Home » Search results for '"Whiteness Studies"'
Search Results for: "Whiteness Studies"
Find below a well argued piece about the contemporary face of racism.It is a racism that has been developed and propagated by the far left in the halls of academia . This piece is republished here with the kind permission of it’s author, Mark Richardson who’s blog “Oz Conservative” is always worth a look for a calm and insightful look at the nature of human relationships and the place of the individual within society.
I wrote this article for the Autumn 2007 edition of The Independent Australian. It draws on a number of pieces written earlier for Oz Conservative.
Ten years ago there were no such courses. Now “whiteness studies” is being taught at over 30 American campuses. In Australia too there are academics teaching this subject; in 2003 they formed their own whiteness studies association.
So what is it? In short, it’s a field of studies based on the theory that whites invented the idea of biological race in order to oppress indigenous peoples and to benefit from unearned privileges.
An Australian whiteness theorist, Damien Riggs, has summarized the new field of studies as follows:
Whiteness is seen as a thoroughly racialised project that aims to legitimate the authority of certain groups over others by drawing on a legacy of ‘biological’ explanations of race … Whilst this approach starts from an understanding of race as a social construction, it also acknowledges the very concrete ways in which race shapes experiences of oppression and privilege.
What is the effect of these studies on white students? One young Australian woman, Veronica Coen, tells us that her whiteness studies course led her,
to recognise that my privilege as an educated middle-class white woman was directly attributed to my ancestor’s theft of indigenous land and their exploitation
took a frightening journey into Australia’s violent history … The path was at times very distressing. My study journal was often wrinkled with tears.
Nado Aveling, who teaches whiteness studies to student teachers at Perth’s Murdoch University (it’s a mandatory part of the course) tells us of the students’ reactions that:
responses are often strongly emotional, and resistance, misunderstanding, frustration, anger and feelings of inefficacy may be the outcomes.
A social construct?
So whiteness studies confronts students with the claim that their identity is a false social construct, built around the oppression of Aborigines, and that the lives they lead are built unjustly on unearned privilege.
It’s a significant claim to make, but not one which is intellectually coherent. Even its starting point makes little sense.
Damien Riggs tells us that his approach “starts from an understanding of race as a social construction” and that we should reject “the legacy of ‘biological’ explanations of race”.
So we are meant to accept the idea that a “white race” exists not as a biological fact, but as a social construct – as something simply made up by society for its own purposes.
Why would someone make this claim, when it contradicts the visible evidence of a biologically existing white race? The answer has to do with certain intellectual assumptions existing within liberal modernism.
Liberal modernism asserts that to be fully human we must be autonomous in the sense that we are able to determine for ourselves who we are to be. Therefore, liberal modernists don’t like to recognise the existence of a “biological destiny” in which we are influenced in our identity by our sex or our race (or by other inherited or traditional qualities which we don’t choose for ourselves).
Liberal modernists therefore often prefer to believe that qualities like race are oppressive social constructs whose real existence can either be denied or made not to matter.
Riggs is therefore following a modernist ideology in claiming that race is a social construct. However, even in ideological terms, this claim is incoherent.
Why? One reason is that whiteness theorists don’t simply want to declare race null and void. They want to pin down whites as guilty oppressors. Therefore, they are concerned to emphasise the idea of “whiteness” as a racial category at the same time as they deny the real existence of a white race.
To make this clear, whiteness theorists are strongly opposed to the idea of whites being race blind. They want to make whites more conscious of their “racialised” existence, whilst still claiming that there is no such thing as a really existing white race.
It’s a difficult distinction to hold and Damien Riggs himself warns that,
It is important to recognise that in talking about race we run the risk of reifying race as a ‘real entity’
Similarly, whiteness theorists dismiss the idea of really existing races and yet they recognise Aborigines as a real entity, even to the extent of claiming that Aborigines are sovereign over other groups (Riggs states that “indigenous sovereignty is the ground on which we stand”).
Then there is the issue of “complicity”. Whiteness theorists don’t want to allow any escape routes by which whites can escape the guilt of their unearned privileges. Robinder Kaur, a whiteness theorist at York University has explained that for whites,
“there is no ‘safe space’, no haven of guiltlessness to retreat to.”
Therefore, whiteness theorists emphasise the idea of “complicity”: that all whites, even the whiteness theorists themselves, are complicit in white guilt. It is made clear that you are still complicit, even if you renounce all privilege, or choose to identify with Aborigines, or dedicate your life to anti-racist causes. You remain a guilty white.
