Great deconstruction that cuts through the ideological gunk. However, I cannot help but feel like people like Ortiz are just attention seekers. His shtick doesn't play like it used to.
Hi there. I read your response carefully. Thank you for taking the time to engage with the essay. I want to honor that effort while also addressing a few serious misreadings that shaped your entire rebuttal. I'm not here to attack or shame. I'm here to clarify, correct, and deepen understanding.
I'd like to begin with the foundation:
First. You conflated whiteness with white people.
You wrote:
“While Ortiz has attempted to separate ‘whiteness’ from Europeans, he maintains the use of the word ‘white’, which refers in common parlance to the skin color of European peoples. Thus ‘white’ or ‘whiteness’, for all intents and purposes, can be used to mean people of European descent…”
This is a central misunderstanding. I was very deliberate in saying:
“Whiteness didn’t preserve European culture. It gutted it.”
“Whiteness is not an identity. Not a culture. But a system…”
Whiteness is not synonymous with white people. It is a colonial technology, a fabricated social category designed to consolidate power, erase ethnic diversity across Europe, and assign dominance based on phenotype.
When I critique whiteness, I am critiquing the system, not attacking individuals.
Two. You misread the statement “white culture has no culture.”
You interpreted:
“White culture has no culture” as “People of European descent have no culture.”
That’s not what I said.
What I wrote was:
“Whiteness didn’t preserve European culture. It gutted it. It turned folk traditions into folklore, spirituality into control, language into obedience, and community into compliance.”
That’s a lament. Not an insult. I never said European peoples lack culture. Ever. I said whiteness replaced ancestral European cultures with a system built on domination. My call is for white people to reconnect to what whiteness made them forget.
Third. You dismissed historical truth as “bad history.”
You wrote:
“Almost all European societies shared the same cultural ancestors... the patriarchal Yamnaya people... I struggled to find many European cultures which traced their ancestry matrilineally…”
First, I invite caution in asserting total knowledge over ancient lineages. Matriarchal, animistic, and cooperative social structures did exist across early Europe. From pre-Roman Celtic societies, to Baltic goddess-worshipping peoples, to the reverence of land, water, and ancestral spirit across pagan Europe, these were not uniformly patriarchal or imperial.
The point of my essay was not to romanticize the past. It was to show that whiteness was the mechanism that erased those pasts, not just for colonized people, but for Europeans too.
Four. You fell deeply into whataboutism.
You wrote:
“The Lakota were known for doing exactly this...”
“The Mongols created an explicit racial hierarchy...”
“Arab Muslims definitely created a racial chattel-slavery system…”
These are historical distortions used to minimize European settler colonialism. As I wrote:
“Yes, many societies throughout history engaged in conquest and empire-building. That is a human reality. But not all conquest is created equal.”
“No Indigenous, Asian, African, or pre-colonial society ever invented chattel slavery based on skin color… None built a capitalist empire where bodies, souls, land, and labor were commodified at industrial scale.”
Scale, permanence, global infrastructure, and racialization are what make European colonialism distinct. The colonial project isn’t about who fought whom, it’s about who rewrote the rules of humanity.
Five. You attacked the call for responsibility as “manipulation.”
You wrote:
“First of all, you aren’t allowed to feel guilt. Second of all, you are responsible...”
Here’s what I actually said:
“If you are white, this is not about guilt. Guilt is performative. It keeps you in the center. This is about responsibility.” See the difference?
I’m not asking for self-flagellation. I’m asking for remembrance, accountability, and healing. Not from shame, but from truth. There’s nothing manipulative about that.
Six. You dismissed “decolonization” without defining it.
You wrote:
“What really irks me here is this word ‘decolonized’. What exactly does that mean? ... A manipulative tool.”
Decolonization means removing the legacy of colonial domination, not just from land, but from minds, institutions, language, and culture. It’s about returning stolen memory. Undoing cultural erasure. It’s not manipulation, it’s medicine. If the concept feels broad, it’s because colonization was broad. Its unlearning will take many forms.
Seven. You accused the article of demonizing European culture.
You wrote:
“For Ortiz, ‘Whiteness’ itself is evil, and because he views European culture as extinct, European practices are evil.”
Again, not once did I say European culture was evil. I said whiteness was the system that erased it. I encouraged white readers to reclaim their pre-colonial identities. This isn’t a condemnation, it’s a call to homecoming.
My final thought:
You ended your piece by saying:
“I for one, am perfectly content with the long philosophical tradition and history of the West… I have no interest in such a project.”
That’s your choice.
But the "project" I’m offering is not erasure. It’s excavation. It’s not vengeance. It’s remembrance. And it’s not moral superiority. It’s survival, for all of us. This isn’t about “blaming white people.” It’s about freeing us all from a system that taught some to dominate and others to disappear. That's what collective liberation is.
If you ever want to engage without deflection, I’m here for that. But only if truth is allowed to breathe. Because this conversation isn’t about comfort. It’s about courage. You, even your audience dismissing me because your response has coddled their discomfort, are not my enemy. This isn't an attack. My article isn't an attack. I've got nothing but love for all of you. Thanks for leaving space for a response. These crucial conversations are what make real change.
Wonderful article. Ortiz really is a hack isn't he? That anyone would approve of him is a great condemnation of human intellect.
The language games that he plays are heavily ingrained in academia now, to the layman he just sounds like another academic.
