Friday, November 17, 2006

A business best done behind closed doors?

There have been further developments in the ACRAWSA saga.

Readers might recall that I wrote a series of articles criticising whiteness studies. The official whiteness studies body (ACRAWSA) then opened up a discussion of the articles on its forum.

I wrote an item criticising the forum posts, and a reader (Iain) posted on the forum page itself.

The response? The ACRAWSA forum has now been closed to public view. It seems that the ACRAWSA folk deem it best to keep what they are doing behind closed doors.

I have also received a comment from a student in a whiteness studies course. I'm reproducing it below to highlight the radical intent behind this field of studies:

I remember witnessing the reaction of a couple of my classmates who took the whiteness studies course. They were enraged after a couple of classes. It was a good thing and what I think the instructor was looking for. Their worlds had been turned upside-down.

I will admit that I had a hard time, also, but I wasn't there to be comfortable. We finally had to face the ugly history of our people, a history that I've noticed has been slowly tucked under the covers in our history books. It wasn't that they (the two students - unfortunately, both white males, who obviously were from a "priviledged class") could actually dispute any of the facts of what the instructor presented, it was that we were not presented as the light of the universe.

Talk about white guilt...their reaction was the most violently visible reconciliation of world full of little white lies coming crashing down and the truth it had disguised left in it's wake. Now, not only did we have to acknowledge that the little brown people might be angry at "something" (we alays do this so dismissively), but they may actually have a legitimate gripe and an advanced understanding of class, identity, and power (at least far more advanced than most of us have). Ignorance is such bliss. I think it's white guilt that doesn't want to face the truth rather than the other way around....that's the irony.

So we have a university course which actually aims to enrage white students, which instils the belief that white people have "an ugly history", and which then treats whites who object as being motivated by privilege, ignorance or guilt.

This is vilification. And it is sanctioned by our universities.


  1. They are rather cowardly arn't they?
    keep up the good work Mark :o)

  2. The response from the “student” justifies zip. An angry reaction to vilification isn’t abnormal. Embracing vilification like a badge of narcissistic honour – based on wild extrapolations and with no comparison to the “crimes” of others – is abnormal and disingenuous.

    I see no evidence that the course is valid. It’s loose on facts, one sided, misleading and requires the student to be unquestioning. Sort of like Ufology with political motivation.

    It is absurd that publicly funded academics can’t stand up to basic scrutiny; how ironic that the “Critical Studies” departments of Australia react to criticism like cockroaches exposed to light.

    The real sad thing here is that less inquisitive students will blindly take the course as fact, then parade around insisting their new world view is “enlightened” and morally sound.

  3. Iain, thanks - I'll do my best.

    Shane, agreed. The student is rushing eagerly to embrace a vilification of himself (herself?), based on a one-sided presentation of history.

    You're right to label this abnormal. It's wrong not only on a particular point, but as a whole mindset.

    And yes, some undergraduates are likely to be influenced. When you're 18 you don't always have the breadth of reading to be able to challenge the deliberate filtering of history.

    (And even if students did have such knowledge, how many students will risk future employment by putting a leftist academic offside?)

  4. I believed a lot of that type of stuff in the 1970's. Then I visited India with my Indian wife and spent a year. I formed the view that Indians are the most racist people on the planet, and that innocent British colonials picked up a 'racist' perspective directly from the Indians.

    The way Indians treat even, or especially, their own Indian people, based solely on racial characteristics like skin colour and family, was just unbelievable to me, raised in middle class 1960's Australia. Later I found that the way the Chinese treat Indians in say Singapore is even worse. And that Arabs in the ME treat Indian guest workers like slaves and chattels.

    White racism? My Indian wife has not experienced anything but kindness in the 30 years she's lived in Australia. She even agreed with Pauline Hanson.

    Oh the one exception was a nasty uneducated Aboriginal girl who threatened my wife in her shop and told her to 'go back where you come from, this is OUR place' (and OUR whites to fleece no doubt!).