I am no scholar on these things; however, something doesn't seem right. In discussing electronics' master/slave and master bedroom, you make it sound like objections to those terms are part of "decentering whiteness." Thus, they are part of "whiteness." That is not sitting well with me. I don't fit the NPR/NYTimes mold you mention in The Elect. I'm more of a good ol' Midwesterner, who respect (l)iberalism and enlightenment. Very few of my type were "masters" of anyone. As a non-hyphenated American, I find the Master/Slave analogy unnecessary. Yes, I understand why "Master" has an especially bad connotation for black Americans. But, considering the ideals we were founded on, it should be equally distasteful to all of us WASPs. Every July 4th, we give a big ***** YOU! to our former masters. If you are on the side of the Enlightenment, then aren't you also against masters? That's a whole lot of white people, even on the Right!
Regarding the word "racism" and its shifting meaning. I'm not a linguist, but it seems clear that the way "racism" is used, it is inseparable from the application social stigma. If someone says, for example, "inequality is actually racism," it is not tenable to respond "ok, let's call that racism, but given the circumstances and constraints, racism is the best option."
So expanding the definition of racism, so long as the taboo maintains its power, has political implications that the citizen ought to be concerned about, even if he is powerless when he has his lexicographer hat on.
It seems a common trait of human behavior that groups, once having no power, will engage in excesses once they attain it, ergo human nature. There are few organic mechanisms within a group that would reign in the abuses which eventually arise because 'Power' is a very powerful drug. So to answer the question "how do we know when whiteness has been decentered enough?" we cannot know until it creates a backlash.
I disagree strongly with your comment overall and your belief that it is a "common trait of human behavior that groups, once having no power, will engage in excesses once they attain it". I can also say that you should read some more history! It is not true that all groups that have had no power engage in excesses once they get some. You only need to go back in US history as far as Martin Luther King Jr., and his many followers, to know that is not the only response. The "grab all the power you can" mentality does exist and can become a big problem - especially when female voices are not heard (yep, that's sexist but hey, I'm female and I definitely think the male-dominated world we live in has big problems due to the power imbalance).
I do think that it is all to common that those who are in the process of losing their power can get very ugly in their attempts to hang on to it.
For historical perspective see Friedrich Nietzsche (The Gay Science, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra) Leon Dumont (Théorie scientifique de la sensibilité, le plaisir et la peine), William James (The Principles of Psychology), Arthur Schopenhauer (will to live), Alfred Adler ( The Neurotic Constitution), and Victor Frankl (Man's Search for Meaning)
Thanks for the long list of names of white guys who have "interpreted" the world for all the rest of us. By the way, I've read 4 of these authors before. Just because some guy said it doesn't make it so. Just because some guy showed support through research (colored by the lens of his own point of view) doesn't make it so. Open up the box, look inside and notice that what you see may not be what the person next to you sees! Perspective matters and the perspective of the oppressed is rarely reflected in history or philosophy.
I'm confused. Are you objecting to the idea that Power Corrupts? I mean, fair. It is one of those truisms people say, so perhaps it could stand with some examination to see how accurate it actually is.
But there are plenty of examples in history of the people in power doing terrible things, the people not in power rising up and overthrowing the people in power, then becoming the people in power THEMSELVES and doing terrible things. One might argue that this is the cycle of human history. Those in power oppress those without.
And while yes you can oppose people in power without resorting to atrocity, thie OP wasn't talking about those with no power. They were referring to people who suddenly found themselves in power. The oppressed often quickly turn into oppressors (see: almost any transition of power in history) and the cycle continues anew.
Paige's response wreaks of the post-modernism that John talks about. "White guys," despite their brilliance, effort, life-long commitments, and
often-times personal oppression are not valuable voices because they can only represent one view - that of the white male. Data and observation be damned. That being said, I agree with Paige; the endpoint of power does not have to be corruption. I don't think the OP believes that either. It is; however, the most *likely* endpoint. For those new to power, it's like the dog that finally catches the car. The dog has no idea what to do with it, but it's not likely to end well.
Ok, I wasn't going to comment on this thread again but... Come on, Michael! I did not say anything about "White guys" not having valuable voices. They certainly do and there is a reason that contributions made over many centuries continue to have value, e.g. Socrates or Plato or William James (I've read quite a lot by James and certainly found it valuable). I am saying that there were more voices that spoke over centuries (or tried to) who's views are often not recognized or even known today. Also, there are people with many cultural viewpoints speaking and writing today (McWhorter is one) today and it is important to try and pay attention to more of them. Also, as a black female scientist I certainly pay attention to Data and Observation. However, if you start with a different hypothesis and set up a different experiment, you may actually find that the outcome is not the same!!
