Political & Elections

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

RE: White Student Union - Inherently Racist?

soccerguy315 · Guru

nbachris2788 wrote:

soccerguy315 wrote:
i am not interested in the academic debate between race and ethnicity... honestly, I don't care. This is my point: why is it ok to have a "black student union" but not a "white student union"? They are exactly the same thing, but they serve different color people.
What do you want from a shared experience? White people spent weeks on boats trying to find religious freedom in the new world. Many did not make it. Many died during passage. Many died once they were here. Is that the kind of unifying experience you are looking for?
White-ness is when you are white. That is all. It's not some complex identifier that comes with a history book, just like "black" and "asian" are not complex identifiers.
What does a black former child soldier rescued from Somalia have in common with a black kid who grew up in the NY suburbs with 2 lawyers for parents? Nothing, except they are both black.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Saturday 4th of December 2010 10:01:36 PM

The utterly simpleness of mind in this response makes it both easy and difficult to respond.
Surely you must realize that not all groups are seen as having valid rights or grounds to organize. Something like an pro-Islamic extremist group would be rightfully shut down on behalf of religious harmony, disdain for anti-Semitism, respect for gender equality, etc.
"Whiteness is when you are white"? What kind of imbecilic tautology is that? What does it mean to be "white"? The definition of "white" is not some universal truth but a very America-centric idea. Just look at a country like Brazil, which was also settled by European colonials and imported slaves. Their definition of whiteness differs greatly from the idea of whiteness in America. Thus, it is imperative for us to try to come up with a definition of whiteness in America. I know that conservative types who love tradition and social convention hate these types of questions that force them to really examine their assumptions, but what is whiteness?
Please, a little more critical thinking. That, and read a book and/or get a passport or something.
As I said before, the main problem with a white students union is that whiteness is a negative category. While it has a more developed sense of identity and culture in the South, when taken in a national context, the only thing that defines whiteness is "not being colored". So essentially, a white students union is the same thing as a "non-colored students union". See the problem with that?
A white students union is not the opposite of a black students union; rather, a white students union is the opposite of a non-white students union. I would have just as many concerns with a non-white students union as I would have with a white students union, since both are not organized around a unifying principle but rather an exclusion principle.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Saturday 4th of December 2010 11:00:56 PM

what is wrong my definition of white? When you walk down the street, you can identify the black people, the white people, the asian people, the hispanic people... why? BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. It is not "simple minded." It is the truth. If you see a black person, do you think "hey, that person might actually not be black, because I am not familiar with their personal history or specific characteristics?" No, no you do not. Stop with your jargon of political correctness or whatever you learned in your latest class. White-ness is PEOPLE THAT ARE WHITE. It is the same as black-ness, except those people are black. It is not that complicated.

If you want "the student union for people who have black parents that attended segregated schools in the middle of the 20th century, and as a result got poor education but have worked very hard to make themselves middle class" (or whatever identifiers you are using that make "black people" into a group, but not "white people") then make that group.

I obviously recognize that some groups are not allowed to form because they are offensive. Please explain to me how a group of white people is more offensive than a group of black people.

How can you say "white student union" is exclusionary, but "black student union" is unifying? Are you serious?

IMO, you are assigning other characteristics to the non-white groups aside from color, but refuse to do the same for the white group. Why?

How can a white student union be the opposite of non white student union, but black student union is not the opposite of non black student union? If you are taking issue with my word "opposite" I will grant you that, that black and white are not directly opposites since people can be other things also. However, "black student union" and "white student union" are identical, except they are for different colored people.

The fact is that both groups are for people of one color.

Please explain how you are using the term "colored" in "non-colored student union" so I can respond accurately. I need the definition of "colored." Are you trying to say that the white student union excludes non whites? Yes... and the black student union excludes non blacks.

btw, I have been to at least 14 countries. How many have you been to?

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Sunday 5th of December 2010 09:39:05 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:

Abyss wrote:

nbachris2788 wrote:

Whites will probably never cease to be the single biggest racial group in America.

Well, we can only hope you're right. Because Brazil sucks a lot worse than the US (in fact all of South America sucks as well as Mexico). But we are rapidly heading in that direction.

