"There is no such thing as white racism, but there is plenty of non-white racism to go around"

This is an insidious idea from those that promote white privilege through the hatred of non whites, and it's been around for quite a long time. They use inflammatory language to rally the white working class to defend themselves from perceived threats.

We've seen this in the past: "So-called Civil rights people like, Martin Luther King are communists, and if they get their way, gangs blacks will rape our white women at will."

We see it today: "Gangs of dangerous Mexican criminals are crossing borders, stealing our jobs and killing white ranchers and New Black Panthers! New Black Panthers"

Fox News is the forefront promoter, encouraging white fear, depicting a black president as some kind of communist black separatist with an agenda to make white people pay for their sins.

Most Republicans, although they're not the biggest cheerleaders of this strategy, are simply turning a blind eye and disavowing any knowledge that such a thing is going on, only because they stand to gain politically from a white wave of backlash against a "racist" black president.

It's a cynical combination of dirty politics and exploitation of national anxiety about race.

Because of it everyone is walking on glass and trying not to get cut, from the President on down.

The people who are behind this are the worst enemies of racial and class justice in this country. Because, if they keep most good people fearful and unsure, these promoters of white privilege and hatred can stop people who have more in common than uncommon from coming together and working to make all of our lives better.

Qui bono?

When the fear mongers and distorters of the truth have their successes, not you and I.

I couldn't read past the first paragraph because of the inherent hypocrisy.

Nuke and Unrec.

:nuke:

:shrug:

Everyone deserves all of the "privileges" that white people have.

Those so-called privileges are actually human rights. I think it is possible to discuss race issues without putting anyone down.

There are people who implicitly believe in it. They're wrong, no such privileges should exist, but it's not inflammatory to use the term when criticizing the idea.

It's a bass-ackwards way of talking about suppression of the rights of minority people. Calling it X privilege implies that X gets more than X deserves, and in turn that the fix is to take something away from X.

The problem isn't that white people get too much. The problem is what gets systematically taken away from non-white people.

There are people who implicitly believe that whites in this country are more deserving than others. That belief can properly be called a belief in white privilege. Acknowledging that belief is simply acknowledging the truth.

You act as if the KKK is running government, and it's bullshit. These lines are vicious, but they are SOCIOECONOMIC. You wanna see someone ENTITLED? Just look at ANY COLOR RICH FOLK.

Then blame someone else.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you even read my post?

In what way am I acting as if the KKK is running the government? :shrug:

Their money doesn't save them.

Ask Dr. Gates.

Chris Rock once inferred he doubted any white person would want to trade places with him, even though he was rich. Why would he say that?

We elected him. There were white candidates to choose from but we picked a black one. A man of color. Now he's President. Black man, White House.

Racism exists in this country but it's going away, and with every generation, it diminishes.

Who would deny that? And to those who would say, "It's not happening fast enough" -- what would you have Government do?

If you haven't noticed, people like Breitbart, The teabaggers and Fox News are doing their damn best to make sure that it's defended at all costs.

And about that black president, opposition to him that's tinged by the mischaracterization that he intends to supplant white privilege with a black and brown one, is what they are rallying around.

Look, I voted for Obama also (like most of us on these boards) but does anyone think Republican opposition to a Democratic President would be any LESS FIERCE if Obama were a white man? History says otherwise. Conservatives were ready to lynch Bill Clinton over a blow job, for God sakes... Between double-digit inflation, umemployment, and the Iranian hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter was REVILED by Republicans, which is why in his fourth year in office he wrapped himself in the American flag and never left Pennyslvania Ave (and is now considered by Republicans to be one of the WORST Democratic Presidents ever)...FDR was branded a Communist by HIS opponents (sound familiar?).

Long story short, Presidential Politics has never exactly been a Gentlemens' sport. So with that in mind we must ask ourselves, Just how different would opposition to Obama be if he were white?

Then no one would ever hold him to a promise of not using his office to promote the interests of blacks over whites. Remember his response to the Rev. Write controversy? A lot of white people have, so has the President.

As seen by what happened to Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod, if there is merely an appearance of "black preference" in the Obama Administration, Obama himself acts quickly and harshly to eliminate it.

The risk here is that an confirmed accusation of "black privilege" will taint whatever political clout President Obama has. His enemies know that white privilege that exists in our society provides the playing field on which Obama has to operate.

I'm sure that, if Obama was white, not white person in this country would lose one night of sleep in vigilance against the possibility that he could use the office of the president to "make whitey pay" for their crimes against non whites.

-- who believe Obama is trying to "make whitey pay" for centuries of oppression and injustice, but the majority of his opponents aren't making this claim (at least, not out loud). All they are doing, really, is behaving like all of the other enemies of progressivism from decades past. That is to say, their behavior and the magnitude of their vitriol is the same now as it has always been. Don't you agree?

Or do you really think that Barack Obama is "taking more shit" than FDR and Bill Clinton took?

I lived in DC during Clinton's time.

And I can tell you that there were no gaggles of irritable people making complete fools out of themselves on The Mall protesting the dangerous evil of a Clinton blowjob.

The waters have been poisoned today more than they ever were in the past. Because the country is more polarized today than it was in FDR and Clinton's time.

And yourself have proved my point by relating that the enemies of Democratic presidents would face vitriol regardless.

However, Obama gets more vitriol because, unlike Clinton and FDR, his own race has become a point of contention.

-- or at any other time in my life, as a matter of fact. You had a ringside seat to the fight and I did not, and if you tell me there is more buffoonery on display on the National Mall now than in the 1990s, I believe you.

...But I do NOT believe that "The waters have been poisoned today more than they ever were in the past." Sorry but intuitively, that just makes no sense to me. Barack Obama could not have been elected 70 years ago... 40 years ago... or even, arguably, 20 years ago. The country just wasn't ready until now. We hadn't evolved enough. Are we FULLY evolved in 2010? Of course not. But to say the waters are poisoned "more than they ever were in the past"... well, I must respectfully disgree.

What I took from your query is, that all things being even, is Obama catching more hell from his opponents than did Clinton and FDR?


And I answered yes, because the poisoning that I wrote about is based on several proportional aspects:

A. That the level of constant vitriol that Obama has endured during his half term has no equity with which either FDR or Clinton, during either of their individual whole terms. Imagine eight plus years of constant protests and gun rallies that we've seen during the last two years. It's a concentration that's unprecedented in this country, with the notable exception of Vietnam War protests, but that neither FDR and Clinton ever had to endure that sheer level of public outrage during each of their tenures.

