Hi Dan.
Could you elaborate on what that difference is? What set’s “white” apart from “White”?
Thanks.
Hey everyone, I split this post into a new thread, since it seemed like a different topic, but a worthwhile one to discuss. I hope that’s ok.
I’d like to add my 2 cents, since I think about the phrase “white man” a LOT. I feel like I started thinking in those terms more since I made a conscious choice to reject the culture of my white ancestors (I’m a white woman) - the more recent ones, at least (since pretty much the time of the Romans). To me that term describes the culture of “the white man” - not white males in particular, but “man” as English speakers used to, and still often do, say to mean “humans”. Mainly, I think I use that phrase because that is how the native people of this land characterized white culture in everything I’ve read, in the past and currently, as far as I know. It is also the term that radical black people have used in the past and use today, also to characterize the dominant white culture - and for a long time now I’ve identified more with that militant subculture than with the dominant white culture that I came from, and have pretty much always been surrounded by.
I know that the term doesn’t refer to all white individuals, since I am white and yet I loathe, despise, and HATE the culture that I came from, and desire nothing more than to join and/or help create a new culture, one that stands in direct opposition to the dominant civilized culture. So to me, naming that hated culture by the main term used by those oppressed by it, who have fought it in the past and who still oppose it today, makes sense, and feels right.
I also know that “the dominant culture”, or “civilized culture” describes it more accurately (at least for those who understand what I mean), since many non-white civilized cultures exist or have existed in the past, and I think they all are products of the same insanity (wetiko) and have all done the same things, to varying degrees. And today all civilizations have now merged together basically become one global civilization - even though cultural differences exist from place to place, all civilizations have been incorporated into the same global economy, and are becoming increasingly homogenized (more and more like the dominant white culture). So to paint them all by the same brush, as “white civilization”, isn’t completely inaccurate (although also not totally accurate).
Also, even though the term “man” refers to all genders, I don’t think it would be entirely inaccurate even if it meant male. From the beginning, civilization (all of them, as far as I know) has been patriarchal, male dominated, and women, as a group, have been oppressed by that culture from pretty much the beginning. However, I think most white women identify with those in power (rich white men), just as most non-rich white men do. So then the question becomes, are we defining the culture by those in power, the oppressors, or by everyone who identifies with those in power? And it gets even more muddled, because many non-rich white men oppress women, many white women oppress non-whites, and on down the hierarchy.
So I don’t know which term is “best” to use. Actually I think it depends a lot on who one is speaking to. But I personally don’t find anything wrong with using the term “white man” to describe the dominant civilized culture - in fact it best matches the feelings I have towards it.
I just don’t understand why the culture needs a term attached to a specific “race”, much less a sex. Europe has as bloody a history of colonization and displacement of indigenous people as the Americas do. Given enough time, Civilization will turn any indigenous person into a “Wetiko”, regardless of their ethnicity or sex. To me, calling Civilization white and male seems like mistaking the host of the disease for the actual disease itself.
I’m not going to claim responsibility for this culture because of the color of my skin or because of my sex. I’ve heard that argument used far too many times to try and keep people of European decent from reclaiming their own indigenous heritage, which just drives them farther from their roots and makes them more likely to misappropriate other cultures which aren’t their own in the search for their own severed roots.
If civilization is defined by ethnicity or sex, then (by that logic) shouldn’t Rewilding be off limits to White males? ???
Similarly, I’ve heard people try and tell me that Civilization is inherent in the human species and that Rewilding is therefore a futile effort. Calling Civilization White and male to me is like trying to associate it with humanity as a natural human expression. I think Civilization is as white and male as it is Human. If we’re gonna refer to this mess as “White Culture” then we might as well refer to it as “Humanity” as well, which would give the cultural spin doctors of Civilization a leg up in terms of keeping us divided ignorant and powerless by guilt, fear and anger.
I think Mr. Trudell says it nicely:
The first point really is that race is fictitious. It exists solely as a feature of culture. It’s a social construct created around our outward appearances with some tenuous ties to vague categories based on ancestral habitation, and as such is fluid and changing.
