A Brief Presentation of White Privilege

[Windparadox]

A snippet from one of Brother Time Wise's many lectures covering the topic of white privilegeThis brother get's it. Again, before you post, please cite what, exactly, is he stating that's wrong, false, misleading or otherwise deceptive.Thanks.

`
Burden of Proof Fallacy. The person making the claim has the burden of proof to substantiate the claim, not vice versa.

 

[sparky]

A snippet from one of Brother Time Wise's many lectures covering the topic of white privilege



This brother get's it.

Again, before you post, please cite what, exactly, is he stating that's wrong, false, misleading or otherwise deceptive.

Thanks.

Somewhere around 11.30 he's claiming members of the 'dominant group' of (goes back a number of years) stated there 'is no problem' as an indication of denial.

He's right, but constraining that to American history is what is wrong here

Because the human race's entire history has been one of subjugation since the cromagnons had it out with the neaderthals.

To this day that is the social gestalt in many countries around this rock ,and may i point out many have not evolved to any civil rights level, nor wish to
>>>>Shocking Statistics, Encouraging Commitments at United Nations « Free the Slaves

The least we can say is America created an awareness ,along with some sort of effort in the 60's albeit's efficacy dubious

You see Marc, somewhere past all this denial, all the privelege ,victimhood ,appologists ,guilt fades away when one accepts the facts of human nature


~S~

 

[sparky]

I am a 60-plus peaceful, reasonably responsible American citizen who several decades ago began viewing myself as an "aspiring misanthrope" when I recognized I belong to an imperfect, ever-evolving, far too often self-destructive species of animal we classify as "humans."

lol! , welcome to Club Misanthrope Avery ,pay your dues & get a shirt!

~S~

 

[Paul Essien]

In a system of white supremacy I'm highly suspicious of Tim Wise. I understand what Tim Wise is trying to do but I hate the whole “Cult Of Tim Wise”

People like Tim Wise know's perfectly well that many black people and people of color (a term he often likes to use) melt and go way over board when they think they have met good white people and he also knows that he has way more credibility than a black person who says the exact same thing do. I noticed the way MarcATL in his original post called him "Brother"....not once but twice

A snippet from one of Brother Time Wise's

This brother get's it.

The best killers in the jungle aren’t the animals who lay on the ground with their teeth open. The most effective killers are those animals who creep up slowly, catch you off guard, then strike.

 

[sparky]

a system of white supremacy

where i gotta work 7 days a week?

man, i never get the memo!

~S~

 

[blastoff]

I’m a beneficiary of white privilege when I buy gas at the local BP station.

I generally pay cash for gas so at this station I just punch the cash button on the pump, fill up, and go pay the cashier. At the BP about a mile or so away when paying cash you pay first and then fill up. Why the difference? They told me it’s to deter folks from driving off without paying. Why the policy at that station but not my regular one? The racial composition of the customers who frequent each place.

Sounds like some BP racism going on. Or is it? If I owned both these stations and one had drive-off problems and the other didn’t I’d likely institute a pay first policy too. Nothing racial IMO. I’m just protecting my business from product theft, loss of profit (not that I’d expect the race pimps to accept my solution to the problem).

 

[well named]

So, you're making an argument for "Inherent class" based on genetic ability?

No, you're very confused.

What race are you?

I'm white.

As though matters of degree negate the underlying fact?!?

Just suppose that the impossible happens and The State runs out of blacks and hispanics to roust....You think that they'll just stop?

Not necessarily, but I think you're also confused about the point I'm trying to make, or at least it's not clear to me what you think you are arguing with me about. I think that we have problems with our criminal justice system that transcend race. In fact I think a lot of the racial issues are driven by class disparities (cf. the Ferguson DOJ report on the way various police practices are predatory towards the poor in general), but because of our racist history the poor tend to also be racial minorities. But I'm in favor of demilitarizing the police in general, and in favor of ending mass incarceration policies for everyone, not just for black people. I'd oppose a police state that treatened whites just as much as I oppose such a state that targets blacks disproportionately.

