Things Many White People Seem To Not Understand

[anotherlife]

What? What whites don't understand? Then you ******* should be deported to INDIA, where you would learn what real racism is. Hehehe.

 

[320 Years of History]

What? What whites don't understand? Then you ******* should be deported to INDIA, where you would learn what real racism is. Hehehe.

Red:
The highlighted term alludes to something I cannot abide: the idea that there are better and worse flavors of racism. But, hey, that's my take. Perhaps folks who routinely find themselves and others of their race being objects of race-based discrimination, objectification, etc. see it differently?

You know, I've never asked an American black or Latino person that question. Nor has any of them said to me, "We got discriminated against, but it was just 'low grade' bias carried out by a 'small' racist," or "We got discriminated against, but it was just 'low grade' bias carried out by a 'big' racist." As I think about it more, it occurs to me that nobody of any race has ever told me they sought to visit India to learn what "real racism" is.

• Understanding the complexities of Racism in contemporary India: Challenges and the way ahead
  
• Racial Discrimination and Human Trafficking in India: Challenges Ahead
  
• British Raj: The Legacy of Colonialism in India
  
• ‘DALITS’ AND THE CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA

Surely someone has wanted to do that and followed through and did it?

Have you come across a scholarly work that compares and contrasts racism in India with that of the U.S?

 

[320 Years of History]

You don't understand it.

Peggy McIntosh is just as batshit crazy as Jane Elliot or Robert Jensen, and both of them very much do say that(and more).

No one ever has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege".

You have the audacity to say that nobody "has the guts to debate anyone on the actual validity of "white privilege," yet look at the unsubstantiated claims you've up to this point in the thread. This is your fourth post and neither in it nor in the preceding three have you presented anything resembling content worthy of calling it a a debate.

• Where's your opening assertion that's stated in positive form and completely neutral terms?
• Where are your arguments that are not only devoid of informal and formal fallacies and that are supported by credible data and research findings that in addition to having fully disclosed methodologies, are also referenced for all to review?
• Where is is your equally well developed counter-argument?
• Where is your cogent rebuttal to the counter-argument?
• Where is your conclusion that "brings it all home" by synthesizing the argument, counter-argument and rebuttal?

The answer to every one of those questions is the same: nowhere!

So if you want to debate, post your dialectic argument. Provided you actually produce a dialectic argument, I'll respond in kind why my own dialectic argument that refutes yours. You and I each have three days to compose our argument. You and I each get one post to present our argument; neither of us sees the other's argument in advance. Deadline for posting is 8:30 pm on 28-August-2016.

Choose one of the assertions below; the one you choose will be the one we debate.:

• White Privilege exists.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• White people vote for anyone but Democrats because the concept of White Privilege prevents them from voting for Democrats.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I
• In the U.S., structural privileges exist that allow whites to legally maintain edge over minorities.
  • Negative: You
  • Affirmative: I

Just so you know that I am quite willing to engage in a dialectic argument, I have already posted one on USMB, although the topic was not this one.

White privilege is not just an American assertion or concept, it is, at the very least, a western encompassing one that is lodged at any white person McIntosh's fanatics think they can get away with labeling.

If I pick the 1st or 3rd choice we would have to debate the subject from a western standpoint(Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc on top of the US), not just an American one.

I am actually having a hard time choosing because I want to do all 3.

Red:
Well, then the choice is clear: #2 it is.

You are already failing to properly debate because:
1. your 1st choice can easily fit my criteria.

2. Your 3rd choice is redundant when accounting for the 1st choice and merely exists as a way to pigeonhole me into a debate on white privilege in the US without proper global context, which white privilege is actually based upon.


I have chosen #1 btw.

Okay, #1 it is.

You will recall that I was tasked with arguing the existence of white privilege. The evidence that demonstrates the existence of white privilege is found in the attached documents.

 

[OldLady]

You're late, ptbw forever. Better late than never, though. Looking forward to your argument.

 

[OldLady]

320, there is a show on CNN called "United Shades of America" which the couple times I've seen it explores "fringe" groups, or the road less traveled types. Last night I saw the episode on the KKK.

So many of the arguments I hear here were the same ones being voiced by the Grand Poobahs of an Arkansas KKK chapter.

What I'm wondering now is, are there a lot of people who share those beliefs without the hate? Who don't believe there is white privilege or believe in Affirmative Action but have nothing against blacks? Did those folks give the argument to the "New" Klan, which adopted them under the guise of being logical, or did the white supremacists formulate the stances and persuade a lot of unbiased people to think it was reasonable?

I absolutely refuse to believe that all conservatives are racist--I know better. But it is very hard to sort out people's intentions on this subject.

I've watched several episodes of that series.

Red:
They are, and I find that disconcerting.

Blue:
I don't know. I know that the difficulty in being able to confidently discern the answer is a huge part of why the race problems we have long faced persist. Further confounding the challenge(s) is that folks will aver that which is in fact true just as resolutely and repeatedly as they will that which is not true.

If you have no way to tell what the day of the week is and you ask me the day of the week, and it's Tuesday, I'm going to say it's Tuesday every time you ask because it is Tuesday and I'm being 100% honest. If I'm of a mind to mislead you into thinking it's Monday, I'll say it's Monday every time you ask because it doesn't serve my malfeasant end to change my answer.

