>

The questions you are asking are precisely why whiteness as a social phenomenon needs to be studied and understood. The concept of being white has *never* been static and it goes beyond having pale skin. For example, Irish people in the U.S. were no initially considered white. Another example: being “middle eastern” has been designated as “white” on U.S. census records, but one would not consider this group of people phenotypically white in person, so there is a tension between political whiteness and societal whiteness. There are countless examples of this, from the concept of “passing” to blood-quantity levels + the One-Drop Rule.

What it means to be white has been argued in several Supreme Court cases. Whiteness dictated one’s access to voting rights, healthcare, mortgages, education, you name it. The concept of whiteness in the U.S. was adopted *specifically* to create an “us versus them” dynamic during the era of chattel slavery, and its vestiges remain domestically and globally today. Note that I do not say that the U.S. created whiteness. The foundations of biological whiteness were created by European philosophers and scientists who developed pseudo-scientific reasonings to justify the conquest, rape, and enslavement of other people. While you may notice a lot of U.S. centric discussion of race in the curriculum, please understand that whiteness originated in Europe and disseminated across all continents through colonization. India, South Africa, Dominican Republic + Haiti, and Brazil are just a handful of places I can think about that were influenced by the creation and implementation of whiteness.

More likely to harm race relations according to whom? I, as a Black person, would LOVE if white people understood where their white status came from. We are witnessing the effects currently of white people not knowing about the development of whiteness. It results in the reinforcement of the idea that whiteness has a basis in biology; that there is a unified “white culture” that needs to be preserved and kept pure; that whiteness must be continued to be centered as the norm instead of sharing space with the hundreds of other racial/cultural identities that exist; and that non-whiteness is a threat to the social and global order. THAT encourages racial hatred.
/u/i_havent_read_it (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

As I understand it, the notion of whiteness as a point of study is understanding how societies have conceptualized race, what constituted being white over time, and whatever status/privileges went along with it - namely in the United States. 
And American society hasn't actually been shy on the topic either for quite some time. Statehouses and courts have proven to be happy to weigh in on the matter. Its been not only a matter of social and cultural importance, but even legal. If the topic wasn't taboo for legislatures and courts for centuries, universities should be fine. 
Anyway, the problematic parts you're talking about aren't all that different than any other student being obnoxious after learning something in school. Psych students think they've got the human condition figured out, guy reads Das Kapital and suddenly knows more than modern economists. That doesn't mean its a net negative to try and understand these topics more. 
Where these people are going wrong is they're taking a field of study meant to explore cultural phenomena over decades and pointing fingers at individuals. Not good. 
Anyway as far as social constructs go, it's been pretty damn influential throughout history.  I think it's fair to at least explore the concept as a matter or inquiry. >

I don't think terms like white and black are very productive. Skin color is simply an adaptation to varying degrees of UV exposure in different parts of the world. A person from India, Africa, and South America may have the same skin tone, but are they all "black?" No, only the African is considered black. Ok, then why not just call that person a Ugandan or Moroccan or wherever else they originate from? We should be grouping people based on ethnic and cultural decent.
The thing is, there are inherent morphologic differences between humans depending on which region of the world they originate from, and skin color is just one of those features. We don't really talk about all the other ways that human beings differ in terms of appearance. Why? Because skin color is easiest to identify and describe. But thats about it...its purely out of convenience. At the end of the day skin tone is a crude and fairly useless way to categorize people.
Black and white are terms that stem from racist ideology and should be rooted out. >

Myself, growing up in South Boston... I learned racism from white folks. I was the only kid in town that had brown skin. I was beaten daily at school from the 1st-6th grade by white kids. I was called 'nigger,' 'tar-baby,' and hundreds of hateful other words that make a colour distinction. People with a colour of skin (other than white) should be aware of the whiteness of the whites, especially if you're immigrating to the USA from a country that dominantly has every skin colour except white, that, you put yourself, 'in the know' and know what to expect, should it happen. If it never happens, then let the sleeping colour conflict be, let it sleep. >


Using the term casually promotes colourism; I find 'whiteness' as problematic as 'blackness'. Now of course, there may be instances where it's beneficial to talk about it, such as if those with black skin are suffering from more discrimination in the US. But fundamentally these are simply skin tones. There are a huge range of cultures and ethnicities that have white skin: this ranges from people from America, to those with Jewish heritage and people from Eastern European countries. I think many would agree that referring to blackness is an insult to hundreds of different cultures and backgrounds this entails, so why is this okay for those with white skin? 

