General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo! I will not Stop it! ...
Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4974739)
Just stop with this shit, alright? If you actually had any idea about this, you'd understand at least on a basic level, the problems I've discussed. And I might as well just come out and say it: I'll admit that my own knowledge may not be perfect in this regard. But neither is yours. And I don't know what it'll take for you to wake the fuck up: frankly, only you yourself have the answer to that, if anything.
But MY knowledge is based on the body of work of the social scientists; your "knowledge" is based on YOUR invented concept of what the social scientist REALLY mean when the talk about white privilege ... but can't seem to find any that support your interpretation.
You invent a term, then use that invented term to interpret what social scientists REALLY meant when they talk about white privilege; but can't find a single social scientist that has said anything approaching what you claim they mean.
What will "wake me the fuck up is you posting a link to a single social scientist that supports your made up interpretation of what social scientist REALLY when they talk about white privilege.
Well, on your suggestion I did find this, from the noted social scientist, Jared Taylor of white supremacy fame:
http://www.amren.com/features/2013/09/white-privilege/
http://theupsidedownworld.com/2012/05/25/the-real-reason-the-term-white-privilege-is-a-load-of-crap/
Funny ... I'm asking you to direct me to someone/anyone that has actually done some work on the subject, and supports your made up stuff. Not even the link that you posted from the conservative white woman that "gets it", despite her curiously absent educational credentials, unless you count that she's married to a Black man, supports your made up stuff!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)my question was do they even understand the meaning of the word.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Cause you're right.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Every Single Time he posts that "literal white privilege versus Philosophical white privilege" crap, I will challenge it. That crap is just like every other rightwing frame these days ... be it about climate change, or bengazi or, economic theory .... it all comes down to "I don't care what the academics say, I'm right and you're wrong because I say so!"
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)to their self-developed talking points. Then with the Fox Newsers, you are unpatriotic if you don't play along. It's really pathetic.
What you're saying makes a lot of sense. Don't ever give up!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Honestly, I find this whole thing sadly pathetic more than anything else. The mere fact that you dismiss legitimate criticisms of your pet theory as "right-wing" calls your argument's credibility into question, And the fact that you brushed off a person who happens to know about this stuff, more than either of us, as well, that only adds to that.
So what else can I say at this point? You may be entitled to your opinion as much as I am. But it doesn't change the facts, I'm afraid.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You have not put forth a "legitimate criticism of white privilege; but you have repeated, the same argument as Jared Taylor, of AmRen fame (watch the video in my previous link).
And why should I trust the words of a white conservative woman? Just because she's married to a Black guy (same as Ginny Thomas) and because she wrote a book? No ... I'll trust the work of peer reviewed academic works, thank you very much.
Change what "facts"?
Well, it's a fact that NO social scientist (that I have been able to find ... and I've been looking ... supports your "Literal white privilege versus Philosophical white privilege" crap.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
Well.....damn, That is perhaps the most dishonest thing you have ever said or done so far.
And no, I'm not about to watch the darn video, either. In fact, if anything at all, I can't help but wonder if perhaps literal "white privilege" might itself have been a right-wing distortion of the original term, in and of itself. Given how bad it's making liberals look, it might just make sense.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)check out the link I posted of Jared Taylor on white privilege ... you will recognize your exact argument(s).
When are you going to post a link to the "literal white privilege" term? A google search only produces you.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)"legitimate rape".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Self awareness is key in dealing with this subject.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And that one is clearly not off to a good start.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)more accurate, or fitting, than these endless TBHs.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The theory itself has been around for generations of scholars. Do you understand?
I mean, for fuck's sake. The responses in and around DU are just mindlessly imbecilic. Have you any formal education at all on the subject? Have you even bothered to seek out any understanding on what privilege means that didn't originate with a Google search?
For the love of God, this is why we can't have nice things. We are so far removed from contemporary conversation. We're still debating over the least controversial, most elementary concepts to an incredibly deep, complex issue of social and intellectual conflict. If you were in a class on race and conflict theory and tried to argue that white privilege is just hating white people or that it doesn't exist at all, you'd be laughed out of the classroom.
Yet you come into here and think you're pushing some really edgy stuff. Never mind how it contradicts the entire theoretical basis asserted by revolutionary and academic giants. It would be like mocking Newton and gravitation.
The absurdity of it all. It's utterly absurd.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)I want to bake you a nice coffeecake for your comment.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)I think in one of the recent threads someone posted, "c'mon this is Sociology 101".
it is. For my last electives for my degree, I just finished 101 last term and am now taking 2nd year social psychology. It's in there. It's taught in basic sociology and psychology courses. It's been researched for decades. It exists. JHC. Absurd is right. 
Good post. Amen.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024880260
That was excruciating. There were a lot of red flags. I don't know what is going on there, but it's nauseating.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Evidence-based understanding.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Link: http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
Plus, an extensive reading list on the subject of race: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002623564
Click on the .pdf file... it may take a couple of seconds to load.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not a single mention of "Literal white privilege versus Philosophical white privilege" ... Color me shocked!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I mean, I would think not having to deal firsthand with systemic racism, would be a pretty clear overall advantage in life. What would it mean, exactly, to divide the effects of that between the "literal" and the "philosophical"? Like I said, splitting hairs.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)really exists; whereas, the latter, is just something symbolic/figurative, i.e., non-existent. 
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Me:
This same idea was demonstrated in blind orchestra auditions regarding male privilege. When musicians auditioned for positions in orchestras behind curtains, so that their genders were unknown, females gained more seats on an orchestra. When auditioning where gender was apparent, more females are judged as less talented musicians than males.
He:
Okay, but that's not actual privilege. If anything, it's the exact OPPOSITE of privilege. To be truthful, most people aren't going to understand an argument that is supposedly the opposite of how it reads. And although it seems that you don't mean it in the *literal* sense, here's the (huge!) problem; it seems rather clear by now that a lot, maybe even most, of your fellow "white privilege" proponents *do* take it literally. Believe me, I've seen this problem unfold more times than I can possibly count them all.
Maybe it seems I'm being a little bit of a hard-ass to people sometimes and I do apologize for that. But I can assure you that I have perfectly reasonable and altruistic reasons for pointing out what I have.
-----
He:
I never said or implied American society as a whole was racist(WTF?); and it actually isn't by and large. Although that doesn't mean that racism isn't still a problem, because it is.
...So obviously, it's more complex than just "X society is Y(racist/sexist/etc.), therefore, Z". As a student of history, I'd understood this on at least a basic level even when I subscribed to "white privilege" theory once upon a time. But now that I have moved on, I have been able to gain an an even significantly greater, (and much more nuanced, for that matter) understanding.
Me:
but please tell me how your study of history has indicated that America is not a racist society.
fwiw - to note an overarching political and social reality is not to say every single person within a society is racist, or that people do not try to address the racism that is part of the cultural atmosphere within a society in which someone lives, and which they breathe in, without thought, but simply b/c it is all around them, like the air...if the majority of history and law and the application of the law demonstrates racism that repeats itself with variations generation after generation - that's a racist society...and I don't say that as an accusation toward any person - just as an acknowledgement of culturally available facts that demonstrate bias against, in this case, African Americans in the United States.
He:
I have plenty of understanding, thank you.
...Modern America isn't a racist society by and large; that's actually pretty obvious just by looking around. By the same token, it is also true, however, that social disparities do remain a problem, and not just racism, but sexism and even basic prejudices(culture, economic status, etc.) as well.
and I don't say that as an accusation toward any person
I believe you, but TBH, it does seem clear that you have too much of a black-and-white view on things. And yes, standards do change. Standards have gotten higher over time. But in all honesty, the reality is far more complex than just whether or not a society is racist or not racist(besides, where does one draw the line, anyway?). You may have a few people who are racist, and some who are not; but you will also have many who could be persuaded one way or the other; this has always been true, at least to varying extents, for every society, West or East.
Me:
I have never seen a study that demonstrates this. However, to make the statement, I would assume you have evidence to back you up.
Otherwise, you're just making a statement with no evidence to support your claim.
He:
I don't need any studies, btw.
Of course, if you have any studies of your own, I'd like to see them, so I may gain a better understanding of where your opinion is coming from, even if none of them are at all likely to disprove my points(pretty much every legitimate study out there would actually back me up, btw).
Because the truth is, my opinion is based on factual observations & real world experience. I don't claim to be omniscient or anything (I know I'm not!) but I do know that what I have said is factual overall; that much is undeniable.
He:
first a quote from me:
He: Okay, and I never actually argued against that, btw. However, though, none of these links prove any *literal* "white privilege", however, nor do they prove that society as a whole is racist, even if they do prove, by the same token that social disparities do still exist.
Me:
Anyone who reads this back-and-forth, however, who is not being intentionally obtuse will understand quite clearly that racial discrimination faced by one group and not another is the very definition of white privilege at its worst.
He:
(after I posted a link to explain the Dunning-Krueger effect - that notes people who don't know about an issue assume they know about an issue more than they do - and said I usually put ppl like him on ignore when they are this obtuse.)
Your choice, I suppose.
(BTW, since you went there, that study actually seems to apply quite well to your end of the argument. Because you've failed to provide any evidence of literal white privilege. Period.)
My editorial aside: (you have to read the link in this post to realize how absurd this claim really is.)
Me:
White privilege is a set of advantages and/or immunities that white people benefit from on a daily basis beyond those common to all others. White privilege can exist without white people's conscious knowledge of its presence and it helps to maintain the racial hierarchy in this country.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/org/wsar/intro.htm
examples here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4837583
He:
And Dr. Avakian has every right to her viewpoint, as you and I do.
But again, I'm more objective than some others. But again, look at the overall results; outside the "choir" it hasn't done well in terms of educating the general public. And we as progressives CAN do better. We have to if we want to win the fight for America's soul, as it were.
