Debate Now White Privilege and an Institution of Racism

[Dogmaphobe]

. I'd love to live in a world where the hue of one's skin is just that and nothing more. .

If you actually believed that, you would have a track record of expressing opinions far different from the ones you have been expressing.

Your dozens of postings playing the identity politics game to the nth degree express your true feelings on the subject. Honestly, how can you not see the gulf between the statement I quoted and your belief that certain people should be punished for their race or ethnicity by giving others an unfair advantage over them?

In earlier conversations, you indicated that Asians and Jews should be handicapped so you could attend a University and not them. Do you REALLY think this jives with a claim that you would love to live in a world where it DID'T matter?

Careful here Dogmaphobe. This thread is not about OldLady who has been making serious arguments and I, for one, have appreciated her participation as I have Asclepius. If only one point of view is expressed, we won't have much of a discussion. So please, if you disagree with her, rebut OldLady's argument if you can, but whatever she has posted anywhere else is not pertinent for discussion here.

My displaying the enormous gulf between the insincere claim and the actual attitudes expressed previously IS a rebuttal.

A person can support a color-blind society and a person can support the notion that racial or ethic identity should give one person an advantage over another, but they certainly cannot support both simultaneously.

A member's sincerity or insincerity is actually not a rebuttal to the argument, however, and is not allowed for discussion in this thread: Rule #2 for this thread (from the OP):

2. No ad hominem re other members or political parties or conservatives or liberals, etc. Focus on the comment posted and not the character or motive of the person posting it. Focus on the stated position of a political party if pertinent to the topic and not on the character or motive of the political party itself.​

The purpose of the rule was of course to encourage focus on the topic itself and not on what we might think of other members. It would be valid to point out inconsistencies in arguments made within this thread but even there the focus should be on the inconsistency of the arguments and not on the character or motive of the person making them.

Your second paragraph, however, is a legitimate argument, quote:

A person can support a color-blind society and a person can support the notion that racial or ethic identity should give one person an advantage over another, but they certainly cannot support both simultaneously.​

I agree 100% with this.

Pointing out obvious contradictions in a person's statements is not an ad hom. It is simply a desire for intellectual honesty.

Since you think intellectual honesty is some sort of personal attack, however, I will now leave the thread. Good day.

 

[Foxfyre]

. I'd love to live in a world where the hue of one's skin is just that and nothing more. .

If you actually believed that, you would have a track record of expressing opinions far different from the ones you have been expressing.

Your dozens of postings playing the identity politics game to the nth degree express your true feelings on the subject. Honestly, how can you not see the gulf between the statement I quoted and your belief that certain people should be punished for their race or ethnicity by giving others an unfair advantage over them?

In earlier conversations, you indicated that Asians and Jews should be handicapped so you could attend a University and not them. Do you REALLY think this jives with a claim that you would love to live in a world where it DID'T matter?

Careful here Dogmaphobe. This thread is not about OldLady who has been making serious arguments and I, for one, have appreciated her participation as I have Asclepius. If only one point of view is expressed, we won't have much of a discussion. So please, if you disagree with her, rebut OldLady's argument if you can, but whatever she has posted anywhere else is not pertinent for discussion here.

My displaying the enormous gulf between the insincere claim and the actual attitudes expressed previously IS a rebuttal.

A person can support a color-blind society and a person can support the notion that racial or ethic identity should give one person an advantage over another, but they certainly cannot support both simultaneously.

A member's sincerity or insincerity is actually not a rebuttal to the argument, however, and is not allowed for discussion in this thread: Rule #2 for this thread (from the OP):

2. No ad hominem re other members or political parties or conservatives or liberals, etc. Focus on the comment posted and not the character or motive of the person posting it. Focus on the stated position of a political party if pertinent to the topic and not on the character or motive of the political party itself.​

The purpose of the rule was of course to encourage focus on the topic itself and not on what we might think of other members. It would be valid to point out inconsistencies in arguments made within this thread but even there the focus should be on the inconsistency of the arguments and not on the character or motive of the person making them.