Now if you were to know that I had a history of lying to you, deceiving you, harming you, even though you may ask me the day of the week, you're going to be very skeptical no matter what I say. The only think that will change your mind is my establishing with you a track record of integrity that over time erodes your lack of trust in my responses and stated intents.

It's quite the same factors in play as go race relations. People are willing to take one's word provided one doesn't have a history of being untrustworthy or unjust. Sadly, in the U.S. and colonies (prior to 1776 or 1788 if one prefers), white folks have nearly 500 years worth of being all sorts of despicable things toward minorities. Of course, there were and are exceptions within the white community, sometimes even a lot of them, but the trust lost over hundreds of years and millions of abused people isn't easily regained in 70 years.


Green:
I don't know. The only reformed, if you can call it that, racists I know really well are my father and a few kin on his side of the family. The thing is they don't articulate the sorts of things one hears from the GP of the KKK or from the folks on USMB to whom you alluded. They are okay with affirming that they have white privilege and have benefitted from it. They are of varying views about the idea/prospect of giving it up but they know they have it.

Acquaintances of my Southern kin know they have it too; they like that they do and think they deserve have it. They will tell you unabashedly they know damn well they have white privilege and that they not about to advocate yielding it. That, I think, is something that distinguishes my family and the people whom we invite to be a part of it (i.e., close family friends) from a lot of people.

To a person, not one of us is concerned about whether anyone else likes or agrees with what we think or do. We aren't ashamed of who we are and we aren't prevaricators. We are like that because we each have enough self-respect not to be, and enough respect for others, minorities or not, so they know where they stand with us and we with them. Everyone knows where the other stands and nobody wastes their time "winin' pinin' and wishin' all because they don't know 'this or that' about Billy Joe." I wish more folks were like that; we might then be able to answer your "blue" question.

I'm relieved you were able to figure out why I was asking the question; you articulated it for me--trust.
Thanks.

 

[Iceweasel]

It was a joke piece, don't tell me you took it seriously?

I did because there was nothing indicating that I should not have: LOL, JK, etc.

I cannot read your mind or anyone else's. I'm very good, however, at applying the conventions and rules of standard English grammar and literary devices in order to comprehend what folks write. There's an element of ambiguity that accompanies one's scratching one's head.

• Sometimes folks do that when they don't understand at all and are trying to; this is usually accompanied by one's asking neutrally worded questions aimed at helping them gain an understanding of some sort.
• Other times they do that when they partially understand, but not completely.
• And on yet other occasions, folks scratch their head when they fully understand and are contemplating the validity and soundness of the implications they've drawn from what they read.

I knew the first of those situations applied to you because your post asked no question, but I didn't know which of the other two did apply. I decided that it didn't matter for either is a mature response.

There are, of course, other reasons why folks scratch their head in response to stimuli; however, they aren't responses one makes if one is to engage in a mature discussion. I presumed you were inclined toward an adult conversation, thus my complimentary reply.

I had no questions, that's the main reason I asked no question. My point was you took something ridiculous very seriously, or at least seemed to.

The fact of the matter is that if you can't get ahead in theis country your skin color isn't the problem. You need to look deeper for the real problem. People can come here from any nationality, barely speaking the English language and do well but you need a cheap easy excuse to justify failure.

 

[320 Years of History]

You're late, ptbw forever. Better late than never, though. Looking forward to your argument.

I'm sure that at some point he'd chosen an argumentatively untenable

It was a joke piece, don't tell me you took it seriously?

I did because there was nothing indicating that I should not have: LOL, JK, etc.

I cannot read your mind or anyone else's. I'm very good, however, at applying the conventions and rules of standard English grammar and literary devices in order to comprehend what folks write. There's an element of ambiguity that accompanies one's scratching one's head.

• Sometimes folks do that when they don't understand at all and are trying to; this is usually accompanied by one's asking neutrally worded questions aimed at helping them gain an understanding of some sort.
• Other times they do that when they partially understand, but not completely.
• And on yet other occasions, folks scratch their head when they fully understand and are contemplating the validity and soundness of the implications they've drawn from what they read.

I knew the first of those situations applied to you because your post asked no question, but I didn't know which of the other two did apply. I decided that it didn't matter for either is a mature response.

There are, of course, other reasons why folks scratch their head in response to stimuli; however, they aren't responses one makes if one is to engage in a mature discussion. I presumed you were inclined toward an adult conversation, thus my complimentary reply.

I had no questions, that's the main reason I asked no question. My point was you took something ridiculous very seriously, or at least seemed to.

The fact of the matter is that if you can't get ahead in theis country your skin color isn't the problem. You need to look deeper for the real problem. People can come here from any nationality, barely speaking the English language and do well but you need a cheap easy excuse to justify failure.

Red:
There is almost certainly no single problem, but race can be among the problems. To the extent it is, it is a problem that whites preponderantly don't face. The evidence that shows that is found in the documents attached to post #243.

I think it's very hard to accept what's happened to black people in this country post-slavery. I think we can accept that we had slaves -- most countries did. But very few followed it up with the Klan and Jim Crow. These facts challenge our self-image as Americans. How can redlining and Horatio Alger be true at the same time?