Incredulous person asks: U4ikLefty (3,184 posts)
148. How old are you?
He:
23. But I'm kinda smart beyond my years.....
I don't mean to come across as a total know-it-all, though; TBH, my analysis is based on years of observations, studying of history, and even personal experience(you're talking to a former "white privilege" adherent, by the way). I don't claim to be perfect, and frankly, I'm really not. But I do try to be as objective as possible, and what my observations are telling me is that "white privilege" sadly hasn't done all that well as a teaching tool to describe very real socioeconomic inequities faced by minorities, for the general public at large. That isn't something I can just ignore, even if some others here do seem to be genuinely unaware of the problem.
They take up too much space in your head and too much time in your life, once you see what they're doing. fwiw.
YMMV.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And Dr. Avakian has every right to her viewpoint, as you and I do.
Is what it boils down to ... his un/semi-informed opinion equals that of highly educated opinions.
Which reminds me, why won't Stephen Hawkings debate me on my theories of theoretical physics ... after all, I've read a physics book and plenty of Universal Comic books.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Yeah. That was when I decided he was entirely unserious - and maybe even doing the t-word.
I wish I had read Universal instead of Archie. I could be doing that Cosmos show!
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)
sorry I didn't ask permission to quote - but, yeah.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)I remember that thread...good stuff!!!
..and you were right, I WAS incredulous
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)23? And he was just talking about 'well-meaning college kids' in another comment. Seriously, if you're going to throw ageist insults around, it's probably best that you not actually be the same age as the people to whom you're being condescending.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a charge wholly unfounded and would lead to an immediate acquittal.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I think that's the problem right there, in a nutshell. And instead of admitting he's out of his depth, he continues to double and quadruple down.
Number23
(24,544 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)evidently he's banned from the Enviro/Energy forum for stirring up shite by making what must be similar arguments there.
Interesting that his focus is on issues that are typically the "concerns" of right wingers in American society. Just a coincidence, I suppose.
But, since liberals take pride in the idea of reality-based reasoning - for someone to come here and claim his opinion, which never has any expertise to back it up, is the equivalent of people who have spent their lives dealing with this - his interactions here do not reflect liberal values regarding political/policy/social issues.
So what are people here supposed to assume since it goes on and on and on?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)not to be mistaken for the unintended, "literal performance art."
RainDog
(28,784 posts)at this point.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)the situation?"
gollygee
(22,336 posts)ROFL. Oh my God.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Ironically, the one accusing 1SBM of having an overly black-and-white view, may suffer from that problem himself.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)He already put me on ignore for asking him too many questions that he couldn't answer. Of course, he can't answer any question about his belief in this matter, of any kind.
What is really fascinating is that he feels we should accept his analysis simply because he believes in it, and it therefore must be true. He also claims to speak for many others, though no one who supports his version of "white privilege" has made any appearance on DU. No one.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)if any of the social scientist meant that white privilege wasn't to be taken as literal ... one, just one, would have said so.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)for all the umbrage here over the term - those white guys who insist that others are making a literal statement about every single white person's existence.
It's like a Potemkin Village built out of straw(men) arguments.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There is no link to whatever this is about and lacks context. Was this intended to be an OP or a response?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'll tell you the full story thru DU Mail, if you'd like to hear my side of the story.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You never make sense, you do not know what you are talking about, never take time to educate yourself and you imply that YOU as a white man know more about racism in america than black people.
Please stop. You make yourself look bad.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)TALKING POINTS. DO YOU REALLY THINK WE NEED EDUCATING ON RACE FROM A 23 YEAR OLD WHITE DUDE?? DO YOU? DO YOU THINK YOU ARE HELPING?
WHY DO YOU THINK SO HIGHLY OF YOUR SELF? SHHHH!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I honestly don't try to make people feel uncomfortable. Anyone who knows me personally, both online and in real life, will tell you that.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Literal white privilege is:
Philosophical white privilege is:
Since you are inventing terms to allow you to argue something that no one is actually saying, why don't you define the terms you are using to create such arguments, for those of us who may not have seen an earlier explanation from you.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Read the post downthread. In real life you would be convinced of my perspective because i would take you to Watts, Compton, and introduce you to my people, tell you where each gangs territory starts and ends, take you to the welfare office on grand so you can talk to people who know more than you.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and you are the poster guy for the person who reacts in fear and shuts down. Chew on that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4975493
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Ah, you'll have to pardon the imperfect French, but I couldn't resist the pun.
Anyway, here's my actual response:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4975573
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Then again. I guess it could. But why?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)He told me that I should listen to the words of a white conservative woman who's only apparent credentials is she wrote a book and is married to a Black man (just like Ginny Thomas)!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Is pissing me off. A white conservative woman? Teach you something about race? LOL!!!!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'll just repeat the point I made in post 10.
Honestly, I find this whole thing sadly pathetic more than anything else. The mere fact that you dismiss legitimate criticisms of your pet theory as "right-wing" calls your argument's credibility into question, And the fact that you brushed off a person who happens to know about this stuff, more than either of us, as well, that only adds to that.
So what else can I say at this point? You may be entitled to your opinion as much as I am. But it doesn't change the facts, I'm afraid.
Also, I didn't really feel like checking too much into Rebecca Trotter's background before I posted(indeed a little conservative, but seemingly, thankfully, not a crazy type; she's not a Teabagger. In fact, to her credit, she actually has a great dislike for hardcore Repubs: http://theupsidedownworld.com/2011/07/15/407/.). And frankly, that wasn't terribly important to me at the moment; she could have been really far to the left for all I knew. It didn't matter all that much, because she had a good point to make, regardless of what other content may have been on that blog.
And finally, there was no "invention" of anything on my part. That is complete bullshit and you know that, too? Why do you insist on lying? What do you gain personally from this? Or is it just another example of having an axe to grind just because someone disagreed with you?
I hate to say this, but you have got some *serious* issues to work out. And some realities to accept. Whether or not you'll actually do the right thing.....well, I can't say. Only you know the answer to that. It's all up to you.
I honestly can't say much else at this point. I only hope that maybe someday you'll come around to learning the truth, as I did.
Edit: But then again, who knows?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It seems like your purpose is to antagonize the AA posters, tell them they have issues, try to correct their speech, argue that YOU know more about racism and race relations than they do.
Here's a piece of advice: stay out of race threads until you know what you are talking about. Please do me that kindness.
Because quite frankly, you sound ridiculous. Reading your messages is like going to stormfront.
Is that how you want to be seen?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If you really believe that I'm targeting a specific group of people, then somebody's got some nice beachfront property in Nunavut to sell you.
And frankly, you haven't seen me go to the AA Group much anyway, have you? And since the answer is no, that should also provide a rebuttal to your mistaken conclusion. And I mean no offense, but it's the truth.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)SPEWING RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS.
If you keep this up i will show up and repeat that you are clueless so that you stop making everybody look bad by repeating your self with that total lack of self awareness. This is a subject that you are failing. You should learn that you do not always have to be that guy.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)The author doesn't agree with your interpretation. So, maybe you really don't know wtf you are talking àbout.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)And it's bullshit.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)As if! He always does this.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Call em as I see em.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You can't see very well.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Response to bravenak (Reply #40)
Post removed
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Though I am sure your post will be hidden.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)But yea it should have been.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Though I am sure your post will be hidden..."
Accuracy often is.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I have never seem you be nice to either one of us. Good day sir!! I say good day!!!!!!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Even if it may not be done on purpose, stuff like that does kinda dampen the DU experience sometimes. 
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)AA posters who actually experience racism and Contradict your BS?
We have very different ideas of what does and doesn't contribute to DU.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Stop being mean to the guy giving voice to what I think ... but have been made to look stupid saying."
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am now convinced that this is a joke. No one can be that obtuse. No one.
Response to Egnever (Reply #36)
bettyellen This message was self-deleted by its author.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)arguing that the Bible is equally as worthwhile to explain the origins of humankind, would you be upset if, after doing this repeatedly here, people just got fed up and said...
LOOK. This is what's going on?
The difference is that, in the past, we have had such people here and they don't last for very many posts because they can't compose an argument that pretends to agree with evolution while denying it.
But, in terms of what's is happening with this situation - that's the equivalent - and the evidence that demonstrates this is here on this thread so people can come to their own conclusions about who is stirring something up.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Universally upset when I see piling on. It's bullying behavior and its lame.
He has not been rude he has made his arguments pretty respectfully throughout. The fact that he is still posting proves that.
That you disagree with him or that anyone disagrees with him does not make it right to pile on in call out threads.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Someone posts some pure B.S., that no one agrees with ... and it's a bullying pile on because people post their disagreement and why they disagree? Come onnn, man!
New Rule: On subjects of white privilege, and racism in general, only one person can call B.S., lest it be seen as a bullying meaniness.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)He has an incredibly ignorant opinion that he has been completely unable to ever to back up with facts - the best he's done is find some other RWer who agrees with his opinion.
And his opinion is completely out of sync with what is written in textbook after textbook - pretty much every actual academic who has ever written on the topic 'disagrees' with him.
His 'opinion' is also inherently dismissive and rude of the lived experience of hundreds of millions of people of colour in the country over the centuries.
So while he might not be tossing epithets, yeah, what he's saying is rude. And the fact that he keeps pushing it leaves him open to 'pile-ons' and derision for showing an inability to learn from experience.
He claims to be politically on the left, but he argues like a 'polite' RWer, considering his own opinion to be as 'legitimate' as the the work of decades of trained sociologists who 'disagree' with him. There's nothing worthy of respect in people who believe that everything is simply a matter of 'competing opinions'.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The person that he linked to. Thankfully, she had the grace to sign-up with DU, specifically to tell him so.
(I wonder how she knew ... Maybe Skinner is getting tired of the malarkey, as well.)
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and uses a site tracking tool to know where her audience is coming from, she can simply follow the link to the traffic. I would assume that's how she found this thread.