I'm surprised that you are in favor of abandoning master/slave terminology in engineering. I would be curious to hear you go into more detail on why.
Maybe I am being difficult in opposing that change. My thinking is that the terms are not, to my mind, explicitly tied to race in the US. Masters/slaves exist outside of the US context. I wouldn't advocate for the adoption of master/slave as the best words today, but changing them strikes me as unnecessary.
If it was an isolated change, I also might not mind it. But abandoning master/slave comes alongside a number of other changes that to me seem like nothing but a language game. Here are some other "problematic" terms that I've seen people change during my work as an engineer:
* whitelist/blacklist: "white" is good (allowed), "black" is bad (banned)
* master branch: "master" again, as in the master copy or the master recording
* coding bootcamp: "bootcamp" glorifies the military
And here are some other terms from a doc I've seen circulated, though I've never seen many of these proposed in the wild:
* user -> account, owner, customer, client, student, instructor, staff, person's name [I can't imagine what is wrong with this one, for the record--I guess it implies that people are using rather than giving back?]
* grandfathered in -> exempt, pre-existing
* whitespace -> empty space, blank
* blackbox testing -> closed box, mystery box
* blackbox -> opaque, obscured, generic
* whitebox testing -> glass box, clear box
* whitebox -> unlabelled, generic
* mob -> team
* dark web -> hidden web
* chief -> none given, but problematic
As always, it is worth remembering that any excesses of the second list don't mean the master/slave opponents don't still have a point. Yet they all strike me as similarly performative and vaguely unserious.
It isn't very appealing to me to use words such as "master" and "slave" in an electronic/technological context.
It really depends on where one begins. So if you or the others around you primarily associate "master and slave" with sexual behavior well it may become awkward using these words in another context.
I would add "motherboard" and "mounting" as two other technology words that I do not miss.
I don't really consider these as necessarily being victories against racism as I recall this happening way back in the 90s.
But there really is no end to the stupidity in the sense that when I grew up in America, Greece and Rome were considered the cradle of civilization.
However, if you were an actual Greek or Italian well good luck to you. We won't even talk about Jesus. Even Jesus wasn't going to help you out if you were Italian. Now some may argue that there were/are some parts of America that were/are ok with Greeks and Italians. Fair enough there were/are some parts of America.
Agreed. That's why I (slightly) objected to it's mentioning here. "Enlightened" people should be against Master/Slave relationships. If Blacks feel that their use in the lexicon is abusive to them, then so should all of us who are against having masters. Allowing it to become a racial thing shorts the great majority of non-BIPOC Americans who are against kings, queens, and corporate overlords. It is not and should not be interpreted as decentering whiteness.
In the words of a petition started by a black engineer and now signed by thousands of others objecting to the banishment of the words "master/slave", "This is utter nonsense. The word "master" in this context has nothing to do with slavery. ...but actions like these are completely irrelevant. They are distractions, not solutions."
Do people really believe that a black software developer will be too traumatized to write code for the Serial Peripheral Interface data transmission protocol because it uses these terms to refer to two of the data line? Is this really why there aren't more blacks in tech?
It’s white liberals who are the most sensitive to these things, not in general, us black folks. One of the things that I don’t like about the woke movement is that it takes the hang-ups of a certain segment of white, university-educated liberals and convinces the rest of the world these reactions are coming from your average black person, which then trivializes the real bread and butter concerns of many black people, obscuring it in the smoke of hyper-PC sensitivities.
"The term master bedroom is becoming ever more suspect because, well, it sounds like slavery. I frankly think that’s a little silly, but then uses of master that actually relate to slavery such as the electronics master and slave board? Yeah – those have to go."
I see this as perpetual victimhood. Black people can't have a master bedroom because of American slavery? Black people can't picture silicon masters and slaves because of American slavery? Black people can't be masters because black people were slaves? Ridiculous. That's not equality, that's soft-pedaling around learned victimhood.
Doesn't "BIPOC" and its derivations simply "other" (as a verb) people of non-European descent? The terms suggest that there is something special in European-ness, and that the antithesis to it is "people of color", or non-Europeans. BIPOC also lumps together so many different populations originating (and constantly migrating) from all over the world, which seems clunky and, frankly, uninteresting. In other words, "BIPOC" and "white" depict a sort of manichean relationship between the two that ignores historical, biological, and sociological complexities.