The black experience threatens our image as a place of great individual opportunity. Of course, if our ideals are real, we shouldn't be threatened at all. Sometimes one says something stupid and unloving to of blacks. In some cases that doesn't mean one is unempathetic toward them, but one also can't act like one never said it, or look for excuses for why one did. One confront oneself and be honest, as opposed to trying to cover one's ass.


Blue:
And yet native-born folks across the country claim they cannot get ahead. Constantly in the news we hear recriminations of illegal immigrants taking jobs from natives; thus some want them deported. (Nevermind that business owners risk losing key success factors or even their ability to be in business if they get caught employing illegals.) Often there's someone on USMB griping about H1-B workers alleged willingness to accept lower wages as if that is somehow a factor. What could be more absurd? Who, jobless or underemployed, would not accept a "lower than prime" wage that is yet higher than their current wage if they are qualified to do the job?

Statistics show that if you are born elsewhere and later acquire American citizenship, you will, on average, earn more than us native-borns, study further, marry at higher rates and divorce at lower rates, fall out of the work force less frequently and more easily dodge poverty. What’s curious is where this immigrant advantage is most pronounced. In left-leaning, coastal, cosmopolitan America, native-borns seem well groomed by their families, schools and communities to keep up with foreign-borns. It’s in the right-leaning “Walmart America” where foreigners have the greatest advantage.

From Mississippi to West Virginia to Oklahoma, native-borns struggle to flourish on a par with foreign-born Americans. In the 10 poorest states (just one on the East or West Coast: South Carolina), the median household of native-borns earns 84 cents for every $1 earned by a household of naturalized citizens, compared with 97 cents for native-borns in the richest (and mostly coastal) states, according to Census Bureau data. In the poorest states, foreign-borns are 24 percent less likely than native-borns to report themselves as divorced or separated, but just 3 percent less likely in the richest states. In the poorest states, foreign-borns are 36 percent less likely than native-borns to live in poverty; the disparity collapses to about half that in wealthier states like New Jersey and Connecticut.

This phenomenon is vividly manifest in the story of Raisuddin Bhuiyan (also: "Pledges of Allegiance amid Lives Gone Awry" by Akhtar, Ayad - International New York Times, May 14, 2014 | Online Research Library: Questia & Anand Giridharadas: A tale of two Americas. And the mini-mart where they collided | TED Talk Subtitles and Transcript | TED.com), a Muslim immigrant from Bangladesh, working in a Dallas minimart in 2001 to save for a wedding and an education; the other, Mark Stroman, shot him in a twisted post-9/11 revenge attack, blinding him in one eye, during a rampage that killed two other immigrant clerks. Mr. Bhuiyan eventually learned more about Mr. Stroman and the world that formed him. What he found astonished him, then inspired him to forgive his attacker and battle to rescue him from death row.

Mr. Bhuiyan realized that he was among the lucky Americans. Even after the attack, he was able to pick up and remake himself, climbing from that minimart to waiting tables at an Olive Garden to six-figure I.T. jobs. But Mr. Bhuiyan also saw the America that created Mr. Stroman, in which a battered working class was suffering from a dearth of work, community and hope, with many people failing to form strong bonds and filling the void with escapist chemicals, looping endlessly between prison and freedom.

Eventually, Mr. Bhuiyan petitioned a Texas court to spare his attacker’s life because he had lacked his victim’s advantages: a loving and sober family, pressure to strive and virtuous habits. The naturalized citizen claimed the native Texan hadn’t had the same shot at the American dream as the “foreigner” he’d tried to kill.

At a time when even the American middle class is struggling, a difficult question arises: Are you better off being born in some of the poorest parts of the world and moving here than being raised in the poorer parts of the United States?


There’s no easy answer. But let’s first acknowledge the obvious: Most naturalized citizens -- nearly half of America’s roughly 40 million immigrants -- arrived by choice, found employer sponsors, navigated visas and green cards. (We’re not talking here of immigrants who never reach citizenship and generally have harder lives than American citizens, native- or foreign-born.) It’s no accident that our freshest citizens have pluck and wits that favor them later.

BUT I also think there’s something more complicated going on: in those places where mobility’s engine is groaning and the social fabric is fraying, many immigrants may have an added edge because of their ability to straddle the seemingly contradictory values of their birthplaces and their adopted land, to balance individualism with community-mindedness and self-reliance with usage of the system.

American scholars have long warned of declining “social capital”: simply put, people lacking the support of others. In Texas, one encounters the wasteland described by writers from Robert D. Putnam on the left to Charles Murray on the right. In mostly white, exurban communities that often see themselves as above the woes of inner cities, one finds household after household where country music songs about family and church play but country-music values have fled: places where a rising generation is often being reared by grandparents because parents are addicted, imprisoned, broke or all three.

In places bedeviled by anomie, immigrants from more family-centered and collectivist societies -- Mexico, India, Colombia, Vietnam, Haiti, China -- often arrive with an advantageous blend of individualist and communitarian traits. "Blend" because while they come from communal societies, they were deserters. They may have been raised with family-first values, but often they were the ones to leave aging parents. It can be a powerful cocktail: a self-willed drive for success and, leavening it somewhat, a sacrificial devotion to family and tribe. Many, even as their lives grow more independent, serve their family oceans away by sending remittances.