Since she's being used to buttress an argument she's not actually making, I assume this is why she would reply - to clarify in this instance because her words are her identity as a writer.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)100% right, down to the last word.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)You've ignored all attempts at reasonable argument.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)color do. The implied arrogance and cluelessness there is just galling.
Response to Egnever (Reply #36)
1StrongBlackMan This message was self-deleted by its author.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You have a problem with someone replying to a thread that was started with the sole mission of calling them out?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts) RainDog
(28,784 posts)Because he is making up terms so that he can disagree with people. There is no basis in reality for his disagreement. He can NEVER cite any sources for his claims. He can NEVER acknowledge that there are people who have spent decades doing statistical research that disputes his claims.
When people ask him for references, he says he doesn't need them and continues to do the same thing. Over. and over. and over again.
He seems to be intentionally antagonizing people here by doing this.
Maybe this thread will demonstrate the facts about this issue. If someone has been asked - nicely - to not "troll" threads, what would think about such a person?
I hope people here at DU can see what is happening for what it is.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)You have got to be joking me if you actually believe that I'm the one intentionally antagonizing people, and not the OP, which actually seems to have had that in mind when it was posted. In fact, it's actually kinda obvious.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)as I asked you to, earlier.
Literal
v
Philosophical
Privilege
I have to disagree with you because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. If I were not giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would have to assume something about your capabilities that seem to function reasonably well in other contexts.
Just not this one.
Why might that be, I wonder?
Well, Watson, Sherlock would make certain assumptions about such behavior.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)in more detail:
My comment here now: This is a common argument among people on various sides of issues when their posts get hidden. Skinner said that there is no jury rigging according to his data. fwiw.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
True, true. In my own personal experience, this seems to be especially apparent when I have attempted to explain why a certain version of "white privilege" theory(that is, the literalist one, the one in which white people as a collective supposedly have actual tangible privilege that they actively benefit from every day.) so beloved by certain elements on DU doesn't make sense, or exist in any real form...
...And in every single case, I'm not the only one who's pointed this stuff out. But some people, for whatever reason, whether they're trolls or other malcontents with an axe to grind, or just passionate people who happen to fall on the wrong side of things who just get really caught up on their arguments(in my experience, the latter has constituted the majority of cases that I've dealt with).....just can't seem to get a clue or let go. And I mean no offense to any of the people who fall into the latter group, at least, by the way. Because I know you guys, at least, are decent folks thru and thru.
My comment now, to you: NO ONE MAKES THE CLAIM HERE BUT YOU that there is "literalist" white privilege vs any other kind. Why? Because your claim does not exist outside of your own mind and those who are right wingers who disparage minorities by mocking the concept by misinterpreting it - WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE IN THIS QUOTE.
Iow - you have invented a strawman argument that you bring up, over and over and over and over again here. When anyone notes you do not understand the concept, you claim they don't understand the concept THAT YOU INVENTED TO DISAGREE WITH OTHERS HERE. (Pardon me for yelling, but I want to make sure you hear what is said at this moment.)
1SBM notes that you keep spinning this yarn about an imaginary difference that you have tried to explain to others here, while iirc, 1SBM works or did as a civil rights lawyer, so he might be a tad bit more familiar with this issue than you, and his life experience might be a tad different. Not to mention others here who have done their time in academia who have a tad bit more understanding of the term, not to mention the sources cited to you.
Your response, ALWAYS is that your opinion has as much value as those with actual knowledge and understanding. This is why I noted, in the past, that your arguments here remind me of creationists who think their opinions should have equal weight in regard to science. They shouldn't. Your arguments on this subject don't either. When others note this, you don't care and become the person who has been abused by those who simply get tired of you doing this over and over.
Which is why I came to the conclusion that you might not be operating here in good faith.
The only reason I am even taking this up again is that I am SICK of seeing what are, essentially, right wing arguments here, or trollish posts from right wing racist sites, or see some guy pretend that his current economic hardship is the equivalent to systemic racism.
To see this, over and over, leads someone to question why this occurs. There are several reasons this may occur - 1) someone is so self centered he cannot grant some grace to his own life by looking beyond it, 2) someone is intentionally disrupting 3) someone lacks the intelligence to understand he is behaving like a right wing troll, or 4) - I can't really logically find any other reasons other than the ones I listed.
If you can explain your behavior otherwise, please do. It's not enough to say you mean well, because whether you mean well or not, you are not doing something good to do what you are doing here.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Being ignorant is no crime and can actually be a teaching exercise. But being ignorant and ANTAGONISTIC and derailing every single fucking thread on the same issue = trolling.
But it's so interesting to me the posters that are coming to his defense and chastising the black posters who are standing up to this idiocy.
Troll, and very successful by pretending to be reasonable and nice. Trolls do not deserve coffeecake.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And you have done that shit on PURPOSE, too, to be frank.
But it's so interesting to me the posters that are coming to his defense and chastising the black posters who are standing up to this idiocy.
Even though a large number of the folks who've disagreed with me overall have actually turned out to be "white" folks......honestly, get a darn clue.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And that means, what? And to be honest, you would think would give you even more of a clue, but to absolutely no one's surprise, it doesn't and it won't.
So black folks and clued in whites are telling you that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and that -- in your head -- means that you are somehow even more qualified to spout endless inanities about issues that are years beyond your level of understanding. And you really wonder why every time you start talking, the words "right wing" and "troll" begin to pop up from 3/4 of the folks reading your posts?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Okay ... then post a link to where it came from!
If it didn't come from you, then it's not invented by you ... If you cannot post something indicating that it came from someplace other than you, then YOU invented it!
I'll repeat ... you are completely unself-aware. But that said, I probably do have some issues to work out; but ignorance on this topic is not one of them.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)There's just no talking to you, I suppose........
TDale313
(7,820 posts)If that gets me a hide, I'll take it.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)She even signed up to clarify.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But that's okay with me. She stated her point and clarification respectfully. And she deserves credit for that, IMHO.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Whatever the case, you failed. Badly.
But then again, I guess it's not terribly surprising, now is it? So welcome to my Ignore list, bettyellen. You deserved it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And how some just put their fingers in their ears when confronted with the truth. And a perfect response!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to link to ... that actually agrees with the crap you are spouting ... someone other than Jared Taylor I suspect (that wouldn't be a good look).
Egnever
(21,506 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts) Squinch
(50,955 posts)vehemently disagreeing with a particular poster? I think the poster you are defending is absurd in both the arguments he makes and the way he makes them. That's not me piling on. That is me being just one more person he has disgusted.
Rebecca Trotter
(1 post)I would just like to say that my reader may not have actually understood what I was saying in that post. All I was saying is that the term "white privilege" is problematic from a linguistic perspective. That is, it means two different things to two different groups. And the term "privilege" while accurate, triggers such a strong fear response for many white people, that they just can't process any of the ideas associated with it in this context. I think the word privilege frightens white people (of whom, I am one) because to us, privilege indicates that you've gotten something you don't deserve and that it should be taken from you.
Basically, the reaction is, "if I got this because I'm privileged, then all of my work didn't mean anything. All my struggles and trials that I endured don't even exist in their eyes. And they think I'm a bad person to boot. Like I'm no better than some guy in a KKK hood."
And those who understand the concept of "white privilege" see just by his words that he doesn't actually understand what "white privilege" is. It's like listening to a congressman talking about wind farms interfering with weather patterns and causing global warming. The natural response is to try and explain yourself (you can read my gibberish laced attempts in the comments on that post). But once that reptilian brain thing has been triggered, they won't be able to hear anything else you say.
Which is clearly what happened with this reader. He read a criticism of "white privilege" as a useful term and did not recognize some pretty basic things about what I was saying. Such as that my clear, explicit and implicit assumption for the post was that the phenomena described by the term white privilege is undoubtably real and I have seen the evidence. Which just shows you how quickly a person's brain stops processing once the term "privilege" enters the conversation. Or he didn't actually read it. Either way, same result.
I don't particularly have a good catch all term to replace "privilege". My husband and I agree that "advantage" might work. I think all but the most clueless white person is capable of recognizing at some level that being white has advantages. Which, you know, we're human. We're not completely above a small bit of cheating, just to get a little advantage. The problem, really, is that they have no idea how big their advantage actually is.
As I point out at the end of my post, we are in serious danger of seeing that advantage whittled away, with the end result being that we all treated equally badly. The one advantage is that as people experience for themselves how hard we have made it to survive in our society, and realize that it's been this way for ever for people of color, they will finally start learning to have empathy on fellow humans who he previously found hard to even see. But it would be much better if we could get people to open their eyes before it's too late to avoid having everything fall apart like that. And honestly, that's not an easy task.
I know that although I wasn't ever racist in any particular way, witnessing what my husband has gone through and what our family has gone through first hand has been eye opening. I come from a well-to-do, highly educated and even marginally powerful family. I can say that prior to actually seeing what I saw, I had no idea how bad things were. None. It never even entered my mind. I'm married to a black man, born to a 15 year old, who moved out of the projects at 11. So, racism in terms of hostility wasn't the problem. It was that everything seemed fine to me.
For example, I shudder to think that I probably said the words, "I'm working this job now so I can go to college, so I never have to work this kind of job again". Out loud. To people who were paying the bills with "this job". It never even occurred to me that someone would take such a low paying job than for an reason other than for vacation money or to have something to do and some pin money to shop with. Because in 1989, those were the only reasons women worked in my world. Unless they had advanced degrees, of course. Those women were clearing the way for the rest of us. (I'm so glad I had those jobs though. Even just working with people who didn't come from my hermetic world started opening my eyes. But I'm still embarrassed to have said such a thing to people. I didn't know better. That was the reason I was given for why I needed to get a job and it just seemed like a self-evident statement to me.)
All of which is to say, that I was really deep in the matrix of white privilege. I understand what it looks like from in there and how hard it is to see something you've practically been brainwashed into believing isn't real. I totally get that it's completely unfair to ask people of color, who have already borne so much of the weight of white people's problems, to carry the load for us in this conversation. However, I think this issue is vitally important and we can't wait any longer.
