another focused on judicial review. Some readings that were assigned were not discussed in the class, others were. This isn't rocket science stuff. It's okay for profs to discuss things that differ from assigned readings, to have parts of their course that connect to the main theme more than others, to use a fairly neutral syllabus description but still have a thematic emphasis in the material presented, etc.

I am sympathetic of a student who feels the class and readings did not prepare them for the exam. That is a form of deception and a legitimate complaint. I am significantly less sympathetic of a student who simply doesn't like the emphasis of the course and is complaining because they wish it would be something else.

I remember a friend who took a Canadian Sociology and Culture course like 6 or 7 years ago and complained that the emphasis was on the prof's line of work, which was largely focused on one region of Canada and emphasized some historical issues. And obviously she had the right to be disappointed in the focus or uninterested. Or to drop the class and take it another semester. But I don't think she would have been in the right if she complained that the course material was invalid because of her expectations from the department's generic description of the course.

I remember I signed up for an undergraduate seminar in Human Security, which I expected to be about refugees, border security, civil war, conflict studies, etc. It turns out it was about Food Security. Now, I'm not saying Food Security isn't a valid topic. All the readings were stuff I recognize as significant readings in the field. But it's not what I wanted, so I dropped the class. It'd probably have been better if the department named the course "Food Security", or if their generic description emphasized that different profs addressed different issues in Human Security. However the prof is not illegitimate because they taught it that way, right?

 

[IHaveCandy]

Are you proud to be white? If so, why?

He just gave specific nationalities he is a part of and proud to be. Why are you falling back to "white"? I mean, I'm not proud or ashamed of being Eritrean, but if I said I was proud, I'd be annoyed if somebody followed it with "Are you proud to be black?" It seems very pointless. Feels very "gotcha!"

 

[Schweinehund]

I'm just glad my heritage is getting smashed and wearing green once a year.

The other half is eating pirogi.

 

[LProtag]

The only way she did something wrong is if she specifically singled out a group of kids and used them as an example. Even then, she would have had to do it with malice.

As a teacher you never use your students as an example to explain something because they're the people you're trying to educate. It would be the same as discussing racism and specifically asking a black kid in your class to explain what it's like. If they want to discuss it themselves, let them, but don't look to them expecting them to say something. In this instance, if a white kid wants to explain white privilege they've experienced, let them, don't force them to.

So unless she really singled them out and demonized them, there's nothing wrong with what happened. I'm a 25 year old white male student teacher in a high school and I've held discussions on institutionalized/structural racism. It's important that we do.

 

[Kinitari]

He just gave specific nationalities he is a part of and proud to be. Why are you falling back to "white"? I mean, I'm not proud or ashamed of being Eritrean, but if I said I was proud, I'd be annoyed if somebody followed it with "Are you proud to be black?" It seems very pointless. Feels very "gotcha!"

I wonder, do you identify as being black while being Eritrean? This is a bit off topic but I don't know any Eritrean's irl.

 

[Byakuya769]

He just gave specific nationalities he is a part of and proud to be. Why are you falling back to "white"? I mean, I'm not proud or ashamed of being Eritrean, but if I said I was proud, I'd be annoyed if somebody followed it with "Are you proud to be black?" It seems very pointless. Feels very "gotcha!"

What the hell is this? Are you following the conversation? The difference between Black pride and white pride is being evaluated; black pride being equated to Irish pride, due to a loss of other cultural identities. He is positing that white pride is okay, so my reasoning for asking him to explain if he's proud to be white and why, is perfectly fine. Because I think he likely isn't particularly proud to be white, as he doesn't think that way. Rather, he is proud of the cultural identities he listed.

Follow?

 

[Kinitari]

Because that's the discussion being had in this thread that led to that post.

I don't think ANYBODY is claiming you shouldn't be proud of being Polish or whatever.

But this is where it gets confusing. If being polish means you fall under the category of being white, why is it so weird to be proud of being white?

Mind, I think it's weird being proud of your ethnicity in general, but I wouldn't begrudge someone else their pride.

 

[Stumpokapow]

It should be as simple as the administration reviewing her coursework and determining if it fit the class requirements. I don't know if that is a class that has strict course topic requirements or if it gives a professor more control. But that would at least be a simple and objective way to determine whether or not the students' complaints were valid.

