Debate Now White Privilege and an Institution of Racism

[Foxfyre]

White privilege certainly exists - and should be encouraged/preserved for future generations of Whites in countries and territories where Whites are the demographic majority - due to instincts buried in our subconscious; but its conceptualisation has mainly been used as a means of polarising and aggitating the masses to sell headlines.

I can't really agree with that Swagger, though I do believe us white people should be no more ashamed to be white than persons of other races should be ashamed of being born who and what they are.

But until we start treating skin color as of no more consequence than hair color or eye color, I am afraid the white race will continue to be demonized by racist opportunists and racism will remain alive and well because it is so easily used for fun and profit and political advantage.

Why?

Because racism these days assumes black people can't make it on their own and must have protection from government and other defenders. And it is effective to use for fun and profit. And one way that is accomplished is by pointing to "white privilege' as the reason things are so bad for black people.

No. Racism does not assume that black people cannot make it on their own. That is not something that anyone with an honest look at racism would ever conclude.

But putting it into the context as McWhorter used it within a discussion of 'white privilege', I would certainly interpret it as he sees it. You are welcome to rebut his thesis if you can but 'no it's not' just isn't a very persuasive argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

Recommended reading.

The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander Cornel West 9781595586438 Amazon.com Books

The moment someone complains about criminals being locked up for criminal acts, I no longer care what else they have to say.

Nice reply. Read the book.

Advertise on your own time.

This discussion is about McWhorter's essay and the concept he presents in it.

 

[Pogo]

I agree with most all of that, if not all completely. Though I do wonder why you left out black people from the list at the top -- they suffered the worst. And they've also suffered the worst whitewashing (no pun intended) of the history books about it. I think we've all been schooled in the "no Irish need apply" signs, the treatment of Chinese railroad workers, even to some extent that of Native Americans, but how may of us have been taught of the Red Summer of 1919 and all the race riots of that time? How many are aware that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil War black people were being regularly accosted, beaten, raped, hanged, burned alive, skinned, (skinned), dragged behind vehicles, cut into pieces sold as souvenirs, and that this went on for nearly a century? Our schoolbooks somehow find a way to leave all that out, the omission of which bestows on us a great distortion. And such distortions, even in their omission, influence our perspectives and thereby our judgment. Context is vital.

I agree with all you've posted here about affirmative action and segregation laws. But those are laws. We got over the legal part, yes. What we have yet to get past is the cultural part. That's what this question is today -- a cultural one. And without knowing -- and acknowledging -- that history, cultural development can't move forward. Because culture carries its own context. It has no choice but to carry it; it's part of what makes it culture.

I was about to add that examples of ignoring context in favor of deliberately and self-servingly muddying the waters of rational discussion would appear in this thread as exhibit A - but it's already here:

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

But the phrase "keeping the focus on racism" is fatally undefined. It could mean a lot of different things.

Continuing AA policies, legally and rhetorically with the idea "I'm black so society owes me" is one thing it could mean, and I agree, those are counterproductive. But knowing our cultural context -- also defined as 'history' -- is another thing the phrase could mean, and taking that focus off would be even more counterproductive.

So perhaps we need to define what we mean by "focus", and what we don't mean.

I will refer you to McWhorter's essay and the Thread topic. Let's focus on that --meaning that is what we will be discussing--and not get bogged down in a war of semantics and definitions okay?

"Focus" is fatally vague. We cannot declare "yes we should focus on race" or "no we should not focus on race" without first defining what we mean by "focus on race".

One can "focus on" a positive; one can "focus on" a negative; one can "focus on" the irrelevant. The term simply cannot be assessed without having a definition for the purpose of discussion. Any conclusion without such definition would be meaningless.

Pogo, I love you dearly. But if you are going to try to make this thread into another thread haranguing over definitions, then I will ask you to start your own thread and discuss definitions. I will very politely ask you to accept the obvious intent and content of the OP as is. If you don't like the definitions anybody else is using then define whatever terms you are using as you use them. Thanks.

Then you're excluding me from participating. I can't discuss a question that refuses to define itself.

Actually no one can.

Fine, I'll find something else to do. If you figure out what your question is, get back to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Recommended reading.