People are suffering so bad. Have you ever been in a juvenile prison? Or known someone who just got out of jail and is trying to build at life for the first time? Have you known the men and women so broken and dead inside that they abused and abandoned their kids and seen the damage done? Or dealt with a man who did all the right things and just lost his job because of blatant racism. And there's no recourse for any of it. I would like to think no one here is familiar with such things, but I'm no longer that clueless.
Which is exactly why I think it would be helpful to shift the terms of the conversation just a tad in order to work around this defenses of those who are convinced that they understand the problem when they really, really don't. We can't really afford to keep struggling over this particular problem while so many people's lives are just being destroyed.
Again, I'm not claiming to have all the answer here. Just explaining what the problem looks like to me from here.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Thank you for your input
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Thanks for Writing it.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)Here. On this supposedly liberal forum. All the time. Not from every white person (I'm white) tho.
We see it most often from people who focus on the economic aspects, as though the phrase is meant to say that all white people get a card, at birth, that insures everything they do will be successful. If they have economic struggles, the phrase really bothers them because the word, "privilege" is associated with an economic elitism.
I agree with what you say about the phrase - it is not a well-turned phrase in the context of wider culture. It's like giving a gift to those who want to stir up antagonism among white people, rather than opening their eyes. So, Republicans who want to dog whistle are going to be more likely to use this word in everyday speech than any Democratic politician.
But here - people talk about concepts using this phrase and others related to it. The only time it's not objected to is when economic privilege is the context.
The academic context in which it arose also includes ideas about class and gender, as well as race, and uses it as a verb to note someone's words or actions are "privileged" compared to someone else's - to indicate bias... for many separate and intermingled issues. Someone has the "privilege" of having their words heard and believed. It's a courtesy extended to a group - not an indication of someone's economic status.
In this person's case, however, he seems to have created a strawman to argue about the issue that NO ONE in ANY CONTEXT has every made unless they are trying to find some argument to appeal to people's sense of aggrievement that anyone would note the greater ease with which the majority of the population moves/works/lives among the entire population.
They discount this idea because they simply do not want to address how the past, recent past, and the present are all tied up in the divisions based upon someone's ethnicity by pretending someone's ethnicity has no bearing on their treatment - even when that ethnicity is the majority one in this nation.
So, I understand what you are saying. I agree that there are better terms to describe what the term "white privilege" is supposed to describe. However, IN THE CONTEXT here, a liberal discussion board - it's ludicrous for anyone to be so upset that the term is used to describe a phenomena that exists, no matter what term is used.
By focusing on the term and nit-picking it to death, they avoid actual discussion of the issues behind the term.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)There is nothing wrong with the term "white privilege" other than it forces white people into an uncomfortable recognition that intentional bigotry is only part of the story when it comes to racism.
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)Well said.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)one CAN present ideas that make people uncomfortable and the reaction to that discomfort can/will be seeking to understand the idea (seeking to grow) or defensiveness (seeking to remain static).
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Those who are capable and willing to be introspective are the target of privilege discussions, not the willfully ignorant and willfully bigoted. The latter are the ones who get the most defensive it seems.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And that is the point of why I posted this originally and have continued to engage ... to hold up that mirror, not to the few deniers, but rather to those that are willing to consider, "Is that what I look/sound like?"
TDale313
(7,820 posts)That there are some who are persuadable, where how you discuss it can actually change minds, and some who will hide behind the "why do you have to say it like *that*?" excuse when really they just don't want to accept that racism and sexism still exist and have real world impacts. The poster we're talking about seems to fit the latter.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)excuse when really they just don't want to accept that racism and sexism still exist and have real world impacts. The poster we're talking about seems to fit the latter.
And I'd like to ask who has actually argued that here on DU other than the occasional Caver troll. I sure as hell haven't done that myself. Quite the opposite, in fact, if you knew about my full comment history.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)People saying, "Yeah, it exists, but it's not that bad" about something they've never even experienced firsthand.
For instance, admitting that racism is still a problem, but then denying American society is racist, is the worst kind of hair-splitting.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and it is a all to derail. It should be embarrassing, but some are shameless.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)The use of "Privilege" derails important discussion. I've cringed whenever I see it used because causes more arguments than discussion whenever its used. It's divisive. "White Advantage" or "White Opportunity" seem such a better fit. Equal opportunity is what we should all try to work for. And particularly now when all of us in the 99% are being hit in one way are the other. We either work together or we point fingers about who is more Privileged than the other. Accomplishes nothing.
Both of you made great points in this thread. Thanks.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The use of "Privilege" derails important discussion. I've cringed whenever I see it used because causes more arguments than discussion whenever its used. It's divisive.
And it's not just on DU. This seems to be a general problem on social media, period. And I realize that most people who bandy about the term, really and truly don't mean any harm. But the problem is, many of *them* don't realize the problems that have cropped up, because they're still stuck inside a somewhat limited worldview.
"White Advantage" or "White Opportunity" seem such a better fit.
Although to be honest, it would seem that even "White Advantage" and "White Opprotunity" fall short. Because there are white folks out there who have their own disadvantages to put up with, and their own struggles with lack of opprotunity; I rarely ever inject my own life experiences into these discussions(mostly out of altruism, TBH), but truthfully, I do happen to suffer from both of these problems myself. And believe me, it's not easy to put up with.....and I know I'm not alone, either.
To be honest, if I may offer this, maybe we should just call it something that describes the realities that PoC(and others, too!) face, while also being as straightforward as well. How about "Systemic disadvantage"?
And particularly now when all of us in the 99% are being hit in one way are the other. We either work together or we point fingers about who is more Privileged than the other. Accomplishes nothing.
Something I've been trying to point out as well(albeit not perfectly, TBH).
Equal opportunity is what we should all try to work for.
Yes. This. This times infinity.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)put off by the term "white privilege" would accept the terms "white advantage" or "white opportunity"?
I agree. And the first step on that journey is a clear understanding that "white advantage", "white opportunity", or "white privilege", i.e., the racial status quo, whatever term one chooses to use is real and stands in our collective way.
There is no doubt, whom is more privileged than the other ... the divisiveness that you see/feel is caused NOT by the ones that point it out the privilege; but rather, by those arguing against it.
But to explain why this, particular, fight/discussion MUST be the starting point of the larger fight, against our mutual oppressor, if you have any hope of prevailing:
have interests beyond those of white males. While our interests intersect at the income inequity issue, they diverge before and after that.
As I have said before: our helping you accomplish your ends, still leaves us wanting. And history gives us plenty of reason to believe that once we help you accomplish your ends, you will jettison us ... as the status quo, with respect to race/gender/sexual orientation relationships, hasn't changed ... we just have a different white guy to deal with. Especially since, discussions like these clearly point out:
Revolutionaries are rarely as dissatisfied with the system as they are with their position within the system.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)to work through a way to start to find solutions.
It just starts arguments as "Rebecca Trotter" above thread pointed out. the terminology "white privilege" can put people on the defensive and turn them against your argument because it sounds like those white people (no matter what circumstances they have in their own lives) have some kind of "privilege" that you want to take away from them so that you can have more.
What actions do you think can be taken for our society to work harder try to offer equal opportunity for all of us?
I don't know what you are asking for as a solution when you seem to feel so hostile blaming "white people" for all of the ills of society when you say:
Revolutionaries are rarely as dissatisfied with the system as they are with their position within the system.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you just don't notice it because you are unaffected by the racial status quo.
For white people to fight as hard to change the racial status quo ads they do in denying that white privilege, white advantage, white opportunity IS the racial status quo and NOT a step toward equal opportunity for all.
If you saw pointing out the that history of inter-racial/inter-gender/"minority"-"majority" alliances are fraught with abandonment, once the dominant/majority group has accomplished its interest, as "feeling so hostile (and) blaming white people for all of the ills of society"; then I don't know what to say ... other than, you are not inspiring much confidence in me that you will not jettison me, once I help you accomplish your goal.
Hell, you can't be bother to attempt to understand my concern, without taking history as a personal and collective insult.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)
All of us come from some kind of persecution, forced servitude, tribal loyalty, suspicion of those who are "different from whatever the collective norm is" at that particular time in history somewhere in our ancestry.
Our "Global Society" (Television, Movies, Travel, Immigration, Emigration) for the first time in history gives us the opportunity to view how others live and find better ways interact with them. Yet people are still killing and persecuting each other over race, gender, shades of skin, religious beliefs, tribal loyalty and status. Even in our great American Experiment...we've managed to move from Slavery to better rights for Women and those in the LBGT Community...but, we aren't there yet.
What you seem to want to focus on is that one group alone is to blame for all of this throughout history because their skin is light or what you refer to is "White" privilege. I don't know what "white" is supposed to mean since those of us with light skin can have many different backgrounds and a mixture of different "races" so that technically we may be light...but, not what you call white. And, that's the problem with "White Privilege." Who are these pure white people who are taking privilege? Singling out anyone by the color of their skin can seem to be selective racism. It's offensive and doesn't address the problems of us all being in this together in this world. How do we better move forward for the "common good." Not for one group over the other because of skin color or gender.
That's what I'm saying.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)IMO, it's not. It's about those of us who are white opening our eyes to the reality of the world we live in, and having more awareness and sensitivity where we can. And these are systemic issues, not blaming any one individual. It's not that hard, it shouldn't be that controversial.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have no problem seeing the world they live in ... it's just the world others live in, they have problems seeing or believing.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I will say that one group, and one group alone, could solve racism tomorrow ... if they were so inclined.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)SOLVE...racism Tomorrow?
What steps could they/we take to do this?
I just don't get any "solving the problem" from your replies.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)fight against the racial status quo ... recognize and be willing to accept all the ways that they support the racial status quo and stop doing it.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Is to say people of color have nothing unique to complain about, so shut up.