B. I mentioned lack of organized protests during Clinton's time. We all know that teabagging is a recent national phenomenon, which is seemly inspired by the "Kenyan, muslim, radical, communist, socialist" in the White House.

C. Neither FDR nor Clinton, during most of his time in office, had to deal with a 24 hr Fox News cycle of lies and distortions.

D. Neither FDR nor Clinton, during most of his time in office, had to deal with the Internet and sheer size of online hatred that Obama now finds himself subject to.

E. Neither FDR nor Clinton, during most of his time in office, had to deal with people calling their race into question, unlike Obama where his race is ALWAYS the issue.

F. Yes, no black man (or black woman for that matter) would ever have been considered electable between 70 and 20 years ago. So really, since it couldn't have happened and didn't happen, race doesn't need to considered has a factor, because of Obama's singular case.

So you add all that up, and Obama is the clear winner.

Just curious.

Easier to walk home after dark without suspicion.

Some housing advantages.

Carded less.

the list goes on.

but it would be nice fore the person who asserted the original point to answer me and not a stranger with a question.

Instead of saying white people don't deserve them.

"...The problem is what gets systematically taken away from non-white people."

slackmaster, we finally agree on something. I am getting a little tired of hearing about how "privileged" I was/am simply because I'm a white male. Believe me, if I was "privileged," I must have fucked up big time as I'm hanging by my fingernails economically.

If this is "privilege," then it's not all its cracked up to be...

It's not about "privilege," but the lack of opportunity that should be our biggest concern.

Typical of those who consistently deny racism as the person you replied to does constantly.

I've never denied that non-white people are frequently and sometimes systematically discriminated against.

of their white skin.

:eyes:

You constantly deny racism when it's pointed out. You really don't have much in the line of credibility here.

I don't deny that it happens. I deny that it's universal.

You constantly deny racism when it's pointed out. You really don't have much in the line of credibility here.

Another Straw Man, and Argumentum Ad Hominem.

I'm continuing with a theme. If you don't like my argument piss off then. It's really no privilege to talk to you, you know.

:hi:

human rights. White privilage is a fact.

X "is" that, Y "is" something else. That kind of statement amounts to nothing more than throwing labels around.

That's the way these silly discussions always go.

As a beneficiary of white privilege, I'm gonna call it what it is. If some other beneficiary of white privilege takes offense, that's his/her problem. I know for a fact that I didn't get where I am today on my hard work, brains and charm alone. Others less white than me, raised in less affluent families than mine, etc., were (and often remain) in the back of the line or waited for a place in line when good fortune was being dispensed to me.

:hi:

Your argument is circular. White people are imbued with white privilege - it goes without saying that the reason this is a problem is exactly because everyone should be treated that way.

But everyone ISN'T treated that way.

Hence the "privilege" part of it.

If you could state your position without using any form of the verb "to be", you might actually say something meaningful.

Please try it.

But can you at least acknowledge that others have been denied the good fortune? And can we agree that when that denial is based on one's race, it's called discrimination?

Then, what do we call it when the good fortune is "dispensed" based on one's race? I think we are left with the term "priviledge."

Because I can't think of a single instance where I got something that was denied to another person because of his or her race.

My family is either middle middle class, lower middle, or upper lower.

I want some!

See how that goes?

White privilege kinda sucks...

As privileges go I'm not sure it even ranks in the top ten anymore.

It's hyped to be defended beyond its actual impact and everyone goes apeshit.

It does combine well with certain other privileges though.

Getting old sucks.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You need to break it down, cuz. The number of white wealthy folks far outweighs the number of non-white wealthy folks. Why do you think that is? Could it be because...oh, I dunno...we white folks enjoy cultural privilege that our non-white brothers and sisters have been waiting centuries to have us whites confer to them?

Get a clue. Buy one. Borrow one. Jesus, I'll LOAN you one: The "have nots" exist on the crumbs of what the "haves" confer to them. It's a power thing, and power can be and is derived from a single source or from many sources: race, socioeconomic status (often as institutionalized whether it's wealthy or poverty), sexual orientation, community "standards," political affiliation, and so on.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Really. It's the right thing to do.

For most of us this is asking us to recognize examples of when others were discriminated against to our advantage. I don't know if a person of color applied for the same position as me and was denied the position because of that. We wouldn't notice that mall security does not focus on us when we walk into a store nor a waitress who fails to avoid us because we are not non-white.

It's like recognizing my male privilege at the auto repair center. Until I hear my Sister In-Law (the professional mechanic) complain about the way she was treated. I had the privilege of believing that everyone else was treated just like me. At an intellectual level I can see/listen to these stories of discrimination based on race/gender. But a part of me still can't get my head totally around it. It's foreign to so much of what I have personally experienced.

I've had it work against me plenty of times. I feel strongly that age discrimination, er, youth privilege, was one of the reasons I was passed over for expanded responsibilities and additional pay at my last job, which is the reason I quit it last year.

I know of no specific instance in which I was given a break because I am white. Not one.

That's it the essence of white privilege that allows its beneficiaries the option to deny its very existence.

Whereas, in any given situation, white people in America are considered the society's standard bearers.

Non-whites are impelled to meet and excel above that white standard in order to earn a level of equity.

Those that "do not" will remain disadvantaged:

Teachers with "accents" in Arizona are being prohibited from teaching English, even without regard to their actual command of the English language. That's just one example

White privilege, at its core, creates the dynamic by which whites never have to consider what advantage that they have over non-whites, because the system standardizes that quality of whiteness itself above non-whiteness.

to be treated equally across the board, but that doesn't make the term "white privilege" inflammatory.

Putting a phenomenon into words doesn't make it inflammatory.

Whenever someone uses it, I get the impression that he or she has a chip on his or her shoulder about white people in general, and I no longer feel inclined to listen to whatever he or she is saying.

Would you feel the same way?

And if you were to feel differently about it, and you base your opinion merely on the race of the writer, why should that difference matter at all?

...on his or her shoulder too.

are black and white chips different somehow?

Here's the bottom line:

I'm white, I work, I'm middle-class, and I vote. Any political candidate who I perceive to have a chip on his or her shoulder about race or anything else, is probably not going to get my campaign contributions or my vote.

