White Saviour Complex/grad school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why I'm pushing my kids to go to business school and make millions.

You guys simply cannot be pleased.

+100 What an effing mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I see is an increase in thinking of POC as a monolith. On the Politics forum right now there's discussion on getting the Real ID and requiring ID to vote. It comes across as "we have to help these poor POC because only white people know how to navigate the DMV or understand how to get an ID." It's about thinking you have to help someone simply because they are a POC, not because they are a human being.

But what I also notice is that malignant narcissists from all demographic groups use wokeness as a verbal martial art for classifying generally well-meaning people as always being wrong.

Wokeness doesn’t have to do with fighting discrimination; it’s solely about the joy of putting people down.

No one can ever be woke enough to satisfy a narcissistic woke person, because the woke narcissicist will always change the metrics used to classify other people as transgressors.

[Anonymous]

In the USSR math and physics was at a very high level and all the smart people went into those areas because humanities were so politicized.
It’s now happening in the US too. Nothing is happening without some ideology.

[Anonymous]

If the project suggested ways for the U.S. to save/solve/take care of the situation, they are right.
It is a white savior complex.
Let me ask you this thing. Many countries have lower infant mortality rates. Why are their experts not coming here to save our babies?

Further, why does the solution to a problem within one country need to be executed by another country with no jurisdiction there?
Oh, to prevent illegal immigration to the U.S., you might say. Still, a no. You don't see Hungary, Denmark, Italy, sending troops to Africa and other countries to solve their problems to lessen the illegal immigration, do you? Some yes, but not much.
The solution to any problem in another country needs to come from within.
This is the same issue as with aid to developing countries. The "aid" has robbed many economies around the world of essential jobs. Are you aware of that?

So, when a white person (usually American or Western European, not many Eastern Europeans join these "projects"), what does history tell us happens?
Poverty becomes the norm. New mosquito nets are given for free, removing the need for a local producer of nets. They take that business away and then the livelihood of all employees that worked there and their extended families.
Similarly, "solving" the gang problem for another country creates another problem.

For example, The League of Nations. It denied Middle Eastern countries the right to govern themselves and become nations after WWI. Cause they were not "fit" to do so on their own. So they divided them into protectorates to "help" them out. (Of course, they didn't do it for that, they did it for power). How is that working out?
How did they help them out? Bombing Damascus, and many other locales, abusing the local population. Did they know that, for example, Syrians and that territory was almost independently functioning within the Ottoman Empire? That many were in high government positions and highly educated?
Your kid did propose a white savior plan for the poor who do not know better or to govern themselves. I am sorry to say, but in that field, your kid doesn't have as much knowledge as you and the kid think he/she/you have. But, hopefully, now he/she will learn. And so will you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m truly not trying to start something, but as a 60 yr old liberal who sent my kids to public schools that weren’t predominantly white, and ended up with kind level headed young adults who i think/hope are pretty solid humans- one presented a paper on mitigation of gang cartels and resources in Central America etc affecting migration. The mom white students have gone after his ‘white savior’ attitude being ‘problematic’, now I’ve looked it up and there are real important reasons we recognize the difference between patronizing causes and championing. But are we getting to a place where it isn’t acceptable to represent potential solutions in a browner world without justifying why? Anyway, just wondered if anyone has found this labeling uh... problematic.

My kid who entered college wanting to do international humanitarian work has abandoned that goal because "you just can't be a white person in that field." Just being white and wanting to apply yourself to global poverty or women's empowerment in other cultures makes you a "white savior" apparently. I do think it is a cultural moment and that the pendulum will swing again, but it makes me sad.

Many of us rejected the idea, and physical execution of projects to "help" the global poverty because we are better educated and know that global poverty was caused by the white saviors in the first place. As was the inequality in wealth around the world.

[Anonymous]

Does that mean you agree that white people/Western people should just abandon this space?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The comment was prompted when resents took concluded on addressing problems in Central America with coming US funds. After the presentation during discussion a student asked why she had not heard more about the way the citizens in these regions felt about about it,

On the one hand: of course people should talk to members of affected Central Americans communities before coming up with theories and plans, just as city planners in DC should talk to members of the community when putting in bike lines.

But, on the other hand:

- Maybe harried grad students don’t have fabulous ways to poll random samples of people in Central America.

- Maybe members of stressed groups in Central America have a hard time telling anyone what they think.

- The truth probably is that the typical person in Central America is probably way the right of typical grad students on many issues. If one grad student accurately presented real Central Americans’ real views, maybe that would have scandalized the class in a different way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The comment was prompted when resents took concluded on addressing problems in Central America with coming US funds. After the presentation during discussion a student asked why she had not heard more about the way the citizens in these regions felt about about it,

On the one hand: of course people should talk to members of affected Central Americans communities before coming up with theories and plans, just as city planners in DC should talk to members of the community when putting in bike lines.