The big point in this is that in Western culture, “Whiteness” has significance. Attached to the idea of “Whiteness” is the idea of what it means to be “White”, and in American that basically means being straight, Christian, Capitalist, etc. This is why you see, as Derrick Jensen makes apparent in “Culture of Make Believe”, that people in racist white culture lash out at culture deviants and allies to people of color much in the same way to do to people of color themselves. Look at the lynching and torturing of white Wobblies in manners reminiscent to lynching of black folks in the South by the Klan. They’d given up their “Whiteness” in the eyes of the dominant society, and were therefore race traitors. In big part, I think this occurs because it forces people to confront the fact that what they derive their identity, and probably their entire worldview, from is fundamentally challenged.
“Whiteness” is also treated as property. Check out what Cheryl Harris has to say about that: http://www1.bmcc.cuny.edu/faculty/upload/published%20critical%20soc%20whiteness.pdf
I don’t think it’s a logical result of any of this to say that civilization is defined by white males, nor is it definitive to it. Nor does having light skin and being of European descent necessarily make you take part in Whiteness. But Western culture has had the concept of Whiteness as one of its major driving forces for some time, even if it is also something that is constantly changing.
Exactly! Similarly, Western culture has had the concept of “maleness” (patriarchy) at its core pretty much since its conception. But as Dan says above, having a male body and/or light skin does NOT mean that one identifies with or expresses that “maleness” or “whiteness”. So I definitely do NOT think that having a male body or light skin makes one inherently civilized, or that rewilding should be off limits to anyone because of physical traits out of their control. I guess the difference lies between one’s personal traits and the characteristics (the “-ness”, so to speak) of a culture. One does not at all equate with the other.
I based my previous post on this premise, but maybe I didn’t articulate it clearly. I guess to me it just goes without saying, since - having white skin and yet hating the “white” culture of my recent ancestors - I’ve spent a long time clarifying this in my mind.
[quote=“bereal, post:5, topic:1525”][quote author=incendiary_dan link=topic=1638.msg16006#msg16006 date=1299888506]
I don’t think it’s a logical result of any of this to say that civilization is defined by white males, nor is it definitive to it. Nor does having light skin and being of European descent necessarily make you take part in Whiteness. But Western culture has had the concept of Whiteness as one of its major driving forces for some time, even if it is also something that is constantly changing.
[/quote]
Exactly! Similarly, Western culture has had the concept of “maleness” (patriarchy) at its core pretty much since its conception. But as Dan says above, having a male body and/or light skin does NOT mean that one identifies with or expresses that “maleness” or “whiteness”. So I definitely do NOT think that having a male body or light skin makes one inherently civilized, or that rewilding should be off limits to anyone because of physical traits out of their control. I guess the difference lies between one’s personal traits and the characteristics (the “-ness”, so to speak) of a culture. One does not at all equate with the other.
I based my previous post on this premise, but maybe I didn’t articulate it clearly. I guess to me it just goes without saying, since - having white skin and yet hating the “white” culture of my recent ancestors - I’ve spent a long time clarifying this in my mind.[/quote]
I totally agree.
The Nazi’s did much to justify their actions with the idea that they were “superior beings”, that others were inferior by the imagined “natural” barriers of race. but those who resisted them definitely didn’t refer to them as “superior beings” because they knew it was complete BS to begin with. Why should we call Civilization a culture of the “White Man” if we agree that it is hardly definitive of either of these traits (the first one being totally contrived anyway)?
Nobody’s saying to identify all of civilization as “White Man’s” culture. But Western civilization is White society. It’s characterized in large part by its self-defining by race and what Whiteness means.
Having been more involved in critical race theory for a while, I’ve come to really just call this what it is : white supremacist worldview. Western civilization is built on White supremacist assumptions, harbored even largely by people who don’t hold specifically White supremacist opinions, or may not even by white.
