Tuna,
Perhaps the best definition of racism that I know was coined by Ruth Wilson-Gilmore in her book Golden Gulag.  She argues cogently that we should understand racism in materialist terms as “The exploitation of group differentiated exposure to premature death” (and I’m paraphrasing from memory here, so my apologies to Ruth if I didn’t get this exact).  When we understand racism as a structured set of social relations that affect people’s life-chances, rather than simply the (idealist) identification of racialised groups, then we can get better analytical purchase on what does and doesn’t constitute racism.  We would then avoid defining equity policies targeted to exacerbate racism affecting particular social groups as themselves racist.
Lawrence


On 02/07/08 8:40 AM, "Tasan-Kok, Tuna" <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi,

I find this color/rase/whatever based discussion and the tone of the language very disturbing. How do you define the color of one's skin anyway? Is there a color-palette available somewhere?

Do we have to develop criterias now to categorise people on the basis of skin color for the sake of preventing rasism and exclusion? This sounds terribly rasist to me by definition.

Cheers,

Tuna

 
  
---------------------------------------- Dr. Tuna  Tasan-Kok Delft  University of  Technology OTB Research  Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies Jaffalaan 9 2628 BX  Delft/The Netherlands Tel:  +31.15.278 55 90 Fax:  +31.15.278 27 45 ----------------------------------------        --------------------------------------         Journal of Housing and the  Built Environment      Editor, book review  editor        Jaffalaan  9      2628 BX Delft/The Netherlands      Tel: +31.15.278 55 90      Fax: +31.15.278 27  45     ----------------------------------------
  
P  Please  consider the environment before printing this e-mail

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Manuel Aalbers
Sent: woensdag 2 juli 2008 16:42
To: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Is Geography White? (WAS: temporary lectureship at Leeds Metropolitan University)

Between some "I'm more critical than you" remarks, I found Tim's remark below quite interesting. Can someone share similar or opposing experiences?
My old Geography Dept. in Amsterdam didn't look whiter than other social sciences in the city, but the few non-White people were usually in Development Studies and not in Geography "proper".
So, if Geography is white/r than related disciplines, why is this the case? Are we as a discipline, in whatever way, more excluding, less open? Or, is Geography less attractive and why? Is it considered less established or useful? In the Netherlands, ethnic minorities tend to be underrepresented in (research) univerisities, but less so in disciplines like Economics and Law because of the status of these disciplines.
Any thoughts?
Manuel
 
Manuel B. Aalbers, Ph.D.
Columbia University
New York


 
2008/7/2, Tim Edensor <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>:
Shameful  indeed

I used to teach Cultural Studies and before that  Sociology.

IN comparison, Geography is a desert of whiteness both in  tersm of students and academics.
It is interesting to consider why this  might be but it certainly makes our very very very
white chum's comments  doiuybly bizarre


Dr Tim Edensor


--
Lawrence D. Berg, D.Phil.
Co-Director,
The Centre for Social, Spatial & Economic Justice
http://www.chrdi.org/CSSEJ/cssejsite/Welcome.html

Community, Culture and Global Studies
University of British Columbia
3333 University Way
Kelowna, BC, Canada, V1V 1V7
Voice: +1 250.807.9392, Fax: +1 250.807.8001
Email: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]         
WEB: http://www.chrdi.org/ldb/index.html
 
Editor:
ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies
http://www.acme-journal.org

Co-Leader: BC Disabilities Health Research Network
http://www.dhrn.ca