Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
Experienced marginalization is a better learning tool that mere conceptualization.
Sure sure...whatever you tell yourself to justify this racism.
Upvote
0
Experienced marginalization is a better learning tool that mere conceptualization.
and it is weird that racists flip it around claiming to be the victims when called out.Sure sure...whatever you tell yourself to justify this racism.
We're not claiming to be victims, We're just saying it, like it is.and it is weird that racists flip it around claiming to be the victims when called out.
You are identifying as a racist then?We're not claiming to be victims, We're just saying it, like it is.
Yes. You can consider me that if you like. But I don't consider myself as one outside this conversation.You are identifying as a racist then?
I can respect that. In fact I have to acknowledge my own racism that I have to work against. But it is there imbedded since childhood.Yes. You can consider me that if you like. But I don't consider myself as one outside this conversation.
From where I'm sitting, The Ibanezer Scrooge is correct about the historical 'construction' of whiteness in an American context, and RDKirk is correct about how these terms and concepts are used and sometimes 'weaponized' today outside of their original (primarily academic) contexts. Given that, I don't know why this thread is breaking down as though you're either on the side of the course or against the course. It seems like a lot of courses are, where some of it is good information you might not learn about otherwise, while other content is ideological chickenfeed, and the two are definitely not clearly delineated as such. This is where it helps the student to have a strong internal sense of their own values and who they are, because it is rare that this kind of course will pass without something being offensive and challenging to whatever viewpoints they held before taking it. Heck, in my own experience in graduate school, I took a course on Sociolinguistics that ended up greatly offending me, due to the Jewish professor's constant mocking of Christianity and associating it with racism and colonialism. It took people from my Church, who are native African people (and at least 'brown', by American standards), to thankfully take me to task by reminding me that plenty of Christian churches have been racist and associated with colonialism (e.g., Lutheranism did not become the dominant church in the German colonial possession of Namibia by coincidence), so she's not wrong, and anyway it's not like she's saying the Coptic Orthodox Church specifically did any of that. Following their strong rebuke of my entitled whining, I apologized to the professor in question (we had had a very intense disagreement over what I had insisted to her via e-mai was a racist and completely off-topic assignment), because I realized that while she was painting with an overly broad brush in her very sophomoric criticism of Christianity, I was also in the wrong for reacting as though because she had said "Christian", she was talking about me. (cf. this course says whiteness is a problem, I'm white, therefore XYZ.)
This stuff is part of the college experience, and since it's not like college is the only time that students will ever be challenged or offended, it can at least be argued that a secondary effect of taking such as course as written about in the OP could be (perhaps unintentionally) teaching students who probably haven't been exposed to much challenging of their views how to properly handle it. Does that "excuse racism", as the OP has subsequently asked? Heck no, it doesn't. But it does provide a relatively 'safe space' (ha) to discuss aspects of racism in Americans' everyday conceptualization of the world, as well as to identify when academics are being manipulative and pushing nonsense ideas on students/society at large.
I think the “complaint” is really that Americans tend to be conservative and becomes less conservative with more education that challenges their brand of conservatism.From where I'm sitting, The Ibanezer Scrooge is correct about the historical 'construction' of whiteness in an American context, and RDKirk is correct about how these terms and concepts are used and sometimes 'weaponized' today outside of their original (primarily academic) contexts. Given that, I don't know why this thread is breaking down as though you're either on the side of the course or against the course. It seems like a lot of courses are, where some of it is good information you might not learn about otherwise, while other content is ideological chickenfeed, and the two are definitely not clearly delineated as such. This is where it helps the student to have a strong internal sense of their own values and who they are, because it is rare that this kind of course will pass without something being offensive and challenging to whatever viewpoints they held before taking it. Heck, in my own experience in graduate school, I took a course on Sociolinguistics that ended up greatly offending me, due to the Jewish professor's constant mocking of Christianity and associating it with racism and colonialism. It took people from my Church, who are native African people (and at least 'brown', by American standards), to thankfully take me to task by reminding me that plenty of Christian churches have been racist and associated with colonialism (e.g., Lutheranism did not become the dominant church in the German colonial possession of Namibia by coincidence), so she's not wrong, and anyway it's not like she's saying the Coptic Orthodox Church specifically did any of that. Following their strong rebuke of my entitled whining, I apologized to the professor in question (we had had a very intense disagreement over what I had insisted to her via e-mai was a racist and completely off-topic assignment), because I realized that while she was painting with an overly broad brush in her very sophomoric criticism of Christianity, I was also in the wrong for reacting as though because she had said "Christian", she was talking about me. (cf. this course says whiteness is a problem, I'm white, therefore XYZ.)