“Simply skin tones” is false. Having paler skin does not automatically make you white. Pale skin is a feature seen in pretty much every racial group. It also does not change the fact that race is a very important factor in a lot of aspects of culture. 
In the United States specifically whiteness refers to people of European descent. Not anybody on planet earth who happens to be pale. 
Furthermore, seeing blackness is not inherently an insult. Even Black people use blackness to refer to other Black people. Black is a socially recognized racial group. I don’t really understand why you are of the believe that this is something people only do towards white people. 

It's US-centric. I am not from the US and neither are the people I am talking about - we are from the UK. I can't speak for the statistics in the US, but the UK prime minister is not white and neither are the highest earning income group or those who are most likely to own a home. Do I think racism exists in the UK? For sure, but 'whiteness studies' primarily focuses on US-specific race issues, but the ideas are currently being imported across the globe when they are not necessarily relevant. 

I mean, I don’t know. I’m not American but this is a sentiment I hear all the time when it comes to racism when people pretend like certain aspects of racism is uniquely American. It’s really not, Americans just talk about it more. But that’s just my personal experience.

I am not pretending the world is completely colourblind, but I view a colourblind world as the ultimate goal. It would never be acceptable to use 'blackness' with negative connotations today and we shouldn't be creating a society where we can talk negatively about one race and not the other. 

The reason why being colorblind largely doesn’t work sometimes is because race can be socially ingrained in whatever you’re talking about. For example, you can talk about the race relations in a specific area. But if you come out of nowhere and start talking about how you’re colorblind I mean, cool, but that doesn’t erase the very real prevalence of race relations in the area. You’re not really helping anybody by just not seeing race. Racial tension, race relations, treatment of races, etc. etc. doesn’t go away because you specifically live your life colorblind.
I am mixed race. I grew up in an east Asian country where some citizens have never seen a black person before. Some of my constituents growing up hated me pretty bad. Some people within east Asian countries are very hostile towards people who are of a darker complexion/black. If you come out of the woodwork saying that you’re colorblind and also lived in these particular areas. The existence of people who treat me lesser than because of my skin color don’t all of a sudden stop being a problem. You have to recognize that race relation is a problem to actively fix it. Unfortunately, just ignoring race doesn’t really fix stuff sometimes. >

I believe the politically correct term for whiteness to be Caucasian. It certainly feels less provocative to say. More like a genuine label should sound. >

That's interesting. We don't use the word on the census in the UK, just White British or White, the word just feels ugly to me now. It meant nothing to me growing up but now it is obviously often used as a derogatory term (not by everyone ofc!) and I had just heard it used interchangeably with caucasian during my childhood but now my brain sees the word White and goes oh they mean racist, which my brain then says means white supremacist and that's not something someone should go around casually saying about people in polite society.
I'll definitely check out the Wikipedia page about caucasian though, thanks for the info! >

Wow that’s super interesting to me as well! I’m not actually from the USA im from Australia, and filled out the census for myself for the first time last year. They make an interesting choice of word and ask not for your race or ethnicity, but instead, “ancestry”. I’m not sure whether this is a better option though, while it allows for nuance for someone whose ethnicity kind of sits at the fringe of “whiteness” like, for example Cyprus or Lebanon, you also get lots of Anglo descended people putting “Australian” as their ancestry which doesn’t really make sense 😆 but I like that it doesn’t treat the classification of race which is used in the USA as the default. While racist pseudoscience is definitely a legacy of colonialism here as well, definitions of “whiteness” were a lot narrower for a lot longer which leads to some people still being a lot touchier about the term as an identifier. >

