General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYes, white men are being oppressed.
Last edited Fri Apr 6, 2012, 04:46 AM - Edit history (2)
So are black men, gays, white women, straight people, black women, religious folks, Hispanic men and women, atheists... in fact, all of America's working class, 99% of our population, is being oppressed.
How? We're all being turned against each other. We fight amongst ourselves while the Plutocrats laugh at us and tell us "get a job!!!" even though the jobs don't even exist. They breathe a sigh of relief when a Greek man shoots himself instead of a Plutocrat. They even go so far as to rip off police pensions while they send them out to fight protesters who represent the 99%. The Plutocracy has got Hispanics killing blacks in Los Angeles, black voters turning on Hispanics in Georgia, Christians obsessing over atheists and gays, they've got women threatening to withhold sex from men over what a handful of rich fucks did to women, men calling women sluts for using birth control, low paid overworked Americans hating on union workers, straight people freaking out over gay marriages that don't affect their lives at all...
Think of all the battles that are being fought between all these different groups. If they all win their crusades, they STILL LOSE, because the Plutocrats have succeeded in keeping them divided against each other. The worn out victors will find themselves without health care, livable wage jobs, social safety nets or even, finally once all the jobs have been automated or shipped out of America, access to the bare necessities for survival. You'll win your little factional conflict only to find yourself starving and when you finally decide to fight back they'll send in the drones and finish you off for good.
Or you could ditch all this bullshit and realize it's the Plutocrats who started this shit and unite against them.
That means stop caring about gays and lesbians because their lifestyle will never infect you. Stop hating on Mormons. Atheism is not contagious. And like the aforementioned groups, Christianity is not the problem - duped fools who serve the Plutocracy's policy of division, however, are. Different racial groups need to recognize their common ground in their pursuit of economic justice for all. Christians need to remember what Jesus said about greed and poverty. Men and women need to stop knocking heads over who is the most oppressed and realize that the logic behind unequal pay for equal work is a two-edged sword that can be used to impoverish either gender. Women get the lower-paying jobs one day because of sexism, but the next day men are swept out of employment in droves because of mass redundancy. Then the next day Government cuts throw women out of work, too. See how that goes? Both sides lost out because you didn't see the big picture... the Plutocrats have you at war with each other and in the end they screwed you both. Non-union workers strive to destroy unions and union workers harass people who cross picket lines to their favorite store... in the end the unions get destroyed and the non-union workers get to work overtime for free, or they get unpaid internships instead of paid work. American citizens battle illegal aliens and fight to get them out of farm work, so the illegals leave - but the farm corporations refuse to make farm work safer, so what few Americans who do take those jobs, face a greater risk of dying; when what should have happened is American workers joined with the migrant farm workers and haul the farmers out and whip their asses in court and in Congress over their shit wages and deadly working conditions.
So we get back to the age-oldest question: how in the world do we get all these different groups to realize that working together is better than waging war against each other?
I had to post this because I JUST learned... this is the ultimate lesson of the Hunger Games. Why fight each other for the Plutocracy's benefit when we could be fighting them?
Edited to add: No, the oppression is not equally shared between the races and genders, etc. White Christian men are not as discriminated upon as other groups. But that's the whole point - when you are dividing and conquering a populace favoring one group over another is inherent in your strategy. Plutocrats in the West are mainly White Christian Men so that's who they favor. But when they decide to cash out, 99% of White Christian Men will get flushed down the toilet along with everyone else. We're all in the same boat.
President Obama hinted as much in his speech on race: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-th_n_92077.html
uponit7771
(93,505 posts)...class majority of any one thing that ruling class will have a leg up.
As progressives we're not immune to take advantage of said "leg up" and we're most likely to point it out loudly but lets not dilute it into " we're all in the same boat" or deny it altogether which has been the MO on some threads regarding the issue on DU
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Let's just all get oppressed equally, would that make you happy?
Or how about we all stand together to stop our oppression instead of bickering about who has it worse?
uponit7771
(93,505 posts)I don't think pointing at the disparities is an indication that we're not together, we're all going to learn...there are some people who are going to deny it all together because of lack of facts.
What I like about talking to progressives is facts matter more to them....
KKKons....not so much
Aerows
(39,961 posts)but it's kind of like dwelling on the fact that somebody has a better position in the sweat shop because they can occasionally get fresh air when the door opens rather than working to end sweat shop conditions for everyone.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the 24-7 discourse of degradation, as evidenced in TV shows like "Judge Judy," drug tests for aid recipients, scapegoating of "privileged" public workers with "outrageous" benefits (which conveniently disappear the fact that blacks are disproportionately employed as public workers), etc.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)"But it's not my fault" or "I have it bad, too, so shut up."
"You have it better than me, so until I have it just as good or bad as you do, you are part of the problem!"
Food for thought. I'm gay and a woman, so I most certainly understand the concept of people with privileges I don't have.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)The first priority in a situation where there is racism is not the feelings of the oppressive group.
It shouldn't be or nothing would ever change.
If people personalize accurate generalizations about the group they are in, that is their boundary problem.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and there is homophobia, that's just fine, but racism is a far bigger problem? Do you know how many gay and transgender people get bashed in this country every year? I don't think there is an LGBT person in the US that wasn't either bashed themselves, witnessed someone get bashed or knew someone who was bashed. We won't even go into civil rights issues gay people face.
My point is this - complaining that one subset of oppressed people gets better treatment than another subset of oppressed people is silly, and so is pointing fingers at each other.
We need to look for the ways to unite so that we can help each other all move past the bigotry and oppression, whatever oppression it may be, rather than look for reasons to stay divided.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)and not rooted in anything I have posted.
Your second point, one set of oppressed people complaining about another set of oppressed people, is also inaccurate. The fingering of white privilege is the rational observation of the status quo in this county since its inception. If you can't accept that, that is not a problem with the observation.
And as I already said, the first step toward standing together is not telling other people to shut up.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It is a societal problem in that we have an entrenched aristocracy that does mostly contain white men with all of the power. It's oligarchy. The biggest way to change that is through financial opportunity for all, not just the upper class, their cronies and sycophants.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)You may not find race or ethnicity a compelling viewpoint but that's your bias. And in attempting to invalidate that viewpoint, you are siding with the oligarchy and not with the people.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'll take my privileged self and exit this entire thread since it appears that I am too bigoted, privileged and part of the oligarchy to understand the plight of oppressed people.
Feel free to disregard any of my comments, since I am far too privileged to take part in the discussion.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We need to fight for the 99% and stand our ground. You have my total support!
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)on racism because racism is only one slice of the oppression pie. And that's what Aerows was doing. Read those posts again.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)But you can't spray the termites and hope they go away. You have to go back to the nest and kill the queen. The queen is the Plutocracy.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)This is absolutely my last post in this thread, but I do have to respond to your comments EFerrari.
What you are accusing me of is racism by saying that I am invalidating the struggles against racism.
If in my near 7500 posts, mostly in general discussion THAT is the conclusion you come to about me, my motives for posting in this thread, and who I am in general, well you are welcome to your opinion.
I'll say this though - I think it says more about you than it does about me if you are accusing me of being a racist and attempting to invalidate or excuse racism.
Now, this is absolutely my last post here. Sorry to those who thought I made good points - I'm not going to hang around in a thread where I am being insulted, and I think I've been insulted enough in this thread when I have nothing but the best intentions regarding the DU community and the issues that are important to us.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Not even close.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)There's no "but." What you say reminds me of the saying about someone's two broken legs doesn't make my broken arm hurt less; as a disabled woman, I've had a small piece of the Discrimination Pie, but I know many others get a much bigger slice far more often - and having had that taste in my mouth, it makes me angry that anyone else does. We all have much more in common than we are different. All of us (in general - no fingers pointed except at myself) need to stop letting ourselves be distracted by these tiny differences - either manufactured or real.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And it tastes much worse when there are people attempting to agitate a cohesive community like DU to further political gains.
We have such elements here, apparently, and it pisses me off that I was scolded by such and taken in by it.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)I agree with the approach you are suggesting. As I black male, even I know that fighting issues like the drug war, bank bailout etc is infinitely more important than fighting racism but some irrelevant smuck who calls me names. We need to focus on the really big picture here.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...the exact goal of this argument. Spot on!
In fact, it's the argument used to invalidate policies to address discrimination.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)uponit7771
(93,505 posts)...legislations
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And we have to fight against that.
It doesn't mean we give up on other fights, though.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Don't know why I didn't see it before, and sorry I blasted you with venom before I did. Was just looking over this thread
. You are alright Prosense, and sincere.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Indeed, you are quite correct and I suggest you look in the mirror.
And women and minorities were reminded at these occupy encampments that many people still haven't unpacked all their privilege. It's hard to stand together shoulder to shoulder with someone while they're reminding you of their higher status.
It's not that people are "bickering over who has it worse", its that we're trying to get to the point where we're actually standing together.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and I'm a lesbian. I'm not the one who made a post complaining that other people have it better or worse than me. I made the post that we need to stand together, not be divided and oppressed, however much we are oppressed.
I think that is a good reminder for us all.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)Aerows is right - we absolutely must stand together to even get started wiping out privilege and racism and sexism and classism and all the other isms.
Redqueen is right in that we absolutely must point it out when someone isn't getting it.
I am a straight, white male who was raised in a fundamentalist, christian home. I have privileges and bias built into me I don't even know about.
I didn't ask for them but I got them.
I don't deserve them but I got them.