This may serve a useful purpose within whiteness theory. However, it adds to the intellectual incoherence of whiteness studies. After all, the original purpose of liberal moderns declaring race to be a social construct was to allow individuals to autonomously choose their own multiple, fluid identities. Now, though, we have whiteness theorists, as liberal moderns, talking about whiteness as the most absolute, fixed and inescapable of racialised categories.
Whiteness theorists simply haven’t thought through such implications; they haven’t made a good enough effort to formulate a consistent ideology.
Whiteness studies claims that all whites enjoy unearned privilege at the expense of indigenous peoples. How, though, is this claim justified?
Veronica Coen, the student I quoted above, thinks that white Australians benefited from Aboriginal labour in colonial times. This seems an unlikely explanation for the prosperity of modern Australia. Though Aboriginal labour was important in some areas of Australia, its economic importance overall must have been small compared even to white convict labour let alone to that of free settlers.
Even the claim that whites are privileged from having taken Aboriginal land has its problems. The prominent Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has pointed out that Aborigines who were never dispossessed of their land experience similar problems to those who were:
the problems are pretty similar between communities that have never been dispossessed of their land – like in the western Cape York peninsula – and those that had been positively uprooted. It wasn’t about poverty, and it wasn’t about land, and it wasn’t about the degree of trauma experienced in history.
Pearson blames the dysfunction in Aboriginal communities not on whites having taken wealth from them, but rather on having given it to them in a misguided transfer of welfare money. He remembers a more intact community in the time before such transfers:
Everybody in Hope Vale of my generation or older grew up in a family, or household, where parents worked hard, the kids were looked after. They were bequeathed a real privilege.
Pearson is exactly right to identify these social norms as being a real privilege. It’s much easier to prosper when you are surrounded by people with a strong family and work ethic. Whites who aren’t exposed to this ethic in their homes or communities tend to experience the same loss of living standard as non-whites do.
There is one other way in which whiteness theorists have tried to explain white privilege. According to Peggy McIntosh, an American writer, she experiences a daily privilege as a white person on the following grounds:
– I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
– I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my own race widely represented.
– I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions
– I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the “person in charge”, I will be facing a person of my own race.
– I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children’s magazines featuring people of my own race.
One way to criticise this approach is to point out that American blacks, who Peggy McIntosh is taking to be the oppressed group, don’t really have that much trouble finding their own areas to live in, or their own music, or food they like, or films and posters in which they feature.
The more important criticism, though, is once again a lack of coherence. White Americans are told endlessly that diversity is a blessing which will enrich their lives. Peggy McIntosh, though, is basing her case that whites are privileged on the idea that whites can more easily escape the effects of diversity than blacks.
In other words, to accept Peggy McIntosh’s argument requires us to believe that it is oppressive to live in diverse areas in which we are no longer the majority race. If this is the case, though, why would white Americans choose to accept diversity, if the consequences are really so undesirable?
In fact, the logical consequences of Peggy McIntosh’s argument go much further than this. If I lived in a country with a million white people, but not a single non-white, then I would not be privileged and I would not need to feel guilt about my existence. However, if a single non-white was allowed to live in my country, then I would be privileged in comparison to them, I would breach the morality of modern equality, and my identity would be called into question.
It seems to me that Peggy McIntosh needs to reconsider her intellectual assumptions as they lead her to political absurdities.
What else is wrong with whiteness studies? Remember Robinder Kaur? She was the Sikh woman I quoted above who told whites that there was no escape from their guilt.
As it happens, Robinder Kaur is an editor for a magazine called Kaurs. This magazine celebrates the identity of Sikh women as follows:
The magazine will encourage the Sikh woman to rediscover herself in the light of the glorious heritage and current meritorious achievements of the Sikh community.
And how does the magazine think that the Sikh community has prospered? The editor thinks that life is full of challenges, which leads to this advice:
… how to overcome these challenges and emerge as a winner? Hard work, confidence, dedication and, of course, the blessings of the Almighty are a sure recipe for success.
So we have here a clear double standard. For Robinder Kaur her own identity as a Sikh woman is a positive thing, and Sikhs are to think of their past as a “glorious heritage”. If Sikhs have done well it is due to hard work, confidence and dedication. For whites, though, there is only guilt. Our past is to be regarded negatively as a history of oppression of others, and our prosperity is unearned.
