Talk:White guilt

Revising

I've taken a shot at revising this entry for a variety of reasons; mainly to remove weasel wording, POV statements, and generally awful writing. While it now reads as far more neutral and informative as before, in general there I don't think the topic really has that much going for it - white guilt is too nebulous a concept and is generally dismissed by everyone except a few "intellectuals" as being just so much PC garbage left over from the 1990's. Hmoul 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Arabs and Europeans and white

People - i removed "white european", since all native europeans (including both north, east, south, and west europeans) are white. I also added arabs, since most arabs are white, and since arabs account for over 55% of historical african slavery.

---

It's probably a bit unfair of me to offer affirmative action as the sole example of western society trying to deal with white guilt. I expect there are lots of additional and alternative motivations behind the support that exists for affirmative action, and there are probably much better examples of how white guilt affects society at an institutional level. Please do add them if you know more on this subject.

There are many examples of Caucasian Amercians showing kindness or compassion for Black folk, even during Slavery and throughout history. Few have anything to do with "guilt". This is the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a long time. BGMNYC (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

--- Is it really necessary to put personal problems into Wiki? Even on talk pages. Selfblaming is a serious thing. I am too far away to be an attending psychiatrist. But I was scared.

---

What makes you think that affirmative action was devised to deal with "White Guilt"? Ever heard of Social Justice/Equal Oportunity? Raverant2006 13:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

---

This page was in British English since the first major writing by Iota. It should so stay by Wikipedia policy, unless at some times another major revision is necessary and those involved agree on a change. The use of the word blacks for people is discourged by the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity which states:

If possible, instead of using nouns directly, terms should be given in such a way that they qualify other nouns. Thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays; adults with disabilities, not the disabled; and so forth.

That usage is also inaccurate in this context in which people of colour refers also to native Americans and native south-east Asians. Nor deoes avoidance of common words like color/colour produce neutral English. There is no neutrality in bowdlerizing Englsh of common words that happen to have more than one spelling. Both spellings color and colour are commonly used. A version a English that omits such words is an artifical construct, used nowhere. Anyone wishing to advocate a new dialect of English that avoids words with more than one spelling, should have it accepted outside of Wikipedia before attempting to lay it down here.

Wikipedia's neutrality is to accept both color and colour, not to ban the word, which would hardly be neutral.

Jallan 00:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? "If the spelling appears within the article text, also consider a consistent synonym such as focus or middle rather than center/centre". There are plenty of synonyms for "people of color". Why not just use "non-white people"?

Darrien 00:34, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

That particular part of the MoS is one not generally observed and (in my opinion) horrible advice. It probably would not have survived until now if it had said anything beyond "consider a consistent synonym" and actually recommended use of such synonyms. I intend to open discussion on it shortly and would have done so quite some time back had not other matters about the MoS been raised. But if you believe in what you are doing, then do it also for all words with multiple spellings in the articles at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Test the water out in the open if you believe there is consensus to create a dialect of Wikipedia English in which words with multiple spellings are deprecated. And be sure to explain fully why you are replacing any words you replace. You might also replace the word color/colour with hue in a articles about the colors/colours. I will hold back reverting here for a day or two to watch the results. If you won't take up that test, then I think you should revert the text here yourself. Jallan 03:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no intention of wasting my time trying to verify community consensus of something already in the MoS. If you disagree with it and want to test the acceptance of it, then you do the work, not someone else.

I think that my latest changes should be able to stand on their own merit, regardless of what consensus on that passage of the MoS says. "People of color" is considered pejoritive by a lot of people. "Non-white" is more neutral and (in my opinion) more accurately reflects the intention of the article, as "people of color" most commonly refers to black people only.

Darrien 11:03, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

See http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561532135/nonwhite.html Encarta Dictionary: Non-white]]: "sometimes considered offensive". You will find almost no "given" racial term not sometimes considered offensive.

I never claimed otherwise. I said that "non-white" is more neutral, not totally neutral.

A link to People of color hidden under "non-white" confuses matters to whatever extent these terms overlap.

Then should we create the article Non-white people?

There would be nothing wrong in also including the term non-white as well as "People of colour". Jallan 05:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that Colored, the article that People of color redirects to, says: "The British English spelling coloured has a related, but different meaning and is primarily used in a South African context". In light of this, wouldn't there be less ambiguity if non-white was used instead?