[quote=“incendiary_dan, post:7, topic:1525”]Nobody’s saying to identify all of civilization as “White Man’s” culture. But Western civilization is White society. It’s characterized in large part by its self-defining by race and what Whiteness means.
Having been more involved in critical race theory for a while, I’ve come to really just call this what it is : white supremacist worldview. Western civilization is built on White supremacist assumptions, harbored even largely by people who don’t hold specifically White supremacist opinions, or may not even by white.[/quote]
Well, I was originally referring to this statement:
“sounds very similar to what the white man did to the native americans.”
It would have sounded very different in it’s meaning if it was rephrased as:
“sounds very similar to what the white supremacists did to the native americans.”
Of course this topic is important to me, personally, because I myself am coming to terms with, or rather trying to figure out, where I stand as a male of European descent. I think it’s safe to say that anyone who comes into Rewilding does a good bit of self reflection and cultural re/deprogramming in this area, especially considering that most Rewilders seem to be coming from a white background, and so carry the history that comes with that label on their conscience. I guess my question would then be, is it necessary for Rewilders to use this label for themselves as individuals who are attempting to throw off the ideological shackles of civilization? Is it necessary for Rewilders to use racial concepts to define themselves if they reject and oppose the culture that is built on those faulty concepts? I’m personally fine with being described as a Euro-American or whatever, but I’m finding that there’s just too much baggage that comes with the term “white” (regardless of whether you capitalize it or not).
If you’re going to be honest about race and racial privilege in this society, then you need to understand it. You don’t need to identify with it, but at the same time pretending you don’t take part it in because you dislike it is dishonest and itself a part of white privilege in Western, particularly American, society.
So no, defining yourself by a fictitious racial concept is of course not necessary. That would be entirely counterproductive. But non-identification isn’t an excuse to ignore race in this culture. So many white activists make that mistake.
Dan, I won’t even hesitate to admit that I am Civilized. that is of course the reason why I’m interested in Rewilding to begin with! The problem here is not that I don’t think I’m Civilized, it’s that I don’t except “White” as a term to imply my Civilizedness has anything to do with my ethnic background. Again, the problem is a cultural problem, not racial. It’s not even possible to have a racial culture because race doesn’t exist. therefore Civilization cannot be white. So while the concept of “White” exists, it has no bearing in reality.
You could tell a lie and the lie may have very real disastrous effects. While the effects are real, the lie still remains fiction and unreal. We don’t need to continue to tell the lie to understand or deal with it’s effects.
Talk to/with me, not past or at me. Please.
As far as I can tell I am, and I apologize in advance if I’m not. Please point out where I’m not speaking with you and I’ll do my best to change how I speak.
Oooh, this discussion feels more and more interesting to me. It touches on a vital topic, that I’m glad to explore.
I think that “race” definitely exists, but to me it means the exact same thing as “culture”. Saying the “white race” means the same thing to me as saying “white culture” - meaning the culture that arose from Europe, i.e. western civilization.
I call myself “white”, not only because I came from that culture, but because the concept of “whiteness” (white superiority) has such a huge, and real, impact on the lives of a major chunk of the humans on the planet - both “white” and “non-white”. I could use a different term to describe the same thing as the term “white”, but I find it helpful to look at it not only from my unique perspective, but also from the perspective of everyone else affected by “whiteness” - and they almost universally use the term “white”, whether they’re describing the social and economic benefits enjoyed by myself and other “white” people (“white privilege”), or the “white” culture’s drive to dominate and enslave the rest of the world (“white imperialism”).
And actually, I don’t think it really matters whether or not “white” refers to a race or a culture, or whether race as a concept makes sense. None of that changes the fact that “whiteness” has a real, tangible effect on a huge chunk of the world’s population. We can easily see many of those effects, but others hide embedded in the fabric of the dominant culture, and are hard to see even when experienced. It’s easy to think that everyone else experiences the same thing as us - which explains why so many white people take their white privilege for granted, and don’t even recognize it as such (thinking they achieved what they have purely by their own hard work, for example). For that reason, I try to see myself (as a “white” person) from the perspective of others who aren’t “white”. They can much more easily perceive “white” privilege and “white” racism than I can, so when they say that “whiteness” exists and has real effects on their lives, and the world, I listen.