I'll give an example from my own family history to show the difference of forced labor for whites vs. blacks. My ancestors on my father's side came to America as indentured servants. They sold themselves into servitude to pay for passage to the New World. (Not all white indentured servants came voluntarily, but my understanding is that my ancestors did). Yet that sevitude was not permanent or inheritable. They worked off their debt, acquired land, and that side of the family grew prosperous. Contrast that with the experiences of Africans in America, the first of whom likewise held the status of indentured servants. Only within a generaton that servitude became permanent, marked by the color of their skin and passed down to their children--in other words, slavery. Those early Africans in Virginia who aquired land had it taken from them. The children of men who had been farmers and landowners were sold into slavery. Rather than having the opportunity to rise in America, they were reduced to chattle, viewed as less than human.
We were all "persecuted" historically doesn't begin to account for the stark differences in life expereinces and opportunities based on nothing more than skin color. We were not all persecuted in the same way, and the fact is some weren't persecuted at all.
To deny those circumstances historical and contemporary is to tell African Americans and other people of color that their life experiences don't matter. That is what you are saying.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)So..maybe better to put it out as a separate post in the thread. I don't appreciate your putting words into my reply in response to the post by the Original Poster. And interpreting in a way that takes all context out of my post and rephrases it to suit the message you want to give to verify your personal view.
This isn't a reply to ME and what "I Said"....but something that needs to be a reply in the thread to others here in the many replies to this thread and the discussion of it.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 05:24 PM - Edit history (1)
All of us come from some kind of persecution, forced servitude, tribal loyalty, suspicion of those who are "different from whatever the collective norm is" at that particular time in history somewhere in our ancestry.
Yours, no one else's.
I could have said far more. I could have commented on this:
No, mentioning whiteness and privilege is not racism. White people are not subject to racism, period. That entire notion of racism against whites originated in White Supremacist circles, filtered to RW media, and now we have it here among peple who consider themselves liberal.
You don't know what white is? Every American knows what white and black is institinctively because we've grown up in a society where race matters a great deal. I don't beileve that even you believe that.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Your Words...Not Mine:
"White people are not subject to racism, period. That entire notion of racism against whites originated in White Supremacist circles, filtered to RW media, and now we have it here among peple who consider themselves liberal."
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You are not understanding modern concepts of racism, either.
Which include the concept of power. Whites are the power in this country, there is no racism of an institutional source in this country.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)He was raised by Whites....
Did it corrupt him? What are we to think of his conflicts, then, of his Bi-Racial Upbringing that he shares TWO WORLDS...and is more compassionate in dealing with the White Folks on Wall Street than his Other Half in Kenya where we are instituting "Africom" to make sure Oil/Mineral/Mining interests prevail.
How does one explain him and his Presidency if you want to paint a picture of White People being some kind of Ruling Enemy?
Did he Sell out one Half of Him to Meet the Other....or is he the Mediator?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)and what has this to do with Obama at all? He considers himself black.
here is the original theory of white privilege.
1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.
11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.
12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.
15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.
16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.
17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.
18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.
19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.
25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.
27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.
28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.
29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.
30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.
31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.
32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.
33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.
34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.
35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.
37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.
38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.
39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.
40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.
43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.
44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.
45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.
46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.
47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.
48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.
49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.
50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have you listened, at all, to him talk about race ... especially in context of his family?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)by saying that all come from persecution. That is simply not true.
What you seem to want to focus on is that one group alone is to blame for all of this throughout history because their skin is light or what you refer to is "White" privilege. I don't know what "white" is supposed to mean since those of us with light skin can have many different backgrounds and a mixture of different "races" so that technically we may be light...but, not what you call white. And, that's the problem with "White Privilege." Who are these pure white people who are taking privilege? Singling out anyone by the color of their skin can seem to be selective racism. It's offensive and doesn't address the problems of us all being in this together in this world. How do we better move forward for the "common good." Not for one group over the other because of skin color or gender.
There are so many errors in this post that I don't know where to start.
1) Nothing about white privilege is about blame. If you believe this, you don't understand the concept at all.
2) Those with white skin can have many different backgrounds, and have ancestry from many different countries, but ALL whites benefit from white privilege. No matter how rich, or how poor. Those who are white will have a privilege over non-whites in identical economic situations.
3) "Singling out anyone by the color of their skin can seem to be selective racism." Oh, it is racist to talk about white privilege? I would suggest the reverse is true.
4) The discussion of white privilege has nothing to do with promoting one group over another, it is about recognizing a present and ongoing historical reality.
You are arguing against something you don't understand.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)He was raised by Whites....
Did it corrupt him? What are we to think of his conflicts, then, of his Bi-Racial Upbringing that he shares TWO WORLDS...and is more compassionate in dealing with the White Folks on Wall Street than his Other Half in Kenya where we are instituting "Africom" to make sure Oil/Mineral/Mining interests prevail.
How does one explain him and his Presidency if you want to paint a picture of White People being some kind of Ruling Enemy?
Did he Sell out one Half of Him to Meet the Other....or is he the Mediator?
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Who is talking about corruption?
Where are we talking about whites being a ruling class?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)he somehow was exempted from experiencing racism or that somehow he was not lesser privileged than his white counter-parts.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)To me this post I am responding to is one of the most incoherent thought processes I've seen in awhile.
The thought you-know-who has defenders is funny enough, but they don't make any sense either.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but, unfortunately, it clearly shows his lack of understanding of this topic.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)That's what I thought it said at first.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If you are still around, I would really like to further this discussion; but first wish to offer an apology. I have no (rather, little, problem with what you've written ... I believe that you have a good sense of what is going on and I really liked the "what they hear/what we hear" passage, in the original OP. My reaction to your being cited was based in what I, as a Person of Color, experience in many of these discussions, with a slightly different twist ... being told that my experience is equal to a white person's vicarious experience, and in this case ... apparently because you are married to a Black man. I would offer that credentialing is absurd on its face; but, all too often, passes as legitimate in these discussions.
That said, there are two points I would like to pursue further:
You stated:
This is primarily what PoC have attempted in these discussions ... "carrying the load." It is not unfair to ask us to do so. What is unfair is for there to be a recognition that a load needs to be carried, then refuse to listen. If you have a chance to wander the DU, you might find this OP (or rather the ensuing discussion) of interest as it further explains the world in which PoC live, especially among supposed issue allies. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024880260
It is, personally, helpful that you exampled the dynamic from your position within the privilege. Thanks.
Secondly, you offer the term "white advantage", as a less threatening, less inflammatory, term for white privilege ... I suspect that those failing to understand/accept white privilege, will be equally (or maybe even more) unaccepting of white advantage. It has been argued here: "How can I (white/male) have some white advantage when I live in poverty and ... well ... OPRAH!" (which leads to the PoC's semi-sarcastic response: "we cannot deal with the racial status quo until there are no more poor white folks."
Thank you again for weighing in.
Peace.
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)I do agree that Anglo-Americans squirm each time they hear "white privilege." I'm not sure this is a bad thing. I see this as a natural emotional response that will diminish once the meaning behind the term is better understood.
There is so much more that needs to be added to the dialogue to help establish its existence. As much as I would love to believe that there will be a moment of illumination where people will say, "Oh, I see what you mean," I don't think that will happen until all the evidence has been presented,
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I see this as a natural emotional response that will diminish once the meaning behind the term is better understood.
Well, no, I don't think so. From what I've seen, myself, a large part of the (non-RWNJ) response to this(and you might be surprised at just how diverse the opposition is!), is not just due to personal hardship, but because there are people out there, unfortunately, who have abused the term, including using it as a bludgeon to silence, and to ridicule, etc., people who disagree with them on this, even if they might agree on 90% of everything else. In fact, this has happened even here on DU(and no, I won't name any names, but they know who they are at this point, I feel).
There is so much more that needs to be added to the dialogue to help establish its existence. As much as I would love to believe that there will be a moment of illumination where people will say, "Oh, I see what you mean," I don't think that will happen until all the evidence has been presented,
Only problem is, as much evidence as there is for systemic discrimination(which is a very tangible reality for many), there is no evidence for literal tangible "privilege" shared by all white folks. There never has been.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I know you think you know more than everybody. You don't. You hijack threads everytime and make it all about you.
The fact that you think that there has never been privilege shared by white folks in America ever, shows that you need to spend more time learning and less time speaking on this issue.
Please just stop doing this. You are making me feel embarassed for you.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)This has never been just about me. In fact, I've actually gotten that very same impression from many of those who've jumped in at me.....even if that wasn't always the intention.
The fact that you think that there has never been privilege shared by white folks in America ever.....
Not by all white folks, no.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You need to think before you post and ask yourself if you make sense.
You pretending that your opinion is fact. It is not.
You provide no data or studies to prove your case.
You refuse to define terms.
You say things like literal white privilege in order to have a strawman to beat down.
You use right wing talking points all the time.
You pretend you do not know that they are right wing talking points.
You use your opinions to devalue the experience of African Americans.
You are rude to us and make every race thread about you and your opinions.
You argue semantics in order to misdirect the conversation and turn it into a fight over the words white privilege.
You are not wise beyond your years, i am sorry you were told that. It's not fair to do to you so we are trying to correct that now.
No matter how many times you are asked to educate yourself on the topic, you refuse saying you do not need educating, you know more than everybody.
I can go on if you need more of a reality check. Sometimes we don't know what we don't know until someone tells us. We are telling you.
I am asking you nicely to please stop insinuating yourself into every race thread until you educate yourself about the topic. Try some liberal sources.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Doesn't have to be all. Why would you think it would have to be all??
Please tell me you're not serious about this. You yourself may not believe that, that may be true, but many of your compatriots, across the color line and in both genders, etc. DO. That's the problem.
You pretending that your opinion is fact. It is not.
If you mean that the original intent or meaning of "white privilege" has largely been lost to newer generations, or that some people have abused it and used it as a weapon, etc......then no, it's not just an opinion. The latter IS a fact and the former is an opinion backed up by facts.
You provide no data or studies to prove your case.
