There was an article in the paper a couple days ago discussing an event about the privileges white people get just for being white.
"'Uncovering Whiteness' refers to some of the dynamics around whiteness," she said. "We don't talk about it the way we talk about other things. Back when this country was founded, people were called 'German,' or 'Spanish' or 'English.' When did we become 'white'? What does being white imply past just your skin tone?"
Nothing. At least, it should be nothing. People were called "German," "Spanish," or "English" back when there were fewer people who qualified under several ethnicities. As people from different nationalities interbred, it eventually became easier to just use skin color. For example, I have so many different countries in my background that I don't even know all of them or what fraction I am of any of them. What do I call myself with respect to race? German-English-Irish-maybeScottish-maybesomeothershit? No, I just say white, because it's easier, and I don't really care about tying myself to any country or any number of countries. All I know that I am for sure is American, and I can't even say native American. For another example, a girl I know is Hispanic, but has such dark skin that I just call her black. Some people think black is a derogatory term, but if I had used the phrase African-American, I would have been wrong, because she's not African. Another girl I know doesn't like to be called African-American, again, because she's not African; she prefers to be called black, because it's just an adjective and it's accurate. People who imply more than just skin color when they say "white" are usually exercising the same stereotypes that they are speaking against.
"The purpose of this is to get people thinking about the privileges they have in society whether it's based on race, skin tone, religion or whatever," he said. "You need to be able to recognize what advantages you have over the guy sitting next to you and know what advantages he has over you. We need to stop taking things for granted because these inequalities and injustices still exist."
That's perfectly fair. Indeed, there are statistics and 20/20 reports that indicate that there are, undeniably, inequalities between races. I'm sure you've heard of studies that indicate that a black man makes so many cents for every dollar that a white man makes in the same position, and that there is an abundance of certain races in certain job titles. I believe this is the whole point of the event that the article is mentioning, and I'm all in favor of it. But one quote in particular caught my attention...
Junior international agricultural development major Christina Ortiz noted that there weren't many "white" people planning to attend.
"If you're going to have a discussion about a certain type of people, then it's essential to have them there," she said. "They need to represent themselves. [...]"
They need to represent themselves? How is that? When I read this, I got the image in my head of the guest speaker picking white people out of the crowd and asking them to defend their race. Obviously, this is an extreme exaggeration, and I suspect that what the writer meant to say was that white people should be there as another racial group to enhance diversity in the discussion. But that brings up another point, what can one white person, or even a group of white people, have to say on behalf of the entire race?
Here's the thing, a political party, extracurricular club, or religion can be represented by a smaller fraction of that group, because those are things made of people who choose to define themselves as Democrat, Anime Club member, or Christian, to name a few examples. If one person of the group doesn't agree with the merits of the group as a whole, he/she can leave, but my skin color is a circumstance of birth, and I never had any say in the matter. So one white person could never represent the whole of white people because there is nothing common among white people except skin color.
No comments:
Post a Comment