I don't know I have some of them and I bet I've used them even if it just means someone else treated me better than one of you because I am all these things.
I need help people. I WANT to be right. I WANT to do the right thing. I WANT to behave correctly but I have had people all my life treat me like a white, straight male. I am not ashamed that I'm white or straight or male. I couldn't help any of those things. But I WANT to be ashamed if and when I ever use any of those things to get a leg up over someone else just because I am those things. I know I don't always recognize so I hope people like you folks will always be there to keep pointing it out.
I am a liberal Democrat because I do not believe most modern Republicans even have the decency to admit there might be a problem.
Anyone unwilling to face ALL the truths, even ugly ones, is doing life wrong.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"white privilege" is used primarily as a stick with which to poke individuals or fight it out for resources in a zero-sum game, i don't think things will change, just intensify.
King was assassinated when he moved to the discourse of economic justice for all and the organization of a multiracial coalition of the poor.
Number23
(24,544 posts)But I'm always fascinated by the DU Story that "King was only assassinated after he moved to the discourse of economic justice for all."
What does this mean and why is DU just about the only place in the entire world that I've heard people make these comments? Are we supposed to believe that MLK was killed not for his work as a black rights activist (the work that made him a household name, the work that garnered him a Nobel Prize, the work for WHICH HE WAS KILLED) but for his positions MUCH later in his career as an activist when he started speaking about expanding economic justice for everyone?
The entire raison d'etre of King's existence was "economic justice." I am always astounded when whites on this board conclude that his positions on the garbage workers was some kind of "shift" for him. King was ALL ABOUT economic and social justice for everybody, but that began and mostly ended with black people. The man OPENLY WEPT when he discussed making life better for little black girls and boys. This was his mission. What do you think the race of those sanitation workers mostly were? Heck, what race do you think is over represented in the sanitation industry TODAY in 2012?
Every time I see the "he wasn't killed until he began to move away from just focusing on black rights" it's all I can do not to laugh. It is not only insulting but it shows a profound ignorance, imo. King was REVILED by whites. White people called him the anti-Christ. A communist. A "black devil." But yet somehow, according to some on DU, it wasn't until he began expanding his message to include poor whites that TPTB suddenly decided he was a threat. For every white person that may have been receptive to King's message, there were probably 87,000 that wanted nothing to do with him. His work stopping the apartheid in the South is generally held as the reason he was assassinated. His message of economic and social justice expanded to all, but it BEGAN and held the highest priority with his own people.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)King was reviled by whites, but when he embarked on his anti-poverty campaign he pissed off an even more dangerous group: the Plutocrats.
Look at the time he was assassinated, and what he was doing. HiPointDem is right.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I wouldn't believe you if you said it was 5:30 after having just looked at your watch.
I am intimately familiar with King and his history which is why I asked the poster the question. And my comment was not directed to you in any way.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It's apparent that what you believe matters very little in the rational world.
Your familiarity with Dr. King, Jr. and his history is probably just as solid as whatever facts you dreamed up when you claimed that abolitionist whites weren't the mainstream even up to the outbreak of the Civil War.
So what if your comment wasn't directed to me? Your familiarity with Dr. King is probably as strong as your understanding that anyone can reply to any comment you make to someone here.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2012, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)
So don't bother responding to me. I will put as much thought into reading your posts as you did into writing them. Which is to say, absolutely none at all.
Edit: Totally appropriate and well-deserved insults removed.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Temper, temper! I have facts. And cites, which you do not have.
http://www.channel3000.com/news/30224515/detail.html
MLK Spent His Last Days Fighting Poverty
Martin Luther King Jr.: Poverty Is A Civil Rights Battle
By Stephanie SiekCNN
Posted: 1:48 pm CST January 16, 2012
Updated: 3:08 pm CST January 16, 2012
Now where are your cites to the contrary? Oh I know, in your roid-fueled rage you must have lost your bookmarks. Or some other excuse for why you have no counter argument.
Edit: At this rate maybe you'll wait FOREVER for a response from HiPointDem or any other rational person. I may be the only person willing to put up with your meltdowns.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2012, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)
For the record, I will reiterate what I said to the OTHER POSTER, you know the one I'm actually interested in having a conversation with:
"The entire raison d'etre of King's existence was "economic justice." I am always astounded when whites on this board conclude that his positions on the garbage workers was some kind of "shift" for him. King was ALL ABOUT economic and social justice for everybody, but that began and mostly ended with black people. The man OPENLY WEPT when he discussed making life better for little black girls and boys. This was his mission. What do you think the race of those sanitation workers mostly were? Heck, what race do you think is over represented in the sanitation industry TODAY in 2012?"
The only thing worse than your deranged, completely out of control behavior in this thread is the rec count. Classic!!
Edit: Removed insults. Anyone reading this thread can see that I'm dealing with a very special individual and it's best not to be too unkind.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)That sentence doesn't mean what you think it does. You seriously need to step back, take a chill pill, and rethink your rants.
And that other poster? I'd be surprised if s/he wants to talk to you after the crybaby fits, caps-filled ragefests and frothing meltdowns you've had.
You wrote "YOU are the one that can't let my moniker go by without responding" but downthread you also wrote "You are not worth and will not receive one more millisecond of my time." You have no idea what a hypocrite you are by writing that.
And how about this. Why don't you try counting the number of people who call me an idiot and I will count the number of people who agree with me. Let's see which number is higher. It's already a foregone conclusion that your "2/3 is against Zalatix" is a wild eyed fantasy.
I'm curious why you DON'T acknowledge that he was shot during his campaign for economic justice.
I read what you had to say, but it amounted to insulting economic justice, and MLK's devotion to it. Ghandi had a similar approach.
Step up to the plate and tell us how horrible that approach to life is. I want to hear it, so I know what your values truly are.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Why bother responding? And the arrogant challenge within your post in response to a post which you obviously didn't bother to read or didn't understand is absolutely priceless.
I'm curious why you DON'T acknowledge that he was shot during his campaign for economic justice.
Name one element, one cause, one march, one ANYTHING in relation to the Civil Rights Movement that was NOT about economic justice along with social justice, civil and basic rights. Wasn't the thrust of the ENTIRE Civil Rights Movement about economic parity among other things?
And I won't bother asking what your values are. I'm really not that interested.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)But I'll bite. Rather than telling you what my values are, I'll SHOW them and not berate you on a message board. Show me yours, because ultimately, that is what defines us as human beings. What we do - not what we say we believe.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Really.
And I have no interest in berating you on a message board. You initiated this because you couldn't understand the point I made to another poster three weeks ago and instead of simply asking for clarification, decided to edict some meaningless challenge.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I will always care about them. It is unfortunate that you see no need for values. I hope you turn from that path because it is a desolate one.
Peace be with you.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'm Aerows. Not the originator of the post, never an impostor, and if you believe I am a strange sock puppet, cher, you are wildly mistaken.
I am a donor to the site, have contributed to the site, and was a volunteer for this site. If you think for one second that you can call me anyone but who I am to this site, step up to the plate. I think you are projecting on that one, if you want the truth.
The ball is in your court, cher.
Number23
(24,544 posts)This entire exchange has been as idiotic as it is pointless.
I don't have the first clue what you're talking about with this "sock puppet" stuff and the "cher" references but please believe me when I tell you that as out of the blue and nonsensical as your comments are, they STILL don't interest me and neither do you or your "values" which you feel compelled to challenge people over for no reason. With all of that "cher" mess, you either you think I'm a fantastic 70s pop singer or you're Gambit from The X Men.
Either way, I am out the door. If you're looking for drama, you'll have to search elsewhere. Best of luck to you and whatever the hell all of this foolishness was about.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I would have advised that.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Yes, that's obviously the only human being that originated from Southern Louisiana. Certainly no one else came from there.
You may wish to evaluate your values - making fun of people - and your ideals if you think that poking fun at me will win you any esteem.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And posting nonsensical gibberish to people who have no idea who you are and issuing idiotic challenges over values because you have nothing better to do. Nothing you have posted -- and I mean NOTHING -- has made even the slightest bit of sense or been even the tiniest bit interesting. And yet, you keep posting -- in duplicate even -- to me even though it is apparent that you have absolutely nothing to say.
I'm not poking fun at you. I am telling you exactly what I see in your posts. And it ain't nothing "fun" or even "funny" about it. I TRULY wish you would leave alone.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)nonsesical tripe is a bad thing to post.
Have a pleasant evening, cher.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Even if it is only a reiteration of something I've noted. No matter. I'll take an end to this idiocy any way I can take it.
Brooklyn Dame
(169 posts)If people don't first acknowledge that, even in the trenches, some are 'more equal than others', then we're not going to truly stand together fight for common goals. There's discrimination that needs to be addressed on so many levels (and in areas that people don't commonly think of). Let's work on those and then battle the 1%.
http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/04/flying-solo/
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)What you don't realize is it is the Plutocracy that is creating these inequalities.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"Let's just all get oppressed equally, would that make you happy? "
...not about that. It's about trivializing oppression and using it as a red herring to create the impression that those responsible for the oppression are also oppressed, equating the 99% with "white men are being oppressed."
This is no different from that bogus argument pushed by Jim Webb. It's bullshit.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'm also not going to sit here and say that homophobia isn't ALSO a rampant problem.
Beyond that, I'm also not going to get into an argument over which type of oppressed group has it better, because we have to unite to overcome it.
