General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you don't believe in (recognize) white privilege why the fuck are you on a Democratic Forum?
How the hell can you call yourself a progressive or a Democrat?
Now I understand that there are a lot of Libertarians masquerading as progressives here. There are even conservatives / Republicans doing the same.
What I wanna know is why is there a significant percentage of this site that absolutely rejects and aggressively refutes the fundamental truth of white privilege in America (and the rest of the world).
This is a nation that was built on the theft of land by white settlers.
The same folks then brought African slaves here and legally treated them as less than full human beings. Completely robbing them of their culture, stripping them of their identities. They denied them access to an education so that they could maintain the myth of superiority.
Even after 400 years of slavery ended, white people treated African Americans and other minorities as second class citizens.
It wasn't just the rich corporate barons who benefited from this ingrained American culture. Every white person benefited from America's "White's Only" culture.
The culture was intentionally set up so that even the poorest of the poor in white America would feel that they were still above the "Negro / Colored".
Do you think that all those poor ass white folks in the south during Jim Crow considered themselves equal to "N*ggers". Hell NO! They knew they were privileged because of their white skin. They desperately wanted to hold on to that privilege.
That's why they terrorized black civil rights leaders. Shouted at, spit on and threw rocks at black children trying to integrate schools.
It's why generations of white folks abandoned the Democratic Party and became loyal Republicans after the Democrats helped usher in the civil rights acts.
So I get disgusted reading countless tales of white folks on this forum who just don't feel privileged because they're white. I don't care what you feel. Facts are facts whether you accept them or not.
It'd be like some man saying he doesn't feel privileged / advantaged over a woman so therefore gender inequality doesn't exist. The ignorance is inexcusable.
White Privilege means that no matter how wealthy or educated a black man is, he will always be treated as a common street thug simply because of his brown skin. He will always fit a description and be treated with suspicion no matter how big his bank account is or the prestigious degrees on the wall. It means that his white counterparts will always be viewed as an individual and judged on their credentials.
This is the fundamental argument of the GOP. They are the white people's party.
If you can't understand this then you don't belong in the Democratic Party. We fundamentally rejected that world view when we nominated Barack Obama to represent our party in 2008.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bhikkhu
(10,760 posts)which means a whole lot still has to change. And our lives are better too if we treat the environment we live in with the same respect and dignity we expect for ourselves.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)
I was going to make a joke of it and say I believe in Beige Privilege
brush
(57,800 posts)Human privilege? You're both joking right?
Denial is not helping anything. The OP states the whole issue of white privilege so clearly, eloquently and FACTUALLY that on one who is aware of the violent history of this country towards people of color should even try to deny it.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Please reread my post
heaven05
(18,124 posts)you deflected and distracted with smilie faces while NOT acknowledging the premise of OP. Typical.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)If y'all are taking things too seriously, then it's no use explaining it.
Have a great day! 
heaven05
(18,124 posts)seriousness is in the eye of the beholder. You have a good one also.
locdlib
(176 posts)then walk away claiming that "ya'll taking stuff too serious." you know joke it away, put in smilies, and everything is all shits and giggles. i tend to walk away from those dismissive types with a "ya'll too stupid for me to waste my time."
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 3, 2014, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)
If you read the OP, it wasn't saying that white privilege is a good thing...just that it exists and that our country is based on it.
Do you disagree with THAT assertion?
raven mad
(4,940 posts)I was wondering if I had lost my mind. Damn right I "believe in" it - I see it locally on a daily basis.
bhikkhu
(10,760 posts)most disagreement I've heard says that "it used to exist", and things are just fine now. Or that it used to exist, and we've all moved on to other problems.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)at deflection and distraction from main point. Always here. Always expected.
bhikkhu
(10,760 posts)becoming "human privilege". Going about my day, that is what I have kept in mind for years, to treat people equally well regardless of race, gender, clothing, wealth, etc. We are all very much more alike than we are different. No intention to deflect, as I agree with the OP, I just think about it differently. Solutions begin with individuals, and how we treat one another, including how we treat one another here.
Last edited Thu Sep 4, 2014, 07:10 AM - Edit history (1)
ONLY because you say so. White privilege is used negatively in this country to the detriment of people of color. Period. "Human Privilege"? If only I live long enough to experience that utopian world you envision. Till then, yes the privilege that whites enjoy in this country should be eradicated so every one starts off on an equal basis. Hasn't happened yet, in three hundred years of native-American genocide, african-American slavery and post slavery racial segregation. The building of the railroads and asian-American abuse and on and on. I hope you find what you're envisioning, till then the FACT of white privilege is being dealt with here.
Nobel_Twaddle_III
(325 posts)It is all about being a big tent party.
passing what we can agree on and getting there step by step.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 4, 2014, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)
just stating fact. This "big tent party" has people under it that enjoy a privilege denied others. It is a granted point as to who is allowed in the 'big tent', just about everyone. Yet it is also a sure point that some are denied unquestioned privilege(s) others enjoy under that 'big tent without even a thought. When all privileges are granted to all under 'the big tent than maybe some will stop thinking that pain in their shins is from a kick up front instead of the rear where it started.
Been stepping 300 hundred years and still steppin, fetchit?
bhikkhu
(10,760 posts)is that if I get pulled over its because I was doing something wrong. I'll get treated politely by the police, and probably given the benefit of the doubt if I apologize and react politely. Its happened a few times over the years and I've only gotten a couple of tickets for minor things, and I have no issues with my treatment by the police. That's how it should be for everyone.
I can wander around, in and out of any store and not be given a second glance by security. I've never shoplifted, but I've also never been suspected of shoplifting or been looked at as "suspect" just because of my race. I can walk or sit anywhere and my presence doesn't worry anyone. That's how it should be for everyone.
If I go in any bank, or restaurant, or anyplace really, I generally am looked at as just a customer, usually welcomed (depending on the vagaries of customer service). Its nice to live in a place where you feel welcome anywhere, just because you're there. That's how it should be for everyone.
If I'm introduced to people, rich or poor, any race, any status, I've always been able to greet and shake hands with anyone as an equal, without having to worry whether I'm accepted as an equal or not. We're all just people, and that's how it should be for everyone.
I've been below the poverty line more often than not in my 49 years, though things have been ok for years, and much better lately. I suppose the most uncomfortable I've felt was when I had to get unemployment and food stamps years ago; I felt like I had no real excuses for not being able to provide for my family. But everyone was nice enough about it and I got back on my feet soon enough. That's also how I wish it was for everyone.
A lot has to change, but I hope people can see what I mean when I say white privilege should extend to everyone. Its how everyone should treat each other; people know how to do it already, they just have to widen the circle.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)
excellentphil89
(1,043 posts)I guess there's only one way to think?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)They take great offence to so little, and the talking points are identical to the NRA.
