If you don't believe there is white privilege in this country...

[CreekDog]

then tell us when it ended and why you believe that was the end of white privilege?

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Good questions!

Hope it silence the "there's no White privilege in this country" delusion.

When it's brought up on other boards I frequent, I'll be sure to ask those very questions.

Thanks, CreedDog.

[CreekDog]

106. Yes, thank you for that.

And you're welcome.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Oh dear no!

I've reached a point where no matter what is said - there is a small group folks who just want to argue about the words themselves.

They don't care about us. They just don't. Don't know - frankly - I don't care. Just leave my money alone - it's mine, all mine. . . and have a nice day.

The concept - the greater idea - it's lost on them. You are one of the best though! And I give you a lot of credit for asking a very very FAIR question!

[Louisiana1976]

3. White privilege is like manmade global warming. There are people who don't believe it exists. But

it exists.

[CreekDog]

6. many of the posters who dispute white privilege's existence also doubt global warming

thank you for making the connection.

[AgingAmerican]

135. True that

It's part of the same disease.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. They both exist ...

and the both are toxic.

[LeftyMom]

4. Something something Oprah something.

Blah blah Obama blah blah every poster who writes one of these stupid replies grew up in a trailer blah blah censorship.

[CreekDog]

5. If only they would write that much!

when asked to tell us when white privilege ended, they don't have an answer.

i guess they are still thinking on that one.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Here's where your question fails, CreekDog.

Your question, as written:

If you don't believe there is white privilege in this country...

...then tell us when it ended and why you believe that was the end of white privilege?

The question presumes that the answerer accepts that it ever existed to begin with.

You see, most folks of that ilk deny that such a thing ever existed; "How can something end that didn't exist in the first place?", they would say.

That is the sad and hard reality of the situation, my friend; their denial runs deep!

If you actually encounter folks like this, I really feel for ya. I know they're out there but, thankfully, I never converse with 'em!

[CreekDog]

8. Actually I did consider that very issue

but it's not a valid answer because then they have to argue it didn't exist during Jim Crow, during legalized slavery, when slaves were brought here, when interracial marriage was forbidden, etc. etc.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Hate to say it, but you might be giving them too much credit.

You know the ones, they think that slaves had it better than we admit, that we gave them better lives.

And plenty are still dead against interracial marriage.

They are that bad, and we've seen them coming out of the woodwork!

But if any are on the fence (which just seems like being on the fence about cold blooded murder) maybe there's a chance to educate a few of them.

[hfojvt]

64. except that is very easy to argue

Did, for example, "white privilege" exist when most blacks in America were slaves?

To say that it did, it to make the clearly ridiculous claim - "it is a 'privilege' to not be a slave".

Is that, or is that not absurd? If that is not what is meant by the term white privilege, then why use the clearly understood English word "privilege" to describe the fact of "not being a slave"? It's like you have defined a tail as a leg and keep trying to argue with people who know better that a cow now has five legs.

Privilege simply means = you got something extra, and not that "some other guy got crushed by a boulder" thereby giving you "not-crushed-by-a-boulder privilege".

For some reason I seem to be having a hard time convincing people who haven't been crushed by boulders to give up their privileges.

[nomorenomore08]

68. Actually, in many societies throughout history, not being a slave *was* a relative privilege.

Think of Ancient Rome for a quick example.

[CreekDog]

73. in a society where half or more of the population are slaves, it's a privilege not to be one

yes.

and in a nation where many millions were slaves, it is a privilege to not be one.

please understand that it's true whether you are convinced it is or not.

[treestar]

19. They admit it existed

But insist that the Civil Rights Acts, and various relief acts (the one about housing loans) and affirmative action have more than made up for it. I know conservatives that will say this with straight faces.

[nomorenomore08]

67. So they'll argue there was no white privilege even when white people literally *owned* black people?

In that case, they should be laughed out of any halfway intelligent discussion.

[NYC_SKP]

69. As well they should be: laughed out of the conversation.

They are of the opinion that blacks are incapable of taking care of themselves, that successful blacks are anomalies or products of special treatment.

They have said that black were better off as slaves and even suggested that slavery was a natural state for blacks.

They are that batshit crazy and that's why there is no reasoning with them.

[badtoworse]

9. Have you stopped beating your wife?

Same sort of question.

[LanternWaste]

10. Ahhh.... the Evasion Tactic. Not original nor clever, but still used in the gallery.

Ahhh.... the Evasion Tactic. Not original nor clever, but still used in the gallery.

"Same sort of question..." Only in that both rest on a premise (it's actually called The Complex Question). However, beating one's wife may be a faulty premise, but presuming Jim Crow and Slavery both existed, the premise is thus valid- unelss you take exception with the premise, and if so, what specifically leads you to believe the premise (slavery and Jim Crow did in fact, exist) is incorrect?

[CreekDog]

12. you're saying that not believing in white privilege is just like being a wife beater?

I'm not following your logic there.

And considering that you don't seem to believe in white privilege as a concept, I'm not understanding why you'd phrase this in a way that compares people who believe you to wife beaters.

I think your post is confused, to be charitable.

[badtoworse]

25. We've discussed the issue before. I haven't changed my opinion.

The premise of your question assumes that white privilege exists. I don't accept that.

[PeaceNikki]

33. So you think it doesn't and never has existed? ever?

[badtoworse]

35. That was racial discrimination and it was wrong.

Not being a target of it should be an expectation. That is not the same as a privilege.

[PeaceNikki]

37. So, whites had no additional "privilege" when this type of discrimination was the norm?

Weird!

[badtoworse]

39. I don't accept that being treated fairly is a privilege.

The fact that some people were not or are not, does not change that. It simply means they were wronged.