Darrien 12:04, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

"White" Guilt

It should be noted on the page that not all European countries were involved in the African slave trade. In fact the nationals of a number of European countries have no ancestral ties to the African slave trade at all.

--Rah29 21:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Today, some Europeans and their ancestors are accused of committing wrongs against non-whites in the form of racial discrimination and colonialism. Many white people do not feel a sense of personal guilt over past oppression of other races, and resent being blamed for events they had nothing to do with. Others are often anxious to distance themselves from the actions of their ancestors and are said to feel a sense of collective guilt. Similarly it is said that descendants of oppressed people, some of whom have experienced modern day discrimination, sometimes expect whites, either collectively or individually, to feel and accept "white guilt".[citation needed] White guilt is said to result in a feeling of lost moral authority on the part of some whites, so that they feel uncomfortable discussing issues of race and are very anxious to avoid being seen as racist. Whether white guilt is healthy, just, proper or unnecessary is a matter of controversy, as are questions about if and how to make amends for the historical and present inequities between races.[citation needed] This section needs to be reworded or considered for removal, especially if citations cannot be made soon. The section is [ehem] loaded with "loaded language" such as resent being blamed for events they had nothing to do with which definitely violate neutrality rules. Citations of quotes from various pundits who tout a rejection of "White Guilt" would make this article more neutral and accountable, by putting names and faces behind the vague passive voice used in the article at present. --TensionWind 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pseudopsychology

Attempted to fix this op-ed piece, um i mean article. I figured since the whole thing is somebody's opinion might as well throw my opinion in too.--Bigplankton 01:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What about

European countries that didn't engage in colonialism or those European nations who were persecuted or had lower status in European colonial powers during the age of colonialism ? Is there a position on that ? Or do proponents of this theory believe all European countries and people engaged in colonialism ? Also there is no such thing as "Europeans"-there are Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, French, Russians, Poles. You have to note which national group from European continent you mean instead of writing "Europeans", which may mean an Albanian, French, Irish or Russian person. All of whom have different histories. --Molobo 23:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the reference, but reconcilliation Australia Chair Jackie Huggins (an Aboriginal Australian) has on more than one occasion stated words to the effect that "nobody is expecting white people to feel guilty." Moreover, you can see, quite obviously, in this PDF, that expectations of a "sorry" statement (amongst other expectations) do not necessarily come with an expectation of feelings of guilt by white Australians (read the bit about Jackie Huggins on the topic). Quite the contrary.

Reconcilliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians has been a huge issue in AUstralia (and still is). The "White guilt" card has been played out by polemecists (who have on occasion selectively quoted Jackie Huggins to ignore her statements about no expection of Guilt) in order to campaign against reconciliation attempts.

The emphasis on "...sometimes expect whites, either collectively or individually, to feel and accept "white guilt"" without acknowledgement of high-profile contrary opinion seems biased. Indeed, given the political use of the concept of "white guilt", I'd further question the (uncritical) nature of this wikipedia entry.

At the very least, in a latter version, could we see a recognition of the distinction between calls for guilt and calls for "sorry"? Clearly such a distinction is present in public debate.

--Raverant2006 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Will we be receiving an apology from Blacks for the coastal raids on European countries in past centuries? Or how about their attempts at ethnic cleansing through mass immigration? If that isn't colonisation...

194.46.245.148 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

-- I think trying to mix the American experience with the Australian experience is causing the article to lose value. White guilt in America for slavery might be related to the movement for reconcilliation in Australia, sure, but the way it is disccussed here uses the American experience and terms as normative, and in the Australian context they aren't. "Sorry Day" in Australia does not mean what Martin Luther King Day does in the US, and although they arel inked in some sense, to treat the Australian one as somehow a version of the American experience is a failure, IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.65.1 (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Souces

Are there any credible sources for this or is this just an editorial? In Portugal there have been no requests for reparations, but that might just be for the lack of deep pockets and common law to allow for any indemnities to be payed. this is a nice op-ed piece, but other than that, I'm not too sure. Just my 2 euro-cents Galf 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus half of the Portguese aren't white anyway. A sizeable number of them would be descended from the black slavers who raided European coastlines.

194.46.245.148 22:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the jews?

Should not the jews be included in list of groups that have had violence perpetrated against them by the whites? Jewish people make white people feel more guilty than any of the other groups.

