Concept of White Privilege is Racist

[Rambunctious]

You were the ne complaining about being told that no whites were allowed in that store. So apparently that never happened

Surly you know the difference between complaining and relaying a story...Don't you see that that little stretch on your part shows that you are not honest nor sincere?

 

[IM2]

You were the ne complaining about being told that no whites were allowed in that store. So apparently that never happened

Surly you know the difference between complaining and relaying a story...Don't you see that that little stretch on your part shows that you are not honest nor sincere?

I sure do and you were complaining. If what you say happened you had the law on your side and the right to complain to the law about being discriminated against. If you did not take advantage of that right then you have nothing to say. I'm really used to talking with intelligent people. Most of you guys here don't come close.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm glad you posted this, because I have a couple questions for proponents of this sort of thought on which I've never been able to get a straight answer.

So, when black people are turned down automatically for a job position, I can see the benefit, in that there's less competition for any job spot. A white individual doesn't automatically benefit from this, but as often as the more qualified candidate was the nonwhite that was passed over, the white candidate benefited. Granted. Insofar as people will only hire whites, whites benefit.

That said, how did Bob's grandparents benefit from the bank being shady to black people? Now that banks are less racist, have they stopped loaning money to otherwise qualified whites? If Bob's grandparents paid their mortgage successfully, then did they benefit from black people being shit on, or did they just benefit from the bank making an accurate assessment of their ability to repay their loan?

How did Bob benefit from that black girl getting arrested? If black mustache had let that girl off with a warning, would that somehow have obligated blonde mustache to throw cuffs on Bob? If there's a law on the books somewhere that says that for every white person let off with a warning a black person must go down in their place, I haven't seen it.

I keep hearing and reading this argument that all white people benefit from the oppression of people of color, but in most of these cases, I'm not seeing it. When I've been arrested in the past, not ONE of my white friends, acquaintances or family members have ever received a boon of any sort from it, near as I can tell. Perhaps you can explain to me where I'm mistaken?

You gotten all kinds of straight answers. You just don't want to accept them.

You apparently believe in what is called the Teflon theory of American history.

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Teflon Theory of History

That's actually not what I believe at all, and it's certainly not what I said or what I asked. And no, I haven't gotten plenty of straight answers. I keep getting answers like what you just posted, by which I mean not answers at all. Just deflections of my questions that accuse me of believing shit I don't believe rather than addressing what I've actually said.

Care to try again, or should I just add you to the list of ideologues who don't have the verbal intelligence to explain their own beliefs?

No I don't care to try again. If you cannot see how the 200 plus years of laws and policies denying non whites of opportunities have helped all whites, then you don't want to understand.

Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.

 

[Correll]

Yes there is, and yes it does.

If you could produce the evidence you would have done so. So there is no such discrimination and yur constant crying amd whining doesn't make it so.

Then why is princeton resisting revealing their admission records?a


Princeton is scrambling to block its admissions records from being released

Princeton is not a national policy of anti white discrimination in, housing, education, law enforcement, criminal justice, income and wealth, hoe ownership, jobs, promotions and health care.

Nope, they are just a good example of how such policy results in massive and wide spread discrimination.


Harvard is fighting to hide it's discrimination too.



Document Fight Slows Inquiry of Affirmative Action at Harvard



This case is going to blow your lies completely out of the water.

You're more likely to be discriminated against at Harvard if you aren't a legacy or if daddy didn't donate 2 million dollars like jarrod's.

I am once again going to opine that you have never walked around an Ivy League campus.

The numbers show that black skin is even more valuable than being a legacy.


I thought I already admitted not having been to an ivy league campus, in the same post where I linked to demographics showing that your claim that are not diverse was false.

 

[Correll]

No, I have not.


But the studies clearly show a 300 point discrimination in favor of students that have black skin.

Actually they show that thee are more whites than everyone else in those ivy league schools.

BUt significantly underrepresented according to this link.


Ivy League - Wikipedia

Blacks are significantly underrepresented also but you clam that blacks are being admitted at the expense of whites. So then we use your standard with blacks on whites meaning the majority of all students on ivy league campuses are white. And the majority of students on ivy league campuses are white. But 8 schools do not make an argument about national anti white discrimination. We both know it and apparently you are an uneducated dunce cap.