The New Jim Crow Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander Cornel West 9781595586438 Amazon.com Books

The moment someone complains about criminals being locked up for criminal acts, I no longer care what else they have to say.

The thread however, is not about the penal code or justice system. Let's focus on the thread topic, okay?

 

[Foxfyre]

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

But the phrase "keeping the focus on racism" is fatally undefined. It could mean a lot of different things.

Continuing AA policies, legally and rhetorically with the idea "I'm black so society owes me" is one thing it could mean, and I agree, those are counterproductive. But knowing our cultural context -- also defined as 'history' -- is another thing the phrase could mean, and taking that focus off would be even more counterproductive.

So perhaps we need to define what we mean by "focus", and what we don't mean.

I will refer you to McWhorter's essay and the Thread topic. Let's focus on that --meaning that is what we will be discussing--and not get bogged down in a war of semantics and definitions okay?

"Focus" is fatally vague. We cannot declare "yes we should focus on race" or "no we should not focus on race" without first defining what we mean by "focus on race".

One can "focus on" a positive; one can "focus on" a negative; one can "focus on" the irrelevant. The term simply cannot be assessed without having a definition for the purpose of discussion. Any conclusion without such definition would be meaningless.

Pogo, I love you dearly. But if you are going to try to make this thread into another thread haranguing over definitions, then I will ask you to start your own thread and discuss definitions. I will very politely ask you to accept the obvious intent and content of the OP as is. If you don't like the definitions anybody else is using then define whatever terms you are using as you use them. Thanks.

Then you're excluding me from participating. I can't discuss a question that refuses to define itself.

Actually no one can.

Fine, I'll find something else to do. If you figure out what your question is, get back to me.

Sorry it didn't work out for you. Once you put the thread topic into the context of McWhorter's essay, even just considering the excerpted paragraphs, the question sure seems obvious to me.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Nobody really focuses on "white privilege" it's just something that is taken for granted.

Well I think McWhorter is very definitely somebody and he did focus on "white privilege" in his essay and that is the topic of this discussion. So let's discuss it okay?

McWhorter listed his concept of 'white privilege' in the third paragraph that I excerpted in the OP:

. . . .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. . . .

Is he wrong?

He hasn't touched the tip of the iceberg. Not only are authority figures likely to be white, but black people are more likely to get pulled over, they will more likely get longer sentencing for the same crime, their neighborhoods are more likely to be heavily patrolled...and the list goes on and on.

Affirmative Action would not have been necessary without racism/white privilege to begin with.

I agree that Affirmative Action was necessary back in the 1960's to break down cultural barriers and get people used to working with each other. But that has been accomplished. Nobody is saying that racism wasn't/isn't real and it never hurt black people.

But we have fixed racism as institutional discrimination. That hasn't been allowed for a long time now.

So why not start treating people like they really are equal?

Instead of asking me why not treat people as equal, I think you need to first find out who are not treating them as equals.

Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said Thursday that voter ID laws are a modern-day version of poll taxes once used by Southern states to disenfranchise black and poor people.

In a piece called "The Unfinished Work of Selma," Lewis reflected on the Supreme Court's decision in June 2013 to strike down a core piece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That provision, Section 4, determined which states and localities with a history of suppressing minority voters had to get permission from the Justice Department to change their voting laws. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the section was outdated, and left it to Congress to come up with a new formula for designating which regions of the country warrant special scrutiny.

Congress hasn't done anything since. As Lewis noted in his piece, published on Mic, Republicans in statehouses around the country have moved quickly to pass laws making it harder for people to vote.

"Couched in language about 'protecting the ballot box,' Republicans have pushed voter ID laws that disproportionately impact certain blocks of voters -- African-Americans, women, Latinos, the poor and young people -- who tend to vote against them," he wrote. "In Texas alone, 600,000 voters were at risk of being disenfranchised by the new voter ID requirements."

Lewis said it's important to call those laws what they are.

"We should not mince words: These are poll taxes by another name, the very types of discrimination we marched against 50 years ago," he said.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, states that previously required pre-clearance from the federal government -- Mississippi and Texas, to name two -- have been able to pass laws that make voting more difficult for people who are poor, disabled or a minority, through such means as requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. More than half the states in the country have introduced voter ID laws since 2011.