My understanding of the use of BIPOC is that it de-centres whiteness. Originally people were reciting the categories individually which was even clunkier than the acronym. I think it makes a good point though. Whiteness shouldn't be the relative measure all the time and "non-white" sets it up as such.
Is there actually a useful context in which you need to reference every person on earth that isn't white? I can't think of a single context in which a group that large and diverse needs to be referred to independently from white people.
I don't know whether it's useful or not Joren but I have heard the term "non-white" used many times in my life. You are right that it is not usually to distinguish all the rest of humanity but sometimes it is eg in the city of Toronto which is so multi-ethnic but in that case, the "white" category is not as useful because of the plethora of cultural backgrounds in the "white" category.
Decentering is a new verb which ultimately has to do with race. I just learned it today. Gee, thanks for that. This new tool in the current regime of racecraft is just another avenue to trod which will certainly bear witness to more chastening rods. I find it almost impossible to make sense of this squishy ethos when its measures are not benchmarked in terms of recognizable virtues. It seems to just be another taxonomic rabbit hole that applies arbitrary meaning to recognition of self-identification.
I must say that everyone seems to be overly colorstruck these days, but the colors themselves are no more meaningful than zodiac signs. Should we decenter Scorpios? And what about those on the cusp?
My prediction is that, similar to those days before the 2000 Census when multiracialists demanded their own mutually exclusive categories (I literally recall people asking for 'Mulatto', 'Quadroon' and the like), this volume and debate will only create space and give legitimacy to more essentialists.
If only there were a racial cryptocurrency we could short...
I am with McWhorter on this as on many other things. De-centering has had a positive cultural impact. In particular, books, commercials, shows, and movies aimed at children so abound in characters of all colors that it’s unlikely kids today will grow up thinking of white as the default skin color, the way kids of all races in the ‘80s did. As a kid, if you asked me to draw a random human, without thinking of it, I would have reached for the peach crayon. My kids, not so much.
On the other hand, I am not sure I am with these new trends that only black actors can voice black roles, or that “cultural appropriation” is bad. This is racial essentialism. Cultural appropriation is not bad. Culture is not a zero-sum pot and appropriation is the historical norm, one of the ways cultures change and syncretize. It is also a means for people in a multicultural society to understand each other.
We should acknowledge the progress we have made despite despite the setback of living for 8 years with a nativist, neo-Archie Bunker in the White House, without retreating ourselves back towards essentialism and possibly reinvigorating racist attitudes as they are diminishing.
Agreed with all this. I particularly appreciate media and committees and whatever else that are diverse but specifically do NOT call attention to it. Having a main character that is something other than the old default choice of "white and male" but no one saying anything about it is what lets that character be just another "random human" as you put it.
McWhorter would have been canned long ago if he were white. But unless enough of us and especially likeminded people of color speak up, we may be reaching the point where having certain views makes you an honorary white person and subjects you to the same vilification and career consequences that a white person without perfectly woke views might face.
I’ve heard Mr . McWhorter mention what’s going on at BU in 3 or 4 instances the past few weeks. As an alumnus and former part-time instructor I am immensely curious and would love to hear more!
At a major public university in Detroit the Theatre and Dance department adopted such a declaration, and has completely transformed its curriculum. All speakers and public presentations are now oriented towards 'antiracism', and all classes are also infused with the ideology. I know this because I'm a retired faculty member in an unrelated department who takes acting courses in the program as a part-time acting major. The change is astonishing, and was instantaneous. Although I'm in my early 70s my classmates are late teens and early 20s and they simply assume agreement.
Is there a distinct black diction? Perhaps. What about those black men and women who do not carry that diction? Are they missing something in their experience? And what are the causes of this diction? Are they all positive?
John has a whole book on the African American dialect, as does his colleague John Rickford:
Rickford, John Russell, and Russell John Rickford, 2007. Spoken Soul: The Story of Black English. Wiley
McWhorter, John, c1998. The Word on the Street: Fact and Fable About American English. New York: Plenum Trade.
The short answer: Black English is just another dialect of English, like Boston, New York or Texas. Has slightly more differences than those, and is distributed by ethnicity rather than by geography.
Are they actually hiring black people that "talk black"? I would be surprised if NPR was hiring people that talked noticeably black. They'd be hiring people like John McWhorter.
McWhorter has a more recent book on Black English, "Talking Back, Talking Black," from 2017.