Gun privilege? Which seems to be an exclusively white folk thing.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,320 posts)like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole - so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf
Probably has a lot to do with the fact that their position is identical to the party position?
lark
(24,260 posts)Doesn't mean they are right. Too many Democrats are just conservative lights and bow to authority and MIC almost as much as the Repugs.
Sure the party platform supports gun rights, they are too chicken to do anything else. It would take chutzpah to stand up to the NRA and that's in short supply.
gaspee
(3,231 posts)It's something I hate about the party platform. They gave into the gunners on the platform because they are too chickenshit to do anything else.
NutmegYankee
(16,320 posts)It IS still an official Party position.
lark
(24,260 posts)Why are gun folks so quick to twist others words? I am a strong free speech supporter, people have the right to say whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the rules of this board. I disagree with the party and whoever says that the constitution gives individuals unlimited rights to own guns, but that doesn't mean they can't say it. They're just wrong is all, IMO, and yes I do realize this is a minority opinion, but again it is my right.
NutmegYankee
(16,320 posts)Context. This thread is about why are certain people on a Democratic forum. Someone stated they question why gun owners post here. I pointed out the fact that the party plank flat out recognizes the right to own guns. There are millions of Democrats who own guns. If we tossed each of them out, we'd be a minority party that could never win elections.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)One is for feeding us (hunting). One is for when we're backpacking and bears (noise more than anything). I don't guess I'm a "gunner" in your view; they're tools and really, almost necessities here. I also carry a camera!
I have both concealed and open carry permits; if you apply for them and pay the fee, the brush-up-on-skills lessons come free, so that's why. I also brush-up-on-skills with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation quite often, as I have a bike.
Don't lump any of us together, okay? I've been a registered Dem since 1972; the first year I was eligible to vote. I consider myself a liberal, feminist, blue-all-the-way Alaskan and it's not easy to do that up here!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Other reasons. None involve long gun private ownership, unlimited arsenals and killer bullets and military grade weapons.
It is inanity and insanity to argue that more guns make you more safe which is the core delusion Americans suffer under.
America crossed the line of responsible national gun policy long ago.
And Burgers and Bullets for kids? Really, WTF does a child need to have fun with a gun for, the world is not entertaining enough already for a child?
gaspee
(3,231 posts)And I hate that the Democratic party is too cowed by the weapons industry to have *that* as the platform. They've had it beaten into them that being for reasonable, sane, gun control loses elections. I'm not convinced that's true.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)fans the flames of war between the camps.
It is what they do. Every gun control proposal is fought with weapons grade propaganda.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Oh, yeah:
"Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging"
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf
It is not intended to offer media training advice on topics such as how to prepare for a media appearance or advice about specific media such as how to write a press release or prepare a compelling email message.
Its purpose is to offer clear advice about effective frames and messages across a broad variety of communication opportunities.
You've learned well, as we can see from your post:
Fred:
#4: EMPHASIZE THAT EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS, MILITARY-STYLE
WEAPONS ARE NOW WITHIN EASY REACH ACROSS AMERICA.
Fred:
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
It’s critical that you ground your messaging around gun violence prevention by making that
emotional connection. Don’t skip past emotional arguments and lapse into a passionless public policy voice. And don’t make the gun violence debate seem as if it is a political “food fight” between two interest groups.
Fred:
AND DON’T ASSUME THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT.
Kinda sucks when the other guys have also read your playbook, doesn't it?
That's not the only guide to anti-gun talking points available.
At least two unashamedly use the phrase "talking points":
http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/gun_messaging
http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/sources_for_more_detailed_talking_points
https://progressivemajorityaction.nationbuilder.com/assets/pages/64/Voicing_Our_Values-To_Curtail_Gun_Violence.pdf
As we explain here, we have tried to make this resource as easy‐to‐use as possible by placing model language in boxes throughout. We encourage you to adapt the language to your own voice and personalize it with your own knowledge and experience.
Much more comprehensive, detailed or technical talking points are available from advocacy groups listed at the end of this paper.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,320 posts)A bolt action rifle (a long gun) is the standard hunting tool for deer.
sarisataka
(21,148 posts)Since ~96-97% of all hunting is done with long guns (rifle, shotgun or muzzle loader). The remainder is done with bow, handgun or other...
hack89
(39,179 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)I remember feeling a sense of ...thinking...ah..sadness..yes..sadness that other black children were perceived as "not as respectable".
These feelings were brought about by observing the actions around me when watching salespeople talking to people that were not white.
I felt uncomfortable and uneasy....as if something was very unfair.
You know, A LOT of people think that 5-6 year olds don't know what's going on.
They do....a lot more than what people think.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)There's even a couple of climate change deniers.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Psephos
(8,032 posts)Why is the urge to squelch opinions that don't match our own so strong in the human psyche?
Left, right, middle - no one is exempt.
You can't have a discussion without a range of viewpoints. You can only have a chorus.
And - before you go there - I hold ACC and evolution to be the best theories that science can offer.
MoleyRusselsWart
(101 posts)One of my biggest pet peeves, that actually causes me to stop visiting for prolonged periods of time is the complete lack of tolorence for other (fairly stated, not trolling) opinions.
People who are confident in their opinions don't fear opposing views.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Psephos
(8,032 posts)Therefore, no discussion necessary. It allows one to maintain a professed desire for diversity of viewpoints - with "morons" excepted, of course. 
You see where this leads to trouble?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)It doesn't matter to them what you actually think, they will provide your opinion for you.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)...never want to hear - let alone consider - your view.
Works that way with religion, too, and for the same reason.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If you look at the President and say "He's a Muslim who obeyed Jeremiah Wright and grew up in Kenya a'fore hawaii was a state!" then you're a moron.
if you look at all the compiled evidence of Global Warming and look me square i nthe eye to call it a 'socialist hoax" then you're a moron
If you're going to have a discussion on middle east politics, you don't bring Tom Tancredo along to the panel.
If you think the queen of England is a Jewish iguana from outer space who runs Wall street in between jaunts to the hollow earth to recharge herself through Pyramid Power - you're a moron
I imagine you get my gist here, right?
Being wrong and being a moron are two different things. The first can be argued. The second is a waste of time.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)Ok, sounds simple.
Moron = someone who's views clash with your own.
Keeps discussion very hygienic.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's evidence-based, a collection of assembled and examined facts arranged into patterns that make the most possible sense out of possible arrangements. Now the arrangement understood might not be perfect. Someone can bring in new pieces of evidence to examine and dd to the arrangement, or suggest a new pattern of arrangement and we all haggle and bark over it in a merry little argument.