And what studies actually prove the existence of literal, tangible "privilege" of white folks? We do, at least, have volumes and volumes of actual data that do in fact prove the very real existence of systemic discrimination.
You refuse to define terms.
On the contrary, I've done this quite a bit. Perhaps more times than I count.....or care to try counting, even!
You say things like literal white privilege in order to have a strawman to beat down.
And this, leads to this......
You use right wing talking points all the time.
Now this here, is a bonafide strawman. "Reverse racism" is a right wing talking point. "Obama is a secret Marxist because Reverend Wright" is a right wing talking point. Pointing out that "white privilege" has largely lost its original intended meaning and is sometimes used as a bludgeon by malcontents to attack, ridicule and even smear people they disagree with, is hardly such.
You pretend you do not know that they are right wing talking points.
Because it was never a RW talking point to begin with.
You use your opinions to devalue the experience of African Americans.
That is simply not true. And this has been pointed out on multiple occasions, too.
You argue semantics in order to misdirect the conversation and turn it into a fight over the words white privilege.
The irony abounds with this one......
You are not wise beyond your years, i am sorry you were told that.
I wasn't told that by anybody. I may not be any sort of perfect, I'll admit that, but I really DO understand more about the world than your average guy of 23.....or at least the average American guy, anyway.
Try some liberal sources.
That's where most of my views actually come from, believe it or not. Mrs. Trotter was just the most easily accessible one I could come across at the moment of my latest search, and to be fair to myself, she actually sounded like a liberal in that one piece she wrote. Wasn't until I dug deeper that I realized that she leaned rightwards.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Yes, i AM laughing at you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)THAT IS A CREATION OF YOUR OWN MIND. So no ... no one will be able to provide any evidence of something that doesn't exist.
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)In the beginning, the name, "baitball blogger," made me a target for everyone out there that wanted to quiet anyone who brought race issues up on DU. Many of the posters who wanted me off this website (because they claimed I was a "race-baiter," would turn out to be strong 2nd Amendment proponents. Many of them did not survive the Sandy Hook massacre when their pro-gun views were not welcome on this website.
That tells me that DU is an evolving website and the trends that we are faced with each day are often cutting edge. I am glad we are having this discussion, but I am here to say that there is more evidence to come that will seal the case about the existence of white privilege. As if the different treatment that Black and White men get at the hands of the criminal justice department wasn't enough. That is sad, so sad that many of you who bristle at the "white privilege" tag have accepted these differences as normal.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
That tells me that DU is an evolving website and the trends that we are faced with each day are often cutting edge.
That's not the impression I've gotten. If anything, it seems like we've been sliding backwards, if anything, over the past year and a half. And I joined in 2011.....yes, even a relative newbie like myself has noticed the problem! So if that doesn't say something, what does?
That is sad, so sad that many of you who bristle at the "white privilege" tag have accepted these differences as normal.
Well, I know I haven't accepted these differences. I want it to change as well; I don't think you'll find anyone on this site who doesn't(who isn't a troll),
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)and you see it as a change in the status quo that existed here before Obama began his run for his second term.
Because, tolerance for race issue discussions on DU definitely reached prominence with Obama's second term, (and since the Zimmerman debacle) and I don't see that getting any better for those who do not want to discuss it.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)As soon as you realize that it's not an 'attack', and merely denotes the state of societal interactions and the way in which differences exist in how the 'in power' group and the 'out of power' group are treated, there is nothing to 'squirm' about. The people who 'squirm' are those who reflexively and defensively react in knee-jerk fashion to what they perceive as a dismissive attack on the 'worth' of 'what they have achieved', because they believe 'nothing was ever handed to them'. It's the same sort of mentality as seen on the right when the President pointed out that no business was built in a vacuum, that every business benefits from things government provides, such as transportation networks, security from criminal activity, and laws that prevent businesses from being defrauded.
Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Hence, my prior usage of "abused". Because although that certainly wasn't the original intent(not by any means!).....there are those who have chosen to use it as an attack. Julia Fisher's essay at the New Republic pointed out as much:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117665/princeton-essay-check-your-privilege-raises-legitimate-gripes
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Even at my alma mater, Arizona State University, the body of leftist professors and students in the social sciences almost unanimously support the theory behind white privilege. In my courses on race, gender and class, privilege, in all its many forms, was a fundamental premise in all of our readings, lectures and discussions. It wasn't a matter of whether or not it existed but to what extent and where.
There isn't a single random internet WASP who will convince me otherwise. Myself and my colleagues have an immense collection of theory and research on our side. Privilege itself is such an obvious reality that it barely even constitutes a "side" anymore. It's more like an undeniable consciousness.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Leaving them sadly incoherent.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Thank you. I wish more people would get this.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)With all that wisdom who are we to doubt?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I find that even sadder since the view point is from another century.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)at 23, we all had a long way to go to get to where we are.
My early 20s self is an embarrassment to my 50s self; and my 50s self would be unrecognizable to my 20s self.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Hopefully he'll age out of this behavior/belief system he holds.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) betsuni
(25,537 posts)when they start young-white-mansplaining everything to the grown-ups!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Unbelievable.
Stay in school, would be my advice.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Squinch
(50,955 posts)
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 03:27 AM - Edit history (1)
Good, please don't, 1SBM. This is getting ridiculous.
It goes on and on....
I know what I know, because I just know. Well, no I never lived it, yet I am telling you that I know. So, what I know is fact and that your life's experiences are, pffff...what the hell would you know. You are flat out wrong, it's about me!!!! Don't you see? I know and I will keep on telling you until you understand the facts of what I know I know I know and you know nothing.
I have no clue how you are bearing up under all of this.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)Which is good, but I really don't know how he handles it.
Trav
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)1SBM will not quit! That is indeed a good thing.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)With that one. Soooooo not with it. But I'm always glad to see an OP from you regardless, 1strongblackman.
Warpy
(111,275 posts)Can't live with 'em, illegal to shoot 'em.
I wonder if that is the main reason for the creation of The Discussionist.
I'm keeping my flabby old far left arse out of there. They'd only piss me off, too.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Keep telling people until they either listen or finally piss the rest of us off. I know several who have already pissed me off. They need to listen more and talk out of their asses less.
K&R
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Ordinarily, I'm not in favor of callout threads. But I'll make an exception in this case. This thread is very revealing.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)it has nothing to do with the word, or the meaning. There is no real conversation taking place. It's a reverse racism argument at its core.
You just have to scratch the surface to know what you are dealing with. And it aint pretty.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Certainly wasn't true in my case. Whatever the case, you've got a lot to learn.....and this is coming from a former believer as well.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Like a couple of years ago when you were in college? ROFL @ how you pass yourself off as having some kind of learned wisdom from your great wealth of experience.
dawg
(10,624 posts)in this society, are those who choose not to see it.
Does that mean that I get everything handed to me because I'm a white male? Of course not. In this heartless society, I could still end up living in the gutter, despite my whiteness. But there are additional obstacles in the way of black people that I simply do not have to deal with. I don't see how anyone can seriously deny that with a straight face.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)from a 23 yr. old.
dawg
(10,624 posts)I wish I was as smart now as I thought I was back then. 
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)That explains a lot. Like every other young person, I thought I knew everything when I was that young.
And, in reality, like every other young person, my total experience with the reality of human existence was far more limited than it later became. I would no doubt blush fiercely in embarrassment if someone reminded me of the equally stupid and ignorant arguments I made at that age.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(for, actually to, my Daughter) that read:
"Dear {BabyGirl 1SBM},
Move out quick ... while you still know everything.
Love,
Dad"
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Maturity is generally associated with age. But it is not a strict relationship.
23 years old is approaching or may have already surpassed the age at which someone should know better on this subject, depending on life experience I suppose.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)that for dancers, athletes, models, 23 is practically middle-aged.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I think it's what you point to at the end of your sentence - life experience.
And quite frankly, the vast majority of us white folks simply don't get around to seeing the experiences most PoC go through every single day. When I was in grade school, I knew exactly one black guy. And he was an adoptee, being raised by white yuppies, so he was hardly representative. He did have to deal with a lot of the privilege issues, but still was shielded to some degree from some of what I would consider the worst of them. (He might have felt differently. I never ran into him again later in life to ask.)
So when you never see something, it can be hard to believe it exists. It takes actually getting the diverse life experiences to even begin to see how society molds us into automatically, unthinkingly accepting our 'reality' as the only 'reality'. I was 'blind' into my mid 20s, when I finally started to see black acquaintances consistently having to put up with crap that their white counterparts like myself, did not. And I was somewhere in my 30s before I actually began to learn and accept that there was more going on than just racial bigotry (that everyone around me was just calling 'racism'.). And it was even later yet when I finally, finally, was introduced to the concept of privilege. And I STILL took weeks to wrap my head around it even in part. I wasn't as consistently obnoxious about it as certain posters, but it took me a while to move from first reading about it to actually 'seeing' it.
Because I spent most of my life 'sheltered' from diversity. I lived in an almost all-white part of an almost all-white town. I hung out with other white people. I went to school at a university that talked a lot about diversity, but I rarely ran into PoC. I simply didn't have the life experiences that allowed me to even see what PoC were going through, and only began to find out about them in online forums.
It's a more diverse country out there in a lot of places, but it's still possible to live in that 'white bubble' in a lot of places too. So I'm not surprised that there are still younger people who haven't had the experiences that let them see how other people are disadvantaged by not being afforded the privilege of belonging to the 'power group' in the country. And, of course, once they finally do start understanding white privilege, you've still got to walk them through privilege intersectionality.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)I have never seen you tell people who have had experiences you have never had that they need to listen to you because you can teach them the REAL story behind their own experiences. Which you have never had.
I have certainly never seen you talk about how you try and try to teach people about their own experiences - the ones you don't share - and they just won't listen, and its really a hardship for you.
You wouldn't go within a hundred miles of such nonsense.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And I haven't ever denied this, and I know of nobody else on here who would, either. But is it really "white privilege"? Is it really "privilege" of all whites?