[chervilant]

50. Denial is not a river in Egypt ...

And, I cannot understand why you deny a concept which has been substantiated both by historical records and contemporary research.

[Gormy Cuss]

105. It's not about fair treatment. If it were, fair would have extended to POCs.

Privilege is about advantageous treatment based on a characteristic. Most if not all others without that characteristic are disadvantaged.

[CreekDog]

112. well you don't accept lots of things that are true, what does that prove?

something true isn't false just because you don't believe it.

[nomorenomore08]

70. Why is this semantic hair-splitting so important to you (and others)?

Seems like wasted mental energy if nothing else.

[badtoworse]

81. Why don't you ask the folks who are twisting the clear meaning of words why they are doing it?

I don't like it because it's an obvious attempt to broad brush all white people in a negative way by implying that whatever they accomplished came at the expense of black people. I'll take ownership of any discrimination that I personally do. I'm not taking ownership of every problem that black people have simply because I'm white.

[nomorenomore08]

84. "Whatever they accomplished came at the expense of black people."

Now, that indicates to me that you're taking this all way too personally. Because no one actually said that.

"I'm not taking ownership of every problem that black people have simply because I'm white."

No one asked you to. But simply acknowledging said problems, without defensiveness, goes a long way.

[gollygee]

88. I'm interested in how you've responded here.

So for the first sentence: "I don't like it because it's an obvious attempt to broad brush all white people in a negative way by implying that whatever they accomplished came at the expense of white people." That's overstatement. Certainly it varies from case to case (I mean, most of George W. Bush's rise to power came from one kind of privilege or another) but for most white people, probably most of their accomplishments were mostly earned. However, that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that it was easier for us - that we had an easier starting position - because we were white. It could have come to us as a foot in the door because someone felt comfortable with where we were from (a huge thing in Michigan - seeing an address from a white part of the Detroit area vs. a black part of the Detroit area will make a big difference in how much attention your resume recieves.) It could have come as a professor feeling comfortable having us alone in his or her office to give us extra attention so we did better in a class. There are a lot of ways privilege can manifest and those are only two - but the issue is that they're just bits of help here and there much of the time, not just handing stuff to white people, who had to do nothing on their own to accomplish anything.

So the next part: "I'll take ownership of any discrimination that I personally do." I think the majority of white people are good about this, but there's still tons of racism. Seeing how we benefit from racism even if we don't want to - seeing how we aren't able to opt out of racism by not discriminating against anyone - can make a real difference in how people respond to and see race differences.

"I'm not taking ownership of every problem that black people have simply because I'm white." This is the only part that stumps me. I'm not sure where that came from. I can see where you're coming with the rest you've written, but do you really feel like you're being asked to take ownership of problems other people have? I think you're just asked to have empathy, and recognize that while we've had bits of help here and there, people of color haven't, so it isn't fair to assume (for instance) that the reason there is more poverty in the African American community is because of laziness.

[badtoworse]

98. I believe there is more involved than being asked for empathy...

and more involved than whites getting a little bit of help here and there. I'm empathetic to the problems black people face - I think discrimination is terribly wrong. At the same time, I don't accept that chalking all the problems up to white privilege is intellectually honest. The problems are a lot more complicated than that and nobody has completely clean hands.

I need to hit the sack and getting deeper into this will open up debate on a whole bunch of fronts - I'm not up for that.

[CreekDog]

113. you resent being asked for more than empathy, yet, where have you even expressed empathy?

[brush]

160. "Whites getting a little bit of help here and there"

Badtoworse, the title of my post is a direct quote from your post. Pls. check this out from an earlier response of mine on a white privilege post.

"America was built on land stolen from Native Americans and much of it was worked by enslaved people denied their rights, freedom and wages for centuries.

If those wages, using the principle of compounding had to be paid back it would be in the trillions and would break the country.

Whites, even poor ones, got paid for their labor.

No one can deny that. If blacks had gotten the wages earned over centuries there wouldn't be the huge gap in wealth in black v white families.

That's an aspect of white privilege that the deniers maybe weren't aware of or just don't want to think about."

Over the centuries and decades whites got way more than "a little bit of help here and there."

They also got paid for their work.

[badtoworse]

161. I took it from the last paragraph of the post I replied to.

I'm not interested in discussing reparations - it's never going to happen. Slavery ended almost 150 years ago - it's time to let that go.

[brush]

169. I'm not talking about reparations . . .,

I'm just pointing out that the gap between black and white household wealth is the legacy of centuries of unpaid labor.

So the next time you hear someone talk about African Americans being lazy is the reason behind the wealth gap, you can dispute it.

Reparations to African Americans will never happen even though they were paid by the US to Japanese Americans interned during WWll and to Jewish holocaust victims' families by Germany, this country is too racist to do the right thing — especially not for blacks.

That door is closed, as you say.

[stage left]

43. I saw actual signs like this posted in the "oh so good fifties and sixties."

Those of us who lived during that time did not imagine it. The memories are indelible for me, a white woman. How much deeper must they be burned into the African American consciousness? The only public swimming pool in my town closed so it would not have to admit people of color to swim there. Racism is usually not that blatant these days, but it can be. Witness Ferguson. It is still prevalent like a low lying fog. How you are treated can still be predicated by just the color of your skin. That's the privilege of being white. Every American should be granted the "privilege&quot I would say the right ) of being treated as fellow citizen of this country and a human being.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Do you accept that white privilege existed at any point in the American experience? eom

[badtoworse]

54. I accept that racial discrimination and injustice have existed and still do.

I reject the "privilege" framing.