I don't recall if he characterizes things like "Boston English" as their own dialects, or not, but Black English seems to be much more different from other regional variations. It's not just accent and some colloquialisms, but goes so far to have things like different verb tenses that don't exist in "standard" (I know he hates that term) English.
There is actually more difference between American (and other) dialects than just 'accent' (by which I assume you mean pronunciation--vowels and consonants and stress patterns). Southern dialects also have slightly different verb systems from 'Broadcast English', and, of course, even more so do Scottish English, Irish English, not to mention just plain RP (what used to be called 'the Queen's English'). John and I generally agree on what constitutes a 'dialect', but it's partly a political decision rather than a purely linguistic one, something he addresses in all his books, all of which I have read (but then I've also written my own, on related topics, FWIW).
Reminds me of what happened when jamelle bouie? (Forgive me for foregoing Twitter archives) dunked on a tweet of mine a couple years ago. They were asking something near for some racism to be identified, my comment of what progresses we will affirm in that domain was retweeted with the response that, “this is an unhelpful comment disguised as a helpful one.”
At the time, this mostly clarified that a heavy strain of racio-political criticism was embracing a real politik. Assertion>engagement—engagement is tacit loss. I was taking classes in education and such a response meant there was no desire to educate, much as could be said blatantly, but desire to demand this or that would not get you anything from ignorance. My (Columbia, Barnard) classes said this didn’t work on the ignorant, disinterested, or misinterested. This was not engagement, but assertion. Let the chips fall where they may after I’ve said my piece for me and mine. I expect this moment to linger with me, and it often pops up when I’m out of sync: not celebrating winning the election by the skin of our teeth, then again on the 6th (with an old white man im just being told to believe is more progressive than Barack allowed us to project, then later getting power in 3 branches I expect will pass about 2 bills a year). Yet the power structure is less advanced for these groups, and less empowered in its actual defense, than it was in 2009. Decidedly not saying much, yet there has been literal dancing in the streets. I’m very happy to have lost a ‘natural’ fascist . Very very happy. But when some liberals to communists and anarchists of 9 years ago were continuing to call foul on neoliberalism, the racing class and rhetoric produced nothing with the consistency of the judgement it demanded for cultural and “justice” wins (I’m a racecraft adherent, so I shouldn’t be around this talk maybe). It missed prop 22 setting up these same people to be wrecked without concern for their employment. It seems this real politik just allows American forgetfulness to continue, but now in and for Black (however much that’s worth, it’s yet to evaporate manchins and the like).
One could whisper we’ve won the culture...but we already knew that when we got bills passed 60 years ago. When the govt was forced to do something or lose its right to pontificate itself a democracy to the world. Shame on those whose use of that power has given it the losses built into today. Shame we’ve lost that law and have a polity that cares so little it’s waiting for children to get the vote more than expecting those it calls adults to understand their own society. Maybe in 60 years they’ll be shaming someone else. Maybe those kids will win. Ive always thought they would, but now the wins are definitely more often sold to me, and I still can’t afford them. And most of it I don’t need to buy.
Oh, and you should check Glenn Loury more. Sometimes he says Some straight vile things, I get being incensed, but he sounds really ready to through the distressed under the bus. It’s weird
Hi Joi, I'm a Ph.D., researcher, and part-time college instructor in the sciences. Scientists in different fields have their own special "languages," filled with words that have special meaning to those in that scientific field. I've found that trying to share knowledge, factual or based on life-experience or opinions, doesn't work well when I require others to learn my special vocabulary just to get any basic understanding of my point. I am a biracial person of color, female, and interested in understanding what you are trying to share. I only think I understand 1/4 - 1/3 of what you are expressing in your writing above. The part I get seems very interesting. Would you mind explaining your points again in plain American english? Thanks if you do, and I'm sorry to have missed out on your ideas if you choose not too.
I am no scholar on these things; however, something doesn't seem right. In discussing electronics' master/slave and master bedroom, you make it sound like objections to those terms are part of "decentering whiteness." Thus, they are part of "whiteness." That is not sitting well with me. I don't fit the NPR/NYTimes mold you mention in The Elect. I'm more of a good ol' Midwesterner, who respect (l)iberalism and enlightenment. Very few of my type were "masters" of anyone. As a non-hyphenated American, I find the Master/Slave analogy unnecessary. Yes, I understand why "Master" has an especially bad connotation for black Americans. But, considering the ideals we were founded on, it should be equally distasteful to all of us WASPs. Every July 4th, we give a big ***** YOU! to our former masters. If you are on the side of the Enlightenment, then aren't you also against masters? That's a whole lot of white people, even on the Right!