Mr. Bhuiyan seemed to embody this dualism. By back-home standards, he was a rugged individualist. But in America it was his "it takes a village" mettle that enabled his revival: Immigrant friends gave him medicine, sofas to sleep on, free I.T. training and job referrals. Working at Olive Garden, Mr. Bhuiyan couldn’t believe how his colleagues lacked for support. Young women walked home alone, sometimes in 100-plus degree heat on highways, having no one to give them rides. Many colleagues lacked cars not because they couldn’t afford the lease but because nobody would cosign it. “I feel that, how come they have no one in their family -- their dad, their uncle?” he said. They told stories of chaotic childhoods that made them seek refuge in drugs and gangs.

Mr. Bhuiyan concluded that the autonomy for which he’d come to America, while serving him well, failed others who had lacked his support since birth. His republic of self-making was their republic of self-destruction. “Here we think freedom means whatever I wanna do, whatever I wanna say -- that is freedom,” he said. “But that’s the wrong definition.”

A second dimension of this in-between-ness involves the role of government. In this era of gridlock and austerity, many immigrants have the advantage of coming from places where bankrupt, do-nothing governments are no surprise. They often find themselves among Americans who are opposite-minded: leaning on the state for economic survival but socially lonesome, without community backup when that state fails.

All this has nothing to do with the superiority of values. If distrust of government made for the most successful societies, Nigeria and Argentina would be leaders of the pack. What’s interesting about so many of America’s immigrants is how they manage to plug instincts cultivated in other places into the system here. Many are trained in their homelands to behave as though the state will do nothing for them, and in America they reap the advantages of being self-starters.

But they also benefit from the systems and support that America does offer, which are inadequate as substitutes for initiative but are useful complements to it. Like many immigrants, Mr. Bhuiyan operated from the start like an economic loner, never expecting to get much from the government. He was willing to work at a gas station to save money. Recovering in his boss’s home, he ordered I.T. textbooks online to improve his employability. Plunged into debt, he negotiated with doctors and hospitals to trim his bills.

The system worked for him. Robust laws prevented employers from exploiting a wide-eyed newcomer. He sued the Texas governor, in pursuit of leniency for his attacker, and was heard. Through a fund for crime victims, Texas eventually paid his medical bills.

In an age of inequality and shaky faith in the American promise of mobility through merit, we can learn from these experiences. Forget the overused idea popularized in self-help guides that native-borns must “think like an immigrant” to prosper, an exhortation that ignores much history. Rather, the success of immigrants in the nation’s hurting places reminds us that the American dream can still work, but it helps to have people to lean on. Many immigrants get that, because where they come from, people are all you have. They recognize that solitude is an extravagance.

Comparing any immigrant group to virtually any native-born group is like comparing the most ambitious members of one team with the entirety of another team. This is to say nothing of whatever skills, education and wealth a particular immigrant group may bring to bear. American poverty is darkened by loneliness; poverty in so many poor countries I’ve visited is brightened only by community. Helping people gain other people to lean on -- not just offering cheaper health care and food stamps, tax cuts and charter schools -- seems essential to making this American dream work as well for its perennial flowers as its freshest seeds.

 

[ptbw forever]

Racial profile much.
Some white people have a better chance at success than some black people.

But, some black people have a better chance at success than some white people. (The president's daughters for example have near 100% probability of success).

In America, most people have an excellent opportunity of being successful if they get off their butts, get educated, learn a skill, and get to work. And don't give up because there is a setback or perceived unfairness. The world will never be complete "fair". Almost everyone can point a finger at someone who was luckier at the birth lottery. Those that persevere can insure that their children are more privileged than themselves.

All of those things are true (except that I'm "racial profiling" lol). What the OP is getting at is the more subtle influences in our society that handicap a lot of African Americans because of the "birth lottery," as you call it. I will grant you that things are a lot better than they were when I was a girl, but it's not a done deal yet that we live in a colorblind society.

You literally said "white people are racists", THAT is racial profiling.

Go die in a ditch grandma.

No, I didn't literally say that. I do not automatically look at a white guy and say "Racist;" fortunately that is nowhere near the truth. White privilege isn't the same as racism. White privilege is a subtle frame of mind that, through ignorance, makes it difficult for some people to understand that there is still an unspoken handicap at play if you are an African American. If it doesn't apply to you, move on and shut your trap.
If I've got you losing your temper, though, I have hope I'm hitting a nerve.
I look forward to reading your argument here on Monday. Maybe it will help me understand your position and the position of many of your Buds here.

Nothing you have told me so far explains your responses to me or why you have made it a habit to mock and disrespect my views in every thread for weeks now with a "funny." I doubt if it is your way of building my "Likes" total.
I'm beginning to wonder if you, Sir, are part of that "Alt Right" crew which is being equally vehemently denied elsewhere on this board.

what is the alt right?

"Why do they hate whites? Because whites are racist"

Get out of here with your bullshit grandma.

That was a different thread where everyone was using the same broad brush to speak of blacks and whites as general groups and their general attitudes. Context matters. Maybe you should go work for the NYTimes.

That was in context. That was your entire post.

If someone said "Heil Hitler" in any context other than the one I am using right now, that someone would be rightly regarded as a Neo-Nazi, regardless of what thread they typed it in.

