CDZ What is White Privilege?

[Publius1787]

Because without examples a theory is null. Evidently everyone wants to complain about white privilege but no one wants to prove it exists. Parish the thought.

So you are looking to disparage whatever examples are provided so you can somehow "prove" that white privilege doesn't exist?

If you want a serious debate then the onus is on you to prove that the cited definition provided above is not accurate and that white privilege does not exist.

I LOVE you're argument!!! I simply love it. It is akin to telling someone that they cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Indeed, you are telling me that White Privilege is a religion whereas we must atone for our sins without critically examining it.

Listen, this is how an argument works.

Claim: White privilege as defined exists because of A. B. C. .. .. ..
Counter claim: No, A is wrong because of D, B is wrong because of E, and C is wrong because of F.
Counter counter claim: You are wrong on DEF because of GHI.

You see how this works? Instead you want to claim it exists without the "unjust" burden of defending the claim.

Thank you for admitting that you are not interested in a genuine debate on the subject.

Your OP is now an epic failure by your own hand!

Ok, I see you have your smiley there laughing so as to grant you moral support. Or did you want me to know your were really laughing? If so, then what does that add to the debate. No, emoticons are there to make the poster feel better about himself. I love them because they say so much about the person who posted them.

In any case, you made a claim above. However, once again (and no surprise) you didn't give examples to support such a claim.

Seriously, why is it so hard to come up with an example of "White Privilege?" Why run away from an argument? That is why you're here; right? How could you claim and defend that I'm not here for an honest debate when you wont debate? Indeed, there is only one way to find out. You're wasting all of your energy arguing that I don't won't an honest debate while at the same time avoiding the debate. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of. Now how about you put your energy into granting examples instead of copying and pasting from Wikipedia.

So far all you have done is deflect and try to make this personal.

Make your argument against white privilege if you can and then go from there.

Otherwise just admit that this is an epic failure on your part and ask the mods to close the thread.

Your move.

Very well, I see you have conveyed no example of white privilege. As you can see with my argument with LONELAUGHTER I am fair and honest in seeking the truth of the matter. CDZ - What is White Privilege Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Why you continue to make excuses not to defend your inability to provide examples for the existence of white privilege is beyond me.

 

[Meathead]

White privilege is the only acceptable politically correct reason for black failure.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

I agree with that example. Indeed, it was codified into law and upheld by the Jim Crow system. Please excuse me for not clarifying that I wanted modern examples. With that said, your comparison of the 50's and 60's to the 80's or 90's does hold some relevance to this argument. But not for the reasons you think its relevant to the argument. Now, by stating "relevant to the argument" I am not saying true or false, but merely relevant. If you can tie that in to today then I think it much more relevant to what I aim to find out. I want to see white privilege in the context of todays setting. Is that fair enough?

Two kids get caught with pot in there pocket. One white...one black. The black kid is far more likely to be arrested than is the white kid.

The black white marijuana arrest gap in nine charts - The Washington Post


Is that what you are looking for? Nice and tidy?

The Washington Post?

So you offer a media resource, from a media known to perpetuate the myth at issue?

Is it possible that more black 'kids' are caught with pot, as a result of the black kids being pursued for something other than pot possession?

I sorta doubt the assumption that two kids; one black, one white are just walking down a street, wherein both are found to be in possession of pot, and the white kid is released, while the black kid is arrested.

Odds of probability require that the black kid was caught with pot after being found doing something else that is worthy of arrest... and the pot possession charge was merely one of a host of other charges.

A classic example might be, the manhandling of a tiny store clerk, while robbing him of his products, then while the black kid is walking down the middle of the road, they're stopped by a cop who was called to investigate that robbery, at which time the black 'kid' attacks the cop, as he informs the cop that he lacks the balls to shoot him, which, ironically, also turns out to not be true.