That would not be a "simple and objective way" to determine it because that's not how university works in North America. Typically the "administration" is a University Board of Governance (often made up of non-academic patrons and emeritus type professors) and a Senate (composition of university senates vary wildly), then a School-wide Dean's office ("Dean of Arts"), then a departmental-level department chair who is basically a professor picked on a few-year rotation, then a few random professors within the department. Everyone above the Dean has a political interest in the client model of education, which would basically say "the customer is always right". Since that's where the bulk of money is coming from. Only at the department level would there actually be personnel who have the expertise--having passed comp exams in the major area of focus--to review the curriculum content. Even then it's tough. I've spoken with hard-quant professors who actually think political philosophy is largely bullshit, and I've spoken to people in thought/philosophy who don't appear to believe that numbers are real. That's a pretty fundamental disagreement in terms of pedagogy and course design, but it's there, and it's there in a lot of political science departments worldwide. I suspect that communications has similar disciplinary pissing matches. These kinds of issues tend to be extremely political, and the exact opposite of objective. I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience with intra-academic politics?

Moreover, if the complaint focused on in-class teaching then the problem is that it relies on he-said-she-said about the sorts of language the prof was using and the frequency of issues that were coming up. I did a course on Terrorism in maybe... I want to say 2006 where a fellow student issued an academic complaint against the professor based on the perception that the readings were inane and focused too much on the prof's pet issues and that the professor was too harsh to students. I was asked to join the complaint and my response was "Honestly, I didn't like the prof but I have absolutely no idea whether or not he's fair because I don't know enough about the subject". Certainly I didn't get much out of the course and I guess if I had my time back I'd have taken something else. I have no idea what happened with the challenge in the end but I got a frustrating B+ in the course :/ But them's the breaks. If I tried to prejudge course material on the basis of my own assumptions of what was legitimate and what was not, well, I wouldn't have needed to be taught anything because I'd have just read all the stuff worth reading. Most students aren't auto-didactic though and I doubt many of those who claim to be.

Introduction courses offer extraordinary leeway, the most of any in the entire stream, because they are the least specialized courses as a matter of requirement. I'm looking back at syllabuses from introductory courses I took in Philosophy, Religious Studies, Sociology, Political Science, Anthropology, and English and every single one of them appears to be specialized differently. Hell, with English I took the course twice (dropped first time due to a scheduling error) and there's absolutely no topic or reading overlap between the two instances of the course.

 

[shanshan310]

Are you proud to be white? If so, why?

I'm proud to be me, and I'm proud of my heritage, so I guess so. It's made me who I am. I don't think it would matter what racial background I had though (as in, if my family originated in Asia or something), I'd be proud of it anyway, whatever it was.

Why? That's an impossible question to answer, sorry.

Why are you simply proud of being white rather than those particular cultures?

Black pride is a very specific thing. That mainly applies to Americans. Because they lost their cultural identities and were forced into a collective.

That hasn't happened to white people. "White" isn't a culture; in America, "black" is.

I never said I was just proud of being white. The word is meaningless without those cultures.

The concept of "black pride" or "gay pride" is different to the regular use of pride. There are different subtleties attached to the word in those situations.

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

Another example of free speech being a right only for the rich and affluent.

 

[Kinitari]

What the hell is this? Are you following the conversation? The difference between Black pride and white pride is being evaluated; black pride being equated to Irish pride, due to a loss of other cultural identities. He is positing that white pride is okay, so my reasoning for asking him to explain if he's proud to be white and why, is perfectly fine. Because I think, he likely isn't particularly proud to be white, because he doesn't think that way, but rather is proud of the cultural identities he listed.

Follow?

I'm not the guy you're quoting, but for example I'm Ethiopian. If I said I was proud of being Ethiopian, that wouldn't bother you I'm sure. But if I said I was proud of being African? What about if I said I was proud of being black? My ethnicity hasn't been lost, so I'm not forced to identify as black.

I feel like there are too many arbitrary rules, and I'd rather we just assumed people have good intentions when wanting to feel pride, leave it at that.

 

[Byakuya769]

I'm proud to be me, and I'm proud of my heritage, so I guess so. It's made me who I am. I don't think it would matter what racial background I had though (as in, if my family originated in Asia or something), I'd be proud of it anyway, whatever it was.

Why? That's an impossible question to answer, sorry.


I never said I was just proud of being white. The word is meaningless without those cultures.