But then someone comes in with a heaping bag of nothing resembling evidence, pours it on our arrangement in a big mess, and demands we give their sack of garbage precedence over the carefully examined and considered stuff we've so meticulously put together.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)"someone comes in with a heaping bag of nothing resembling evidence, pours it on our arrangement in a big mess, and demands we give their sack of garbage precedence over the carefully examined and considered stuff we've so meticulously put together"
--- does not equal ---
"someone who has a viewpoint different from your own"
Again, the fatal flaw is that, by extraordinary coincidence, right-thinking people share the same views as Scootaloo, and Scootaloo simply points out that the obvious morons who aren't part of the correct-viewpoint club can be brushed away with a wave of the hand.
It's called a circumlocution, when you "prove" something by assuming what you're proving up front.
If you think you have a monopoly on right thinking, you aren't discussing. You're lecturing.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You do realize that you're the one claiming I'm opposed to different viewpoints. That's nothing I've ever said. It's you putting words in my mouth.
But now that you've finally gotten it through your head that my posiiton is not at al las you are trying to describe, thank you for your time, and good night.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)If I've misunderstood you, it wasn't intentional.
I enjoy the old back-and-forth with a capable partner.
Good night. 
Veilex
(1,555 posts)While true in the strictest sense, everyone has a point of view, through which we all view the world... pretty much without exception. Reality, is often somewhere between all the points of view.
In my humble point of view, calling someone a moron, regardless of being right or not, is purely dismissive and non constructive toward exposing others to different points of view and, perhaps, finding something a little closer to reality. But, maybe that's the point? Who knows.
No one has a corner on truth.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Think about that for a moment. Think about what you know about, I dunno, math. Now i insist that two plus two equals seventeen. By your argument then, the "reality" must be that two plus two equals 10.5 - the midpoint between your "belief" (2+2=4) and my "belief" (2+2=17). And even though every shred of compiled evidence assembled asserts that your initial position is correct, that two and two equals four, you have to accept a middle ground between that, and my off the wall, unbased assertion that it equals seventeen. because you don't want to be dismissive, and you want to see differing viewpoints on the subject of basic addition.
Of course, I doubt you actually believe this - but it's the argument you're making. One annoying trend I've noted among other liberals is that they really like to say this self-congratulatory shit that they know isn't true but makes them feel open-minded and inclusive. Not all opinions are equal. Everyone has a right to have their opinions of course, but not all opinions are worthy of consideration. My theoretical opinion that 2+2=17, for example, is not worth considering and should be dismissed.
And yeah, it IS dismissive. because this stuff deserves to be dismissed. There's a reason we don't put 9/11 truthers on GD here on DU. There's a reason Ken Ham didn't get to co-host "Cosmos." There's a reason James Inhofe isn't invited to conduct climate research. There's a reason why we all roll our eyes at birthers.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying reality is slaved to perception... I'm saying quite the opposite in fact... perception is slaved to reality... however, all perceptions are tainted by our personal experience and views.
Math, is actually a great example of that. How we quantify a thing or series of things varies, and has varied considerably throughout history. For example, we used to measure the weight of a thing in stones... we don't do that anymore, because our understanding of weight consistency, liquid displacement, and a heavy dose of fraudulent manipulation has changed our perceptions on how to best measure weight. Our individual perceptions guide and change how we react to things.
An even better example would be your response to my comment. You misunderstood my comment, and reacted according to your extrapolated point of view. You presumed I said that reality is dictated by the middle group between points of view, rather than "Reality, is often somewhere between all the points of view." - which considerably less absolute.
As to the second half of my comment, that's all personal choice... I prefer to default to trying be inclusive and give people the benefit of the doubt. I'll generally entertain a conversation until the point where it is clear there is nothing to be gained by doing so... then I exit that discussion. This is not to say I don't immediately dismiss some conversations... I certainly so... there is nothing to be gained by talking to someone who's convinced that Global Climate Change is a farce... but I certainly try to not default to that dismissiveness. Again, its a personal choice.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)My position revolves around the latter of the two, where if you reject the compiled, assembled data, and do so without any ability to present a compelling counter-argument also based on data - basically, if you look at evidence and just go "NUH UH!" - then i will consider you a moron and dismiss you. As i said this is different from simply being wrong.
It's not a question of rejecting different viewpoints, or dismissing opinions counter to my own, as you and Psephos have apparently been trying to claim. it's not an an attempt to block out counter-arguments, but rather to excise non-arguments. Ideas and opinions and arguments that have no basis in fact or evidence, or that are so hopelessly scattered and askew, or whose conclusions are so wild that they might as well have no basis fact or evidence (The famous "the banana is curved so god made it!" argument from Roy Comfort, for example - bananas are indeed curved, but to jump from that to an ancient Hebrew deity being the mastermind behind them is... er... moronic.)
These positions tend to set the discussion backwards. They're destructive. We have overwhelming evidence of climate change, coming from pretty much every branch of science that involves field work, verified independently, from all around the world. What progress can we possibly[ make with this data, if we bring inhofe into the discussion?> What great, helpful insights is he going to give us to help us consider a next move to respond to the situation all the evidence clearly shows?
Answer, nothing. he would be worse than a non-controbutor, he would work as a disrupr, to undermine and force the discussion backwards, and attempt to scuttle the whole affair. he would be ranting that it snowed i nthe winter somewhere so it can't be getting warmer. he'd also probably demand explanations about the big bang and evolution too, just for good measure, even though it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Thus, it is better to just dismiss Inhofe out of hand entirely, dismiss his entire line of "arguing" and just sidestep that guy because he's a moron.
Now if we want to talk about emotional responses to "Old Yeller" okay, we can bring Inhofe in and his opinion will be as valid as anyone else's.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)You could have stopped here. To revisit what I said: "everyone has a point of view, through which we all view the world." Even data is subject to points of view, though to a lesser extent... we call that interpretation.
But let us test that, shall we?
Following grammatical standards, we can identify a fundamental flaw in your argument.
It occurs through the interpretation of the comment: "No, in fact reality is not "somewhere between all the points of view""
studying what I said and how you repeated it, we can identify that you left out an intentionally placed qualifier, which drastically changes the meaning of the sentence. Lets do a side by side comparison shall we?
Here's what I originally said:
"Reality, is often somewhere between all the points of view" - Now, lets follow that up with what you responded with:
"No, in fact reality is not "somewhere between all the points of view" -
Notice how you left out that vital and meaning changing "is often"? That was the qualifier you left out.
When we add it back in, we get the automatically implied "not always"... this gives the complete thought:
Reality, is often, but not always, somewhere between all the points of view.