Lewis was at the center of last week's 50th anniversary commemoration of the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama. He led some of those marches back in 1965, and said being in Selma 50 years later reminded him how much work there is still to do when it comes to protecting voting rights.

On that day in 1965 that President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, "I would have been in utter disbelief to know that in 2015, the VRA would still be a point of debate," Lewis wrote.

The Georgia congressman is among a group of lawmakers trying to pass legislation to restore the law, but they've struggled to find GOP supporters. Their bill would update Section 4 of the law to make it apply to states and jurisdictions with voting violations in the past 15 years. So far, the House bill has just a handful of Republican cosponsors. The forthcoming Senate bill has none.

John Lewis Says Voter ID Laws Are Poll Taxes By Another Name

Carla, the Thread Topic is very specific as to what the discussion topic is. I will ask all members to please address McWhorter's essay and the question that is the topic of the OP. I don't want to get into all the other issues or pending legislation or past legislation. Your lengthy cut and paste probably violates DP site rules about quoting whole articles and I will refer you to Rule 3 for discussion in this thread.

A couple of the questions in your poll were...

a) Black people are unable to achieve equality without government anti-racism programs.

b) The war against racism as an institution has been won and we need to stop fighting it.

I'm just providing an example of what happens when the Supreme Court decides to strike down core pieces of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It was needed in 1965 as it is needed today.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I think McWhorter is very definitely somebody and he did focus on "white privilege" in his essay and that is the topic of this discussion. So let's discuss it okay?

McWhorter listed his concept of 'white privilege' in the third paragraph that I excerpted in the OP:

Is he wrong?

He hasn't touched the tip of the iceberg. Not only are authority figures likely to be white, but black people are more likely to get pulled over, they will more likely get longer sentencing for the same crime, their neighborhoods are more likely to be heavily patrolled...and the list goes on and on.

Affirmative Action would not have been necessary without racism/white privilege to begin with.

I agree that Affirmative Action was necessary back in the 1960's to break down cultural barriers and get people used to working with each other. But that has been accomplished. Nobody is saying that racism wasn't/isn't real and it never hurt black people.

But we have fixed racism as institutional discrimination. That hasn't been allowed for a long time now.

So why not start treating people like they really are equal?

Instead of asking me why not treat people as equal, I think you need to first find out who are not treating them as equals.

Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said Thursday that voter ID laws are a modern-day version of poll taxes once used by Southern states to disenfranchise black and poor people.

In a piece called "The Unfinished Work of Selma," Lewis reflected on the Supreme Court's decision in June 2013 to strike down a core piece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That provision, Section 4, determined which states and localities with a history of suppressing minority voters had to get permission from the Justice Department to change their voting laws. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the section was outdated, and left it to Congress to come up with a new formula for designating which regions of the country warrant special scrutiny.

Congress hasn't done anything since. As Lewis noted in his piece, published on Mic, Republicans in statehouses around the country have moved quickly to pass laws making it harder for people to vote.

"Couched in language about 'protecting the ballot box,' Republicans have pushed voter ID laws that disproportionately impact certain blocks of voters -- African-Americans, women, Latinos, the poor and young people -- who tend to vote against them," he wrote. "In Texas alone, 600,000 voters were at risk of being disenfranchised by the new voter ID requirements."

Lewis said it's important to call those laws what they are.

"We should not mince words: These are poll taxes by another name, the very types of discrimination we marched against 50 years ago," he said.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, states that previously required pre-clearance from the federal government -- Mississippi and Texas, to name two -- have been able to pass laws that make voting more difficult for people who are poor, disabled or a minority, through such means as requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. More than half the states in the country have introduced voter ID laws since 2011.

Lewis was at the center of last week's 50th anniversary commemoration of the civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama. He led some of those marches back in 1965, and said being in Selma 50 years later reminded him how much work there is still to do when it comes to protecting voting rights.

On that day in 1965 that President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, "I would have been in utter disbelief to know that in 2015, the VRA would still be a point of debate," Lewis wrote.