I didn't say that "white men are being oppressed". I did say that many of us are oppressed for different reasons. Tell me, do you think that a mentally ill homeless white man isn't being oppressed by the system in some way, or are you going to envy that person because he's a white male? How about the white gay male that gets beaten nearly to death on the street, but gets no justice - is he still privileged because he's a white man?
That was my point.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I didn't say that "white men are being oppressed".
...the point, and the OP did say "white men are being oppressed."
The point is that someone is doing the oppressing, and almost every form of oppression, including income inequality, is driven mostly by white men.
Look at the group driving anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and anti-women sentiments, they are mostly white men. The division that's needed to continue oppression is being driven by white men. I guarantee that if white men were to suddenly change their position on these issues, oppression as it now see it would begin to be reversed.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Have any intention of relinquishing one bit of their power if we as a society don't come together and FORCE them to do so?
I don't. That's what the Occupy movement has been about, and it's a good foundation. That's what I meant by my comments about us working together, and what I also think the OP meant.
"Do you think the wealthy oligarchs"
...are they?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If you don't want to read the link, here is the short of it: When the European powers invaded Africa (the "Scramble for Africa"
In so doing, they separated peoples and as a result they pitted many peoples against each other. The European powers would play favorites, giving privileges to one group while breeding resentment against them by other groups. As a result the given area would be divided against each other while the Europeans scored their plunder.
This is happening RIGHT NOW on a much larger scale. The world has been taken over by the Capitalists and everyone is being divided against each other, with whites and males being treated as the favored class du jour. In 2030 it has been EXPLICITLY stated that there will be a big fat Plutocrat global cashout and all those favored classes can kiss their asses goodbye along with everyone else.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I need to remind you of a lesson: the dividing up of Africa"
Do we live in Africa?
In so doing, they separated peoples and as a result they pitted many peoples against each other. The European powers would play favorites, giving privileges to one group while breeding resentment against them by other groups. As a result the given area would be divided against each other while the Europeans scored their plunder.
This is happening RIGHT NOW on a much larger scale. The world has been taken over by the Capitalists and everyone is being divided against each other, with whites and males being treated as the favored class du jour. In 2030 it has been EXPLICITLY stated that there will be a big fat Plutocrat global cashout and all those favored classes can kiss their asses goodbye along with everyone else.
I heard there was once slavery in this country. And how exactly does "whites and males being treated as the favored class du jour" fit with "white men are being oppressed"? In fact, who is treating them as the "favored class du jour"? Herman Cain?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It flourished in Africa but now the same tribalism is being exploited all over the world wherever Capitalism flourishes.
The Plutocracy picks tribal factions all over the place to serve as favorites and as the oppressed. In India it's much more overt in the form of the caste system. Here it's white men, who don't have to worry about being marginalized. But working class white men who did nothing to anyone are also under attack with "Hate whitey" rhetoric - this nobody can deny.
Many white men (not all) are guilty of ignoring racial profiling because they're privileged not to have to go through that. Many non-white people make racist jokes about whites, which is offensive to all the white people who did nothing to harm anyone. BOTH sides are ignorant of the fact that the problem is the PLUTOCRACY that has us all divided.
Since you're not getting it I'll repeat. Large numbers of white men need to understand that non-whites suffer from marginalization, racial profiling and a host of other white-centric discrimination. Large numbers of minorities need to focus their rage NOT on the millions of white men who have done absolutely nothing to oppress minorities. BOTH sides need to know that white privilege is a social construct created by the PLUTOCRACY.
This lesson needs to be learned and repeated between men and women, Christians and non-Christians, union and non-union workers, Americans and immigrants, and so on.
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)They're largely white and male. Yes, they have wives and children but still, that's the way it is. NPR just did a piece on this within the last couple of months.
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)Autumn
(48,871 posts)very true that the 99% of us are being oppressed. This goes beyond race or gender.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...white men are being so oppressed that they make more money than their counterparts in every economic category.
The net worth of white men is equivalent to the $5 net worth of black women.
False BS equivalency much?
The problem with your argument is that much of this inequality and oppression is being driven by white men, including many who are not in the top one percent.
Good grief.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Now you've got it. BUT there are white men that are willing to stand with the rest of us that aren't white men, and pushing away their help in standing in unity with the rest of us is counterproductive.
Some people get that, some people don't seem to get it yet.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Some people get that, some people don't seem to get it yet.
...doesn't change the fact that they are driving the oppression. In fact, the entire argument falls apart under than logic there are people among the top one percent who stand with the 99 percent.
That's not the point. The point is oppression is being driven by white men, as it always has been.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)THE point is we are all mostly getting fucked over and need to stand together to gain ground. THat was the point of the OP. But as usual you needed to make it YOUR point.. and your point is: "WHITE MEN DID IT".
Yes they did. But not all of them and you are a fool for throwing away the support of those willing to stand with you. And you are throwing it away with YOUR POINT which is.... WHITE MEN DID IT!
Oh and by the way pay a visit to some countries in Africa where "BLACK MEN DID IT."
Or check out history where WOMEN DID IT..
Oppressors through out history have come in every size, shape, color and gender. Grow up. The USA is not the only country on the planet.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yes they did. But not all of them and you are a fool for throwing away the support of those willing to stand with you. And you are throwing it away with YOUR POINT which is.... WHITE MEN DID IT!
...disjointed comment..
Or check out history where WOMEN DID IT..
"Black men" in Africa are oppressing us?
WTF?
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Quote you: "That's not the point. The point is oppression is being driven by white men, as it always has been."
As it ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
BULLSHIT It's not always WHITE MEN doing the oppressing. You claimed it was. Pardon me if you actually meant that YOU were always oppressed by white men. Or that you were only talking about America. See I never thought this thread was about you I thought it was about fighting oppression in general.
However you came in and decided it wasn't about getting together to fight oppression, you decided it was about "white men are always the oppressors, always have been". You posted it, you said it, and when someone actually tried to tell you that not all white men are like that and that you shouldn't ignore their help you had to come back with "oppression is being driven by white men, as it always has been." You couldn't even admit that not all white men are out to oppress you.
Now please go ahead and tell me you are still confused. It's a cute ploy.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Who cares whether it's been white men who are doing the oppressing. It's not relevant.
The white male has been picked by the Plutocracy as the golden child. When they get ready to cash out the white male will be the redheaded stepchild like everyone else.
Most Plutocrats HAPPEN to be white. But they are not loyal to whites. They are loyal to green. 99% of all whites will get flushed down the toilet when they're done, along with everyone else.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)As it ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
BULLSHIT It's not always WHITE MEN doing the oppressing. You claimed it was. Pardon me if you actually meant that YOU were always oppressed by white men. Or that you were only talking about America. See I never thought this thread was about you I thought it was about fighting oppression in general.
...makes no sense. In this country, the slave owners were white men. The institutions are still owned by white men.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Eight percent of American families owned slaves on the eve of the Civil War. Even in the South, slave-owners were the minority.
The slave owners were *rich* white men. Not to mention Spanish men and Jewish men, and occasionally black men, and occasionally women from all the categories above. The thing they had in common was generally that they were wealthier than average, with the majority of slaves held by the very wealthy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Jewish is a race?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"Spanish" isn't a race either, but it's an ethnicity/nationality that hasn't always been coextensive with "white".
For that matter, "race" itself is kind of an invented category without firm basis in physical facts.
But way to ignore the content in favor of your silly little jabs, as usual.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"For that matter, "race" itself is kind of an invented category without firm basis in physical facts."
...if we could get rid of the invention of "race," there would be no racism, and no white men, only ethnicity/nationality, you know, like Spanish men and Jewish men.
"But way to ignore the content in favor of your silly little jabs, as usual."
Maybe it's because the "content" is silly.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Contra your cartoon pictures of history and its relation to the present.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Contra your cartoon pictures of history and its relation to the present.
...that clearly proves that white men are oppressed!
bart95
(488 posts)they were to have owned slaves in the first place, even if they had nothing to do with slavery in the first place, their entire lives
new figures show over 700,000 dead
25 million white population in 1861
700,000/25,000,000 = .028 percent vs 8 percent
and countless more injured, and years of service given by people who werent injured
yet, decendents of all are 'guilty'
even if their ancestors came after the war was over
(by definition, if your ancestors saw the statue of liberty when they came here, they came decades after the war)
...the debate seems to have taken a statistical turn away from oppression.
Do you have statistic to correlate how many whites died trying to end slavery compared to how many blacks/slaves died or were killed?
Next up: whites had it harder than slaves.
bart95
(488 posts)because upon their arrival in the late 1850s to the non slave north, they did not achieve dictatorial powers the moment they arrived to end slavery.
bart95
(488 posts)at 82,000 posts
figure 10 minutes per post = 13,666 hours
2000 working hours in a year
13,666/2000 = 6.8 years - on this site alone
'pro' indeed!
Number23
(24,544 posts)And that relates to the 400 year old issue of racial and gender inequality in America.... how, exactly??
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)does not negate the fact that some white men are being oppressed. however, it is true that the 1% is mostly white and male. and there is nothing divisive or controversial about saying that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)First, make sure you read all of the OPs comments. And then when you're done either laughing or weeping for the state of this nation, hit trash thread and don't come back. It is TRULY not worth it.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)we are all being oppressed by the 1%...i have no problem with that notion. however, that doesn't negate the isms others face. i doubt that the murderer in oklahoma is a kazillionaire, and i don't think he's targeted black people because we have oppressed him.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)gee, its too bad that we are forcing them to side with our common oppressors, isn't it?
