Category: Student Posts

Overall, I have learned a lot from this course. Coming into this course, I was not sure what to expect. However, I think that my main takeaway is that discovering the Truth can be difficult, although it is important. This can be applied to my everyday life by not being afraid to question positions that people have if I am confused or disagree. Providing evidence either through lived experiences or information sources is important to back the Truth that you are promoting. I think that this concept was very much in practice during this course. There were debates, however engaging critically is something that this university veers away from. This is interesting as higher education is supposed to cultivate an education that promotes critical thinking and debate. This was one of the only courses that I have taken at Bucknell that encouraged looking at both sides of an argument to discover which one was writing about a particular agenda and which one was attempting to push the truth.

After our last discussion of white culture and white supremacy culture, I found that there is much to unfold here. For example, as we brought up in class, many of the primary pieces that are available on the Bucknell Anti-racism page never define the terms “culture” or “white supremacy” and what that means in the context in which they are speaking. Nor do these writers attempt to define these terms or provide any evidence for their argument. They provided many characteristics of all cultures and of defining entities of culture itself, such as deciding what is normal, deciding what is proper behavior and what is not. As this was discussed in class, it became clear to me that the idea of preconceived notions plays a role here. Some gathered that it would be beneficial to switch out certain words to fit the narrative in which they thought the author was attempting to portray. Yet switching the words would not change the general argument that the writer was making. Instead of “white culture” change the phraseology to “white American culture” or “white American society”. I think this could run us down a slippery slope in marginalizing a group of people that simply exist in society. Those who claim that white Americans marginalize and discriminate against minority groups are doing that very thing to whites. This in itself is racist against white people. Allow me to define the term racism here for reference. According to Merriam Webster dictionary, the term racism is defined as “a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. The same criticism of white Americans could be turned onto any other racial group who believes that ALL white Americans are responsible for the marginalization and discrimination of a particular race. As we stated in class, it is extremely complex and obviously there are exceptions but generalizations are what lead us to the era of wokeist agendas being propagated.

Another important point I found interesting is that it is mostly white people bringing up this idea of white privilege and supremacy. I found this especially virtuous and almost martyrdom like in the podcast “Betray White Fathers” where they give actions that need to be taken of white people ASAP. They write “If things get confrontational with the police, you are there to de-arrest people and put your body between Black people and the police.” Why is it a white person’s responsibility to put his or herself in harm’s way to protect black people that may very well be committing a crime? Almost as though it’s a martyrdom for their “faith” or as reparations for those black people.

To finish this blog post I’d like to say what I took away from this course. After taking this class, it is clear that the quasi-religion aspect of the wokeist agenda is the basis for why much of this rhetoric is spread so successfully. These ideas are highly geared toward young impressionable students who are looking for something to believe in and act for. As a young student, one of the most important things I took away was to ask questions about things and to not be afraid to ask questions. Do not simply allow others to tell you what the truth is but go out and seek it for yourself.

In the Betray white fathers podcast, Phoebe talks about white supremacy and finds out that its taking place so close to her hometown. Personally, i found that part interesting because the town of Quindaro is a part of history but it seems that the way that society works and because it revolves around whiteness that its actually trying to erase it. Quindaro is an abolitionist town. The town was an outlier because it was a place where whites, native Americans and freed African Americans could all live together in peace. Because of the way our society operates, the town id “hidden” since they don’t want people to actually find out that other individuals actually lived like this and supported those ideas. 

When Phoebe says that john browns narrative is changed, he is marked as crazy because what he believed in was not considered the norm of society and it needed to fit in with what other white individuals believe in. This idea reminded me of some of the other readings we did, more specifically, Peter woods work and the 1619 project. In general, i feel that this story speaks for itself, since history about the town is not taught in schools even though it was so close to where she grew up. 

Another connection that i found between this article and the White Culture description is in part 3. The one that says white culture assigns a higher value to some ways of behaving then others. Then those other behaviors are considered dangerous or deviant. This reminds me of the good/bad binary for some reason because it has to do with one’s behavior (one good and one bad in terms of racist or not racists), almost like living by unwritten rules in order to navigate society.

I can relate more to the calling out ableism piece since I do have a chronic illness that is not noticeable. Originally, I was not sure why this was included but it makes sense that it was since it is discrimination against a specific group based on disability status. Replace disability status with the word race and we can see how similar they are.

