Revealed in this section are the subversive but powerful ways whiteness informs the writing of textbooks and the ways students are expected to ponder texts written by people of color from a white perspective. In the same vein, part four, “Hauntings in Pedagogies,” looks at how pedagogy can be thoughtfully crafted to unteach ingrained, normative whiteness. The reflection by Hui Wu opens the discussion by asking the question: “What should or should not whiteness studies be doing?” (197). The essays in this section engage with the struggles instructors face when teaching their students about the power of whiteness in their culture and in their classrooms. Leda Cooks explains how two infamous magazine covers exhibit for students the very different ways similar stories are handled in the media based on the race of the individual being spotlighted. In another essay, Meagan Rodgers discusses what it means when a white instructor shares their “racial awareness narrative” with their students and how white instructors need to consider doing this in a way that does not place focus on white bodies as “victims” of their own whiteness (222–23). This section hones in on the struggle between instructor and student to achieve honesty and truth around discussions of race, particularly asking: What is the role of the white instructor—if any? Part five, “Problems Haunting Theories of Whiteness,” begins with an opening reflection by Victor Villanueva. This section identifies bigger issues with haunting whiteness, advocating for a deeper understanding of the demands placed on people of color in racialized spaces and the need to identify “a white a white” if whites are to be honest about their racial experiences (254). In this section, Ronald A. Kuykendall argues that whiteness studies is a pointless pursuit because it is antidialogical and “is predicated on the power to grant recognition and legitimacy,” making the “issue of race undiscussable” (295). This closing chapter is intended to further complicate readers’ thoughts on whiteness studies. In the end, readers may find themselves asking: Should we or shouldn’t we study rhetorics of whiteness? If we should, who should be doing it? This book has the potential to provide the foundation for a new scholar’s budding research interests. Given the breadth and depth of the topics covered, it likely also will serve to enlighten even the most studied whiteness scholars. Instructors looking for ideas on ways to bring whiteness studies into the classroom may find themselves wanting something more pedagogically concrete. Nonetheless, they will be armed with a wealth of new ideas for students to consider. If nothing else, readers may be spurred to action by the intelligent and thoughtful manner in which whiteness studies is discussed.

中文翻译：

---

记住埃米特·蒂尔

本节揭示了白人在教科书写作中的颠覆性但强大的方式，以及学生应该从白人的角度思考有色人种撰写的文本的方式。同样，第四部分“教育学中的困扰”着眼于如何精心设计教育学以解开根深蒂固的规范白度。吴慧的反思通过提出以下问题开启了讨论：“白人研究应该或不应该做什么？” (197)。本节中的文章涉及教师在向学生教授白人在他们的文化和课堂中的力量时所面临的斗争。Leda Cooks 解释了两个臭名昭著的杂志封面如何向学生展示媒体根据被关注的个人的种族不同处理类似故事的方式。在另一篇文章中，Meagan Rodgers 讨论了当白人教师与学生分享他们的“种族意识叙事”时意味着什么，以及白人教师如何需要考虑以一种不将白人身体作为他们的“受害者”的方式来做这件事。自己的白度（222-23）。本节探讨了教师和学生之间在种族讨论中实现诚实和真理的斗争，特别是问：白人教师的角色是什么——如果有的话？第五部分“困扰白人理论的问题”以 Victor Villanueva 的开场反思开始。本节确定了令人难以忘怀的白度的更大问题，倡导更深入地了解种族化空间中对有色人种的要求，以及如果白人要诚实地对待他们的种族经历，就需要确定“白人对白人”（254）。在本节中，Ronald A. Kuykendall 认为白人研究是一项毫无意义的追求，因为它是反对话的，并且“以授予承认和合法性的权力为基础”，使得“种族问题无法讨论”（295）。最后一章旨在使读者对白度研究的想法进一步复杂化。最后，读者可能会问：我们应该还是不应该研究白人的修辞？如果我们应该做，应该由谁来做？这本书有可能为新学者萌芽的研究兴趣奠定基础。鉴于所涵盖主题的广度和深度，它也可能有助于启发即使是研究最多的白人学者。寻求将白度研究带入课堂的想法的教师可能会发现自己需要更具体的教学方法。尽管如此，他们将拥有丰富的新想法供学生考虑。如果不出意外，读者可能会被讨论白度研究的聪明和深思熟虑的方式激励采取行动。