We should also hunt down Landon Donovan and Stuart Holden as terrorists as well, since they promote soccer in the US, and look how popular soccer is in Brazil and how unequal their society is.

Under basic metrics like per capita GDP, life expectancy, patents per capita, crime rates, etc the US is better than any South American country (or Mexico).

But sure, lets continue to import people who have made their own countries so good. :)

Hindoo · Senior Member

No, Chris. Let's make an exception for Landon Donovan. Please. aww

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

This is a miserable thing. God forbid people associate themselves with others in ways which they prefer.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

nbachris2788 wrote:

Whites will probably never cease to be the single biggest racial group in America.

Well, we can only hope you're right. Because Brazil sucks a lot worse than the US (in fact all of South America sucks as well as Mexico). But we are rapidly heading in that direction.

We should also hunt down Landon Donovan and Stuart Holden as terrorists as well, since they promote soccer in the US, and look how popular soccer is in Brazil and how unequal their society is.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

blankmind wrote:

Yet you seem to be arguing that addressing inequality requires us to... maintain the status quo of inequality?
And I said that where exactly?
The status quo at the moment is that minority groups are welcomed and encouraged to exist while majority groups are considered racist.

I interpreted your post as meaning that in your ideal world, even in a society where power is not distributed fairly, it would be unjust to have minority organizations unless majority organizations could exist as well.

It was a hypothetical status quo, a status quo where the Civil Rights Movement never happened.

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:

Whites will probably never cease to be the single biggest racial group in America.

Well, we can only hope you're right. Because Brazil sucks a lot worse than the US (in fact all of South America sucks as well as Mexico). But we are rapidly heading in that direction.

blankmind · Senior Member

Yet you seem to be arguing that addressing inequality requires us to... maintain the status quo of inequality?

And I said that where exactly?

The status quo at the moment is that minority groups are welcomed and encouraged to exist while majority groups are considered racist.

poetgrl · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:

I believe you're referring to the many times that I've talked about how the Republicans are adopting a losing strategy by keeping themselves practically a whites-only party.

In that context, when I say that whites are becoming the minority, I'm using their frame of reference which does indeed bisect the American racial electorate to white and non-white.

I agree that we all have biases. It's not wrong to have biases; it is wrong to do nothing about them. All of us have try to compensate in various ways to make sure that our biases do not manifest themselves unfairly.

Non-racists are those who are able to check and compensate for their biases. Racists are those that either do nothing about them or gleefully indulge in them.

I agree that it is important to be as aware of our biases, as possible, and to do what we can to come to clearer and "better" understanding that each person is actually an individual and not whatever "group" we are categorizing them in. It is an interesting excercise, considering that one of the real tools humans use to understand the world is categorization......

So, the fear comes from our categorization of "white" groups based on what they once were. Either way, you can't avoid the bias. This is why one gets so lost in critical theory and eventually has to abandon Lacan and Focoult and go buy a bagel.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

poetgrl wrote:

Chris--

You're the one who showed me all the "evidence" that whites will be a minority group.....

I am not racist. But if you believe we don't all walk around with biases, of some variety or other, you are not being honest with yourself.

Recently the kids at my daughter's high school took a test to expose hidden biases and prejudices they might not know they have.

Interestingly, she found she had no feelings one way or the other based on skin color but had a hidden (even from her) bias against obese people.

What does that mean? Is she obesist?

I don't know.

Nothing in my life, or history, would point to anything other than a very egalitarian view of most people, though I have detected a bias against men with mustaches. I am, apparently, mustashist. I am openly opposed to the mutton chop, for sure.

Skin color, otoh, not so much.

But, the truth is that soccerguy does have an interesting point. Backformations can be just as difficult to unravel as the original structures they are formed against. fwiw

I believe you're referring to the many times that I've talked about how the Republicans are adopting a losing strategy by keeping themselves practically a whites-only party.

In that context, when I say that whites are becoming the minority, I'm using their frame of reference which does indeed bisect the American racial electorate to white and non-white.

I agree that we all have biases. It's not wrong to have biases; it is wrong to do nothing about them. All of us have try to compensate in various ways to make sure that our biases do not manifest themselves unfairly.