BTW, did you catch Rachel Maddow last night?

:shrug:

When I was a kid, I was always one of the LAST ones picked because I lacked athletic ability (mainly due to my defective vision).

Being white was certainly not to my advantage when I was accepted into the University of California for my undergraduate work.

I can't think of a single instance in which I was hired over someone else because of my race.

I can't think of a single instance in which I was paid more than someone else because of my race.

just because you are fortunate enough to ingnore something doesn;t mean it isn;t happeneing. so your bitter about affirmative action in college, huh?

not "inflammatory language".

Recommended, to cancel your poutrage.

now go have another White Russian.

regardless of color.

It's a little off putting that you suggest otherwise, but TO EACH HIS OWN.

You're also entitled to be put off.

Your comment about "this" being about an underclass makes no sense.



My comment (the one you're replying to) is only about Slack's remark that "white privilege" is inflammatory language. Since WP undoubtedly exists, mention of it's existence isn't inflammatory, it's just realism.

That doesn't preclude it's inclusion into a larger disenfranchised under-class, so your objection doesn't make any sense.

If you think "white privilege" is non-existent, you're merely a fool, but I suspect your intent is to muddy the waters.

Is it getting a bad rap?

It's not a problem at all that needs to be addressed?

Maybe it's too touchy a subject to broach in the first place?

And if it's being used to exploit fear and hatred, we can't discuss that either?


But ask yourself, what is the dynamic behind the propaganda of alleged black racism, and what is impacted by it? There are people like Beck and Hannity who have made clear that they are protecting white privilege in the face of a black President and the power that he wields. That is the thing that they're planting in the minds of their viewers: "White people built this country, and if we're going to remain a nation that we all recognize, we can't relinquish our advantageous position."

Frankly, I don't see why talking about it is a problem.

Or is it to give everyone the "privileges" you think white people have?

Which is that there people in this country who promote the idea that whites are a privileged class and they promote this idea to other whites. They have convinced some of these people that they have a position of privilege to protect.

There's even a segment of the teabagger movement that has adapted this idea.

I'm also saying that the reason that the promoters do this is prevent poor and working class whites from joining to with poor and working class non-whites and overturning the exploitive advantage that the oligarchy has over all of our lives.

It has nothing to do with equating one form of advantage with another, where neither should exist at all.

But all I'm talking about is an idea that is used by the people who seek to keep all poor and working separate.

I don't know what your motive is, but frankly I'm all about clarifying my statements, which I hoe that I have.

In regards white privilege and what impact that it actually has on our society, perhaps both of us can clarify our positions on that subject as well. But that's not what I'm talking about right now.

There is indeed a privileged class in this country, but it isn't white people.

Most of the members of that class are white, but privilege comes from wealth, and from comity among the wealthy and powerful, not from skin color.

But at its core, you're comparing apples with oranges

On one hand, you have a privileged class who derive their advantage by way of their wealth, and yes even wealthy non-whites are afforded a degree of privilege over people who are white, but NOT as so economically.

Yes, a system of class privilege can disregard color.

However, within this system of class privilege exists a racial sub-construct, composed to people who are within the same economic class and who are competing with one another. A black billionaire has to compete within his own status arena against his white billionaire counterpart. Whereas, the white poor and working working class can never compete against a black billionaire economically, but they can compete against those who are also poor and working, but yet are non-white. White privilege is the game which makes uneven a level economic playing field.

You see, acknowledging one does not nullify the other.

True, the wealthy exploit us all, of course, regardless of color.

But, it is best to see the fact that white privilege works most efficiently when people of the same economic class are forced to work against each other, instead of together against those who are at the top.

As far as I could tell, the poor white single moms were in exactly the same straits as the poor black single moms and the poor Hispanic single moms.

My status is middle class. At 52 I own most of my home, I don't have any significant debt other than mortgage, I work in a profession for which at the moment jobs are available. I like to think that I got to this situation by hard work and the good fortune of having a brain that works slightly better than most peoples' do.

If I could do it all over and trade my whiteness in on a pair of eyes that work properly, I just might.

Either one way on the other and when it come to the bottom line, white privilege really isn't all that important?

Based on your response, I'll reply with an answer

in how people are treated by society in general.

I think that overall, how much money a person earns or possesses, and the circumstances of their birth over which they had no control, play much greater roles.

I appreciate your calm demeanor in this discussion, MrScorpio, and I've been struggling with myself in attempt to understand why the term "white privilege" irks me so much. I think it has something to do with the way I was raised, in a middle-class family in a community where most others were more affluent. The word privilege may not mean exactly the same thing to me as it does to you. Privilege, to me, is essentially a reference to wealthy people. People who can afford to buy new clothes all the time, or who drive fancy cars and live in big houses with fabulous views, and maybe live-in servants. My more privileged classmates in high school were able to go on to Harvard or Princeton or McGill, while all I could afford was the University of California. I wasn't poor enough or high-achieving enough to qualify for any kind of major scholarship.

I was taught that some people have possessions and special privileges that they acquired not because of anything they have done, but merely because of when, where, and to whom they were born. I was taught that being scornful or envious of their privilege serves no useful purpose. They didn't choose it, they didn't earn it, it's just the way things work out in life. I never had any problem getting along with my more fortunate friends and neighbors, because I was taught that envy is a sin that can eat away at your soul and make you unhappy. I judge each individual by how he or she treats other people.

I tested as highly intelligent as a young child, and got through school easily. I've always been good at figuring things out. I've always been proud of that, but I learned very young that no matter how smart a person is, there are plenty of people who are smarter. No matter where you stand on the social ladder there is always someone higher up than you are, and there are always people less fortunate than you.

I was taught that the trappings of privilege don't mean as much as that which you have earned through your own hard work.

I was taught that in the end, we all end up the same way no matter how fortunate or unfortunate we were in life.

But think about this: Those people are to the manor born achieved that status how?

Well the short version is that their ancestors themselves had obtained some degree of advantages which they, in turn, passed down to their descendants. The ownership of property and wealth, established social connections, allowances for prestige and reputation, all handed down in one degree or another. Now how they achieved their "success" at being advantaged is another story altogether, but we all know that it exists, that being that.

But the point being is that that is the way in which a system of class privilege perpetuates itself, by rewarding some and not rewarding others.