But, on the other hand:

- Maybe harried grad students don’t have fabulous ways to poll random samples of people in Central America.

- Maybe members of stressed groups in Central America have a hard time telling anyone what they think.

- The truth probably is that the typical person in Central America is probably way the right of typical grad students on many issues. If one grad student accurately presented real Central Americans’ real views, maybe that would have scandalized the class in a different way.

But it is a fundamental problem and should be acknowledged, just like there should be a section in every research article that discusses the limitations of the study.

Do you think it's possible for a harried grad student to spend time acknowledging this, have thoughtful commentary on areas of the presentation that are weak for lack of input from the people in question, and present what can be found from a lit review of what input in similar areas from local population and stakeholders has been?

Like I said, it a known fundamental problem. Doesn't that deserve time and attention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m truly not trying to start something, but as a 60 yr old liberal who sent my kids to public schools that weren’t predominantly white, and ended up with kind level headed young adults who i think/hope are pretty solid humans- one presented a paper on mitigation of gang cartels and resources in Central America etc affecting migration. The mom white students have gone after his ‘white savior’ attitude being ‘problematic’, now I’ve looked it up and there are real important reasons we recognize the difference between patronizing causes and championing. But are we getting to a place where it isn’t acceptable to represent potential solutions in a browner world without justifying why? Anyway, just wondered if anyone has found this labeling uh... problematic.

My kid who entered college wanting to do international humanitarian work has abandoned that goal because "you just can't be a white person in that field." Just being white and wanting to apply yourself to global poverty or women's empowerment in other cultures makes you a "white savior" apparently. I do think it is a cultural moment and that the pendulum will swing again, but it makes me sad.

I went to grad school and specialized in a particular field, getting my doctorate in it. I was well funded, well published, had taught, done governance, and did a highly sought after post doc in my field, one of the best in the entire world. I was confused as to why I couldn't get a job. I did the last round at one and didn't get it so I called one of my professors who know somebody on the search committee. My prof called me back and told me that my field tends to place diversity students.

So, I switched to a DC thing and made a lot of money but didn't do the work I wanted to do. That was 20 years ago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The comment was prompted when resents took concluded on addressing problems in Central America with coming US funds. After the presentation during discussion a student asked why she had not heard more about the way the citizens in these regions felt about about it,

On the one hand: of course people should talk to members of affected Central Americans communities before coming up with theories and plans, just as city planners in DC should talk to members of the community when putting in bike lines.

But, on the other hand:

- Maybe harried grad students don’t have fabulous ways to poll random samples of people in Central America.

- Maybe members of stressed groups in Central America have a hard time telling anyone what they think.

- The truth probably is that the typical person in Central America is probably way the right of typical grad students on many issues. If one grad student accurately presented real Central Americans’ real views, maybe that would have scandalized the class in a different way.

But it is a fundamental problem and should be acknowledged, just like there should be a section in every research article that discusses the limitations of the study.

Do you think it's possible for a harried grad student to spend time acknowledging this, have thoughtful commentary on areas of the presentation that are weak for lack of input from the people in question, and present what can be found from a lit review of what input in similar areas from local population and stakeholders has been?

Like I said, it a known fundamental problem. Doesn't that deserve time and attention?

You’re responding to me here.

I think this is a matter of degree and framing.

If people in the class are just saying, “You don’t have anything about what the people involved actually think. Why is that? How do
do we describe and address that gap? If this is a real information gap, not just a sign of you being a harried grad student, does that mean we have to start by creating a polling and focus group program?” — that’s completely reasonable.

If people are saying, “Look, this isn’t 2010. Your framing and phrasing here is going to get you slaughtered. Here’s how to fix that” That’s completely reasonable.

But — assuming I have a fair and complete understanding of the situation, and that we’re talking about a nice, well-meaning, progressive kid who may have his weaknesses but sincerely wants to help people, and that classmates were jumping down his throat in a way that felt pretty threatening: I think it’s great to talk about weaknesses in thinking, writing, project design, etc. that’s what grad school is for. But if people are really going to throw terms like “white savior” at him — without acknowledging that people from all backgrounds can be overly theoretical and weak at getting grassroots knowledge, too — or if people are going to say he has to think and talk exactly the way people who come at this with a certain philosophy want him to think and talk, then I think that’s unreasonable.

And if people are going to be really mean to him, even though he’s a nice guy who’s coming in peace and trying to help, I think that’s unreasonable.

Telling someone, “Hey, your cultural fly is unzipped” is necessary and fine.