Regarding the word "racism" and its shifting meaning. I'm not a linguist, but it seems clear that the way "racism" is used, it is inseparable from the application social stigma. If someone says, for example, "inequality is actually racism," it is not tenable to respond "ok, let's call that racism, but given the circumstances and constraints, racism is the best option."
So expanding the definition of racism, so long as the taboo maintains its power, has political implications that the citizen ought to be concerned about, even if he is powerless when he has his lexicographer hat on.
It seems a common trait of human behavior that groups, once having no power, will engage in excesses once they attain it, ergo human nature. There are few organic mechanisms within a group that would reign in the abuses which eventually arise because 'Power' is a very powerful drug. So to answer the question "how do we know when whiteness has been decentered enough?" we cannot know until it creates a backlash.
I disagree strongly with your comment overall and your belief that it is a "common trait of human behavior that groups, once having no power, will engage in excesses once they attain it". I can also say that you should read some more history! It is not true that all groups that have had no power engage in excesses once they get some. You only need to go back in US history as far as Martin Luther King Jr., and his many followers, to know that is not the only response. The "grab all the power you can" mentality does exist and can become a big problem - especially when female voices are not heard (yep, that's sexist but hey, I'm female and I definitely think the male-dominated world we live in has big problems due to the power imbalance).
I do think that it is all to common that those who are in the process of losing their power can get very ugly in their attempts to hang on to it.
For historical perspective see Friedrich Nietzsche (The Gay Science, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra) Leon Dumont (Théorie scientifique de la sensibilité, le plaisir et la peine), William James (The Principles of Psychology), Arthur Schopenhauer (will to live), Alfred Adler ( The Neurotic Constitution), and Victor Frankl (Man's Search for Meaning)
Thanks for the long list of names of white guys who have "interpreted" the world for all the rest of us. By the way, I've read 4 of these authors before. Just because some guy said it doesn't make it so. Just because some guy showed support through research (colored by the lens of his own point of view) doesn't make it so. Open up the box, look inside and notice that what you see may not be what the person next to you sees! Perspective matters and the perspective of the oppressed is rarely reflected in history or philosophy.
I'm confused. Are you objecting to the idea that Power Corrupts? I mean, fair. It is one of those truisms people say, so perhaps it could stand with some examination to see how accurate it actually is.
But there are plenty of examples in history of the people in power doing terrible things, the people not in power rising up and overthrowing the people in power, then becoming the people in power THEMSELVES and doing terrible things. One might argue that this is the cycle of human history. Those in power oppress those without.
And while yes you can oppose people in power without resorting to atrocity, thie OP wasn't talking about those with no power. They were referring to people who suddenly found themselves in power. The oppressed often quickly turn into oppressors (see: almost any transition of power in history) and the cycle continues anew.
Paige's response wreaks of the post-modernism that John talks about. "White guys," despite their brilliance, effort, life-long commitments, and
often-times personal oppression are not valuable voices because they can only represent one view - that of the white male. Data and observation be damned. That being said, I agree with Paige; the endpoint of power does not have to be corruption. I don't think the OP believes that either. It is; however, the most *likely* endpoint. For those new to power, it's like the dog that finally catches the car. The dog has no idea what to do with it, but it's not likely to end well.
Ok, I wasn't going to comment on this thread again but... Come on, Michael! I did not say anything about "White guys" not having valuable voices. They certainly do and there is a reason that contributions made over many centuries continue to have value, e.g. Socrates or Plato or William James (I've read quite a lot by James and certainly found it valuable). I am saying that there were more voices that spoke over centuries (or tried to) who's views are often not recognized or even known today. Also, there are people with many cultural viewpoints speaking and writing today (McWhorter is one) today and it is important to try and pay attention to more of them. Also, as a black female scientist I certainly pay attention to Data and Observation. However, if you start with a different hypothesis and set up a different experiment, you may actually find that the outcome is not the same!!
It already has!
I'm surprised that you are in favor of abandoning master/slave terminology in engineering. I would be curious to hear you go into more detail on why.
Maybe I am being difficult in opposing that change. My thinking is that the terms are not, to my mind, explicitly tied to race in the US. Masters/slaves exist outside of the US context. I wouldn't advocate for the adoption of master/slave as the best words today, but changing them strikes me as unnecessary.
