|
Sample Student final exam answers 2016 (2016 final exam assignment) Part 3: Model Research Reports |
LITR 4340
|
 |
Amber Boone
The Dominant Culture and ‘Whiteness’
As a Scandinavian, my culture is rich and cherished among my family. We
participate in Danish rituals, come from a long line of Viking crusaders, all
have striking red hair, own volumes of family history books written in Danish,
we call each other names that hold special meaning only in Denmark, and we keep
in close contact with our family still living in Denmark. Essentially, I feel
that my heritage is something to celebrate and to be proud of. However, whilst
living in America, I am constantly told that my heritage does not matter. I am
of European descent, so I am simply, “white.” But what does it mean to be
“white?”
Is “whiteness” identified by a cultural heritage, or by appearance? If it
is defined by both of these factors, then my cousins would not be considered
white. However, half of their cultural heritage is European. Their mother, my
aunt, has bright red hair, and very pale skin. Their father, however, is from
the Sudan, and he has very dark skin. Therefore, my cousins are half “white,”
but in everyday society, they are labeled solely as “black.” On the other hand,
my boyfriend, who was adopted during infancy, has always been considered
“white,” because his skin, though slightly olive, is light. However, he recently
came into contact with his biological parents, and thence discovered that he is
only half European. His father is Native-American. Therefore, my boyfriend has
as much European blood as my cousins, but only one of them is considered
“white.” How is this? What actually makes someone “white?” Is it based upon how
light their skin color is? How does this label truly make any sense, and what
defines it? Essentially, what is
“white?”
Within the United States, the seemingly omnipotent dominant culture is one that
is defined as being an unmarked territory, but also one that is commonly
identified with ‘whiteness,’ as well as middle-class modesty, plainness, and
cleanliness. Therefore, although it is commonly associated with the white race,
there are several other key factors that play into its role as well. However,
‘whiteness’ seems to be a recurring theme within immigrant and minority
literature. The color alone lends to the assertion that those assimilating into
its culture must absorb and continue its unmarked plainness and cleanliness, and
American immigrant literature is rife with examples that demonstrate anger and
even outrage towards ‘whiteness’ as a whole, and not simply the dominant
culture. Therefore, I began to ponder as to why so much anger was being
generated towards one particular color, because, what exactly is ‘whiteness?’ In
“What is ‘White’ and Why?,” Dorothy Noyes poses the question: “What happened
that allowed one group as varied as the European immigrants were and are, to be
transformed into a large, homogenous group defined as ‘white?’” (Noyes). I am
curious to learn what factors led to this grouping of an entire race being
stratified in such a way, and how the intermixing between races produces some
individuals that are labeled “white,” while others are strictly labeled as being
“non-white.”
Whilst pondering this question, I was led to a field of study simply called
‘whiteness.’ This field has both strong proponents, as well as fervent
opponents, but it seems to be a field that has not quite yet been defined,
having just come into study quite recently over the last several decades.
However, in “Whiteness Studies: The New History of Race in America,” Peter
Kolchin begins by asserting that we “[start] from the now widely shared premise
that race is an ideological or social construct rather than a biological fact”
(Kolchin). Therefore, according to Kolchin, ‘whiteness’ does not imply a study
of race, but rather, one that examines the socioeconomic factors that
‘whiteness’ imposes upon others; thereby forming the dominant culture.
In
“The History of Whiteness, “Kat Blaque explains that this classification
actually came about from “17th century Europe during the Spanish and
Atlantic slave trade” when “European explorers… sought to define race based on
biological differences rather than cultural differences” (Blaque). However, in
support of Peter Kolchin’s observation, this distinction quickly morphed into
something else altogether upon the freeing of slaves in America. Previously,
terminology such as ‘Christian,’ ‘White,’ and ‘Free’ had constituted what it
meant to be ‘white’ in America, but after the emancipation of slavery, ‘white’
had to be redefined, since many freed slaves were also Christian (Blaque).
Thenceforth, the term ‘white’ slowly made its way into being more of a
socioeconomic status than that of a race.
Some
citizens in America that are today classified as “white” were actually excluded
from this label for quite some time, despite being of European descent. This
exclusion came about after the Protestant Reformation, when many British
colonizers, who were largely Protestant, looked down upon later Irish, Scottish,
and German settlers who identified themselves as being Catholic, and were
therefore labeled as being “distinctly non-white” by many (Blaque). However,
this posed quite a problem for these settlers, because property rights, among
others, were withheld for some time as being attainable only by Caucasians.
However, as mentioned above, the term ‘white ‘was later reclassified after
slavery was abolished, but it does indeed demonstrate that ‘whiteness’ is more
socioeconomic than racial, and henceforth lacks many true implications of
culture and heritage.
However, the question remains: is “whiteness” a race, or a social identity? Kat
Blaque, in her narrative, gave credence for viewing it either way, but Dr.
Mikhail Lyubansky raises an interesting point in his piece entitled “The Meaning
of Whiteness.” In the beginning of the article, he prefaces with explaining an
invitation he had received to provide contributions on a book about race. In the
invitation, he claims “one of the requested topics was ‘whiteness,’ a topic both
obvious—how can a book about race not examine whiteness?—and curious, for [he]
was quite sure that there would be no similar entries for ‘blackness’ or
‘Asian-ness’” (Lyubansky). In this assumption, he would most certainly be right.
The classification of other races in this way would likely be found by many to
be racist. Yet why is this not so for whites? Is it because white is not a race,
or because it is deemed acceptable to categorize those who appear to be of
European descent in this way? Dorothy Noyes claims that while those “of the
Caucasian race may look similar, or have similar customs or origins, their
history is just as varied and rich as any other group” (Noyes).
Though a large majority of “whites” in the United States would likely be more
inclined to refer to themselves as simply being “American,” does this label
strip them of their cultural heritage? European history has certainly intermixed
many of its countries over a vast period of time, but for those who identify
primarily with one nation or another, it does seem as though their culture has
been lost, or indeed ignored. Today, white people in America are largely
considered to comprise the “dominant culture,” but I wonder what that culture
would truly be if the label “white” was cast aside. Perhaps we would simply be a
nation of immigrants, each with our own unique, rich cultural history.
Works
Cited
Blaque, Kat. “The History of Whiteness.” Online video clip. YouTube.YouTube, 3
February 2016. Web. 24 November 2016.
Kolchin, Peter. "Whiteness Studies: The New History of Race in America." N.p.,
n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2016. <
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/gjay/www/Whiteness/kolchinreviewessay.htm>.
Lyubansky, Mikhail. “The Meaning of Whiteness." Psychology Today., 14 December
2011. Web. 03 Nov. 2016. <
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201112/the-meaning-whiteness>.
Noyes, Dorothy. What is “White” and Why? Accessed through Craig White’s online
Course Site