 

[OldLady]

All of those things are true (except that I'm "racial profiling" lol). What the OP is getting at is the more subtle influences in our society that handicap a lot of African Americans because of the "birth lottery," as you call it. I will grant you that things are a lot better than they were when I was a girl, but it's not a done deal yet that we live in a colorblind society.

You literally said "white people are racists", THAT is racial profiling.

Go die in a ditch grandma.

No, I didn't literally say that. I do not automatically look at a white guy and say "Racist;" fortunately that is nowhere near the truth. White privilege isn't the same as racism. White privilege is a subtle frame of mind that, through ignorance, makes it difficult for some people to understand that there is still an unspoken handicap at play if you are an African American. If it doesn't apply to you, move on and shut your trap.
If I've got you losing your temper, though, I have hope I'm hitting a nerve.
I look forward to reading your argument here on Monday. Maybe it will help me understand your position and the position of many of your Buds here.

Nothing you have told me so far explains your responses to me or why you have made it a habit to mock and disrespect my views in every thread for weeks now with a "funny." I doubt if it is your way of building my "Likes" total.
I'm beginning to wonder if you, Sir, are part of that "Alt Right" crew which is being equally vehemently denied elsewhere on this board.

what is the alt right?

"Why do they hate whites? Because whites are racist"

Get out of here with your bullshit grandma.

That was a different thread where everyone was using the same broad brush to speak of blacks and whites as general groups and their general attitudes. Context matters. Maybe you should go work for the NYTimes.

That was in context. That was your entire post.

If someone said "Heil Hitler" in any context other than the one I am using right now, that someone would be rightly regarded as a Neo-Nazi, regardless of what thread they typed it in.

Where's your argument to 320? Your evidence that white privilege doesn't exist?
That's what this thread is about.

 

[OldLady]

Are you better off being born in some of the poorest parts of the world and moving here than being raised in the poorer parts of the United States?

Wow. Sad, but probably true.

 

[ptbw forever]

You literally said "white people are racists", THAT is racial profiling.

Go die in a ditch grandma.

No, I didn't literally say that. I do not automatically look at a white guy and say "Racist;" fortunately that is nowhere near the truth. White privilege isn't the same as racism. White privilege is a subtle frame of mind that, through ignorance, makes it difficult for some people to understand that there is still an unspoken handicap at play if you are an African American. If it doesn't apply to you, move on and shut your trap.
If I've got you losing your temper, though, I have hope I'm hitting a nerve.
I look forward to reading your argument here on Monday. Maybe it will help me understand your position and the position of many of your Buds here.

Nothing you have told me so far explains your responses to me or why you have made it a habit to mock and disrespect my views in every thread for weeks now with a "funny." I doubt if it is your way of building my "Likes" total.
I'm beginning to wonder if you, Sir, are part of that "Alt Right" crew which is being equally vehemently denied elsewhere on this board.

what is the alt right?

"Why do they hate whites? Because whites are racist"

Get out of here with your bullshit grandma.

That was a different thread where everyone was using the same broad brush to speak of blacks and whites as general groups and their general attitudes. Context matters. Maybe you should go work for the NYTimes.

That was in context. That was your entire post.

If someone said "Heil Hitler" in any context other than the one I am using right now, that someone would be rightly regarded as a Neo-Nazi, regardless of what thread they typed it in.

Where's your argument to 320? Your evidence that white privilege doesn't exist?
That's what this thread is about.

Where is his?

I wanted him to prove to me why putting in that kind of effort on a forum like this one would be fruitful in closing this huge, controversial and convoluted argument that has been raging at least since McIntosh brought it up, and instead he all but ignored that question. Where is his dialectic argument, grandma?

If he were Peggy McIntosh or Tim Wise asking me to debate this subject in front of thousands of people I would quit my fucking job and spend months to formulate the perfect arguments and counter-arguments to crush them into dust and hopefully end this shit once and for all, but spats on the Internet are all but a waste of time if you go over the minimum effort.

 

[ptbw forever]

320, there is a show on CNN called "United Shades of America" which the couple times I've seen it explores "fringe" groups, or the road less traveled types. Last night I saw the episode on the KKK.

So many of the arguments I hear here were the same ones being voiced by the Grand Poobahs of an Arkansas KKK chapter.

What I'm wondering now is, are there a lot of people who share those beliefs without the hate? Who don't believe there is white privilege or believe in Affirmative Action but have nothing against blacks? Did those folks give the argument to the "New" Klan, which adopted them under the guise of being logical, or did the white supremacists formulate the stances and persuade a lot of unbiased people to think it was reasonable?

I absolutely refuse to believe that all conservatives are racist--I know better. But it is very hard to sort out people's intentions on this subject.

I've watched several episodes of that series.

Red:
They are, and I find that disconcerting.

Blue:
I don't know. I know that the difficulty in being able to confidently discern the answer is a huge part of why the race problems we have long faced persist. Further confounding the challenge(s) is that folks will aver that which is in fact true just as resolutely and repeatedly as they will that which is not true.

If you have no way to tell what the day of the week is and you ask me the day of the week, and it's Tuesday, I'm going to say it's Tuesday every time you ask because it is Tuesday and I'm being 100% honest. If I'm of a mind to mislead you into thinking it's Monday, I'll say it's Monday every time you ask because it doesn't serve my malfeasant end to change my answer.