Telling someone, “Hey, you were culturally imperfect, therefore you’re a colonialist scum and we have a right to sneer at you and laugh at you from behind your back, and we aren’t even going to let you try to help people in desperate circumstances in El Salvador,” is unreasonable and counterproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been teaching at the college level for 20 years, so I have some perspective on how things have changed over time. We are currently in a very difficult moment for the exchange of ideas and many, many students feel that they cannot express very legitimate ideas and perspectives in academic settings right now. That is true for both white students and students of color who deviate from a very specific ideological orientation. It is absolutely not a healthy moment for intellectual rigor or nuanced ideas. However, it won’t last forever. When power structures change, there is often on overcorrection. The pendulum will swing back towards move open, flexible debate in time. Such swings towards strident viewpoints has happened before in academia. This swing is a bit more troubling because the terminology has escaped from academia and is being wielded by people who are applying it in a variety of non-academic settings that it was not designed to adequately explain.

This is an interesting and hopeful post, but at what point do you see the pendulum swinging back towards more open, flexible debate? The thirst for power and status, once acquired, is hard to quench. You basically have very wide swaths of academia and increasingly government that embrace race-based approaches to every issue and employing an entire vocabulary intended to reallocate power from whites (and, in some cases, Asians) to other minority groups. If you are a young adult caught up in the crossfire, you are just treated as collateral damage.

I have been in academia for 30 years (with my grad school years) and know the experiences of older colleagues. These ideological movements have about a 10 year shelf life. Most of my mentors came of age during the years when Marxist theory dominated. I entered grad school at the height of deconstructionism. By the time I graduated, it was largely passé. Next came post-colonialism, which sat atop the field for about 10 years and pushed its way into everything so that every group was somehow reclassified as post-colonial. That faded to the fields of identity politics (feminism, queer theory, critical race theory). The latter is right now outpacing it’s compatriots, but we are already half a decade in. It’s about hitting it’s peak, which is when each theory becomes so attenuated from lived experience and common sense that a backlash starts. I have a few suspects as to what will replace it based on new ideas that are percolating out there in the journals, but only time will tell. The only surety is that this to shall pass.

What are some of your guesses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The comment was prompted when resents took concluded on addressing problems in Central America with coming US funds. After the presentation during discussion a student asked why she had not heard more about the way the citizens in these regions felt about about it,

On the one hand: of course people should talk to members of affected Central Americans communities before coming up with theories and plans, just as city planners in DC should talk to members of the community when putting in bike lines.

But, on the other hand:

- Maybe harried grad students don’t have fabulous ways to poll random samples of people in Central America.

- Maybe members of stressed groups in Central America have a hard time telling anyone what they think.

- The truth probably is that the typical person in Central America is probably way the right of typical grad students on many issues. If one grad student accurately presented real Central Americans’ real views, maybe that would have scandalized the class in a different way.

But it is a fundamental problem and should be acknowledged, just like there should be a section in every research article that discusses the limitations of the study.

Do you think it's possible for a harried grad student to spend time acknowledging this, have thoughtful commentary on areas of the presentation that are weak for lack of input from the people in question, and present what can be found from a lit review of what input in similar areas from local population and stakeholders has been?

Like I said, it a known fundamental problem. Doesn't that deserve time and attention?

You’re responding to me here.

I think this is a matter of degree and framing.

If people in the class are just saying, “You don’t have anything about what the people involved actually think. Why is that? How do
do we describe and address that gap? If this is a real information gap, not just a sign of you being a harried grad student, does that mean we have to start by creating a polling and focus group program?” — that’s completely reasonable.

If people are saying, “Look, this isn’t 2010. Your framing and phrasing here is going to get you slaughtered. Here’s how to fix that” That’s completely reasonable.

But — assuming I have a fair and complete understanding of the situation, and that we’re talking about a nice, well-meaning, progressive kid who may have his weaknesses but sincerely wants to help people, and that classmates were jumping down his throat in a way that felt pretty threatening: I think it’s great to talk about weaknesses in thinking, writing, project design, etc. that’s what grad school is for. But if people are really going to throw terms like “white savior” at him — without acknowledging that people from all backgrounds can be overly theoretical and weak at getting grassroots knowledge, too — or if people are going to say he has to think and talk exactly the way people who come at this with a certain philosophy want him to think and talk, then I think that’s unreasonable.

And if people are going to be really mean to him, even though he’s a nice guy who’s coming in peace and trying to help, I think that’s unreasonable.

Telling someone, “Hey, your cultural fly is unzipped” is necessary and fine.

Telling someone, “Hey, you were culturally imperfect, therefore you’re a colonialist scum and we have a right to sneer at you and laugh at you from behind your back, and we aren’t even going to let you try to help people in desperate circumstances in El Salvador,” is unreasonable and counterproductive.