Indeed, jewish people deserve the guilt of a society that is frequently anti-semitic; however, your second statement reeks of privilege and bias. Rmilligan 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

*smirk* To say the least. Guldenat 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jews are usually considered white in Euro-American contexts, especially the Ashkenazim who are the majority. Sephardim, like other mediterranean peoples, used to be considered non-white but now, not so much. I don't know about Mizrahim. In any case, I've never heard "white guilt" used to refer to anti-semitism. <eleland/talkedits> 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They are chiefly considered that in the Anglo world (US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, the UK), not in Euro-America. The question whether Jews are white was raised rather often in the beginning of the 20th century due to their extensive immigration to the US. In general, the answer is dependant on whether or not one considers Middle Easterners white. --Humanophage (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

white is not a concept that exists independent of context. whether or not fair-skinned jews are considered white depends on which part of the world they are. a test to see if they might be considered white is whether or not they are extended white privilege. there are dark-skinned and very dark-skinned jews; this makes the situation even less clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneself (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jews were the slaves of Egyptians for an insane amount of time, they are darker than jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Exodus Myth is nothing more than a myth created to demonstrate the power of their God. There is no historical basis to their alleged enslavement by the Egyptians. Know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.20.128 (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Jews, blacks and American Indians are all focusses of 'White Guilt'. Jews in particular benefitted from the creation of the state of Israel, surely the supreme manifestation of 'white guilt in action' following the horrors of the Holocaust. Colour is clearly not the primary issue. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.166.52 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to talk about Jews and oppressor guilt, it should probably be in an article about "Christian guilt" or "Muslim guilt" or "Aryan guilt" or "German guilt", not one about white guilt. Countries like the US or Britain or the USSR expressed no guilt about the Holocaust back then, although there have been more recent recriminations about not accepting more refugees when they could have been saved. A cynical take would be that Israel was created to have a place to dump European refugees so that the countries of Europe and the Americas would not have to deal with them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.12.145 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"Past oppression" vs. present privilege

Is it accurate for the article to describe "white guilt" entirely as a response to "past oppression" rather than (at least in some white people) a psychological reaction to recognition of white privilege in the present? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.83.114 (talk) 18:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate. It's the opinion of the author, and it has no place on Wikipedia. Rmilligan 11:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

this entire article to me screams "reverse" racism and racist point of view. the concept of "white guilt" probably does desesrve an article, but this article is so corrupted and biased, it needs to be completely rewritten IMO. R.westermeyer 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as "reverse" racism, it either is or it isn't. But I do agree; this is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. I can't even imagine how this ridiculous idea ever came to be, I have never known another caucasian person who feels "guilty" about what happened to Africans in this country, largely because none of these people had anything to do with it. "Guilt" should not be confused with compassion, caring or empathy. (The groups and individuals who actually committed atrocities against African Americans throughout our history apparently felt very little guilt about it.) The abolishment of Slavery, Civil Rights, the removal of Jim Crow laws, Affirmative Action etc, were collective, organized attempts to right historical wrongs. I do not see where "guilt" enters into it. I hope there are some OTHER 'sources' on this subject, because this is one stupid idea. I agree it needs to be re-written.BGMNYC (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How would you name the call of the Archbishop of Canterbury for Brits to pay reparations to descendants of slaves living in Britain? --Humanophage (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section appears to be pure original research. Unless some reliable sources can be found that specifically describe these points as criticism of the concept of white guilt, they should be removed from the article. --Proper tea is theft 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this is a relatively recent addition of poorly written impressions, and original theories regarding white guilt, I have taken the liberty of removing it. I am not opposed to a criticism section, provided it draws on legitimately sourced criticism (in other words, an editor's observation that "black people had slavery, too," is not acceptable per WP policy, unless it appears in some reliable source that is critical of the concept of white guilt).

I have also removed the ref to "Sociology, Psychology and Cognitive Science" [sic] because white guilt is not a theoretical concept used primarily by academics in those three fields.--Proper tea is theft 21:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this change. Criticism would be fine if it had sources to give it some context. futurebird —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR header

In the current version I don't see a single unlikely claim. It all appears to be neutral and uncontroversial statements which few would disagree with. Of course, it needs proper sourcing, but I don't see the need for a second "orange-level" warning box. <eleland/talkedits> 18:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

i took out the criticism part because it was just a quote from some random person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.62.213.154 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The "totallydisputed" tag

Nobody has explained why this article violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, nor has anybody raised any factual inaccuracies in the article. I'm removing the "totallydisputed" tag, which is inappropriate if NPOV and accuracy problems haven't been identified on the Talk page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that this discussion page doesn't point out clearly how the disputed tag applies suggests haven't read it yet. Clearly it does, just read it.BGMNYC (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What part. What do you dispute? Yahel Guhan 05:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. Where exactly are the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article disputed on the Talk page? And what are the specific complaints?