Wow, you guys went deep on this. Far deeper than I ever thought of the topic of the “white man.” I felt it was purely a semantic issue. I’ll illustrate what mean by telling a true story of my life.
Whiel I was living in Hawaii, I made some good friends that were local. (Part Hawaiian. Full blood Hawaiians are extremely rare.) But they were local. They had a word for caucasian people. It was “haole”. “Ha” means breath or soul and “ole” means without. (There’s a lot if interesting history behind that word but I’ll save that for a different time.)
One evenign we were all chilling and chatting and one of the guys there was joking about some stupid haole being a jerk to him. Jokingly I said. “Hey, I’m haole too.”
His response was “We got locals here more haole than you. You’re not nearly has haole as you think.”
Haole has two meaning to these people. One is a caucasian person. Being as white as white can be I was definitely haole and there was nothign I can do about that.
However, there is another meaning. This is a type of person. This person personifies a arrogant American. Therefore, I am a non haole haole to my friends over there.
I feel the same way about the words “white man.” I am a white man. I am both male and and caucasian. However, most people would not really put me in the “white man” category in that I am relatively open to other cultures and I like to learn as much as possible before making a judgemet and even then I do my best to not personify the traits in the civilized culture that I dislike.
thunder thighs,
I apologizing for being a bit curt, and not giving explanation. What I meant was that I did not feel you are adequately reading and recognizing my contributions to this discussion, but rather have basically repeated the same points throughout. Perhaps I haven’t been as clear as I thought, but looking back I still don’t think that’s the case. Sometimes I’ve been using certain words and language in a non-typical way for so long I’ve forgotten the “normal” meaning.
I’m coming into this thread for the first time, with some of my own ideas, but of course you guys are already voicing ideas very similar (perhaps only wording is different), so instead I’d like to say what I like about what’s being said before adding anything new (at risk of just repeating everything already said anyway.) And just so you can feel a little better where I’m trying to go with this, I’m presenting possibilities rather than judgments, and also avoiding just repeating all the good points already made. (a little challenge for me, as blurting out sudden thoughts is my tendency, lol).
I don't think it's a logical result of any of this to say that civilization is defined by white males, nor is it definitive to it. Nor does having light skin and being of European descent necessarily make you take part in Whiteness. But Western culture has had the concept of Whiteness as one of its major driving forces for some time, even if it is also something that is constantly changing.
Thanks for that point, explaining that this is more about the concept than the physical trait.
Exactly! Similarly, Western culture has had the concept of "maleness" (patriarchy) at its core pretty much since its conception. But as Dan says above, having a male body and/or light skin does NOT mean that one identifies with or expresses that "maleness" or "whiteness". So I definitely do NOT think that having a male body or light skin makes one inherently civilized, or that rewilding should be off limits to anyone because of physical traits out of their control. I guess the difference lies between one's personal traits and the characteristics (the "-ness", so to speak) of a culture. One does not at all equate with the other.
And a great response (actually this is really really close to my own response to Dan, lol). I’d like to add that it may also lie in one’s choice to follow what is learned from those around them living by the concept of ‘whiteness’, especially when it leads to sociopathic/psychopathic behavior, or their choice to strive for something different, perhaps more life affirming. Also, there are some who may grow up in a community displaying pathological behavior (non-life affirming?) but upon learning from something outside of that culture’s norms, can then be led to make that different choice.
The Nazi's did much to justify their actions with the idea that they were "superior beings", that others were inferior by the imagined "natural" barriers of race. but those who resisted them definitely didn't refer to them as "superior beings" because they knew it was complete BS to begin with. Why should we call Civilization a culture of the "White Man" if we agree that it is hardly definitive of either of these traits (the first one being totally contrived anyway)?