We've also discussed this before and there really isn't much point in continuing the discussion. The facts of what has happened and unfortunately, is still happening are NOT in dispute. We're down to interpreting the facts and framing the issue - things that are inherently subjective. You (and others here) have your opinions about those things and I have mine. Absent new facts, nobody's opinion is likely to change.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Funny ...

You have discussed it before so you see not much point in continuing the discussion ... and you express that sentiment by entering into a discussion of white privilege to state you reject the privilege framing?!?

I guess that's the end of it ... Right?

(You) accept that racial discrimination and injustice have existed and still do.

But wish to argue that those NOT subjected to the racial discrimination and race-based injustice are somehow NOT benefited by that lack of unfair treatment? How does that work?

[badtoworse]

57. I've never said that discrimination didn't put those affected by it at a disadvantage.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. That's NOT what I wrote ...

I wrote the OTHER half of the relative equation ... that those NOT subjected to that discrimination are given an unearned advantage, i.e., privilege.

[badtoworse]

61. You apparently see this as a zero sum game.

Last edited Tue Sep 2, 2014, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't. Moreover, I don't believe there is any way to quantify the extent to which other racial or ethnic groups would have been negatively impacted had racial discrimination against black people not occurred. Personally, I think the negative impacts would have been small. In my opinion, the likely result would have been a significant benefit for everyone.

Edited for clarity

[nomorenomore08]

85. Seems to me it's more the "privilege deniers" who see this as a zero-sum game.

As if they're afraid that acknowledging the relative advantages they've had in life, will somehow diminish them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Bingo! ...

But in a sense it does challenge one's self image ... How can one be "deserving" of life's rewards AND acknowledge an advantage that others don't have?

[nomorenomore08]

89. Maybe if people weren't so damn either/or in their thinking, it wouldn't be such a problem.

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. Or better ...

Maybe if people would self-reflect as to why they are so invested in an irrational argument, i.e., People are disadvantaged by this system ... I am not disadvantaged by the system; but not being disadvantaged does not provide me with an advantage.

[nomorenomore08]

104. That too.

Also that "advantage" doesn't necessarily mean a tangible or obvious "extra" - that's a strawman used by quite a few folks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. It is a zero sum ...

in this respect ... If one group is negatively impacted by something; logic dictates that those not negatively impacted, accrue a systemic benefit, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not.

Moreover, I don't believe there is any way to quantify the extent to which other racial or ethnic groups would have been negatively impacted had racial discrimination against black people not occurred.

No one is speculating about how other groups would have been negative impacted; but for, America's having systemic selection of Black folks.

Consider why you continuously attempt to twist arguments in an attempt to make "other racial or ethnic groups" victims.

[badtoworse]

92. "...logic dictates that those not negatively impacted, accrue a systemic benefit"

Last edited Tue Sep 2, 2014, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I strongly disagree. Had blacks not been victims of discrimination, it is entirely possible (maybe even likely) that what they could have accomplished would have benefited not just themselves, but everyone else. In other words, the pie might have been much larger. The fact that, on average, black people have substantially less buying power than whites does not benefit any retailer and I don't see how it benefits me as a consumer. If black people enjoyed the same buying power, we would probably have a substantially larger economy and everyone would benefit. The disparity in incomes certainly does not help the current housing market. Had blacks not been disproportionately impacted by the financial crisis in 2008, much of the urban blight that occurred in areas like Detroit might not have happened. Again, I see everyone benefiting from that.

Did you ever see the movie "Something the Lord Made"? It is about a man named Vivien Thomas who made enormous contributions in the area of heart surgery working with Alfred Blaylock. Thomas faced terrible discrimination, but in spite of it, his work in the 1940's was instrumental in eliminating "blue baby syndrome", a significant cause of infant mortality. He only had a high school education, but was ultimately awarded an honory doctorate by Johns Hopkins and named an instructor of surgery. His work saved babies of every race, so I don't see where anyone would have benefited had he given up because of discrimination. How many other people with Vivien Thomas' talent were held back by discrimination? What might they have accomplished? I see that as everyone's loss. In any case, if you never saw the movie, it's worth watching.

[gollygee]

97. Let's simply things a bit

Let's say a workplace is looking to hire three people. They get five resumes from white people, and five resumes from black people. The person hiring discriminates against black people, so the black people are victims of racism and are eliminated from the pool of potential applicants. That means the chances for each white person of getting a job went from three in ten to three in five. Do you see how that is a benefit? And can you see how if this happens in the hiring of people in countless workplaces, to different degrees in each but to some degree in most, how that is a systemic benefit for white people?

[badtoworse]

100. Assuming that scenario played out on the scale you suggest, there would be a systemic benefit.

The benefit would be localized and limited to the workplaces in question. I don't believe that it's realistic to posit discrimination such as that on a large scale - discrimination that overt would attract attention from the EEOC. Beyond that, there would be negative, unintended consequences on a larger scale that would offset the localized systemic benefits.

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. Your "argument" is getting more and more bazaar ...

Your argument against the existence of white privilege is that the privilege would produce "negative, unintended consequences on a larger scale that would offset the localized systemic benefits", as if discrimination is market rational ... it isn't.

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. Let's make the scenario more accurate ...

Let's say a workplace is looking to hire three people. They get five resumes from white people, and five resumes from black people. While all of the candidates look good on paper, the person hiring knows someone that knows 2 of the 5 white applications and is in the same fraternity as 1 of the white applicants. And the one remaining white applicant is into country western music and is an active member of a country western chat room that the hiring manager frequents ... Thereby, not overtly discriminating against black people, but these applicant have a clear edge over the Black applicants. .