It's too bad we can't elect more progressive Dems. It'd be nice if our fellow oppressed citizens would help out with that.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And frankly, the oligarchy and the entrenched aristocracy which mostly consists of white men, their cronies and sycophants have a very tight grip on us all, and everyone who wants to change the situation.
It's a societal problem And frankly, the oligarchy and the entrenched aristocracy which mostly consists of white men, their cronies and sycophants have a very tight grip on us all, and everyone who wants to change the situation.
...at the composition of Congress. Look at the Governorships. There is only one black Governor, MA, and he cannot run for re-election.
Who does the oligarchy use to carry out its agenda: white men.
bart95
(488 posts)it'd be even nicer if the party didnt sell us out with globalism
redqueen
(115,186 posts)*more progressive*
Clearer?
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)have no choice in this society but to be survives. They are no programs, no charities, no shelters that are created to carter to then when they run into trouble. Its every white man for himself and that is why their adaption leads them to be hard working, independent and strong. If they dared mess up, they very likely to end up homeless or committing suicide. Its not a easy life but somehow they make it seem so easy.
If I could be turned into anything, I wouldn't turn into a white man, I would instead turn into a beautiful white woman. Now that's one group that got it good
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I think I'm going to read the Hunger Games books now!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)All forms of oppression, except perhaps the religulously motivated, come down to economics. The attempt to apply (twist, actually), the Marxist analysis to sub-groups both dilutes the core of Marx's universalist critique and serves as another way to set oppressed group against oppressed group.
The key lesson to be taken from Marx is that everything, and the Rock means everything, comes down to economic exploitation of the masses by the capitalist 1% class.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Americans have only been taught the story from a solely religious perspective. "These people just believed something different about god than those people, and were persecuted..." Pablum.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The key is that he used those subgroups to explicitly pit them against one another, whereas practical progressivism tries to solve issues within subgroups because society as a whole is not going to magically change. White people aren't suddenly going to refuse the privileges that they have based upon their cultural place in society. I'm not going to, for example, tell the cashier to check my $20 bill after having just checked the $20 bill of the colored person in front of me. I'm going to sigh as they put the $20 bill in the register without even giving it a second thought and maybe hate myself a little for noticing that and not using it as an opportunity to teach a lesson, because the cashier probably wouldn't even know what they did, and I'm timid in real life.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)that regardless of whose more downtrodden, we need to work together, the 99%, to get anything worthwhile done, and if we do that together, there's a higher chance we'll stay together in the future as we grow, keeping those benefits and future stresses much more equal across all perceived lines.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The only group that truly has privilege, in my humble opinion, is straight, white, wealthy, christian males.
Everyone else has aspects of their background or microeconomics that cause them to be a certain distance away from the privileged group. It does no good for a middle class straight white woman to accuse a middle class straight black male, or middle class gay white male of having 'male privilege'. Those three groups are all pretty equidistant away from the privileged group. The black man could respond that the woman has white privilege and the gay man could reply that the woman has straight privilege. None of those accusations are helpful.
It becomes more complicated when you try to compare people with a mix of different races, gender, LGBT status and wealth.
Nor does the amount of privilege or lack of it mean that anyone is necessarily good or bad or necessarily going to be a success or failure. I know plenty of straight, white, wealthy, christian males that are great people. I know folks who started far from the privileged group who have become very happy and financially successful.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)"I'm so outraged that my oppression is worse than your oppression that your oppression doesn't count!"
This scam only works because we are all so angry and so we spread the misery around. I know I've done it and I see others do it every day.
How often have you seen someone rage about the fact that the parasite class is not 100% white? The guilty are mostly men and mostly white, but is that because they are white and male, or is it because they have been in the game longer? The worst company I ever worked for was owned and run by a woman, a white woman that was born into the parasite class and used that advantage to create a company that breaks almost every labor law in this nation every day. A company that steals from its clients, its workers, and the government, yet is never prosecuted because every investigation is killed by those to whom she has connections.
Yes, it's worse if you are brown, and it's even worse if you are a woman, and worse still if you are a brown woman. And if you are that brown woman, is your oppression inflicted on you by the brown man? Maybe in your case it is, but if you keep going up the chain you're going to find one of these parasites that has been oppressing everybody for generations, and getting more and more powerful that whole time while you're concentrating your rage on the asshole right above you.
Just who is that white guy that has been laid off for the fourth time in this, his third career, oppressing?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...oppression is natural, and white men are innocent, they're only victims of their circumstance.
What bullshit!
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)is part of the problem.
He has acknowleged the reality of "white privilege" (or minority disprivilege) clearly in his post, but you pretend he's said something entirely the opposite.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Except the poster didn't say any of that. And this refusal to address the kind of points he makes"
It's a direct quote, and my comment. You can apply your own meaning to the direct quote, but that is how I read it.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)All I can say is that his post overtly contradicts your "interpretation".
ProSense
(116,464 posts)All I can say is that his post overtly contradicts your "interpretation".
...at least you acknowledge the direct quote. Like I said, you can interpret it in your own way. I say it's bullshit.
I mean, the poster is agreeing with the OP, and if you haven't noticed, I don't agree.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the interpretation is directly contradicted by the words themselves.
Unless you're arguing for your own private linguistics, the post directly contradicts your "interpretation".
Everything is not just a matter of opinion.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the interpretation is directly contradicted by the words themselves.
Unless you're arguing for your own private linguistics, the post directly contradicts your "interpretation".
Everything is not just a matter of opinion.
...it appears you're arguing that your interpretation is the right interpretation. I mean, "linguistics"? Really?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)White men have been selected by the Plutocracy to be their vessels of domination. The time will come when that is totally undone. That I can guarantee you.
The color that really matters with the Plutocracy is green.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The color that really matters with the Plutocracy is green.
...making statements that attempt to separate white men from the "Plutocracy."
I mean, when income inequality wasn't as bad as it is now, say 40 years ago, who were the oppressors? You talk as if something has changed since then with regard to the driving force.
Again, your entire argument is to trivialize the plight of the truly oppressed with a false equivalency. Yes, the poor come in all stripes. Yes, there is a huge gap between the 99 percent and the top on percent, but that doesn't change the fact that white men are driving the oppression.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Are you a Plutocrat? Are any of the white men you know a part of the Plutocracy? No. Chances are 100% of the white men you know are struggling like everyone else. MAYBE LESS SO, but still, the axe can fall at any moment upon any one of them.
Herman Cain ain't white.
They're predicting a global depression and population crash in 2030. This is a big fat setup, ProSense. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/next-great-depression-mit-researchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html
White people may be better off today, but when 2030 hits and the Plutocracy starts cashing humanity out with a whole slew of manufactured (read: PHONY) shortages, 99% of all whites will be the (racist word of the day) along with everyone else. It won't mean a hill of beans whether whites have it better than blacks - we'll all be flushed out.
Are you a Plutocrat? Are any of the white men you know a part of the Plutocracy? No. Chances are 100% of the white men you know are struggling like everyone else. MAYBE LESS SO, but still, the axe can fall at any moment upon any one of them.
Herman Cain ain't white.
They're predicting a global depression and population crash in 2030. This is a big fat setup, ProSense. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/next-great-depression-mit-researchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html
White people may be better off today, but when 2030 hits and the Plutocracy starts cashing humanity out with a whole slew of manufactured (read: PHONY) shortages, 99% of all whites will be the (racist word of the day) along with everyone else. It won't mean a hill of beans whether whites have it better than blacks - we'll all be flushed out.
So "Herman Cain ain't white" means that blacks are the oppressors? First, I'm not white and not male.
See, that's your entire point: White men are oppressed because some white men are struggling. It's a false equivalency because in an all white nation, there would be people struggling.
Let's discuss the myth of white privilege.
From the OP:
So are black men, gays, white women, straight people, black women, religious folks, Hispanic men and women, atheists... in fact, all of America's working class, 99% of our population, is being oppressed.
You see, that's not a "we're all in this together statement" because you used the title to invalidate notion that white men are the oppressors and to invalidate the struggles of other groups as equivalent. You were making a point about income inequality, but you made the emphasis a false equivalency. Like I said up thread, it's the same argument used by white men to attack policies that address discrimination and inequality.
Our guest blogger is Sam Fulwood III, a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Maybe Sen. James Webb, the Democratic senator from Virginia, didnt understand that what he was saying made him sound like a mossback from the last century. In a bizarre and unfortunate opinion article published in Fridays Wall Street Journal. Im being charitable because surely the Democratic senator from Virginia didnt mean to sound as bigoted as the article makes him seem. No, surely he wasnt arguing that white Americans suffer from federal policies that favor everyone but themselves.
Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs, Webb wrote, arguing for a retreat from those unspecified federal programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.
Beyond being grossly ignorant about the current effects of what he calls present-day diversity programs, Webb is engaging in reckless racial inversion. While he carefully exculpates black Americans, whom he describes as still in need, Webb makes a scurrilous case that white Americans southerners and Baptists, in particular are being harmed by nonwhite groups who receive special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts. His solution is a call for white people to unite and end government directed diversity programs.
Clearly, Webb is unaware that affirmative actions programs have been effectively dismantled by the Supreme Court. But worse, hes oblivious to the fact that his screed treads dangerously close to the discredited divide-and-conqueror tactics of the Southern strategy. In this new formation, Webb pits the sweeping and swelling segments of Americas immigrant population against native-born Americans with the aim of rallying the nations white cultures.