If it was an isolated change, I also might not mind it. But abandoning master/slave comes alongside a number of other changes that to me seem like nothing but a language game. Here are some other "problematic" terms that I've seen people change during my work as an engineer:
* whitelist/blacklist: "white" is good (allowed), "black" is bad (banned)
* master branch: "master" again, as in the master copy or the master recording
* coding bootcamp: "bootcamp" glorifies the military
And here are some other terms from a doc I've seen circulated, though I've never seen many of these proposed in the wild:
* scrum master -> scrum lead
* master account -> central payer account
* man-in-the-middle -> menace-in-the-middle / attacker-in-the-middle
* nuke -> delete/remove
* whitehat hacker -> ethical hacker
* blackhat hacker -> unethical hacker
* sanity check -> reasonableness check
* housekeeping task -> maintenance task [I guess housekeeping is stereotypically gendered?]
* user -> account, owner, customer, client, student, instructor, staff, person's name [I can't imagine what is wrong with this one, for the record--I guess it implies that people are using rather than giving back?]
* grandfathered in -> exempt, pre-existing
* whitespace -> empty space, blank
* blackbox testing -> closed box, mystery box
* blackbox -> opaque, obscured, generic
* whitebox testing -> glass box, clear box
* whitebox -> unlabelled, generic
* mob -> team
* dark web -> hidden web
* chief -> none given, but problematic
As always, it is worth remembering that any excesses of the second list don't mean the master/slave opponents don't still have a point. Yet they all strike me as similarly performative and vaguely unserious.
It isn't very appealing to me to use words such as "master" and "slave" in an electronic/technological context.
It really depends on where one begins. So if you or the others around you primarily associate "master and slave" with sexual behavior well it may become awkward using these words in another context.
I would add "motherboard" and "mounting" as two other technology words that I do not miss.
I don't really consider these as necessarily being victories against racism as I recall this happening way back in the 90s.
But there really is no end to the stupidity in the sense that when I grew up in America, Greece and Rome were considered the cradle of civilization.
However, if you were an actual Greek or Italian well good luck to you. We won't even talk about Jesus. Even Jesus wasn't going to help you out if you were Italian. Now some may argue that there were/are some parts of America that were/are ok with Greeks and Italians. Fair enough there were/are some parts of America.
It all depends on who you are and where you are.
There is no unified racial viewpoint.
Agreed. That's why I (slightly) objected to it's mentioning here. "Enlightened" people should be against Master/Slave relationships. If Blacks feel that their use in the lexicon is abusive to them, then so should all of us who are against having masters. Allowing it to become a racial thing shorts the great majority of non-BIPOC Americans who are against kings, queens, and corporate overlords. It is not and should not be interpreted as decentering whiteness.
In the words of a petition started by a black engineer and now signed by thousands of others objecting to the banishment of the words "master/slave", "This is utter nonsense. The word "master" in this context has nothing to do with slavery. ...but actions like these are completely irrelevant. They are distractions, not solutions."
Do people really believe that a black software developer will be too traumatized to write code for the Serial Peripheral Interface data transmission protocol because it uses these terms to refer to two of the data line? Is this really why there aren't more blacks in tech?
It’s white liberals who are the most sensitive to these things, not in general, us black folks. One of the things that I don’t like about the woke movement is that it takes the hang-ups of a certain segment of white, university-educated liberals and convinces the rest of the world these reactions are coming from your average black person, which then trivializes the real bread and butter concerns of many black people, obscuring it in the smoke of hyper-PC sensitivities.
"The term master bedroom is becoming ever more suspect because, well, it sounds like slavery. I frankly think that’s a little silly, but then uses of master that actually relate to slavery such as the electronics master and slave board? Yeah – those have to go."
I see this as perpetual victimhood. Black people can't have a master bedroom because of American slavery? Black people can't picture silicon masters and slaves because of American slavery? Black people can't be masters because black people were slaves? Ridiculous. That's not equality, that's soft-pedaling around learned victimhood.
Doesn't "BIPOC" and its derivations simply "other" (as a verb) people of non-European descent? The terms suggest that there is something special in European-ness, and that the antithesis to it is "people of color", or non-Europeans. BIPOC also lumps together so many different populations originating (and constantly migrating) from all over the world, which seems clunky and, frankly, uninteresting. In other words, "BIPOC" and "white" depict a sort of manichean relationship between the two that ignores historical, biological, and sociological complexities.
My understanding of the use of BIPOC is that it de-centres whiteness. Originally people were reciting the categories individually which was even clunkier than the acronym. I think it makes a good point though. Whiteness shouldn't be the relative measure all the time and "non-white" sets it up as such.