Before even reading this article on White Fragility, what i first thought of was that its hard to talk to white people about racism because most think they aren’t racist or do not recognize their role in it. On the anthropological side of things, we created racism. The racial hierarchy keeps getting recreated as the interests of whites then become the foundation of our society. This article puts an emphasis on group power relations in order to understand how racism functions. 

I liked that the author listed the patterns. and explained in detail how they contribute to the difficulty of white people to understand racism as a system and how that then leads to white fragility. In one of those patterns, the one on whites being more valuable, that I think related back to the other reading/podcast on Bretaying white fathers since, like how a town of mixed races (white, native American and black) is forgotten.  It is also left out of history books and not taught in schools because it does not conform to the society that white supremacy is rooted in. Colored people are left out in many ways, while white people are the main center of attention and focus (just look at the list in the article). 

This article was extremely interesting to read. The author discusses her experience with White privilege, and how she came to understand what having White privilege meant. She discusses how she believes that it should be discussed and taught more in schools, and that it is just as important as having discussions and learning about racism. There is clearly privilege and oppression in every society today, whether that has to do with race, class, gender, etc. It is important to acknowledge how people play roles in today’s society in order to correct some of the historical wrongdoings that have occurred. I do not believe this means dropping everything to “save,” or “fix,” these wrongdoings. I do not believe this means that every society is doomed due to the privilege and oppression that exists. I just believe that through doing your part, even just by acknowledging how you play a role, you can make more strides than you realize to redesign social systems. Something interesting about this topic is how much emotion and personal connections have to do with it. There is a lot of personal connection that has to do with privilege and oppression. People everyday will feel and understand their privilege and oppression in different ways, whether they decide to acknowledge it or not. This makes the topic very difficult, and I think that Peggy McIntosh does a great job of explaining why it is important to acknowledge White privilege in a way that keeps the argument academic.

When reading this, I began to wonder how this connects to the intellectual class and wokeism. We have been discussing how the intellectual class is able to speak and be immediately listened to. Frequently, we have seen that they are listened to without research to define if their statements are correct. They are viewed as correct just because of their status as an intellectual. Therefore, this is a privilege that can place harm on others. Other people who are not included in the intellectual class can develop morals or beliefs based on members of the intellectual class and what they have decided to speak on. Through listening and absorbing information that members of the intellectual class publish and not questioning how correct the information is, other people suffer consequences. We have seen how misinformation can affect people, and how wokeism can lead to harm. This is a perfect example of that.

In this week’s reading Who Gets to be Afraid in America? I found this article very interesting and quite frankly emotional. It became hard to read this piece from an academic perspective and not bring in my personal experiences and feelings about the subject matter. Being a black woman and remembering my own reaction when Ahmaud Arbery was killed in 2020 reading this article brought up feelings that I forgot that I had. But these forgotten feelings are ones that I know well, I do not think of this article as a wokeist agenda but rather a lived reality of many black Americans. Throughout my time in this course, I have learned and explored viewpoints and academic tools that might not align with my own but have still tried to understand them and see their point of view, but when looking at this article in relation to the course I am struggling to understand the connection to the intellectual class. Is the connection between the author and how they fit into the intellectual class or the subject matter that they are writing about? After reading this piece I went back to the syllabus to see where it fit into that and when I saw that the author was a professor at BU I thought that the connection could be because our two schools are very similar in style of teaching. Anyone can correct me if I am wrong or blinded by personal feelings and emotions but I did not find that this article was pushing the author’s viewpoint into an academic setting as I viewed it as an opinion piece and not something that was intended to be used as an academic tool. 

When tying back to the title of the article, I think that anyone can be afraid in America based on any social identifiers but from a sociological perspective, functionalism works best here to see how functions and conversely dysfunction that are a result of racism. From a functionalist point of view, the death of Ahmaud Arbery is part of a system of modern racism that functions to allow a dominant group to hold power over another resulting in the death of the subordinate racial group. 

A few questions that I have in relation to this article:

Is there a case in which people who are in a dominant group, not just related to race, truly feel afraid in America? Or is this just a feeling for ones who are in a minority?

“When white men murder men like me, they call it self-defense. And they are believed. When men like me defend ourselves against violent white men, they call us the aggressors. And they are believed.” In relation to this quote from the article, does the language that we use to describe others and stereotypical ideas of them perpetuate acts of violence?