If he thinks this is a necessary step toward racial healing, especially after the week the nations just had, then hes even more misguided than his article reveals. Somebody, perhaps one of his congressional colleagues, needs to tell Sen.Webb to get his head out of the last, sad epoch of covert racist talk and join the rest of America in the 21st century.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/23/webb-wsj/
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)The plutocracy. Same as it's ever been.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The plutocracy. Same as it's ever been."
...the "plutocracy" owned slaves.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"I'll add another point: This conceptualization of "white privilege" actually disappears its main movers & beneficiaries.
I don't deny that there's something like "white skin privilege" that applys to white americans generally, as well as something like "black skin disprivilege" that we see in cases like Trayvon Martin's.
But in the place of a more pointed analysis, the idea of "white privilege" offers a narrative of diffuse collective guilt, not necessarily for *doing* anything in particular, but just for being born white. That provides lots of fodder for serious racists and nazis and is in that sense seriously counter-productive. So lets look a little deeper.
Profits from the slave system built the elite universities and financed the industrial revolution and the railroads, generating more profits which continue to finance the expansion of capital in the present day. And the people who profited, and continue to profit from that capital, aren't, by in large, your average working joe. They're today's upper classes. But we're not often encouraged to think about those connections.
Some examples of what I'm talking about:
Brown Brothers (now Brown Brothers Harriman) made bank on slavery -- major cotton broker, financed plantations, owned slaves as tradeable goods. Offices in NY, Baltimore, Liverpool and Philadelphia -- all locations related to the trade in slaves and slave-produced goods. The slave system generated vast wealth for the partners. They invested it and made more money, and their descendants after them, and new partners (like Prescott Bush) that came into that nexus of capital.
Do THESE people accept any guilt, any charge of "white privilege"? Not at all:
Donald Murphy, a partner, says the investment bank has no pre-Civil War records and sees no need to go through its records. "As an institution, I and my partners could look you in the eye and say we abhor that slavery ever existed in this or any other country. And yet I don't feel qualified to comment on practices and actions of a different society of 175 years ago," he says.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-brown-bros.htm
Nothing to do with *him*. All so long ago.
A couple of other random examples (there are many):
The Roosevelts' initial fortune came from the sugar business, back in the days of Dutch NY and colonial times. Slaves in the west indies grew the cane, and slaves in NY (about 20% of NY's population at the time) refined the sugar.
Isaac Roosevelt helped found the Bank of NY with the profits, and that bank undoubtably financed other slave-related ventures. Bank of NY was the first corporate stock traded on the NY stock exchange.
The Bushes benefited from slavery through their ancestors, the Fays. Prescott Bush's grandpa James married Harriet Fay. Her father was a Savannah cotton broker, and so were two of his brothers; the house was Padelford and Fay, circa 1820-1858. It was a US agent for Baring Brothers, which at the time was the second-biggest financial house in the world. The Quaker Barings had made a lot of their money financing -- what else -- the slave trade.
There's even a bit of evidence that the Fays themselves might have had some direct involvement in the slave trade.
For example, the Wanderer was the last known ship to bring slaves to the US. Harriet Fay Bush's uncle Joseph Story Fay acted as agent and guarantor for Charles Lamar (the ship's owner) when the ship was seized -- and the Fays and Lamars had personal and business connections that went back to Charles Lamar's grandfather.
The Fays were originally from Massachusetts. The family got involved in business in Georgia (steamboats and shipping to begin with) at about the same time that their cousin Eli Whitney (Yalie and second cousin of Harriet's great grandpa Jonathan, both born in the same town of under 1000 people) started ginning cotton there.
The cotton gin "boomed" the South, and those who got in on the action early, as usual, did best. The Fays invested their cotton profits in the northern textile industry and railroads, among other things.
James Smith Bush's marriage to Harriet Fay connected the Bushes to national and international business interests, rather than the merely regional ones they'd been associated with up to then. I peg it as the beginning of their rise to real power.
Samuel Prescott Bush was the next generation, associated with railroads, Rockefellers, and Harrimans, chair of the War Industries Board and a board member of the Federal Reserve of Cleveland. Quite a leap for a preacher's son -- all due to his native talent, I'm sure.
Ever hear the Bushes apologizing for their white skin privilege? People like the Bushes have the privilege of never having to apologize for their privilege.
White skin privilege? No, they're the civil rights leaders of our time!
And education outcomes is the distinguishing feature between the haves and have-nots. I would argue that education reform should be the great civil rights challenge of this time.
http://www.theshorthorn.com/index.php/news/university/29772-former-florida-governor-jeb-bush-discusses-educational-reform-and-politics
There's a reality to "white privilege," just as there's a reality to "pointy-headed elites," but the way those concepts are used in popular discourse is often diversionary, divisive, and counter-productive.
On edit: The present-day failure to point out which class was the creator and major beneficiary of the slave system, in favor of a diffused narrative of "white privilege" is telling, as is the tendency of many liberals to ignore that point, as ProSense did in her response to this post.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)thanks for the list of white men and pointing out that the country was built on slavery.
I did not know that!
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"own interpretation" to my post. It had nothing to do with pointing out that the country was built on slavery by white men.
There are several reasons I can think of for your repeated misinterpretation. I won't list them, but they're pretty obvious.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)understood your point, it's a long excuse.
In fact, this part was interesting
Yeah, and I got the "examples."
You see, any excuse will do: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=522460
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)ridiculous that the only suitable response is uproarious laughter.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)all means, laugh. I suspect it's part of the facade.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)sure.
That's so contra-reality that there's no point in discussion.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)your conclusion is the exact opposite of what I said, so let me clarify this for you.
Oppression is unnatural, rather it is the result of manipulation by oppressors.
The fact that most of those oppressors are white and male is not caused by being white or male, rather it the result of the imposition of oppression by evil people that are, mostly, white and male.
Mahatma Gandhi said, "A nation's culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people."
What is in your heart?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The fact that most of those oppressors are white and male is not caused by being white or male, rather it the result of the imposition of oppression by evil people that are, mostly, white and male.
...that clears it up. I mean, I know there is evil, and oppression is evil. The fact still remains, and you agree, the oppressors are "mostly, white and male," the evil ones.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)I get that you're angry, and justifiably so. But this is not about race or sex, it is about a tiny parasitic minority that has, for centuries, successfully manipulated most of us into blaming each other for what they do to us. While we fight each other, they just keep taking more and more.
There is more than enough for everyone, just not enough for the few to have so much more.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I get that you're angry, and justifiably so. But this is not about race or sex, it is about a tiny parasitic minority that has, for centuries, successfully manipulated most of us into blaming each other for what they do to us. While we fight each other, they just keep taking more and more.
There is more than enough for everyone, just not enough for the few to have so much more
...that's quite condescending. Again, trying to dismiss racism and sexism ("this is not about race or sex"
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)this/these issue(s). Rather, I want to point out that they are symptoms of a common disease.
You will never cure a disease by treating the symptoms. To cure the illness you have to heal the cause, and to heal the cause you must first identify it.
Haven't we been stuck in this cycle long enough? If not now, when? If not us, who?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)not all oppression comes from the same source and not all oppression will find redress in the same way. It's quite a bit more complicated than that.
I'm in the minority in being female, an atheist and from a working class background. You're suggesting I ignore sexism and religious chauvinism in order to address classism but even if I "succeed" at that I'm still treated as a minority on two out of three counts. How do I trade an increase in the minimum wage against abortion rights or separation of church and state?
Solving the problem of economic injustice (if such a thing is even possible) isn't automatically going to solve social, racial or religious injustice.
How can I get motivated to overthrow the WASP plutocracy by sacrificing my own interests to "unite" with white male straight fundamentalist Christians just so they can take over instead? Frankly, I think we're better off with the Mitt Romneys of the world than the Jim Bob Duggars.
Sorry, but this argument just reminds me of all the people telling gay people not to be "pushy" about marriage equality because "the time isn't right" or "we have bigger fish to fry". Asking other groups to set aside their pain and their history so that they can be a part of your "unifying" agenda is just wrong. Let people come to that decision on their own and on their own terms.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)gains will stick. Because economic injustice *positively requires* discriminated classes and groups.
And the plutocracy hasn't been exclusively WASP for a very long time, if it ever was (and it never was). Richest man in the world is currently a (Lebanese)-Latino, for example.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)gains will stick. Because economic injustice *positively requires* discriminated classes and groups.
And the plutocracy hasn't been exclusively WASP for a very long time, if it ever was (and it never was). Richest man in the world is currently a (Lebanese)-Latino, for example.
...telling people that all other oppression is irrelevant as long as there is no "economic justice." Really?
So when the minimum wage is raised to $20 per hour that means that blacks and women will suddenly get equal pay and gays will be allowed to marry?
Also, what's the point of this: "Richest man in the world is currently a (Lebanese)-Latino, for example"
Does that mean that anti-immigration sentiments are on the way out?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)is about a rise in the minimum wage? Where do I say or imply that because the plutocracy includes people of color, anti-immigration sentiments are on the way out?
I wish you'd give up your private language and make the effort to actually pay attention to the common language.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Where do I say that all other oppression is irrelevant?"
You said: "I'd argue that so long as the problem of economic justice isn't addressed or solved, no individual gains will stick."
In response to this comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=522601
So I assume that you're not saying that the issues pointed out there are not secondary to solving "the problem of economic justice"?
There is a certain circular logic and obfuscation to your argument.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Funny how we're fighting the battle of birth control again, eh? Why do you think that is?"
...last gasp of white men.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)by asking (for some reason always other) people to give up their needs and interests in order to form a "unified" front.