Non-racists are those who are able to check and compensate for their biases. Racists are those that either do nothing about them or gleefully indulge in them.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Chris--

You're the one who showed me all the "evidence" that whites will be a minority group.....

I am not racist. But if you believe we don't all walk around with biases, of some variety or other, you are not being honest with yourself.

Recently the kids at my daughter's high school took a test to expose hidden biases and prejudices they might not know they have.

Interestingly, she found she had no feelings one way or the other based on skin color but had a hidden (even from her) bias against obese people.

What does that mean? Is she obesist?

I don't know.

Nothing in my life, or history, would point to anything other than a very egalitarian view of most people, though I have detected a bias against men with mustaches. I am, apparently, mustashist. I am openly opposed to the mutton chop, for sure.

Skin color, otoh, not so much.

But, the truth is that soccerguy does have an interesting point. Backformations can be just as difficult to unravel as the original structures they are formed against. fwiw

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

poetgrl wrote:

Well, Hindoo, I don't know if it is "right" or "wrong," really. It probably depends on what the actual "intent" is, and also, what actions the groups really take.

On principle, I am wary of anyone's freedoms being curtailed by any group, which is why this question is inherently interesting.....There is a history of "white groups" being all about oppression. OTOH, there is a strong indication that caucasions will be a minority group in the US in the near future.

Will minority status make this type of group allowable?

It's not for me. But, a lot of things that aren't "for me" are basic freedoms. "Freedom of Assembly" is fundamental to our freedoms in general.

Caucasians will only be a minority if you believe that non-Caucasians constitute some kind of unified racial group.

Is that what you believe? It's a subtly racist idea: that on one hand there are the whites, and on the other are the miscellaneous people of color who despite their enormously varied backgrounds, probably all must think the same.

Whites will probably never cease to be the single biggest racial group in America.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:
i am not interested in the academic debate between race and ethnicity... honestly, I don't care. This is my point: why is it ok to have a "black student union" but not a "white student union"? They are exactly the same thing, but they serve different color people.
What do you want from a shared experience? White people spent weeks on boats trying to find religious freedom in the new world. Many did not make it. Many died during passage. Many died once they were here. Is that the kind of unifying experience you are looking for?
White-ness is when you are white. That is all. It's not some complex identifier that comes with a history book, just like "black" and "asian" are not complex identifiers.
What does a black former child soldier rescued from Somalia have in common with a black kid who grew up in the NY suburbs with 2 lawyers for parents? Nothing, except they are both black.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Saturday 4th of December 2010 10:01:36 PM

The utterly simpleness of mind in this response makes it both easy and difficult to respond.

Surely you must realize that not all groups are seen as having valid rights or grounds to organize. Something like an pro-Islamic extremist group would be rightfully shut down on behalf of religious harmony, disdain for anti-Semitism, respect for gender equality, etc.

"Whiteness is when you are white"? What kind of imbecilic tautology is that? What does it mean to be "white"? The definition of "white" is not some universal truth but a very America-centric idea. Just look at a country like Brazil, which was also settled by European colonials and imported slaves. Their definition of whiteness differs greatly from the idea of whiteness in America. Thus, it is imperative for us to try to come up with a definition of whiteness in America. I know that conservative types who love tradition and social convention hate these types of questions that force them to really examine their assumptions, but what is whiteness?

Please, a little more critical thinking. That, and read a book and/or get a passport or something.

As I said before, the main problem with a white students union is that whiteness is a negative category. While it has a more developed sense of identity and culture in the South, when taken in a national context, the only thing that defines whiteness is "not being colored". So essentially, a white students union is the same thing as a "non-colored students union". See the problem with that?

A white students union is not the opposite of a black students union; rather, a white students union is the opposite of a non-white students union. I would have just as many concerns with a non-white students union as I would have with a white students union, since both are not organized around a unifying principle but rather an exclusion principle.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Saturday 4th of December 2010 11:00:56 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

Well, Hindoo, I don't know if it is "right" or "wrong," really. It probably depends on what the actual "intent" is, and also, what actions the groups really take.

On principle, I am wary of anyone's freedoms being curtailed by any group, which is why this question is inherently interesting.....There is a history of "white groups" being all about oppression. OTOH, there is a strong indication that caucasions will be a minority group in the US in the near future.