Now if you were to know that I had a history of lying to you, deceiving you, harming you, even though you may ask me the day of the week, you're going to be very skeptical no matter what I say. The only think that will change your mind is my establishing with you a track record of integrity that over time erodes your lack of trust in my responses and stated intents.

It's quite the same factors in play as go race relations. People are willing to take one's word provided one doesn't have a history of being untrustworthy or unjust. Sadly, in the U.S. and colonies (prior to 1776 or 1788 if one prefers), white folks have nearly 500 years worth of being all sorts of despicable things toward minorities. Of course, there were and are exceptions within the white community, sometimes even a lot of them, but the trust lost over hundreds of years and millions of abused people isn't easily regained in 70 years.


Green:
I don't know. The only reformed, if you can call it that, racists I know really well are my father and a few kin on his side of the family. The thing is they don't articulate the sorts of things one hears from the GP of the KKK or from the folks on USMB to whom you alluded. They are okay with affirming that they have white privilege and have benefitted from it. They are of varying views about the idea/prospect of giving it up but they know they have it.

Acquaintances of my Southern kin know they have it too; they like that they do and think they deserve have it. They will tell you unabashedly they know damn well they have white privilege and that they not about to advocate yielding it. That, I think, is something that distinguishes my family and the people whom we invite to be a part of it (i.e., close family friends) from a lot of people.

To a person, not one of us is concerned about whether anyone else likes or agrees with what we think or do. We aren't ashamed of who we are and we aren't prevaricators. We are like that because we each have enough self-respect not to be, and enough respect for others, minorities or not, so they know where they stand with us and we with them. Everyone knows where the other stands and nobody wastes their time "winin' pinin' and wishin' all because they don't know 'this or that' about Billy Joe." I wish more folks were like that; we might then be able to answer your "blue" question.

You are doing nothing but excusing racist attitudes from non-whites towards whites. The "loss of trust" is a result of many non-whites being as historically illiterate as you are and believing that poor whites(of which there were much much more than rich whites at the time)had anything to do with explicit acts carried out by the government and their wholely wealthy electorate(I.E slavery).

You also need to stop jumping around when it comes to whether "white privilege" is bad or not, and whether white people are "racists" for being willing to "give it up" or not. According to what you typed here you believe anyone who "recognizes" that they have "white privilege" and refuses to give it up is a defacto racist KKK scumbag, and that is a farcry from what you typed earlier in this very thread.

 

[ptbw forever]

Racial profile much.
Some white people have a better chance at success than some black people.

But, some black people have a better chance at success than some white people. (The president's daughters for example have near 100% probability of success).

In America, most people have an excellent opportunity of being successful if they get off their butts, get educated, learn a skill, and get to work. And don't give up because there is a setback or perceived unfairness. The world will never be complete "fair". Almost everyone can point a finger at someone who was luckier at the birth lottery. Those that persevere can insure that their children are more privileged than themselves.

All of those things are true (except that I'm "racial profiling" lol). What the OP is getting at is the more subtle influences in our society that handicap a lot of African Americans because of the "birth lottery," as you call it. I will grant you that things are a lot better than they were when I was a girl, but it's not a done deal yet that we live in a colorblind society.

You literally said "white people are racists", THAT is racial profiling.

Go die in a ditch grandma.

No, I didn't literally say that. I do not automatically look at a white guy and say "Racist;" fortunately that is nowhere near the truth. White privilege isn't the same as racism. White privilege is a subtle frame of mind that, through ignorance, makes it difficult for some people to understand that there is still an unspoken handicap at play if you are an African American. If it doesn't apply to you, move on and shut your trap.
If I've got you losing your temper, though, I have hope I'm hitting a nerve.
I look forward to reading your argument here on Monday. Maybe it will help me understand your position and the position of many of your Buds here.

Nothing you have told me so far explains your responses to me or why you have made it a habit to mock and disrespect my views in every thread for weeks now with a "funny." I doubt if it is your way of building my "Likes" total.
I'm beginning to wonder if you, Sir, are part of that "Alt Right" crew which is being equally vehemently denied elsewhere on this board.

what is the alt right?

"Why do they hate whites? Because whites are racist"

Get out of here with your bullshit grandma.

That was a different thread where everyone was using the same broad brush to speak of blacks and whites as general groups and their general attitudes. Context matters. Maybe you should go work for the NYTimes.

Funny how you don't trust the NYTimes when you support the lying scum on CNN just fine.

 

[OldLady]

No, I didn't literally say that. I do not automatically look at a white guy and say "Racist;" fortunately that is nowhere near the truth. White privilege isn't the same as racism. White privilege is a subtle frame of mind that, through ignorance, makes it difficult for some people to understand that there is still an unspoken handicap at play if you are an African American. If it doesn't apply to you, move on and shut your trap.
If I've got you losing your temper, though, I have hope I'm hitting a nerve.
I look forward to reading your argument here on Monday. Maybe it will help me understand your position and the position of many of your Buds here.

Nothing you have told me so far explains your responses to me or why you have made it a habit to mock and disrespect my views in every thread for weeks now with a "funny." I doubt if it is your way of building my "Likes" total.
I'm beginning to wonder if you, Sir, are part of that "Alt Right" crew which is being equally vehemently denied elsewhere on this board.

what is the alt right?

"Why do they hate whites? Because whites are racist"

Get out of here with your bullshit grandma.

