After reading pages 73 through 164, I conclude that the purpose of this text is to bring attention to her belief that racism still exists in our country and it is dividing our society. She attempts to support this argument with numerous claims in relation to this topic but I feel that several points she makes in Part 1 are not effectively supported with specific evidence.
**************
Tatum attempts to develop her argument by repeatedly claiming that the majority of people in our society are racist. However, not all of her statements about our population and different races are supported by specific ways in which our country is racist.
For example, on page 90, she states that "People of color are not racist because they do not systemically benefit from racism. And, equally important, there is no systemic cultural and institutional support or sanction for the racial bigotry of people of color. In my view, reserving the term racist only for behaviors committed by Whites in the context of a White-dominated society is a way of acknowledging the ever-present power differential afforded Whites by the culture and institutions that make up the systems of advantage and continue to reinforce notions of White superiority."
I'm not saying that Tatum is necessarily wrong in stating that White supremacy still exists, but she provides no evidence prior to or after making this claim in her book. I feel that she doesn't establish her credibility well by not supporting her individual claims or her main purpose in general.
Another example of her failure to provide specific evidence is on page 92. Once again, the audience is given no specific examples of these advantages when she writes, "A White woman on welfare is not privileged to the same extent as a wealthy White heterosexual man. In her case, the systematic disadvantages of sexism and classism intersect with her White privilege, but the privilege is still there."
In this part of the book, there is no evidence that suggests that a heterosexual has more privilege than a homosexual. Nor is there evidence that women have fewer opportunities than men. This section of the book doesn't explain thoroughly why people of color are disadvantaged because her "evidence" is more general statements with no real specific scenarios that directly support her opinion.
Although she does support a few claims by comparing it to her personal experience, such as on page 104 when she explains how once a white educator came up to her after a presentation she had given and said that "he liked [her] ideas and how articulate [she] was. 'You know,' he concluded, 'if I had my eyes closed, I wouldn't have known it was a Black woman speaking.'" Of course, I feel that this was a very racist comment and was completely inappropriate to say. However, this does not qualify as evidence as to how Whites are more privileged than minorities. In fact, it shows that this man is very poorly educated if he believes what he said to her.
Another personal example she uses to try to support her beliefs is on page 92 when she explains how she is "systematically disadvantaged by race and by gender," but she fails to clearly state these disadvantages.
Tatum continuously states that people in our society need to be more aware of "white privilege" but never explains how whites are favored over blacks in any specific way, other than broad statements that don't prove that institutional white supremacy still exists.
In the end, I don't necessarily disagree with Tatum's argument that racism still exists in our country, I just don't have a reason to believe her since she does not always support strong claims she makes about our "racist" society. Her lack of providing specific examples to strengthen her argument diminishes her credibility, despite the Ph.D. displayed on the cover of her book. This title no longer has much meaning when she fails to fully establish credibility throughout the entirety of "Part 1; A Definition of Terms."
**************
Tatum attempts to develop her argument by repeatedly claiming that the majority of people in our society are racist. However, not all of her statements about our population and different races are supported by specific ways in which our country is racist.
For example, on page 90, she states that "People of color are not racist because they do not systemically benefit from racism. And, equally important, there is no systemic cultural and institutional support or sanction for the racial bigotry of people of color. In my view, reserving the term racist only for behaviors committed by Whites in the context of a White-dominated society is a way of acknowledging the ever-present power differential afforded Whites by the culture and institutions that make up the systems of advantage and continue to reinforce notions of White superiority."
I'm not saying that Tatum is necessarily wrong in stating that White supremacy still exists, but she provides no evidence prior to or after making this claim in her book. I feel that she doesn't establish her credibility well by not supporting her individual claims or her main purpose in general.
Another example of her failure to provide specific evidence is on page 92. Once again, the audience is given no specific examples of these advantages when she writes, "A White woman on welfare is not privileged to the same extent as a wealthy White heterosexual man. In her case, the systematic disadvantages of sexism and classism intersect with her White privilege, but the privilege is still there."
In this part of the book, there is no evidence that suggests that a heterosexual has more privilege than a homosexual. Nor is there evidence that women have fewer opportunities than men. This section of the book doesn't explain thoroughly why people of color are disadvantaged because her "evidence" is more general statements with no real specific scenarios that directly support her opinion.