Of course, in a meritocracy, we are all inherently responsible for our own successes or failures. But, that would preclude the fact that a certain amount of success is inherited, wouldn't it?

I can see why you were taught that you shouldn't be envious of those rich people around you, and indeed you're expected to be solely responsible for failing or succeeding.

But yet, it's true that the system of class privilege perpetuates itself, despite the propaganda that we're supposed to live in a meritocracy, that dynamic of passing down advantages from one generation to the next is not exclusive to degrees of class. In America, there is a racial component as well that hands down a system of white privilege from antecedents to their descendants. It doesn't exist outside of class privilege, but within it and amongst comparably even groups of whites and non-whites, it complements it. It would behoove you to read up more about how it works. I'm sure that it'll be an eye opener.

Also, while reading about your past experiences and what you were taught about not equating your modest success with the greater success others, I couldn't help but to think that, if I were to design a system that limits the availability of a finite resource of privilege to an exclusive class, I would make sure that those who haven't been rewarded as much are taught a lesson that their exclusion is totally unrelated to those who are rewarded.

Some have to lose their unearned, undeserved privilege in order to achieve equality.

Same goes for male privilege and heterosexual privilege.

A white person (myself included in this btw) has been given opportunities they did not earn simply because of the color of their skin. This needs to go away, yes.

Which IMO is just as much nonsense as white privilege.

I did it in spite of a visual handicap and a few hard knocks early in life.

White privilege is literally history.

Minority privilege is enshrined in law with many billions of tax dollars used to promote it.

Either we do it the MLK way - judging content of character, not color of skin - or this is simply a game of who gets to be on top right this moment and the inevitable series of backlashes ad infinitum.

Personally I think MLK had it right.

More labels and no substance.

but by observing your reaction, seems the book would not get opened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UJlNRODZHA'

Using a technology to bring people together than tearing them apart

You say there is no such thing as white priviledge, but in the next breath you acknowledge that non-whites receive less of the priviledge that doesn't exist.

By white priviledge no one is suggesting that at birth you were given $$$, while non-whites were not; it means that due to an accident of birth, you have opportunities than non-whites.

It does not suggest that you have to work less hard to get what you have gotten; it means that you do not have to struggle against artificial barriers, like race or gender.

It doesn't mean that you do not deserve what you worked hard to get; it means that you just did not "earn" the opportunities to get, that are denied to non-whites.

No one of color begrudges your success ... until you start spewing that nonsense about you having earned your way and so can everyone else.

If you're white and get pulled over you're thinking to yourself (if you're not sure) "I must of done something wrong." While their is racial profiling going on and minorities are much more likely to get their vehicle searched than white people even though the contraband arrests are pretty much the same despite minorities getting searched much more often. That is just one aspect.

Another is applying for jobs. If you have name that looks black you're much less likely to be called in for an interview or whatever. A great example is Kal Penn which isn't his real name. He tried out to see if an anglo name would land him more opportunities for work and he proved himself to be correct.

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack
Peggy McIntosh

http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf

It is not inflammatory language, it is a statement of fact. Skin color brings with it certain unquestioned "privileges" in this society that most never really even realize they have. It is not a legal right or a moral one. It is a free pass though not to be profiled, not to constantly be made aware of one's differences, not to always have to see things through the lens of race.

White privilege has always existed in this country. As has male privilege. And social privilege based on class. It is no more inflammatory to speak of white privilege than it is to speak of the unspoken privileges of any of these other groups.

:rofl:

That's what they mean when they say they want their country back. The good old days when merely being white made you superior and when your inferior abilities were never an issue in gaining the higher positions.

But by exposing their racism, misogyny and homophobia they've guaranteed never getting 'their country' back. I say good riddance and let's roll up our sleeves and jump into this fight!

All the players behind it and promotion of white people over all others are the same.

Whites are as blind to white privilege as males are to male privilege and straights are to straight privilege.
They simply don't think about it.

There is a bubble of "this is the norm" and attempts by other groups to achieve rights equal to theirs is seen as seeking "special rights".

Further, any attempt to educate them is seen as "the PC police" coming down on them.

The same dynamic is applied across the board

:thumbsup:

while decrying 'white privilege' shows that even the enlightened among us can participate.

Epic.

Fail.

(you know, the active participants in this story) are NOT part of the "white working class".

It has a specific definition. Look it up.

From Dictionary.com:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

White Americans have privileges. Many believe they are superior to people of color. Most white Americans view themselves as "superior" with the right "to rule others" here and abroad. White racism is institutionalized in this country. To turn around and accuse those who oppose the racism as racist is absurd. Like Imperialists accusing those they colonize of being aggressors for rebelling against them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Kudos and congratulations for what? Voting their own interests? Are you for fucking real? Seriously?

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have GOT to be kidding. You think someone should be throwing you a party for not being racist? You're expected to NOT be racist. You're expected to not let the color of of a candidate's skin sway you from voting for him. So no I'm not at all inclined to drop a congratulatory anything on your doorstep for exhibiting a modicum of human decency and proper behavior.

Seriously, the notion of you needing to be congratulated for voting for Obama is asinine and frankly offensive. Do what you want or not but don't you dare expect a pat on the back for acting like a decent human being. That is supposed to happen without cookies and other things of congratulations you'd give to a small child.

I really cannot take you seriously with such a ridiculous argument.

And since you OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue, electing a black man as President hasn't done a DAMN thing about ending racism in this country only the naive and stupid believe such fuckery.

especially when considering that a majority of "White people" voted for McShame...

Anyway it was BIG MONEY and the temporary self-destruction of the far-right-wing of the Big Business Party coupled with a rather steep dip in the ongoing process of end-stage capitalism that "elected" Barack Obama much more than any mythical "end of racist USAmerica"!

Certainly those who believe their race is superior to others are the most extreme examples of racism, but that's most certainly not the only way the word can be defined.

Webster's #2 definition is simple and to the point:

You are exactly correct. Racism is racism. Period.

Working class whites had NOTHING to do with the firing of Ms. Sherrod, for example.

Privileged people of all races made that decision. And then you start a thread blaming working class whites in some generalized sense for the whole mess? It would seem that every one of us need to examine our own biases, as the "white working class" had nothing to do with this sad series of events. :hi:

A tool to keep the totality of the underclass, regardless of race, divided and conquered

It the "fear of a black planet" which is a key component to Fox's campaign against President Obama with their constant stories about the New Black Panthers and a "racist" black USDA official.