The concept of "black pride" or "gay pride" is different to the regular use of pride. There are different subtleties attached to the word in those situations.

Why can't you say you're proud to be "white?" It's as if you see it as different than someone saying they have "black pride" or "gay pride" now. You eschew that terminology for a very specific reason. Now look a the sort of people who typically espouse "white pride." What do you know about them? I mean come on.

I'm not the guy you're quoting, but for example I'm Ethiopian. If I said I was proud of being Ethiopian, that wouldn't bother you I'm sure. But if I said I was proud of being African? What about if I said I was proud of being black? My ethnicity hasn't been lost, so I'm not forced to identify as black.

I feel like there are too many arbitrary rules, and I'd rather we just assumed people have good intentions when wanting to feel pride, leave it at that.

The rules aren't really arbitrary. They're clearly based on power dynamics. Subjugated people unremarkably take pride in surviving that subjugation. "White pride" is typically born out of a feeling of subjugation, as well. It's just those feelings often ring hollow.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

pride movements are reactions to years of systematic belittlement and oppression. there's no reason for white pride because there's never been white oppression in america.

Spoiler

cue white gaffer saying he was oppressed when he went to a school with 60% black population.

In all fairness Irish, Italians and Jews had been heavily oppressed in the US.

 

[IHaveCandy]

What the hell is this? Are you following the conversation? The difference between Black pride and white pride is being evaluated; black pride being equated to Irish pride, due to a loss of other cultural identities. He is positing that white pride is okay, so my reasoning for asking him to explain if he's proud to be white and why, is perfectly fine. Because I think he likely isn't particularly proud to be white, as he doesn't think that way. Rather, he is proud of the cultural identities he listed.

Follow?

I'd argue that racial pride on any side is rather senseless. I see what you're trying to say though.

 

[shanshan310]

Why can't you say you're proud to be "white?" It's as if you see it as different than someone saying they have "black pride" or "gay pride" now. You eschew that terminology for a very specific reason. Now look a the sort of people who typically espouse "white pride." What do you know about them? I mean come on.

You can be proud of your background and race without being a member of the KKK, fyi. The term "white pride" is a specific label for KKK types. Come on, where are you trying to lead me with this?

The rules aren't really arbitrary. They're clearly based on power dynamics. Subjugated people unremarkably take pride in surviving that subjugation. "White pride" is typically born out of a feeling of subjugation, as well. It's just those feelings often ring hollow.

I don't see it that way at all. Nothing to do with power dynamics, nothing to do with subjugation.

 

[Kinitari]

The rules aren't really arbitrary. They're clearly based on power dynamics. Subjugated people unremarkably take pride in surviving that subjugation. "White pride" is typically born out of a feeling of subjugation, as well. It's just those feelings often ring hollow.

Pride isn't based on power dynamics. Maybe pride festivals and pride movements, but just feeling proud? I can feel proud of my father, of myself, of my city, no power dynamics involved. In the same vein, I feel it's harmful to begrudge caucasians that same allowance. If I wanted I could say I was proud of being Ethiopian, African, Black and Canadian all in the same sentence and no one would bat an eye - and I've honestly never felt subjugated or discriminated against in my life.

 

[IHaveCandy]

The rules aren't really arbitrary. They're clearly based on power dynamics. Subjugated people unremarkably take pride in surviving that subjugation. "White pride" is typically born out of a feeling of subjugation, as well. It's just those feelings often ring hollow.

You are assuming a lot here. People proud to be black doesn't have to do with survival. You're also heavily assuming the source of white pride. How can you be so comfortable making such specific assumptions about entire groups of people?

 

[Vilix]

I'm just glad my heritage is getting smashed and wearing green once a year.

The other half is eating pirogi.

And to think at one time you were treated worse than blacks or Asians. Saw a show on PBS about the Irish immigrants. Talk about an ethnicity that got big time boned.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

You can be proud of your background and race without being a member of the KKK, fyi. The term "white pride" is a specific label for KKK types. Come on, where are you trying to lead me with this?

I have to disagree. The term "White Power" is the main slogan used by white supremacy groups, not 'White Pride'. Sure 'White Pride' may have been used at some point by some group, but it is far from the slogan most associated with the KKK, skinhead/Nazi types.

 

[Byakuya769]

You can be proud of your background and race without being a member of the KKK, fyi. The term "white pride" is a specific label for KKK types. Come on, where are you trying to lead me with this?