Your second paragraph, however, is a legitimate argument, quote:

A person can support a color-blind society and a person can support the notion that racial or ethic identity should give one person an advantage over another, but they certainly cannot support both simultaneously.​

I agree 100% with this.

Pointing out obvious contradictions in a person's statements is not an ad hom. It is simply a desire for intellectual honesty.

Since you think intellectual honesty is some sort of personal attack, however, I will now leave the thread. Good day.

You are right that pointing out obvious contradictions in a person's STATEMENTS is not ad hom. However, translating that to a person's character or motives or any other observation about the member himself/herself IS ad hom.

But do have a pleasant day.

 

[SeaGal]

NOTE: This thread is in the Structured Debate Forum.

Does a focus on 'white privilege' and racism as McWhorter describes it help or hurt black people? Please explain your 'yes' or 'no' answer or any position you take between 'yes' or 'no'.

My answer is - it can do more harm than good except in a historical context as a measure of how far we've come in a relatively short time. White, male 'privilege' was at one time supported by law - today it is not. Today that charge is being used as an excuse to enact law/policy based on skin color, or to excuse failure...or to wield power over the masses. It's akin to the false dichotomy that the poor are poor because the rich are rich. Advantages made legal based on skin tone were wrong in the past and are wrong today. Demagoguery of an entire race of people was wrong in the past, and is wrong today.

. . . the idea is not to teach white people that White Privilege means that black people are the only group of people in human history who cannot deal with obstacles and challenges. If the idea is that black people cannot solve their problems short of white people developing an exquisite sensitivity to how privileged they are, then we in the black community are being designated as disabled poster children. . . .

By way of explanation in choosing this particular paragraph to quote - A friend of mine holds a doctorate of psychology. She is Jamaican by birth and came to the US as an adult to complete her studies. Her dissertation addressed the soft racism of lowered expectations. Lowered expectations uses victimhood and superiority of 'intellect' to justify 'managing' the lives of those who are deemed incapable of managing for themselves. While perhaps well meaning by some, in her opinion it is harmful to the black community - especially when applied in education.

Therefore, charges of White Privilege used as an excuse for lack of success, or as a derogatory broad spectrum term aimed at a particular race - distills hopelessness and is harmful to all of society - except, perhaps, those who hope to benefit by it.
​

 

[Foxfyre]

SeaGal, I think I'm going to like you a LOT. Thank you for a thoughtful and instructive post. The very paragraph you quoted spoke to me also because of a good friend, but in a somewhat different way.

My friend was truly of best friend status. She knew and understood me--she 'got me' like nobody else I've ever known. She was beautiful, funny, smarter than me, and a well educated professional capable and competent in everything she did. I say "was" because she passed away a few years ago.

Born and raised in Kansas which is not known as a particularly racist state, nevertheless as a black woman she occasionally confided in me that she was often frustrated by comments from well-meaning but wrong headed progressives who would say: "weren't you helped by affirmative action?" or "thank God for affirmative action" or ask her "do you ever get accused of being an 'uncle tom' or 'acting white' and such as that.

The undercurrent of focus on her skin color made it obvious to her that such people see 'black' first and maybe at some time get to 'competent professional woman'. But she always felt that her coworkers saw her as the 'token black' or the 'affirmative action employee' rather than somebody who worked for, earned, and merited her position.

And to me, that is cruel, unnecessary, and wrong.

 

[SeaGal]

Thank you Foxfyre. I look forward to having a forum friend.

Only when we are comfortable as a society to praise or criticize someone's actions without first making allowances for skin tone, when we can acknowledge that the charge of racist, bigot and/or sexist is the refuge of a weak argument not a debating tool...then will we have a society honoring achievement, welcoming competition and engaging in thoughtful, even vigorous, debate. Society does not need to be colorblind - only the law does.

When we convince ourselves that the success of others hinges upon our 'divine intervention' we also set ourselves up to blame for their failures.

The following captures an interesting exchange during Al Sharpton's 2013 visit to inner-city Chicago.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you Foxfyre. I look forward to having a forum friend.