Will minority status make this type of group allowable?

It's not for me. But, a lot of things that aren't "for me" are basic freedoms. "Freedom of Assembly" is fundamental to our freedoms in general.

soccerguy315 · Guru

amazing wrote:

Um.... did nobody actually read the article?

There is no White Student Union. What happened was that a student created flyiers for a fictional white student union in an attempt to provoke a reaction from a bunch of people. The idea was that they were hoping a bunch of people would get mad at this and show up at the "meeting" and the people there would have a discussion about racism. So there were good intentions.

why does a "white student union" bring out hatred, while other student unions do not?

soccerguy315 · Guru

nbachris2788 wrote:

soccerguy315 wrote:

it seems hypocritical because it is...

black student union = ok
mexican student union = ok
asian student union = ok
white student union = RACIST!!!

in 2010, it's acceptable for everyone to organize on the basis of race or ethnicity except white people. It's ridiculous.

I already addressed this. "White" is as much a race/ethnicity as "non-white" is. Would you say that "non-white" or "person of color" is a race or ethnicity?
As I said before, since whites make up the majority in the country, most institutions and culture are already set up in ways that cater to them. The reason why minority student groups exist is because of the status whiteness enjoys as the default race. If you go to Mexico or Cameroon or South Korea, you won't see Hispanic, African, or Asian student unions.
You might see white student unions there though, so if you want to see one so badly, I suggest perhaps going to a country where you'd be in the minority.
What is whiteness, in your opinion, anyway? My argument is that whiteness is nothing but a negative category, an identity whose only unifying principle is what it's not. As diverse as the African-American and Asian-American and Latino-American communities are, their minority status has resulted in all those groups having some kind of shared experience and identity.
What would unify a white students union, besides the fact that they're not "coloured"? Do they have a common culture? If so, what is it, and does it truly include the vast majority of white people in America (as opposed to, say, just middle America or the Deep South)?
You know, there ARE white people in places like San Francisco and New York as well, and they're just as white and American as those in flyover or Confederate country.

i am not interested in the academic debate between race and ethnicity... honestly, I don't care. This is my point: why is it ok to have a "black student union" but not a "white student union"? They are exactly the same thing, but they serve different color people.

What do you want from a shared experience? White people spent weeks on boats trying to find religious freedom in the new world. Many did not make it. Many died during passage. Many died once they were here. Is that the kind of unifying experience you are looking for?

White-ness is when you are white. That is all. It's not some complex identifier that comes with a history book, just like "black" and "asian" are not complex identifiers.

What does a black former child soldier rescued from Somalia have in common with a black kid who grew up in the NY suburbs with 2 lawyers for parents? Nothing, except they are both black.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Saturday 4th of December 2010 10:01:36 PM

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

The only reason it wouldn't be "right" is if you or someone else decided you wanted to force your opinions and beliefs on someone else. It happens all the time on all sides of the aisles.

Hindoo · Senior Member

I agree, Poetgrl. We certainly do have the right to form whatever kind of non-violent group we like, but does having the right to do so ... make it right? confuse

-- Edited by Hindoo on Saturday 4th of December 2010 09:45:53 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

busdriver11 wrote:

"in 2010, it's acceptable for everyone to organize on the basis of race or ethnicity except white people. It's ridiculous."

You probably can't organize any men's clubs on campus either, can you? Even on a mostly female campus. Not even though there are "women's studies" majors, women's centers and all sorts of support for women only.

Apparently if you are a male, particularly a white male, if you try to organize a group as such, you are racist....sexist....and must be stopped. Even if you're the minority on campus.

Well, most campuses have a fraternity system, so male organizations are pretty much a part of the culture, as are female organizations.

I don't think I'd join a "white" group, myself, but if there are a group of caucaisons who feel the need to organize, they have as much right as any other group. JMO

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

amazing wrote:

Um.... did nobody actually read the article?

There is no White Student Union. What happened was that a student created flyiers for a fictional white student union in an attempt to provoke a reaction from a bunch of people. The idea was that they were hoping a bunch of people would get mad at this and show up at the "meeting" and the people there would have a discussion about racism. So there were good intentions.