The Georgia congressman is among a group of lawmakers trying to pass legislation to restore the law, but they've struggled to find GOP supporters. Their bill would update Section 4 of the law to make it apply to states and jurisdictions with voting violations in the past 15 years. So far, the House bill has just a handful of Republican cosponsors. The forthcoming Senate bill has none.

John Lewis Says Voter ID Laws Are Poll Taxes By Another Name

Carla, the Thread Topic is very specific as to what the discussion topic is. I will ask all members to please address McWhorter's essay and the question that is the topic of the OP. I don't want to get into all the other issues or pending legislation or past legislation. Your lengthy cut and paste probably violates DP site rules about quoting whole articles and I will refer you to Rule 3 for discussion in this thread.

A couple of the questions in your poll were...

a) Black people are unable to achieve equality without government anti-racism programs.

b) The war against racism as an institution has been won and we need to stop fighting it.

I'm just providing an example of what happens when the Supreme Court decides to strike down core pieces of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It was needed in 1965 as it is needed today.

All would make splendid topics for discussion and I encourage you to start threads and discuss them.

This thread is about McWhorter's essay and we are discussing that.

The poll questions are just to help us think about how we really do view racism and apply that to McWhorter's very narrowly focused discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

And in case anybody else is unclear on what is meant by "white privilege' and racism, I edited the topic question to reflect that we are discussing this within the context of how McWhorter described them in his essay.

 

[MisterBeale]

At the very beginning of the tread, someone remarked that "White Privilege" doesn't exist. You know what, at first I was bit offended by that statement, but the more I thought about it, the more I'd have to say I agree with that statement.

Here is why.


All of the examples of "White Privilege" given in that article you linked, could just as well be had by a black family. The private schools, the expensive toys, the vacations. Don't you think that Bill Cosby's kids had those? What about the kids of any famous Motown entertainer? How about MLK's children?

The point here, is having material wealth does not equal, "white privilege." Growing up in America gives any family the chance at material wealth. I will grant you, if you are white, you probably have had a much greater chance at getting a slice of that pie, and achieving that American Dream. BUT THAT IS NOT "WHITE PRIVILEGE."

So in essence, I think this is a wholly manufactured term to absolve the left, or social progressives of the guilt as they try to fight the good fight. As we have seen here, those on the far left have reacted very strongly against even the hint that we should stop with this nonsense. Their do-gooder crusading sense is to be commended, but it clearly stems from a sense of guilt, rather than a logical and reasoned basis to actually improve that situation. This article you posted was written from that point of view.

What I think it lacked was delineating and distilling the distinction between "white privilege," and "institutional racism." White Privilege, which may in fact exist on some level as a an advantage whites or people with lighter skin tones have gotten over the centuries, to those who don't have such fair complexion, is the result of institutional racism.

And as opposed to what Swagger may think, this racism exists on a global scale, not just in the US. Even in African Countries, because they are exposed to Western Media, their psychology prefers lighter toned skin, even of people in their own nations. This favoring of the white ethnicity and it's culture has always been the world's default position. It drives all other ethnicities bonkers, and yet, sub-consciously, they all want to be white.

examples of institutional racism;

Even in our own nation, black women go to extreme lengths to straighten their hair, young black girls still think the white doll is better, and black men keep their hair super short, no alternative style is permissible, as it would make them appear more ethnic.

If you don't believe me, take a look at some Japanese Anime some time. The characters appear Caucasion.

Ponder why this is true. . .
Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?
Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants Global Development Professionals Network The Guardian
In Hong Kong, Just Who Is an Expat, Anyway?
In Hong Kong Just Who Is an Expat Anyway - Expat - WSJ



MSM elites HAVE to stop brainwashing the world that the only acceptable beauty and power standard is the white standard. Then institutional racism can start to stop world wide.

 

[Foxfyre]

At the very beginning of the tread, someone remarked that "White Privilege" doesn't exist. You know what, at first I was bit offended by that statement, but the more I thought about it, the more I'd have to say I agree with that statement.

Here is why.


All of the examples of "White Privilege" given in that article you linked, could just as well be had by a black family. The private schools, the expensive toys, the vacations. Don't you think that Bill Cosby's kids had those? What about the kids of any famous Motown entertainer? How about MLK's children?