Only when we are comfortable as a society to praise or criticize someone's actions without first making allowances for skin tone, when we can acknowledge that the charge of racist, bigot and/or sexist is the refuge of a weak argument not a debating tool...then will we have a society honoring achievement, welcoming competition and engaging in thoughtful, even vigorous, debate. Society does not need to be colorblind - only the law does.

When we convince ourselves that the success of others hinges upon our 'divine intervention' we also set ourselves up to blame for their failures.

The following captures an interesting exchange during Al Sharpton's 2013 visit to inner-city Chicago.

And here we might have a wee bit of difference of opinion, but only a wee bit.

I think society DOES have to be color blind before people of color will ever be fully assimilated. When it comes to white and black, for instance, the most segregated institutions left in America are the churches. And that is by choice. Most white people shy from personal discomfort at being a tiny minority in a all or mostly black church; ditto black people shy from personal discomfort at being a tiny minority in an all or mostly white church. There are exceptions but they are not common.

But by color blind, I don't mean that we would not notice that a person was black or Hispanic or Asian or blond, brunette, redhead, tall, short, skinny, fat whatever. That would be absurd. By color blind, I mean that we would not put any more importance on that skin color/race/ethnicity than we put importance on hair color or eye color or other physical attributes. It would stop having any relevance as to our feelings about our friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc.

And I think for us as a society to get to that point brings us to your other point that the law must be color blind.

And my cynicism rise to the surface when considering your last point. I think when we convince ourselves that the success of others hinges upon our 'divine intervention' we are exhibiting a form of racism by considering ourselves superior to the others and thereby encourage their resentment, anger, and sense of victim status.

 

[SeaGal]

We're on the same page, I think - just a variation in expression.

For the purpose of discussion, not necessarily in line with current reasoning - let me share a few thoughts on color blind societies and assimilation. Humans by nature have preferences based on external, physical characteristics - in a free society that should be ok. In our private and business lives we should have the freedom to associate with whom we choose within parameters of our making without accusations of bigotry. We cannot realistically legislate human nature, as that is part of the internal thought process. We can only legislate action in an effort to protect society from its darkest impulses. Assimilation is achieved by a common language and a common law...not necessarily through a thoroughly blended populace.

I'm not at all sure that I've articulated this particularly well - so an attempted analogy. The engine of a car - made of many diverse, unique parts lubricated by oil (the law) working toward a common goal - to move the car. Each part worthwhile, each necessary. But because the spark plug prefers to reside in the company of other spark plugs doesn't mean he hates the radiator. Translated into human terms - if someone prefers the company of dark-eyed, dark skinned folks, it doesn't mean he hates blue-eyed blondes.

In my opinion, today anyway, the focus on manufacturing an externally color blind society and assimilation is over rated. The focus should be on a common language, equal opportunity and equal protection under the law - that is the binding agent of a multi-ethnic society.

As for combatting true bigotry - we must first recognize and conquer it in ourselves.

And my cynicism rise to the surface when considering your last point. I think when we convince ourselves that the success of others hinges upon our 'divine intervention' we are exhibiting a form of racism by considering ourselves superior to the others and thereby encourage their resentment, anger, and sense of victim status.

Exactly!

 

[Foxfyre]

Can't argue with that. But in the case of my very good friend that I miss terribly, familiarity did not breed contempt. The love that we had for each other transcended the differences and it got to the point that I, and I believe she, no longer thought about how we were different. I suspect mixed raced marriages are much the same. I wonder if it doesn't get that way with sports teams in which skin color just doesn't matter any more?

In an old sitcom years ago "All in the Family", Mike the liberal son-in-law in the white family was best friends with Lionel in the black family who lived next door. The show was comedy of course, but in many ways was intelligent, wise, clever in exposing the stereotypical bigotries and prejudices that exist in society, both from the right and the left, from both black and white.

I vividly remember one scene when Mike was on his soap box about various social issues and in various ways he several times asked Lionel to provide the 'black perspective. Lionel finally called him on it for the subtle racism in that dynamic. In other words the message I heard loud and clear is that Lionel wanted to provide perspective as a thinking, educated, intelligent human being and not one who thought 'black'.