I just want you to admit what you already know. Naked racial pride is not the same as being proud of who you are. Being proud to be black isn't about having some particular created player parameters that you pride yourself on, but the interaction that your race has with cultural hegemony. Being proud to be Irish is about a history, a culture and an identity. Saying "I'm proud to be white" is about what exactly? If you can't answer that, I think you should retract the notion that it is equal to black pride, gay pride, Irish pride or -insert any other cultural identity-.

 

[IHaveCandy]

It is generally a reaction to being systematically oppressed or seen as an "other". It is a tool to help build a sense of value and self in the face of a majority society that defaults to breaking that down in you.

You can think that is a bad thing, or whatever, but it is far from "senseless". It has an exact purpose that is crucial to various minority cultures maintaining individual self-worth.

I am Eritrean and my family members have a ton of pride in their culture. It's not about surviving or being singled out. They grew up in a culture that was basically 100% homogenous. Their pride comes from loving their home and culture. I don't agree with that pride. I don't necessarily think it's directly harmful, but I don't share their enthusiasm for it. I don't like the "us/them" mentality it brings.

 

[pompidu]

While it would be appropriate for a syllabus to contain the thematic framing of the course, it doesn't necessarily have to. And it's acceptable for classroom discussions to depart from readings. I mentioned above some of my own experiences working with profs teaching Introduction to Political Science classes. The course that I mentioned focused on "democracy in the world" had the following syllabus claim:



It doesn't use the word democracy, although someone experienced with polisci would understand that it has a comparative approach and likely would discuss democracy. Later on the syllabus includes the claim:


One of the discussion groups focused on readings by Amartya Sen and Francis Fukuyama on inequality. Another focused on judicial review. Some readings that were assigned were not discussed in the class, others were. This isn't rocket science stuff. It's okay for profs to discuss things that differ from assigned readings, to have parts of their course that connect to the main theme more than others, to use a fairly neutral syllabus description but still have a thematic emphasis in the material presented, etc.

I am sympathetic of a student who feels the class and readings did not prepare them for the exam. That is a form of deception and a legitimate complaint. I am significantly less sympathetic of a student who simply doesn't like the emphasis of the course and is complaining because they wish it would be something else.

I remember my girlfriend took a Canadian Sociology and Culture course like 6 or 7 years ago and complained that the emphasis was on the prof's line of work, which was largely focused on one region of Canada and emphasized some historical issues. And obviously my girlfriend had the right to be disappointed in the focus or uninterested. Or to drop the class and take it another semester. But I don't think she would have been in the right if she complained that the course material was invalid because of her expectations from the department's generic description of the course.

I remember I signed up for an undergraduate seminar in Human Security, which I expected to be about refugees, border security, civil war, conflict studies, etc. It turns out it was about Food Security. Now, I'm not saying Food Security isn't a valid topic. All the readings were stuff I recognize as significant readings in the field. But it's not what I wanted, so I dropped the class. It'd probably have been better if the department named the course "Food Security", or if their generic description emphasized that different profs addressed different issues in Human Security. However the prof is not illegitimate because they taught it that way, right?

Your assuming that that class is framed that way (I didnt see where it did or not). There is a difference between open ended discussions with a class and a teacher using their class as a soap box and not getting to core of the course study. If what the prof is talking about is irrelevant to the study and continues on a daily basis I would most definitely complain. I'm not sure were getting all the facts here.

 

[IceCold]

Being proud of being white is weird to me since if you are white in North America then you most probably know your heritage. Most Black people in the US don't have that luxury due to slavery. I simply have to go one generation to know exactly where my ancestors are from so why would I be proud of something as general as being white? Especially since the concept of whiteness only came to be due to slavery and the need to unite white folks in the new world in case shit went down. To contrast, in Europe it was always about regional pride. A Sicilian would give no fucks about some dude in Finland for example. They most probably gave no fucks about northern italians either. On top of that, white people even discriminate against each other in the US. The concept of what is considered white has always changed and become more general. So fuck everything.

 

[IHaveCandy]

I would be happy to see evidence that the term "white pride" has any cultural significance outside of hare groups and as a reaction to minority movements.

Culture and language isn't math. Every concept and term takes on cultural weight. And while you can argue until your face goes blue that if "black pride" is positive, so is "white pride," by ignoring the cultural contexts of both terms, you're not really making a valid point at all.