First I’d like to say, I love that you are questioning this common reference, suggesting that it’s too easy or too simple to just blame it all on the "White Man. To attempt to answer this question you raise, (not in effort to support, just understanding the reasoning leading up to it.) Is that many of the people speaking out against the ‘white man’ are perhaps doing so because their original culture and ancestors were oppressed and taken advantage of by people coming from European civlizations (who were white men). Maybe… by calling them the “White Man,” a person is referring to these folks who regard themselves as ‘superior’, not to agree with them, but to draw attention to just how deluded, self absorbed, and narcissistic they are, and showing how those views of oneself can lead to sociopathology as they have been known to. Maybe “white man” refers to the type of person who usurps all the privilege, and then denies that privilege, as opposed to simply all humans who are only physically white and male.
is it necessary for Rewilders to use this label for themselves as individuals who are attempting to throw off the ideological shackles of civilization?Just to clarify, are you asking about labeling oneself as a rewilder to represent this effort to break away from the dominant culture's ideals? Just wasn't sure if you were referring to the 'white man' label or not.
Is it necessary for Rewilders to use racial concepts to define themselves if they reject and oppose the culture that is built on those faulty concepts? I'm personally fine with being described as a Euro-American or whatever, but I'm finding that there's just too much baggage that comes with the term "white" (regardless of whether you capitalize it or not).Personally, I don't see it as being necessary, unless one wants others to know the story of where you came from before rewilding. I don't think we need to define ourselves based on racial concepts. as a rewilder I don't see it necessary to define myself as anything other than a human who wants to reach deeper and remember that universal human need, or rather that force which drives all life, the need our bodies tell us when we really ask and listen, to what is really necessary for true survival on our planet (talking about long term survival of everyone, all humans and non-humans, because really, it doesn't make sense to separate our survival from the survival of those we depend on and form relationships with.). I am also Euro-American, by descent. And that can inform the story of my personal journey. But then again, every race, if you go back far enough, has had ancestors who understood that in order for that true survival of everyone, to form those relationships. And even if there is reason to believe otherwise, that should not stop an individual from choosing to seek that.
If you're going to be honest about race and racial privilege in this society, then you need to understand it. You don't need to identify with it, but at the same time pretending you don't take part it in because you dislike it is dishonest and itself a part of white privilege in Western, particularly American, society.I agree it's wise to be honest about where you come from, and who is privileged. if you come from a background of people who have dominated others, and perpetuated their culture with notions of self-entitlement, and you don't want to continue that culture yourself, it's essential to understand them, and that you yourself, despite your best intentions, can still have the potential to become that way yourself. It's an example of what we don't want to be, and additionally what needs to be stopped if we want truly lasting, sustainable survival.
It's easy to think that everyone else experiences the same thing as us - which explains why so many white people take their white privilege for granted, and don't even recognize it as such (thinking they achieved what they have purely by their own hard work, for example).
Thank you! I think this a great observation, and something we all need to keep in mind! I think it relates to why we need to understand people with tendencies to dominate, even if we don’t want to identify with them. Understanding that everyone’s experiences are different leads us to want to learn from others’ experiences, and perhaps those lessons can bring to light lessons from our own experiences we didn’t see before.
[quote=“Joe, post:14, topic:1525”]Wow, you guys went deep on this. Far deeper than I ever thought of the topic of the “white man.” I felt it was purely a semantic issue. I’ll illustrate what mean by telling a true story of my life.
Whiel I was living in Hawaii, I made some good friends that were local. (Part Hawaiian. Full blood Hawaiians are extremely rare.) But they were local. They had a word for caucasian people. It was “haole”. “Ha” means breath or soul and “ole” means without. (There’s a lot if interesting history behind that word but I’ll save that for a different time.)
One evenign we were all chilling and chatting and one of the guys there was joking about some stupid haole being a jerk to him. Jokingly I said. “Hey, I’m haole too.”
His response was “We got locals here more haole than you. You’re not nearly has haole as you think.”