Blacks are significantly underrated despite the massive and wide spread discrimination practiced in their favor.


The academic achievement of high school blacks is that bad, for whatever reason(s).

Again what you say is not true.

Please clarify before I waste time crushing your stupid claim.


Are you denying that black high school academic achievement is bad?

 

[Correll]

Yes there is, and yes it does.

If you could produce the evidence you would have done so. So there is no such discrimination and yur constant crying amd whining doesn't make it so.

Then why is princeton resisting revealing their admission records?a


Princeton is scrambling to block its admissions records from being released

Princeton is not a national policy of anti white discrimination in, housing, education, law enforcement, criminal justice, income and wealth, hoe ownership, jobs, promotions and health care.

Nope, they are just a good example of how such policy results in massive and wide spread discrimination.


Harvard is fighting to hide it's discrimination too.



Document Fight Slows Inquiry of Affirmative Action at Harvard



This case is going to blow your lies completely out of the water.

No they aren't examples of anything unless you want to make shit up. And this case isn't going t o blow anything out of anywhere.

Why are they not good examples? Dumbass.

 

[Correll]

Actually they show that thee are more whites than everyone else in those ivy league schools.

Yup. He's clearly never been on an Ivy League campus. When we looked at Harvard it was not particularly diverse. And even a school like NYU in the heart of NYC has mostly white and Asian kids. (With some, but not enough, diversity)

These numbers from 2011 show otherwise.



Ivy League - Wikipedia

The majority of students in all these ivy league schools were white.

There are nearly 5,000 universities and colleges in this nation. 8 of them are in the ivy league. 8 colleges show no national policy of anything.

THey show the results of all the policies that were put in place to help blacks advance.


ie massive and wide spread discrimination against whites.

You seem to have a problem with the truth. These policies were not put in place just for blacks. And there is no massive and widespread discrimination against whites.

Those policies were almost exclusively put in place for blacks.

The case I linked to, once the liberal ivy league schools release their records, will demonstrate massive and widespread discrimination against whites.

The stories will be focused on the discrimination against asians, and this will give you the illusion of an excuse to claim they do not show discrimination against whites, though that will take more acting stupid on your part to pull off.

 

[Correll]

We've been talking about when I already did that, and your defense was to play stupid.

.You never did show that. You can't show that. It does not exist.

Totally did, and you know it.


Does it not bother you that you have to lie?

It doesn't bother me because I'm not the one lying.

YOu are, and you know it.

If I was wrong you could produce all the ways whites are being discriminated in the areas I requested. All you are doing is avoiding the fact that you can't by trying to reverse things. That's not going to work. You can't produce the evidence. Don't be like Roy Moore. Just shut up and concede.

The reason that ivy league schools are used, is not because they are special in any way as being more discriminatory against whites than any other institution in America


but because they keep very good admission records.


And thus the discrimination can be shown very clearly in hard numbers that only the most dishonest or stupid person could deny.


Other examples would almost certainly have less good documentation and more subjectivity in their process, thus making it even easier for you to play stupid and pretend not to see the numbers.


And the numbers are clear. Having black skin is the best advantage you can have.

 

[IM2]

I'm glad you posted this, because I have a couple questions for proponents of this sort of thought on which I've never been able to get a straight answer.

So, when black people are turned down automatically for a job position, I can see the benefit, in that there's less competition for any job spot. A white individual doesn't automatically benefit from this, but as often as the more qualified candidate was the nonwhite that was passed over, the white candidate benefited. Granted. Insofar as people will only hire whites, whites benefit.

That said, how did Bob's grandparents benefit from the bank being shady to black people? Now that banks are less racist, have they stopped loaning money to otherwise qualified whites? If Bob's grandparents paid their mortgage successfully, then did they benefit from black people being shit on, or did they just benefit from the bank making an accurate assessment of their ability to repay their loan?

How did Bob benefit from that black girl getting arrested? If black mustache had let that girl off with a warning, would that somehow have obligated blonde mustache to throw cuffs on Bob? If there's a law on the books somewhere that says that for every white person let off with a warning a black person must go down in their place, I haven't seen it.