 

[LoneLaugher]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

I agree with that example. Indeed, it was codified into law and upheld by the Jim Crow system. Please excuse me for not clarifying that I wanted modern examples. With that said, your comparison of the 50's and 60's to the 80's or 90's does hold some relevance to this argument. But not for the reasons you think its relevant to the argument. Now, by stating "relevant to the argument" I am not saying true or false, but merely relevant. If you can tie that in to today then I think it much more relevant to what I aim to find out. I want to see white privilege in the context of todays setting. Is that fair enough?

Two kids get caught with pot in there pocket. One white...one black. The black kid is far more likely to be arrested than is the white kid.

The black white marijuana arrest gap in nine charts - The Washington Post


Is that what you are looking for? Nice and tidy?

The Washington Post?

So you offer a media resource, from a media known to perpetuate the myth at issue?

Is it possible that more black 'kids' are caught with pot, as a result of the black kids being pursued for something other than pot possession?

I sorta doubt the assumption that two kids; one black, one white are just walking down a street, wherein both are found to be in possession of pot, and the white kid is released, while the black kid is arrested.

Odds of probability require that the black kid was caught with pot after being found doing something else that is worthy of arrest...

No.

 

[Publius1787]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

I agree with that example. Indeed, it was codified into law and upheld by the Jim Crow system. Please excuse me for not clarifying that I wanted modern examples. With that said, your comparison of the 50's and 60's to the 80's or 90's does hold some relevance to this argument. But not for the reasons you think its relevant to the argument. Now, by stating "relevant to the argument" I am not saying true or false, but merely relevant. If you can tie that in to today then I think it much more relevant to what I aim to find out. I want to see white privilege in the context of todays setting. Is that fair enough?

Two kids get caught with pot in their pocket. One white...one black. The black kid is far more likely to be arrested than is the white kid.

The black white marijuana arrest gap in nine charts - The Washington Post


Is that what you are looking for? Nice and tidy?

Absolutely! This was exactly the kind of information I was looking for. With that said please allow me to respond.

Black neighborhoods are more likely to receive scrutiny by police because statistics show (And I will provide them for you if asked) that black neighborhoods are more likely to engage in theft and violent crime. With that extra police scrutiny there are bound to be drug arrests by default. Indeed, I'm arguing that extra black drug arrest rates are the effects of the heavy police presence required in black communities. Also, sense blacks are higher prone to commit violent crime, many of those offenders are also drug offenders, and as a result, go to jail as both a drug offender and a violent crime offender. Furthermore, police don't usually have probable cause to search suspects because of a drug offense, but as a consequence of the arrest and discovery they often find a drug offense when they were not looking for one. I don't see blacks getting arrested for drugs more often than whites because of racism, but profiling those areas that are most troublesome that require extra police scrutiny where blacks happen to live. Many of those places are inner-city where many live right next to each other in mass, amplifying this effect.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Publius1787]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

I agree with that example. Indeed, it was codified into law and upheld by the Jim Crow system. Please excuse me for not clarifying that I wanted modern examples. With that said, your comparison of the 50's and 60's to the 80's or 90's does hold some relevance to this argument. But not for the reasons you think its relevant to the argument. Now, by stating "relevant to the argument" I am not saying true or false, but merely relevant. If you can tie that in to today then I think it much more relevant to what I aim to find out. I want to see white privilege in the context of todays setting. Is that fair enough?

Two kids get caught with pot in there pocket. One white...one black. The black kid is far more likely to be arrested than is the white kid.

The black white marijuana arrest gap in nine charts - The Washington Post


Is that what you are looking for? Nice and tidy?

The Washington Post?

So you offer a media resource, from a media known to perpetuate the myth at issue?

Is it possible that more black 'kids' are caught with pot, as a result of the black kids being pursued for something other than pot possession?

I sorta doubt the assumption that two kids; one black, one white are just walking down a street, wherein both are found to be in possession of pot, and the white kid is released, while the black kid is arrested.

