Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

So, a couple weeks ago Portland Community College announced that they would be hold an event called "Whiteness History Month" during the month of April. The announcement caused quite a bit of buzz, mostly from people saying that it is a terrible idea. What do you guys think about it?

I believe it's a pretty bad idea. From what i have read it is quite racist towards the "whites"
It looks like ANOTHER claim that the "white culture" has the monopoly on racism.

Honestly I think the concept of Black/White/Latino/Smurf history month US seems to love is retarded.

At first, I thought this was about creating a "White History Month", which would be pointless. Then, I read what “Whiteness History Month” was actually about, and it sounds a bit…much.

The whole thing seems a history course on racism with sprinkles of white guilt. I appreciate the effort to at least talk about the issue of race, but I think they're going about it the wrong way.

"White" history month is just as pointless as "Black" history month. It makes no sense merithorically, since it's an extremally broad topic (regional – okay, national – huge amount of data, but could be okay.), and ideologically both "Black" and "White" history months only point out the division.
Do you want to end racism? Don't separate these two. Just settle with "American/Local" history month and it will be chill.

I feel like all history months sound great in theory, spotlighting the accomplishments of various members of various races throughout history, but I feel like most people just use it as an excuse to display pride in their race rather than learn why they should be proud. I try to spend a little time every day in May (military appreciation month) to learn more about men and women who have served in armed forces throughout history. So if people earnestly want to spend a month appreciating what people who just happen to be white have contributed to society long ago then I say that's admirable, but if it's just a lazy excuse to say "hey white people have done things too!" like other history months then we should probably not bother with it.

Why do we have to seperate history by colour? Sure, it makes sense if you're talking about racial tensions in history but this stuff always comes off like "lol well black people can have history too". It's so patronizing. I guess awareness is okay but maybe we should be exercising the idea that you can do something great regardless, not "oh well black people can be great too."

Also the whiteness spin on it just makes it worse lol

itt: nobody actually clicks the link

{ Whiteness does not simply refer to skin color but an ideology based on beliefs, values, behaviors, habits and attitudes, which result in the unequal distribution of power and privilege based on skin color.

“White” only exists in relation/opposition to other categories in the racial hierarchy produced by whiteness. Whiteness is a state of consciousness, often invisible, shaping how white people view themselves and others and thus perpetuating ignorance throughout communities. }

That is so tumblr-like that I can't even comment on it.

Seriously though, points made in this thread stand, and are reinforced by this.

Black History Month is best observed when it focuses on black innovators and black influential figures that are often under emphasized, because, much like most historical documents, winners are highlighted. Historically speaking before the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's and 70's, winners tended to be white.

No one really knew of the advances folks like George Washington Carver had until Black History Month began to focus on them. There are tons more black people who are lost somewhere in the annuls, because their contributions to history aren't listed under their names.

It is true that it is a patronizing concept if you focus on well-known black people, especially in recent history. But there are people who were influential but simply are not as well-known, because they were black at the time and don't show up in standard historical texts in education today.

That's why I think Black History Month is important.

But as Lisa said, that's not what this advent is about.

If you know me, then you know I'm a black dude raised academically in the social sciences with a couple of feminist classes as part of my formal education. I believe racism today tends to show itself as a system.

The same system that prevents women from getting some opportunities prevents men from accessing other opportunities. The same system that prevents some minorities from getting some opportunities is responsible for some unfair affirmative action policies. I like affirmative action in theory, but it is often undermined by people who cannot see the logic of the opposing viewpoint. It's less a matter of "going too far" or "not going fat enough." It's about the proper implementation of policy, and that tends to be an issue with a primarily two-party Congress which will undermine any policy from the other party.

I do believe that "systematic oppression" is a thing (perhaps this isn't the thread to question that in any great detail, but I can post the logic behind it,) but this is merely shaming.

It's similar to shaming a thin, blonde woman with large, shapely breasts and a traditionally desirable figure. There's no need to insult that woman to praise less traditionally attractive body types.

Talking about systematic oppression simply cannot be done in a blanket manner. It's too bound to cultural ideals most Americans hold.

In a "bootstraps," individualistic, "gubmint stay outta my yard" society, most everyone believes that everyone should be on the same footing in terms of "success." Most everyone wants equality among all groups of people. And, in a vacuum, most every American would like to work for their living. People on welfare will mooch, but I can think of more instances where people would prefer to work.

Or more simply, I like the aim of creating a month to educate on the matter of how people who study these phenomena understand racism.

But unless you're educated on the matter, it's just going to come across as insulting.

And as a feminist, many feminist initiatives are deveoped in echo chambers more to say what many modern feminists are already saying in a louder way as opposed to a more effective way.

This is louder but no more effective.