The banner says "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." Where is the relevant discussion? Until somebody starts one, the banner is inappropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

"Post-war guilt" is a phrase often used in Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Post-imperial guilt" is sometimes used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.135 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Another: "postcolonial guilt". Equinox (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

criticism: Sunny Hundal

sunny hundal is not an RS. it is an assertion without any back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneself (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ps. if someone wants to put backup data into the blurb, i may change my position that it is OR. i'm being generous calling it OR, it sounds more like an NPOV opinion. OR someone can show me that Sunny Hundal is some kind of expert in race relations from a sociology or psychology or poli-sci or activism pov AND not just a pundit. Stoneself (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian is the RS - are you implying that Sunny Hundal did not make the statements that are quoted in the article? We are clearly free to put POV statements into an article as long as they are correctly attributed to the person making them and that the article overall presents the topic in an NPOV manner. We can argue about whether or not Sunny's opinion is notable enough or representative enough to belong in the article, but it is not a violation of OR- OR is a wikipedia editor coming to a conclusion. This is Sunny coming to a conclusion -which is what we are supposed to use. (admitedly, if one were a supporter of the concept that there is no white guilt, one would want somthing more than a columnist to make the case using no data, but that really is not an issue for inclusion in Wikipedia - and should we find a better source making this claim, this source can be removed)-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

wait... you're saying we should report anything that people say about white guilt as long as it's in an RS? that's pretty poor criteria. if we use that criteria, this article is going to fill up with opinions. the concept of white privilege is an academic/scholarly most of the other points in the white guilt are come the academic social science uses. if you want to include something like sunny hundal is stating, then sunny hundal had better be the RS. otherwise we're going to end up with all kinds of unsubstantiated opinions about white guilt include in the white guilt article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneself (talk • contribs) 08:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that, Wikipedia policy is saying that: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." If you want to take the position that "white guilt" is a specific academic concept and the "white guilt" that Sunny is talking about is merely a colloquialism and not substantially the same subject, please provide your reasoning, but at first glance that does not appear to be the case.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Should it not be mentioned that Sunny Hundal is not white? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.78.37 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Skin color is no indication of reliability, so no.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Blind side

What's wrong about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_guilt&diff=prev&oldid=348393349 -- Linksnational (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless trivia.radek (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Role in 2008 election

Should it be mentioned that several people have suggested that white guilt directly led to the election of Barack Hussein Obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanForrest101 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But Obama is white... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.77.49 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that discuss it, it can be included. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Con Artists?

"A report in the Washington Post from 1978 describes the exploitation of white guilt by con artists: "Telephone and mail solicitors, trading on 'white guilt' and on government pressure to advertise in minority-oriented publications, are inducing thousands of businessmen to buy ads in phony publications."" A three decade old report from a newspaper about con artists does not deserve its own paragraph, Wikipedia is not a news service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.199.74 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't deserve its own paragraph, but surely a paragraph for policy changes based upon, or at least tangentially related to white guilt, is not out of place? In that paragraph it could be further expanded upon how "white guilt" has affected Affirmative Action, or perhaps even the Rotherham Scandal? That might make it a more internationalist article as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C9:C001:1654:803:5B18:8E83:A459 (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Section restored

An IP editor (2602:306:32A2:C7A0:F18E:82B8:E850:D4A1) restored a section that they claimed to already be in the article, and was removed, thus the restoration. They, however, did not provide any diffs to the removal, nor could I digging through the history. Can the IP editor, or somebody else, please help me verify this? Thanks. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

References

"Cuckservative"

I am inclined to say that the word “Cuckservative” doesn’t belong in the See-also-section and needs to be removed. The Anti-Defamation League says that the term is used by white supremacists as a synonym of the pre-existing phrase "race traitors," but even then it is only marginally relevant to this article. Any objections? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense. Many more than just the ADL have discussed the term's racist history, but its connection to white guilt specifically isn't intuitive. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White guilt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619072350/http://streams.wpsx.psu.edu/White_Guilt10102.html to http://streams.wpsx.psu.edu/White_Guilt10102.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Post-war guilt