But, I also think it's important for Americans to understand the racial dimension of these issues. Black people are in general more likely to be sensitive to the seriousness of the problems (cf. all kinds of survey data going back a long time) because they experience the problems more directly, and most ~middle-class and up white people don't. This is important to understanding how these issues persist. If some plurality of white folks were directly experiencing these issues I expect you would see a much larger social movement to change things. In any case, I responded to someone who was denying that racial inequality is a real problem. Just because I argue that this poster is wrong doesn't mean I think that there aren't also issues that transcend race.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So, you're making an argument for "Inherent class" based on genetic ability?

No, you're very confused.

What race are you?

I'm white.

As though matters of degree negate the underlying fact?!?

Just suppose that the impossible happens and The State runs out of blacks and hispanics to roust....You think that they'll just stop?

Not necessarily, but I think you're also confused about the point I'm trying to make, or at least it's not clear to me what you think you are arguing with me about. I think that we have problems with our criminal justice system that transcend race. In fact I think a lot of the racial issues are driven by class disparities (cf. the Ferguson DOJ report on the way various police practices are predatory towards the poor in general), but because of our racist history the poor tend to also be racial minorities. But I'm in favor of demilitarizing the police in general, and in favor of ending mass incarceration policies for everyone, not just for black people. I'd oppose a police state that treatened whites just as much as I oppose such a state that targets blacks disproportionately.

But, I also think it's important for Americans to understand the racial dimension of these issues. Black people are in general more likely to be sensitive to the seriousness of the problems (cf. all kinds of survey data going back a long time) because they experience the problems more directly, and most ~middle-class and up white people don't. This is important to understanding how these issues persist. If some plurality of white folks were directly experiencing these issues I expect you would see a much larger social movement to change things. In any case, I responded to someone who was denying that racial inequality is a real problem. Just because I argue that this poster is wrong doesn't mean I think that there aren't also issues that transcend race.

In a severely racist society of White supremacy Hindus of dark skin color wouldn't be the #1 earners.

People would not hire them , or boycott their businesses or boycot dark Hindu doctors & Lawyers.

That may have been true 100 years ago. No more is that true.

 

[well named]

This is insanity. Frisking those in suits because of white collar crime doesn't make any sense but putting more SEC agents to peruse and review the practices of such people is fine and DOES HAPPEN!!!

Changing the agents involved from the police to the SEC doesn't really change the point of my analogy, although I agree it makes the analogy less awkward. The point is that the SEC should not (and does not) investigate individuals absent some reason sufficient to warrant an investigation. Or, here's a slightly different analogy: the FBI should not launch investigations into political campaigns absent some reasonable justification for suspecting that some specific crime has occurred.

And that's my point: racial disparities in police traffic stops and stop and frisk programs are not based on such reasonable justifications. The kinds of statistics you are appealing to do not provide a basis for any reasonable suspicion about any individual in any specific circumstance, and there is also no evidence that such programs work at all. My suggestion is that you wouldn't tolerate such unreasonable and prejudicial suspicion if it was routinely directed at you.

 

[well named]

In a severely racist society of White supremacy Hindus of dark skin color wouldn't be the #1 earners.

I don't think I said anything about a "severely racist society of White supremacy." There's a lot of assumptions in there that require unpacking, and you're basically tearing down a strawman in order to reject the idea that either racial inequality or racism exists at all. It's a false dichotomy to begin with, and your conclusion depends on bad assumptions about what "racism" means in contemporary American society. I suspect that you're also confused about your facts re "#1 earners," or are defining "earners" in a way so as to beg the question, but I think that's somewhat tangential to the main problems with your statement.

But, when I said you were confused, I meant about the relationship between race, class, and genetics, and this is something entirely different from that. If you want to talk about race and genetics, I think it's off topic for this thread, but I'm willing to discuss it elsewhere. One point of misunderstanding is that you seem to be interpreting the fact that recent Asian immigrants are wealthy to mean that all Asians have some natural economic advantage, but that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the people who can afford to immigrate from those countries to the US, and who choose to do so, are much wealthier than the average member of their home countries. I'm also saying that having a higher socio-economic status in the US strongly mitigates against the institutional problems that contribute to ongoing racial inequality between whites and blacks. Nothing in this argument is about genetics.