JOBS are the best tool of social justice this community has ever had. But like I said, we aren't really encouraged to look at the effects of so-called "free trade" on the upward mobility of African Americans. Instead, in bad times we are encouraged to demand answers from the "white working class".

Two sides of the same coin, imho. :hi:

It was hidden behind their hands as they put them up to their faces to hide their mouths as they whispered some slur. The teabaggers are a prime example. They're what people call working class. The only difference now is that the racists have come out into the open.

And those white working class people who are distracted by their own racism will never take the time to see that the non-white working people that they hate actually have more in common with them than uncommon.

All I ask, who benefits from this?

as to the man on the street.

It's true of me, and it's true of you, too.

Those who would get the jobs and the privileges and the wealth because they're deemed 'superior'.

Any working class folks amongst them?

How about the folks who decided to ignore all safety regulations in pursuing BP's Gulf deep ocean well? Working class?

How about the people who decided to deny poor Americans assistance in the past "stimulus", and instead decided to divert the funds to executive bonus funds? Rednecks?

"It was hidden behind their hands as they put them up to their faces to hide their mouths as they whispered some slur. "

This sentiment says more about you than anyone else. You cannot read minds, for one. :scared:

And you're argument is puerile. Politicians and Corporations are just as likely to cut whites off as anyone else standing in the way of their profits. The difference being that everyone, including you are insignificant. Do you think the politicians care about the teabaggers? They're just using them to promote their own self interest.

I see nothing to defend when racists are racists, be they hiding under a rock or screaming it in your face. Do you?

I really don't get what you're trying to say here, with the Fraudian slip and the "difference is the same" phraseology. If it's that the ruling class like to spread the meme that the working class is more racist than any other group in order to spread dissension among working people, then we agree entirely. If not, ketchup!

Working class whites had EVERYTHING to do with Ms. Sherrod's firing. To whom do you think breitbart and fox"news" was directing it's message? To whom was the Obama administration attempting to appease by firing her?

wrong.

"To whom do you think breitbart and fox"news" was directing it's message? To whom was the Obama administration attempting to appease by firing her?"

Now the "white working class" has to take responsibility for the media and the Presidency, despite controlling neither? That's a lot of power for an otherwise marginalized group to hold.

Notice I said nothing about RESPONSIBILITY.

You said that the white working class had nothing to do with Sherrod's firing, I offer again, that the white middle has everything to do with what Ms. Sherrod's firing. It is/was both party's audience.

But for, Breitbart's attempting to cast the Obama administration as racist and the Obama administration's attempt to convince the white working class that it is not racist by firing Ms. Sherrod, none of this would have occured.

Part of equality is understanding that all people have moral agency. This goes times a million for the President. In fact, denying that such a powerful man is responsible for his own decisions smacks of racism itself. :hi:

Is "white privilege" true? Well if we define at as an advantage avilable to white people over non-whites cet par in many aspects of social interaction, sure. How many studies do we need with identical resumes using names like "DeShawn" compared to "Peter" do we need to see this? Same for rental applications and so on - or police stops yadda yadda.

So a white person and a minority comparing on an otherwise equal footing will result in a white "win" almost all the time when whites are making the call.

But that does not mean every white person gets a better outcome tahn every black person on every social interaction. Nor has every white person materially benefitted from white privilege. Even if every single black man has lost a job to a white man, ther are far too many whites compared to blacks for every single white man to have been given the nod over a black one. I have at a conservative estimated interviewed applicants for 30 jobs. I have interviewed one black candidate. So for 29 jobs (and these ranged the gamut from entry level to skilled to management) I never saw a black applicant. In some cases is it possible they were screened out? I guess, but in at least 10 of those 30 applications/CVs came straight to me and I surely didn't do any even implicit racial screening. Did the people who got those 29 jobs benefit elsewhere from white privilege? I have no clue (a small number were other minorities by the way but most were indeed white), but I am having a tough time imagining that all of them must have, especially when I can't recall a case where I did. Is it possible a minority was denied an application for one of teh places I rented when I had to livein apts? Maybe I guess, but in at least two of the three apt buildings I have lived in in my memory there were black tenants so obviously not a constant rejection. I am also open to the possibility a LEO stopped a car driven by a black man instead of me when he had a choice. So by no means can I or do I categorically claim I have never benefitted from white privilege. I can however claim that nobody has ever told me so or made it obvious to me. In no job, even in senior management roles, has anyone ever said even implicitly that I should not hire a minority, or that I was compared favorably to one myself in my application.

So in summary white privilege exists, but does not discretely allocate privilege to all whites in all cases, nor should every advantage of a white person X be assumed to have been granted over a black person Y, when in many cases no Y was trying for that same advantage.

whenever it is brought up to talk about inequalities that exist in our country.

Although it is highly apparent that these aspects of social mobility based on race do exist, some white people use the "myth of meritocracy" (i.e., that "everyone advances through their own merits")as a way to pretend that "everyone is treated alike" in today's society and that "racism doesn't exist". The worst claims of this "denial of white privileges" come in the form of colorblindism.

By saying that "racism doesn't exist anymore", "one does not see color" and that any attempt to explain or point out "white privilege" is only "screaming about race", such aspects of denial perpetuates injustices regarding institutional and personal racism. Thus, by "not seeing race" and "that there isn't any racism in the present day" (especially when talking up "reverse racism"), some desensitize themselves from acts of racial animus--especially if such incidents are subtle.

But, there is one thing to point out about the aspect of "white privilege" and its subtle approach of using racism in order to keep the racial caste system in the United States: this concept was created by a white woman from Wellesley by the name of Peggy Macintosh. She wrote an extensive journal article on this issue called, "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack".

So for some to accuse people of color regarding "making this concept up" or that it is "inflammatory" to use it when talking about social stratification based on differing aspects of societal mobility is ridiculous.

K and R. We need to examine this concept and to force people to stop the denial in regards that the "white privilege does not exist".

Thank you

country." is a far more nuanced stance than to deny racism exists. Racism exists. This is not a meritocracy. The white working class do not run this country.

white privileges in this country. You're thinking in terms of class. This is a matter of race.

In this aspect too, class is also used to deny that racism and white privilege exists.

"You're thinking in terms of class. This is a matter of race."

The OP singles out "the white working class"--that's making it a matter of both.

