[KS] Re: the "white males" question

[Yuh Ji-Yeon]

REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

At 05:02 ¿ÀÈÄ 00-10-19 -0500, you wrote:
>REPLY sends your message to the whole list
>__________________________________________
>
>Dear Ms. Oum:
>
>thank you for the bibliography, but I'm not that behind on things as we
>have
>reconstructed our categories.  However, the point remains if that is
>what
>you meant, then use it, but mark it.

michael,

perhaps i misunderstand you, but if you are not that behind on things and 
therefore, as you imply, you don't really need to peruse the readings that 
young rae suggested, then why did you post a question that indicated an 
unawareness  on your part of the social construction "white males" and the 
way that term is used to refer to particular positions of privilege 
afforded by gender and race? someone familiar with "white males" as a 
social construction and the recent theoretical work on that question would 
have recognized young rae's usage of the term as something other than a 
"common and undifferentiated sobriquet" and would have asked a much 
different question about her usage of it.

and if the term "white male" disturbed you so much, then surely other terms 
that might also be taken as "common and undifferentiated sobriquets" would 
disturb you equally. so why was there no similar questioning of the use of 
the terms "korean men" or "korean boys" or "korean people" in previous posts?

In the heat of such
>exchanges
>qualification would be helpful to de-personalize such issues.

how does the use of the term "white males" personalize issues?

best,
ji-yeon

p.s. i would add to young rae's suggestions "the possessive investment in 
whiteness" by george lipsitz. it points out that, for instance, that now 
that "whiteness" is being analyzed as a category and a social construction, 
those who are white often resist analysis as a way to protect the 
privileges associated with being white, and that many also feel attacked 
and undermined simply because it is being pointed out to them that 
whiteness confers privileges and implicates them in a history and a social 
system that has brought about and maintains those privileges at the expense 
of others, namely people of color. the retreat is often into individualism: 
"what, little ole me? i don't have anything to do with racism and white 
privilege or gender privilege, i'm just one little ole ordinary guy 
struggling to get along and i always get blamed for everything these days 
just for being a white male. it's awful hard these days to be a white 
male." at other times, the reaction is similar to that embodied in the 
movie "falling down": "what do you mean white male privilege? all our jobs 
are being taken away by asians and other foreigners, their kids get into 
all the good schools, and it's not fair. they're the ones with all the 
privilege."

we are all implicated in the power structures within which we live, and we 
are all much more than mere individuals. we have a responsibility to 
understood our positions as members of various and varied communities -- 
including those that are defined by race, nationality, ethnicity, gender 
and so forth. it is, in a sense, irresponsible to negate one's identity as 
a white male (or a white female, or a korean male or a korean female, etc. 
etc.) and what that means given history and current social systems. this is 
not to say that we are nothing more than that identity, but to say that 
that particular identity -- as understood and used and constructed and 
contested -- is certainly a factor -- often a very important factor -- in 
who we are and the lives we are able to live.



Department of History,	Northwestern University, Harris Hall 202
1881 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208 U.S.A.
office: 1-847-467-6538  dept: 1-847-491-3406  fax: 1-847-467-1393
email: j-yuh at northwestern.edu