Talk:White guilt: Difference between revisions

I've taken a shot at revising this entry for a variety of reasons; mainly to remove weasel wording, POV statements, and generally awful writing. While it now reads as far more neutral and informative as before, in general there I don't think the topic really has that much going for it - white guilt is too nebulous a concept and is generally dismissed by everyone except a few "intellectuals" as being just so much PC garbage left over from the 1990's. Hmoul 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Arabs and Europeans and white

People - i removed "white european", since all native europeans (including both north, east, south, and west europeans) are white. I also added arabs, since most arabs are white, and since arabs account for over 55% of historical african slavery.

---

It's probably a bit unfair of me to offer affirmative action as the sole example of western society trying to deal with white guilt. I expect there are lots of additional and alternative motivations behind the support that exists for affirmative action, and there are probably much better examples of how white guilt affects society at an institutional level. Please do add them if you know more on this subject.

--- Is it really necessary to put personal problems into Wiki? Even on talk pages. Selfblaming is a serious thing. I am too far away to be an attending psychiatrist. But I was scared.

---

What makes you think that affirmative action was devised to deal with "White Guilt"? Ever heard of Social Justice/Equal Oportunity? Raverant2006 13:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

---

This page was in British English since the first major writing by Iota. It should so stay by Wikipedia policy, unless at some times another major revision is necessary and those involved agree on a change. The use of the word blacks for people is discourged by the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity which states:

If possible, instead of using nouns directly, terms should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; adults with disabilities, not the disabled; and so forth.

That usage is also inaccurate in this context in which people of colour refers also to native Americans and native south-east Asians. Nor deoes avoidance of common words like color/colour produce neutral English. There is no neutrality in bowdlerizing Englsh of common words that happen to have more than one spelling. Both spellings color and colour are commonly used. A version a English that omits such words is an artifical construct, used nowhere. Anyone wishing to advocate a new dialect of English that avoids words with more than one spelling, should have it accepted outside of Wikipedia before attempting to lay it down here.

Wikipedia's neutrality is to accept both color and colour, not to ban the word, which would hardly be neutral.

Jallan 00:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? "If the spelling appears within the article text, also consider a consistent synonym such as focus or middle rather than center/centre". There are plenty of synonyms for "people of color". Why not just use "non-white people"?

Darrien 00:34, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

That particular part of the MoS is one not generally observed and (in my opinion) horrible advice. It probably would not have survived until now if it had said anything beyond "consider a consistent synonym" and actually recommended use of such synonyms. I intend to open discussion on it shortly and would have done so quite some time back had not other matters about the MoS been raised. But if you believe in what you are doing, then do it also for all words with multiple spellings in the articles at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Test the water out in the open if you believe there is consensus to create a dialect of Wikipedia English in which words with multiple spellings are deprecated. And be sure to explain fully why you are replacing any words you replace. You might also replace the word color/colour with hue in a articles about the colors/colours. I will hold back reverting here for a day or two to watch the results. If you won't take up that test, then I think you should revert the text here yourself. Jallan 03:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no intention of wasting my time trying to verify community consensus of something already in the MoS. If you disagree with it and want to test the acceptance of it, then you do the work, not someone else.

I think that my latest changes should be able to stand on their own merit, regardless of what consensus on that passage of the MoS says. "People of color" is considered pejoritive by a lot of people. "Non-white" is more neutral and (in my opinion) more accurately reflects the intention of the article, as "people of color" most commonly refers to black people only.

Darrien 11:03, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

See http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561532135/nonwhite.html Encarta Dictionary: Non-white]]: "sometimes considered offensive". You will find almost no "given" racial term not sometimes considered offensive.

I never claimed otherwise. I said that "non-white" is more neutral, not totally neutral.

A link to People of color hidden under "non-white" confuses matters to whatever extent these terms overlap.

Then should we create the article Non-white people?

There would be nothing wrong in also including the term non-white as well as "People of colour". Jallan 05:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that Colored, the article that People of color redirects to, says: "The British English spelling coloured has a related, but different meaning and is primarily used in a South African context". In light of this, wouldn't there be less ambiguity if non-white was used instead?

Darrien 12:04, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

"White" Guilt

It should be noted on the page that not all European countries were involved in the African slave trade. In fact the nationals of a number of European countries have no ancestral ties to the African slave trade at all.

--Rah29 21:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Today, some Europeans and their ancestors are accused of committing wrongs against non-whites in the form of racial discrimination and colonialism. Many white people do not feel a sense of personal guilt over past oppression of other races, and resent being blamed for events they had nothing to do with. Others are often anxious to distance themselves from the actions of their ancestors and are said to feel a sense of collective guilt. Similarly it is said that descendants of oppressed people, some of whom have experienced modern day discrimination, sometimes expect whites, either collectively or individually, to feel and accept "white guilt".[citation needed] White guilt is said to result in a feeling of lost moral authority on the part of some whites, so that they feel uncomfortable discussing issues of race and are very anxious to avoid being seen as racist. Whether white guilt is healthy, just, proper or unnecessary is a matter of controversy, as are questions about if and how to make amends for the historical and present inequities between races.[citation needed] This section needs to be reworded or considered for removal, especially if citations cannot be made soon. The section is [ehem] loaded with "loaded language" such as resent being blamed for events they had nothing to do with which definitely violate neutrality rules. Citations of quotes from various pundits who tout a rejection of "White Guilt" would make this article more neutral and accountable, by putting names and faces behind the vague passive voice used in the article at present. --TensionWind 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

pseudopsychology

Attempted to fix this op-ed piece, um i mean article. I figured since the whole thing is somebody's opinion might as well throw my opinion in too.--Bigplankton 01:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What about

