Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

headgasketidiot t1_j4h5zvy wrote

Reply to comment by Sweendogoflove in Decentering Whiteness in Hiking and Fostering Inclusivity Outdoors by honeybeedreams

Most of your critique is fair enough, but I think you should reconsider this one:

> If you want the average white guy/woman to read your article, don't title it "Decentering whiteness..." That's just the jargon of your own cultural/professional circle.

I agree with you that the average white person would be more likely to read things if black writers went out of their way to speak a certain way, but I don't think that's a valid critique of the author; It's a critique of the readers.

It's true that academics, many of whom are black, have developed some jargon to discuss these kinds of issues, but it's not like it's hard to figure out what "decentering whiteness" means. People on this sub read and discuss all sorts of articles laden with economics jargon all the time--some of which is much more niche--and no one ever has that critique for those articles. It seems people are willing to learn plenty of economics jargon to participate in a discussion about economics, but are unwilling to do the same for issues of race.

Is it really productive to ask people to avoid the terminology of a 100+ year academic tradition of studying "whiteness" because the terminology isn't already familiar to a white audience?

edit: a few clarifying words

6

Sweendogoflove t1_j4j9810 wrote

I really appreciate you taking the time to reply thoughtfully and explain your opinion thoroughly. Nevertheless, we disagree.

First, I hate jargon. I hated it when I was in grad school studying history and anthropology and I hate it even more now that I'm in education. As someone else on this thread said, it separates academics from a broader audience. And it's not that this jargon is about race - I just hate jargon because I find it's often just a group speaking a language to show that they are in the know - that they have the vocabulary for their group.

Second, I expect the term "decentering whiteness" turns off many white people. It's cold, and it comes off as aggressive. The tone sounds as if something must be done to fix white people. Most people want to do good and want to do right by their fellow man. I expect that's probably even more true of nature enthusiasts. A title that asked white people to hear BIPOC hikers, or empathize with BIPOC backpackers, or understand the challenges for BIPOC outdoors enthusiasts would be inviting white people to action, rather than "decentering" them. My point isn't to say that white people need to be treated with kid gloves, but if you want them to hear you or understand you or take side, you'd be better off inviting them to action than suggestion that they need to be decentered.

As a teacher in a majority white school, I know that if I use terms like white privilege I know that half the white kids in my class will be immediately turned off to anything I say. I know that my kids don't feel privileged and I need to talk about the same ideas without using "trigger" words to get the kids to understand the same concept - not because I don't want hurt kids feelings about race, but because I really want them to confront and understand the inequities in our society.

8

[deleted] t1_j4jeqij wrote

[deleted]

0

Sweendogoflove t1_j4jnet1 wrote

Language is important. If you want people to buy what you're selling, yes, the onus is on you to find the right language. Doesn't matter who or what you are, you need to find the right language. And no, not all white people oppose everything that challenges the status quo. The BLM protests have been filled with white allies.

1

Vexans t1_j4hn27p wrote

Working in the sciences, my biggest critique about scientists, as a whole, is that they rely too much on professional jargon. It creates a barrier between the author/researcher and the audience. If the author of this article is writing this for other professional, social science, academics, than fine. But, don’t expect a lot of traction with a mainstream audience, of any color or race.

4

headgasketidiot t1_j4hoo0e wrote

This person used one single jargony phrase in the title that isn't even particularly hard to understand. I don't think that critique applies here. People are responding to it negatively because they don't want to understand it, not because they can't.

5

Vexans t1_j4hqcrd wrote

My point is not about whether they can understand it or not, but about the tendency of people in academia, to speak in jargon, whether consciously or not that separates them from their audience. That was my point.

3

headgasketidiot t1_j4hsljp wrote

Yes I understand, but my point is that people are more than willing to try to overcome that barrier when they want to, but on this specific issue, people are throwing up their hands at the thinnest barrier imaginable because they choose not to understand.

2

Vexans t1_j4hullu wrote

I don’t think you’re going to find many care what a person’s skin color is when they are out backpacking. More than anything, trail etiquette determines whether someone is welcome or not. You can have a cool person (or an asshole) of any color.

3

headgasketidiot t1_j4i5vzq wrote

I agree with you and didn't suggest otherwise. Neither did the linked article.

1