This is how privilege works in America.

[gollygee]

109. I had started with scenarios

but was afraid he'd argue over the scenarios! But yes. My scenario was that the person doing the hiring was more comfortable with people from Rochester than Detroit (that's how it works here in Michigan sometimes) so some were from suburbs that sounded good to him, and that his golf buddy's nephew was one of the applicants, and another was someone he knew through church, and one went to the same high school he went to. That's very specifically privilege - not specifically excluding people for being black, but including people for relationships only or almost only white people would have. People hate to examine themselves for this kind of stuff. It's easy to say you'd never refuse to hire someone due to race, but it's harder to say you wouldn't be more likely to hire someone whose uncle you golfed with. And it's harder for me to say I haven't received that kind of privilege. In fact, looking back now that I understand what it is, I know I have.

[1StrongBlackMan]

118. Exactly ...

My scenario was that the person doing the hiring was more comfortable with people from Rochester than Detroit ... It's easy to say you'd never refuse to hire someone due to race, but it's harder to say you wouldn't be more likely to hire someone whose uncle you golfed with.

even KNOWING the golf buddy uncle tells the, occasional, Ni@@er joke ... to which, you "politely" chuckle ... though you would never think to use that word, let alone, use it in a joke.

[1StrongBlackMan]

102. You strongly disagree based on a hypothetical that has no basis in reality ...

Yes ... I'm familiar with Vivien Thomas' struggle. I don't see how that applies. Had he given in to discrimination, everyone would have been worse off. But then again, had he not experienced discrimination, how much further might he have gone ... how many mis-steps by Alfred Blaylock (the proximate beneficiary of Thomas' work) might have been avoided?

[badtoworse]

134. You're making my point: Consider Thomas in relation to what you posted in #86

In #86 you said, "If one group is negatively impacted by something; logic dictates that those not negatively impacted, accrue a systemic benefit, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not." I believe there are and have been many Vivien Thomas's in the black community and what they are prevented from accomplishing because of discrimination represents a loss for everyone.

Only Blaylock benefited from the discrimination that Thomas faced, and even then, only because he didn't have to share the credit with Thomas. Everyone benefited from Thomas' work because babies that previously died from blue baby syndrome could be saved. I believe that Thomas could have potentially accomplished a lot more absent the discrimination (what if he'd gotten a scholarship to Johns Hopkins instead?) and the extent to which discrimination prevented him from doing more was a loss to whites as well as blacks. Extend that idea to talented black kids that are being held back by discrimination and should see why I think Thomas is relevant - we're all hurt when talent is wasted.

Does a white person benefit if he or she is hired over a more qualified black person? Of course that one white person does, just as Blaylock benefited at Thomas' expense. don't agree that the benefit extends to whites as a group because on that level, other consequences come into play and again, Thomas is an illustration of that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

146. I'm sorry; but this ...

Does a white person benefit if he or she is hired over a more qualified black person? Of course that one white person does, just as Blaylock benefited at Thomas' expense. don't agree that the benefit extends to whites as a group because on that level, other consequences come into play and again, Thomas is an illustration of that.

Makes no sense.

So a system of individualized oppressive acts that are institutionalized, as to be the status quo, in relation to an entire class of people, do not extend past the immediate group of people benefited by that system ... because those oppressive acts create a different negative effect on society ... the previously disadvantaged and advantaged, alike?

IOWs, a system that allows/encourages white people being hired over a more qualified black person, is only beneficial to that person that is actually hired over that more qualified, Black person, even though this is the status quo; but it is ... what? ... made better? ... made less of a benefit? ... because had that system NOT been created/promoted/tolerated/encouraged, someone out of the discriminated against class might have solved Blue Baby Syndrome, earlier?

Is that what you are saying?

[badtoworse]

162. I'm starting to regret wading into this again

Let me summarize my thoughts.

I fully agree that racial injustice is a huge problem and that discrimination and prejudice need to be eliminated. In my book, these things represent a denial of rights and the enjoyment of your rights is to be expected; it's not a privilege. Calling it a privilege, implies that the expected case is a denial of those rights and that is just plain wrong.

I think that the effects of discrimination against blacks are not a pure positive for whites. There are negative impacts on white people that result from keeping black people economically disadvantaged:
- Decreased buying power among blacks hurts all merchants, white and black
- With significantly less income, blacks will have greater needs for social services and will put a commensurately greater strain on the available resources to meet those needs.
- Another impact of lower income among blacks is that they contribute less in income taxes than whites that have, on average, higher incomes.
- Substantial talent in the black community gets wasted and the potential fruits of that talent aren't enjoyed by anyone, white or black (This is the Thomas example)
- The high unemployment in the black community is a factor in higher crime rates. Crime has costs that are borne by everyone, blacks and white alike.

I'm sure I could think of others but I think I've made my point. You have to weigh the above downsides against the benefits to whites of keeping blacks down. Other than less competition in the job market and getting into better schools, I can't think of any.

The bottom line question to me is do the benefits to whites (less competition) outweigh the costs of a disadvantaged black community? I believe the answer is no. If the institutional obstacles faced by blacks could be eliminated, it might result in a smaller slice of pie for white people, but the pie would probably be a lot bigger. I'd be happy with a smaller slice from a bigger pie.

I'm going to let this thread go now. I see things in a different light than you do, but I believe the need to correct the problem is just as pressing as you likely do. I hope you appreciate that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

163. I agree ...

I'm going to let this thread go now. I see things in a different light than you do ..

,

I wonder why that might be?

But I will end this discussion with a question:

Why can't you see that what you call "the expected case", where that is NOT the experience of others ... is what makes that expectation, a privilege.