It forces people white people who benefit from a class system to value and protect their own degree of advantages above those who are of the same economic class, yet who are non white.

Divide and conquer. As those who are at the top are secure in the knowledge that the people who are in the same economic dinghy are too busy going after each other to notice the yacht that going to run them over.

they are at or near the bottom of.

"Divide and conquer. As those who are at the top are secure in the knowledge that the people who are in the same economic dinghy are too busy going after each other to notice the yacht that going to run them over."

You seemed to be engaged in same. :hi:

This is, front and center, a racial issue. White privilege works against people of color regardless of class.

More pointedly, white poor people still are treated better and receive the privileges from their skin color. Compare their plight in terms of racism and lack of social mobility to poor Black people and get back to me.

Here's a thought: during the Civil Rights era, was it rich or poor whites hanging the lynching rope or lighting a fiery cross in a "poor", "middle class" or "rich" Black person's yard? And when the Central High Nine tried to go to school was it poor, middle class or rich whites standing out there spitting, throwing things and shouting epithets at the students?

What was the class of the bombers who killed the four young ladies in Birmingham, Alabama?

What was James Earl Ray's class?

Was it rich white men who dragged James Byrd, Jr. down the street in Jasper, TX.?

Why did Johannes Mesherle get four years in prison despite shooting an unarmed Black man in the back?

Why did Dick Cheney get off of shooting his friend in the face?

Why did people in Arizona elect a state representative when he has very prominent ties to the white nationalist movement? What was his class?

Are the classes of the white people in these examples the same? No. But, the commonality of their benefiting from white privilege is.

Let's face facts. Some of the poor, middle class or rich white people enact and perpetuate racial violence then and now without even thinking about their class in this country. When some whites are "given a pass" for their skin color, they aren't thinking of class. They are thinking about what they will get as a result of their skin color. And they aren't sorry for it. In fact, some will goad themselves into believing that "white privilege" is a fantasy.

But when one person begins to see the dichotomy in the experiences of white and people of color in the country, one cannot deny that white privilege and its benefits played a factor in setting up a racialized caste system in this country.

To whit, that there is no such thing as systematic racism. But that's not what the OP was about--it was an about a blanket indictment of the "white working class".

"Let's face facts. Some of the poor, middle class or rich, white people enact and perpetuate racial violence"

Most don't. No matter what way you slice it, the "white working class" is not the author of African-American oppression. Why do you feel such a need to scapegoat people who are obviously not in charge?

"But when one person begins to see the dichotomy in the experiences of white and people of color in the country, one cannot deny that white privilege and its benefits played a factor in setting up a racialized caste system in this country."

Again, I do not the reality of racism. It does not follow that a blanket indictment of another largely marginalized group is in any way productive therefore. In other words, it's not "either you accept that the entire white working class is guilty of racism or you deny racism exists"--that's what's known as a false dichotomy.

And why do rich whites get a pass here?

1). Yes, there is a thing called institutional racism. It fueled red-lining, Jim Crow laws and other forms of social access in this country? Ever hear of Driving While Black? Or better yet, why do whites earn more money and are able to leave an inheritance to their descendants while a lot of people of color can't?

2). In terms of privilege, rich whites are not given a pass. I've consistently said that a majority of whites regardless of socialized status benefit from thier skin color. There is no exemption. What sets different white people apart is what they do with that knowledge. Will they try to fight for true equality for all or continue to deny such things as institutional racism or white privilege exist?

3) This is not a blanket marginalization of any group in this circumstance. This is a discussion about how white privilege affects everyone, high or low. It is a fact of society whether it is the past or the present.

I agree that institutionalized racism exists. I was doing a double negative thing that was not as clear as I would've liked.

"This is a discussion about how white privilege affects everyone, high or low. "

The OP started out railing against the "white working class" and a few other posters have picked up on this theme explicitly. That is the issue that I am responding to--I am not denying the reality of institutionalized racism or individual racism. Just hope that we can find common ground on that point. As to the other points, I think I need to reflect on them.

Which I've tried to explain several times as thus:

White working people are TARGETED by groups and individuals with the MESSAGE that they have white privilege to protect. It's a fear based message and the catalyst that's displayed is rooted in both racism and fear. It's an old message and it's being used today, ACORN, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, NBP and President Obama are the images used to promote that fear. So, point specifically where I issued a condemnation of working whites, Please.

If you bothered to watch last night's Maddow show, she herself made the same observation as I.

Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. It's a complete mischaracterization of my OP. What I wrote was quite plain and cogent, and very few people, like yourself seem to have mysteriously missed the point.

Again, please tell me what I said to cast aspersions on whites.

Based on your response, I will plan to ask you a series of questions.

I don't want to go any farther down this path right now. Believe it or not, I've been really pissed off about the Shirley Sherrod affair for the past couple of days. I feel like these fuckers make their livings picking at raw scabs. I am willing to apologize, take a step back, and reflect. I think you and I have more common ground than not, and I've focused on 2% difference on this thread.

I'd like to take a step back. I will say this though: Ms. Sherrod did ask us to focus on class. I hope that if anything positive comes from this is that we can start talking about the intersection of race and class in this country.

Agreed

You're saying that poor working class white and non-whites coincide on a level playing field in America, absent of any racial component.

Is this correct?

I'm saying that your focus on the "white working class" as the author of the oppression of poor Americans (of all colors and creeds) is misguided and factually incorrect--in fact, a part of the very same "divide and conquer" that you identified earlier.

"Is this correct?"

No. Not at all. That's not what I said. Racism is real. African Americans, specifically and in particular, continue to suffer from systematic and institutionalized racism. I live in Metro-Detroit, for the love of god. Canton, Mi. Ever hear of it? "Driving while black" was definitely a factor when I was working there in the early '90s. Dearborn, Mi (my home)--it's known as a having a history of redlining and abusive police practices. This is real. We are on the same page there. I just don't think poor white people, in particular, are to blame for that state of affairs, and it dismays me how easily people start telling me how they "know" what "people like me" must be thinking.

Let me reiterate that particular sentence:



The point being is that white working class people are the TARGETED audience for a message, not the purveyors. And this message comes from people like Breibart and Fox News, which is, that Obama is a black radical and his black radical cohorts are out to supplant a system of white privilege with a system of black privilege (or some kind of unearned form of equality).