The point here, is having material wealth does not equal, "white privilege." Growing up in America gives any family the chance at material wealth. I will grant you, if you are white, you probably have had a much greater chance at getting a slice of that pie, and achieving that American Dream. BUT THAT IS NOT "WHITE PRIVILEGE."

So in essence, I think this is a wholly manufactured term to absolve the left, or social progressives of the guilt as they try to fight the good fight. As we have seen here, those on the far left have reacted very strongly against even the hint that we should stop with this nonsense. Their do-gooder crusading sense is to be commended, but it clearly stems from a sense of guilt, rather than a logical and reasoned basis to actually improve that situation. This article you posted was written from that point of view.

What I think it lacked was delineating and distilling the distinction between "white privilege," and "institutional racism." White Privilege, which may in fact exist on some level as a an advantage whites or people with lighter skin tones have gotten over the centuries, to those who don't have such fair complexion, is the result of institutional racism.

And as opposed to what Swagger may think, this racism exists on a global scale, not just in the US. Even in African Countries, because they are exposed to Western Media, their psychology prefers lighter toned skin, even of people in their own nations. This favoring of the white ethnicity and it's culture has always been the world's default position. It drives all other ethnicities bonkers, and yet, sub-consciously, they all want to be white.

examples of institutional racism;

Even in our own nation, black women go to extreme lengths to straighten their hair, young black girls still think the white doll is better, and black men keep their hair super short, no alternative style is permissible, as it would make them appear more ethnic.

If you don't believe me, take a look at some Japanese Anime some time. The characters appear Caucasion.

Ponder why this is true. . .
Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?
Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants Global Development Professionals Network The Guardian
In Hong Kong, Just Who Is an Expat, Anyway?
In Hong Kong Just Who Is an Expat Anyway - Expat - WSJ

MSM elites HAVE to stop brainwashing the world that the only acceptable beauty and power standard is the white standard. Then institutional racism can start to stop world wide.

I think though that McWhorter wasn't arguing issues of opportunity, rich and poor, and other comparisons like that. And he wasn't even really addressing even blatant hateful racism.

But image is definitely a factor and you touched on that. He described a form of political correctness in which white people are required to feel guilty that they are so privileged to be white, and an even more subtle concept that we are automatically racist if we are white despite what we believe are our non-racist views. Therefore, there is necessity for mandatory "White Supremacy 101" classes for consciousness raising so that we can fully understand how guilty and racist we are.

And his paragraph excerpted in the OP does illustrate a number of concepts that are undeniably a privileged status for white people:

. . . 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. . . .​

What I interpret his meaning to be here is that it is the people who most often claim to be the non-racists among us and who claim to have the most sensitivity and understanding of the black man's circumstances, who have created the situations described in that paragraph. All well intentioned in the beginning. Probably. Able to understand or even acknowledge how they continue to perpetuate the negative consequences? Not so much.

 

[Derideo_Te]

. . .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.

Please note that the above is a direct quote from McWhorter's essay as provided in the OP and is addressed below.

That statement by McWhorter is a fallacy and it exposes the absurdity of the arguments made by racists to support their racism.

The questions in the poll are equally fallacious and absurd because they the same arguments made by racists to support their racism.

Speaking from personal experience only I have noticed that most racists are blind to their own racism. They don't understand that what they say and do is racist. It is also readily apparent to me that racists are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Since I abhor all forms of racism I call it out when I encounter it. I don't expect that calling it out will change the racists but it will alert others to the racists in our midst.

This thread is an attempt to justify racism IMO given what is quoted in the OP so my position is neither yes or no because that would lend credence to the topic.

Racism in all of it's forms is wrong and I see a better future where the generations to come are colorblind to race and treat each other based on their behavior and not their appearance.

Disclaimer: I support the right of the OP to raise this topic in this forum and I am not implying that the OP is a racist either. Instead I am just exercising my right to express my opinion of the subject matter provided in the OP.

 

[Foxfyre]

. . .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.

Please note that the above is a direct quote from McWhorter's essay as provided in the OP and is addressed below.

That statement by McWhorter is a fallacy and it exposes the absurdity of the arguments made by racists to support their racism.

The questions in the poll are equally fallacious and absurd because they the same arguments made by racists to support their racism.