I have a bunch of work to get done today, but I can follow up later.

 

[Oddball]

Not necessarily, but I think you're also confused about the point I'm trying to make, or at least it's not clear to me what you think you are arguing with me about. I think that we have problems with our criminal justice system that transcend race. In fact I think a lot of the racial issues are driven by class disparities (cf. the Ferguson DOJ report on the way various police practices are predatory towards the poor in general), but because of our racist history the poor tend to also be racial minorities. But I'm in favor of demilitarizing the police in general, and in favor of ending mass incarceration policies for everyone, not just for black people. I'd oppose a police state that treatened whites just as much as I oppose such a state that targets blacks disproportionately.

But, I also think it's important for Americans to understand the racial dimension of these issues. Black people are in general more likely to be sensitive to the seriousness of the problems (cf. all kinds of survey data going back a long time) because they experience the problems more directly, and most ~middle-class and up white people don't. This is important to understanding how these issues persist. If some plurality of white folks were directly experiencing these issues I expect you would see a much larger social movement to change things. In any case, I responded to someone who was denying that racial inequality is a real problem. Just because I argue that this poster is wrong doesn't mean I think that there aren't also issues that transcend race.

Focusing on ethnicity takes focus away from the fact that the cops are out of control, and that's the point....Sow division, rather than come together and recognize that the common enemy is The State.

You're doing their work for them, like a good little victim.

 

[well named]

Focusing on ethnicity takes focus away from the fact that the cops are out of control, and that's the point....Sow division, rather than come together and recognize that the common enemy is The State.

I was discussing facts, or attempting to reach an accurate understanding of the status quo as it really exists. I was not offering a commentary on what strategies would be most effective for social movements attempting to address the issues, at least not yet.

In the context of evaluating "white privilege" as a social movement framing, or a communications strategy, I do actually think that it creates some difficulties unnecessarily. I'm not sure it's the most useful way of framing the issue. So, we may agree on that. Mostly I just think that in order to be useful it's important to make clear that the "privilege" construct is relative. There are all kinds of ways to be relatively advantaged or disadvantaged, and not some strict hierarchy between them. I understand why some relatively poor white people hear the phrase and balk at the thought that they are more "privileged" in some absolute sense than a black multi-millionaire. The "privilege" concept requires also the concept of "intersectionality." I also understand that it's hard to get people to listen if you immediately put them on the defensive.

However, I also think it probably says something about our racial prejudices when merely pointing out that racial inequality exists is taken automatically to constitute "sowing division". And I also think that there's probably no real way forward on some of these issues unless more white Americans confront the reality of our history, unpleasant as that is. It seems very clear that the now-common (and utterly a-historical) attitude of "color-blindness" which treats any mention of race as "sowing discord" contributes directly to the maintenance of the status quo. On this point, the book Racism without Racists is excellent.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is insanity. Frisking those in suits because of white collar crime doesn't make any sense but putting more SEC agents to peruse and review the practices of such people is fine and DOES HAPPEN!!!

Changing the agents involved from the police to the SEC doesn't really change the point of my analogy, although I agree it makes the analogy less awkward. The point is that the SEC should not (and does not) investigate individuals absent some reason sufficient to warrant an investigation. Or, here's a slightly different analogy: the FBI should not launch investigations into political campaigns absent some reasonable justification for suspecting that some specific crime has occurred.

And that's my point: racial disparities in police traffic stops and stop and frisk programs are not based on such reasonable justifications. The kinds of statistics you are appealing to do not provide a basis for any reasonable suspicion about any individual in any specific circumstance, and there is also no evidence that such programs work at all. My suggestion is that you wouldn't tolerate such unreasonable and prejudicial suspicion if it was routinely directed at you.