This misunderstanding is what your argument has stemmed from.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)in which cause precedes consequence, objects have spatial relationships, things have intrinsic qualities, etc.
Carbon dioxide, for example, has an intrinsic property whereby it absorbs energy in infrared wavelengths.
I get what you're saying and I agree completely.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Although the deniers have moved on from "socialist hoax" to "all the climatologists are wrong" now. But the gereal gist, that they're no more worty of discussion than creationists, is entirely accurate.
betsuni
(27,272 posts)I always think of Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum":
"There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics. ... Cretins don't even talk; they sort of slobber and stumble. You know, the guy who presses the ice ream cone against this forehead, or enters a revolving door the wrong way. ... Being a fool is more complicated. It's a form of social behavior. ... He's the guy who puts his foot in his mouth ... Fools are in great demand, especially on social occasions. They embarrass everyone but provide material for conversation. In their positive form, they become diplomats. ... Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong. Like the fellow who says all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are pets, too, and therefore cats bark. ... Morons are tricky. You can spot the fool right away (not to mention the cretin), but the moron reasons almost the way you do; the gap is infinitesimal. A moron is a master of paralogism. ... Plenty of morons' books are published, because they're convincing at first glance. ... The whole history of logic consists of attempts to define an acceptable notion of moronism. A task too immense. Every great thinker is someone else's moron. ... A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn't know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn't concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idee fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy."
I saw this lovely example of moronic logic right here on DU:
If all white people are privileged and I am white, then I am privileged. But I am not privileged, I am poor and worked so hard so this is wrong because if you say 100% ALL EVERY white person is privileged and there is one white person who is poor, it doesn't affect all white people so white privilege cannot exist.
Ouch, typing that out made my brains hurt. So many examples of moronic thinking here!
Veilex
(1,555 posts)First and foremost, thanks for sharing that! Most enjoyable. 
I especially like "Every great thinker is someone else's moron".
I've certain I've filled each and every one of those descriptions at one point or another... and may do so again.
To wit, a thought that often crosses my mind... right or wrong it sticks with me: "Absolutes, rarely are."
To me, that says: There are always exceptions. Which not to detract from the accurate assessment that White privilege exists. It does. And anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.
I do, however, propose a slight modification to the notion of White privilege... and that being, those of wealth garner most of that privilege, and sprinkle just enough privilege down to other white folks to ensure we're too busy fighting among ourselves for scraps, to notice the twelve course meal of privilege that they enjoy.
Thoughts?
sarge43
(29,167 posts)Wrong, probably. Hardly morons.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)being religious doesn't equal being a moron. Allowing the writings of bronze-age child-sacrificing goatherders to trump observed reality does.
sarge43
(29,167 posts)However, your original contention was that anyone who believes God (Jesus being part of the Christian Trinity) is the prime mover of creation is a moron.
" f {sic) you look at the universe and tell me 'Jesus did it' you're a moron."
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Seriously. They have a guy like that.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)is that so many seem to think "opinion" covers outright facts. Climate change deniers are like creationists in that they're disputing facts that should be indisputable to the layman, refusing to accept reality. You don't get to have your own opinion about facts.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)As much as I'm a proponent of ACC, it is not factual. It is theoretical, based on an evolved interpretation of facts. Although it's a very good theory, to claim a theory to be a fact is to dismiss oneself from the scientific process and enter the realm of received truth.
Science is never settled. It advances, discarding old paradigms and explanations in favor of newer, more accurate ones.
It can only advance when someone questions it, picks apart its weaknesses, and advances a better explanation. Usually, there are some in the old school who cling to the old thinking, and defend it as all bitter clingers do. Consider the unseemly end years of the great Lord Kelvin's career, when he excoriated Darwin with derision and venom. A scientist no more...sad.
Think about the displacement of Newtonian physics by relativity a hundred years ago. Real scientists took an open-minded, if strongly skeptical, view of relativity until experimental tests that tried to disprove it failed. A real scientist TESTS HER OWN THEORY to try to *disprove* it, and helps others do the same. Only if these tests fail can theoretical confidence advance.
And now, we see that relativity itself is in the process of being superseded....
That's science.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)The point is that climate change deniers have simply decided, just like creationists, that facts (and yes, I'm using teh lay definition) are not acceptable to them. They don't care about the difference between fact and theory except so they can argue that climate change isn't real.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)There are 24 major models in use to explain ACC. That tells you something if you listen.
A sure sign that someone is not scientific is when they get upset when someone else questions or critiques their theory. A real scientist wants her theory to defend itself by surviving tests meant to disprove it. Consensus does not advance science...a hard fact for many to wrap their heads around.
Do I have to say it again? Probably. Remember, I am A PROPONENT OF ACC THEORY.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)The fact is, there is a consensus on ACC. If I get upset when people just deny that it's happening, it's because their denial is literally killing us. It's all very well to talk about facts never being established and critique advancing science, I know all that (I'm a psychologist) but we are not talking about people who are interested in advancing science. We're talking about people, exactly like creationists, whose interest in science is purely in picking holes with it. Your need to say "well, there are 24 models" does nothing except give them room to wedge their denial into.
We are talking about people who refuse to accpt that climate change is happening (and that's not open to dispute, that's established fact) and/or refuse to accept humans are causing it. When you try lecturing them on the science, they pull out factoids they've got from some acceptable (to them, look up motivated learning) source and use them to try and pick holes in the science. When we get annoyed that they refuse to look facts in the face, they claim, just as you're doing, that we can't stand to see people question our theory so it must be wrong. Or they just claim it's a religion.
I spent about ten years working for Beliefnet. One thing I learned there, which studying psychology has allowed me to articulate and explain, is that when people have decided that the consensus is wrong, nothing, no amount of facts or argument, will ever change their mind.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)It's hard to apply that to one's own thinking. I know I struggle with it. I kindly hope you do as well.
Off to bed now....
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I try not to mouth off about things which I don't know very well. That's my attempt to deal with it.
Sleep well.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I forget who said it first, but it certainly applies.
trueblue2007
(18,212 posts)
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)Used it at least back in the 1970's
Fla Dem
(25,773 posts)Creationism, climate change deniers, no gun regulations are far right of center. Meaningful discussions are impossible.
So many just want an echo chamber here.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)be interesting if nothing else. I especially like the, "what next."
Cad Bane
(68 posts)Many climate change deniers are religious extremists who don't think man can negatively impact nature. Others are just corporate shills for the fossil fuel industries. Then there are just the typical right winger who will oppose anything they think liberals value and support.
None of this explains people who deny the fundamental truth of white privilege in society.
What is their agenda?
I've even seen people on this site recently trying to spread the idea of "black privilege" as a way of discrediting the topic.
