Read, for instance, the following criticism of "whiteness studies" by Noel Ignatiev, for instance: "The Point Is Not To Interpret Whiteness But To To Abolish It" (at <http://www.postfun.com/racetraitor/features/thepoint.html>). Ignatiev says: "Now that White Studies has become an academic industry, with its own dissertation mill, conference, publications, and no doubt soon its junior faculty, it is time for the abolitionists to declare where they stand in relation to it. Abolitionism is first of all a political project: the abolitionists study whiteness in order to abolish it. Various commentators have stated that their aim is to identify and preserve a positive white identity. Abolitionists deny the existence of a positive white identity." On the other hand, Annalee Newitz and Matt Wray write in "Introduction" to _White Trash: Race and Class in America" (NY: Routledge, 1997): "Unlike many white people, white trash have the potential to perform the work of racial self-recognition and self-consciousness that bell hooks has found absent in dominant forms of whiteness; possibly, one might argue, it is more difficult for white trash to Other others....It is our wish that 'white trash,' and _White Trash_, start to lay the groundwork for a form of white identity that is comfortable in multiculturalism, and with which multiculturalism is comfortable as well" (5). The contrast is clear. While Rakesh would probably fault not just the latter but the former for their reformism and Keynesianism, I'd have to say that abolitionists are more clearheaded than cult studs for "white trash studies." Besides, the latter is severely afflicted with the Weber-like obsession with status and privilege, which occludes the Marxist conception of class.
Yoshie
P.S. Just because you contributed an article to _White Trash_ doesn't mean that you have to defend the untenable conceptions of race and class offered by its editors, Doug.