Perhaps it would be a good balance to ask what culture a person identifies with, which would be very broad (American, western, Australian, British, English etc) but then also ask where they descend from, like where were you born, where were your parents and then grandparents born. To try and separate culture and country from biology. I suppose you'd hope the census would know to account for the difference between someone who is Australian (of the state) vs native or indigenous to Australia (having ancestors who were in Australia before the Europeans arrived), so some people could be both or only one or the other. What do you think?
Also when it comes to the census, I wrote that I was a jedi in 2011 as a joke. It's still funny to me that I wrote it but it does mean I have to take everything in the census with a pinch of salt now haha. Speaking of, isn't Australia where more people wrote that than anywhere else? >


Using the term casually promotes colourism; I find 'whiteness' as problematic as 'blackness'.

That's kind of the point. Most white people don't think about their whiteness. They recognize racism and problems how we treat POC but they never question how this effects them. Whole point of these studies to show that "whiteness" is as problematic as "blackness". That they are opposite sides of same racist systems. When you oppress one population you are always giving a free pass for other. You can't do one without the other. >

So we're going to fix problems by also being oppressive and racist to white people? I'm really struggling to see how that a good idea. Even if you think so, surely you can see that might massively backfire >


So we're going to fix problems by also being oppressive and racist to white people?

No. We fix the problems by talking about all sides of the issue. Not just blackness and racism but also analyze whiteness and how they benefit for the system even when you personally are not being racist.
It's about establishing dialog and making sure that both sides of discussion is using the same terms. Basically we cannot talk about "blackness" and racism without talking about "whiteness" as well. >


but also analyze whiteness and how they benefit for the system 

Define "whiteness" vis-à-vis the intersectionality of Scottish, Irish and English people in the UK system. >

Generally speakin', whoever's at the top of the totem pole.
This is also how you get folks being racist against Irish immigrants coming to the States a century and some change ago, despite the skin colors being rather similar. >


whoever's at the top of the totem pole.

So... "whiteness" = English?
Is it like an Orwell thing - "All white people are white, but some white people are whiter than others"? >

If you look at racism throughout history, you'll see some very interesting things about who was considered "white" and who wasn't. See the example of Irish people not always being considered white in the US. Or how Jews often aren't considered white even if they have the right skintone, by virtue of their religion.
I wouldn't say that "whiteness" always means whoever's at the top of the totem pole in every society. That's obviously not the case in Japan.
But Japan actually does give an illustrative example of something approaching your "All white people are white, but some white people are whiter than others"? - Anyone who doesn't appear Japanese is gaijin (roughly translated, "outside person"). But among those who do, you're more Japanese if you were born in Japan compared to Korea or China, and those born to Korean/Chinese parents in Japan are in the middle, but still not the most Japanese of Japanese.
Basically, racism assembles a hierarchy. Skin color and other phenotypical characteristics are useful dividing lines, but they aren't the only dividing lines, and they aren't always used as dividing lines. >


Skin color and other phenotypical characteristics are useful dividing lines, but they aren't the only dividing lines, and they aren't always used as dividing lines.

Then how useful is a course on "whiteness" in the UK? Just call it "introduction to racism" and be done with this sloppy, divisive terminology. >

Well, I'd say that "racism" covers a much broader subject area than "whiteness". It's like the difference between taking a course on "Physics" and one on "Astrophysics". The more-specific name indicates a more-specific focus. >

That's the problem. From OP's link:

Dagmar R. Myslinska, an adjunct associate professor of law at Fordham University, argues that whiteness studies overlooks the heterogeneity of whites' experience, be it due to class, immigrant status, or geographical location.

We're talking about the UK, where (for example) the Irish have faced and continue to face discrimination. But from the link again:

It is focused on what proponents describe as the cultural, historical and sociological aspects of people identified as white, and the social construction of "whiteness" as an ideology tied to social status. 