What's next? Gay privilege, Poor Privilege, Native American Privilege...
There's a very rotten underbelly on this site. This should be a safe place for Democrats (and the Democratic Coalition). Not a site where minorities should feel unwelcome because fully accepting them might make some white folks uncomfortable.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Climate change deniers are literally killing us. And I find that most of them are clueless libertarians and determined contrarians, the kind of people who've read a couple of articles and think they know everything there is to know on teh subject.
As far as the agenda of people who deny white privilege goes on this board, my best guess is that most are people who've had a difficult life and think their whiteness didn't help them at all. I used to be one of them until someone explained it by saying "if life was a video game, being white is like playing on the easiest difficulty". Because I'm a gamer, that was a metaphor I could understand more easily than the more academic theories.
Incidentally, being British, I'm not a Democrat either.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Protections that took decades, that took people fighting, suffering and dying to achieve. Climate change will reduce the ability of our government to govern. Once it all starts unraveling it will be a free for all.
While we start the long road to the next tier of social justice our chances of remaining a hospitable ecosystem to life are dwindling quickly.
If we don't start taking it seriously, we will lose everything we have fought for in the past and everything we desire for the future.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)When we look back on what happened in Ferguson, Mo., during the summer of 2014, it will be easy to think of it as yet one more episode of black rage ignited by yet another police killing of an unarmed African American male. But that has it precisely backward. What we’ve actually seen is the latest outbreak of white rage. Sure, it is cloaked in the niceties of law and order, but it is rage nonetheless.
Protests and looting naturally capture attention. But the real rage smolders in meetings where officials redraw precincts to dilute African American voting strength or seek to slash the government payrolls that have long served as sources of black employment. It goes virtually unnoticed, however, because white rage doesn’t have to take to the streets and face rubber bullets to be heard. Instead, white rage carries an aura of respectability and has access to the courts, police, legislatures and governors, who cast its efforts as noble, though they are actually driven by the most ignoble motivations.
White rage recurs in American history. It exploded after the Civil War, erupted again to undermine the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision and took on its latest incarnation with Barack Obama’s ascent to the White House. For every action of African American advancement, there’s a reaction, a backlash.
The North’s victory in the Civil War did not bring peace. Instead, emancipation brought white resentment that the good ol’ days of black subjugation were over. Legislatures throughout the South scrambled to reinscribe white supremacy and restore the aura of legitimacy that the anti-slavery campaign had tarnished. Lawmakers in several states created the Black Codes, which effectively criminalized blackness, sanctioned forced labor and undermined every tenet of democracy. Even the federal authorities’ promise of 40 acres — land seized from traitors who had tried to destroy the United States of America — crumbled like dust...
Much more at the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ferguson-wasnt-black-rage-against-copsit-was-white-rage-against-progress/2014/08/29/3055e3f4-2d75-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html
Found this through a DU thread posted by Sheshe:
Beyond Ferguson: Understanding the big picture
It's a good OP and also refers to this link:
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2014/08/beyond-ferguson-understanding-big.html
The thread is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025467105
Virtually no response on a vital subject. The goals of the Democratic Party are not valued by the Libertarians and Republicans trolling DU.
Conservative jumped on DU from the time it was founded and disrupted heavily, despite many measures being put in place but these guys are not going to stop. Ever.
Your OP and the articles express what I've called for at DU several times. Progressives, unlike Libertarians and Republicans posting here to smear and demoralize Democrats, would not ignore the chance to listen to the experiences of blacks, they embrace them as kindred as the DNC platform does.
Those of other hues need the aid of blacks to succeed at progressive goals. Alienating blacks by dismissing their anger at injustice is not what a Democrat does. We are supporting social justice for all, none excluded.
As Bain's Bane has said:
Dismissing the rights and concerns of people of color and women is reactionary. It is way more reactionary than Third Way. There is nothing progressive or liberal about it, and I don't consider people who do so to be leftists. Period.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025216329#post457
I don't see Democrats doing what I've seen here at DU in real life.
JustAnotherGen
(33,718 posts)And the references and quotes are excellent.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
OneGrassRoot
(23,429 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)to all
sheshe2
(87,810 posts)I was disappointed that it was left unread for the most part and only a few comments. The subject was powerful and the message is indeed vital.
Cha
(305,640 posts)ancianita
(38,741 posts)without it. It isn't apparent to anyone who believes that nothing like privilege can exist UNLESS one presumes it. I think it's a thinking error, but not a 'revelation' about some deep-seated, irredeemable character flaw.
Also, take good advice. Dial down on the "very rotten underbelly" talk. You haven't been around DU long enough to know anything about the posters on this site, or to presume knowledge of how minorities are welcome here.
Enjoy your stay.
Skittles
(159,812 posts)raven mad
(4,940 posts)Just to lighten up for a bit - I've been surprised, since Ferguson, at some of the posts I've seen here. Long-time lurker, recent poster, and it feels like DU is getting a little whacky. But I lurked during the '08 campaign season, too, and lived to tell the tale.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Mail Message
On Wed Sep 3, 2014, 08:09 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
yup - homophobes, misogynists, gun humpers, etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5482168
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"gun humper" is abusive to gun owners on this site, similar words for the HOF girls are not tolerated. the same standard should be applied.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Sep 3, 2014, 08:18 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You want I should kick some jury ass?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I disagree that DU has a problem with homophobia and misogyny. I actually think it's pretty good for LGBT people and women. However, this alert makes it sound like DU's gun humpers need to toughen up a bit.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm pretty sure that there's a few guys that hump guns on DU, I'm just saying.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: good grief. used to look forward to serving on a jury. no more…..
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Why oh why do I suspect the alerter would miss the irony of the phrase "HOF girls"?
(Dude, your slip is showing...)
Skittles
(159,812 posts)It goes right over their tiny little pinheads 
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Because it's not possible to be a liberal or progressive and not understand (or accept) this concept. It's the reality that underlies Brown v. Board of Education and all the civil rights legislation and efforts at affirmative action we fought for for so long. And there are so many fights left to go ... the resolutions of which depend on our understanding the nature of white privilege and its corollary, the enduring disadvantages that accrue to being black in this country.
And as you noted, this isn't because everyone who is rejecting the idea of white privilege here is a libertarian or Republican troll. I believe it's because there are a goodly number of folks here who truly believe they are liberal or progressive, but who do not understand that concept at all. I've seen people here define liberalism as the fight for "individual freedoms"--and nothing, of course, could be farther from the ideals of liberalism, which is concerned with collective rights and the common good. But hey, as long as you've got some weed and a gun ... and profess that we should just stay out of problems in other countries ... you can call yourself a liberal. It makes me more than a little depressed sometimes.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I did myself, at one point, to be truthful. But now I don't, but that didn't stop me from continuing to become more and more attuned to progressive ideals(I've learned a lot over the past 4 years or so in particular.).