That was a different thread where everyone was using the same broad brush to speak of blacks and whites as general groups and their general attitudes. Context matters. Maybe you should go work for the NYTimes.

That was in context. That was your entire post.

If someone said "Heil Hitler" in any context other than the one I am using right now, that someone would be rightly regarded as a Neo-Nazi, regardless of what thread they typed it in.

Where's your argument to 320? Your evidence that white privilege doesn't exist?
That's what this thread is about.

Where is his?

I wanted him to prove to me why putting in that kind of effort on a forum like this one would be fruitful in closing this huge, controversial and convoluted argument that has been raging at least since McIntosh brought it up, and instead he all but ignored that question. Where is his dialectic argument, grandma?

If he were Peggy McIntosh or Tim Wise asking me to debate this subject in front of thousands of people I would quit my fucking job and spend months to formulate the perfect arguments and counter-arguments to crush them into dust and hopefully end this shit once and for all, but spats on the Internet are all but a waste of time if you go over the minimum effort.

I am certainly not going to pretend to know what any of you guys are talking about when you get into "dialectic arguments" as opposed to ... blah, blah, blah. I'm just your average joe. But what I've seen so far is that 320 has written several posts that explain in some detail where he is coming from on this topic and you haven't. More mudslinging coming from you than explanations. So regardless what fancy words you want to put on it, I thought maybe you were going to thoroughly explain and show all us liberals the error of our ways.

 

[OldLady]

All of those things are true (except that I'm "racial profiling" lol). What the OP is getting at is the more subtle influences in our society that handicap a lot of African Americans because of the "birth lottery," as you call it. I will grant you that things are a lot better than they were when I was a girl, but it's not a done deal yet that we live in a colorblind society.

You literally said "white people are racists", THAT is racial profiling.

Go die in a ditch grandma.

No, I didn't literally say that. I do not automatically look at a white guy and say "Racist;" fortunately that is nowhere near the truth. White privilege isn't the same as racism. White privilege is a subtle frame of mind that, through ignorance, makes it difficult for some people to understand that there is still an unspoken handicap at play if you are an African American. If it doesn't apply to you, move on and shut your trap.
If I've got you losing your temper, though, I have hope I'm hitting a nerve.
I look forward to reading your argument here on Monday. Maybe it will help me understand your position and the position of many of your Buds here.

Nothing you have told me so far explains your responses to me or why you have made it a habit to mock and disrespect my views in every thread for weeks now with a "funny." I doubt if it is your way of building my "Likes" total.
I'm beginning to wonder if you, Sir, are part of that "Alt Right" crew which is being equally vehemently denied elsewhere on this board.

what is the alt right?

"Why do they hate whites? Because whites are racist"

Get out of here with your bullshit grandma.

That was a different thread where everyone was using the same broad brush to speak of blacks and whites as general groups and their general attitudes. Context matters. Maybe you should go work for the NYTimes.

Funny how you don't trust the NYTimes when you support the lying scum on CNN just fine.

The "lying scum" on CNN didn't say anything about the KKK. He let them speak for themselves. Straight out of the horse's mouth, I got those words I heard. I was referring to the prevailing attitude here toward the Times as a lying, biased, pos. Not my attitude.

 

[Iceweasel]

You literally said "white people are racists", THAT is racial profiling.

Go die in a ditch grandma.

No, I didn't literally say that. I do not automatically look at a white guy and say "Racist;" fortunately that is nowhere near the truth. White privilege isn't the same as racism. White privilege is a subtle frame of mind that, through ignorance, makes it difficult for some people to understand that there is still an unspoken handicap at play if you are an African American. If it doesn't apply to you, move on and shut your trap.
If I've got you losing your temper, though, I have hope I'm hitting a nerve.
I look forward to reading your argument here on Monday. Maybe it will help me understand your position and the position of many of your Buds here.

Nothing you have told me so far explains your responses to me or why you have made it a habit to mock and disrespect my views in every thread for weeks now with a "funny." I doubt if it is your way of building my "Likes" total.
I'm beginning to wonder if you, Sir, are part of that "Alt Right" crew which is being equally vehemently denied elsewhere on this board.

what is the alt right?

"Why do they hate whites? Because whites are racist"

Get out of here with your bullshit grandma.

That was a different thread where everyone was using the same broad brush to speak of blacks and whites as general groups and their general attitudes. Context matters. Maybe you should go work for the NYTimes.

That was in context. That was your entire post.

If someone said "Heil Hitler" in any context other than the one I am using right now, that someone would be rightly regarded as a Neo-Nazi, regardless of what thread they typed it in.

Where's your argument to 320? Your evidence that white privilege doesn't exist?
That's what this thread is about.

It might but where have blacks done better than the US?

 

[Iceweasel]

Comparing any immigrant group to virtually any native-born group is like comparing the most ambitious members of one team with the entirety of another team. This is to say nothing of whatever skills, education and wealth a particular immigrant group may bring to bear. American poverty is darkened by loneliness; poverty in so many poor countries I’ve visited is brightened only by community. Helping people gain other people to lean on -- not just offering cheaper health care and food stamps, tax cuts and charter schools -- seems essential to making this American dream work as well for its perennial flowers as its freshest seeds.

Your problem is that you have group think. You aren't a person, you are a group. People do immigrate here and do quite well and have since day one.