Odds of probability require that the black kid was caught with pot after being found doing something else that is worthy of arrest... and the pot possession charge was merely one of a host of other charges.

A classic example might be, the manhandling of a tiny store clerk, while robbing him of his products, then while the black kid is walking down the middle of the road, they're stopped by a cop who was called to investigate that robbery, at which time the black 'kid' attacks the cop, as he informs the cop that he lacks the balls to shoot him, which, ironically, also turns out to not be true.

If you're going to attack the source attack the merits of the information provided by the source.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you are looking to disparage whatever examples are provided so you can somehow "prove" that white privilege doesn't exist?

If you want a serious debate then the onus is on you to prove that the cited definition provided above is not accurate and that white privilege does not exist.

I LOVE you're argument!!! I simply love it. It is akin to telling someone that they cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Indeed, you are telling me that White Privilege is a religion whereas we must atone for our sins without critically examining it.

Listen, this is how an argument works.

Claim: White privilege as defined exists because of A. B. C. .. .. ..
Counter claim: No, A is wrong because of D, B is wrong because of E, and C is wrong because of F.
Counter counter claim: You are wrong on DEF because of GHI.

You see how this works? Instead you want to claim it exists without the "unjust" burden of defending the claim.

Thank you for admitting that you are not interested in a genuine debate on the subject.

Your OP is now an epic failure by your own hand!

Ok, I see you have your smiley there laughing so as to grant you moral support. Or did you want me to know your were really laughing? If so, then what does that add to the debate. No, emoticons are there to make the poster feel better about himself. I love them because they say so much about the person who posted them.

In any case, you made a claim above. However, once again (and no surprise) you didn't give examples to support such a claim.

Seriously, why is it so hard to come up with an example of "White Privilege?" Why run away from an argument? That is why you're here; right? How could you claim and defend that I'm not here for an honest debate when you wont debate? Indeed, there is only one way to find out. You're wasting all of your energy arguing that I don't won't an honest debate while at the same time avoiding the debate. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of. Now how about you put your energy into granting examples instead of copying and pasting from Wikipedia.

So far all you have done is deflect and try to make this personal.

Make your argument against white privilege if you can and then go from there.

Otherwise just admit that this is an epic failure on your part and ask the mods to close the thread.

Your move.

Very well, I see you have conveyed no example of white privilege. As you can see with my argument with LONELAUGHTER I am fair and honest in seeking the truth of the matter. CDZ - What is White Privilege Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Why you continue to make excuses not to defend your inability to provide examples for the existence of white privilege is beyond me.

Once again your lack of honesty and integrity is your only notable feature.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

See how easy this is?

According to the advocacy of 'White Privilege', such is established on the basis that Black kids are arrested on charges of pot possession more often than whites, when in truth, pot possession is more often than not a charge within a host of other charges relevant to other crimes for which the black 'kid' was committing when found in possession of pot. Their claim being that it is not reasonable to assess responsibility for the pot charge, based upon the overriding criminal behavior.

All of which is based upon the fraudulent premise that 'two kids; one black, one white are found walking down the the street, while each was in possession of pot and the black kid is always arrested while the white kid is always released, therefore proving the white privilege.

Which, for those keeping score, that argument: is NOT reasonable.

 

[Publius1787]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

Thus......the white experience moved to the suburbs.....where property taxes built excellent public schools for white kids to attend. The black kids didn't experience this shift.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

It still applies today. Driving While Black is alive and well in NYC under the Bloomberg administration. DeBlasio is looking to rescind it.

Driving While Black by Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody The Washington Monthly

January/ February 2014Driving While Black
“Stop and frisk” isn’t just a reality in New York City. New data shows how police target African Americans on highways across America.

By Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody

If there’s one issue that won Bill de Blasio the New York Democratic mayoral primary in September, on his way to a crushing 74 percent to 24 percent victory in the November general election, it was his full-throated opposition to “stop and frisk.” Under this policy, police officers stop, question, and frisk people they deem suspicious, usually with zero evidence that they’ve committed a crime. De Blasio’s predecessor Michael Bloomberg and his GOP election opponent Joe Lhota strongly defended stop and frisk, arguing that it helps reduce the crime rate. But the voters of New York had clearly had enough of a policy that, in practice, overwhelmingly targets minorities, especially young blacks, only a tiny fraction of whom are ever found to be carrying drugs, or a gun, or indeed to have done anything wrong at all.

What few Americans (or at least white Americans) know is that stop and frisk is not limited to New York City. Versions of the policy are in place across the country. And just as in New York, whatever crime-fighting benefits derive from the policy come at the expense of contravening basic American principles of equal treatment under the law and of angering law-abiding minority citizens whose support and cooperation the police need to fight crime.​

If ever there was an example of current day "white privilege" this has to be it.

If you want to stop violent crime you scrutinize where the violent crime is. If that happens to be among the black community then the qualification of such a stop and frisk program, if done simply by looking at high risk areas, is race neutral. It may have a disparate impact on the black community, but blacks commit a disparate amount of the crime in New York City

(See HERE http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...planning/2013_year_end_enforcement_report.pdf )

So the policy is race neutral. The only privilege whites have here is to be living in an area where black crime is not as effective. But that is hardly an argument for "white privilege." If the privilege you speak of is that whites do not act as deviant as blacks then you should call it "Black self destruction," not "white privilege." White privilege assumes an unearned status. Are you saying that whites have an unearned status due to black deviance? That may be true, but whites did not create that status for whites. Blacks created it for them via "black self destruction." So its not a privilege at all. Its simply a result of behaving themselves better than others. That, my friend, is earned.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

I agree with that example. Indeed, it was codified into law and upheld by the Jim Crow system. Please excuse me for not clarifying that I wanted modern examples. With that said, your comparison of the 50's and 60's to the 80's or 90's does hold some relevance to this argument. But not for the reasons you think its relevant to the argument. Now, by stating "relevant to the argument" I am not saying true or false, but merely relevant. If you can tie that in to today then I think it much more relevant to what I aim to find out. I want to see white privilege in the context of todays setting. Is that fair enough?

Two kids get caught with pot in there pocket. One white...one black. The black kid is far more likely to be arrested than is the white kid.

The black white marijuana arrest gap in nine charts - The Washington Post


Is that what you are looking for? Nice and tidy?

The Washington Post?

So you offer a media resource, from a media known to perpetuate the myth at issue?

Is it possible that more black 'kids' are caught with pot, as a result of the black kids being pursued for something other than pot possession?

I sorta doubt the assumption that two kids; one black, one white are just walking down a street, wherein both are found to be in possession of pot, and the white kid is released, while the black kid is arrested.

Odds of probability require that the black kid was caught with pot after being found doing something else that is worthy of arrest... and the pot possession charge was merely one of a host of other charges.

A classic example might be, the manhandling of a tiny store clerk, while robbing him of his products, then while the black kid is walking down the middle of the road, they're stopped by a cop who was called to investigate that robbery, at which time the black 'kid' attacks the cop, as he informs the cop that he lacks the balls to shoot him, which, ironically, also turns out to not be true.

If you're going to attack the source attack the merits of the information provided by the source.

I am the source.

 

[LoneLaugher]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

I agree with that example. Indeed, it was codified into law and upheld by the Jim Crow system. Please excuse me for not clarifying that I wanted modern examples. With that said, your comparison of the 50's and 60's to the 80's or 90's does hold some relevance to this argument. But not for the reasons you think its relevant to the argument. Now, by stating "relevant to the argument" I am not saying true or false, but merely relevant. If you can tie that in to today then I think it much more relevant to what I aim to find out. I want to see white privilege in the context of todays setting. Is that fair enough?

Two kids get caught with pot in their pocket. One white...one black. The black kid is far more likely to be arrested than is the white kid.