Obviously I don’t think whites should lamely accept such a double standard. It’s natural for Robinder Kaur to think of her own ethnic identity in positive terms, and we should follow her lead in regarding our own identity a similarly positive way. What kind of life would it be if we accepted the double standard in which our role, unlike others, was one of inescapable guilt? How could a psychologically healthy life be built on the assumptions of whiteness studies?
There’s one final issue to deal with. Whiteness theorists would regard themselves as being cutting edge anti-racists. Yet, in one further act of incoherence, it is they who are peddling a dangerous racism.
Whiteness theorists are creating a picture of whites as a “cosmic enemy”: as a force in the world standing in the way of justice and equality. Groups who are regarded this way shouldn’t be surprised to find themselves targeted for removal. Here, for instance, is the “solution” of Dr Noel Ignatiev, a Harvard academic and whiteness theorist, to the “problem” of whites:
The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.
… The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition.
… we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed – not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.
… treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.
The problem is that it’s not a few radical cranks pushing this line, but a growing academic movement within our universities. This movement has the power to influence the minds of students and to set an intellectual and political agenda. We should therefore be concerned about the appearance of whiteness studies and be ready to take up a political fight against it.
During Hillary Clinton’s speech today attacking Donald Trump for his associations with the so-called alt right, she made at least one important point: that rise of the Right in the US is part of ‘a broader story ― the rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism around the world’.
The opening gambit of declaring the alt-right as “hardline” movement is like his illustration intended to set the notion that any alternative view is both bad and a threat to civil society.
Clinton squandered the moment somewhat by immediately pinning the blame for the far-Right surge on the ‘godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism … Vladimir Putin’. Countering Trump’s ‘dark conspiracy theories’ with beltway-approved conspiracy thinking did not enhance her point about the international dimensions of the problem.
Tend to agree than in invocation of conspiracy theory is a bad idea because such things are generally the stuff of a fevered and over active imagination.
But even if Clinton’s point was blunted by opportunism, the Left needs to start thinking about the way in which the US-based alt right is intertwined with a broader far-Right resurgence in a number of advanced democracies, including Australia.
No the left needs to take a long hard look at itself and ask why are the policies, ideas and notions that they are cultivating being so soundly rejected by ordinary people and they have to understand that they do not have ownership of all virtue.
Although the origins of the alt right are in US-based far-Right circles, the man who coined the term – white nationalist Richard Spencer – did so under the influence of the European ‘Nouvelle Droit’ or New Right, and its leading figures, like Alain Benoist.
I don’t care about the origins to be frank
Spencer told me that he was attracted to those ideas because he and others were ‘deeply alienated, intellectually, even emotionally and spiritually, from American conservatism’. They were disillusioned with Republican interventionism, but also with what they perceived as a softening on immigration and race.
I personally find it ironic that lefties like Jason Wilson are so hot to trot for all sorts of indigenous people’s movements, like Our aborigines, or the native Americans, support “black lives matter” and any other sort of activism for ethically defined groups seeing them as either noble victims of oppression or fighting the good fight but as soon as a group has pale skin Wilson and his ilk see them standing up for their own identity as something pernicious. Its simply hypocritical and innately racist to endorse the rights for one group and denounce another for doing the same thing.
Along with the reactionary tradition that includes Nietzsche and Heidegger, Spencer engaged with the New Right’s ‘identitarianism’ – which links race and identity – and its hostility to egalitarianism and democracy. By defining America as an outgrowth of Europe, he was able to adapt the ideas to his own political context.
What hostility to either democracy or egalitarianism? All that I see from the alt-right are objections to special pleadings from Feminists and other left wing activists for special treatment by way of quotas and other forms of “affirmative action”. If anything the alt right is very much for true egalitarianism and true democracy.
This international circulation of ideas on the Far Right is not one-way traffic, nor has it stopped. ‘Cultural Marxism’, for example, arises from a conspiracy theory claiming that the Frankfurt School seeded the New Left and identity politics as a way of undermining Western values.
Its not a “conspiracy theory” its a description of the facts on the ground and Wilson is a without a doubt a practitioner of Cultural Marxism himself.
The theory was first pushed by Americans William S Lind and Paul Weyrich in the early 1990s, as they tried to develop ways to get Republicans to unite around culture war issues at Weyrich’s think tank, the Free Congress Foundation.
Where the understanding cones form simply does not matter because the core observations are absolutely correct.
It has gone onto be an organising idea for the Far Right throughout the world, including in Europe, where it showed up in the manifesto of mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, and in Australia, where versions of the argument have repeatedly been made in mainstream venues, like the Australian.