And, in fact, WP wasn't even a thing when I first got started here, and wouldn't be until this last year or so. Are you truly, literally, saying that virtually nobody was a real progressive? I hope not.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Nobel_Twaddle_III
(325 posts)The Democratic party is a big tent party and most of us like it that way.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)Please give exact dates.
Or just take the money.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)You should take the money and buy a clue.
rpannier
(24,585 posts)What's your point
bvf
(6,604 posts)rpannier
(24,585 posts)It's castigating people for being members of the Democratic Party and not believing what he/she believes
There are many members of the Democratic Party in rather blue states that would disagree in part with him/her (Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, etc)
So, are they not Democrats? Should they stay away from DU because they disagree on this?
The Democratic Party has, for the most part of the last 70 years stood for worker's rights and unions, equality, opportunity, etc
But, over that time, the party has had a rather sizable contingent of Southern members of the party who are not pro-Union.
Should we exclude them from the party because they oppose Unions, are anti-abortion, etc?
bvf
(6,604 posts)that might be relevant to the OP, but I see your points.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)A good number of Southerners, those in a certain faction, that is, DID leave the party, during the '60s because the mainstream couldn't acquiesce to their particular worldviews any longer. And 30 years earlier, their predecessors tried to sabotage the New Deal, because they feared it would destroy Jim Crow down South.
They were the Dixiecrats.....the hardcore right-wing sometime populist, and always hardcore racist Southern-based wing that threw a gigantic hissy fit when Kennedy, and later, Johnson, stood up to their B.S......they and their more servile children and grand children now make up a rather sizable portion of the Republican base. And good riddance to them, too.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)They were not Democrats, though they were originated as a breakaway party from the Dems right after WWII.
They hated the Republican party because Lincoln was a Republican. The civil rights movement changed all that and they moved en masse to the GOP.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This OP is a stupid vanity rant and is an excellent example of why UNREC is needed.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)You arent a democrat!
Sounds freakishly like something the teaparty would say.
Cad Bane
(68 posts)calling certain Democratic politicians DINOs? People who love proclaiming that if politicians don't support their issues then they aren't really Democrats.
I'm simply stating my opinion.
I believe if you don't understand or recognize American history and what our society was built on and how you have benefited from institutionalized racism, then you don't belong in the Democratic Party.
You can't begin to fully support progressive policies if you don't understand the struggle of minorities in this country. Race is a core issue. It's always be upfront and center in every policy decision since this Nation's inception.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)There's just a few loudmouths, out of hundreds of great liberals that post here.
The best thing to do is to ignore them and the crap they spew.
They are like the Republicans in Congress . . . irrelevant.
Cad Bane
(68 posts)Especially when these folks don't receive adequate push back.
Does this site even want or expect to represent the Democratic coalition?
And to your last point, sadly the Republicans in congress aren't irrelevant. They have been successful in gutting vital social programs for the poor. They along with Republican governors have strategically rolled back many of the voting rights protections around the country. If they can they will lay waste to the provisions in the Health Care law as well.
All of this at it's core is about RACE. When speaking behind closed doors to their supporters they admit this openly. We know who the "blah" people are.
This is 2014 and we're still dealing with this shit. How the hell can anyone deny white privilege in the face of Republican governance.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)TBH, I'm one of those progressives who doesn't (now) believe that all white people enjoy literal, tangible collective privilege(yes, this interpretation has become rather common in places); because never, has racism, structural or otherwise, once benefitted anyone other than the people pushing it's agenda, and those few below them actually taking real advantage of such(usually knowingly). Racism has, instead, been nothing less(and also much more) than a tool to divide and conquer. We can look at Jim Crow or what was done to try to break up the labor movement in the last century. Or we can go all the way back to Bacon's Rebellion, if you'd like.
And, in fact, even in South Africa, the one country that may possibly have had something close to this, it's doubtful that all the whites actually benefitted from Apartheid and all that followed from there.
I realize that most of those who do believe in WP(shorthand for "white privilege", just so we're clear) are genuinely ashamed of what they see, and want for things to get better. The problem is, this particular approach just isn't working. In fact, we now even have guys like Bill O'Reilly publicly taking this, and totally conflating it with speaking out against structural injustice altogether(when, in fact, many who do, do not necessarily believe in WP themselves), and then making it out like it's a thing amongst liberals in general. So, if that's not proof that we need to try a different approach, what is?
I mainly only posted this since you're a newbie....I've been here since 2011 and this wasn't even a thing until just this last year. And I've been a Democrat for about 5 years.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
betsuni
(27,272 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts) LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Well, DU at least. But it's a localized solution to a localized problem.
Response to LeftyMom (Reply #125)
A-Schwarzenegger This message was self-deleted by its author.
Number23
(24,544 posts) 
stage left
(3,021 posts)Cad Bane
(68 posts)EVERY white person has benefited from white privilege.
Every white person has had at least some of the following. Either through firsthand experience or through their family.
- someone in their family who has owned or worked at a business that was at some point white's only
- attended a school that was whites only at some point in it's history
- lived in a community that was whites only
- been a patron of a business that denied service to blacks
- benefited from generations of discriminatory practices in education, housing, law enforcement, athletics
etc etc
You don't have to be the business owner who put the No Black Allowed sign in the window to benefit from that culture. To think that is beyond ignorant and boarders on complicity.
Luckily there were enough white folks in the 50's and 60's who joined in with black folks to reject this mentality. They recognized their own privilege and didn't engage in mental gymnastics to avoid facing reality.
Many of them were beaten for rejecting their privilege.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Nothing I said was either offensive, or ignorant.
- someone in their family who has owned or worked at a business that was at some point white's only
- attended a school that was whites only at some point in it's history
- lived in a community that was whites only
- been a patron of a business that denied service to blacks
- benefited from generations of discriminatory practices in education, housing, law enforcement, athletics
And there are quite a few people around in which none of these things hold true. So that debunks your argument right there.
To think that is beyond ignorant and boarders on complicity.
Not at all. And in fact, to say that such borders on complicity is in itself offensive, particularly to those who may not share your outlook but who have themselves fought the good fight. Shame on you!
Luckily there were enough white folks in the 50's and 60's who joined in with black folks to reject this mentality. They recognized their own privilege and didn't engage in mental gymnastics to avoid facing reality.
Many of them were beaten for rejecting their privilege.
Yes, there were some good white folks who stood up with MLK and others against institutional injustice. But it didn't have a damn thing to do with collective privilege. Because it was never there.