[nomorenomore08]

72. But the other half of it, is that those *not* disadvantaged, are therefore advantaged by default.

And it's that other half you seem to have a problem with, at least rhetorically.

[badtoworse]

82. See Post 61

[Starry Messenger]

14. No, not really.

Do try to keep up.

[steve2470]

13. k&r nt

[brer cat]

26. Sorry to go off topic,

but that is a fine show of squee in your sig line, steve.

[steve2470]

28. oh, glad you enjoy :)

I always enjoy looking at it and wanted others to have the same pleasure

[GeorgeGist]

34. Even better when I opened it in it's own page.

[conservaphobe]

15. I didn't believe it until I learned to view it objectively, rather than as an accusation.

I implore other whites to do the same.

[Puzzledtraveller]

40. im not white, but I look white

more than other family members. I probably experience privilege through the prejudice of others. Were my skin like the majority of my family (Mexican-American) perhaps I would not experience "white privilege".

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Very good conservaphobe ...

I would suggest that you have been listening to what Black folks (and some white folks) have actually been saying.

Every time I see a white person acknowledge white privilege with an apology (presumably to Black folks) ... I just shake my head.

[CreekDog]

114. that's helpful. because it isn't an accusation

it does suggest that white people, as the largest group in this society, have an important role to play in ending discrimination against those in minority groups.

[Vattel]

16. It exists, of course, but so does black privilege.

That's why it is a pretty useless concept. We should be talking about racial injustice, institutional racism, racial hatred, etc.

[steve2470]

18. black privilege ? please elaborate, thank you kindly nt

[Vattel]

20. for example, having lower academic standards for admission to a university

[steve2470]

22. I'll let the AA posters discuss this with you

I'm not well versed on that topic, and I hate to discuss something when I'm partially or totally ignorant.

[PeaceNikki]

23. Holy shit, you call Affirmative Action "Black Privilege"??

That's weird.

[Vattel]

24. I am pro affirmative action

but it is black privilege.

on edit: some but not all affirmative action programs are examples of black privilege.

[PeaceNikki]

27. Do you have any idea how paltry affirmative action efforts are and how little impact they’ve had on

whites collectively?

In terms of intent, affirmative action is nothing like old-fashioned or ongoing discrimination against people of color. Discrimination against so-called racial minorities has always been predicated on the belief that whites were more capable than people of color in terms of their abilities, and more deserving of consideration with regard to their rights and place in the nation. So when employers have refused to hire blacks, or have limited them to lower-level positions, this they have done because they view them as being less capable or deserving than whites–as less desirable employees. Likewise, racial profiling is based on pejorative assumptions about black and brown criminality and character. Housing discrimination is rooted in assumptions about folks of color being less desirable as neighbors or tenants.

Affirmative action, on the other hand, does not presume in the reverse that whites are inferior to people of color, or less desirable as workers, students or contractors. In fact, it presumes nothing at all about white abilities, relative to people of color. It merely presumes that whites have been afforded more-than-equal, extra opportunity relative to people of color, and that this arrangement has skewed the opportunity structure for jobs, college slots and contracts. Affirmative action is not predicated on any assumptions about whites, as whites, in terms of our humanity, decency, intelligence or abilities. It is based solely on assumptions about what being white has meant in the larger social structure. It casts judgment upon the social order and its results, not people per se. Although one is free to disagree with the sociological judgment being rendered in this case — that the social structure has produced disparities that require a response — it is intellectually dishonest and vulgar to compare this presumption about the social structure to the presumption that black people are biologically, culturally or behaviorally inferior to whites.

Additionally, discrimination against people of color has always had the intent of creating and protecting a system of inequality, and maintaining unearned white advantage. Affirmative action does not seek to create a system of unearned black and brown advantage, but merely to shrink unearned white advantage. In other words, unless one presumes there is no difference between policies that maximize inequality and those that seek to minimize it, it is impossible to compare affirmative action to discrimination against people of color, in the past or present.

...

In the end, we really shouldn’t think of affirmative action as a matter of racial preference, so much as a preference based on a recognition of what race means, and what racism has meant in American life. It is a preference that takes into consideration the simple and indisputable fact that people of color have not been afforded truly equal opportunity. Whereas old-school discrimination against people of color was (and is) predicated on actual value judgments about the ability, character, and value of black and brown folks, affirmative action is predicated on no personal or group-based judgments whatsoever, but rather, upon the judgment that the social structure has produced inequities that require our attention and redress.

You should read Tim Wise's whole piece on it: http://www.timwise.org/2010/10/affirmative-action-for-dummies-explaining-the-difference-between-oppression-and-opportunity/

[Vattel]

30. I agree with all of this.

The problem is that the concept of white privilege is defined so broadly that all sorts of things have to count as black privilege too. That is why white privilege is such a useless concept for addressing the very serious problem of institutional racism.

[PeaceNikki]

31. wow, that's fucked up.

[Vattel]

32. You could explain to me why I am wrong.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that I am wrong. It happens.

[PeaceNikki]

36. Sorry, but it seems futile to debate anyone who would call AA "black privilege".

That's seriously something I'd expect to hear from rw whacks, not on DU.

Perhaps you could educate yourself?


Start here:

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. Because you wish to fight ...

Institutionalized racism by defending the racial status quo,

[JustAnotherGen]

125. I've got an example

Perfect ACT score
1380 on SAT
Top 20 in my Private Prep School Class

Affluent - family - ZERO financial 'aid' -

But still - poor white kids on full scholarships from Ireland, Province Quebec, the Appalachians, and the NYC islands would give snotty stuck up attitudes with their lower grades, scores, and free rides from nowhwere. Wait - giving a free pass to the Irish exchange students - they were fabulous!