In this week’s reading White Fragility, the patterns that are laid out about why it is difficult for white people to understand racism as a system and in terms of lead to white fragility are ones that I wanted to look at further. One of the patterns that I found the most interesting was individualism. The concept is that white people are taught to look at themselves as individuals and not as a racial group hence why it becomes easier to deny that racism is a system. When racism becomes an individual problem the conversation then shifts to the rhetoric of “well I am different, I am not racist” rather than understanding that racism is not a micro problem it is a macro issue. I do not think that the author is trying to state that every white person feels like this or that they should take responsibility for the actions of other white people. Still, I do think that the further white people move away from individualism and understand the past actions of the white race, and know that these actions have shaped our society today. Often times people are very quick to defend themselves in times when they are called out for a racist act and this goes into the notion of white fragility and how with forms of discomfort involving race there is a pushback from people who have white fragility.

Another reading that I wanted to note is Call Out Ableism. I think this project is very important for people to understand and self-reflect on. The dictionary part of the website was one that I found interesting I have not heard of some of the terms before and being able to read them to make sure that I can do what I can to be an ally for this community is important to me. I think that now more than ever people are more aware of being ableist and what they say especially when not politically correct. But there are still people who use these derogatory terms quite often, on Bucknell’s campus I hear people say these terms shamelessly every day in a sense of malintent and as a joke, but nevertheless, it is a problem. Being an ableist is something that I do not understand, if someone has a disability whether visible or not it is not something that anyone else has the right to speak on, make fun of, or take advantage of. Ableism is like any other ism (in a slang sense) that is an oppressive discriminatory attitude or belief. Often times people who have disabilities are left out of marginalized groups and their struggles may not be seen as valid as something like racism or sexism. This project brings awareness to that and provides a source of education and also allows people in this community to speak their truth and regain power in this relationship with ableists.

On the university’s resource page, 

Too many people whose expertise are not in the social sciences are making too many false statements on society and its structures.

Arguments should not harm people. If people are harmed by arguments, then it is probably a sign that the person hearing it is not in good shape mentally.

Wokeism, to me, is like the tradition of making factual claims that are actually faith claims. They either assume what they are claiming is true beforehand or not care to dig deep enough into the evidence.

It is extremely hard to understand society and find “truth” about it.

The real intellectual way is to not assume anything and withhold judgments or claims, until one has gone through enough rigorous research and being confident in one’s understanding of the topic.

After yesterday’s discussion on the wokeist agenda of many of Bucknell’s anti-racist resources, it became evidently clear that everything that a university should be promoting is being silenced in the classrooms and on campus in general. We spoke a fair amount about the nature of the language we use today to discuss any sort of controversial topic or difficult topic that requires some debate or analysis. With regards to the Arbery case and Kendi’s article describing the case, he certainly is instilling a sense of predisposed faith-based language into his argument as if all people should already believe that all white people see all black people the same way: in a bad way. As we stated in class, it is almost like he is daring his audience to come back and say “no, that is not the case for me personally”. As soon as someone admits that, they are put on the wrong side of the moral binary and even their contrary thoughts could be harmful to society and people in the black community.

Like Kendi’s article, the Amy Cooper in Central Park piece was extremely similar, in that the writer fears for her life to go bird watching in the woods because she will be racially targeted and threatened. She too, because she had one experience of having the cops called on her believes she knows a) what is going on inside that woman’s mind and the reason she called the police in the first place and b) what is going on in all other white people’s minds when they call the police on others. I am in no way denying that there are racist people in this world that racially profile people and threaten them due to their own preconceived beliefs. However, when speaking of racism and racial stereotyping it can go both ways assuming all white people are the same and think all black people are criminals. Intellectuals should be able to recognize that that is extremely difficult to prove with data, hence the faith-based language that is used to describe it.