Post-war guilt is something that ought to have a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scibaby97 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Post-war guilt was at its strongest after 1945. The First World war also caused a decline in nationalism, at least in Europe and North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.188 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Additional references

Case, K. A. (2007). Raising White privilege awareness and reducing racial prejudice: Assessing diversity course effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 231–235. doi:10.1080/00986280701700250

Garriott, P. O., Reiter, S., & Brownfield, J. (2016). Testing the efficacy of brief multicultural education interventions in white college students. Journal Of Diversity In Higher Education, 9(2), 158-169. doi:10.1037/a0039547

Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117–129. doi:10.1177/0146167202238377

Kernahan, C., & Davis, T. (2007). Changing perspective: How learning about racism influences student awareness and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 49–52. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3401_12

Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2005). Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 508 –521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271713

Soble, J. R., Spanierman, L. B., & Liao, H. (2011). Effects of a brief video intervention on White university students' racial attitudes. Journal Of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 151-157. doi:10.1037/a0021158

Spanierman, L. B., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites scale (PCRW): Construction and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 249–262. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.249

Spanierman, L. B., Poteat, V. P., Wang, Y.-F., & Oh, E. (2008). Psychosocial costs of racism to White counselors: Predicting various dimensions of multicultural counseling competence. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 75–88. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.75

Swim, J. K., & Miller, D. L. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 500–514. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025004008

Thackrah, R. D., & Thompson, S. C. (2013). "Friendly Racism" and White Guilt: Midwifery Students' Engagement with Aboriginal Content in Their Program. Forum On Public Policy Online, 2013(2), Forum on Public Policy Online, 2013, Vol.2013(2). Retrieved from: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=7d516da3-e601-4b42-9a13-3627c9795136%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=eric&AN=EJ1047846 ConMadden (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Pay Gap

The Gary Younge quote "It won’t close the pay gap, [...]" links to the page about the gender pay gap. I attempted to change it to link to Racial wage gap in the United States, but my edit was immediately undone by user:CLCStudent. I believe my edit to be justified, given that the rest of the quote was about racial, not gendered, discrimination.--88.131.71.181 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

White guilt or WASP guilt rather? A relic of american slavery?

Seems to me that "white guilt" is an anglo saxon concept which is preponderant into the anglo saxon world among protestant liberal white. During the slavery in USA, it wasn't rare to see masters showing "kindness" in paternalistic way to their black slaves. Maybe this behavior has remained into the anglo-white american population — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:6B8E:EE00:F0C6:CC8C:4F45:87E6 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:REFERS

I slightly modified the lead to be in accordance with WP:REFERS, viz., instead of saying “White guilt refers to…” we need to say, per P&G, “White guilt is…” Apart from WP:REFERS, this edit brings that first Lead sentence in line with WP:V. It is words or terms that refer, but this article is not about words or a term; instead, this article is about the thing itself, white guilt. That’s what our cited WP:RS are discussing—-white guilt itself and not words or terms—-and so to abide by WP:V, we also need to be talking about the thing itself and not about words or terms.

To anticipate and hopefully quash a potential objection here: Saying that “White guilt is XYZ,” we are not committing ourselves, in the article, to the existence of white guilt or to the aptness or anything else of white guilt. The “is” here is not the “is” of existence, but, instead, the “is” of predication. To recognize this, notice that if someone says “White guilt does not exist,” they are not saying that the words or term “white guilt” do not exist. They’re saying the thing itself, white guilt, does not exist. But they can still say “And what I say doesn’t exist, white guilt, is XYZ.”

If this is an issue for anyone, let ,e know and we can discuss. ThanksForHelping (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion into broader view

White Guild seems to be part of a certain type of rassistic thinking, where people classify humans by race. There is nothing about this in the article. The article would benefit from helping to understand the psychology of this phenomena better, as independent of ideology as possible.

Assuming the existence of races for a while, the article does not explain why certain members of the 'white race' (Caucasians, Arabs and Japaneese I guess?) seems to be the only one with enough compassion to feel this guild for behavior that ancestors did, hundreds of years ago, while other races seems to not have this (most larger human civilizations had slavery and occupations in their past and therefore it should be 'human guild' but apparently it isn't. Or is it?).

In conclusion this article seems to be a bit superficial and not backed much by research. Especially research from uninvolved (hence more objective) third parties like China, Africa and such 2A01:598:D00F:76BB:43BA:F727:D3C:78B4 (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)