This is the early 90's - Niagara University.

I'm sorry - but the only affirmative action at University when I attended was for those of ALL skin tones that are good with a little ball or puck or something.

I guess I just don't know any other black folks from my background and current socio economic position that didn't have parents who worked hard, could give us more, and did so to give us that edge to overcome having to work twice as hard.

Really - the chip on the shoulder attitude has got to stop<---Not saying you. Saying the Dominant Culture that has told people this lie for 50/60 years to get them to vote for the wealthiest white folks who just hate us all equally .

At the end of the day - I - my peers - we didn't take anything from anyone. Don't hate the players - hate the game.

[heaven05]

141. It was explained to you!!!!!!!!!!!

you chose to willfully ignore the explanation. I doubt you WANT to learn any truth that might found in answer to you willful ignorance of facts.

[Vattel]

149. My only concern is that the fight against racism might be

hampered by introducing messed up concepts like white privilege into the discussion.

[heaven05]

151. right

[Anansi1171]

44. Hi Nikki. I think you need to cut Vattel some slack...

...and no where is an f-bomb needed in civil response. I had the same reaction to initially "Aw hell no. Black Privilege conflated as Affirmative Action? You MUST be kidding!" But that's knee jerk.

Many, many, many do not understand Affirmative Action and how extremely very little there is of it and how the state of Black America is proof positive that it has not moved the needle for most. Remember the White Wingers assert that AA is everywhere and every black not Ben Carson or Hermain Cain (ie sponsored by white patronage) is not responsible for their own success.

That's not this poster. He has a complex and considered POV and it should be considered, no?

[PeaceNikki]

47. lol, I will "f-bomb" when and where I please, thanks!

I could riddle a reply with "fucks" and it would still be far less offensive than his "complex" POV.

YMMV

[Number23]

93. Not only that but many measures have noted that BY FAR the vast majority of beneficiaries

of AA have been white women.

[gollygee]

95. White women

get a great deal of privilege from the assumption that we might very well be married to or otherwise involved with a white man. So if a white woman gets a job, it still benefits white men a good portion of the time. Also, an ability to empathize with her assumed husband, as in "I'd want my wife to have a job this good." I wonder if women whom the interviewers assumed were lesbians benefitted from it. I'd guess not. And I wonder how many of the women who benefit are wearing wedding rings.

I've noticed how I get some privilege from the assumption of a white husband if I mention him. (I don't wear a wedding ring.) If I am having a hard time with someone, and I say, "Oh, my husband said . . . " there's an immediate and palatable change in tone and demeanor. That is what made me come to the above conclusion about us receiving some of our husband's privilege in addition to our own white privilege.

[JustAnotherGen]

126. True this Number23

[CreekDog]

38. when racism against nonwhites is broad, the privilege associated with being white just as broad

see?

[nomorenomore08]

78. Yep, for every disadvantage there's a corresponding advantage. It's that simple. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

77. "We really shouldn’t think of affirmative action as a matter of racial preference, so much as a

preference based on a recognition of what race means, and what racism has meant in American life."

Standing ovation! Thank you so much!

[heaven05]

140. So very true and fine retort

but judging from the answer of the person in question---total disconnect from reality as it is.

[Nye Bevan]

41. This is another example of how using the word "privilege" tends to be unhelpful

in discussions of race-related issues.

[CreekDog]

46. unhelpful to whom?

white people?

[nomorenomore08]

79. ...

[chervilant]

110. Yeppers...

Quite a few of those that deny privilege still self-identify as "liberal" or "democratic," but their defensiveness over terminology which has been proven historically and in contemporary research is rather contradictory.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. Have you considered WHY the term is "unhelpful"? ...

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to substitute the terms, "Anything that makes white folks uncomfortable"?

Think about it.

[Gormy Cuss]

107. No affirmative action program is an example of black privilege.

Affirmative action is meant to redress some of the inherent barriers to access or barriers to success. What you're talking about sounds a lot like the mythical 'reverse racism.'

[1StrongBlackMan]

120. Yes, but refreshingly honest. eom.

[noiretextatique]

65. what are your educational credentials?

generally speaking, people who make ignorant statements like yours are not too well educated. me? BA and MA, and...gasp...i am black. could it be that i am just smarter than you?

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. Cite to a single University/College that has a LOWER admission criteria ...

for Black candidates (and, even if you could), that does not have a more "robust" "Legacy Admissions" practice.

That said, this is why I hate the summations of the University AA in Admissions cases ... they give the impression of a white victim, when in each case the white "victim" (through their filings, that NEVER gets attention/notice) admits that there were more qualified Black candidates that were also denied admission, and lesser qualified white candidates that were granted admission.

[JustAnotherGen]

127. Amen 1Strong

And next - it goes to HBCU's . . . But they fail to acknowledge that:

1. Anyone can apply
2. The reasons why these institutions were set up
3. I could see someone like Freshwest at a HCBU - completely comfy there. But folks who are 'bothered' by the term white privilege would really be sick if they realized they were in a small slice of America where that totally doesn't exist.

#3 I'm guessing at - and check out the AA group -

kwassa - love him - has a great post in there on 'black friends'.

[Vattel]

167. No university has race-based standards. But in effect the admission

goals of universities do mean that a black candidate with, for example, an SAT score of 1100 is far more likely to be admitted than someone of Asian descent who has an SAT score of 1100.

[1StrongBlackMan]

172. Are you stating opinion as fact? ...

Are you accounting for regional differences ... say, California versus Vermont?

And how is this related to "Black Privilege"?