Speaking from personal experience only I have noticed that most racists are blind to their own racism. They don't understand that what they say and do is racist. It is also readily apparent to me that racists are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Since I abhor all forms of racism I call it out when I encounter it. I don't expect that calling it out will change the racists but it will alert others to the racists in our midst.

This thread is an attempt to justify racism IMO given what is quoted in the OP so my position is neither yes or no because that would lend credence to the topic.

Racism in all of it's forms is wrong and I see a better future where the generations to come are colorblind to race and treat each other based on their behavior and not their appearance.

Disclaimer: I support the right of the OP to raise this topic in this forum and I am not implying that the OP is a racist either. Instead I am just exercising my right to express my opinion of the subject matter provided in the OP.

McWhorter's statement sure did resonate with me as I have been told that very thing, at least by implication, here at USMB and elsewhere. So I don't see it as a fallacy at all.

And perhaps Derideo_Te could clarify a bit how the rest of his comments relate to the thread topic or answer the question presented as the thread topic?

 

[Derideo_Te]

. . .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.

Please note that the above is a direct quote from McWhorter's essay as provided in the OP and is addressed below.

That statement by McWhorter is a fallacy and it exposes the absurdity of the arguments made by racists to support their racism.

The questions in the poll are equally fallacious and absurd because they the same arguments made by racists to support their racism.

Speaking from personal experience only I have noticed that most racists are blind to their own racism. They don't understand that what they say and do is racist. It is also readily apparent to me that racists are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Since I abhor all forms of racism I call it out when I encounter it. I don't expect that calling it out will change the racists but it will alert others to the racists in our midst.

This thread is an attempt to justify racism IMO given what is quoted in the OP so my position is neither yes or no because that would lend credence to the topic.

Racism in all of it's forms is wrong and I see a better future where the generations to come are colorblind to race and treat each other based on their behavior and not their appearance.

Disclaimer: I support the right of the OP to raise this topic in this forum and I am not implying that the OP is a racist either. Instead I am just exercising my right to express my opinion of the subject matter provided in the OP.

McWhorter's statement sure did resonate with me as I have been told that very thing, at least by implication, here at USMB and elsewhere. So I don't see it as a fallacy at all.

And perhaps Derideo_Te could clarify a bit how the rest of his comments relate to the thread topic or answer the question presented as the thread topic?

Far from "resonating with me" I had the exact opposite reaction. I was appalled by the veiled racist implications.

My comments stand by themselves. MacWhorter is trying to excuse racism and blame the victims IMO. I called that out.

 

[Foxfyre]

. . .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.

Please note that the above is a direct quote from McWhorter's essay as provided in the OP and is addressed below.

That statement by McWhorter is a fallacy and it exposes the absurdity of the arguments made by racists to support their racism.

The questions in the poll are equally fallacious and absurd because they the same arguments made by racists to support their racism.

Speaking from personal experience only I have noticed that most racists are blind to their own racism. They don't understand that what they say and do is racist. It is also readily apparent to me that racists are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Since I abhor all forms of racism I call it out when I encounter it. I don't expect that calling it out will change the racists but it will alert others to the racists in our midst.

This thread is an attempt to justify racism IMO given what is quoted in the OP so my position is neither yes or no because that would lend credence to the topic.

Racism in all of it's forms is wrong and I see a better future where the generations to come are colorblind to race and treat each other based on their behavior and not their appearance.

Disclaimer: I support the right of the OP to raise this topic in this forum and I am not implying that the OP is a racist either. Instead I am just exercising my right to express my opinion of the subject matter provided in the OP.

McWhorter's statement sure did resonate with me as I have been told that very thing, at least by implication, here at USMB and elsewhere. So I don't see it as a fallacy at all.

And perhaps Derideo_Te could clarify a bit how the rest of his comments relate to the thread topic or answer the question presented as the thread topic?

Far from "resonating with me" I had the exact opposite reaction. I was appalled by the veiled racist implications.

My comments stand by themselves. MacWhorter is trying to excuse racism and blame the victims IMO. I called that out.

Veiled racist implications? There was nothing veiled about it. McWhorter's entire essay is on the subject of racism. And I don't see how anybody can read McWhorter's essay or the few paragraphs I excerpted from it to highlight in the OP, and conclude that he is in any way excusing racism. Not even if you take the one line you excerpted and omit the two paragraphs following it that expand on his intent with that line.