So it seems to be painting things in rather broad strokes already - not specific ones. >

I'm going to steelman your position and say that all of your issues are true.
However, shouldnt ideas, good and bad, be subject to discussion and academic/social darwinism?
Surely if there is great flaws and issue with these concepts our institutions should be robust enough to safeguard against radicalization and allow for honest and good faith intellectual inspection.
And if the academic institutions are lost, then surely a free western society should be robust enough to be able to push back and self correct against clear signs of progressivism gone too far (such as how eugenics went from being the science of the times to eventual discrediting of validity) >

The trouble is, it gets piggybacked onto other things people do agree with.
For instance if you're a gay guy who thinks that the whole "gender being separate from sex" idea is silly. Good luck speaking out about it in your circle. They will think you're some traitor. Which makes it hard to counter.
It's like when in congress they try to pass a bill. They tag on a bunch of other smaller bills in order to get enough votes. The other bills may have absolutely nothing to do with a topic. You're trying to ban lead in gasoline and you're tagging on a provision that bans scuba diving in Key West. Just because you need the vote from the guy in Key West to get your original plan to pass. 
Being racist towards white people is not required to accomplish any of this. In fact it is detrimental in the long run. >

While pork in legislation can be frustrating and there is certainly room for improvement in western government systems, at the end of the day the legislative branch is functional, government is functional, and the country and society have not collapsed.
Just because there are flaws in systems doesnt mean that the system isnt performing well and should be stopped. In this case there's racism making another rise in popularity in society - why wouldn't this just be more of our system running its course? The pendulum will swing back so to speak for any overcorrections.
Again. At the end of the day, are these systems not functioning as intended? Do they not have natural abilities to self correct? >

I was simply pointing out how this anti white racism is getting paired with many other things that people do agree with.
But you don't really have a choice but to go along with the whole shpiel. Because otherwise you can be viewed as an outsider. 
Say you're really passionate about black issues. You think it's a huge problem and you want something to be done about it. You get introduced to this anti whiteness horseshit. You instinctively see that it's wrong. But many of your compatriots are on board with it. You don't want to jeopardize the thing you're after by going against them. So you just tag along with it. >


But you don't really have a choice but to go along with the whole shpiel. Because otherwise you can be viewed as an outsider. 

But you do have a choice. You can be an outsider and speak out on what you believe to be truths.

Say you're really passionate about black issues. You think it's a huge problem and you want something to be done about it. You get introduced to this anti whiteness horseshit. You instinctively see that it's wrong. But many of your compatriots are on board with it. You don't want to jeopardize the thing you're after by going against them. So you just tag along with it.

Why do you need to tag along with it? One can be moral and stand up for what they truly believe. Is this not the very foundation upon which the closed secret ballot vote is predicated upon? >

In theory yes. I don't disagree with you that it SHOULD BE this way. But in practice it's often the opposite. You go join some communist cult. Try to teach them about what a monster Stalin really was. At best you'll be looking for a social circle. They might just beat your ass on your way out. >

It didnt always use to be this way, with McCarthyism, and anti-Vietnam war sentiment, and USSR collapse, and then global financial crisis - there's always been a pendulum swing based on the times.
This is all of course from a western perspective, as in the east there's plenty of folks who still remember living through murderous communist regimes.
Again, just because that's how some university campuses may be in the west currently doesnt mean it wont self correct I'm a few years' time... or even decades' if it takes that long >

I would contend that "whiteness" is less problematic than the word it replaced:
Normal
We have black people, Asian people, indigenous people, Hispanic people (many more, but you get the point) and normal people.
White studies was just called studies up to this point. At least now you know which perspective it comes from. >

The point of "normal" is that normal is what allows privilege, which isn't inherently tied to race. "White" people have been the majority. This majority controlled cultural norms. That's not unusual. And it's not about being white, it's about belonging to the majority class.
Normal is quite different from "whiteness". The problem is that many things are getting attributed to "whiteness", that can simply originate from being the majority.