Yes, but although I can see an undergraduate student not addressing this context in a presentation, this is a graduate student. This has been a fundamental -- and when I say fundamental, I do mean it -- concern in the field for a long, long time. If it isn't something that occurs to a grad student presenting in this field as a concern from the very conception of the project, then there is a big problem.

I don't know how to say this gently, but grad student aren't treated with the same kid gloves used for undergraduate students. They aren't expected to need to be gently handheld through understanding the basics. I do believe you that the terminology could have been better chosen, but I expect the other students were pretty shocked. It's just not graduate level work.

I know that's harsh, but I think it is true. My degree is from over ten years ago, and I think the same would have been true then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I'm pushing my kids to go to business school and make millions.

You guys simply cannot be pleased.

+1. Avoid nonprofit and intl development work at all costs. Just not worth it. You’ll be vilified and underpaid. Lose-lose

+2. No way in hell.

This is what worries me. Kid with a sociology major at an expensive university, interested in service in Central America. I have no clue how they'll be able to pay the rent after graduating from college or what a longer-term career might look like. How long will it take for said kid to see the writing on the wall and pursue something else? Will the summer service in Central America be enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As a multiethnic, multicultural but foreign person living in the USA, I am constantly surprised at the low level of understanding of racial issues in otherwise open-minded and cultivated people. It's racially prejudiced to say that someone who looks white may not address issues pertaining to people of color. This is because making assumptions based on one's appearance is wrong. Period.

For example: I look a certain ethnicity, but am culturally another: people always make incorrect assumptions about my origins, habits and proclivities based on my looks. Were I to write something about the culture I know best, would some idiot criticize me for daring to tread where I shouldn't? How stupid.

I look like a middle-aged white woman, but in fact, I was raised by a black woman because my own mother was ill for much of my childhood. I can't say that experience has given me the perspective of a black woman living in America, but I believe it's why I've always been bewildered by racism coming from any corner.

I think we all have to power though this garbage called racism. There truly is no such thing as race. It's an invented concept (look it up) that has no meaning. People look different, but you can't make assumptions based on appearance.

I'm so tired of racism. Really, if you must hate someone, can't you hate based on something that means something? If you've got to put people into boxes, why not segregate bad drivers? (Or pedophiles?) Put all of them together into one box (a state like Florida, for example) and let them crash into each other? Bad drivers come in every configuration imaginable, but they all share one really undesirable trait. Let's discriminate against them, and stop discrimination based on what people look like. Just stop it. Racism is so, so stupid, and so exhausting. Enough already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been teaching at the college level for 20 years, so I have some perspective on how things have changed over time. We are currently in a very difficult moment for the exchange of ideas and many, many students feel that they cannot express very legitimate ideas and perspectives in academic settings right now. That is true for both white students and students of color who deviate from a very specific ideological orientation. It is absolutely not a healthy moment for intellectual rigor or nuanced ideas. However, it won’t last forever. When power structures change, there is often on overcorrection. The pendulum will swing back towards move open, flexible debate in time. Such swings towards strident viewpoints has happened before in academia. This swing is a bit more troubling because the terminology has escaped from academia and is being wielded by people who are applying it in a variety of non-academic settings that it was not designed to adequately explain.

This is an interesting and hopeful post, but at what point do you see the pendulum swinging back towards more open, flexible debate? The thirst for power and status, once acquired, is hard to quench. You basically have very wide swaths of academia and increasingly government that embrace race-based approaches to every issue and employing an entire vocabulary intended to reallocate power from whites (and, in some cases, Asians) to other minority groups. If you are a young adult caught up in the crossfire, you are just treated as collateral damage.

I have been in academia for 30 years (with my grad school years) and know the experiences of older colleagues. These ideological movements have about a 10 year shelf life. Most of my mentors came of age during the years when Marxist theory dominated. I entered grad school at the height of deconstructionism. By the time I graduated, it was largely passé. Next came post-colonialism, which sat atop the field for about 10 years and pushed its way into everything so that every group was somehow reclassified as post-colonial. That faded to the fields of identity politics (feminism, queer theory, critical race theory). The latter is right now outpacing it’s compatriots, but we are already half a decade in. It’s about hitting it’s peak, which is when each theory becomes so attenuated from lived experience and common sense that a backlash starts. I have a few suspects as to what will replace it based on new ideas that are percolating out there in the journals, but only time will tell. The only surety is that this to shall pass.

What are some of your guesses?

NP but also interested in pp's question, if you can elaborate.

Also, as a STEM person who never had any interest in international development or politics, I'm curious what motivates one in academia where you study and analyze all of these new ideological movements, if they are mostly passe in about a decade or so. Doesn't it seem quite meaningless being in that field?