Sigh. anyone would think form Wilson’s polemic that Brevik is an admired for the alt right or a source of inspiration but nothing could be further form the truth. and invoking here in this context is simple more of his trying to paint the alt-right as being innately bad and monstrous.
The Far Right and their ideas have been given a significant push by the great recession of 2008, the orthodoxy of austerity in Europe, and a slow recovery in the United States.
Economic upheavals do tend bring about changes in the polity
Adding fuel to the fire is one of the principal legacies of the West’s war in Iraq – the Syrian conflict and its 4.5 million refugees.
The war in Iraq may be many things but to suggest that it is something we can blame on “the west” utterly misunderstand that it and other wars in the middle east are largely a consequence the Jihadists and their propensity to Kill in the name of their God. this is especially so when it comes to the civil-war in Syria.
The refugee crisis has allowed a kind of ‘white internationalism’ to coalesce. The Far Right has not renounced nationalism, but it has foregrounded a whiteness defined in civilisational terms, and defined against the alleged threat posed by Muslim immigrants and refugees throughout the West, and by Latin-American migrants in North America.
Its seems to me that Wilson is a proponent of the ideas inherent in “Whiteness Studies” a rather vile ideology that defines bad as having White skin and a European heritage, further to that he pretends that the threat of Islamic imperialism is imaginary, but what else would we expect from a chap who thinks that there should be a borderless world? Frankly I don’t think that the issue in the US is about Latin American immigration as much as it is about unauthorized immigration that simply depresses the Labor market and imports unwanted workers into a USA that has enough of its own poor people.
When these ideas become entangled with social media, this transnational whiteness – or transcontinental Europeanness – becomes the basis of a new kind of political subjectivity, which allows theory-building, proselytisation, and other forms of collaboration across national borders.
Wilson like so many of the left yearns for the halcyon days when he and his left-wing pals totally dominated social media like Twitter and Youtube The alt-right may be late adopters of these platforms but they certainly have become quite adept at using them over the last couple of years . Frankly this has improved our polity. That Wilson thinks otherwise and that he ignores the fact that his fellow minions of the left have done the same sort of outreach he talks about here seems to have escaped his attention.
White, European heritage becomes a rallying cry to be deployed against anyone from the global south who would enter, or stay within the borders of any Western nation, against established non-white ethnic groups, and against the descendants of slaves.
Once again we see here the way that Wilson tries to stigmatize European culture and paint it in a negative light, even though he himself is a product of a very European cultural and intellectual heritage. likewise he is suggesting that alone among the globes ethnic groups Europeans are wrong to want to defend their culture and values against any challengers, especially if those challengers are brown in any sense at all. Finally on this point I have to mention his bizarre notion that Slavery is something unique to European history. Servitude and Slavery are as old as human civilization
The alt right’s memes make all of this easy to digest for the adherents of a movement with an intensive, socially mediated existence.
What does this mean???
Their IQ charts, and bogus crime rate statistics are a way of making the bogus ‘racial science’ that underpins their beliefs more easily accessible.
I am unsure what Wilson is on about with his reference to “IQ charts” or “racial science”
Alt right Twitter accounts are as apt to talk about an alleged ‘rapefugee’ crisis in Syria as they are to make arguments about racially determined IQ, or black crime rates.
I say SO FUCKING WHAT??? anyone on twitter can talk about anything they please but for the record the incidence of rape and sexual assault have skyrocketed in the wake of the waves of uninvited Muslim migrants into Europe and its not the European men who are committing these crimes
More generally, the shibboleths of white internationalism – Halal panic, sexualised racial anxieties, the notion of civilisational struggle, and primitive images of the other – are shared among Far Right actors across the west, and can be seen as readily as Reclaim Australia rallies are on social media.
What Wilson fails to get is that the world does have a problem and its very simple to understand both here and in other first world countries, Namely there is am imperialist ideology called Islam and its followers, while purporting to be mendicants in need, are actually invading and then once they have become established they set about subverting the very freedoms that enabled their entry until they manage to recreate the very societies they claimed to be fleeing. at first they demand halal food for all, then its a small step to demand a repression of our open attitudes to sexuality and gender equality.
Still, the cartoonish character of the online alt right – its memes and jokes, its clear links to nerd culture, and its disinclination (so far) to street violence – should not lead us to underestimate the potential danger here.
Nor should we ignore the very real danger of the monster that left-wing political correctness has become. We have thought policing and pressures to conform to the leftist ideals thrown at us continually through all of the mainstream media and the social media still has a preponderance lefties and oh how they howl if just one person or right-wing idea is voiced in what they consider is their territory.