And frankly, for you to have reacted in the manner that you did to my post, does make me question your integrity. I'm sorry, but that was uncalled for, and I'd appreciate an apology.
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)Why he is still here is one of those little mysteries in life.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)I mean, seriously, have you ever seen someone successfully change is mind about anything, or get him to recognize when his words are condescending, baseless, counter to facts, etc.? Be honest, now...
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)Also to make sure that minority posters don't feel like this crap goes unchallenged when someone like that goes on a privileged spew-fest.
I have no interest in changing his mind, it's a monument to obdurate cluelessness.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)I fear what will come from my fingers should I attempt to reply to such posters, and thus I don't, but I totally respect you for being able and willing to do so.
Hats off to you!
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)
betsuni
(27,272 posts)Creeps in this passive-aggressive pace, The Average Joe Show. Out, out, get out the aspirin! A poor player that struts and frets his hours and hours and hours upon the screen, and then we have to hear moar. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of unsound fury, signifying nothing.
(Exit, pursued by a "white" bear)
Number23
(24,544 posts)The whole post was inspired. But this bit: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of unsound fury, signifying nothing.
is perfection
WCLinolVir
(951 posts)"Many of them were beaten for rejecting their privilege."
stage left
(3,021 posts)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)TBH, I'm one of those progressives who doesn't (now) believe that all white people enjoy literal, tangible collective privilege(yes, this interpretation has become rather common in places); because never, has racism, structural or otherwise, once benefitted anyone other than the people pushing it's agenda, and those few below them actually taking real advantage of such(usually knowingly). Racism has, instead, been nothing less(and also much more) than a tool to divide and conquer. We can look at Jim Crow or what was done to try to break up the labor movement in the last century. Or we can go all the way back to Bacon's Rebellion, if you'd like.
You are trying to say, in a nice way, that white privilege does not exist, that racism is merely an agenda without merit, except for those pushing that agenda, except for those attempting for those that are trying to divide the progressive movement.
Fascinating, but untrue.
Why are you on this website?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Are you serious? You are really new to this democrat thing, aren't you?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Just because you didn't read about it on DU - or perhaps you just didn't notice it and it was here all the time - doesn't mean there are countless people who were aware of it since it began.
Do you think all of a sudden this past year people realized that whites have it better than blacks? You've heard of the civil rights movement, haven't you?
White privilege isn't about anecdotal stories about particular white people and the concrete, measurable way they benefit, they benefit merely because they are white. Just because you can show a black person that is more well off than a white person does not mean white privilege doesn't exist. It's always been here.
And Bill O'Reilly will always rail against anything that liberals talk about, that's what he does. He's a disingenuous opportunist that plays on the low information viewers he is duping. He is no more evidence of anything in the real world than is a unicorn's poop.
If we don't talk about something it won't go away.
I believe I've seen you posting about feminist issues in the same manner. Perhaps you should read more on these subjects. And try to just take in what you are reading/hearing/seeing about it to grasp the other person's experience rather than give yours, which is coming from a place that is not of the oppressed, seemingly. I was taught about them in college 30 years ago, it's a shame people seem to be getting through their schooling without knowing much about these things.
tblue37
(66,035 posts)because of the color of your skin is a form of white privilege.
To be able to walk or drive around without being hassled as much as several times a day by police officers who are just stopping you because you "look suspicious" is a form of white privilege.
For example, the cops engaging in "broken windows" policing in Bloomberg's New York City stopped, questioned, and frisked many young black and hispanic men who were doing absolutely nothing and who had no record of criminal activity. A white person with similar background, in similar circumstances, would not have been stopped or questioned. And, of course, once a stop is initiated, the chances of its escalating to the point of the individual being beaten or even killed is fairly high for a person of color, but much less so for a white person. That is white privilege.
A distinguished and famous older white college professor would not have been reported as suspicious by his neighbors if he was standing on the porch of his own university house after a trip, with a suitcase next to him, as he tried to unlock his front door; and even if somehow the neighbor had decided to call the cops (though again, highly unlikely that would ever have occurred with a white professor), the cop would have spoken respectfully to the professor and apologized for bothering him. But Henry Louis Gates was hectored and manhandled--and then arrested--in his own home by the cop, because he was black and didn't act submissive enough to satisfy the arrogant cop, not because he was suspicious. That sort of treatment is not normally inflicted on white people who are similarly situated. THAT is what is meant by white privilege.
White people regularly sit down in the skywalk outside the bank in that Minneapolis mall, and no one ever says a word to them. When a black man sat there while waiting to pick up his children from a nearby preschool, a bank security guard tried to make him leave. When he didn't leave, the cops were called, and they followed, badgered, and Tased him, even though no crime had been committed, and he had been polite and entirely nonviolent. But like Henry Louis Gates, he had simply not been submissive enough, but had instead dared to insist on his right to be left alone when he had done nothing illegal, so the cops followed and badgered him, got physical, Tased him, and arrested him. The charges were dropped, of course, and the country is outraged, but again, this happened to him because he is black. It is white privilege that you could sit there, just as white people do all the time, without being told to move, without having the cops called on you, without ending up Tased and arrested.
When Renisha McBride was shot by that guy for knocking on his door for help after her auto accident, he shot her in the face. Do you honestly believe a white 19-year-old girl knocking on the man's door for help would have been shot? It is white privilege that a 19-year-old white woman could knock on a man's door and ask for help after an auto accident without expecting him to see her as so dangerous that he had to shoot her in the face to feel safe.
It is white privilege to walk around in stores and restaurants with guns hung over your shoulder, without being hassled, much less killed, by cops. A 13-year-old hispanic boy was shot by the cops for carrying a plastic toy gun, and a 22-year-old black man was shot in the back in Walmart while talking on the phone and leaning on an air rifle, as if it were a cane (i.e., NOT brandishing it). The white people who called the cops probably wouldn't even have called if he had been white (an open carry state, after all), but even if they had called, the cops would not have shot him the second they saw him, even though the air gun was being leaned on like a cane, and the man's back was to them, so they were not in any immediate danger. (The security tapes have been seen by the family's lawyer.)
White privilege allows militia a**holes to aim rifles at federal law officers without even being arrested, much less killed. Can you imagine what would happen to a black man who did that?
If a black person--especially a black man--has any sort of interaction with the cops, even if he has been stopped for no other reason than because he is black (something white privilege protects us from), or even if he has actually gone to the cops for assistance, then there is a good chance he will end up beaten, Tased, arrested, or even killed. That seldom happens to a white person.