Race-based months exist to promote against prejudices. The fundamental problem with this is people who are not of the race being promoted then feel either excluded or attacked culturally. Thus, this can cause furthered prejudices and undo any progress the month might've sought in terms of undoing prejudices.

If people are concerned with prejudices, they should be honest with themselves and make an oppressed-people history month. Then people aren't feeling excluded or attacked racially.

The downside to this might be promoting a culture of victimization to feel included in a culture focused on victims of oppression, but I believe it'd be better than the current black history month.

Hmm, yeah, this does seem like a bit much. I'm not opposed to the examination of structural prejudices baked into our society which skew outcomes; lord knows we need it. But calling it "whiteness" is a bit off-putting. My best guess would be that the name is a jab at the people who want a white history month.

Wow, great post.

I guess what I mean to imply is that we should be moving ourselves to the point where these changes are recognized as being made by people, not specific types of people. Of course we're nowhere near there yet, and the problems that exist already because of systematic oppression.

Oppression is a complex topic that I'm not going to go into too much detail here, but I appreciate that you point out that any group can be oppressed. I think it originates both from a power struggle and expectations of how people should be – the latter which seems to be sorely forgotten about by many activist organizations outside of those pertaining to disability.

I think socially what we forget though is that we telling ourselves that we are bound by the rules of our society, instead of realizing that society changes, and that humans can have control over our social evolution just as much as our industrial development, if we controlled it properly. The reason why we can't solve problems with affirmative action is because affirmative action is rooted in a premise that is already known to be flawed – when will we as a species overcome that?

The biggest challenge to equality is the age old saying, "well that's the way it's always been."

This makes me cringe with how douchey it sounds.

Additionally, racism or oppression isn't like fire. You can't fight it by making an even bigger fire. You can't stop prejudice by creating a massive prejudice view based on skin color, and assigning a bunch of negative traits based on what shade a persons skin is.

That's just an excuse to be racist while claiming to be a champion against it.

At first i thought it was some stormfront fag, and my immediate thoughts were "you don't even need a white history month".

Now that i know whats up, i still feel that this is a bad idea, kinda feels like the whole thing is meant to mock white people.

Whiteness does not simply refer to skin color but an ideology based on beliefs, values, behaviors, habits and attitudes, which result in the unequal distribution of power and privilege based on skin color.

They're trying to make white into the next dirty problematic word now?

So I did a bit of research (and by research I mean I talked with some people on campus) and apparently most people who attend PCC have no idea what the event actually entails. Even the faculty are arguing about it on special forums that they use for just such an occasion. Some people have heard rumors that there will be some lectures on groups who are considered white but were marginalized in the past, with one example being the Irish.

Also I think that the main reason why a lot of people are angry over Whiteness History Month is because there hasn't been any info on what specifically is going to happen. We all have a vague idea thanks to the announcement, but everything else is still in the dark. I attend PCC, but nobody I know has any idea what is planned.

There's a whole "learning areas and essential questions" page on their website which gives a little clearer an idea. My favs:

• In what ways does whiteness emerge from a legacy of imperialism, conquest, colonialism and the American enterprise?
• What are alternatives to a culture of white supremacy?
• What are approaches and strategies to dismantling whiteness?
• What are the roles and responsibilities of white people and people of color in dismantling whiteness?
  
  

That's completely fucking racist.

Crap, I should've read the fine print of that. Here I thought all it could be is either a white pride rally or an attempt to spotlight meaningful accomplishments, not white-based English colonialism (completely ignoring the fact that Spaniard and East Asian colonialism/conquest puts it to shame at times). Depressing to see we can't talk about history in context without condemning outdated practices and ideologies that barely exist nowadays. We don't need to shit on present-day Germans for the holocaust nor do we need to shit on present-day whites for British colonialism.

So, basically what I'm getting out of this is that they want me to feel guilty because I'm white… Yeah, not gonna happen.

What I really don't get, is how they expect this to solve anything.

The very definition of "questions with thesis".

Seriously. Question provides you with an answer. And if it doesn't, the next questions just answers this, so you can't say "no".

If this isn't an effort to "shame and blame" anyone then what is this supposed to mean:

"Whiteness represents a position of power where the power holder defines social categories and reality--the master narrator. Whiteness originates racism. It is relational." “White” only exists in relation/opposition to other categories in the racial hierarchy produced by whiteness".

Like what, is part of "dismantling whiteness" disassociating whites with a racial identity so nobody can say they're promoting blatant racism themselves?

The argument would be that the American public education curriculum already ignores black history, and the month is supposed to compensate for it. The advocates for it aren't exactly for "separating history by colour", but they believe that it already happens. The alternative is broadly reforming the history curriculum; it's politically impossible.