"Whiteness & Race Traitors" - Real, or does the Emperor Have No Clothes?


Golden Member
Sep 13, 2003
I was browsing this thread at Ars Technica concerning "race traitors" and "whiteness." It's a long, drawn out flame war and I don't understand half of what people are saying. Things like:

White history is the only history we have to know. The ACT/SAT are both set up for white middle class people to get better scores, the social values taught by the schools white. Period. So, there is not a lot of critical thought that goes into creating the school system, therefore there is not a lot of critical thought that comes out of it.

Is this true? It seemed to me that a lot of history books went out of their way to address the contribution or influence of black and female historical figures. Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Stanton are some examples.

Whiteness is the structure in which racism plays out. I don't believe that any of these characteristics are terrible in and of themselves. It is the hegemonic normative rationality that stems from extreme forms of these charachteristics that results in continued racism and privilege.

Anyone else have no idea what the above means?

When I was in college there was this extremely annoying kid from California who would spout all sorts of ridiculous things in a PoliSci class. He was a diehard conservative, very wealthy, and thought he was the greatest in political thought (aka bullsh!t). He liked to throw around buzzwords, latin phrases, and talked so fast that noone could understand him.

I have noticed that liberals and conservatives often resort to using buzzwords and highly technical sounding language in an attempt to confound others or make themselves sound intelligent. For all of you still in college (or on a University campus), have you experienced this?