Haole has two meaning to these people. One is a caucasian person. Being as white as white can be I was definitely haole and there was nothign I can do about that.
However, there is another meaning. This is a type of person. This person personifies a arrogant American. Therefore, I am a non haole haole to my friends over there.
I feel the same way about the words “white man.” I am a white man. I am both male and and caucasian. However, most people would not really put me in the “white man” category in that I am relatively open to other cultures and I like to learn as much as possible before making a judgemet and even then I do my best to not personify the traits in the civilized culture that I dislike.[/quote]
And wow, just as we start talking about experience, you share a great one! though it’s a short story it has a lot for us to learn from, and is a tangible example of what we’ve been trying to explore through concept. Everything you’ve said here is great. 
[quote=“incendiary_dan, post:15, topic:1525”]thunder thighs,
I apologizing for being a bit curt, and not giving explanation. What I meant was that I did not feel you are adequately reading and recognizing my contributions to this discussion, but rather have basically repeated the same points throughout. Perhaps I haven’t been as clear as I thought, but looking back I still don’t think that’s the case. Sometimes I’ve been using certain words and language in a non-typical way for so long I’ve forgotten the “normal” meaning.[/quote]
I’m thinking in this situation it’s best to ask how this could be said differently. Sometimes it takes lots of effort for us to interpret each other, and we may not always ‘get it right’. I think it’s fine to use language non-typically, I just mentioned to someone yesterday as it occurred to me, that when we combine our understandings from various sources, we might begin to form our own personal terms, and that can indicate real learning and internalizing is taking place! However, instead of wondering if it really is the case whether you feel you were clear or not, to be inviting for fair communication, perhaps ask a person what they had a hard time interpreting, and ask yourself if there are other ways to present your concepts or ideas. I admit that I am just as capable as anyone of forgetting that asking questions as opposed just telling each other, can lead to better, more mutual understandings. Just wanted to offer a reminder here.
So far, I think everyone here has shared really good insights. It’s possible to see how they contrast, but I’ve been noticing that even if they do, when considered evenly, and combined together, they offer a better balance. To repeat what bereal said about not everyone having the same experience, we’re also not going to develop the same ideas, and we’re not going to have the same ways of perceiving or learning from those ideas and experiences. But remember that humans evolved to be social, with different talents and skills with different fluency. There’s a reason we need community. With our different skills, and ways of experiencing the world (some being more feeling oriented, some more thought, some more sensing oriented) we need each other, to learn from our different experiences, and to share our skills. I know you all know this, not assuming anybody doesn’t already think this or understand this, but it’s a good reminder for why we need to consider everything, don’t just stop at a few things and set fundamentals. After all, though we’re basing a lot of this on old ways and old ideas because they’re so great, we need to be open to how we will adapt them to our current world, or even base new ways on them.
It seems to me like people are talking past each other because they are using different meanings for “race” and “racism.” If you think of racism as the overt hatred displayed by white supremacists, then it makes sense to talk about “what the white man did to the Indians.” (glossing over the fact that the U.S. government is still in the process of screwing over Indians, but I think that was covered in the other thread.) However, if you are talking about racism as a cultural system that favors people with light skin over those with dark skin, it’s a different story.
Is it productive to blame everything on white men? I’m not sure. On the one hand, it’s sort of true. But it’s kind of like when Daniel Quinn wrote that humans aren’t destroying the world, our culture is destroying the world. It’s true that white men benefit the most from racism/sexism, but these days, most of them don’t do it on purpose, and some of them don’t even realize it’s happening. It’s hard to see your own privilege if you’re not looking for it. That kind of language alienates people who could be allies if you explained the situation to them differently.
Thanks for pointing that out, starfish. I think I had forgotten that myself. This conversation did become oriented around “people’s treatment of other people”. Thank you for reminding us.