I keep hearing and reading this argument that all white people benefit from the oppression of people of color, but in most of these cases, I'm not seeing it. When I've been arrested in the past, not ONE of my white friends, acquaintances or family members have ever received a boon of any sort from it, near as I can tell. Perhaps you can explain to me where I'm mistaken?

You gotten all kinds of straight answers. You just don't want to accept them.

You apparently believe in what is called the Teflon theory of American history.

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Teflon Theory of History

That's actually not what I believe at all, and it's certainly not what I said or what I asked. And no, I haven't gotten plenty of straight answers. I keep getting answers like what you just posted, by which I mean not answers at all. Just deflections of my questions that accuse me of believing shit I don't believe rather than addressing what I've actually said.

Care to try again, or should I just add you to the list of ideologues who don't have the verbal intelligence to explain their own beliefs?

No I don't care to try again. If you cannot see how the 200 plus years of laws and policies denying non whites of opportunities have helped all whites, then you don't want to understand.

Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.

I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.

You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm glad you posted this, because I have a couple questions for proponents of this sort of thought on which I've never been able to get a straight answer.

So, when black people are turned down automatically for a job position, I can see the benefit, in that there's less competition for any job spot. A white individual doesn't automatically benefit from this, but as often as the more qualified candidate was the nonwhite that was passed over, the white candidate benefited. Granted. Insofar as people will only hire whites, whites benefit.

That said, how did Bob's grandparents benefit from the bank being shady to black people? Now that banks are less racist, have they stopped loaning money to otherwise qualified whites? If Bob's grandparents paid their mortgage successfully, then did they benefit from black people being shit on, or did they just benefit from the bank making an accurate assessment of their ability to repay their loan?

How did Bob benefit from that black girl getting arrested? If black mustache had let that girl off with a warning, would that somehow have obligated blonde mustache to throw cuffs on Bob? If there's a law on the books somewhere that says that for every white person let off with a warning a black person must go down in their place, I haven't seen it.

I keep hearing and reading this argument that all white people benefit from the oppression of people of color, but in most of these cases, I'm not seeing it. When I've been arrested in the past, not ONE of my white friends, acquaintances or family members have ever received a boon of any sort from it, near as I can tell. Perhaps you can explain to me where I'm mistaken?

You gotten all kinds of straight answers. You just don't want to accept them.

You apparently believe in what is called the Teflon theory of American history.

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Teflon Theory of History

That's actually not what I believe at all, and it's certainly not what I said or what I asked. And no, I haven't gotten plenty of straight answers. I keep getting answers like what you just posted, by which I mean not answers at all. Just deflections of my questions that accuse me of believing shit I don't believe rather than addressing what I've actually said.

Care to try again, or should I just add you to the list of ideologues who don't have the verbal intelligence to explain their own beliefs?

No I don't care to try again. If you cannot see how the 200 plus years of laws and policies denying non whites of opportunities have helped all whites, then you don't want to understand.

Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.

I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.

You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.

Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? **** it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at the girl's expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.

 

[IM2]

You gotten all kinds of straight answers. You just don't want to accept them.

You apparently believe in what is called the Teflon theory of American history.

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Teflon Theory of History

That's actually not what I believe at all, and it's certainly not what I said or what I asked. And no, I haven't gotten plenty of straight answers. I keep getting answers like what you just posted, by which I mean not answers at all. Just deflections of my questions that accuse me of believing shit I don't believe rather than addressing what I've actually said.

Care to try again, or should I just add you to the list of ideologues who don't have the verbal intelligence to explain their own beliefs?

No I don't care to try again. If you cannot see how the 200 plus years of laws and policies denying non whites of opportunities have helped all whites, then you don't want to understand.

Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.

I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.

You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.

Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? **** it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at his expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.

You can't really be this stupid can you?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

That's actually not what I believe at all, and it's certainly not what I said or what I asked. And no, I haven't gotten plenty of straight answers. I keep getting answers like what you just posted, by which I mean not answers at all. Just deflections of my questions that accuse me of believing shit I don't believe rather than addressing what I've actually said.

Care to try again, or should I just add you to the list of ideologues who don't have the verbal intelligence to explain their own beliefs?

No I don't care to try again. If you cannot see how the 200 plus years of laws and policies denying non whites of opportunities have helped all whites, then you don't want to understand.

Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.

I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.

You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.

Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? **** it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at his expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.

You can't really be this stupid can you?

So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol

 

[IM2]

No I don't care to try again. If you cannot see how the 200 plus years of laws and policies denying non whites of opportunities have helped all whites, then you don't want to understand.

Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.

I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.

You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.

Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? **** it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at his expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.

You can't really be this stupid can you?

So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol

Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.

I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.

You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.

Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? **** it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at his expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.

You can't really be this stupid can you?

So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol

Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.

You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.

I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.

And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

You know you live in a society without White privilege.

When you're from Poland, bother to make a English rock song with good lyrics, and almost no one knows you in America.

But, that the Black Puerto Rican living in American territory makes degenerate music on the radio in Spanish, and it's on the radio, and a big hit in America.

 

[MizMolly]

You gotten all kinds of straight answers. You just don't want to accept them.

You apparently believe in what is called the Teflon theory of American history.

The Teflon Theory of American History says that anything that took place over 30 years ago is Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on the present. Or not much. Unless it was something good like the light bulb or the Declaration of Independence. Therefore those who make a big deal of the bad stuff in the past, like slavery, are Living in the Past and need to Get Over It.

For example:

Jim Crow laws were overturned by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore according to Teflon Theory the Jim Crow period is now Ancient History. It has Absolutely No Effect on how White Americans alive today think and act. None whatsoever. Or not much. So racism is pretty much dead.

Instead of Jim Crow’s effect slowly weakening over time like you would expect, Teflon Theory would have you suppose that it just disappeared like magic one afternoon sometime in the late 1960s. Even though many White Americans alive now were alive back in Jim Crow times. Even though many others were brought up and shaped by those who were alive back then: parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, writers, film directors, television producers, news editors and so on.

Teflon Theory of History

That's actually not what I believe at all, and it's certainly not what I said or what I asked. And no, I haven't gotten plenty of straight answers. I keep getting answers like what you just posted, by which I mean not answers at all. Just deflections of my questions that accuse me of believing shit I don't believe rather than addressing what I've actually said.

Care to try again, or should I just add you to the list of ideologues who don't have the verbal intelligence to explain their own beliefs?

No I don't care to try again. If you cannot see how the 200 plus years of laws and policies denying non whites of opportunities have helped all whites, then you don't want to understand.

Wow, again you ignore what I've actually said and attribute to me some beliefs that I don't hold and never espoused. If you just refuse to have a conversation about the specific aspects of your beliefs, fine, say so, but don't put words in my mouth, use them to dismiss me out of hand, and then tell me -I'm- the one that's unwilling to try and understand.

I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.

You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.

Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? **** it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at the girl's expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.

And what if the arresting officer(s) are black? Some people don't compare apples to apples, if one person has a record or more drugs on them, they will face harsher sentences.It isn't always about race.

 

[MizMolly]

I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.

You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.

Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? **** it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at his expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.

You can't really be this stupid can you?

So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol

Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.

You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.

I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.

And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.

True, one person being turned down for a loan, regardless of race, doesn't mean someone else will get a loan because of their race.

 

[IM2]

.

I've ignored nothing. I answered your question. You do believe in teflon history. You are unable to understand the first thing of how laws and policies helped your family through the years, which in the end has benefitted you. I mean look at the stupid ass questions you ask. How did bios parents benefit from the shady way the banks treated blacks? They were able to own a home blacks could not. How did bob benefit from the black girl getting arrested? Really? Bob had the same drugs on him, did not get arrested and was only warned. No arrest record on the books for bob which increases his chances of getting jobs, apartments, homes, loans, etc. If the cops had not arrested that black girl they were not obligated to arrest bob. The fact is that Bob had drugs on him breaking the law ans he was not arrested while breaking the law. And you can't see how his race benefitted him. You want to assume these things because you wan to deny the fact that whites have benefitted from racism. For you to be so stupid as not to see these things means you are almost willful in your denial.

You are apparently naïve or willful, because banks are not less racist and they have provided loans to all kinds of whites who had questionable credit or did not repay. What your post is, is a rationalization of racism instead of an honest look at how racism has impacted blacks and whites. That cartoon was pretty straightforward. But you want to deny it's truth. Whites, all whites, have benefitted from racism in America. I know this shatters your little belief in how hard you whites work and how much you value education and that's why you got ahead, but unfortunately for you we can pull out supreme court cases that tell us the courts denied rights to non whites that whites had which created opportunities for ALL whites that ALL non whites could not get.

Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? **** it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at his expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.

You can't really be this stupid can you?

So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol

Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.

You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.

I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.

And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.

.I don't make assumptions. .

Black Applicants More Than Twice as Likely as Whites to be Denied Home Loans
Latest Zillow analysis shows minority groups struggle to access credit, and home values in minority neighborhoods were disproportionately affected in housing boom and bust
- In 2013, 27.6 percent of blacks and 21.9 percent of Hispanics who applied for a conventional mortgage were denied, while only 10.4 percent of white applicants were denied.
- Nationwide, home values in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods fell an average of 46.3 percent from the pre-recession peak to the bottom of the market. Over the same period of time, home values fell by 32.1 percent in largely black communities, by 23.6 percent in largely white areas, and by 19.2 percent in mostly Asian areas.
- Home values in both black and Hispanic communities nationwide also have farther to climb before getting back to peak levels, while home values in white and Asian neighborhoods have returned or nearly returned to their peak levels.

Press Releases

Now how do you think denying loans to blacks and giving them to whites have benefitted whites in gaining access to credit and wealth accumulation? It is very difficult o have these discussions with you uneducated amateurs. When I say this I say this from the perspective of a person educated in sociology, a man w has studied for more than 30 years the impact of policy upon minority communities. It is apparent you haven't done that but you want to argue like you really have a valid premise on which to vase your disagreement with me on. Blacks did not create the term or define the term white privilege. Whites did that. So you go get mad at Peggy McIntosh. Have her explain to you what she means by the term white privilege. OK?

For you to not see how a whites nor being incarcerated for crimes but blacks are benefits whites shows a willful ignorance. You are telling me how not having a criminal record doesn't benefit you even though you committed a crime.You saw two cases and want to argue. I have seen several thousand personally and in my research have seen here have been millions of similar instances. So then your argument becomes invalid to me because you have not done the necessary research to understand how I come t my conclusion, nor have you done the necessary research to make an unformed opinion on this matter..

 

[IM2]

Lol! You just can't have this discussion without putting words in my mouth that allow you to paint me as morally flawed, can you? **** it, I'm done trying to tell you that what I'm getting at isn't a Teflon history statement. I didn't ask a blanket question about how whites benefited from black oppression; the unpaid contribution of slavery to the early colonial/US economy was a thing. I'm not denying your point outright. I specifically chose the two situations that I did because those situations, near as I can tell, don't represent zero sum games.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

Similarly, with the arrest and non arrest, I don't see how the oppression of the black girl was a boon to Bob. I get that his race benefitted him, but not at his expense. If the cops had arrested Bob, would they have treated the girl any differently? Conversely, if they had let the girl off with a warning, would they have arrested Bob? No. While he might be benefitting because of the officers' positive views of Bob's race, that doesn't come at anyone's expense other than the state's loss in potential fine revenue. While the black girl's oppression might hinge on the same racial biases of the officers that paid out in Bob's favor, Bob himself didn't benefit from it, and Bob himself didn't have a hand in causing the girl's arrest. Again, unless I'm missing something here, which I'd be happy to have pointed out for me.

You can't really be this stupid can you?

So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol

Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.

You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.

I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.

And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.

True, one person being turned down for a loan, regardless of race, doesn't mean someone else will get a loan because of their race.

Seeing ourselves as individuals erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. Our country was founded on the exploits of slavery (as well as genocide), and racism did not end when slavery ended. Legal exclusion of people of color, in addition to illegal acts of terrorism against them such as lynching, continued all the way through the 1960s. For example, people of color were denied Federal Housing Act (FHA) loans in the 1950s that allowed a generation of whites to attain middle class status through home ownership (Wise, 2005). Home ownership is critical in the U.S. because it is how the “average” person builds and passes down wealth, providing the starting point for the next generation (Yeung & Conley, 2008).