Riddle me this: what are straight white Christian men going to be giving up in order to join this crusade against the 1%? Let's say I start biting my tongue at women being called "bitches", condescending anti-abortion legislation, unequal pay, prayer in schools, pharmacists' "right" to deny contraception, atheists being described as "un-American" or not "patriotic", gay rights, stem cell research, right to die, funding for science and the arts, hate crime legislation, etc. How exactly is the other side "meeting me half-way"? And how do I get any of those things back once we've toppled the oligarchy and replaced it with the new majority (mostly white straight Christian middle class people instead of white straight Christian rich people)?
Instead of "unity" what about coalition? It's kind of in my interests to unite and kind of in my interests not to. What is the group prepared to offer/concede to non-straight white Christian men in order to secure their support? Because I honestly haven't heard any offers.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)as opposed to "unity," whatever you might mean by that.
I personally am mainly interested in a more nuanced discussion of privilege.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)Because as far as I can see, every single time marriage equality is brought up there are posters that say "not now... there are more important things to do... why can't we just unite around health care or the surge in Afghanistan or beating the next Republican, etc". And the same arguments are made (often by the same people) about women's health care, racism and religion.
In the 1960s women were told that the only place they had in left at the time was on their backs. That's where second wave feminism came from.
You want nuance but you are setting up good guys (the 99%) and bad guys (the 1%) and ignoring the ways in which the good guys are genuinely sometimes also the bad guys.
And yes, I do take your point that the 1% uses divide and conquer but it works for a reason. You have poor, ignorant people who can only feel better about themselves by finding another group to kick even lower down the social ladder. But you don't address that by going to the group being kicked down and saying "why don't you just unite with the poor, ignorant people attacking you so we can go after the big fish". You deal with the poor, ignorant people and get them to concede that maybe they need to stop attacking people even poorer than them and start looking out for their own interests.
By coalition I mean a group that has fairly negotiated terms of cooperation in which everyone is there because they choose to be there and because they are getting something out of it. Everyone contributes and makes sacrifices to join.
I would contrast this with "unity" in which one group says "shut up, stop bickering over your petty issues and follow me!"
Telling someone to ignore and give up on genuine pain and historical wrong and to stop asking for deserved redress *is* asking them to give up their interests and needs. If we're going to do that, we need to spread it around and it needs to be voluntary and negotiated.
You don't get people to follow you and cooperate by starting off with "what you care about doesn't really matter as much as what I care about, so get over it and focus on the big picture".
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I'll go with two of the bigger examples here for bandwidth's sake.
Straight white Christian men have been told by their puppet masters that gays are THE ENEMY. The second letter of Paul to the Romans (Romans 2, or 2 Romans 1:1 and onwards) in the Bible says, in a nutshell, judge them not lest you yourself be judged. But the Plutocrat puppet masters completely corrupted the word as Christians see it, and now we've got a war against gays. One big distraction away from the economic warfare being waged against both sides.
As for calling women the B-word? The PLUTOCRACY puts the money behind all the big media names that propagate calling women the B-word. They get air time, they get records sold, you can't say FUCK on television without getting bleeped but you can say the B-word without getting bleeped. Someone eventually has to wake up and axe that "bleep one but don't bleep the other" policy - but if they do, they get fired. Or laughed at. That's not just because of the Good Old Boys - that's the PLUTOCRACY and the Plutocrat-controlled media working to keep us divided. You don't get the media drinking that sexist hypocrite kool-aid unless you have some serious power over the whole industry.
Finally, yes, we need a coalition. The point of this thread is to ask how we can build that coalition. So far it appears to me that education is the key. Now how do we educate people?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We cannot accept the false dichotomy of fighting for economic justice OR fighting for, say, women's rights.
It's going to take Christians letting Atheists do their thing and vice-versa, as well as men looking at women and saying "forget gender I'll just hire whoever is the most qualified". Tribalism is what you're referring to, and tribalism is rampant, like a stage 4 cancer. The only solution is for the warring tribes to stand down.
When one tribe's rights are perceived to trample on another's, things get hopelessly complicated, I totally recognize that. Still, we have to find a way, or it will cease to matter. It's alarmingly similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma: if all the tribes cooperate we stand to win the most. The difference between this and the Prisoner's Dilemma is if we all refuse to cooperate then we will all get stomped.
Stomped? How? Well, the Plutocracy has already pegged 2030 as the time they're going to flush us all down the toilet.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/next-great-depression-mit-researchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html
Read between the lines: that's called a mass purge.
If that prediction turns out to be true what use will our conflicts be then? This is real. Cooperate or get purged.
eridani
(51,907 posts)It's a class thing in the end. But the working class still remains divided by other kinds of privilege.
Obamacare
(277 posts)being murdered for looking suspicious or pulled over and beaten to death by the very people (cops)that are supposed to protect them. Sorry, there are just some groups, that are more discriminated than others. And if you can't admit that, because your race is part of the oppressors, then Houston we have a serious problem. If you can't identify the enemy or oppressor because he/she looks like you, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
&feature=related
&feature=related
&feature=related
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Imagine that. I'm actually shocked.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)that if someone points out that there is racial profiling and that blacks are a disproportional percentage of the prison population, you'd post a picture of a white male being pulled over by the police and one behind bars.
See, there is no racism.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)of prisoners, both of which I agree with.
This is what the poster said:
"I don't see white gays, white atheist, white whatever being murdered for looking suspicious or pulled over and beaten to death by the very people (cops)that are supposed to protect them."
But in fact, those things *do* happen.
Please stop putting words in my mouth and making false attributions of my motives. It's quite tiresome.
And please note that I'm asking you politely despite your consistently unpleasant responses to my posts.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The poster didn't say that there is racial profiling and that blacks are a disproportionate % of prisoners, both of which I agree with."
...smart, right? What's the difference between what you implied and this (hint provided)
"I suspect that if someone points out that there is racial profiling and that blacks are a disproportional percentage of the prison population, you'd post a picture of a white male being pulled over by the police and one behind bars. "
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)What other colors would there be?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)You wish you have my personal opinion as to what those colors might be? Well, I think it should be obvious to anyone who saw that response.
I think you're diminishing societal racism by posting a few grainy videos to "counter balance" the fact that minorities are disproportionately affected by societal racism and other social class systems. Obamacare was not making a literal statement (though it's possible they may have personally not seen it, it's unlikely), they were generalizing about groups.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)"I don't see white gays, white atheist, white whatever being murdered for looking suspicious or pulled over and beaten to death by the very people (cops)that are supposed to protect them."
He didn't say:
"Minorities are disproportionately more likely to be pulled over by cops and beaten, etc."
You're claiming he meant the second statement, thus I'm a racist.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)If I am wrong they can correct me but I am pretty sure I'm not. I know what people mean when they generalize like that. I mean, you're taking them literally. As if they've never seen TV before in their life, as if they've lived under a rock or something.
They were by no means speaking literally.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)And I don't make broad assumptions about what other people should *think* other people mean based on what *I* think they mean.
The poster *said* he doesn't see whites, gays, women being beaten and killed by cops.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...is very rarely used in colloquial language.
I didn't make a broad assumption, I made an interpretative observation.
I'm unconvinced my interpretation is incorrect.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I don't see what is so painful about acknowledging privilege. As a white woman with a disability I am aware of the fact that people are more inclined to listen to me than they are my black peers.
I noticed that it exists among homeless people in my community, as well. I see them and talk to them, and I know that they share with each other. The white men- anyway. The black homeless people are on their own. If they are seen together they are perceived as more threatening than a group of white guys who get together and share what they been able to gather with each other.
To deny that this is part of a larger cultural reality is naive at best. No one wants an admission of guilt. It's a matter of looking at reality and caring enough to challenge it, even if it means challenging the legitimacy of one's own advantages.
tjwash
(8,219 posts)That's why the ruling class uses the tactic...it has worked perfectly well since before the ancient Egyptians.
uponit7771
(93,505 posts)...the disparities exist...hard to convince these people to fight said disparities if they don't think they exist OR...OR they aren't a benefactor of said disparities
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)If you don't recognize they exist or do not actually make efforts to fix them (even if you want to diminish the disparities due to your own insecurities) then I simply do not consider you progressive! Full fucking stop!
And believe me, I grew up in a deeply religious fundie household. I know, I know intimately and familiarly the biases and bullshit that goes on. It took me a long time to get over the "I'm white and I have privileges" 'accusation' because it made me feel bad and I thought "Oh I'm better than that! I'm not like that!" I grew up poor and I thought it was bullshit. But were I to have it as bad as some people I've seen. "There but for the grace of providence, go I" is one thing I seriously see every single day. Every day.
We must fight these disparities.
bart95
(488 posts)and you quit thinking like a winner the moment you do, even if you really are a victim
and you quit thinking like a winner the moment you do, even if you really are a victim
...that point was made here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=521958
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=522460
The OP is exactly the type of argument that employs this tactic.
bart95
(488 posts)for things he has nothing to do with
nobody likes false accusations, white males included
for things he has nothing to do with
nobody likes false accusations, white males included
...you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that white men are the oppressors?
That's exactly the point at the links, and exactly the kind of tatic used to divide.
bart95
(488 posts)if used against any other group
'...you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that white men are the oppressors? '
...you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that (insert group here) are the (bad thing)?
if used against any other group
'...you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that white men are the oppressors? '
...you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that (insert group here) are the (bad thing)?
...be absurd!
bart95
(488 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"what's absurd about it? being called out?"