That is 100% not true. 100% false. Your 2nd sentence is not remotely accurate. My God man.

 

[well named]

Your 2nd sentence is not remotely accurate.

Heh. It turns out you're mostly right. Lesson learned: take longer to think about your analogies. Although I was involved in an SEC whistleblower suit once, and from that experience my perception is they aren't just starting investigations for no reason, or on grounds as flimsy as those used to justify racial profiling in traffic stops. But obviously regulation of public companies is different from police stops in important ways. Analogies are hard, chow meow.

So, I apologize for the imprecision. I still think you ought to consider the point, which isn't invalidated by one poor choice of analogy.

 

[IM2]

Not necessarily, but I think you're also confused about the point I'm trying to make, or at least it's not clear to me what you think you are arguing with me about. I think that we have problems with our criminal justice system that transcend race. In fact I think a lot of the racial issues are driven by class disparities (cf. the Ferguson DOJ report on the way various police practices are predatory towards the poor in general), but because of our racist history the poor tend to also be racial minorities. But I'm in favor of demilitarizing the police in general, and in favor of ending mass incarceration policies for everyone, not just for black people. I'd oppose a police state that treatened whites just as much as I oppose such a state that targets blacks disproportionately.

But, I also think it's important for Americans to understand the racial dimension of these issues. Black people are in general more likely to be sensitive to the seriousness of the problems (cf. all kinds of survey data going back a long time) because they experience the problems more directly, and most ~middle-class and up white people don't. This is important to understanding how these issues persist. If some plurality of white folks were directly experiencing these issues I expect you would see a much larger social movement to change things. In any case, I responded to someone who was denying that racial inequality is a real problem. Just because I argue that this poster is wrong doesn't mean I think that there aren't also issues that transcend race.

Focusing on ethnicity takes focus away from the fact that the cops are out of control, and that's the point....Sow division, rather than come together and recognize that the common enemy is The State.

You're doing their work for them, like a good little victim.

"The state" has been controlled by racist whites.

 

[Slade3200]

Both sides make valid points. Historically and generically whites have bennifited from and advanced from a discriminatory system. I think that is an important point to recognize.

On the other side we have to look at how we interpret and discuss this history and be sure not to play the victim card too hard. Values, hard work, and perseverance should still be taught and promoted. Some of the avanues I see these discussions go down can be counter productive as the stir up resentment and give excuses for mediocrity and lack luster efforts. That’s the last thing we need

There is no other side. And we don't have to look at how we interpret history. The facts are what they are. There is no victim card. We have worked far harder, far longer than whites and for far less. That's not to be ignored. Yet we have to endure lectures about values hard work and other things from a people handed everything they have by the government, too lazy to work free land so thy enslave people and still today are dependent upon the government. I think is just time whites stopped thinking we give a damn about your resentment. Why should we since whites have not cared whether or not what you guys do create resentment in us and that you've done so since 1776? What whites have done since July 4, 1776 is what has been counterproductive.

I don’t know what resentment your talking about but I’m a white male and I hold no resentment towards blacks. I actually understand and agree with the grievances the “white privilege” narrative brings up. But then I ask what are we trying to do with it. Are we trying to make whites more aware so they are sympathetic to blacks? Are we trying to make blacks angry and resent whites? Are we trying to do something tangible like give blacks some of the wealth that whites have accumulated? If so then how? What is the goal here?

IM2 what’s the goal?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Your 2nd sentence is not remotely accurate.

Heh. It turns out you're mostly right. Lesson learned: take longer to think about your analogies. Although I was involved in an SEC whistleblower suit once, and from that experience my perception is they aren't just starting investigations for no reason, or on grounds as flimsy as those used to justify racial profiling in traffic stops. But obviously regulation of public companies is different from police stops in important ways. Analogies are hard, chow meow.

So, I apologize for the imprecision. I still think you ought to consider the point, which isn't invalidated by one poor choice of analogy.

Do you think Wells Fargo gets more or less scrutiny than BAML?