The white working class are really being recruited to stand up for a environment of institutionalized racism, which in fact we all know to exist, although it's not being called that by name. This recruitment isn't couched in the actual terms of hating non-whites because white people are somehow better. The fact is that white privilege is IMPLIED with a coded message to whites to rally them, in order to prevent some fanciful scenario of white victimhood. Yes, whites are being warned to stand up for themselves, "or else".

Working class whites are being targeted by this message to make them blind to the fact that they have more in common with their black counterparts, for which if both sides were to join forces, they could all overthrow the greater system of class privilege under which we all find ourselves at a disadvantage.

The onus, as always, is on those targeted whites to reject that message, as you and so many other whites have bravely done. However, on the other hand, we can see exactly what happens when working class whites internalize that insidious message, they end up as freepers and teabaggers who are addicted to Fox News.

Say it again and again and again. Absolutely spot on. I'm always amazed whenever I see the "it's not race, it's class" arguments. They underscore a denial of reality that is mind blowing. I usually reply with one of Chris Rock's truest, funniest and yet saddest lines:

"There's not a white man in America that would trade places with me. And I'm RICH."

The very sense of irony regarding what he said is most sad. Folks will deny that there isn't any racism. They will loudly shout in one's face that everyone is equal and that the POTUS' election created a "post-racial America". They will deny that they recieved any special
privileges and "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps".

But they wouldn't want to be Black and rich even for one second.

Well, I guess we're not in a "post-racial America" after all. :sarcasm:

That line played well, but I don't think it's even close to being true.

Because the poorest white person can still say well at least I'm not one of those (fill in the racial and ethnic group here) And they often do.

Tim Wise has written about this many times. To paraphrase, the reason why he's so often hired to speak at various venues isn't because he knows so much more about the topic, or that he's even more eloquent, but that as a white person when he talks about privilege it has more weight than it does coming from black and brown people which in and of itself is evidence of white privilege in action in this country.

Of course, Tim Wise recognizes the privilege when he's advantaged by it unlike a great many people in this thread.

Should the "perks" of society be doled out on the basis of merit alone -- independent of background, gender and race? Should that be our ultimate goal as a country? And if so, are "corrections" necessary until we achieve it?

And it's a fantasy to think that it every will be, because it's so firmly entrenched at its core.

They only way that it could change, is either the privilege class changes by disavowing their privilege and shares power (not very likely), or those not benefiting from privilege would rise up and take it by force (just as unlikely).

Why?

Because the beneficiaries are inherently unable to cope with any notion of having their privilege taken away from them. They have their guns, their police forces and their institutions to make that advantage concrete.

Those that aren't as privileged have learned how to cope within this system in order to survive it.

Whether one is black, brown, gay or a woman, developing those coping skills is always the key to survival.

-- legislation governing behavior and hiring practices to alleviate the problem?

Because we have laws already on the books to do that, they're call "Civil rights" laws.

And I think that they're a great idea.

And I think God every day they're on the books. Laws that prevent (or, at least, HELP to prevent) the abridgement of people's equality of opportunity in the workplace and social sphere are vital to a fair and just society. But my question to you is, Do these laws go far enough? Or is there a place on the books for laws mandating preferential treatment for specific groups as a way of compensating them (or at least HELPING to compensate them, to whatever degree) for past injustices?

Is that laws have limitations.

There is no way that any kind of law will abolish white privilege in this country because, despite the efforts of the last 50 years of civil rights works, white privilege is ingrained in the very core of this country.

No matter what law is passed, you can't legislate against what is in peoples' hearts. Many people believe that it's their God given right to regard races other than their own as unworthy.
I see that as test to separate assholes from normal people.

Now, I believe that you're trying to see where I stand on the issue of reparations.

And frankly I would appreciate it if don't beat around the bush and ask me about it outright.

-- but not about reparations. In my own cowardly way I was referring to Affirmative Action legislation... the kind that doesn't just actively try to prevent discrimination (which is legislation I agree with), but attempts to correct or at least address past injustices by the imposition of a quota system that can favor (and, occasionally, HAS favored) the unqualified over the qualified.

(This is legislation I do NOT agree with -- for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is, it's pretty goddamned patronizing to the group being "favored")

And besides, quotas will never stand up against a challenge in the courts

I'm new to DU (obviously), and my prayer is that everyone else on these boards is HALF as cool and intelligent as you are.

Thanks for this.

Thank you for your gracious words.

I live in South Texas and see it everyday, so bad that it affects minorities into believing whites are victims and they go along with it! I believe it is called institutional brainwashing at a very young age.

and on some level necessary for the functioning of a society... trouble is when the teachers are corrupt, then it's time to nip it in the bud

and should be required of any American white who poo poos the idea of racism.

Rather than one white discusses the impact of white privilege of the Sherrod controversy, I'd like to impart some bonus reading material about the subject.

These folks can do it much better than I can.













Tim Wise discusses the Pathology of White Privilege

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8xQPdjJfM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqLijhxT_M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQWP7fUSPJU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o13Lr6Sr_cU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VuA_wXi02I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRo_jYssnXQ

Or is sarcasm your only recourse here?

If Barack Obama were as dumb as George W. Bush, would he have a chance in hell of getting elected?

I think that the labeling of non-discrimination against white people as such is not a constructive way of looking at things, and that at least for me, it conveys an attitude of scorn and envy. I doubt that I could ever vote for a political candidate who used that expression.

If Barack Obama were as dumb as George W. Bush, would he have a chance in hell of getting elected?

Of course not, because black people are systematically discriminated against.

Pretty simple.

Does Barack Obama in your scenario have the same family connections, underhanded tricks, and biased supreme court putting him in office?

the US is probably the least class conscious nation on Earth, why so many poor people vote against their best interests, why no one understands what Socialism is... is because of the dominance of race consciousness. It is not about the poor and the rich. It is about the black, brown, yellow, and white. And lo and behold, we have the highest concentration of wealth at the top since the gilded age, a Democratic Party unwilling to address the issue of class, though more than willing to discuss issues of race and even have a "beer" over it, and a populace totally ignorant of economics or class history.

The truth, the REAL truth, is that those who are in power are not at all about promoting white privilege, they are all about promoting class privilege. They could give a shit about race. It's all about money. The idea of white privilege distracts from what is a much more real, much more influential and powerful privilege. Class. The idea of race itself was created as to be subservient to class. And so it is today. The idea of race serves those with class privilege by dividing those without class privilege.

