If we didn't hate UW-Madison enough already

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

No, just wondering why there are no courses on "the problem of blackness" or a course "where participants enter a space for “critical self-reflection” so that they can both challenge non-traditional views of femininity and promote gender self esteem".

You're gonna have a tough time coping in the next decade...

[muwarrior69]

I may not be around in the next decade!

[rocket surgeon]

I may not be around in the next decade!

you wouldn't happen to be HYPER-masculine err anything, woodja?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

No, just wondering why there are no courses on "the problem of blackness" or a course "where participants enter a space for “critical self-reflection” so that they can both challenge non-traditional views of femininity and promote gender self esteem".

There are classes like that. I'll agree that a click bait title like "Problem with whiteness" would never fly but there are classes about black culture and the challenges it faces. For your second example, I have seen courses for women with pretty much the exact same verbage that you used.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

..and it only get better.

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8591

I actually did my thesis on male identity development. Looked at a lot of programs like this. They can be very effective teaching tools but the challenge they face is that they are usually preaching to the choir. The men who sign up for this type of program are usually the ones who don't need it. An estimated 98% of sexual violence and over 90% of physical violence is committed by men despite men making up only 50% of the population. Why? These programs have students reflect on that question.

Yea...Nothing wrong with this course either. The hyper-masculine society we live in is a very big issue for those who identify as males. One of the reasons suicide rates in men is much higher than women.

Break down the gender norms.

Suicidal thoughts run higher in women than men. It's just that men succeed at taking their own life more than women. I believe depression, not hyper-masculinity, leads to suicide.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/suicide-gender-men-women-mental-health-nick-clegg

You are both right. So why do men complete suicide at a higher rate despite lower rates of suicidal ideation? I read a few studies a few years ago that concluded that there were multiple factors that most significant being men's unwillingness to seek help (don't remember the numbers but women in therapy outnumber men in therapy by an absurd amount) and men's willingness to resort to violence to solve problems. Both of which they linked back to hyper-masculinity.

[dgies9156]

I remembered some of what Horton Roe taught us about Handel.

C'mon Keefe, I thought better of you than this. Horton?

How many Hortons are in your GPA? (said to the same cadence as the "What's in your Wallet" commercial from Capital One) was a common refrain in our family's get-togethers! I'm surprised anyone learned anything in that class.

Back on topic, "The Problem of Whiteness" implies there is something wrong with being Caucasian. There isn't, anymore than being born Asian, black or Hispanic is a problem. We all are God's children and we all are made in His Image and Likeness.

I would hope the good professor at UW would go back and look at some photos from the Selma/Montgomery march. Or the demonstrations for equal rights and equal access in my old hometown of Nashville. Or the sponsors of the 1964 Voting Rights Act or the 1965 Public Accommodations Act. Or Lyndon Johnson's face. I'd think he would see a lot of people who were not African-American. Is that "The Problem of Whiteness?"

P.S. -- I agree with Keefe's basic comment here: "I am asserting that these types of classes are very thin on legitimate intellectual discourse and discovery. Compare it with a course on Homer, Shakespeare, Augustine, the teachings of Buddha, or Statics and Fluids. A student is much better served with any of those than what this UW course is dishing out."

[GGGG]

Back on topic, "The Problem of Whiteness" implies there is something wrong with being Caucasian. There isn't, anymore than being born Asian, black or Hispanic is a problem. We all are God's children and we all are made in His Image and Likeness.

Again "race" is not used as a static variable tied to ethnicity here.  So you can be "white" and caucasian, "white" and African-American, etc.

So while you may *think* that it implies that there is something wrong with being a Caucasian, that's not what the course is about.

[muwarrior69]

Again "race" is not used as a static variable tied to ethnicity here.  So you can be "white" and caucasian, "white" and African-American, etc.

So while you may *think* that it implies that there is something wrong with being a Caucasian, that's not what the course is about.

What is a static variable. How can a variable be static.

[GGGG]

What is a static variable. How can a variable be static.

That is a good point.  I'll put this a better way.  Some people believe that while "ethnicity" is static, "race" is fluid.  That it is more of a mindset than something you are born with.

[mu03eng]

It really boils down to culture versus biological "race". The class and other classes like it are discussing the culture of "whiteness" or "blackness" or whatever which is a construct by groups of people as opposed to biological race which is clearly something you are born with.

You can be white but a full participant in "blackness" and vice versa. In fact, when I lived in Florida in the early 90's there was a name for the white kids who "behaved black" that was a variation on a very offensive term.

So what the class should be covering (don't know whether it is or not) is any issues with the culture of "whiteness" that may impact other cultures. It shouldn't have anything to do with a person being literally "white".

[MUBurrow]

I fundamentally disagree with an evaluation that undermines the potential value of the class due to its title, but I want to point out that the narrative of "what about good white people" obfuscates the fundamental reality that (i) institutionalized American racism in its purest and most obvious sense, in the form of slavery, is not some ancient relic - the last living slave died only six years before MU's national championship; and (ii) the political systems, the provision of social services, the maps of neighborhoods and schools, and economic opportunity in America, have and continue to be overwhelmingly dominated by white Americans, who, due to this status and against this historical backdrop, have never been forced to view the country through any other lens. Viewed this way, while "The Problem of Whiteness" is still a fairly click-baitey title for a college class, I think remembering those truths should ameliorate any victimization whites are inclined to feel.