 

[IM2]

Both sides make valid points. Historically and generically whites have bennifited from and advanced from a discriminatory system. I think that is an important point to recognize.

On the other side we have to look at how we interpret and discuss this history and be sure not to play the victim card too hard. Values, hard work, and perseverance should still be taught and promoted. Some of the avanues I see these discussions go down can be counter productive as the stir up resentment and give excuses for mediocrity and lack luster efforts. That’s the last thing we need

There is no other side. And we don't have to look at how we interpret history. The facts are what they are. There is no victim card. We have worked far harder, far longer than whites and for far less. That's not to be ignored. Yet we have to endure lectures about values hard work and other things from a people handed everything they have by the government, too lazy to work free land so thy enslave people and still today are dependent upon the government. I think is just time whites stopped thinking we give a damn about your resentment. Why should we since whites have not cared whether or not what you guys do create resentment in us and that you've done so since 1776? What whites have done since July 4, 1776 is what has been counterproductive.

I don’t know what resentment your talking about but I’m a white male and I hold no resentment towards blacks. I actually understand and agree with the grievances the “white privilege” narrative brings up. But then I ask what are we trying to do with it. Are we trying to make whites more aware so they are sympathetic to blacks? Are we trying to make blacks angry and resent whites? Are we trying to do something tangible like give blacks some of the wealth that whites have accumulated? If so then how? What is the goal here?

IM2 what’s the goal?

First off you end the assumption that a white woman declaring white privilege is going to make us more angry and resentful of whites since we already knew white privilege existed. McIntosh did not coin the term for blacks. She did so trying to make whites more aware. Of course most whites miss the fact she was not talking about money or wealth. Now why do I have to explain a goal for you?

 

[GWV5903]

The Brotherhood of MarcATL, IM2, Asclepias, et al confirms the victim hood mentality of the hate filled Black Liberal Left. They will most likely remain victims until their dying days, no matter how many White Supremacist threads they start. The list of Black Conservatives is long and powerful, these few individuals will wallow in their own self pity for years, maybe decades to come...

 

[Slade3200]

Both sides make valid points. Historically and generically whites have bennifited from and advanced from a discriminatory system. I think that is an important point to recognize.

On the other side we have to look at how we interpret and discuss this history and be sure not to play the victim card too hard. Values, hard work, and perseverance should still be taught and promoted. Some of the avanues I see these discussions go down can be counter productive as the stir up resentment and give excuses for mediocrity and lack luster efforts. That’s the last thing we need

There is no other side. And we don't have to look at how we interpret history. The facts are what they are. There is no victim card. We have worked far harder, far longer than whites and for far less. That's not to be ignored. Yet we have to endure lectures about values hard work and other things from a people handed everything they have by the government, too lazy to work free land so thy enslave people and still today are dependent upon the government. I think is just time whites stopped thinking we give a damn about your resentment. Why should we since whites have not cared whether or not what you guys do create resentment in us and that you've done so since 1776? What whites have done since July 4, 1776 is what has been counterproductive.

I don’t know what resentment your talking about but I’m a white male and I hold no resentment towards blacks. I actually understand and agree with the grievances the “white privilege” narrative brings up. But then I ask what are we trying to do with it. Are we trying to make whites more aware so they are sympathetic to blacks? Are we trying to make blacks angry and resent whites? Are we trying to do something tangible like give blacks some of the wealth that whites have accumulated? If so then how? What is the goal here?

IM2 what’s the goal?

First off you end the assumption that a white woman declaring white privilege is going to make us more angry and resentful of whites since we already knew white privilege existed. McIntosh did not coin the term for blacks. She did so trying to make whites more aware. Of course most whites miss the fact she was not talking about money or wealth. Now why do I have to explain a goal for you?

You don’t have to do anything, but I’m asking questions that I’m curious about. That’s what happens during discussions. You seem knowledable and passionate about the subject so I’d think you’d want to answer and explain your perspective.

It sounds like the answer is that the goal is to make whites more aware that they have privilege over blacks, is that right?