Debates about prospective white students union (or its sneaky counterpart, a "Western civilization club") inevitably and periodically spring up, so it's worth talking about even if the one mentioned in the article was a hoax of sorts.

Wouldn't it have been a great sight though, if that white students union gathered some of the whiniest and most resentful white males around, only for them to realize that it was a hoax and that they'd have to listen to the fact that the most oppressed group in America is not *gasp* straight white males?!

In some ways, I do think that a white students union could have some great social benefits. The greatest white privilege, IMHO, is the idea that the white outlook is somehow the default outlook, or the most objective outlook. This is what causes dumb white conservatives in Congress to freak out over a "wise Latina", but sleep soundly despite a near-white male hegemony over the Supreme Court in the history of the United States. White people cannot possibly be biased or unfair!

A white students union would help advance the idea that whiteness is not somehow impervious to what we like to call special interests.

The reality though is that such unions would most likely attract the type who believe the exact opposite. They're probably just looking for a place to tell racist jokes without fear of the PC police, lament at the beiging of America (and the world), and seethe at the fact that some uppity thing like Seal could marry an Aryan goddess like Heidi Klum.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Saturday 4th of December 2010 07:27:15 PM

amazing · Veteran Member

Um.... did nobody actually read the article?

There is no White Student Union. What happened was that a student created flyiers for a fictional white student union in an attempt to provoke a reaction from a bunch of people. The idea was that they were hoping a bunch of people would get mad at this and show up at the "meeting" and the people there would have a discussion about racism. So there were good intentions.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Cuse0507 wrote:

White males are discriminated against enough at is is. No shame in them joining together for their common good, much like any other group can do.

A white male is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and white males make up the majority of the Supreme Court itself. White males make up the overwhelming and disproportionate majority of the Senate. A white male is Vice-President of the United States. A white male is Secretary of Defence. A white male is the most recognized and authoritative military figure in the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. White males are way over-represented in American films and television. White males make up the vast majority of CEOs in American business. A white male-dominated sports league like the NHL can sanction and encourage brawling and not have to risk being labelled as a thug or degenerate league.

But make one president out of forty-four black, or tell a white man that he can't use the n-word, and the fragile white male ego goes into insecurity overdrive.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

blankmind wrote:

Whatever the historic reasons behind the evolution of "fill-in-the-blank groups," the fact is that if we want all peoples to be treated as equals, it is necessary to start treating them all as equals. Why not wait to see what a "white student union" does, before throwing the racism bomb at them?

We seem to be making the assumption that all minority "unions" are good, and all majority "unions" are bad, regardless of what they actually end up doing. Isn't that just another example of prejudism?

This is just incoherent.

The reason why these groups exist is precisely because of the fact that there is inequality in the United States.

Yet you seem to be arguing that addressing inequality requires us to... maintain the status quo of inequality?

Would you argue that freeing a slave is somehow unequal because the slave gets freedom whereas the master does not? This is where you ridiculous argument is taking us.

And nobody said that all minority groups are good. Black/Latino/Asian supremacy groups, for example, should be treated like any white supremacist group. But the fact remains that a majority group with no unifying identity or culture coalescing into some interest group has historically been used as a force of oppression and exclusion, it is therefore is rightly regarded with great suspicion.

Hindoo · Senior Member

This is a boo-hoo argument that I just don't buy, Cuse. In what ways are white males discriminated against? (Affirmative action, you say?) For the most part, caucasian men still seem massively over-represented in the halls of American power, both corporate and political--just as they always have been. It seems to me we have a ways to go before things equal out for women and ethnic minorities.

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

White males are discriminated against enough at is is. No shame in them joining together for their common good, much like any other group can do.

Hindoo · Senior Member

OK, Blankmind. I'll wait and see what a whites-only group does before I throw a racial bomb at them. But, for the reasons I outlined before, I'm still rather suspicious of intent. Haven't we had enough white exclusionism through the decades and centuries? From the 1700s through at least the 1960s, it was called: Basic Every Day Life in America.

blankmind · Senior Member

Whatever the historic reasons behind the evolution of "fill-in-the-blank groups," the fact is that if we want all peoples to be treated as equals, it is necessary to start treating them all as equals. Why not wait to see what a "white student union" does, before throwing the racism bomb at them?

