Guzman1

AraceliGuzman
ProfessorLo
FRINQRaceandSocialJustice
ArgumentativeEssay
24November2015
UnpackingWhiteness
Whitenessisidentifiedasaracialcategorybasedonthecolorofyourskinandyour
ethnicbackground.InGeorgeLipsitzpiece,
ThePossessiveInvestmentinWhiteness
,

heargues
howblacksarenttheproblem,whitesare(1)andhowiftherewerenoAfricanAmericans,we
wouldnotbeabletoidentifywhitenessissociallyconstructedintheUnitedStates.David
Roedigerarguesinhisarticle,
WhitenessandEthnicityintheHistoryofWhiteEthnicsinthe
UnitedStates,
thewaywhitenessiscategorizedandwhoisandisnotacceptedinthewhite
community.Althoughthedefinitionofwhitenessisbroad,bothGeorgeLipsitzandDavid
RoedigerhavetheirownideasofhowwhitenesscametobeintheUnitedStates.However,
LipsitzseemstobemorepersuasiveandinterestingthanRoedigerwhendiscussingwhite
supremacy.
GeorgeLipsitzbelievesthecoreofwhitenessiswhitedominance.Inhispiece,he
stateshowhistorically,whitesupremacyhasalwaysbeenpresent.Hestateshowwhitepower
securesitsdominancebyseemingnottobeanythinginparticular(GeorgeLipsitz,1)Bysaying
this,heidentifiesthefactthatithasbecomeasocialnormtoviewwhitenessasthedominant
racialgroup.Lipsitzthencontinuestoaddressthewaywhitepowerwascreatedthroughaseries
ofruthlessevents.FromtakinglandawayfromtheNativestoenslavingAfricanAmericans.


Guzman2

Then,heexplainshowevenminoritiesturnedagainsteachotherinordertogainasenseofwhite
power.WhenAfricanAmericansbecameslaves,NativeAmericanswouldcapturethosewhoran
awayandwouldbringthembacktotheoriginalowners,thisgavetheNativestheslightestbitof
whitepower.TheNativeAmericansalsoheldblackslaves(inpartbecausewhitesviewedslave
ownershipasacivilizedEuropeanAmericanpracticethatwouldimproveIndians)(George
Lipsitz2).JustasNativeAmericansseekedtobenefitthemselvesbygainingwhitepower
throughtheownershipofblackslaves,otherracialminoritygroupsdidthesame.Asian
Americans,blacks,andMexicanAmericansallsecuredadvantagesforthemselvesby
cooperatingwiththeexploitationofNativeAmericans(GeorgeLipsitz4).Lipsitzproveshow
whitepowerwasnecessarytobelongandhoweventually,evolvedintoracism.
Whitenessissociallyconstructedandraciallyconstructed.Weviewwhitesasthemost
powerfulracebecauseofwhitenessandhowwehaveadaptedtobelievingwhitesupremacyis
normal.WhenwethinkaboutthewaytheUnitedStatesissociallyconstructed,wetendto
believewhitesarealwaysindominantracialgroupandeveryoneelseisbelow,thisisbecause
weviewwhitenessaspowerandauthority.Therearemanydifferentaspectsofwhitenessand
Roedigerapproachedwhitenesswithadifferentidea,thatstillhadsomesimilaritieswithLipsitz
view.
DavidRoedigerhadadifferenttakeonwhiteness.Roediger'sfocusedonhowpeople
wouldbeconsideredwhiteintheUnitedStatesthroughouthispiece.Heexplainshowinorder
tobeidentifiedaswhite,onehadtomeetthequalifications.Thesequalificationswerent
necessarilytheeasiesttoachieve.Ifthecolorofyourskinwaswhite,butyouhadbrowneyes
anddarkhairwitheventheslightestbitofadifferentracialbackground,youwerenot


Guzman3

consideredwhite.Inotherwords,unlessyoucamefromaEuropeanwhitefamily,youwould
neverreachtherequirementsinordertobewhiteapproved.Bothauthorsfocusedon
explaininghowwhitenesswasvaluedandwhywhileincludinghistoricinformationtocreate
solidstatements.
GeorgeLipsitzmadeaninterestingpointwhendiscussingaboutwhiteness.Thisspecific
authordidamuchbetterjobofexplainingwherewhitenesscamefrom,especiallybecauseofthe
informationheusedtoprovehisthesis.Thehistoricalinformationheutilizedwasinterestingin
thewaythathewasabletonotonlygrabtheaudiencesattention,buthewasalsoabletogointo
depthabouthispointofview.AlthoughsomemayarguethatRoedigerspiecewasmore
intriguing,itseemedasifhishistoricalinformationdidntnecessarilyprovehispoint.Itwas
moreusefulasabackgroundbuthedefinitelyoverdiditbysupplyingtoomuchinformationfor
theaudiencetocaptureandprocess.
Beingabletounderstandwhattheauthoristryingtoprojectisimportantwhenitcomes
toacontroversialtopic.Whitenessisnottheeasiesttopictodiscuss,andalthoughbothauthors
tookdifferentapproachesonthetopic,theydidshareasimilarbase.BothLipsitzandRoediger
wantedtoidentifythewaysinwhichwhitenesswascreatedandhowitsanincrediblyimportant
aspectthathelpsmaintainwhitesupremacy,however,GeorgeLipsitzdidthisinawaythatnot
onlyinformedtheaudienceaboutwhitenessbuthewasalsoabletokeephisaudienceinterested.
LipsitzpiecewasalsomuchmorerelatablethanRoedigers.
Persuasivewise,Lipsitzwasmoreconvincing.Hespokeabouthowdifferentracial
backgroundsturnedononeanotherforwhiteapproval,andhowwhitenessisthecoreofwhite
powerhencewhywhiteapprovalwasvaluedsomuchthenandnow.Roedigerontheotherhand,


Guzman4

decidedtoexplainwhowasconsideredwhiteandhowthatcametobe.DavidRoedigerspiece
wasmoreinformationalasopposedtopersuasivewhichproveswhyLipsitzwroteamuchmore
convincingpiece.However,bothauthorswereabletoprojecttheideastheywerewantingto
portrayandbothauthorsgaveinformationaboutwhitenessanditshistory.
Thesetwoauthorspinpointedtwoseparateideasthatbranchoffofwhitenessandwhite
supremacy,bothhadhistoricaleventssupportthesesideasbutLipsitzwasabletonotjust
inform,hewasabletoconvincethereadersofwherewhitesupremacycamefromaswhere
Roedigersimplygaveinformationwithoutpersuadingthereader.


Guzman5

WorksCited

Lipsitz,George.
ThePossessiveInvestmentinWhiteness:HowWhitePeopleProfitfrom
IdentityPolitics
.Philadelphia:TempleUP,2006.Print.

Roediger,David.1994.
WhitenessandEthnicityintheHistoryofWhiteEthnicsintheUnited
States.
London