...go ahead and fill in the blank:
if used against any other group
'...you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that white men are the oppressors? '
...you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that (insert group here) are the (bad thing)?
Show me how "racist" it would be.
bart95
(488 posts)it stands as it is
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"why? I already made my point it stands as it is"
...you made no valid "point." You made an utterly absurd claim.
bart95
(488 posts)no i didnt
let me help you:
if used against any other group
'...you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that white men are the oppressors? '
...you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that (insert group here) are the (bad thing)?
you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that (blacks) are the (oppressors)?
you admit this is an attempt to invalidate the notion that (blacks) are the (ones likely to be profiled)?
Racists?
Don't be ridiculous.
bart95
(488 posts)i meant bad thing they are guilty for
(this was an hour neither of us will ever get back)
i meant bad thing they are guilty for
(this was an hour neither of us will ever get back)
...gee, your theory failed. Please provide appropriate examples relevant to the point I made.
i'm done playing for the night
?w=480
ProSense
(116,464 posts)your theory failed miserably.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)But I know white males are FAVORED by the Plutocracy, because the Plutocracy must pick a favorite and an underdog. If the oppression was equal we would all realize together that we're being screwed.
The "white man dominates" game is a distraction from the bigger picture. White men need to stop accepting this Faustian gift, blacks and Hispanics need to look at who is giving white men the privileges. Look PAST the white man to the Plutocracy and deal with them.
TRIBALISM is the word here and it benefits the Plutocracy, not the tribe that is selected to dominate.
bart95
(488 posts)is that i once belonged in this party, and now i'm starting to really doubt it, even if i have no idea where to go from here (I certainly dont belong in the other one either)
that after a decade of being totaly screwed out of my occupation i worked so hard for (tech), that i owe my party some kind of apology for what i was born as (and electing the first african american, which was supposed to get us past that, has only intensified it), Sure, I can apologise, but that will only lead to a demand for another. And another. And another. So what if it's a scheme that is really coming from the top 1 percent, that doesnt make it any less annoying - and that i no longer believe being a part of this is any kind of rational activity. I dont think it's right or that it serves any positive purpose
time for the frog to wise up and jump out of the pot
Obamacare
(277 posts)supposed to get America past racism? One man can't end someone's ideology, nor should such a burden be placed on him to do so. Racism, hasn't intensified under Obama, it has merely been exposed. The grass is cut and the snakes are slithering!
bart95
(488 posts)now, your telling us that it only 'exposed' racism
A New, 'Post-Racial' Political Era in America
by Daniel Schorr
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18489466
January 28, 2008
January 28, 2008 NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr observes the ascendance of Barack Obama as a presidential candidate and wonders whether the U.S. is entering a new, "post-racial" political era.
Copyright © 2008 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.
ROBERT SIEGEL, host:
Senator Barack Obama received several high-profile endorsements today including one from a Nobel Laureate, writer Toni Morrison. It was Morrison who famously dubbed Bill Clinton America's first black president.
In a letter to Obama, she wrote this: In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender. And something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination, which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.
Well, Senior New Analyst Daniel Schorr agrees with Morrison in part. He says Senator Obama's appeal seems to transcend race.
DANIEL SCHORR: Welcome to the latest buzz word in the political lexicon, post-racial. It is what Senator Barack Obama signals in his victory speech in South Carolina when he tells of the woman who used to work for segregationist Strom Thurmond and now, knocks on doors for the Obama campaign.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)There is an undertone to the OP about various degrees of inequality causing a divide and that if somehow magically we fixed it everything would be OK. That's precisely the authoritarian mindset. It's not that white people are privileged, it's that we just can't all get along! Duh!
The reality of the matter is that white people use their privilege without even knowing it, without even thinking about it, it doesn't even occur to them that they are privileged because some guy got laid off three times.
How the fuck could anyone "get along" if the very people who have the most privilege on the planet don't recognize it and exploit it to their own ends, because, why not? Leftists have realized a long time ago that to solve the problem the rest of society needs a safety net to protect them from the plague that is the parasite of the European descended developed world war mongering person.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)The usual suspects, 'natch
RL
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)When our differences become more important than our commonalities, we achieve nothing.
Number23
(24,544 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)You get a bunch of people claiming to argue from the left, I mean, hard left, and they subtlely introduce these right-leaning arguments that amount to: It's your fault...no, make that it's our fault!
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And it's not "hard left." The "hard left" recognizes development, the "hard left" recognizes inequality.
It's the authoritarian left who are revealing themselves here. Throw in some lofty language about class and pow, you can get away with overt racial insensitivities.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Throw in some lofty language about class and pow, you can get away with overt racial insensitivities."
This is the exact argument up thread:
"Battle and cripple the 1% and the other issues will resolve themselves."
Yeah, marriage equality can wait until then.
Raise the minimum wage and blacks and women will no longer experience pay disparity.
The argument is absurd.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What do you think about what President Obama said?"
...everyone knows about the "resentment builds over time." That has nothing to do with the point being argued.
...resentment is not racism, and again you're trivializing issues of discrimination.
"Battle and cripple the 1% and the other issues will resolve themselves."
Again, marriage equality shouldn't have to wait until everyone is financially secure, if that ever happens.
Blacks and women shouldn't have to wait until racism or resentment disappears to achieve economic parity.
People's rights shouldn't take a back seat to anyone's financial well being.
The argument is absurd.
Frankly, it's disgusting.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)it is akin to saying let's spray the termites without going after the queen.
Nobody's saying that marriage equality has to wait, or any of those other straw men you attacked.
We need to push the message that gays aren't going to hurt anyone by getting married, and that the real threat to the family is the economy. That has nothing to do with your panicked argument that we should ignore gay marriage. Nothing at all.
President Obama was right.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)it is akin to saying let's spray the termites without going after the queen.
Nobody's saying that marriage equality has to wait, or any of those other straw men you attacked.
We need to push the message that gays aren't going to hurt anyone by getting married, and that the real threat to the family is the economy. That has nothing to do with your panicked argument that we should ignore gay marriage. Nothing at all.
President Obama was right.
President Obama is not arguing what you're arguing, which is: "Battle and cripple the 1% and the other issues will resolve themselves."
You may not want to admit it, but that's the message. See: "let's spray the termites without going after the queen"
You rationalize the argument that economic equality shoud come first at every turn, and then deny that you're doing so.
Marriage equality isn't equivalent to "termites," and "economic justice" is the "queen."
Your last point has been made often, and it makes sense, but that is not what's driving anti-gay sentiments.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"You rationalize the argument that economic equality shoud come first at every turn, and then deny that you're doing so."
No, the point is to deal with racists, but don't broadbrush all white people as racists, or all men as privileged oppressors of women.
We should be identifying with the struggles of those who are not trying to oppress other people, and that constitutes MOST of America nowadays. Obama most CERTAINLY did imply this and so am I.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)tossed under bus when policy decisions against them are made
the irony here is so rich as to be mineable
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)And rounded up black children in the middle of the night for slaughter. And hung black men from trees and treated black women like concubines.
Yes, it was the 1% and them only that confined black people to a life of poverty because of the color of our skin.
I'm not bothering with this idiocy anymore. You want to run around screaming "it's not race, it's class" for the rest of your life and sounding like an idiot, be my guest.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)And THEM ALONE, then I will concede my "ignorance."
Since we both you know that you will be INCAPABLE of doing so (poor whites were all too happy to cause pain on blacks along with the rich white) you'll have to try a bit harder with the insults.
My "ignorance" stems from a profound understanding of this country's history, not a white washed (pun intended) version that acts as though American history didn't begin until 1978.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Rich whites, the Plutocrats, made up almost the ENTIRETY of slave owners in the South. Look it up. Not many whites, by percentage, owned slaves. Just the richest ones. LOOK IT UP.
All the other white males were sold the life of a slaveowner as a path to prosperity and the good life; so many of them, particularly in the South, drank the kool-aid and got indoctrinated. We're still dealing with the effects of that brain-washing. That's what started poor whites into hating on blacks. Nobody's saying they shouldn't be dealt with, as many cannot be de-programmed. But many whites who did nothing to anyone are also under attack - and this cannot go on.
This is not the only example of this happening. Look at the Caste system in India. Same problem, in a nutshell.
BTW my ethnicity is "none of the above" - I ain't white, WASP, German, Irish, Russian, etc., what the fuck ever brand of term they use now, and I have dealt with racial profiling and the skinheads too.
I've been discriminated against in the workplace and I know that when this is all sorted out, tons of white men and every other "privileged group" will be flushed out.
You know what really makes me sad? Many whites (not all) are happy to bask in the Faustian privilege given to them by the Plutocrats, they have no idea that the big economic flush is coming and they're going to be on the wrong side of it. Then when the flush happens and poor blacks see white unemployment skyrocket (and it will), they'll say "serves you right you bastards" instead of "damn, huddle up with us and we'll wage a revolution together against the Plutocracy". If they did offer the newly impoverished whites an olive branch, many whites won't take it - they'll blame the BLACKS for bringing them down. Or the Mexicans, etc.
Meanwhile, the Plutocrats will have won - instead of coalition and a united workers' revolution, we'll see an orgy of worker-on-worker revenge, Schadenfreude and counter-vendettas. It'll be like the Hunger Games, except instead of the Plutocrats forcing us to fight, we'll gladly fight amongst ourselves all on our own.
And whichever race Spartacus is, when he rises up, the other race will shoot him in the back and take us right back to hating each other, while we live in squalor under the shadow of the Plutocracy.