People of color were systematically denied this opportunity and today the average white family has eight times the wealth of the average black or Latino family (Conley, 1999; Federal Reserve Board, 2007). Excluding people of color from mechanisms of society that allow the building of wealth continues today through illegal but common practices such as higher mortgage rates, more difficulty getting loans, real estate agents steering them away from “good” neighborhoods, discrimination in hiring, and unequal school funding (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Insisting on Individualism hides the reality of white advantage at every level of our past and present society through superficial and simplistic platitudes such as “I didn't own slaves so I have not benefited from racism.”

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

 

[MizMolly]

You can't really be this stupid can you?

So that's it? Nothing? And I'm stupid? Lol

Yes you are. Read what you post. Here let me show you.

When you say that Bob's parents benefited from the banks turning blacks down, your reasoning is that they could own a house that the black people couldn't. I agree, but that's a benefit that they gained from the bank treating them properly. How did the bank treating the black people poorly have anything to do with how they treated Bob's parents? Surely, if the bank had been honestly assessing the ability of black applicants to repay their loans and acting accordingly, that wouldn't have prevented them from doing the same for Bob's parents? If I'm missing something here, I'd honestly like to know.

They got treated properly because they were white. You want excuse racism with the bank assessing something properly but history shows us that assessing t things properly by the banks relative to race doesn't happen. You seem unable to realize this. For example banks wee denying blacks guaranteed government backed loans. The ability to pay the loan was guaranteed by the government. That's what fueled the growth of suburbs and it also provided whites an increase in accumulated wealth they could pass to their children which affects whites today. These are realities you and every other white person here denies.

You seem unable to comprehend the specifics of what you read. I'm not excusing the racism of banks turning down black people based on race, that shit's horrific. What I'm saying is that I don't see how white people at large benefitted from this practice, just as I don't see how white people at large benefit from the incarceration of black people, insofar as that incarceration is unjust or unwarranted. I only see, in these two particular situations, how white people at large have benefited by being treated as individuals with basic human dignity, which doesn't, as far as I know, actually hinge on dehumanizing people who aren't white.

I could very well be wrong about that, and if you've got some reasoning as to how recognizing a white person as an individual with basic human dignity is facilitated by dehumanizing someone who isn't white, I'm open to it, but you've yet to offer it.

And stop with the constant string of assumptions, please. Your prejudices are so thick I almost can't bear to work through them to talk to your angry ass, which is a pretty typical reason why I never seem to get deep enough into this conversation to get straight answers. My pops is Scottish Irish and working class, my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and her family's land got swiped a couple generations back after the take over. I don't have any particular interest in white washing history or reality, just an interest in understanding it accurately, which means not just lumping events together under the general header of white privilege without thoroughly identifying them on a case by case basis. Just because an explanation would kinda fit with the general flow of history does not mean it's the accurate explanation. So please, stop assuming you know who I am and what I believe based on a couple short exchanges. It's insulting to me and it makes you look like a prick.

True, one person being turned down for a loan, regardless of race, doesn't mean someone else will get a loan because of their race.

Seeing ourselves as individuals erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. Our country was founded on the exploits of slavery (as well as genocide), and racism did not end when slavery ended. Legal exclusion of people of color, in addition to illegal acts of terrorism against them such as lynching, continued all the way through the 1960s. For example, people of color were denied Federal Housing Act (FHA) loans in the 1950s that allowed a generation of whites to attain middle class status through home ownership (Wise, 2005). Home ownership is critical in the U.S. because it is how the “average” person builds and passes down wealth, providing the starting point for the next generation (Yeung & Conley, 2008).

People of color were systematically denied this opportunity and today the average white family has eight times the wealth of the average black or Latino family (Conley, 1999; Federal Reserve Board, 2007). Excluding people of color from mechanisms of society that allow the building of wealth continues today through illegal but common practices such as higher mortgage rates, more difficulty getting loans, real estate agents steering them away from “good” neighborhoods, discrimination in hiring, and unequal school funding (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Oliver & Shapiro, 1995). Insisting on Individualism hides the reality of white advantage at every level of our past and present society through superficial and simplistic platitudes such as “I didn't own slaves so I have not benefited from racism.”

Why Can’t We All Just Be Individuals?: Countering the Discourse of Individualism in Anti-racist Education

/
I agree that black people were denied a lot of things due to their race. What I was saying is that it did not guarantee that a white person would get the loan. Whites were turned down too.