(I may just be rewording things already said, and forgive me if I am, but please understand I’m only doing so to see if I am understanding what is being said.) If we want someone to understand the problems, it helps to not make them feel entirely to blame. I guess when we blame specific persons entirely, it’s more like we are attacking their personalities. But what if their personalities would emerge in better actions if they understood the flaws of the culture? Maybe they would be more likely to explore and learn about the influence of civilized culture, and the insanity it promotes, if they didn’t feel like guilt was being placed directly onto them as individuals or groups (such as race.)
(also, I suppose I wasn’t aware if I’ve been talking past anyone. If I am, would you have a suggestion? I’m always looking to improve my communication. Or do you just mean that, in using the same word for different uses/meanings, are we maybe confusing each other? )
What are your views on trying to teach people, or reach people?
I’ve had times where I wanted to use opportunities to explain the issue of culture when people have voiced frustration or anger towards people who “don’t seem to care how they effect others.” It’s usually worked in a “not everyone has experienced the world as you have, there are other possibilities” kind of context. I suppose I’m curious how this kind of thing has gone for you or others, or whether there is even an inclination.
It seems to me like people are talking past each other
I didn’t mean to blame anyone personally when I said that, just trying to clarify things by pointing out that we have two different definitions of racism floating around. When you said earlier:
I don't think we need to define ourselves based on racial concepts.If you mean the first definition of racism, overt racism, than I agree. However when I think about it in terms of the second definition, institutionalized racism, I disagree. Whether [i]we[/i] define ourselves by race or not, society defines us that way. We can't make racism go away by ignoring it. We have to acknowledge it, talk about it, and bring all of our unexamined assumptions into the light before we can stamp it out.
As far as trying to teach people… I don’t know. I think most people don’t want to know. You have to wait for them to ask the question before you can teach them anything. I guess just planting the seed, like what you have been doing is the best way. It probably won’t blow their minds or anything. Maybe they’ll just forget about it, but maybe it will stay in the back of their minds.
[quote=“bereal, post:13, topic:1525”]I think that “race” definitely exists, but to me it means the exact same thing as “culture”. Saying the “white race” means the same thing to me as saying “white culture” - meaning the culture that arose from Europe, i.e. western civilization.
…
And actually, I don’t think it really matters whether or not “white” refers to a race or a culture, or whether race as a concept makes sense. None of that changes the fact that “whiteness” has a real, tangible effect on a huge chunk of the world’s population…
For that reason, I try to see myself (as a “white” person) from the perspective of others who aren’t “white”. They can much more easily perceive “white” privilege and “white” racism than I can, so when they say that “whiteness” exists and has real effects on their lives, and the world, I listen.[/quote]
Race meaning culture could be a good approach. But race as really different appearance, blood or even DNA, would be quite inaccurate. As soon as i started studying history in early school, i learnt about how migrations started in prehistory, and what could then be called races mixed completely as soon as colonization started by cultures like the Roman. I dont feel I am white, since all along the history of our species and in recent times the people in the region where I was born, were a mix of people from many different places. How could i say “i am white” been so obvious that i probably have blood from the muslim peoples who were living in the region for so many years??? Still, there are loads of people in the region where i was born, who feel proud of the color of their skin.
Anyway, i respect the perspective of the ones who were oppressed by my ancestors.
If we want to be so accurate about semantic things, then “Western Culture” would also not be a good term for defining what differs from early cultures all around the world only by size.
On the other hand, i think for been “completely correct” we could well use the Hawaiian term “haole”.
For me, culturally, the biggest differences are between who is civilized, who wants not to be and who is not.
I started reading this thread curious about the “Hot Topic” icon. For me, it is a quite amazing how we spend so much energy talking about whats different in our points of view, instead of talking about what we have in common. Of course, this is a forum, and thats what forums are for; but still, it seems so easy to find things for which we have contrary opinions, … and it seems we all like so much to discuss about this kind of stuff… sometimes it feels like discussing about differences attracts more attention that discussing about common ideas.
I mean, the ones who rule always find it quite easy to get to an agreement, but the ones who dont want to be ruled find it easy to discuss about just how we differ about using words.
sorry, maybe I’m getting to a completely different point.