Is there actually a useful context in which you need to reference every person on earth that isn't white? I can't think of a single context in which a group that large and diverse needs to be referred to independently from white people.
I don't know whether it's useful or not Joren but I have heard the term "non-white" used many times in my life. You are right that it is not usually to distinguish all the rest of humanity but sometimes it is eg in the city of Toronto which is so multi-ethnic but in that case, the "white" category is not as useful because of the plethora of cultural backgrounds in the "white" category.
I'm sure that's the intention. However, I think we're all aware of the cliché about the road to hell.
fair enough
> I suspect that the San Francisco school board stripping the names of...George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Louis Stevenson, Paul Revere...
The notorious Dianne Feinstein also made the list. Along with Abraham Lincoln.
Decentering is a new verb which ultimately has to do with race. I just learned it today. Gee, thanks for that. This new tool in the current regime of racecraft is just another avenue to trod which will certainly bear witness to more chastening rods. I find it almost impossible to make sense of this squishy ethos when its measures are not benchmarked in terms of recognizable virtues. It seems to just be another taxonomic rabbit hole that applies arbitrary meaning to recognition of self-identification.
I must say that everyone seems to be overly colorstruck these days, but the colors themselves are no more meaningful than zodiac signs. Should we decenter Scorpios? And what about those on the cusp?
My prediction is that, similar to those days before the 2000 Census when multiracialists demanded their own mutually exclusive categories (I literally recall people asking for 'Mulatto', 'Quadroon' and the like), this volume and debate will only create space and give legitimacy to more essentialists.
If only there were a racial cryptocurrency we could short...
Great comment. Sam Harris has promoted a similar sentiment around the irrelevance of hair and eye color.
I like Sam - I've written about categories over on my site. https://mdcbowen.substack.com/p/in-defiance-of-categories
I am with McWhorter on this as on many other things. De-centering has had a positive cultural impact. In particular, books, commercials, shows, and movies aimed at children so abound in characters of all colors that it’s unlikely kids today will grow up thinking of white as the default skin color, the way kids of all races in the ‘80s did. As a kid, if you asked me to draw a random human, without thinking of it, I would have reached for the peach crayon. My kids, not so much.
On the other hand, I am not sure I am with these new trends that only black actors can voice black roles, or that “cultural appropriation” is bad. This is racial essentialism. Cultural appropriation is not bad. Culture is not a zero-sum pot and appropriation is the historical norm, one of the ways cultures change and syncretize. It is also a means for people in a multicultural society to understand each other.
We should acknowledge the progress we have made despite despite the setback of living for 8 years with a nativist, neo-Archie Bunker in the White House, without retreating ourselves back towards essentialism and possibly reinvigorating racist attitudes as they are diminishing.
Agreed with all this. I particularly appreciate media and committees and whatever else that are diverse but specifically do NOT call attention to it. Having a main character that is something other than the old default choice of "white and male" but no one saying anything about it is what lets that character be just another "random human" as you put it.
Sorry 4 years, not 8
Shucks!
It felt like 8- and I am Canadian.
Hope John McWhorter doesn't lose his excellent "Lexicon Valley" podcast on Slate because of his views.
Has Slate written anything on his disagreements with Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kendi, et al.?
McWhorter would have been canned long ago if he were white. But unless enough of us and especially likeminded people of color speak up, we may be reaching the point where having certain views makes you an honorary white person and subjects you to the same vilification and career consequences that a white person without perfectly woke views might face.
I’ve heard Mr . McWhorter mention what’s going on at BU in 3 or 4 instances the past few weeks. As an alumnus and former part-time instructor I am immensely curious and would love to hear more!
At a major public university in Detroit the Theatre and Dance department adopted such a declaration, and has completely transformed its curriculum. All speakers and public presentations are now oriented towards 'antiracism', and all classes are also infused with the ideology. I know this because I'm a retired faculty member in an unrelated department who takes acting courses in the program as a part-time acting major. The change is astonishing, and was instantaneous. Although I'm in my early 70s my classmates are late teens and early 20s and they simply assume agreement.
Is there a distinct black diction? Perhaps. What about those black men and women who do not carry that diction? Are they missing something in their experience? And what are the causes of this diction? Are they all positive?
John has a whole book on the African American dialect, as does his colleague John Rickford:
Rickford, John Russell, and Russell John Rickford, 2007. Spoken Soul: The Story of Black English. Wiley
McWhorter, John, c1998. The Word on the Street: Fact and Fable About American English. New York: Plenum Trade.