BUT... that doesn't matter to you.
Number23
(24,544 posts)were RICH whites because they were the ones who owned slaves? Poor whites were never hired as overseers? Law enforcement (typically people who are far from wealthy) never violated the rights of AMERICAN CITIZENS purely because of the color of their skin?
The Ku Klux Klan was composed entirely of rich white folks??! Well blow me down! Whites in the community didn't deny services etc. to blacks and go out of their way to remind blacks of "their place" at every available opportunity? So poor whites were hanging out with black folks at every available opportunity, giving them jobs, helping them educate their children, and welcoming them into their neighborhoods?
What planet do you guys live on that come up with this crap? The ignorance is astounding but not surprising in any way. After that mindblowingly ignorant opening sentence, I didn't even read the rest of your post but I see you threw in a reference to The Hunger Games for some reason. I'm beginning to understand where you've gotten most of your education and why it appears a bit lacking.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)the last few days...not so much
maybe its an age thing but i remember the signs and the water fountains and the waiting rooms and the seating rules and ....man i could go on and on
i think the lack of an overt institutionally racist culture has fogged memories (key word overtly)
i can say this if you have seen it you cant unsee it
people look at the old photos and say "well we are so much better than them" but all they did was take the signs down
Number23
(24,544 posts)Exactly. And I would add, if you have LIVED it (including through the tears and agony of your family members) you cannot UNLIVE it either. Not and be at peace with yourself, anyway.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)going through responses
a line in this leapt at me
i have not had what many would describe as an easy life nor the rest of my family
but i can find peace with myself
i dont know when i decided to be at peace but that was when it happened
happiness and peace are things we decide to give ourselves
and accept from ourselves
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)but it wasn't from anywhere credible.
Number23
(24,544 posts)finally acknowledging what the rest of us already know. That you do not have the faintest, foggiest clue what you are talking about and never did?
Thanks for finally doing that. You've only done yourself a huge favor.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You insult my education but when you're served the same medicine you have to whine and cry about it? Really?
You have no grasp of history or facts. None whatsoever. No, really, your arguments are utterly laughable. You're doing all the work of the Plutocrats for them. Congratulations for helping their cause.
Oh and no, of course you didn't read the rest of my post. You couldn't even comprehend what you responded to.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2012, 08:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Your comments are non-sensical gibberish without one shred of factual or historical evidence to back it up.
Name ONE thing I've written that is incorrect. Is/was the Ku Klux Klan composed entirely of wealthy white folks? Did white people as a whole (not just rich ones) advance economically and culturally from slavery or not? Were poor whites helping black people while their rich counterparts made life difficult for them?
Edit: Totally appropriate and well-deserved insults removed.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)2/3's? Not even close, unless you count you and 2 others posting dozens of times in here. You utterly fail mathematics.
White people as a whole did NOT benefit from slavery. A lot of whites couldn't get work because they were competing against slave labor. THAT is what drove the North to go to war over slavery - slave labor versus paid labor. And plenty of poor whites were helping blacks. They were called abolitionists. So along with flunking math, you utterly FAILED history 101.
Look, your puerile babblings are a waste of time to "argue" with. But since you feel the need to jump bad, I'm going to keep goading you into hammering yourself into the ground with more of your historical and math blunders.
Got any more childish rants to throw at me? You sure as hell have no facts.
Number23
(24,544 posts)This is a level of denial and ignorance I have NEVER come across.
And are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the number of abolitionists came anywhere near representing the mainstream of white thought back in its day? Abolitionists were grossly outnumbered by average whites. They were considered TRAITORS and were hated! Many were killed. Your level of ignorance is ASTOUNDING.
Edit: Totally appropriate and well-deserved insults removed
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Now don't go and pop a brain cell. It's the last one you have left. Thank God you never attended a school - you would be owed a big fat refund. And your ability to turn on a computer is more of a detriment to humanity than a benefit.
As I said, and you denied, TONS of white people found slavery to be a barrier to their employment. They were competing against free labor. This was a huge motivation for the civil war. I know that because I read a history book - which you could not even do.
And here's another reason why you look like a giant fool when you post these dumb arguments: if abolitionist whites were not in the mainstream white America would not have fought a civil war over this issue.
Do you get it yet? Of course not. You're too busy screaming with caps as if you think that makes your brain dead talking points any more worth taking seriously.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Oh God, somehow you just keep making an even bigger fool out of yourself. The government had NOTHING to do with it, huh? Laws? Decrees and proclamations passed? It was just the good-heartedness of the average white person that lead to the Civil War?
I have shaken my head at the incredible ignorance and stupidity within your other posts. This one has me busting a gut laughing. Cya. Lord knows, I wouldn't want to be ya.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Yet here you are again. Guess you had to eat those words.
The Government had something to do with the civil war. But who made up the Government? Almost all white people. They went to war to stop slavery. The Government also stopped slavery in new states entering the Union. Who made up the Government back then? Mostly white people. So much for your screaming irrational argument.
"It was just the good-heartedness of the average white person that lead to the Civil War?"
Well let's see if you're intelligent enough to answer that. It was either the good heartedness of white people up North that goaded the South to try to secede, or it was selfishness. What would that selfishness be? Oh, I know... because whites up north stood to lose economically if slavery continued. Which totally blows your "whites as a whole benefited from slavery" argument right out of the water.
Oh don't you worry about coming back. You're too humiliated to do that. Maybe you can call for help from one of your imaginary 2/3'ers here to explain how a civil war could be fought when only a handful of whites opposed slavery. Maybe you can get your make-believe "2/3 majority" to explain how international slave trades were BANNED in 1807, and how the Republican Party gained power by its opposition to slavery, if there weren't a TON of white people who opposed slavery.
Yeah, any of you imaginary 2/3'ers out there want to help Number23 here explain his/her crackpot theory that there weren't a ton of whites involved in the abolitionist movement?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)That's the point of authoritarianism. It happens with fascists, it happens with state communists and capitalists. They have to keep the people at each others throats.
Of course, there is a real and tangible class distinction and frankly if we aren't able to create a new system then we should attempt to practically fix what parts are broken to at least ease the suffering of the less fortunate or lucky.
H&M here on DU just underscores it, you got people who share probably 90% of opinion but they continually post hateful screeds about others here. It's ridiculous.
provis99
(13,062 posts)maybe we deserve to be ruled by the 1%, if we are just going to whine and bleat how others in the 99% oppress us.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)We are the 99%
Mosaic
(1,451 posts)They must stop doing that. We must have full equality. To God we are all equal, no color is His favorite. In fact Jesus was a neutral Mediterranean brown. We all must be neutral too, if we believe in God.
polichick
(37,626 posts)...king of the mountain. Boo-hoo!
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)I have seen on here in a long time. You make a very good point, and quite a few of the posts are informative and thought-provoking. I couldn't reply to all that I wanted to, but I bookmarked it and do intend to read it again.
Three thoughts: 1) most of the people living in poverty in the US are white; 2) MLK Jr.'s actions had broad support, and that certainly made them more effective.
And 3) this is something I've learned first-hand recently from a completely unrelated issue. We as people seeking change, have to remember that when a problem is solved, advocates for solving that problem are then out of a job. Especially paid advocates, or those who receive notice or position from it will actually, suddenly and inexplicably, turn and advocate hard against a solution that presents itself, especially if it's a really effective problem-ending solution. They have a vested interest in the problem - in the problem continuing. I was rather shocked to see that but I guess it's human nature and that's the world we live in.
So in this context, if a lot of 99% uniting were to go on, a lot of splinter group advocates would be a lot less influential. That's just something to keep in mind to watch for in advancing toward a goal. We have to remember to ask, "would so-and-so lose something if we were to succeed on this". If the answer is yes, that doesn't mean that so-and-so is necessarily corrupted, but it does mean at the very least to keep an eye on what that person says or does for the cause because he/she will be in conflict over it.
* Points 1 and 2 do not mean in any way to take anything away from the plight of minorities. Their struggles are undeniable. But I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and it doesn't usually require giving up small group goals to also push for large group goals. It might take giving up a little bit of overt animosity from time to time toward some traditionally seen as privileged, but that's a small price to pay for the chance for much greater progress on all fronts.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)When the Working Class & The Poor realize WE have more in common with each othere,
than we have in common with the 1% and their employees in Washington,
THEN we can have the "change" we deserve.
As long as the 1% can keep us divided,
the Status Quo will continue.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Zax2me
(2,515 posts)A little too broad.
When I read them, I substitute 'black men' or 'gay' or.....'poor Hispanic women' just to see how it reads.
Nasty.
The fact is when you break people into these demographic groups and create judgment rules that are not equal - you aren't.
The results are racist, bigoted opinions masked as revenge at worst, a stab at fairness at best.
Fairness isn't easily achieved but a good start is by judging people based on individual merits rather than color of skin, sex or sexual orientation.
The instant you don't, you are no different than someone blaming blacks for crime just because they saw someone of African descent arrested on the late news.
Keep it individual.
That broad brush is all over the place, outside the lines and inaccurate as hell.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character... well I'll make an exception for white folks".
But somehow some DUers take me as saying we should ignore racism while we deal with the Plutocracy... that's NOTHING like what I said.
You summed it up best - deal with the racists but don't broad brush a whole group. Use THAT energy to unite people against the power elite who oppresses us all.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)4 t 4
(2,407 posts)Right on the head and this thread just proves it! stop fighting And unite.
