Tuesday, January 31, 2012
I really enjoyed the text Racial Formation much more than White Privilege. The second text was a smaller point of view encompassed in Racial Formation. And it also felt very whiny and gave no real solutions to the problems faced in this country by minorities. It just stated a few issues and left me more bored than anything else. But Racial Formation had a lot more background information. It was brief, only twelve pages, but looked at the issues surrounding race and racism from multiple points. Even though the passage came to similar conclusions as White Privilege, it made a much better argument for them. It also showed some of the flaws of the liberal point of view, as well as discussing the pros and cons of the neoconservative point of view. It allowed me to better understand my own point of view and where it fits into two of the major points of view. I personally have a view closer to the neoconservative view, but it's more moderate and falls somewhere in between the two points of view. The past needs to be studied and remembered, else we are doomed to repeat it. And equal rights in this country have really only been around for fifty years of the countries almost two hundred and fifty year history, so there is still work to be done. But I don't want to live in the past and exaggerate the problems of the present as the liberal point of view does. And reading Racial Formation help solidify these beliefs but also opened my eyes to some of the struggles still faced. It was a very enlightening read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Alex,
ReplyDeleteYou, too, came to see that both articles come to mitigated conclusions albeit each with a kind of impetus for future scholarship, study, observation, and / or action.
I like how you classified yourself as not wholly conservative; in other words, like many Americans, you see yourself somewhere along the spectrum of the two poles as mentioned in the Omi and Winant article.
This, I find, is a problem whenever binary arguments are raised. Demands for agreement for one side or another are "put upon" the listener, reader, and thinker. And, of course, as Americans, we like to believe that we are free, have independent choice and are not "classed" into such a narrow number of choices: as usual—the binary "two."
Regarding "exaggerat[ing] the problems . . . as the liberal point of view does . . .," one might argue that ardent debate is the ONLY way to secure more "equitable" opportunities for all. And, we do see this with history. The article, too, does touch upon this in that without a "push," the choice will be by default, with those "in power."
With regard to the other reading, well, I think we "males" with European backgrounds, may continue indeed to puzzle over McIntosh's observations and conclusions. My reaction, like her conclusion, was mitigated.
—Regards . . .