The short answer: Black English is just another dialect of English, like Boston, New York or Texas. Has slightly more differences than those, and is distributed by ethnicity rather than by geography.
Are they actually hiring black people that "talk black"? I would be surprised if NPR was hiring people that talked noticeably black. They'd be hiring people like John McWhorter.
McWhorter has a more recent book on Black English, "Talking Back, Talking Black," from 2017.
I don't recall if he characterizes things like "Boston English" as their own dialects, or not, but Black English seems to be much more different from other regional variations. It's not just accent and some colloquialisms, but goes so far to have things like different verb tenses that don't exist in "standard" (I know he hates that term) English.
There is actually more difference between American (and other) dialects than just 'accent' (by which I assume you mean pronunciation--vowels and consonants and stress patterns). Southern dialects also have slightly different verb systems from 'Broadcast English', and, of course, even more so do Scottish English, Irish English, not to mention just plain RP (what used to be called 'the Queen's English'). John and I generally agree on what constitutes a 'dialect', but it's partly a political decision rather than a purely linguistic one, something he addresses in all his books, all of which I have read (but then I've also written my own, on related topics, FWIW).
Reminds me of what happened when jamelle bouie? (Forgive me for foregoing Twitter archives) dunked on a tweet of mine a couple years ago. They were asking something near for some racism to be identified, my comment of what progresses we will affirm in that domain was retweeted with the response that, “this is an unhelpful comment disguised as a helpful one.”
At the time, this mostly clarified that a heavy strain of racio-political criticism was embracing a real politik. Assertion>engagement—engagement is tacit loss. I was taking classes in education and such a response meant there was no desire to educate, much as could be said blatantly, but desire to demand this or that would not get you anything from ignorance. My (Columbia, Barnard) classes said this didn’t work on the ignorant, disinterested, or misinterested. This was not engagement, but assertion. Let the chips fall where they may after I’ve said my piece for me and mine. I expect this moment to linger with me, and it often pops up when I’m out of sync: not celebrating winning the election by the skin of our teeth, then again on the 6th (with an old white man im just being told to believe is more progressive than Barack allowed us to project, then later getting power in 3 branches I expect will pass about 2 bills a year). Yet the power structure is less advanced for these groups, and less empowered in its actual defense, than it was in 2009. Decidedly not saying much, yet there has been literal dancing in the streets. I’m very happy to have lost a ‘natural’ fascist . Very very happy. But when some liberals to communists and anarchists of 9 years ago were continuing to call foul on neoliberalism, the racing class and rhetoric produced nothing with the consistency of the judgement it demanded for cultural and “justice” wins (I’m a racecraft adherent, so I shouldn’t be around this talk maybe). It missed prop 22 setting up these same people to be wrecked without concern for their employment. It seems this real politik just allows American forgetfulness to continue, but now in and for Black (however much that’s worth, it’s yet to evaporate manchins and the like).
One could whisper we’ve won the culture...but we already knew that when we got bills passed 60 years ago. When the govt was forced to do something or lose its right to pontificate itself a democracy to the world. Shame on those whose use of that power has given it the losses built into today. Shame we’ve lost that law and have a polity that cares so little it’s waiting for children to get the vote more than expecting those it calls adults to understand their own society. Maybe in 60 years they’ll be shaming someone else. Maybe those kids will win. Ive always thought they would, but now the wins are definitely more often sold to me, and I still can’t afford them. And most of it I don’t need to buy.
Oh, and you should check Glenn Loury more. Sometimes he says Some straight vile things, I get being incensed, but he sounds really ready to through the distressed under the bus. It’s weird
Hi Joi, I'm a Ph.D., researcher, and part-time college instructor in the sciences. Scientists in different fields have their own special "languages," filled with words that have special meaning to those in that scientific field. I've found that trying to share knowledge, factual or based on life-experience or opinions, doesn't work well when I require others to learn my special vocabulary just to get any basic understanding of my point. I am a biracial person of color, female, and interested in understanding what you are trying to share. I only think I understand 1/4 - 1/3 of what you are expressing in your writing above. The part I get seems very interesting. Would you mind explaining your points again in plain American english? Thanks if you do, and I'm sorry to have missed out on your ideas if you choose not too.
Hey John where can we buy your book? That’s why I’m here
He mentioned on the Bloggingheads show that the book cannot be published until 2022. Each month two chapters of the book will be released here.