The purpose of saying you are "proud to be black" taps into one cultural vein. Saying you are "proud to be white" very specifically taps into another, that specifically bypasses any reasonable interpretations such as being proud to be English, or American, or German, etc.

Individuals can have their own reasons. You're right, this isn't math. Lets not assume our reasons are all equal.

 

[HarryKS]

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/...at_for_structural_racism_comments_in_2009.php

A little more insight from a previous instance.

Well, the shocking part is that Ryan now has a Bachelor's Degree in English.

Good lord. And a degree for Berkeley that is. American Splendour. Truly.

I was not 'prepaired' for this. Absolutely 'inflamitory'.

 

[Kinitari]

I would be happy to see evidence that the term "white pride" has any cultural significance outside of hare groups and as a reaction to minority movements.

Culture and language isn't math. Every concept and term takes on cultural weight. And while you can argue until your face goes blue that if "black pride" is positive, so is "white pride," by ignoring the cultural contexts of both terms, you're not really making a valid point at all.

The purpose of saying you are "proud to be black" taps into one cultural vein. Saying you are "proud to be white" very specifically taps into another, that specifically bypasses any reasonable interpretations such as being proud to be English, or American, or German, etc.

If I said I was proud of being African, what evidence would you need that this wasn't some hate group thing? Is it just because there are bad people who have taken the term "white" and "pride" and have gone in a terrible direction with it that the mere idea of being proud to be white is suddenly immediately racist? How about not assuming the worst of white people who talk about pride? Why not just assume the best and wait until you're sure they are racist before judging them to be so? I would expect you to treat anyone and everyone that way.

 

[MThanded]

She should really stop teaching this. Like the GOP said, racism was ended by Rosa Parks.

 

[Lionheart1337]

You can be proud of your background and race without being a member of the KKK, fyi. The term "white pride" is a specific label for KKK types. Come on, where are you trying to lead me with this?



I don't see it that way at all. Nothing to do with power dynamics, nothing to do with subjugation.

Cmon, just admit that you donate to stormfront.

 

[Byakuya769]

You are assuming a lot here. People proud to be black doesn't have to do with survival. You're also heavily assuming the source of white pride. How can you be so comfortable making such specific assumptions about entire groups of people?

I can find you examples for the points I make; can you readily do the same? If you want to discuss racist black people who have purely racial pride, I don't refute their existence. However, we're discussing the broad usage and meaning of terms. Arguing on the margins is a pedantic waste of time.

 

[shanshan310]

I have to disagree. The term "White Power" is the main slogan used by white supremacy groups, not 'White Pride'. Sure 'White Pride' may have been used at some point by some group, but it is far from the slogan most associated with the KKK, skinhead/Nazi types.

Right, sorry. I'm not overly familiar with white power/ KKK movements.

I just want you to admit what you already know. Naked racial pride is not the same as being proud of who you are. Being proud to be black isn't about having some particular created player parameters that you pride yourself on, but the interaction that your race has with cultural hegemony. Being proud to be Irish is about a history, a culture and an identity. Saying "I'm proud to be white" is about what exactly? If you can't answer that, I think you should retract the notion that is equal to black pride, gay pride, Irish pride or -insert any other cultural identity-.

That was never my point.

I can't answer it because it's like asking why I'm proud to be Australian or left handed or a ton of other shit I was randomly assigned. I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Also it's 4am and I'm not in a terribly awake headspace. Sorry. I don't think other people's pride in parts of themselves has to fall within your definition.

 

[RoninChaos]

You don't think that white people should own up to their generally higher position in American society? Seriously?

I think this thought process is part of the problem. What you're suggesting is holding people responsible for things they had nothing to do with.

No one asks to be born into a certain color or nationality. No one. This idea that because someone is white that they should own up to what other white people, just because, is what some people have an issue with. It's essentially guilt by association without the person involved having any choice in the matter.

On the flip side, for all the people who do not have a leg up because of their color or nationality, the same is true. They shouldn't be judged or held responsible for the behavior of people that look like them. Everyone deserves to be judged on the content of their character.

 

[jsip]

Yeah and white people do that every day. Irish pride. German pride. Great cultures worth being proud of.

But simply "whiteness"? The reason being "black" works this way is because as a people they had their previous cultural identities stripped from them and were seen as sub-human by the rest of society.

