I can identify with some of the points that Peggy McIntosh makes in the ‘White Privilege’ reading, but the rest of it seems a bit forced to me, as the points don’t seem to be wholly determined by race. Especially McIntosh’s 26th point about the colour of bandages being one of white people’s numerous ‘unearned privileges’, and the point was received with mixed reactions from the members of our tutorial class. I believe that if notions of racism are attached to objects that are more or less as insignificant as bandages, it results in a decrease in critical perspective of more significant issues of race. If bandages were made to suit the skin tones of different racial groups, would this be a more racially sensitive course of action? McIntosh even expresses her point by using the terms “more or less” to describe the level of “camouflage” of bandages. This form of expression suggests a lack of confidence in what she is pointing out, and seems entirely subjective. As I was reading McIntosh’s points, I wondered if the point was being made by someone who was being critical to all aspects surrounding the points being made. If only the ‘coloured’ features are privileged to construct her argument, then I don’t think I can accept them as being legitimate. If the study of the representation of race is to induce a change towards racial equality, I personally think it won’t start with making all bandages opaque to become neutral to all skin tones.
A well-argued critique of an important reading. I disagree with you - it's the assumptions behind what is "flesh-coloured" that concern me. But you have argued your case well, and that is what matters.
ReplyDelete