[NuclearDem]

21. "Black privilege"?

[cyberswede]

59. I think you're misinterpreting "privilege"

It is merely the "privilege" of going through life without being discriminated against for the color of your skin.

Affirmative Action's goal of leveling the playing field a bit doesn't equal "privilege" for its beneficiaries, rather it attempts to correct, somewhat, for the "privilege" whites already have.

[Vattel]

96. If I am a black person from a wealthy family

and because I am black my SAT scores don't need to be as high for me to get into a good university, then isn't that privilege?

[gollygee]

99. No

The fact that the SAT is biased toward white people because the language uses culture expressions more common in the dominate (white) culture is an example of privilege for white people. The SAT score correction is an attempt to balance that. It is not privilege.


https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/21/sat

But what Freedle found in 2003 has now been confirmed independently by the new study: that some kinds of verbal questions have a DIF for black and white students. On some of the easier verbal questions, the two studies found that a DIF favored white students. On some of the most difficult verbal questions, the DIF favored black students. Freedle's theory about why this would be the case was that easier questions are likely reflected in the cultural expressions that are used commonly in the dominant (white) society, so white students have an edge based not on education or study skills or aptitude, but because they are most likely growing up around white people. The more difficult words are more likely to be learned, not just absorbed.

[Vattel]

103. At most the study you cite suggests a racial bias in the verbal part of the test.

My broader point is that when you look at the standard examples of white privilege, it is hard to deny that there are examples of black privilege too. An example of white privilege in the famous knapsack essay is this: "When I am told about our national heritage or about 'civilization,' I am shown that people of my color made it what it is." True enough, but then isn't it also true that the following is an example of black privilege? "When I am told who has been responsible for most oppression in my country, I am shown that people of another color have been the oppressors."

Obviously it is blacks and not whites who are the victims of enormous racial inequality and racial injustice in America. But why not talk about that rather than white privilege?

[Starry Messenger]

63. No, there is no black privilege.

Nope, nope, nope.

[noiretextatique]

66. AA wasn't a "privilege" it was a redress for centuries of white privilege

as the norm. next stupid statement, please. btw. AA is effectively dead because white folks could not stand the idea of anyone being privileged (even as redress) except themselves.

[Vattel]

90. So how do you define white privilege?

It seems you have a novel definition.

[heaven05]

142. being able to deny white privilege

like you are is white privilege.

[Vattel]

147. I don't deny it

[heaven05]

148. right

[Vattel]

150. I take it you don't do too well on reading comprehension tests.

[heaven05]

152. it's your right to try to insult me

it's the last refuge of the clueless.

[Vattel]

155. How am I supposed to respond to someone who just denies that I believe what

I say I believe? You insult me, and reveal your own cluelessness, by doubting my honesty.

[heaven05]

164. should I keep responding

to someone who honestly believes that white privilege is the same as Affirmative Action? That is clueless and asinine. Without merit because it is a FALSE equivalent. You have fun. I'm not wasting anymore time with you. bye. bye. It's not been a pleasure dealing with such deflection, distraction and false equivalency while trying to squirm your way out of the hole you're standing in. It's pretty deep. Good luck.

[Vattel]

166. As I said, I am in favor of affirmative action.

Some affirmative action programs seek to partially redress the unjust disadvantages faced by blacks due to centuries of institutional racism. That is a good thing even if confers some limited benefits to being black. The problem here is the concept of white privilege. In my opinion (which could be wrong), partly because the concept is confused and ambiguous, it is difficult to critique without provoking the sort of childish responses you have offered.

[heaven05]

139. last gasp, grabbing at straws

and using RW talking points. Really????? Thanks for my guffaw for the day. Spilled my coffee.

[treestar]

17. This is not the place to ask

Well except for a few.

Conservatives have answers, such as they are, but they are easy to refute.

[KitSileya]

128. Oh, we wish.

However, there's plenty of racists on the liberal side...or should I say liberal site, as evidenced right here on this thread....

[brer cat]

29. That is a good question, CreekDog.

I would not have thought on DU it would lead to a discussion of "black privilege," but there you have it. Pretty amazing.

[Puzzledtraveller]

45. I'm a white latino

Most of my family appears "latino" if we want to talk about physical appearance, but my brother and I got the white from our mom who was only 1/4 "white". White privilege is an odd thing for me, I know I benefit from it because people are prejudice and see me as white. Not all my family members can say the same.
My father for instance was bullied and made to ride in the back of the school bus for being Mexican-American and not speaking english as his first language. He and his friends were indeed the minority in many situations he experienced as a child. He said that he would defend himself but it was him that would be routinely kicked off the bus when a fight broke out that "white" kids would instigate.
He went so far as to refrain from speaking spanish when we were children as he said it, so that we would not have accents or be discriminated against for speaking Spanish, even partially. Other family members of mine have also struggled with employment and other forms of discrimination but I have not.Why, because I do not look like them?

[brer cat]

48. I guess it is mainly appearance.

My daughter lives in a town with a large hispanic population, and I know many of the children are bullied. I have heard shop keepers make derogatory comments about their hispanic appearing customers. It makes no sense to me to make judgments based on appearances but it is all around us.

[CreekDog]

76. i think the term generally refers to white, not of Hispanic origin

or some term of art like that.

it's a fair point to make that being white and Hispanic, especially with a Hispanic surname is a disadvantage in this country.

[gordianot]

42. The usual argument against "white privilege"; I was raised poor too does not add up.

The amount of melanin in the skin places you in a group no matter accomplishments, educational opportunity, wealth, likability,ethnic origin, religious background or personal philosophy. White privilege is bestowed on whites by other whites or maybe in some cases those people with lesser melanin.