You did not get to just have pride for your "whiteness".

So heritage just up and disappeared because someone says so. You are conceding here. It is impossible to strip away heritage and past culture. It exists and will always exist. By conceding that it was stripped away is not acknowledging said heritage and allowing it to be taken from you. This is wrong on so many levels.

 

[Kinitari]

I would be happy to see evidence that the term "white pride" has any cultural significance outside of hare groups and as a reaction to minority movements.

Culture and language isn't math. Every concept and term takes on cultural weight. And while you can argue until your face goes blue that if "black pride" is positive, so is "white pride," by ignoring the cultural contexts of both terms, you're not really making a valid point at all.

The purpose of saying you are "proud to be black" taps into one cultural vein. Saying you are "proud to be white" very specifically taps into another, that specifically bypasses any reasonable interpretations such as being proud to be English, or American, or German, etc.

How do you feel if I say I'm proud of being African?

 

[Nairume]

Maybe you should read my post again for perspective. But towards your question.

In many cases in History, when the Europeans landed, They were treated with kind, brought gifts, treated as deities etc etc.
Only for them to Rape, pillage and plunder the hell out of almost every society they touched.

It should also be noted that when the Moors conquered Spain, they were relatively relaxed (for pre-modern standards) about letting non-muslims to go on with their lives in the peninsula (while actually enjoying more social mobility than they had under the old ruling class).

Meanwhile, when the Spaniard elites took the peninsula back, they immediately told everybody who wasn't white and christian to get out or convert on threat of death.

 

[Byakuya769]

I can't answer it because it's like asking why I'm proud to be Australian or left handed or a ton of other shit I was randomly assigned. I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Also it's 4am and I'm not in a terribly awake headspace. Sorry. I don't think other people's pride in parts of themselves has to fall within your definition.

Bullshit. If I asked you why you're proud to be Australian, you could easily list off things about your nation that you are proud of and you see as good: "Our labor activation policies are some of the strongest in the world." If you can't do that, well then I guess that is just blind nationalism, which is bad. But I don't think it is that.

So heritage just up and disappeared because someone says so. You are conceding here. It is impossible to strip away heritage and past culture. It exists and will always exist. By conceding that it was stripped away is not acknowledging said heritage and allowing it to be taken from you. This is wrong on so many levels.

Good gracious... do we now see why a discussion on structural racism in a mass communication class may be edifying? You have never heard about the steps taken to rob slaves of their past cultural identities and force them to homogenize as a slave class?

 

[shanshan310]

Maybe you don't see it that way but that's exactly what it is. Again... Culture isn't math. Everything carries historical and social weight. Everything.

So you're saying I'm a secret racist, even from myself?

Come on man, my whole point is that people can feel pride in parts that make up who they are without being proud of everything anyone with that part ever did. I can feel proud of my convict and naval ancestry and still be ashamed and angry over what my country did to the native people here.

Cmon, just admit that you donate to stormfront.

I hope I'm not making a bad reputation for myself :s

 

[IHaveCandy]

I can find you examples for the points I make; can you readily do the same? If you want to discuss racist black people who have purely racial pride, I don't refute their existence. However, we're discussing the broad usage and meaning of terms. Arguing on the margins is a pedantic waste of time.

Applying the perceived view of what reason the majority have pride in their culture/race on an individual is a waste of time.

 

[IceCold]

It should also be noted that when the Moors conquered Spain, they were relatively relaxed (for pre-modern standards) about letting non-muslims to go on with their lives in the peninsula (while actually enjoying more social mobility than they had under the old ruling class).

Meanwhile, when the Spaniard elites took the peninsula back, they immediately told everybody who wasn't white and christian to get out or convert on threat of death.

That isn't 100% true. Muslims see Christians and Jews as people of the book. The Christians don't see Muslims the same way. Also before the conquest actually happened, Muslims were busy pillaging villages and raping the women in coastal towns. So naturally after an invasion and religious hype (the reconquista is basically the crusades 2.0) the Spaniards wanted nothing to do with them and Spanish converts. There was a lot of suspicions basically.

 

[Byakuya769]

Applying the perceived view of what reason the majority have pride in their culture/race on an individual is a waste of time.

Ok. Cultural, racial, national and power relations and their related discussion are wastes of time. Ok, bro.