The black white marijuana arrest gap in nine charts - The Washington Post


Is that what you are looking for? Nice and tidy?

Absolutely! This was exactly the kind of information I was looking for. With that said please allow me to respond.

Black neighborhoods are more likely to receive scrutiny by police because statistics show (And I will provide them for you if asked) that black neighborhoods are more likely to engage in theft and violent crime. With that extra police scrutiny there are bound to be drug arrests by default. Indeed, I'm arguing that extra black drug arrest rates are the effects of the heavy police presence required in black communities. Also, sense blacks are higher prone to commit violent crime, many of those offenders are also drug offenders, and as a result, go to jail as both a drug offender and a violent crime offender. Furthermore, police don't usually have probable cause to search suspects because of a drug offense, but as a consequence of the arrest and discovery they often find a drug offense when they were not looking for one. I don't see blacks getting arrested for drugs more often than whites because of racism, but profiling those areas that are most troublesome that require extra police scrutiny where blacks happen to live. Many of those places are inner-city where many live right next to each other in mass, amplifying this effect.

Still......if usage rates are the same but arrest rates are not...one would have to say that the white user has an unfair and unearned benefit.

And...you do know that my earlier example ties in with this example..right? The privilege of home ownership in suburban areas with excellent schools for a couple of generations impacts the arrest rates for black users of marijuana.

 

[LoneLaugher]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

Thus......the white experience moved to the suburbs.....where property taxes built excellent public schools for white kids to attend. The black kids didn't experience this shift.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

It still applies today. Driving While Black is alive and well in NYC under the Bloomberg administration. DeBlasio is looking to rescind it.

Driving While Black by Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody The Washington Monthly

January/ February 2014Driving While Black
“Stop and frisk” isn’t just a reality in New York City. New data shows how police target African Americans on highways across America.

By Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody

If there’s one issue that won Bill de Blasio the New York Democratic mayoral primary in September, on his way to a crushing 74 percent to 24 percent victory in the November general election, it was his full-throated opposition to “stop and frisk.” Under this policy, police officers stop, question, and frisk people they deem suspicious, usually with zero evidence that they’ve committed a crime. De Blasio’s predecessor Michael Bloomberg and his GOP election opponent Joe Lhota strongly defended stop and frisk, arguing that it helps reduce the crime rate. But the voters of New York had clearly had enough of a policy that, in practice, overwhelmingly targets minorities, especially young blacks, only a tiny fraction of whom are ever found to be carrying drugs, or a gun, or indeed to have done anything wrong at all.

What few Americans (or at least white Americans) know is that stop and frisk is not limited to New York City. Versions of the policy are in place across the country. And just as in New York, whatever crime-fighting benefits derive from the policy come at the expense of contravening basic American principles of equal treatment under the law and of angering law-abiding minority citizens whose support and cooperation the police need to fight crime.​

If ever there was an example of current day "white privilege" this has to be it.

If you want to stop violent crime you scrutinize where the violent crime is. If that happens to be among the black community then the qualification of such a stop and frisk program, if done simply by looking at high risk areas, is race neutral. It may have a disparate impact on the black community, but blacks commit a disparate amount of the crime in New York City

(See HERE http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...planning/2013_year_end_enforcement_report.pdf )

So the policy is race neutral. The only privilege whites have here is to be living in an area where black crime is not as effective. But that is hardly an argument for "white privilege." If the privilege you speak of is that whites do not act as deviant as blacks then you should call it "Black self destruction," not "white privilege." White privilege assumes an unearned status. Are you saying that whites have an unearned status due to black deviance? That may be true, but whites did not create that status for whites. Blacks created it for them via "black self destruction."

You stopped being serious. Enjoy your day.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Still......if usage rates are the same but arrest rates are not...one would have to say that the white user has an unfair and unearned benefit.