 

[SeaGal]

...In other words the message I heard loud and clear is that Lionel wanted to provide perspective as a thinking, educated, intelligent human being and not one who thought 'black'.

Well said.

Illustrates how incorrect stereotyping, tho' well meaning, can be...the assumption that all who share physical traits think (or should think) alike...or that the exterior speaks louder than words or deeds. That kind of stereotyping is a wedge used by politicians busily building boxes to keep us divided, imho.

 

[Foxfyre]

...In other words the message I heard loud and clear is that Lionel wanted to provide perspective as a thinking, educated, intelligent human being and not one who thought 'black'.

Well said.

Illustrates how incorrect stereotyping, tho' well meaning, can be...the assumption that all who share physical traits think (or should think) alike...or that the exterior speaks louder than words or deeds. That kind of stereotyping is a wedge used by politicians busily building boxes to keep us divided, imho.

And is harmful to all. The white racists among us through thoughtless and hurtful comments exacerbate the situation even when they don't otherwise act on their prejudices. And those who choose to treat black people like they treat everybody are accused of being racists.

But I think these days the worst problem is some in the black community who all too often put down people of their own race who 'act white', 'talk white', who accuse the 'Uncle Toms' as being sell outs who pander to white people for advantage as the black racists see it. They almost demand that their own not assimilate into the unique American culture, strive for excellence and success, etc. And as a result they inadvertently create a permanent underclass along with all the poverty, anger, and violence that comes with it.

And in so doing, they aid and abet the white race baiters who work really hard to keep that situation going for purposes of their own prestige and profit.

 

[Tank]

Being White is not a privilege, it's a responsibility

 

[Foxfyre]

Being White is not a privilege, it's a responsibility

Why Tank? Why is being white more of a responsibility that being an American of any other skin color?

 

[Andylusion]

The concept of 'white privilege' is nothing but an attempt to justify racism.

That's all it is, or ever was. It's an attempt by people who see the world in racial groups, to justify seeing it in racial groups, so they can then push their policy beliefs on others.

If you hate white people, you need a reason to justify that hatred. Best way to do that, is to convince yourself and others, that they have an unfair advantage, that doesn't just help them up, but holds you down.

You can then justify a wide range of attitudes, on the basis of this mythical white privilege.

I ran into a quick mart last year, and there was some black girl in line, yelling at the cashier, who was a little old white lady. I knew it was coming before hand, because she pulled out her phone, and pressed the record memo button. She ended up screaming that they were racists, because they wouldn't sell her cigarettes.

Turns out she was driving around, with an expired license. The sign behind the counter in big bold letters "Must present drivers license for alcohol and cigarette purchases".

"Any white person you would have sold them to, but not me because I'm black!"

I won't tell you how that ended, because I'm not sure I did the right thing. I don't know if I regret it, but I am most certainly not proud of it.

Regardless, this attitude that they don't have to follow the rules that everyone else does, is justified because of what we're talking about here.

Some mythical, made up belief, that other people have a 'privilege' they don't have. This myth, is a justification for what actions they take, that any other person would not.

 

[sealybobo]

NOTE: This thread is in the Structured Debate Forum.

John H. McWhorter PhD offers an interesting perspective on race in a recent essay. The inspiration for his thoughts were apparently triggered by students being required to attend "White Privilege 101" classes. His response to that is "Why, and for whose benefit?"

The concept he expresses raises the question of who is benefited when the conversation focuses on identification with race rather the means by which racism is eliminated or diminished.

Excerpted from the essay--pay special attention to the third paragraph cited here:

. . .If you’ve been white lately, you have likely been confronted with the idea that to be a good person, you must cultivate a guilt complex over the privileged status your race enjoys.

It isn’t that you are doing, or even quite thinking, anything racist. Rather, your existential state of Living While White constitutes a form of racism in itself. Your understanding will serve as a tool … for something. But be careful about asking just what that something is, because that will mean you “just don’t get it.”