If nothing else, a networked, globalised political racism may forge a more generalised, adaptable, and ‘shareable’ set of political concepts. In a time of overlapping crisis, we can’t allow white internationalism to become a durable response.
The alt right is NOT about or encouraging racism, and the many alt-right people engaging the BLM movement provide a perfect example of how the orthodox leftists like Wilson have simply lost the plot. Wilson and his ilk naturally assume that because they consider Black people in the USA to be “oppressed” then anything they say or do is both acceptable and should not be subject to any scrutiny and when BLM protestors call for cops to be killed or express clear racist hatred to white people its a case of “nothing to see here”. No problem with Black racism because they are an “oppressed” group and in the leftist mindset those not in a more disadvantaged social position simply can’t be racist to those who are socially better off. But the alt-right calling out real by the dictionary racism of groups like BLM is not the racism that Wilson suggests it is in this essay.
Wilson is of course going to pretend not to read this and he certainly won’t change his silly leftist ideas any time soon. After all he has built himself a career by sucking up to leftist orthodoxy. That is the true irony of the man because when I was a young person to be a true radical one had to be a lefty you had to believe in a a sort of collectivist future. Well those ideals have taken over the establishment and now to be a true radical you have to be of the alt right and become a libertarian, The difference between contemporary radicals and the radicals of my youth is that today the enemy is the misguided and willfully blind lefties that we all once so naively wished to be.
That doyen of the hard left blogosphere who calls himself “The happy revolutionary” Has been chasing phantoms again. This time he seeks the ectoplasm at AWH, making John Ray as the phantom in his sights, and along the way he cant help but have a go at me as well, but as You will see what he offers us is somewhat less than he thinks it is.
Monday, 22 October 2007
Fascism, via other means…
In the Western World, the 20th Century was a battle, above all else, against fascism. It is convenient for some revisionists to suggest it was a battle against socialism – such revisionists invariably confuse the policies of the USSR with those of socialism itself.
hap starts out with a basic error and he does not get much better as he goes along. The battle of the twentieth century was not against “fascism” which was part of the story but it was against totalitarianism of which Haps beloved socialism was as much to blame as the ideologies of the far fight in Germany, Italy and Japan.
Readers may remember my plugs for Mark Richardson’s pieces attacking the bizarre academic cult of “whiteness studies ” well he has posted on the topic again after a discussion group was created to respond to his criticism you will find below my post to that forum (which requires registration to comment ) Checking the forum I now find that my comment below has been removed and My username has been removed from the list. Now I thought that Academics were supposed to be willing to defend their positions but this mob seem rather afraid of even some polite criticism. I have sent this email to seek clarification
Do you only wish to discuss these matters amongst the converted? Because
it seems very strange to me that you should remove my quite reasonable, and
respectful post from the forum and revoke my membership as well . It certainly
suggests that you lack enough courage of your convictions to argue for your
It is truly sad that you should act this way and I would
appreciate an explanation of your actions.
My original post follows:
Hello Damian and “whiteness studies” advocates et al
The author engages in a wide-ranging refutation of whiteness studies, and in particular focuses on what he sees as the non-sensical nature of claims that race is a social construction, and the idea that white people are complicit with racism. Respondents who have posted messages on the blog use discourses of ‘reverse racism’ and accusations of ‘political correctness’ to refute the claims of whiteness studies.
I have followed the blog pieces you reference here and I am afraid that I have to largely agree with Mark Richardson in his criticism of “whiteness studies” I think that the entire concept is deeply flawed. It is an innately racist in concept and it ignores the lessons of history with regard to how any group of people can actually claim “ownership” of any land.
Your comments above suggest to me that you believe that “racism” is an aspect of “whiteness” rather than being some thing that can be an aspect of the society of any ethnic group (including your beloved indigenes)
The author seems most uncomfortable with the notion of complicity and the suggestion that part of the work of whiteness studies is to recognise that white people will necessarily experience some sort of discomfort in the face of accounts of histories of white violence. The author finds this approach ridiculous, and cannot believe anyone would willingly experience discomfort. What he appears to miss is the ethical stance that whiteness studies engenders (to be accountable for histories of colonisation and to acknowledge sovereignties).