We seem to be making the assumption that all minority "unions" are good, and all majority "unions" are bad, regardless of what they actually end up doing. Isn't that just another example of prejudism?

Hindoo · Senior Member

My gut says a "white students union" is not a good thing at all, nor necessary. Whites have historically been the majority here and have not, as a rule, had to deal with discrimination and exclusionary practices--certainly not on the level that minority groups have. Which is why "black student unions" and other such organizations were born in the first place--to counter a serious problem of inequality.

Times are changing and a question to ponder now would be: Are minority orgs. still necessary? Maybe, maybe not. ... But what would the purpose of a "white's only" group be? To bemoan the fact that minorities are gaining a foothold in the modern world? To engage in hand-wringing ceremonies over the idea of losing a white majority? It smacks of paranoia, fear, and racism to me.

-- Edited by Hindoo on Saturday 4th of December 2010 07:56:51 AM

geeps20 · Senior Member

Yet many, if not most, people would probably say that that's not really white culture; REAL white culture is guns and God.

that is just silly. I don't know anyone who thinks like this..and most blacks aren't religious?..

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

busdriver11 wrote:

"What is whiteness, in your opinion, anyway? My argument is that whiteness is nothing but a negative category, an identity whose only unifying principle is what it's not."

So is it your point that "whiteness" is a lack of any identifying culture, a default, a nothing? And why would black kids from the south have more cultural similarities, shared experiences and identify more with black foreign students from Africa, than other kids from the south?

Well, this is the whole "Is Obama black?" argument all over again, isn't it?

While there shouldn't be anything that really links black Americans who are 12-generation Americans and Africans, the history of racial relations in America shows that American society will not care to distinguish between a Harlem-born black and an ethnic Hutu from Rwanda. All that matters is that their generic African appearance unequivocally categorizes them as belonging to that group designated as "black" in American culture. Therefore, as unfair as it is, there is a unity of experience — in the past as well as in the future — that binds these two seemingly disparate people together.

The same goes for Asians and Latinos, though it is a little more difficult for Latinos since their racial identity is not so much based on appearance as language. Thus, we can have white Latinos who consider themselves Latinos, and mestizo/Amerindian Latinos who may not want to identity as Latino but will automatically be forced to do so by society.

I think white people don't realize that these ethnic/racial organizations are born out of necessity (real or perceived) rather than choice. White people have had the benefit of demographic dominance and default status so that they did not need to have these organizations.

It's the stupid "Why can't white people have White Entertainment Television when blacks have BET?" argument again. The vast majority of networks and TV shows are white-dominated; whites don't need a WET since all of the existing institutions function like it anyway!

If given the choice, most minorities would love not having to feel like they need these ethnic organizations. It's quite amusing to watch white people feel like it's a great privilege to have these groups. Maybe they'd like to trade places then? Greatly reduce their numbers, influence, and power, and sure, they can have all the white student unions they want!

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Friday 3rd of December 2010 10:58:16 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

"What is whiteness, in your opinion, anyway? My argument is that whiteness is nothing but a negative category, an identity whose only unifying principle is what it's not."

So is it your point that "whiteness" is a lack of any identifying culture, a default, a nothing? And why would black kids from the south have more cultural similarities, shared experiences and identify more with black foreign students from Africa, than other kids from the south?

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:

it seems hypocritical because it is...

black student union = ok
mexican student union = ok
asian student union = ok
white student union = RACIST!!!

in 2010, it's acceptable for everyone to organize on the basis of race or ethnicity except white people. It's ridiculous.

I already addressed this. "White" is as much a race/ethnicity as "non-white" is. Would you say that "non-white" or "person of color" is a race or ethnicity?

As I said before, since whites make up the majority in the country, most institutions and culture are already set up in ways that cater to them. The reason why minority student groups exist is because of the status whiteness enjoys as the default race. If you go to Mexico or Cameroon or South Korea, you won't see Hispanic, African, or Asian student unions.

You might see white student unions there though, so if you want to see one so badly, I suggest perhaps going to a country where you'd be in the minority.