To be sure, there is, indeed, a distinct White Privilege. Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .​

And later in the essay he comments:

. . . the idea is not to teach white people that White Privilege means that black people are the only group of people in human history who cannot deal with obstacles and challenges. If the idea is that black people cannot solve their problems short of white people developing an exquisite sensitivity to how privileged they are, then we in the black community are being designated as disabled poster children. . . .​

And he further notes that these days, a white person accused of being racist is somewhere on a par with being designated as a pedophile.

The whole essay is here: The Privilege of Checking White Privilege - The Daily Beast

THE RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please. The topic is stated in the question to be answered below.

2. No ad hominem re other members or political parties or conservatives or liberals, etc. Focus on the comment posted and not the character or motive of the person posting it. Focus on the stated position of a political party if pertinent to the topic and not on the character or motive of the political party itself.

3. References, reasonable excerpts of, and links to other stated opinions are allowed but will not be required for this discussion. If used, put the basic concept of the linked material into your own words also and explain how it relates to the concept of 'white privilege'.

THE QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

Does a focus on 'white privilege' and racism as McWhorter describes it help or hurt black people? Please explain your 'yes' or 'no' answer or any position you take between 'yes' or 'no'.

Only good citizens matter. Black people don't vote. That means they don't matter because good citizens vote.

I heard 10,000 detroiters voted. That's pathetic. Is there any wonder why their needs are ignored?

Detroit parents are suing the state for piss poor school conditions but:

Are they good parents?

Do they pay enough taxes for their schools to be properly funded?

Do good teachers want to teach in their communities?

And did they vote?

Maybe Detroit parents should sue themselves.

 

[sealybobo]

Being White is not a privilege, it's a responsibility

Why Tank? Why is being white more of a responsibility that being an American of any other skin color?

Have you seen Detroit's comeback? It's all white. Detroit is a mess without guys like Dan Gilbert and the white mayor.

For decades detroiters wouldn't elect a white mayor.

If blacks would start their own businesses whites wouldn't feel obligated to hire blacks. Blacks could go work for blacks.

 

[Andylusion]

Being White is not a privilege, it's a responsibility

Why Tank? Why is being white more of a responsibility that being an American of any other skin color?

Have you seen Detroit's comeback? It's all white. Detroit is a mess without guys like Dan Gilbert and the white mayor.

For decades detroiters wouldn't elect a white mayor.

If blacks would start their own businesses whites wouldn't feel obligated to hire blacks. Blacks could go work for blacks.

Was that a joke? If Blacks would start their own business, whites wouldn't feel obligated to hire blacks?

That was a joke, right? You think any business anywhere has a recruiter sitting there.... I better hire this guy, there are no black businesses here....? ANd that if it changed "Oh good I don't have to hire this guy, there are black business owners here"?

 

[Tank]

Being White is not a privilege, it's a responsibility

Why Tank? Why is being white more of a responsibility that being an American of any other skin color?

Being White is not more of a responsibility of being an American, it's more of a responsibility of being human

 

[Foxfyre]

NOTE: This thread is in the Structured Debate Forum.

John H. McWhorter PhD offers an interesting perspective on race in a recent essay. The inspiration for his thoughts were apparently triggered by students being required to attend "White Privilege 101" classes. His response to that is "Why, and for whose benefit?"

The concept he expresses raises the question of who is benefited when the conversation focuses on identification with race rather the means by which racism is eliminated or diminished.

Excerpted from the essay--pay special attention to the third paragraph cited here:

. . .If you’ve been white lately, you have likely been confronted with the idea that to be a good person, you must cultivate a guilt complex over the privileged status your race enjoys.

It isn’t that you are doing, or even quite thinking, anything racist. Rather, your existential state of Living While White constitutes a form of racism in itself. Your understanding will serve as a tool … for something. But be careful about asking just what that something is, because that will mean you “just don’t get it.”

To be sure, there is, indeed, a distinct White Privilege. Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .​

And later in the essay he comments:

. . . the idea is not to teach white people that White Privilege means that black people are the only group of people in human history who cannot deal with obstacles and challenges. If the idea is that black people cannot solve their problems short of white people developing an exquisite sensitivity to how privileged they are, then we in the black community are being designated as disabled poster children. . . .​

And he further notes that these days, a white person accused of being racist is somewhere on a par with being designated as a pedophile.

