First I read, then come questions. What is the male equivalent of this "Off the Path" game? Why does a white-male game that teaches a similar moral not get the same attention? Or if it does, why it is often framed as "Christian". These questions come on the back of another racial discussion currently in the news.
Looking at the Sotomayor hearings, I have heard her questioned on her comments framed as "wise Latina" v. "white male". I thought nothing of this as a comparison comment; I was struck that she would dare to comment that white males have an unexamined history. No one likes to be told they live an unconscious life. History has over represented European contributions and at the same time has not really been kind to white males.
White culture has dominated history by claiming to be universal. This is changing with the expansion and appreciation of minority history. I must note that this appreciation is not at competition with the antiquated version of history most of my generation and others was taught. It is complementarity. Again, some people think that pointing out how something is unexamined means it is competition. Not the case.
This still begs the question of why is there not more attention to white male history. This attention would not be a glossing of others' history in an effort to be universal. I would like to see a critical look at white male history intended as white male history. It should also be taught from the perspective that it is not competing with other history, and should be oppressive to others.
I really had this idea click when an archeology professor talked about taking students from Pocatello to Europe to dig up Vikings. In America there is a hostility towards White anthropologists digging up the ancestors of the first Americans. It comes from the destructive habits of the past. Today anthropologists are more conscious in doing no harm to other groups, but still curious about where we are today. For those of us with a northern European history we are away from our biological relatives and so we want to see what is where we are. My professor wanted to take white kids and have them dig up white kids, or even more balanced is first American kids digging up northern Europeans. Scientifically, bringing the diversity of backgrounds is most likely to generate the most innovation.
But I wonder, where is white history. Is it really so much the trees that I cannot see it? I can just imagine the conversation with my 76-year-old dad when we sit down and I ask him to explain what it is to be "White" with me. Geeze, I'd settle if he could explain what it is to be Irish-German-Dutch with a family history of both Mormon and whatever those religions his mom and him tried. As a white male, if he can't explain white male history to me, then I only more understand and appreciate Sotomayor's comments. I can explain my female, lesbian history experience to him so I hope I could make a wiser conscious decision.
 clipped from www.npr.org
|
Posts
2 comments:
The traditional history of Europe and early America is white male history, as the white male was more or less the only one to write the history, have most major roles in society, politics, etc. So your 101 level European history class would be white male history. I truly think you are grossly over analyzing a simple comment, treating it as a poetry student would treat an ambiguous poem. The fact of the matter is, there is not much to analyze with the comment. Sotobama was making a broad assumption that her latina "wisdom" would be more valuable on the bench that another white male's "wisdom." Is there possible merit to her argument? Possibly. Diversity is indeed a thing to be valued and sought after - not artificially forced (see: affirmative action). Soto's comment is no less stereotypical than if a white male had said his wisdom was more valuable than that of a Latina female's. Just because she herself is a minority DOES NOT mean she gets a free pass to make stereotypical comments without being open to the same critical cross examination that a white male would receive saying the same type of comment. To attempt to redirect the conversation about her comments towards the "unexplored history of white males" (frankly, a ridiculous prospect considering it has dominated the "traditional" study of history) is an attempt at distraction from the real issue, nothing less.
Hi let me introduce to The phrase "dead white males" (or "dead white men," "dead white guys" etc.) criticizes the emphasis on high culture in Western civilization in schools (especially those in the United States). Critics of the traditional curriculum argued that it enshrined a world view that valued older European history, for example, over American achievements. Users of the term also argued that the traditional curriculum was praising one's own culture; proponents of this type of curriculum, however, argued that "one's own culture" is the logical aspect to place emphasis on in any one nation-state. A similar approach to historical studies is the "Great man theory" of history.rheumatoid arthritis is a very common problem.
While the term generally applies to dead white men with conservative or centrist views, it has been used ironically to poke fun at "dead white men" on the political left, such as Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin
Post a Comment