What is whiteness, in your opinion, anyway? My argument is that whiteness is nothing but a negative category, an identity whose only unifying principle is what it's not. As diverse as the African-American and Asian-American and Latino-American communities are, their minority status has resulted in all those groups having some kind of shared experience and identity.

What would unify a white students union, besides the fact that they're not "coloured"? Do they have a common culture? If so, what is it, and does it truly include the vast majority of white people in America (as opposed to, say, just middle America or the Deep South)?

You know, there ARE white people in places like San Francisco and New York as well, and they're just as white and American as those in flyover or Confederate country.

busdriver11 · Guru

"in 2010, it's acceptable for everyone to organize on the basis of race or ethnicity except white people. It's ridiculous."

You probably can't organize any men's clubs on campus either, can you? Even on a mostly female campus. Not even though there are "women's studies" majors, women's centers and all sorts of support for women only.

Apparently if you are a male, particularly a white male, if you try to organize a group as such, you are racist....sexist....and must be stopped. Even if you're the minority on campus.

soccerguy315 · Guru

it seems hypocritical because it is...

black student union = ok
mexican student union = ok
asian student union = ok
white student union = RACIST!!!

in 2010, it's acceptable for everyone to organize on the basis of race or ethnicity except white people. It's ridiculous.

inthenews · Veteran Member

It was insensitive of those students because intentional or not, it invokes the notion of white separatism. While it may seem a hypocritical stance when every minority organization there is names themselves based on identity, I doubt anyone would argue that there is enough of a historic basis for minority groups in this country to react negatively to the appearance of exclusivity.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote:
__________________________________________________________________
"The fliers that announced the formation of a “White Student Union” were part of an effort to organize students who are against racism, according to school officials."
__________________________________________________________________
Huh?....... confuse

I'm assuming the racial makeup of said university is predominently white (someone please correct me if that's not the case), which means that most aspects of university life are configurated with a view toward meeting the needs of this majority. They are, as NBA said, the default setting as far as culture, curriculum, and social activities are concerned.

On HBCU campuses, black students are the default population, and it's reflected in virtually every aspect of campus life. White students who attend these schools (yes, there actually are such students aww

) are well aware of that, and often understand, for the first time in their lives, the true meaning of "minority status". I can well understand how such students would want to gather for support and comraderie among others who understand how minority status feels. It can be very disconcerting to feel like an outsider. That's why black student unions, hispanic student alliances, and LGBT groups form on "majority campuses". The mission of these groups is not to make its members feel "superior" to the campus' majority population, but to form a nurturing cacoon where they don't feel alien all the time.

That white students sometimes express the feeling that these groups are "racist" shows just how removed they are from the knowledge of what racism actually is, how foreign the experience of being treated as "other" is to them.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

The problem is that white has never been regarded as an ethnicity. It has always been presumed to be the default mode of being and as such, lacks any kind of definition other than what it is not. Whiteness has usually only been recognized when it has been used to exclude others.

American whiteness is extremely diverse. When most people speak of "white culture", they probably mistakenly think of stereotypical Middle de-ethnicized white America, while ignoring other vibrant white cultures on, say, the east and west coasts. For example, I really can't think of a whiter culture than New York hipsters, or outdoorsy New Englanders. Yet many, if not most, people would probably say that that's not really white culture; REAL white culture is guns and God.

For whites to have the freedom to assemble freely as white groups — in the same way as black groups or Latino groups or Asian groups — they must first acknowledge that they too are an ethnicity just like everyone else. But that would mean giving up the great privilege of assuming one's racial identity to be the default mode of being, and giving up unquestioned notions such as white objectivity.

-- Edited by nbachris2788 on Friday 3rd of December 2010 02:27:41 PM

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/White-Student-Union-Flyers-Spark-Controversy-at-WCU-111257634.html

http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2010/12/02/news/srv0000010161852.txt?viewmode=4

I only know what I read in this article and haven't dug any deeper but is it just assumed that a group called the "White Student Union" would be a racist group? Maybe I didn't read something the way I should have. I just want to know where racism came into play in this anyhow? Just because a group's name is "White something-or-another" it's an issue?

-- Edited by pmrlcomm on Friday 3rd of December 2010 01:53:34 PM