Regardless of what folks like Peggy McIntosh had in mind back in those heady days of the '60s and '70s, it's become clear to me, at least, that the original intent has largely been lost to many today, as a new group of radicals, this one rather less dedicated to actual activism; many of these new recruits were college aged kids, who, although most of them were well-meaning, I'm sure, looked at the literature and got the impression that "white privilege" was not a metaphorical descriptor or though exercise, but rather, a literally extant and tangible thing that one could experience, and did experience every day. And then you had a few malcontents(for present-day examples, Flavia Dzodan and the owner/operator of Gradient Lair are two good examples, unfortunately), who just wanted to cause trouble and start fights.
My hope is that maybe those people out there who understand the problem(and they are out there, and they come from many different ethnic backgrounds and both genders) can try to take back the podium and set the record straight, once and for all.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)that people of color don't get. Peggy McIntosh gave specific literal tangible examples. It was never intended as just a thought exercise. It's something real.
Everyone but you has the record straight.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And even if that *may* be true for Peggy McIntosh(though I have nothing that collaborates your interpretation of her statements so far), that certainly wasn't true for all of everyone else.
Honestly, get a fucking clue.....or don't. Your choice.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)get yourself a fucking clue? Find some sociologists who agree with you and link to them here. You've been asked to over and over, but you don't, because you've pulled this whole thing out of your ass.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)happened. Whether you may like it or not, it has.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)to some sociologists, or whatever your source is at all.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)notion that the term has changed.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)While I'm sure it's probably he and I may not agree entirely on the "privilege" problem, or any number of other issues, he still makes a good point. And he's a liberal, too, so people will be understandably less skeptical than they were of Mrs. Trotter's article(although, as I've stated before, I honestly didn't realize she leaned conservative until after I posted that and started looking thru other areas of her blog).
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)He is trying to explain to panicked white men what privilege is without using the term privilege. Which is a nice try, but babying the privileged into awareness won't work with closed minds any more the the term white privilege does.
Scalzi gets it.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Regardless of what disagreements we may or may have otherwise, this article proved my point: there are some real disparities in society between whites and People of Color. It's just that using "privilege" hasn't been the best way to get that message across to others.
Let me restate this in another way, to be more clear: To be honest, you can still personally embrace "white privilege" in your own personal philosophy(as Scalzi seems to do indeed) while also coming to terms with the fact that the this term itself hasn't always been the best method of educating the public on these matters.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The only ones complaining about the term white privilege are apologists for white privilege. Either get on board or we'll railroad you. Maybe the issue is we aren't being forceful enough. Maybe the problem is you and others think you get to have a say in how we symbolically identify white privilege.
I think we should actually be taking a harder line on the issue because many appear to be confused about exactly how much power they have to control the dialogue. Hmmm...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
The only ones complaining about the term white privilege are apologists for white privilege. Either get on board or we'll railroad you.
"Apologists" for "privilege"? Now that's a new one.
Maybe the issue is we aren't being forceful enough.
Dig that hole deeper, I dare you.
Maybe the problem is you and others think you get to have a say.....
And we should. We all should get to have a say. Nobody should be excluded. But I suppose that doesn't line up with your worldview, now, does it?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)No, I think taking a harder line with you and your ilk is probably the best choice at this point.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)"white privilege" isn't the best way to describe them and hasn't worked well as a teaching tool in general?
I'm so scared. Shaking in mah boots, I tell ya!
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Who have been educated on the matter and who understand what white privilege means, unlike you, don't seem to have a problem getting it.
So what you're really saying when you say it's not working as a tool of education is it's not working for you personally. That is called a "personal problem."
Get it together or move on. This isn't changing. Either you're going to change or history and humanity will leave you behind. You are putting it on the line, not us.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Horse" and "Water."
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)well put.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Use whatever terminology you wish, but don't try to browbeat people into adjusting their vocabulary for your sake.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"unless you can provide academic support for the validity of your terminology."
I, for one, would readily accept the "literal white privilege/philosophical white privilege" frame, if it had academic support ... just like I accept most documented and rigorously studied social phenomena ... that's how science evolves/advances our understanding of our world.
But alas, it's not to be, as the concept exists only, and solely, in his head.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In fact, as you may able to tell, a certain few people have actually tried to browbeat *me* into conforming to *their* viewpoints.....so what else do we say?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)theirs. The arrogant tone that drips off the majority of your posts isn't doing you any favors.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)You're right. Anyone, like myself, who has grown up in the South from 1958 onwards (or, for that matter, before 1958) knows there is white privilege. There's racism and continues to be racism. I've seen it first hand all my life. There are those who will never be convinced, and for my part, I'm not going to argue/debate with them.
Warpy
(111,275 posts)It's glaringly obvious to me, from the way cops talk to the white folks at the scene of any accident or disturbance and the way white folks are approached first when several people are waiting for some sort of counter service. I'm sure other folks here can come up with other examples.
It's out there, it's real, but most of the people who have it don't recognize it for what it is.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)in the thread about the black activist roughed up by police for moving into his own home.
He just doesn't want to give up on his version of the meaning of the phrase that he claims arose 40-50 years ago, and has little to do with what pretty much anyone who uses the phrase today understands it to mean.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Because it has indeed changed. And not for the better, I'd add. And if "white privilege" is going to remain an even halfway legitimate term for use in actual discussion, the record needs to be set straight.....regardless of who does the "setting", as it were.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Just like 97% of real scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change exists, something like 99-100% of real social scientists agree that your definition is wrong, and that 'literal white privilege' as you like to call it is completely real, and not non-existent as you want to pretend it is.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)That is not intended as an insult, because I don't think it's an insult. It's a request for information to try to understand why you persist in making these statements.
Are you high functioning autistic, or on the autism spectrum (i.e. aspergers, etc.)?
I ask because my son is. He is the only person I've ever talked to who insists on something based upon his perception when everyone around him does not have a perception about a term or issue, and he is unaware of how offensive and, really, incorrect he is to persist in his argument about an issue.
If you are on the spectrum, I would say to you what I have to say to my son, sometimes, because he can't read social cues very well, if at all, sometimes.
You are offensive when you insist on your private definition of a term when others who have more understanding of the issue disagree, point out your factual errors, and tell you that you need to stop insisting your argument has merit when it doesn't.
You may not understand that you are being socially inept to continue talking about this. But it is inept to continue what you are doing and, if you really care about an issue, or others, you need to stop your insistence that your understanding has equal merit.
Or, as I would say to him when he is perseverating - it's time for you to move on and let others have their say because you have made your point, others don't agree, and it's rude to continue to insist on presenting your pov to those you do as you are doing.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But I realize you mean well, so in this case, I don't feel that way.
But the truth is, no, I'm really not.....although, admittedly, I did grow up in a somewhat sheltered home environment. Both parents were somewhat conservative and regular church goers. Nice folks, but not always on the up and up, in a lot of ways. But I do have a somewhat unfortunate life-story regarding my schooling(my local school district badly screwed up on some of my early health evaluations. And I had to put up with some unhealthy social environments on top of that. afterwards.)......although that's a whole different story for a whole different subject.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Because I am truly perplexed at your insistence on using terms that others are not using to talk about this.
I think, then, it gets down to the issue of people (mostly males) taking issue with the term because they don't understand its usage (i.e. there is no literal v. universal privilege, privilege isn't about daily points to rack up, etc.)
The issue comes down to recognizing that someone who is a member of the majority of a population (in this case, white-identified people), have different experiences of a culture than people who are not part of that majority population.
Can we agree on that?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The issue comes down to recognizing that someone who is a member of the majority of a population (in this case, white-identified people), have different experiences of a culture than people who are not part of that majority population.
Can we agree on that?
Yes, I think we can agree that there's truth to that, at least.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)So, if you agree with that, then there's no need for you to tell African Americans here that their understanding of the term is incorrect.
The word choice, of course, is something else entirely (i.e. "privilege).
And since we've established that you're able to read social cues, it comes down to showing respect for the opinions of others by choosing not to insert you personal definitions into discussions of things.
If racism or bigotry or social disparities are of concern to you, one way you can help to alleviate some of them is to simply choose not to be offensive when you have been told you are being offensive - and this would mean you choose not to focus on your version of these issues on this forum.
If that's really hard for you to do, you can put people on ignore when you feel a compulsion to correct them - because, see, the problem is you're not actually correcting them.
Since we are in basic agreement on these points, I think it might be considered "bad form" to continue to participate in discussions where you have demonstrated some insensitivity to people who have more experience than you do.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And all you guys have been doing is telling us to set the record straight over and over again. Honestly, how many times do we need to repeat ourselves before you get it?
There's no excuse for willful ignorance.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)There's no excuse for willful ignorance.
I could have said the same damn thing! And frankly, I'd be telling the honest truth, too, at least in the way that some people have abused the term and have used it as an attack, as well as the fact that it hasn't done all that good of a job in educating people. But then again, I doubt you'd really care to open your eyes anyway.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)You don't seem to understand them.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But then again, I doubt you'll ever get it. And given all the other stuff you've pulled, it's clear to me that I'm not going to be able to get you to reconsider *anything*.
So I'm afraid it's time for the Ignore List. Because there's no talking sense into you. I only hope that maybe someday you'll open your mind a little more......but only you can do that.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I hope that when you get a bit older this experience (specifically your views and how you state them) isn't too embarrassing for you.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Anyone else in this thread. I undoubtedly know more than you. And I didn't gain that knowledge doing Google searches and skimming blogs. I gained it from reading the works by and actually talking to black, feminist and queer radical activists, critical and feminist theorists and a laundry list of other authoritative voices on the subject of privilege and, especially, the white variant.
We've reached a point where this is an issue of casting pearls before swine. Get it together or move on.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and that agreement is consistent with the body of academic knowledge on the matter.