Ultimately, we need to be careful not to co-opt "racism" away from something that all minorities in this country legitimately experience, and that legitimately explains a large number of America's institutional failings, to a meaningless insult that whites are in a hurry to prove doesn't apply to them.  Sure, 99.999999% of all Americans, regardless of color, are comfortable calling the KKK racist.  But that comfort has lead us to dangerously limit the application of that term to those obvious, and narrative examples of prejudice. Much more important is are the institutional realities of the country that undermine the equality of opportunity along racial lines.  Without being racist in the narrative, KKK sort of way, we all can (and do) participate and implicitly approve of racist structures. Without knowing much about the class, I would guess that is the point of the class - how to transform the white response to racism from "Not me!" to "How us?"

[dgies9156]

Again "race" is not used as a static variable tied to ethnicity here.  So you can be "white" and caucasian, "white" and African-American, etc.

So while you may *think* that it implies that there is something wrong with being a Caucasian, that's not what the course is about.

Vinnie, love ya man, but......

My Mom taught a simple phrase (and don't try to dissect it or re-interpret it!): Words Mean Things!


When we speak, abstraction leads to confusion, misunderstanding and problems. Professor John Vivian, who taught for years in the then College of Journalism, used to angrily denounce the use of abstract nouns on grounds that the communicator was neither clear nor concise. Importantly, as Professor Vivian noted, the use of abstraction leaves your communication meaning different things to different people. That's not good, where you are a reporter for the Hooterville World Guardian or a Professor at the University of Wisconsin.

In that vein, The title "The Problem of Whiteness" means that, somehow, one perceives that being "white," which in contemporary America means the Caucasian segment of society, as being problematic. If that's not one's intent, one's communication is crap.

Just like "static variable" is an oxymoron. You can't have a static variable. You may have a series of observations that are static but if the observations across a representative sample are static, then you have a constant and not a variable.

[GGGG]

I have already said that the title of the class was the equivalent of click-bait.  The subject matter is fine.  Not for me, but fine an an academic setting.

[warriorchick]

It really boils down to culture versus biological "race". The class and other classes like it are discussing the culture of "whiteness" or "blackness" or whatever which is a construct by groups of people as opposed to biological race which is clearly something you are born with.

You can be white but a full participant in "blackness" and vice versa. In fact, when I lived in Florida in the early 90's there was a name for the white kids who "behaved black" that was a variation on a very offensive term.

So what the class should be covering (don't know whether it is or not) is any issues with the culture of "whiteness" that may impact other cultures. It shouldn't have anything to do with a person being literally "white".

Would that offensive term be  "cultural appropriation'?   

[mu03eng]

Would that offensive term be  "cultural appropriation'?   

Oh if only it had been that subtle and non-jarring

[muwarrior69]

I fundamentally disagree with an evaluation that undermines the potential value of the class due to its title, but I want to point out that the narrative of "what about good white people" obfuscates the fundamental reality that (i) institutionalized American racism in its purest and most obvious sense, in the form of slavery, is not some ancient relic - the last living slave died only six years before MU's national championship; and (ii) the political systems, the provision of social services, the maps of neighborhoods and schools, and economic opportunity in America, have and continue to be overwhelmingly dominated by white Americans, who, due to this status and against this historical backdrop, have never been forced to view the country through any other lens. Viewed this way, while "The Problem of Whiteness" is still a fairly click-baitey title for a college class, I think remembering those truths should ameliorate any victimization whites are inclined to feel.

Ultimately, we need to be careful not to co-opt "racism" away from something that all minorities in this country legitimately experience, and that legitimately explains a large number of America's institutional failings, to a meaningless insult that whites are in a hurry to prove doesn't apply to them.  Sure, 99.999999% of all Americans, regardless of color, are comfortable calling the KKK racist.  But that comfort has lead us to dangerously limit the application of that term to those obvious, and narrative examples of prejudice. Much more important is are the institutional realities of the country that undermine the equality of opportunity along racial lines.  Without being racist in the narrative, KKK sort of way, we all can (and do) participate and implicitly approve of racist structures. Without knowing much about the class, I would guess that is the point of the class - how to transform the white response to racism from "Not me!" to "How us?"

But slavery was not just whites owning blacks. There were also black slave owners as well, albeit fewer. I doubt you will learn of any black slave owners or the black slave traders in Africa that sold black slaves to the white slave traders at the African American History museum that just opened. The evil of slavery transcends race, but we rarely learn that.
https://prezi.com/16twpmtfx1fb/were-black-slave-holders-significant-in-the-history-of-slave/

[GGGG]

But slavery was not just whites owning blacks. There were also black slave owners as well, albeit fewer. I doubt you will learn of any black slave owners or the black slave traders in Africa that sold black slaves to the white slave traders at the African American History museum that just opened. The evil of slavery transcends race, but we rarely learn that.
https://prezi.com/16twpmtfx1fb/were-black-slave-holders-significant-in-the-history-of-slave/

This is the nonsense that prevents people from ever having a serious discussion on racial issues.  The number of black slave owners was miniscule and close to irrelevant. 

Does it make you feel better somehow to emphasize the exceptions to the rule?  If not, what is the point?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

But slavery was not just whites owning blacks. There were also black slave owners as well, albeit fewer. I doubt you will learn of any black slave owners or the black slave traders in Africa that sold black slaves to the white slave traders at the African American History museum that just opened. The evil of slavery transcends race, but we rarely learn that.
https://prezi.com/16twpmtfx1fb/were-black-slave-holders-significant-in-the-history-of-slave/

So you are upset that history focuses on whites' enslavement of blacks without much focus on the 0.1% of slave owners who were black? Could it be that while it did happen, it had such a minor impact on history compared to white enslavement of blacks that is not as worthy of focus? There is also the lens that white enslavement of blacks was racially motivated. It came from a belief that blacks were inferior to whites. Black on black enslavement might have had some motivations based on ethnicity or socio-economic status...certainly on sex...but not on race. Both are evil, both shouldn't have happened, but they have different impacts.

[mu03eng]

This page of the thread