One would, if one were claiming equitable behavior, which the facts disprove, in that the behavior of black 'kids' is shown to be such that their tendency toward criminal behavior is exponentially greater than that of white kids, proving that they are receiving the 'benefits' conducive to, thus appropriate for that behavior.[/QUOTE]

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

Thus......the white experience moved to the suburbs.....where property taxes built excellent public schools for white kids to attend. The black kids didn't experience this shift.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

It still applies today. Driving While Black is alive and well in NYC under the Bloomberg administration. DeBlasio is looking to rescind it.

Driving While Black by Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody The Washington Monthly

January/ February 2014Driving While Black
“Stop and frisk” isn’t just a reality in New York City. New data shows how police target African Americans on highways across America.

By Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody

If there’s one issue that won Bill de Blasio the New York Democratic mayoral primary in September, on his way to a crushing 74 percent to 24 percent victory in the November general election, it was his full-throated opposition to “stop and frisk.” Under this policy, police officers stop, question, and frisk people they deem suspicious, usually with zero evidence that they’ve committed a crime. De Blasio’s predecessor Michael Bloomberg and his GOP election opponent Joe Lhota strongly defended stop and frisk, arguing that it helps reduce the crime rate. But the voters of New York had clearly had enough of a policy that, in practice, overwhelmingly targets minorities, especially young blacks, only a tiny fraction of whom are ever found to be carrying drugs, or a gun, or indeed to have done anything wrong at all.

What few Americans (or at least white Americans) know is that stop and frisk is not limited to New York City. Versions of the policy are in place across the country. And just as in New York, whatever crime-fighting benefits derive from the policy come at the expense of contravening basic American principles of equal treatment under the law and of angering law-abiding minority citizens whose support and cooperation the police need to fight crime.​

If ever there was an example of current day "white privilege" this has to be it.

If you want to stop violent crime you scrutinize where the violent crime is. If that happens to be among the black community then the qualification of such a stop and frisk program, if done simply by looking at high risk areas, is race neutral. It may have a disparate impact on the black community, but blacks commit a disparate amount of the crime in New York City

(See HERE http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...planning/2013_year_end_enforcement_report.pdf )

So the policy is race neutral. The only privilege whites have here is to be living in an area where black crime is not as effective. But that is hardly an argument for "white privilege." If the privilege you speak of is that whites do not act as deviant as blacks then you should call it "Black self destruction," not "white privilege." White privilege assumes an unearned status. Are you saying that whites have an unearned status due to black deviance? That may be true, but whites did not create that status for whites. Blacks created it for them via "black self destruction."

You stopped being serious. Enjoy your day.

Your second concession within the same issue is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

Thus......the white experience moved to the suburbs.....where property taxes built excellent public schools for white kids to attend. The black kids didn't experience this shift.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

It still applies today. Driving While Black is alive and well in NYC under the Bloomberg administration. DeBlasio is looking to rescind it.

Driving While Black by Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody The Washington Monthly

January/ February 2014Driving While Black
“Stop and frisk” isn’t just a reality in New York City. New data shows how police target African Americans on highways across America.

By Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody

If there’s one issue that won Bill de Blasio the New York Democratic mayoral primary in September, on his way to a crushing 74 percent to 24 percent victory in the November general election, it was his full-throated opposition to “stop and frisk.” Under this policy, police officers stop, question, and frisk people they deem suspicious, usually with zero evidence that they’ve committed a crime. De Blasio’s predecessor Michael Bloomberg and his GOP election opponent Joe Lhota strongly defended stop and frisk, arguing that it helps reduce the crime rate. But the voters of New York had clearly had enough of a policy that, in practice, overwhelmingly targets minorities, especially young blacks, only a tiny fraction of whom are ever found to be carrying drugs, or a gun, or indeed to have done anything wrong at all.

What few Americans (or at least white Americans) know is that stop and frisk is not limited to New York City. Versions of the policy are in place across the country. And just as in New York, whatever crime-fighting benefits derive from the policy come at the expense of contravening basic American principles of equal treatment under the law and of angering law-abiding minority citizens whose support and cooperation the police need to fight crime.​

If ever there was an example of current day "white privilege" this has to be it.