Great deconstruction that cuts through the ideological gunk. However, I cannot help but feel like people like Ortiz are just attention seekers. His shtick doesn't play like it used to.
From now on I will begin my essays with “Éist! Feach!” Or maybe “Hwat!”
Hi there. I read your response carefully. Thank you for taking the time to engage with the essay. I want to honor that effort while also addressing a few serious misreadings that shaped your entire rebuttal. I'm not here to attack or shame. I'm here to clarify, correct, and deepen understanding.
I'd like to begin with the foundation:
First. You conflated whiteness with white people.
You wrote:
“While Ortiz has attempted to separate ‘whiteness’ from Europeans, he maintains the use of the word ‘white’, which refers in common parlance to the skin color of European peoples. Thus ‘white’ or ‘whiteness’, for all intents and purposes, can be used to mean people of European descent…”
This is a central misunderstanding. I was very deliberate in saying:
“Whiteness didn’t preserve European culture. It gutted it.”
“Whiteness is not an identity. Not a culture. But a system…”
Whiteness is not synonymous with white people. It is a colonial technology, a fabricated social category designed to consolidate power, erase ethnic diversity across Europe, and assign dominance based on phenotype.
When I critique whiteness, I am critiquing the system, not attacking individuals.
Two. You misread the statement “white culture has no culture.”
You interpreted:
“White culture has no culture” as “People of European descent have no culture.”
That’s not what I said.
What I wrote was:
“Whiteness didn’t preserve European culture. It gutted it. It turned folk traditions into folklore, spirituality into control, language into obedience, and community into compliance.”
That’s a lament. Not an insult. I never said European peoples lack culture. Ever. I said whiteness replaced ancestral European cultures with a system built on domination. My call is for white people to reconnect to what whiteness made them forget.
Third. You dismissed historical truth as “bad history.”
You wrote:
“Almost all European societies shared the same cultural ancestors... the patriarchal Yamnaya people... I struggled to find many European cultures which traced their ancestry matrilineally…”
First, I invite caution in asserting total knowledge over ancient lineages. Matriarchal, animistic, and cooperative social structures did exist across early Europe. From pre-Roman Celtic societies, to Baltic goddess-worshipping peoples, to the reverence of land, water, and ancestral spirit across pagan Europe, these were not uniformly patriarchal or imperial.
The point of my essay was not to romanticize the past. It was to show that whiteness was the mechanism that erased those pasts, not just for colonized people, but for Europeans too.
Four. You fell deeply into whataboutism.
You wrote:
“The Lakota were known for doing exactly this...”
“The Mongols created an explicit racial hierarchy...”
“Arab Muslims definitely created a racial chattel-slavery system…”
These are historical distortions used to minimize European settler colonialism. As I wrote:
“Yes, many societies throughout history engaged in conquest and empire-building. That is a human reality. But not all conquest is created equal.”
“No Indigenous, Asian, African, or pre-colonial society ever invented chattel slavery based on skin color… None built a capitalist empire where bodies, souls, land, and labor were commodified at industrial scale.”
Scale, permanence, global infrastructure, and racialization are what make European colonialism distinct. The colonial project isn’t about who fought whom, it’s about who rewrote the rules of humanity.
Five. You attacked the call for responsibility as “manipulation.”
You wrote:
“First of all, you aren’t allowed to feel guilt. Second of all, you are responsible...”
Here’s what I actually said:
“If you are white, this is not about guilt. Guilt is performative. It keeps you in the center. This is about responsibility.” See the difference?
I’m not asking for self-flagellation. I’m asking for remembrance, accountability, and healing. Not from shame, but from truth. There’s nothing manipulative about that.
Six. You dismissed “decolonization” without defining it.
You wrote:
“What really irks me here is this word ‘decolonized’. What exactly does that mean? ... A manipulative tool.”
Decolonization means removing the legacy of colonial domination, not just from land, but from minds, institutions, language, and culture. It’s about returning stolen memory. Undoing cultural erasure. It’s not manipulation, it’s medicine. If the concept feels broad, it’s because colonization was broad. Its unlearning will take many forms.
Seven. You accused the article of demonizing European culture.
You wrote:
“For Ortiz, ‘Whiteness’ itself is evil, and because he views European culture as extinct, European practices are evil.”
Again, not once did I say European culture was evil. I said whiteness was the system that erased it. I encouraged white readers to reclaim their pre-colonial identities. This isn’t a condemnation, it’s a call to homecoming.
My final thought:
You ended your piece by saying:
“I for one, am perfectly content with the long philosophical tradition and history of the West… I have no interest in such a project.”
That’s your choice.
But the "project" I’m offering is not erasure. It’s excavation. It’s not vengeance. It’s remembrance. And it’s not moral superiority. It’s survival, for all of us. This isn’t about “blaming white people.” It’s about freeing us all from a system that taught some to dominate and others to disappear. That's what collective liberation is.
If you ever want to engage without deflection, I’m here for that. But only if truth is allowed to breathe. Because this conversation isn’t about comfort. It’s about courage. You, even your audience dismissing me because your response has coddled their discomfort, are not my enemy. This isn't an attack. My article isn't an attack. I've got nothing but love for all of you. Thanks for leaving space for a response. These crucial conversations are what make real change.
I will try and respond to this either this evening or tomorrow.
Great article!