Talk:Whiteness Studies

Thoughts?
Would you all mind reading this article and giving your opinions? It reads like White sumpremacist apologia to me but the article's creator claims it isn't. 01:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Should probably weigh in as well, being one of the older and more experienced users here. 02:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This page was IN NO way intended to be about or even slightly related to ANYTHING that white supremacists promote... Don't know where anyone got that impression... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This reads like something that a racist, sexist homophobe would write on Uncyclpedia (or whatever the more specifically right-wing equivalent of that is). Regardless of the creator's intentions, that's how it reads. Spud (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

How so? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * for starters who the hell uses "marxist" as an insult. also, way to go, categorizing an entire field of studies bullshit. 04:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * additionally the heavy use of strike out is a really lazy way to make this article "funny". 04:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cruise Control ( Manual! ) 05:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Marxist wasn't used an insult... That is how people, mostly on the right refer to them --Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BabyLuigiOnFire has already pretty much accurately responded on my behalf. But I would go a bit further and say that dismissing four whole fields of studies (women's studies, gender studies, African-American studies and Latino studies) as bullshit is something that a sexist, homophobic racist would write. Spud (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So? Edit if you don't like it? Why vaporize my work?Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If I edited it to remove everything objectionable, there wouldn't be anything left. Spud (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This article sucks
1: Most of the citations don't directly support the sentences they are used in.

2: Laci Green and Anita Sarkeesian are not members of the academic field of whiteness studies; they are irrelevant.

3: The text of the article goes far, far beyond the listed criticisms in any of the critical articles posted. Attacking people is generally a bad idea, and this article makes sure to attack people rather than attack their ideas. FuzzyCatPotato 03:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Which people were attacked? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I simply can’t make neither head nor tail of what I’m supposed to take away from reading the article, perhaps apart from “Hey! Racism is a pretty hot-button topic, ‘ya know?” I think that this is a more general and serious problem than the specific issues mentioned by Fuzzy.


 * Basically, what exactly is the message/argument of this article? That this line of study is irrelevant? Invalid? Biased? Or am I missing a convoluted criticism of those who criticise White Studies?


 * I freely confess that I’d never even heard of this field before, but that’s probably because it’s such a US-centric topic, and at first, I actually thought I’d strayed into fun space by accident.


 * The phrasing ”other bullshit, made up "studies", like Gender studies, Women's studies, African American studies and Latino studies” was particularly odd to me, since all studies are made up (because they stem more or less arbitrary arbitrary/traditional definitions of what constitutes a particular academic field, definitions that may also change over time). It seemed to me to be more of a list of pet peeves used for axe grinding and griping, rather than an actual argument against any of these disciplines.


 * As for the references, the only worthwhile ones, I think, are the two that links to the CNN blog and Washington Post, since they actually try to explain what Whiteness Studies are, rather than just bitching about how terrible assholes dominate academia and indoctrinate students with (self) loathing of white people. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)