European countries that didn't engage in colonialism or those European nations who were persecuted or had lower status in European colonial powers during the age of colonialism ? Is there a position on that ? Or do proponents of this theory believe all European countries and people engaged in colonialism ? Also there is no such thing as "Europeans"-there are Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, French, Russians, Poles. You have to note which national group from European continent you mean instead of writing "Europeans", which may mean an Albanian, French, Irish or Russian person. All of whom have different histories. --Molobo 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the reference, but reconcilliation Australia Chair Jackie Huggins (an Aboriginal Australian) has on more than one occasion stated words to the effect that "nobody is expecting white people to feel guilty." Moreover, you can see, quite obviously, in this PDF, that expectations of a "sorry" statement (amongst other expectations) do not necessarily come with an expectation of feelings of guilt by white Australians (read the bit about Jackie Huggins on the topic). Quite the contrary.

Reconcilliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians has been a huge issue in AUstralia (and still is). The "White guilt" card has been played out by polemecists (who have on occasion selectively quoted Jackie Huggins to ignore her statements about no expection of Guilt) in order to campaign against reconciliation attempts.

The emphasis on "...sometimes expect whites, either collectively or individually, to feel and accept "white guilt"" without acknowledgement of high-profile contrary opinion seems biased. Indeed, given the political use of the concept of "white guilt", I'd further question the (uncritical) nature of this wikipedia entry.

At the very least, in a latter version, could we see a recognition of the distinction between calls for guilt and calls for "sorry"? Clearly such a distinction is present in public debate.

--Raverant2006 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Will we be receiving an apology from Blacks for the coastal raids on European countries in past centuries? Or how about their attempts at ethnic cleansing through mass immigration? If that isn't colonisation...

194.46.245.148 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Souces

Are there any credible sources for this or is this just an editorial? In Portugal there have been no requests for reparations, but that might just be for the lack of deep pockets and common law to allow for any indemnities to be payed. this is a nice op-ed piece, but other than that, I'm not too sure. Just my 2 euro-cents Galf 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus half of the Portguese aren't white anyway. A sizeable number of them would be descended from the black slavers who raided European coastlines.

194.46.245.148 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the jews?

Should not the jews be included in list of groups that have had violence perpetrated against them by the whites? Jewish people make white people feel more guilty than any of the other groups.

Indeed, jewish people deserve the guilt of a society that is frequently anti-semitic; however, your second statement reeks of privilege and bias. Rmilligan 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

*smirk* To say the least. Guldenat 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jews are usually considered white in Euro-American contexts, especially the Ashkenazim who are the majority. Sephardim, like other mediterranean peoples, used to be considered non-white but now, not so much. I don't know about Mizrahim. In any case, I've never heard "white guilt" used to refer to anti-semitism. <eleland/talkedits> 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Past oppression" vs. present privilege

Is it accurate for the article to describe "white guilt" entirely as a response to "past oppression" rather than (at least in some white people) a psychological reaction to recognition of white privilege in the present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.83.114 (talk) 18:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate. It's the opinion of the author, and it has no place on Wikipedia. Rmilligan 11:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

rewrite

this entire article to me screams "reverse" racism and racist point of view. the concept of "white guilt" probably does desesrve an article, but this article is so corrupted and biased, it needs to be completely rewritten IMO. R.westermeyer 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as "reverse" racism, it either is or it isn't. But I do agree; this is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I can't even imagine how this ridiculous idea ever came to be, I have never known another caucasian person who feels "guilty" about what happened to Africans in this country, largely because NONE of these people had anything to DO with it. Guilt should not be confused with compassion or caring or empathy, but programs like affirmative action were collective attempts to write a historical wrong. But guilt? Give me just a small break. I hope there's some OTHER sources on this subject, because is one silly concept. I agree it needs to be re-written.BGMNYC (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section appears to be pure original research. Unless some reliable sources can be found that specifically describe these points as criticism of the concept of white guilt, they should be removed from the article. --Proper tea is theft 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this is a relatively recent addition of poorly written impressions, and original theories regarding white guilt, I have taken the liberty of removing it. I am not opposed to a criticism section, provided it draws on legitimately sourced criticism (in other words, an editor's observation that "black people had slavery, too," is not acceptable per WP policy, unless it appears in some reliable source that is critical of the concept of white guilt).

I have also removed the ref to "Sociology, Psychology and Cognitive Science" [sic] because white guilt is not a theoretical concept used primarily by academics in those three fields.--Proper tea is theft 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this change. Criticism would be fine if it had sources to give it some context. futurebird —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR header

In the current version I don't see a single unlikely claim. It all appears to be neutral and uncontroversial statements which few would disagree with. Of course, it needs proper sourcing, but I don't see the need for a second "orange-level" warning box. <eleland/talkedits> 18:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)