Did you read the essay?

Could you explain how his statement "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" in any way excuses racism? And on what basis do you call it a fallacy?

Remember his essay was inspired by a mandatory requirement to attend "White Privilege 101" classes as explained in his essay.

My take from his thesis is that this kind of thing only perpetuates racism and is not helping. That conclusion is in fact somewhat veiled, but is obvious I think to somebody who reads what he wrote as he intended for it to be understood.

 

[LoneLaugher]

. . .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.

Please note that the above is a direct quote from McWhorter's essay as provided in the OP and is addressed below.

That statement by McWhorter is a fallacy and it exposes the absurdity of the arguments made by racists to support their racism.

The questions in the poll are equally fallacious and absurd because they the same arguments made by racists to support their racism.

Speaking from personal experience only I have noticed that most racists are blind to their own racism. They don't understand that what they say and do is racist. It is also readily apparent to me that racists are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Since I abhor all forms of racism I call it out when I encounter it. I don't expect that calling it out will change the racists but it will alert others to the racists in our midst.

This thread is an attempt to justify racism IMO given what is quoted in the OP so my position is neither yes or no because that would lend credence to the topic.

Racism in all of it's forms is wrong and I see a better future where the generations to come are colorblind to race and treat each other based on their behavior and not their appearance.

Disclaimer: I support the right of the OP to raise this topic in this forum and I am not implying that the OP is a racist either. Instead I am just exercising my right to express my opinion of the subject matter provided in the OP.

McWhorter's statement sure did resonate with me as I have been told that very thing, at least by implication, here at USMB and elsewhere. So I don't see it as a fallacy at all.

And perhaps Derideo_Te could clarify a bit how the rest of his comments relate to the thread topic or answer the question presented as the thread topic?

I'd like to see the discussion where you were told that.

"At least by implication" leaves you a huge amount of wiggle room though, doesn't it?

 

[Foxfyre]

. . .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.

Please note that the above is a direct quote from McWhorter's essay as provided in the OP and is addressed below.

That statement by McWhorter is a fallacy and it exposes the absurdity of the arguments made by racists to support their racism.

The questions in the poll are equally fallacious and absurd because they the same arguments made by racists to support their racism.

Speaking from personal experience only I have noticed that most racists are blind to their own racism. They don't understand that what they say and do is racist. It is also readily apparent to me that racists are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

Since I abhor all forms of racism I call it out when I encounter it. I don't expect that calling it out will change the racists but it will alert others to the racists in our midst.

This thread is an attempt to justify racism IMO given what is quoted in the OP so my position is neither yes or no because that would lend credence to the topic.

Racism in all of it's forms is wrong and I see a better future where the generations to come are colorblind to race and treat each other based on their behavior and not their appearance.

Disclaimer: I support the right of the OP to raise this topic in this forum and I am not implying that the OP is a racist either. Instead I am just exercising my right to express my opinion of the subject matter provided in the OP.

McWhorter's statement sure did resonate with me as I have been told that very thing, at least by implication, here at USMB and elsewhere. So I don't see it as a fallacy at all.

And perhaps Derideo_Te could clarify a bit how the rest of his comments relate to the thread topic or answer the question presented as the thread topic?

I'd like to see the discussion where you were told that.

"At least by implication" leaves you a huge amount of wiggle room though, doesn't it?

No more wiggle room than anybody else speaking from personal experience. You are welcome to go through all the posts on all the threads I have posted in or read over the last seven years though and check it out for yourself.

 

[Foxfyre]

In case anybody has any question about where McWhorter is coming from with his essay consider this. (And there are lots and lots more links.)