The whole essay is here: The Privilege of Checking White Privilege - The Daily Beast

THE RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please. The topic is stated in the question to be answered below.

2. No ad hominem re other members or political parties or conservatives or liberals, etc. Focus on the comment posted and not the character or motive of the person posting it. Focus on the stated position of a political party if pertinent to the topic and not on the character or motive of the political party itself.

3. References, reasonable excerpts of, and links to other stated opinions are allowed but will not be required for this discussion. If used, put the basic concept of the linked material into your own words also and explain how it relates to the concept of 'white privilege'.

THE QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

Does a focus on 'white privilege' and racism as McWhorter describes it help or hurt black people? Please explain your 'yes' or 'no' answer or any position you take between 'yes' or 'no'.

Only good citizens matter. Black people don't vote. That means they don't matter because good citizens vote.

I heard 10,000 detroiters voted. That's pathetic. Is there any wonder why their needs are ignored?

Detroit parents are suing the state for piss poor school conditions but:

Are they good parents?

Do they pay enough taxes for their schools to be properly funded?

Do good teachers want to teach in their communities?

And did they vote?

Maybe Detroit parents should sue themselves.

Not sure what your point is Sealy Bobo, but I just looked at Wayne County, Michigan where Detroit is. 1,356,000 registered voters and 1,139,000 votes cast. That's a pretty awesome turnout. Wayne County did go Democratic roughly 2 to 1 which you would expect in a very high African American concentration - more than 80% of Detroit is black.

And like many other cities, Detroit is plagued with poverty, gang and drug crime, failing schools, budget shortfalls, and other uglies amidst a thriving shiny prosperous looking downtown financial center, and most--not all but most--of the ugly side affects black people more than any other.

So you tell me why the poverty? The failing schools? A crime rate more than double the national average for cities? Bad parents? People who don't pay enough taxes? Teachers who don't teach? Cultural? Or racism? Or something else?

 

[Foxfyre]

Being White is not a privilege, it's a responsibility

Why Tank? Why is being white more of a responsibility that being an American of any other skin color?

Have you seen Detroit's comeback? It's all white. Detroit is a mess without guys like Dan Gilbert and the white mayor.

For decades detroiters wouldn't elect a white mayor.

If blacks would start their own businesses whites wouldn't feel obligated to hire blacks. Blacks could go work for blacks.

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

After Kirkpatrick was sent to prison, Detroit went through three more mayors in fast succession before Duggan was elected, and Duggan has been spending his time dealing with local and federal investigations of possible corruption in his administration which doesn't leave a lot of time to work on reforms. And three years is not long enough to fully evaluate long term policy so whether things have improved under Duggan is probably difficult to say.

Yes, it is easy to say that black people should pull themselves up by the bootstraps. And in fact that is the truth. But. . .

When the dynamics and culture discourage black people from 'acting white', how likely is that to be?

 

[Foxfyre]

Being White is not a privilege, it's a responsibility

Why Tank? Why is being white more of a responsibility that being an American of any other skin color?

Have you seen Detroit's comeback? It's all white. Detroit is a mess without guys like Dan Gilbert and the white mayor.

For decades detroiters wouldn't elect a white mayor.

If blacks would start their own businesses whites wouldn't feel obligated to hire blacks. Blacks could go work for blacks.

Was that a joke? If Blacks would start their own business, whites wouldn't feel obligated to hire blacks?

That was a joke, right? You think any business anywhere has a recruiter sitting there.... I better hire this guy, there are no black businesses here....? ANd that if it changed "Oh good I don't have to hire this guy, there are black business owners here"?

Sealybobo, however, is encouraged to share his perspective that seems to come from the 'black people should lift themselves up' camp, and that is a valid argument.

All people, whatever their skin color, want some things that money can buy. But when you have a very large concentration of poor people, whatever their skin color, there isn't as much money available to support businesses. And when you have an unusually high crime rate, the risk of starting a business is increased significantly.