I think much of the wokeist agenda is to evoke emotions, especially regarding racism and the treatment of African Americans by police officers and the justice system in general. As we mentioned in class, the George Floyd case and the one body-cam clip that nearly all Americans saw of the officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck. From that one clip riots and protests were started in the streets of the United States stating that police brutality against black Americans is systemic and racism still roams free in our society unchecked. Yet as we talked about in class, many people did not watch or research what had transpired prior to those last few minutes of Floyd’s life. There was no discussion of the struggle between the officer and Floyd in getting him to show him his hands to make sure he was unarmed and Floyd’s unwillingness to cooperate. Not to mention the fact that Floyd was under the influence of pharmaceuticals that may have also impaired his ability to breathe even prior to the incident. The lack of context also plays into an earlier topic we discussed of misleading the public and pushing a narrative that fits their agenda.

When thinking about identity politics, I had not heard langue used in an academic setting and honestly thought it was something that the media and politicians made up in the past decade to polarize the country more and to stop any bipartisan agreement. When reflecting on our class discussion on identity and how it is unstable I wanted to compare that to identity politics. Because your own identity outside of social identifiers is unstable but within those identifiers, it is fairly stable and it does change how you think about politics especially when your identity is at stake in those debates. In this reading Mitchell does note that when thinking of this unstable identity it is more along the lines of a radical relationship, he states in part one “More importantly; the relationship is of a specific type, with discernible religious overtones: the unpayable and permanent debt one kind owes another”. When identity takes on this radical unstable relationship the unpayable debt that Mitchell brings up changes the relationship one identity has with another. Putting this in the scope of politics I do think that when identity politics becomes unstable or radical then this sense of permanent debt feeds into a mindset that there is always a lesser group, feeding into the idea of polarization and in the context of the US government the lack of bipartisan agreement because both parties have members of the radical and unstable sector of identity politics.

In the readings that we did for today, some of the events I knew about and others I did not. So I felt that, especially for the Reparations piece, that really gave a personal perspective for what it was like living under laws of segregation. It wasn’t just a bunch of dates with descriptions of events, it actually gave us a real idea of how those people were living at the time. 

In the reading “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, I thought that the concept was interesting that the author chose to show how white privilege was apparent in her life. Some of the things she said I did not quite agree with, but thats because these are specific to her life and not to mine. Like her, I am also a white woman, and this piece made me reflect in my own way on how white privilege is present in my own life. One of the ways that the effects of white privilege comes up in her life, specifically, the one about turning on the television or opening a news paper and seeing people of her own race widely represented, bothered me. 

Maybe her race is widely represented but does that mean that other people of color arent there or shes just doesnt see them. Personally if I turn on the tv i see people of all different races represented. But thats just me. It definitely depends on what your watching or what you are reading (newspaper or magazine). 

I thought that the bird watching article was interesting because the act of bird watching so peaceful and simple, could get turned into something its not and this aggravated me. I remember on the news when they did a story on the African American man bird watching, who confronted a lady about her unleashed dog, ended up getting the cops called on him. What is interesting is I’ve seen this scenario or similar ones take place on tv shows. Seeing something on television makes it seem unreal or not likely to happen in real life and then when it does, it becomes a whole debate. The part when the women explained how racists individuals believe that this is their land and because they own it, and that someone of color does not belong there is definitely rooted in white privilege and colonialism. 

Colonialism not talked about in this article but I think that there is a connection to it since this article reminded me of how native Americans were kicked off of their lands, not treated fairly in treaties or flat out ignored. The concept of reparations could also be linked to this as well since native Americans have been fighting to get their land back for years that was unfairly taken from them by whites. 

These themes are also present in the article about the black runner who was unjustly killed by a father and son pair while on a run. I think that fear does play its part in racism as it is talked about in the article when the author says that Americans dont realize that its scary for those individuals that they are claiming to be violent criminals. White individuals are only thinking about their own fear and not the fear of the one that they are accusing. 

I did not know that linguistic racism was a thing and that it existed but after reading that short piece on the matter it clearly is and is most definitely a problem in classrooms that needs to be addressed. 

The reparations reading I thought brought together past present and future since it talked about the past and how it affected those people and then how those people rallied in order to make changes to help better their futures and the lives of their families. The black movement from the south to the north because they were looking for protection under the law, however, what they got was laws that wrote them out completely and separated them from the rest of society. The fact that African Americans could not get a mortgage even if they were free just does not make sense to me. In that freedom that they desired was a place to call home for their families and the Fair Housing Act was supposed to fix all that and get rid of redlining. Before that, there was t overcrowding in certain communities because African Americans only had very few options when it came to housing because of redlining and segregation, but even after the passing of the act, the damage was already done.