Harvard's Kennedy School of Government has added a new student orientation class on "privilege". NYmag defines it as ". . . Privilege — a catchall term for the perks an individual enjoys in society because of his race, gender, or class — has been used to analyze social inequality for decades. . . ."
Harvard Adds Privilege-Checking to Orientation -- The Cut

And from the opposite perspective:
The American Freedom Party platform calls for:

Freedom of association. Return to Americans their traditional right of freedom of association, including freedom in racial matters, along with the abolishment of all forms of government- and corporate-mandated racial discrimination and racial preferences, such as affirmative action, quotas, and all forms of “sensitivity training.” Freedom of association means that all races, ethnic groups and religions may openly celebrate their heritage and beliefs without interference or harassment from government and from media outlets and privately financed organizations.​

The blogger who posted this went on to say immediately following: "The “party” pages assume that real Americans are whites with a commonality of attitudes defined by the “party.” Even “liberalism” is considered a foreign imposition. I guess I’m “self hating” because my view of “whiteness” differs from the party line. I guess I am not free to celebrate my “whiteness” in a way not in keeping with the “party” idea of what white “heritage and beliefs” should be. Not without being a traitor to my race, that is. . . ."
Racism 101 Why We Need Courses on Whiteness The Academe Blog

And this fits in with at least part of the observation McWhorter expresses in his essay.

And then there is this. I presume they are still accepting enrollments:

I can't post an excerpt of what the workshops offer--the website expressly forbids that--but you can read the content here:
White Privilege Conference - Workshops Institutes

 

[LoneLaugher]

White privilege certainly exists - and should be encouraged/preserved for future generations of Whites in countries and territories where Whites are the demographic majority - due to instincts buried in our subconscious; but its conceptualisation has mainly been used as a means of polarising and aggitating the masses to sell headlines.

I can't really agree with that Swagger, though I do believe us white people should be no more ashamed to be white than persons of other races should be ashamed of being born who and what they are.

But until we start treating skin color as of no more consequence than hair color or eye color, I am afraid the white race will continue to be demonized by racist opportunists and racism will remain alive and well because it is so easily used for fun and profit and political advantage.

Lets go back to the above statement. I would like to know what you meant by it.

What must we do to kill racism?

 

[MisterBeale]

White privilege certainly exists - and should be encouraged/preserved for future generations of Whites in countries and territories where Whites are the demographic majority - due to instincts buried in our subconscious; but its conceptualisation has mainly been used as a means of polarising and aggitating the masses to sell headlines.

I can't really agree with that Swagger, though I do believe us white people should be no more ashamed to be white than persons of other races should be ashamed of being born who and what they are.

But until we start treating skin color as of no more consequence than hair color or eye color, I am afraid the white race will continue to be demonized by racist opportunists and racism will remain alive and well because it is so easily used for fun and profit and political advantage.

Lets go back to the above statement. I would like to know what you meant by it.

What must we do to kill racism?

Kill all white people and black people, or control everyone's ability to have free thoughts.

Sounds like the goals of eugenicists and authoritarians.


Live in an Utopian world view much?


Seriously, it's pretty simple.

As long as politicians and elites who control the media find a benefit in controlling the masses by creating divisions and hatred in order to get elected and steer attention away from important matters, the blame game and bigotry will continue.

 

[LoneLaugher]

White privilege certainly exists - and should be encouraged/preserved for future generations of Whites in countries and territories where Whites are the demographic majority - due to instincts buried in our subconscious; but its conceptualisation has mainly been used as a means of polarising and aggitating the masses to sell headlines.

I can't really agree with that Swagger, though I do believe us white people should be no more ashamed to be white than persons of other races should be ashamed of being born who and what they are.

But until we start treating skin color as of no more consequence than hair color or eye color, I am afraid the white race will continue to be demonized by racist opportunists and racism will remain alive and well because it is so easily used for fun and profit and political advantage.

Lets go back to the above statement. I would like to know what you meant by it.

What must we do to kill racism?

Kill all white people and black people, or control everyone's ability to have free thoughts.

Sounds like the goals of eugenicists and authoritarians.


Live in an Utopian world view much?


Seriously, it's pretty simple.

As long as politicians and elites who control the media find a benefit in controlling the masses by creating divisions and hatred in order to get elected and steer attention away from important matters, the blame game and bigotry will continue.

Bull. You find racism and bigotry in people who do not vote, don't pay attention to politics and couldn't name the three branches of the US government if a gun was at their head.

You and I both pay attention....and..... therefore are being controlled by the media? I'd say that both you and I are aware of what the "important matters" are. Are you a bigot as a result? I'm not.