4 ms·

The framing makes me worry. Presumably the mainstream whiteish culture is, uh, not ethnic? In other words, white remains normal; the standard from which other

by retrac 5y ago

The framing makes me worry. Presumably the mainstream whiteish culture is, uh, not ethnic? In other words, white remains normal; the standard from which others deviate. It is necessary to talk about and bring awareness of difference, but hopefully not highlighting and emphasising it in the process. Would it not be more appropriate to incorporate this into history generally? I got the 90s revision curriculum here in Ontario, Canada and the indigenous peoples, waves of European conquerors, peasant refugees, and the modern immigration system, and just the origins of the peoples of this country was thematic from first grade. (And not all with rose-tinted glasses. Jewish refugees sent back to Europe. Cash payments for indigenous scalps. The "reasonable" compromise that ended slavery by slowly phasing it out. Mass detentions by race in WW II, among other things. Though any mainstream account ends up distorting and streamlining.)

mkr-hn 5y ago
I would like to see some treatment of the history of subsuming many diverse cultures under a single near-homogenous "white" identity. There's so much history, art, and culture there. It's not just white-washed-by-time Roman buildings.
908B64B197 5y ago
> peasant refugees There's an attempt at painting criminals of the American Revolutions as "refugees" when they fled north. Interesting the history courses are building up this narrative. > Cash payments for indigenous scalps What's often omitted from history books is that indigenous people fought a lot even before Europeans arrived.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Loyalists were not criminals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)
  - retrac 5y ago
    The American traitors were the criminals, obviously. /s. Mostly. I'm told that, well into the 20th century, the American Revolution was often taught in the British Empire as the War of American Rebellion. And it had its own mythology/didactic purpose. First, a cautionary tale on what to do if you want to lose a colony. After all the Americans overreacted but they had a point. It also served as an exhibit for the dangers of deviant American republicanism. Populists overthrowing constitutional government. Causing a nasty war. And for no reason. After all, in this historical mythology, the UK would have granted self rule to America as it soon did Canada. etc. if only the Americans had been reasonable. (And they weren't reasonable because they were republicans: see France.). It even served as proof that anti-imperial and republican sentiments held back human liberty and progress. (Slavery was banned in the British Empire long before the USA. Of course, the region with the plurality of slaves under British jurisdiction had just seceded...) I almost wish it were still taught this way today, if only for the perspective shift.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      There were no criminals, at least not after the war. There are victors and there are losers. It's bizarre to label a population of hundreds of thousands as "criminals", especially when the American Revolutionaries/Patriots didn't even do that.
- retrac 5y ago
  I was thinking groups like the Mennonites and Jews widely persecuted in 19th century Europe who fled. Or my own ancestors, who fled the USSR. That said, refugee isn't the wrong word to use for American loyalists who fled after the American revolution. Being a prominent loyalist made you persona non grata in the new United States of America. Forfeited property. A few were killed during and immediately after the war. Though most who stayed were absorbed soon enough and the whole ugly business forgotten about quite quickly.
imbnwa 5y ago
>The framing makes me worry. Presumably the mainstream whiteish culture is, uh, not ethnic? In other words, white remains normal; the standard from which others deviate. It's more metaphysical than this even: "white" is without place/particularity in the world; why don't we call "white" people "European-Americans"? Edit: This is even more clear when we observe what is happening when it gets asserted that a "black" man is "white"/acting "white": the implication is that he is, from a certain perspective, attempting/pretending to divest himself of emplacement/particularity/historicity; he cannot then in any appropriate manner return to being "black", a particular, emplaced, and historical body (his white friends will say "he's not really _that_ black"; his "blacker" kindred will say he's "white", a "coon", etc.) This is why the rationalist subject of the Englightnment and all the philosophical notions that derive from that notion, while technically independent of any concrete demographic, are nevertheless seen as inextricable, concretely, from whiteness, and not only for the Black community. A part of the liberation of the Enlightenment for a positive, inclusive socio-political project lies in "re-emplacing"/"re-embodying" those bodies we designate as "white" rather than presuming a monopoly on the subject of the Enlightenment by "white" bodies. This intellectual operation should be seen as similiar to that carried out by Paul of Tarsus: the subject of Christianity does not yet adopt a universalist posture, concretely unfettered to physical properties of the body, until Paul defies the original apostles and asserts that circumsision is no longer the qualification for being a follower of Christ; that is, the embodiement of gentiles need not be altered so as to be like Hebrew bodies (like Christ's particular, Hebrew body).
- tgv 5y ago
  > why don't we call "white" people "European-Americans"? Because black was considered denigrating/slur, and white isn’t.
  - imbnwa 5y ago
    > Because black was considered denigrating/slur, and white isn’t. The argument is that "White" is necessarily a denigrating term in its primary use of absolving European bodies of emplacement/embodiment/historicity over and against virtually everyone else on Earth. That "White" is a synonym for "European" is a more tenuous and fragile link than it may appear and much intellectual labor has gone into the maintenance of this link over time; hence why the apparatus of Race is so concerned with demonstrating that "race has always existed" and hence why "White" does not appear to be a denigrating term (to certain people). The history of Irish and Italians in America and their ultimate integration is another concrete demonstration of this negotiation.

by retrac 5y ago

mkr-hn 5y ago

I would like to see some treatment of the history of subsuming many diverse cultures under a single near-homogenous "white" identity. There's so much history, art, and culture there. It's not just white-washed-by-time Roman buildings.