But you choose to apply a different meaning to the concept and the word ... a meaning that is inconsistent with the boby of academic knowledge; but it is others that don't really care to have their eyes opened?
WOW.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's pretty ballsy to change terms developed and refined by academics, based on their study of the matter. And then, to expect others to fall in line, when you have provided nothing, beyond your own superior knowledge and wisdom, to support it.
That's some ballsy stuff.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
?w=4901StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)someone almost got a Bingo in less than 4 very short paragraphs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4978176
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I can find one for just about any type of concern trolling.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Along with sexism bingo.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It was worth the extreme effort it took to google it. 
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)"I wish I was Asian because it's exotic".
"It's racist to say I can't say n*****".
"I'm (insert tiny fraction here) Native".
Will show this to my folks.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Love the internet.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, by the way, we all do bleed red. Irish people were discriminated against(and pretty badly, too). And yes, from my experience, there are indeed some individuals who actually DO look to be offended, even; and it's not just reactionary conservatives who are guilty of that, either(though to be fair, they're usually the worst offenders). We have supposed self-labelled "progressives"
of both genders, and on many subjects, not just this one) doing that exact thing right here on DU! And yes, I'm colorblind(and I mean, legitimately colorblind), too. But I suppose you're going to get all in a huff about that, too, aren't you?
Honestly, maybe you should get off your high horse. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they are "devaluing" your experiences, or even attacking you because of your ethnicity(yes, you've implied this before, btw. Here's an example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4977281. Number seven in that list you made), etc.
And frankly, I think I may have been too polite about this, actually, given the fact that you keep throwing these proverbial spitballs in my direction. It got just plain petty a long time ago, and I've about had enough of that shit.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Being black doesn't matter. All that matters is whitness because cause it's all about you.
The way in which you discuss race does indeed devalue experiences. It entirely erases them. The fact you compare the treatment of the Irish to Africans is a demonstration of that. You know how the Irish became white in America? By being the cruelist slaveholders possible, and by being the most vehement racists. The thing about being European is that one could always find a group to point to as inferior--and that group was Africans, African-Americans, whether enslaved or free.
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415963095/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400622751&sr=1-1&keywords=how+the+irish+became+white
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And besides, after a generation (or less) and a name change and who would know a Europeans country of origin?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)mean that the Irish married other Irish or later Italians. Still, Irishness soon lost its stigma. Africanness and blackness never did.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was going to write about a Northern Mexican phenomena, that was related to me (some Mexicans from the state of Sonora) where they intentional "whitened" themselves, through language and extra-marriage; but to become more "American" but less identifiably, Mexican.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The chart is not about me. You do realize that white privilege bingo is about white people responding to the term white privilege, right?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Doesn't mean I can't offer some much needed criticism, though.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You never do get it.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Please play again.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
betsuni
(25,537 posts)I didn't expect that. When it comes to condiments, I don't see color.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Mayo, catsup, mustard, it's all the same to me. There is no mayo privilege.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And by the way, I was telling the truth with that "We all bleed red" stuff. And I don't see race, either.....that is, I value someone's character, not what they look like or their nationality, or their religion, etc. Of course, I'm sure you'll try to twist that out of context, as you've done with so many other things I've written.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's up to you to stop doubling down and insisting that we all conform to your view.
You still have not provided any back up to your claims of 'literal' white privilege.
You have not provided anything but your opinion stated as fact. You will get laughed at if you do this day after day. People have responded to you in good faith and have tried to explain things to you.
You refuse to learn. That's too bad.
I have no need to twist your words, they speak for themselves.
I now believe you are playing a game of your own.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It's up to you to stop doubling down and insisting that we all conform to your view.
I coulda said the same thing. In fact, I will: How about you stop trying to browbeat me into submission just because I disagreed with you?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We heard you. We decided that we are going to keep using the terms that we prefer. Thank you for the interest. You can use your terms and we will use ours.
This should be the end of it then and you should not race from thread to thread arguing with folks about using the term white privilege. Your concern is noted.
Please be done.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Because most of this stuff got started when certain people took offense to my comments about the failure of WP as a teaching tool, or pointing out that some people were indeed abusing it and using it to silence, ridicule, etc., or that there could be better ways to describe real disparities in U.S. society. And the good majority of these comments were pretty benign, mind you, perhaps to a fault. But that didn't stop the B.S. from coming forth, now, did it?
I hope that the next time we meet, it'll be on better terms. So farewell.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We do not agree with you. You refuse to let it go and move on. You are dedicated to ending the use of that term and will offend and label and condescend to anyone who doesn't agree. It is not up to you what words we use. You need to stop harping on it and move on.
Nobody is bullying you. You can choose to not always have to be the one deciding what others should say.
It is up to you to stop. We do not force you to pop up and argue semantics with us. You choose to. And you get your feelings hurt.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You have repeated ignored all requests for proof for your assertions, which contradict the life experience of many of the black posters on DU. You have provided no academic support, or any other support for your rather offensive views. Yet, you keep injecting yourself into discussions of race despite such offensive views, and refuse to stop doing it.
This makes you a troll, in my opinion.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)people took offense to you inventing a term/concept and using that figment of your imagination to interpret what social scientist mean when the discuss white privilege.
People were offended by the patently/blatantly intellectual dishonesty of that act.
People are offended by your blatant disregard for the body of academia.
People are offended by your constant projecting your BS onto others.
People are offended by your "my opinion is equal to you life experience" attitude, especially you you continue to demonstrate that you haven't a clue about others' life experiences, nor the weakness of your opinion.
But mostly, people were offended by your arrogant, condescending, "know it all" manner.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)This is Stephen Colbert, isn't it?
Colbert is smart and witty and talented and entertaining, so no.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and the other stuff he posts is no more reliable.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)By the way, you have yet to point to any actual "denial" on my part. Hmm.....why is that?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)point to any social scientist that supports your invented "literal white privilege" concept.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)
?w=584&h=426AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, humans are smart. We can indeed adapt. Doesn't mean we should ignore climate change.....rather, what is meant, at least on the pro-AGW side of things, is that we ought to use that to our advantage, to *help* fight climate change.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Too funny!!! I do not think you get this either!!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sounds like it.
What is arrogant is you whitemansplainin white privilege to people who have more experience and knowledge on the subject than you.
Have you any shame, sir?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And now you're implying that I'm some sort of covert bigot.....amirite? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.
Have you any shame, sir?
Have YOU any shame, madam?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You are the one throwing out terms like arrogant. I asked if you meant uppity. Did you? Don't answer. I do not care. 
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In fact, I actually shook my head and let out a couple of chuckles as I was writing out the title for this post.
Farewell, then. Maybe you'll try to be a little more open-minded the next time around, eh?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I know you just want to get the last word in but i don't want to let you. Just in case you think you proved some point or something.
I have been civil. You lost this round before you started. Please get over the need to control the conversation of others. It is rude.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Ordinarily I don't like callouts, but I'll make an exception in this case.
Asserting an unsupported opinion and arguing it endlessly and repetitiously in multiple threads amounts to spamming the board and could even be considered troll behavior.
Even when I was 23 and knew everything, I was never so strident and disruptive about it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)on it? And no, I don't mean the OP.
Seriously, when you find yourself out of your depth, the answer is not to keep doubling down. You only make yourself look foolish. Though it's pretty obvious that a certain poster couldn't care less about looking the fool - he's RIGHT, damn it!
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)and the patience of the many to try and educate the one blows my mind.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Frankly, I hate to seem rude, but I'm afraid it's kinda obvious you don't know the whole story of what's been happening. Because I'm not the bad guy here.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)You may not think you're the bad guy but you are. Actually, I think you know that but it makes no difference to you. Your intent seems to be to disrupt the board by posting meaningless garbage on this subject. Based on the vast wisdom gained in your 23 years.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Denial of white privilege by privileged whites is almost funny, but not really.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But then again, maybe you wouldn't care.....who knows?
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts) kwassa
(23,340 posts)That in a nutshell is the problem.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts) kwassa
(23,340 posts) RainDog
(28,784 posts)And that's why you dislike the use of the word "privilege" so much - b/c you associate it with economic privilege. This becomes, in turn, a fissure between people who aspire to or are part of the "elite" - whether it's economic or educational - that others can ignore what is the most important reality in this nation: economic factors within a society that disparages the poor - from the right by shame and from the left by using certain assumptions.
Not too many Eric Hoffers around (he's an interesting guy you might like to check out - called the "longshoreman philosopher" and author of The True Believer - a classic of thought about mass movements and fanaticism after the rise and fall of the Nazi party - it also resonates in an era of religious fundamentalism as a mass movement in response to social change in the U.S. and other nations.
Here's the thing, tho - I don't disagree with the Republican woman or the feminist scholar, Naomi Zack, or African-American scholar Lewis Gordon about how problematic the word "privilege" is - this seems to be your main issue, too - BUT I also agree with 1SBM that any term is going to be criticized, so you might as well go with the one that's there - or simply don't use it yourself - but it's wrong to try to "censor" others' use of the word by "educating" them about how off-putting it is. That issue is soooooooooo minor in compared to the issues the term addresses.
You can listen to a program where Lewis Gordon speaks about an extremely important historical voice (Frantz Fanon) here: http://cassian.memphis.edu/counterpoint/lewis_gordon.mp3
Gordon has said:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9wZo92f1EMIC
---so his views should resonate with you - but he still doesn't deny the lived experience of African Americans now under the umbrella of "white privilege" - this is pretty much the same position as Zack.
Reference to Zack here (and more interesting reading)
She acknowledges race is non-existent - but racism exists because of a history that did believe in the idea of different races.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MGM-Mixed/conversations/topics/913
None of these people, however, are going to insult African Americans for using the term to discuss their experiences - and you shouldn't, either.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'd like to explain the reason for why I posted this originally and have continued to engage ... I was hoping to hold up that mirror, not to the few deniers, but rather to those DUers that are willing to consider, "Is that what I look/sound like? I sure hope not!"