[CANDO]

53. Off to the trash heap with this thread.

Another passive aggressive, party dogma, thought police thread where you'd better totally agree with the premise or you'll be beat upon mercilessly until you capitulate.

[Ecumenist]

55. WTF??!! This thread was posted as a way for people to REALLY think about what the recent

OBVIOUS MURDERS and MISTREATMENT of AMERICAN CITIZENS of African descent and how just being born with a low levels of melanin confers a certain "step up" that people blessed with a darker complexion DO NOT HAVE. PERIOD. Noone is asking you to CONFORM. Where do you see that ANYWHERE? Just to explain why you believe, (if you do) that white privilege does not exist and if you believe that sometime in the past, WP did exist, when then, did it disappear? That's all DON'T GET IT TWISTED, dear.

[CreekDog]

74. you aren't the victim in this thread

acting like one is missing the point.

[Number23]

94. That poster once told a black poster to "get a job" and stop complaining

and the person that was directed to has exhibited more education, compassion and intelligence in a single use of the smiley than that person has in the totality of his existence here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=5773

Thought you might like to get a better understanding of that person's "history"

[nomorenomore08]

80. So if you reject the "privilege" framing, how would *you* frame unequal treatment of the races?

[heaven05]

145. yep, you go on to where you desire to be

you are exercising your white privilege with your total denial of white privilege which belongs in the heap you want to throw this thread. You're transparent and obvious, you just don't know it. And I'm glad you are that way because it informs me of what to look for

[Dr. Strange]

60. When Steve Perry left Journey.

If white privilege were still a thing, Steve Perry would still be with Journey.

[madinmaryland]

71. THREAD WIN!!!

[CreekDog]

116. Well...who made more money, Steve Perry or the current guy?

who is Filipino by the way.

don't stop believin'.

[rbrnmw]

138. Steve Augeri replaced Steve Perry

He was white too

[Quayblue]

62. you know whats funny to me

Is how black people are given the onus of making the topic "gentle" for deniers, so they can FINALLY decide, if-then-maybe, to fight racism. As if all the bullshit black people have dealt with in this country isn't enough to take a stand. Or maybe us black people really ain't important enough to give a shit about.

and then throw MLK Jr in the argument's equation.... I guess they forgot how gentle his message was; he was still assassinated.

[madinmaryland]

75. First of creek, does any on the board actually believe "white privilege" does not exist...

If you do, then this really seems like a shit-stirring thread. I just can't see what the point of this thread is, unless you forgot you were on DU and not Discussionist.

[CreekDog]

124. what?

i can't understand the wording of your post.

oh and look at the responses if you want to know if anyone doesn't believe. actually, you could have done that before posting.

[99Forever]

83. It's not a matter of "belief."

It's about the imprecise use of the term. Trying to browbeat acceptance into people's heads, often has the exact opposite affect.

[Odious justice]

91. If you don't believe in the tooth fairy

Tell us when she flew away.

[chervilant]

111. I have added four people to my IL

because of their regrettable, bigoted responses to your astute questions--and because they adamantly refuse to contemplate the ramifications of white privilege, choosing instead to deny, deny, deny.

Hofstadter wrote a great essay about such rigid thinking...

[CreekDog]

115. thank you for the compliments

i understand the ignores, but it would be valuable to have you serve on juries that review their posts.

for your consideration.

[Boom Sound 416]

121. Oh look another act if Internet courage.

Maybe a dozen or two more of these intrepid acts ought to do it. Right?

[CreekDog]

129. Just talking about a topic that liberals generally agree on

What is your problem with that?

[Boom Sound 416]

130. Is that who "us" is

Rather exclusionary term given the platform

[CreekDog]

131. maybe you can explain why you feel so excluded on DU.

[Boom Sound 416]

132. I don't. Thanks.

I said the term "us" is rather exclusionary given the platform.

You seemed to define "us" as 'we liberals' in your first response.


Understand?

[CreekDog]

133. I don't define "us" as liberals, Democratic Underground does, what's your problem with that?

Mission Statement

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;

...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

[Boom Sound 416]

136. I've made my points.

Going outside to play now.

[CreekDog]

137. meaning you didn't even know that Democratic Underground was for liberals

and were giving me a hard time for saying what was in DU's Mission Statement.

will you admit that you were wrong?

[Boom Sound 416]

154. really. You needed to pm this as well?

Along with all your other little accusations.

[CreekDog]

156. it was a reply to your last PM to me

and pointing out that you were wrong is not an accusation.

[Boom Sound 416]

157. Sure about that?

Are we expanding the definition of response too?

[CreekDog]

158. glad you're such a stickler for accuracy

now.

[Boom Sound 416]

159. OMG

Did you actually admit you were wrong?

Hang on I gotta tweet this.

[Lex]

143. Boom.

LOL.

[Boom Sound 416]

153. S'up buddy?

You watchin msnbc next Thursday?

[heaven05]

165. Why do you hate the fact

that people of color just want to be treated as an equal in a society that DOES NOT recognize that equality with continually perpetuating white privilege to the detriment of all non-whites? You have never come in from the playground to join the adults in serious conversation. In fact, stay out there.

[Boom Sound 416]

168. How did you jump to the conclusion

That I'm a racist.

Was it solely from this conversation? Or others?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5476281

[CreekDog]

170. maybe you don't speak for as many people here as you think

since you seem to be arguing with nearly everybody, including the overwhelming sentiment of responses to the thread.

[Boom Sound 416]

171. I haven't argued anything contextually about the thread

I argued its impact.

You two are all conjecture.

[Lex]

144. *hat tip*

Well played.