908B64B197 5y ago

> peasant refugees There's an attempt at painting criminals of the American Revolutions as "refugees" when they fled north. Interesting the history courses are building up this narrative. > Cash payments for indigenous scalps What's often omitted from history books is that indigenous people fought a lot even before Europeans arrived.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Loyalists were not criminals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)
- retrac 5y ago
  The American traitors were the criminals, obviously. /s. Mostly. I'm told that, well into the 20th century, the American Revolution was often taught in the British Empire as the War of American Rebellion. And it had its own mythology/didactic purpose. First, a cautionary tale on what to do if you want to lose a colony. After all the Americans overreacted but they had a point. It also served as an exhibit for the dangers of deviant American republicanism. Populists overthrowing constitutional government. Causing a nasty war. And for no reason. After all, in this historical mythology, the UK would have granted self rule to America as it soon did Canada. etc. if only the Americans had been reasonable. (And they weren't reasonable because they were republicans: see France.). It even served as proof that anti-imperial and republican sentiments held back human liberty and progress. (Slavery was banned in the British Empire long before the USA. Of course, the region with the plurality of slaves under British jurisdiction had just seceded...) I almost wish it were still taught this way today, if only for the perspective shift.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    There were no criminals, at least not after the war. There are victors and there are losers. It's bizarre to label a population of hundreds of thousands as "criminals", especially when the American Revolutionaries/Patriots didn't even do that.
retrac 5y ago
I was thinking groups like the Mennonites and Jews widely persecuted in 19th century Europe who fled. Or my own ancestors, who fled the USSR. That said, refugee isn't the wrong word to use for American loyalists who fled after the American revolution. Being a prominent loyalist made you persona non grata in the new United States of America. Forfeited property. A few were killed during and immediately after the war. Though most who stayed were absorbed soon enough and the whole ugly business forgotten about quite quickly.

imbnwa 5y ago

>The framing makes me worry. Presumably the mainstream whiteish culture is, uh, not ethnic? In other words, white remains normal; the standard from which others deviate. It's more metaphysical than this even: "white" is without place/particularity in the world; why don't we call "white" people "European-Americans"? Edit: This is even more clear when we observe what is happening when it gets asserted that a "black" man is "white"/acting "white": the implication is that he is, from a certain perspective, attempting/pretending to divest himself of emplacement/particularity/historicity; he cannot then in any appropriate manner return to being "black", a particular, emplaced, and historical body (his white friends will say "he's not really _that_ black"; his "blacker" kindred will say he's "white", a "coon", etc.) This is why the rationalist subject of the Englightnment and all the philosophical notions that derive from that notion, while technically independent of any concrete demographic, are nevertheless seen as inextricable, concretely, from whiteness, and not only for the Black community. A part of the liberation of the Enlightenment for a positive, inclusive socio-political project lies in "re-emplacing"/"re-embodying" those bodies we designate as "white" rather than presuming a monopoly on the subject of the Enlightenment by "white" bodies. This intellectual operation should be seen as similiar to that carried out by Paul of Tarsus: the subject of Christianity does not yet adopt a universalist posture, concretely unfettered to physical properties of the body, until Paul defies the original apostles and asserts that circumsision is no longer the qualification for being a follower of Christ; that is, the embodiement of gentiles need not be altered so as to be like Hebrew bodies (like Christ's particular, Hebrew body).

tgv 5y ago
> why don't we call "white" people "European-Americans"? Because black was considered denigrating/slur, and white isn’t.
- imbnwa 5y ago
  > Because black was considered denigrating/slur, and white isn’t. The argument is that "White" is necessarily a denigrating term in its primary use of absolving European bodies of emplacement/embodiment/historicity over and against virtually everyone else on Earth. That "White" is a synonym for "European" is a more tenuous and fragile link than it may appear and much intellectual labor has gone into the maintenance of this link over time; hence why the apparatus of Race is so concerned with demonstrating that "race has always existed" and hence why "White" does not appear to be a denigrating term (to certain people). The history of Irish and Italians in America and their ultimate integration is another concrete demonstration of this negotiation.