It seems to me that you have no understanding of history in general. The facts of the matter are that human beings are like all animals have always been in search of new territories to exploit and from the very beginning of human society there have been rivalries to outright wars over the best real estate in the end it always comes down to ownership being predicated on an ability to exclude others from the territory in question. This maybe through agreement or it maybe decided by combat but the lesson of history is that the sovereignty of some territory has changed many times and in the end that just has to be accepted. Your notion that indigenous people should enjoy some sort special place in the scheme of things that makes their claim to a particular piece of land immutable and eternal and that those who have succeeded them in sovereignty (and their descendants) should forever feel guilty for their history is just barmy. Apply that logic to its full extension and you should be advocating that any indigenous sovereignty should be vested in the remaining Tasmanian indigenes (there is evidence that the Tasmanians are descended from the first wave of immigrants who were pushed into the southern most parts of the country by subsequent waves of people before the land bridge between Tasmania and the mainland disappeared.
I take it that if we extend your logic, of immutable sovereignty then you would be a staunch advocate for Israel’s sovereignty of the holy land ,
He appears to calm himself in response to one post by stating that almost all of the contributors to the borderlands issue are women, and that only one was a heterosexual male! This allows him to dismiss the claims of those he positions on the Left as “we (traditionalist conservatives) will only have to compete with the liberal right to attract men to our views – the left will have already alienated younger males”. It all reads rather like a desperate range of defenses aimed at denying the wide range of relatively straightforward claims made about whiteness studies in the issue!
Mark actually treats your theories with a great deal of respect and comments about the nature of the collective are clearly incidental
Anyway, I am sure there are many other things to be said about the blog posts, but i leave it to others to read and post their thoughts. It certainly could have been much more aggressive, i grant the author that, but all of his points to me seem symptomatic of what whiteness studies is critiquing or examining, rather than actually presenting any sort of challenge to whiteness theory itself.
Mark is nothing if he is not thorough and “whiteness Studies “ can be summed up in two words “guilt Industry” You seek to impose some sort of sanction upon the descendants of people who succeeded in making a modern society in place of a stone age one .The fact that this was possible has nothing at all to do with the “whiteness” or the “blackness” of any of the groups involved but it does have a lot to do with the superior technology of on group in relation to the other. The trouble is that the racism of your position does nothing to help the indigenous people of this country come to terms with the twenty-first century all it serves to is reinforce their feeling of being “victims” progressive leaders like Noel Pearson has a much more forward looking meme for the future of indigenous people than “guilt industry” advocates such as your self.
The photo at the head of this piece is from Damien’s academic profile here
Update: Damien replys to my Email
Hello Iain, Thanks for your email and sorry for the concern this has caused you. A decision was made to remove the post and your membership as the forum is intended solely for conference participants and ACRAWSA members. I didnt realise when i approved your membership that you were not part of the conference. This was pointed out to me this morning and a request made to remove your post to ensure that we stick to our original terms which is to provide a resource for paid ACRAWSA members and paid conference participants. I hope you can find
another place to make your points as you are entirely entitled to do so. I am sure the author of the original blog would welcome your insights in the form of comments on his blog posts.
To which I replied:
I give credit for actually answering my email but I think that this is still a sad day for political debate when you remove the one post that was not whollly schophantic from the forum .And where did it say that comments at the forum was to be restricted to members of your little club?
I am most disapointed that you will not answer the particular points that I raised in my post.(which is why I posted in the first place). Am I to take it that you will not because you can’t?
And I recieved this response:
I am glad you can see where we are coming from in regards
to membership. The forum is not advertised or linked on the main ACRAWSA site as it is not open to the general public. We realised today that an oversight was made on the conference website and details were posted as to the forum address. We rectified this by removing the link from the conference site and removing any forum subscribers who were not on our paid member lists (you were not the only person affected by this – we are just trying to stay true to our commitment to providing member-only resources).
As for discussions and debates, i often find that email and message posting is not necessarily conducive to engaging in productive dialogue as it is difficult to gauge tone etc. The forum is for people sharing similar thoughts to discuss those and learn from one another in that specific context. Hopefully there will be other forums (or indeed the conference which you are welcome to attend) where debates *across* positions can be held.
Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
One of my regular reads is Mark Richardson’s “OZ Conservative” blog and he has written a most intresting critique of a piece by Damien W. Riggs about “whiteness studies”.
Theorists like Riggs don’t stop at the suggestion that all races are social constructs. They go on to ask a more specific question of why humans invented whiteness. The answer they give is that it’s to allow some people to get power over others. Whites exist because whiteness allows them to be privileged oppressors.Go here for Riggs’ essay and here to read Mark’s deconstruction of it.
Mark has explored this topic further here