Me? I am an individual and don't expect group hugs or nurturing. It's called growing up.

 

[ptbw forever]

320, there is a show on CNN called "United Shades of America" which the couple times I've seen it explores "fringe" groups, or the road less traveled types. Last night I saw the episode on the KKK.
So many of the arguments I hear here were the same ones being voiced by the Grand Poobahs of an Arkansas KKK chapter.
What I'm wondering now is, are there a lot of people who share those beliefs without the hate? Who don't believe there is white privilege or believe in Affirmative Action but have nothing against blacks? Did those folks give the argument to the "New" Klan, which adopted them under the guise of being logical, or did the white supremacists formulate the stances and persuade a lot of unbiased people to think it was reasonable?
I absolutely refuse to believe that all conservatives are racist--I know better. But it is very hard to sort out people's intentions on this subject.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the KKK of today is full of more rational and logical members than it used to be due to the radical demographic changes occurring in the west forcing more intellectuals(alt-right) into such a group? Do you even understand how laughable "white privilege" will be 50 years from now?


It is not hard to see why more ordinary white people would join the most well known pro-white organization in the world at a time when white people are literally disappearing from the world stage, and at a time when it seems like everyone else is making a push to claim what has always been rightfully ours(Europe and the innovations created in the greater western world by our ancestors), especially when the KKK hasn't officially lynched anyone for 60 years. If you really hear the KKK making the same arguments as the alt-right and the greater pro-white activist network, that means those particular arguments are at a much higher level than the typical KKK caricature.

 

[ptbw forever]

what is the alt right?

"Why do they hate whites? Because whites are racist"

Get out of here with your bullshit grandma.

That was a different thread where everyone was using the same broad brush to speak of blacks and whites as general groups and their general attitudes. Context matters. Maybe you should go work for the NYTimes.

That was in context. That was your entire post.

If someone said "Heil Hitler" in any context other than the one I am using right now, that someone would be rightly regarded as a Neo-Nazi, regardless of what thread they typed it in.

Where's your argument to 320? Your evidence that white privilege doesn't exist?
That's what this thread is about.

Where is his?

I wanted him to prove to me why putting in that kind of effort on a forum like this one would be fruitful in closing this huge, controversial and convoluted argument that has been raging at least since McIntosh brought it up, and instead he all but ignored that question. Where is his dialectic argument, grandma?

If he were Peggy McIntosh or Tim Wise asking me to debate this subject in front of thousands of people I would quit my fucking job and spend months to formulate the perfect arguments and counter-arguments to crush them into dust and hopefully end this shit once and for all, but spats on the Internet are all but a waste of time if you go over the minimum effort.

I am certainly not going to pretend to know what any of you guys are talking about when you get into "dialectic arguments" as opposed to ... blah, blah, blah. I'm just your average joe. But what I've seen so far is that 320 has written several posts that explain in some detail where he is coming from on this topic and you haven't. More mudslinging coming from you than explanations. So regardless what fancy words you want to put on it, I thought maybe you were going to thoroughly explain and show all us liberals the error of our ways.

He hasn't said anything that he didn't copy/paste from some other loon. He is part of a cult that uses nothing but circular reasoning'and anecdotes to explain everything he believes.

I know what I know because I understand that no other part of the world is collectively experiencing even a fraction of the radical demographic changes that the west is currently. You can't have "white privilege" when you aren't even sustaining a stable native or majority population with the standard 2.1 kids per family, and you certainly can't have collective majority privileges when your group is hyper individualistic and harshly divided along various demographics and political issues on top of a negative growth rate.

 

[ptbw forever]

You literally said "white people are racists", THAT is racial profiling.

Go die in a ditch grandma.

No, I didn't literally say that. I do not automatically look at a white guy and say "Racist;" fortunately that is nowhere near the truth. White privilege isn't the same as racism. White privilege is a subtle frame of mind that, through ignorance, makes it difficult for some people to understand that there is still an unspoken handicap at play if you are an African American. If it doesn't apply to you, move on and shut your trap.
If I've got you losing your temper, though, I have hope I'm hitting a nerve.
I look forward to reading your argument here on Monday. Maybe it will help me understand your position and the position of many of your Buds here.

Nothing you have told me so far explains your responses to me or why you have made it a habit to mock and disrespect my views in every thread for weeks now with a "funny." I doubt if it is your way of building my "Likes" total.
I'm beginning to wonder if you, Sir, are part of that "Alt Right" crew which is being equally vehemently denied elsewhere on this board.

what is the alt right?

"Why do they hate whites? Because whites are racist"

Get out of here with your bullshit grandma.

That was a different thread where everyone was using the same broad brush to speak of blacks and whites as general groups and their general attitudes. Context matters. Maybe you should go work for the NYTimes.

Funny how you don't trust the NYTimes when you support the lying scum on CNN just fine.

The "lying scum" on CNN didn't say anything about the KKK. He let them speak for themselves. Straight out of the horse's mouth, I got those words I heard. I was referring to the prevailing attitude here toward the Times as a lying, biased, pos. Not my attitude.

They show heavily edited footage of pretty much nothing but the most militant members and then construct a narrative throughout the documentary that attacks the idea of being pro-white at all to negate any of the reasonable voices they show later. The "progressive" media is full of the most despicable people on the planet.