And it's not just race. It's culture. Hence the culture wars. Not to mention the fact that race and culture are often deemed to be similar if not the same to many Americans. When people talk of a divided America, it is NEVER about the class divide, and ALWAYS about race and culture divides.

So does white privilege exist? Yes. Is it that influential or powerful on average? No. Does being a woman come with privileges? Yes. Does being a minority come with privileges? Yes. So there are privileges for every kind of race and identity you can find out there. Do some benefit from their identity a lot? Yes. Do most? No. Do whites benefit, on average, from their identity most? As a majority of the population, yes. Is it that much of a privilege compared to class? No. Is it even comparable to class privilege? Not really.

If a white person is born to wealthy white parents, is that white privilege or class privilege? Class. Defining it as white privilege plays precisely into what those who promote class privilege want. Namely, confusing race with class and defining class in terms of racial or cultural identity.

But you never see anyone going to white trailer parks or poor white neighborhoods and lecturing them on their white privilege. Why is that? It's because they seemingly haven't benefitted much from white privilege.

What about Asian privilege? Asians are on average the wealthiest race in America. Jews are as well if you include them as an ethnicity. How about Jewish privilege? These are groups that were horribly discriminated against in the past and still today in some ways, and yet, somehow, the all-mighty white privilege wasn't enough to stop their rise past whites in general in the privilege that matters the most; class. How is that possible? Class privilege. Which is by far the greatest privilege one could have in this country. A wealthy black man lecturing a poor white on his white privilege would make no sense. Overall, the black man is better off. It is his class privilege that should be discussed.

As we have seen with the Tea Party, many whites are more race and culture conscious than class conscious. But the truth is, many minorities are as well. No racial group in this country has much of an interest in talking about class. But race and culture? You bet. If there is talk about class, it is about how race and culture determines it, when it has always been, and will always be, the other way around. Class invented the idea of race. Class loves the culture war. Business interests who run the media and all the purveyors of "culture" and definers of racial identity as part and parcel of selling stuff to entirely invented demographics, guess what? They are all about class.

You will notice that the Democratic Party isn't known much, even by its own adherents, as the "party of the poor" anymore. And in some ways the Democratic Party has definitely moved away from the "poor". Our politics used to, as little as 40 or 50 years ago, be very much about class and class issues were huge parts of politics. Now, it is all about identity politics. Race, culture, you name it. The Republicans started it, for sure. But the Democrats have gone along. Now the Democrats are no longer the party of the poor, but the party of elitists, college professors, Hollywood stars, know-it-alls, naive youngsters, dependant minorities, etc. etc. And the Republican Party is the party of the rednecks, the rural, the whites with their privilege, the racists, the "Real Americans", the grumpy elderly. These are the shallow idenitites these parties have forged for themselves (but in more flattering terms) and for the other party in going after electoral victory. But in the process, class has been thrown out.

The Republican Party, as the main proponent of the wealthiest one percent, have a clear interest in doing this to distract from what is most important to them. But the Democratic Party, which is still battling internally over whether it is more about identity politics or class, and whose own policies have sometimes helped the wealthiest at the expense of the rest, but generally help the little guy, do still have some incentive to bring class up. We saw a recent and fairly rare example of the Democratic Party going back to its roots with Obama referring to Republicans as the party for the rich. So there is still hope.

So in conclusion, class trumps race in our society, but class consciousness is very low compared to race and culture consciousness. While whites in general may have more privilege due to race, it is not always the case on an individual level and fails to address other factors that have much more influence and power, such as class. Indeed, in many cases others will confuse race with class and tell whites who are not benefitting from our economic system and suffering from it, that they are actually benefitting from it. This can have a counterproductive effect.

But if you want to elicit a visceral reaction, especially by white teabagging reactionaries, besides their penchant for greediness, nothing works as good as race.

That was Breitbart's and Fox's intended audience with that video.

They are doing their best to depict Obama and social justice groups as a threat to white privilege whenever they can.

I mean, they definitely are trying to make them seem like a threat to whites or "hard working Americans" or what have you. But they don't frame it in terms of whites having privilege. They do it by pretending that white privilege and class privilege, indeed that no privilege really exists in our society, that we are a complete meritocracy, and that the Democrats are attacking that meritocracy. We have a perfect society that the evil Socialist Obama is going to screw up... etc.

What's interesting about this last episode, or more like nightmare, is that it just shows to what extent identitiy poitics plays in our country and how much the Democrats have surrenedered to it. Just like with ACORN and the Democratic Congress, the administration totally abandoned and surrendered to the mere accusation, with no evidence, of some sort of racial or cultural conflict. Even the NAACP did at first. It's absolutely disgusting.

They need to point out that the Republican Party is nothing but identity politics and they need to bring Class up, more and more.

As for the Tea Partiers, corporate sponsored racists at their finest in many cases, you have the ultimate embodiment of the idea of race serving class.

The point of my OP seems to have found an echo on her show

Caller accuses them of being "racists" and then makes it crystal (meth) clear who the racist is....

http://www.naacp.org/blog/entry/naacp-receives-death-threat/

WARNING: Blatant racist asshole language included. Probably NSFW.

The promotion of this fear is their main MO. I certainly understand the class issues involved in our society and their importance cannot be understated but one cannot deny that those are significantly augmented by the racial structure. White privilege is something you cannot pinpoint and demand examples. It exists in the institutions, values and norms of our society. The standard by which all others are judged. The norm is to be white; therefore, that is the basis by which all persons are judged. Exploiting the scary "other" as Fox News does works. I do not think working class whites are solely to blame but they share a part in the blame as every white person (myself included) does.

A friend of mine does fair housing testing (she is white) and is always paired with a black or Hispanic woman. Similar resumes, age, income and everything is provided for the landlord's use. She often fairs much better than her minority counterparts in receiving rental offers. She will start doing mortgage testing soon as well and those results will be very interesting especially if there is steering.

My husband is black and he is college-educated and a teacher. He gets followed in stores (recently in Kohl's -- hate that place) all the time. People also make alot of assumptions about how many kids he has (zero right now) and other bizarre statements. Once at his place of employment he was waiting outside for me to pick him up. The next day he had been reported by two sets of parents as a suspicious person. This stuff is real.

Is that even possible?