Although she does support a few claims by comparing it to her personal experience, such as on page 104 when she explains how once a white educator came up to her after a presentation she had given and said that "he liked [her] ideas and how articulate [she] was. 'You know,' he concluded, 'if I had my eyes closed, I wouldn't have known it was a Black woman speaking.'" Of course, I feel that this was a very racist comment and was completely inappropriate to say. However, this does not qualify as evidence as to how Whites are more privileged than minorities. In fact, it shows that this man is very poorly educated if he believes what he said to her.
Another personal example she uses to try to support her beliefs is on page 92 when she explains how she is "systematically disadvantaged by race and by gender," but she fails to clearly state these disadvantages.
Tatum continuously states that people in our society need to be more aware of "white privilege" but never explains how whites are favored over blacks in any specific way, other than broad statements that don't prove that institutional white supremacy still exists.
In the end, I don't necessarily disagree with Tatum's argument that racism still exists in our country, I just don't have a reason to believe her since she does not always support strong claims she makes about our "racist" society. Her lack of providing specific examples to strengthen her argument diminishes her credibility, despite the Ph.D. displayed on the cover of her book. This title no longer has much meaning when she fails to fully establish credibility throughout the entirety of "Part 1; A Definition of Terms."
I agree with you, but to a certain extent. I don't think the author provides enough evidence when she makes the claim that Whites have benefits over minorities. However, I don't think her lack of proving evidence "diminishes her credibility." I mean, credible evidence comes from people like her; people who have a PhD, people who have lots of background information on this topic, people who have taught at several universities, and people who have conducted interviews with all kinds of people (which is primary evidence). However, I think you're right in that she doesn't fully support that claim that White people benefit in society. Other than that, this is pretty well written!
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from because yes, people assume that because she has a PhD, we should believe what she is saying no matter what. However I don’t believe that her level of credibility should be based purely on that. I feel that the main way any author should establish ethos is through the specific piece that they are writing. The way they should go about doing this is by using specific evidence to support their claims. This is why I don't find myself in full agreement with you because I feel that she does not do a sufficient job in supporting more of the claims she has made. Therefore, I no longer find her experience and PhD of much relevance, especially after her lack of directly linked evidence in Part 1.
DeleteHey Caitlin -
ReplyDeleteI entirely agree with you that there are a large number of unsupported broad statements made in this first section of Tatum's book. Tatum spends a lot of time in the first 50ish pages e her establishing her credibility, but follows it up with arguments that, though could be very valid, are not fully developed and lack evidence. It sounds as though she has talked to other people of color, so I think to strengthen her argument, she should have gotten others' points of view. The pages that are focused on in your writing are making arguments that I think are elaborated on a little further into the book, but I'm not sure that this was the most effective way to layout the book. I think the structure of the book has a big impact on how strong her arguments are, and though her statements get readers thinking, I think that it's a fault, as we begin to second guess our trust in Tatum.
Countering my thoughts above, I don't think that she can be entirely discredited. She does have her PhD, therefore is well educated and because she is black, has experienced racism herself, as you stated in seventh paragraph. She spends a lot of time defining what issues she has found over time and I think she assumes we take her definitions and place them into her broad ideas, and therefore, can piece together her thoughts.
I understand that she has a PhD and therefore has a lot of knowledge on this subject due to her years of experience and education. That being said, I don't think that she should have a problem identifying specific evidence to support these claims because of knowledge on the topic. I think that she should use that experience in her favor more by giving her readers evidence that is directly linked to her argument. My trust in her (like you said) is just a little shaky since she attempts to establish her credibility by talking about her level of education rather than using it to strengthen her argument.
DeleteCaitlin,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that one of the reasons she doesn't develop any more specific evidence is because she will develop examples of this later on in the book, or do you think because she's assuming that someone who picks up her book already is aware of or understands these issues? Sometimes it is possible that someone doesn't feel like they need to argue a point that is generally accepted by the public, such as that it is easier to be white than black, or straight than gay.
I believe that I made the mistake of overlooking the fact that she may present this evidence later in the book and support her claims more specifically as her argument develops. I just would find it strange that she would save that evidence for an entirely different part of the book (several pages after) when her writing has shifted and is dedicated to another aspect of this topic. However, I don't believe that "generally accepted by the public" is evidence of her claims. If what she is talking about is generally accepted by the public already, then there is really no need for her book. I also think that having the mindset that this is "common knowledge" is dividing our society even further and promoting the fact that we can't change. I feel that the claims in her book are generalized too much. Without specific incidents or events that support her belief that institutional racism and white privilege still exists, society can't fix this "problem." I like how she supports the social aspects of the problem a little more (in part two) with specific quotes from both whites and blacks. But this evidence doesn't apply when talking about problems with "institutional racism" in our country.
Delete