White Privilege

While reading White Privilege, I was left with mixed emotions. Like others, I realized what the authors were attempting to say. I was also offended and turned off by language such as terrorize, and other key phrases. I agree with what is being said that by using such language, it may prevent the authors from reaching a mass audience, as few will read something that they are offended by. I think that maybe the authors were trying to do this. By antagonizing readers, they at least made you think about their topics. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the end result will be what they want. I was confused while reading this book and in class about what we should do about these issues. The authors were all trying to encourage people to recognize their own whiteness, and that it was the idea of whiteness that scared people of other races. One author suggested overthrowing "whiteness". When people in class suggested that this was attacking white people, others responded by saying that it wasn't white people, it was whiteness. But isn't that exactly what whiteness is? Without white people you would not get whiteness. So therefore, I could not help but feel personally attacked by the book. It did not help that every author provided generalized statements. The language used was "us", "them", "all". This did not help separate white people from "Whiteness." At the end of class, Angela said what had been on my mind since the beginning of reading the book: What are we supposed to do about it? How are we supposed to fix the problem? What do the authors want from us? All of the authors told us the issues, and what was wrong with race relation. I don't recall them saying definitively what should be done about it. Perhaps reading the rest of the book will provide me with some answers.

Staci Becker Post #15