Judycat
Well-known Member
- Location
- Pennsylvania
Sigh. Whiteness is too broad a term.
I don't think a simple yes or no applies here. Some of the points in the bulleted items are pretty accurate for white people and probably no one else. Some of them are so general that they are meaningless. (Most people are able to choose to spend most of their time with their own race, that isn't only limited to white people. Not saying they should, just that everybody has that choice. These days, people of all races are represented in every way conceivable on TV. And so on.)
And that's the trouble with big, sweeping generalizations like this. It is based on partial truths, but carries them way over the line. That chart sounds ridiculously dated to me. It depicts an America that was presented to us as children in school. I really doubt that anyone is describing America any more in those terms (thank goodness), unless the far-right extremes of Christian conservatism are considered the norm. The ideas shown in that chart made me think of the reading textbooks I grew up with, "Dick and Jane," etc. The America shown to kids in those books pretty much matched the narrow, mean-spirited description in that chart. But that was the prevailing stereotype of what it meant to be an American back in the mid-20th century! Come on, guys, even us ignorant, egotistical white people have advanced, at least somewhat, since then!
I like the NMAAHC, have visited, and was very impressed by it. But I think this exhibit needs to polish up its accuracy, if it's supposed to be representing the America of today and not 75 years ago.
They should have met one of my friends from high school- there were 16 kids in her family!My favorite part is the favorite white family unit being mom, dad and 2.3 children.
I always hated living with that one-third of a child. After a while the house began to smell funky.
Jeez, I never thought I was privileged ….If you had my backround, I wasn't privileged I'm all Italian ....I don't know if you even know whatOkay, maybe not 100% accurate. Generally accurate. And no, placing the shoe on the other foot is racist. Being white IS a privilege whether you want to admit it or not. Being born white is winning a lottery at birth. Whites have forever used "attributes" of black people as an excuse to keep a foot on their necks for long enough. It's time we face it, once and for all.
That's the whole point of it, to name it. It's not in agreement, it's in opposition.imo: This chart, "Aspects and Assumptions of whiteness" is the most RACIST and MISINFORMED piece of information I've yet read. And, it paints women as subordinates. It depicts INDEPENDENCE, hard work, promptness and self-reliance as being terrible things!
I find this document (graphic) deeply offensive on many levels.
I don't consider myself beautiful, Only my Mom thought I was beautiful....Hmmm....the "born beautiful" thing may explain my lack of success. I always thought it was because I was lazy.
I don't do twitter or anyother nonsense stuff...Only here and another forum.....The infographic I posted is particularly flawed because it presents assertions and opinions as settled matters of fact. There aren't any statistics behind many of these claims, and many are nonsensical. White people "don't show emotions" in communications? Really? Ever been on Twitter?
I'm happy for you!Just an update, the Smithsonian has taken its stupid infographic down. Sanity reigns, if only for an evening.
This is a very generalization of white people in America, that's for sure. We could sit and argue all day long about what's right and wrong about it. We are each different in one way or another. Some of the dialogue, I don't even understand. And, where did this come from? Did someone take like 5000 white people and have them fill out a questionnaire and then somehow come to a consensus for the answers? It's definitely not based on any science that I am aware of. Interesting for sure, but too deep for me to continue to think about.Let's think about this for a minute. A Smithsonian website includes this infographic, which is full of absurd stereotypes, ridiculous generalizations and blindingly obvious observations:
![]()
Am I the only person on SF who finds this to be outrageous and so, so wrong?
This is a very generalization of white people in America, that's for sure. We could sit and argue all day long about what's right and wrong about it. We are each different in one way or another. Some of the dialogue, I don't even understand. And, where did this come from? Did someone take like 5000 white people and have them fill out a questionnaire and then somehow come to a consensus for the answers? It's definitely not based on any science that I am aware of. Interesting for sure, but too deep for me to continue to think about.
Well, I can relate to a few pieces of it, so the more that I thought about it, I realized that I am sure that some of my black friends could also. That's what made me realize that there was no science to it.That was sort of my point. It's a gross generalization, unsupported by statistics or research of any sort. Anyway, the Smithsonian has taken it down, although much of what remains in the discussion about "Whiteness" is equally stupid.
I didn't mention it specifically, but it's part of what I meant in a previous post- in some areas, some of the topics in the infographic aren't "outdated" at all. The nonsense about status, power, and authority, for example. Approaches that were entirely unfamiliar to some of us even in the distant past are still "alive and well" in some areas.Plus, I don't see anyone else reacting to how dated the stereotype is. This might have been a lot more accurate about 75 years ago.
Example: In the original post, here's one item on the list of what white people can count on:
I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
Think about that for a moment. Are they saying that there are no black doctors, teachers, cops, FBI agents, lawyers, social workers, wealthy people, politicians, pilots, technology workers, talk show hosts (and hostesses), athletes, entertainers, or Presidents of the US to be seen on TV? All of those people are white?
And all the bad guys, criminals, domestic workers, farmhands are black?
The idea of being "widely represented" was probably a novelty in the early days of TV. But those days are long gone. The whole list is so overstated that it loses any credibility.
I'd wondered if that's now considered a derogatory term.. or maybe it goes by locale... I honestly don't know.Why and when did we stop using the term WASP?
Could it be that there are less of them? I don't think so...........I'd wondered if that's now considered a derogatory term.. or maybe it goes by locale... I honestly don't know.
Trouble is, when you are beautiful, whatever the colour of your skin, people have expectations which you can't always live up to. Plain girls do have some advantages over their prettier sisters.Hmmm....the "born beautiful" thing may explain my lack of success. I always thought it was because I was lazy.