If you want to stop violent crime you scrutinize where the violent crime is. If that happens to be among the black community then the qualification of such a stop and frisk program, if done simply by looking at high risk areas, is race neutral. It may have a disparate impact on the black community, but blacks commit a disparate amount of the crime in New York City

(See HERE http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...planning/2013_year_end_enforcement_report.pdf )

So the policy is race neutral. The only privilege whites have here is to be living in an area where black crime is not as effective. But that is hardly an argument for "white privilege." If the privilege you speak of is that whites do not act as deviant as blacks then you should call it "Black self destruction," not "white privilege." White privilege assumes an unearned status. Are you saying that whites have an unearned status due to black deviance? That may be true, but whites did not create that status for whites. Blacks created it for them via "black self destruction." So its not a privilege at all. Its simply a result of behaving themselves better than others. That, my friend, is earned.

Your own link exposes that you are wrong,

The 2010 Census listed NYC racial demographics as White 44.6%, Blacks 25.1% and Hispanics 27.5%.

Demographics of New York City - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your link for Stop and Frisk;

Only 11% of whites stopped and frisked even though they make up 44% of the population of NYC.

White privilege is on display right there.

Now your disingenuous attempt to deflect by claiming that blacks live in higher crime areas is yet another example of white privilege. Too bad you are blind to the obvious in that regard. Whites are privileged to live in lower crime areas. If there was no white privilege then the statistics would be the same across all race groups.

 

[Publius1787]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

I agree with that example. Indeed, it was codified into law and upheld by the Jim Crow system. Please excuse me for not clarifying that I wanted modern examples. With that said, your comparison of the 50's and 60's to the 80's or 90's does hold some relevance to this argument. But not for the reasons you think its relevant to the argument. Now, by stating "relevant to the argument" I am not saying true or false, but merely relevant. If you can tie that in to today then I think it much more relevant to what I aim to find out. I want to see white privilege in the context of todays setting. Is that fair enough?

Two kids get caught with pot in their pocket. One white...one black. The black kid is far more likely to be arrested than is the white kid.

The black white marijuana arrest gap in nine charts - The Washington Post


Is that what you are looking for? Nice and tidy?

Absolutely! This was exactly the kind of information I was looking for. With that said please allow me to respond.

Black neighborhoods are more likely to receive scrutiny by police because statistics show (And I will provide them for you if asked) that black neighborhoods are more likely to engage in theft and violent crime. With that extra police scrutiny there are bound to be drug arrests by default. Indeed, I'm arguing that extra black drug arrest rates are the effects of the heavy police presence required in black communities. Also, sense blacks are higher prone to commit violent crime, many of those offenders are also drug offenders, and as a result, go to jail as both a drug offender and a violent crime offender. Furthermore, police don't usually have probable cause to search suspects because of a drug offense, but as a consequence of the arrest and discovery they often find a drug offense when they were not looking for one. I don't see blacks getting arrested for drugs more often than whites because of racism, but profiling those areas that are most troublesome that require extra police scrutiny where blacks happen to live. Many of those places are inner-city where many live right next to each other in mass, amplifying this effect.

Still......if usage rates are the same but arrest rates are not...one would have to say that the white user has an unfair and unearned benefit.

And...you do know that my earlier example ties in with this example..right? The privilege of home ownership in suburban areas with excellent schools for a couple of generations impacts the arrest rates for black users of marijuana.

To your first point, the fact that whites use drugs the same if not more (And I agree with this) is irrelevant. What's relevant is how they got caught with the drugs. Very few drug arrests started off with a police officer looking specifically for drugs. Drugs are usually found during the process of discovery after probable cause has been established. Sense blacks commit more crime as a percentage of their total population they are more likely to be arrested for drug offenses due to discovery as a total percentage of their population. The usage rates are irrelevant when most drug offenders are discovered by the process of discovery.