This stuff is part of the college experience, and since it's not like college is the only time that students will ever be challenged or offended, it can at least be argued that a secondary effect of taking such as course as written about in the OP could be (perhaps unintentionally) teaching students who probably haven't been exposed to much challenging of their views how to properly handle it. Does that "excuse racism", as the OP has subsequently asked? Heck no, it doesn't. But it does provide a relatively 'safe space' (ha) to discuss aspects of racism in Americans' everyday conceptualization of the world, as well as to identify when academics are being manipulative and pushing nonsense ideas on students/society at large.
and it is weird that racists flip it around claiming to be the victims when called out.
From where I'm sitting, The Ibanezer Scrooge is correct about the historical 'construction' of whiteness in an American context, and RDKirk is correct about how these terms and concepts are used and sometimes 'weaponized' today outside of their original (primarily academic) contexts. Given that, I don't know why this thread is breaking down as though you're either on the side of the course or against the course. It seems like a lot of courses are, where some of it is good information you might not learn about otherwise, while other content is ideological chickenfeed, and the two are definitely not clearly delineated as such. This is where it helps the student to have a strong internal sense of their own values and who they are, because it is rare that this kind of course will pass without something being offensive and challenging to whatever viewpoints they held before taking it. Heck, in my own experience in graduate school, I took a course on Sociolinguistics that ended up greatly offending me, due to the Jewish professor's constant mocking of Christianity and associating it with racism and colonialism. It took people from my Church, who are native African people (and at least 'brown', by American standards), to thankfully take me to task by reminding me that plenty of Christian churches have been racist and associated with colonialism (e.g., Lutheranism did not become the dominant church in the German colonial possession of Namibia by coincidence), so she's not wrong, and anyway it's not like she's saying the Coptic Orthodox Church specifically did any of that. Following their strong rebuke of my entitled whining, I apologized to the professor in question (we had had a very intense disagreement over what I had insisted to her via e-mai was a racist and completely off-topic assignment), because I realized that while she was painting with an overly broad brush in her very sophomoric criticism of Christianity, I was also in the wrong for reacting as though because she had said "Christian", she was talking about me. (cf. this course says whiteness is a problem, I'm white, therefore XYZ.)
This stuff is part of the college experience, and since it's not like college is the only time that students will ever be challenged or offended, it can at least be argued that a secondary effect of taking such as course as written about in the OP could be (perhaps unintentionally) teaching students who probably haven't been exposed to much challenging of their views how to properly handle it. Does that "excuse racism", as the OP has subsequently asked? Heck no, it doesn't. But it does provide a relatively 'safe space' (ha) to discuss aspects of racism in Americans' everyday conceptualization of the world, as well as to identify when academics are being manipulative and pushing nonsense ideas on students/society at large.
I think the “complaint” is really that Americans tend to be conservative and becomes less conservative with more education that challenges their brand of conservatism.
No...people who don't hold these particular racist views will be challenged. There's no complementary "everything good about whiteness" course that challenges all the students who hold views similar to those presented in the course.
There's no "Hitler had some Great Ideas" course, nor any "The Problem with Blackness" course and I imagine you'd be appalled if there were. You wouldn't be defending them saying "hey, people are going to be challenged by different ideas in college".
So please, stop this pathetic defense of a racist and her racist course. She deserves all the scorn she's receiving.
I’m down with MIracle Whip for ‘tato salad, but there was this one time a ran out of butter for grilled chase and thought to use Hellman’s mayonnaise thinking “how bad could it be?”
Better, much, much better, not only taste-wise but ease of prep!
I’m sulking because I cannot find “real” sriracha, though, of late.
I'm not defending racism. I'm saying there can be good parts of an otherwise nonsense class, and that a student being offended by something isn't in itself always a sign that the class has nothing of value in it.
Since this thread is another "liberals are craaaazy" whine-fest, think about all the liberal students out there who would be offended by the way that history was taught before very recently (e.g., with no special units/sections on the contributions of LGBT people). Sure, they're offended and probably convinced that such a comparatively traditional approach is an example of LGBT-phobia, but does that mean that those of us who were taught without that content therefore didn't learn anything of value? Of course not. So the accusation of racism, homophobia, etc. may or may not be present, but the content of the course (which we can't really know outside of the course catalogue description, apparently) may prove useful anyway.
I should think such a course would be titled, "Contributions of the LGBTQA+ Community" rather than "The Problem of Cisgenderism."I'm not defending racism. I'm saying there can be good parts of an otherwise nonsense class, and that a student being offended by something isn't in itself always a sign that the class has nothing of value in it.
Since this thread is another "liberals are craaaazy" whine-fest, think about all the liberal students out there who would be offended by the way that history was taught before very recently (e.g., with no special units/sections on the contributions of LGBT people). Sure, they're offended and probably convinced that such a comparatively traditional approach is an example of LGBT-phobia, but does that mean that those of us who were taught without that content therefore didn't learn anything of value? Of course not. So the accusation of racism, homophobia, etc. may or may not be present, but the content of the course (which we can't really know outside of the course catalogue description, apparently) may prove useful anyway.