So, when you do not get caught with your drugs because you gave the police no probable cause to search you it is not an unearned privilege. Its simply behaving yourself better than your black drug user counterparts. That is an earned privilege and there are no drug users, black or white, to which this rule does not apply. Blacks, however, commit more crime as a percentage of their total population and so they get caught with drugs more than their white counterparts as a percentage of their total population.

Your second point needs clarification. I think I know what you're talking about but I want to be sure. Could you be more specific before I respond to that one?

 

[Alex.]

There may have been "white privilege" at one time in US society but that went by the way of the dinosaur beginning with civil rights legislation.

 

[Publius1787]

One glaring example to anyone who is the child of a WWII veteran who grew up during the Great Depression is the fact that black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.....especially those related to home loans.

This led to a disparity in home ownership between white and black veterans that directly impacted wealth building for poor and lower class American men throughout the postwar era.

The chance that a black person born in the 50's or 60's to a US army veteran would have a home to inherit in the 80's or 90's was considerably lower than that of white children of vets.

Thus......the white experience moved to the suburbs.....where property taxes built excellent public schools for white kids to attend. The black kids didn't experience this shift.

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44333/276173994.pdf

It still applies today. Driving While Black is alive and well in NYC under the Bloomberg administration. DeBlasio is looking to rescind it.

Driving While Black by Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody The Washington Monthly

January/ February 2014Driving While Black
“Stop and frisk” isn’t just a reality in New York City. New data shows how police target African Americans on highways across America.

By Charles Epp and Steven Maynard-Moody

If there’s one issue that won Bill de Blasio the New York Democratic mayoral primary in September, on his way to a crushing 74 percent to 24 percent victory in the November general election, it was his full-throated opposition to “stop and frisk.” Under this policy, police officers stop, question, and frisk people they deem suspicious, usually with zero evidence that they’ve committed a crime. De Blasio’s predecessor Michael Bloomberg and his GOP election opponent Joe Lhota strongly defended stop and frisk, arguing that it helps reduce the crime rate. But the voters of New York had clearly had enough of a policy that, in practice, overwhelmingly targets minorities, especially young blacks, only a tiny fraction of whom are ever found to be carrying drugs, or a gun, or indeed to have done anything wrong at all.

What few Americans (or at least white Americans) know is that stop and frisk is not limited to New York City. Versions of the policy are in place across the country. And just as in New York, whatever crime-fighting benefits derive from the policy come at the expense of contravening basic American principles of equal treatment under the law and of angering law-abiding minority citizens whose support and cooperation the police need to fight crime.​

If ever there was an example of current day "white privilege" this has to be it.

If you want to stop violent crime you scrutinize where the violent crime is. If that happens to be among the black community then the qualification of such a stop and frisk program, if done simply by looking at high risk areas, is race neutral. It may have a disparate impact on the black community, but blacks commit a disparate amount of the crime in New York City

(See HERE http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...planning/2013_year_end_enforcement_report.pdf )

So the policy is race neutral. The only privilege whites have here is to be living in an area where black crime is not as effective. But that is hardly an argument for "white privilege." If the privilege you speak of is that whites do not act as deviant as blacks then you should call it "Black self destruction," not "white privilege." White privilege assumes an unearned status. Are you saying that whites have an unearned status due to black deviance? That may be true, but whites did not create that status for whites. Blacks created it for them via "black self destruction."

You stopped being serious. Enjoy your day.

That post was totally serious. Where was it not?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Parting commentary.......

I taught my black kids that their elite upbringing would protect them from discrimination. I was wrong. - The Washington Post

White upper class parents don't need to give their boys a set of rules like that.

Keep denying the existence if you like. But please know.....accepting the facts is not an admission on your part that you personally haven't accomplished anything. Just that you caught a few more breaks and dealt with less bullshit along the way. Don't take everything so personally and it's easier to see clearly.