White privilege does not actually mean that wonderful things get given to you for being white. It just means that a lot of awful, soul-sapping things that black people have to deal with day after day, year after year, are not normal in a white person's life. Sure, a white person might get unfairly hassled or brutalized by cops--even when innocent--but that is quite rare compared to the way black people are constantly being hassled, brutalized, and even killed by cops, and being automatically suspected of wrongdoing by ordinary white citizens.
One reason the Michael Brown case exploded into national awareness is that the way he was murdered while surrendering with his hands up, even without having committed any "crime" more serious than jaywalking (as far as the cop knew), came as a horrifying surprise to so many otherwise well-intentioned whites, because they did not know how common, how normal that sort of thing is in the life of a young black man. And the reason they did not know how normal it is is because for them, for white people, it is not normal.
[font size = "=1"]And that is white privilege![/font]
sheshe2
(87,810 posts)WHITE Militia defending a WHITE poacher. Bundy has been taking from the Government for years.
His aim is toward federal agents.
The response, a damn quite stand of.
That is white privilege.
COMPARE THE RESPONSE HERE!
Ferguson, a BLACK response to a murder by cop. Michael was murdered. People protested that....here ya go.
The Police response....
See the difference Joe?
Really?
If you don't see this as white people enjoying literal, tangible collective privilege, then I am sorry for you. The stark reality is right there. It's black and white and staring you in the face.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts) stage left
(3,021 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and decide what language we use and EVERYTHING!!1!!111 If Bill O doesn't like the wording, that surely must mean we're on the wrong track!!
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)
stage left
(3,021 posts)Were you, perchance, a socialist?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But I was definitely on the left(back then more socially-focused than economically, though), though I wasn't really mainstream at all.....I actually went thru a bit of what could described as a pro-anarchist phase; this would have been about 5 years ago, IIRC. I also flirted with Socialism as well, but that was a little later on. These days, I consider myself a Social Democrat, or at least leaning in that direction.
stage left
(3,021 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Um...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I do apologize for any lack of clarity on my part.
In any case, however, I don't think I'm the only one that's really noticed this trend.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
Kablooie
(18,787 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)MoleyRusselsWart
(101 posts)Because for many whites, and yes even liberals, to admit there is white privilege is to admit they didnt have to work as hard as others to get where they are, that they didnt have tough struggles and obstacles, that they haven't earned what they have or the respect they are given.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)However, once eyes are opened a bit it can lead to a really deep rabbit hole. Some peeps don't want their foundation beliefs shaken and will choose to ignore contrary information.
MoleyRusselsWart
(101 posts)You don't usually see that in liberals. an open mind and the ability to aee through stereotypes and institutionalized biases is a foundation of the liberal mind. Perhaps that's why people here are arguing you can't be a liberal and not believe in white privilege.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)that they didnt have tough struggles and obstacles
I'm sorry, but no. There are white people who've had their own tough struggles and obstacles to deal with themselves. Ask anyone with a mental illness, or who happens to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.
And I haven't had the worst life in the world, but, to put things in perspective, I've had a few of my own struggles, some of which are going to be quite challenging to overcome. And, to be honest, I know, too, that there are some People of Color out there that have, indeed, had it somewhat better than I have. And this isn't to deny or minimize the very real struggles that many folks do still face, and I do realize that I'll probably never be racially profiled, or that I'm not as likely to be arrested for some bullshit reason, etc. But when you say that white people don't struggle, whether you may realize it or not, you have ended up dismissing the experiences of those who have struggled.
MoleyRusselsWart
(101 posts)Whites don't have major struggles and obstacles, of course they do. And in some cases some whites have had a tougher road then some blacks. But generally speaking, any obstacles a white person must face would have been that much harder had they had the ADDED burden of being black.
My point was just to say that some people don't like to admit their white privilege because they think it would minimize their own struggles that they have overcome. Its about ego.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts) freshwest
(53,661 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)I knew I had white privilege as a child and did not revel in it as if I deserved it. I was taught nothing comes without earning it, and wanted nothing to do with any thing given me by a social birthright. I'll explain why.
My American ancestors had land granted by the king of England over 4 centuries ago. The next king found fault with those of different religion and took it back. The next came arrived and returned it. My ancestral branch did not want to play that game with them again. Needless to say, the land was not the king's to give or take, according to the ideals founding the USA.
Anything given unjustly cannot be depended upon, all you can count on is what you create inside yourself. Things will balance out. In both views there is insecurity, because we can lose all we worked for through no fault of our own inj that mileau. Or from the removal of privilege.
I saw this as driving the ACA poutrage here. It was about covering all the people it could, but its real and revolutionary change was for the poor. But there was little or no rejoicing over that here, and this is what the OP is discussing.
There should have been great relief on that count. The ACA has not directly benefited me except for the competition it put on insurers to stop the game of denying pre-existing conditions. My father died when I entered my teenage years not for lack of money, but the fact that government did not force them to offer coverage. The ACA did groundbreaking work on that front, with Medicaid expansion expressly dealt with giving 'the least among us' a chance to be treated as equals.
It was disappointing to see no celebration on lifting up the poor that some say they support. When it got down to it, they only complained about what they were not getting. They yelled about not getting more, in the face of those who previously got nothing and the majority of those were people of color, who seem invisible. But they suffer and die, and much of the time for no reason at all but color.
The outrage about what some didn't get more of is the voice of privilege speaking loud and clear.
JMHO. I support the OP.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
bhikkhu
(10,760 posts)Psephos
(8,032 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)the ones who are arguing against the reality of white privilege are the ones causing arguments here.
this is a progressive site and people here to acknowledge that some have an unfair advantage based on being white.
those who don't agree are the source of the arguments and they are in the vast, vast minority here at DU.
ancianita
(38,741 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)It seems to me we've got a duck.
Tutonic
(2,522 posts)This site has lost its way. When the responses to the post overwhelmingly ignore, reject or simply fail to understand a very simple underlying premise put forth by the post, then you know that this site is running on empty. White Privilege=DU.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)3rdwaydem
(277 posts)the one that says all people of a certain ethnic background are privileged. Maybe that's why I'm on a Democratic site. That and because I am a Democrat - one who doesn't like others declaring single issue litmus tests for determining who is and who isn't a Democrat.
Cad Bane
(68 posts)Cuz you don't believe people of a specific gender are privileged.
You know cuz you're a "real" Democrat who doesn't believe in such things.
ancianita
(38,741 posts)their refuting its existence. You're mistaking a few people's thoughts as error when the error is in your interpretation becoming a demand of the entire DU site. People evolve, dude. Look at you. You just got here. That tells everyone a lot about you.
Tired of your snark here, as well. Knock off the "next you'll tell me" bullshit. Not cool.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)background are inherently privileged.
It's not about "all people of a certain ethnic background", it's about the systemic nature of it. Of course there are down trodden whites, white privilege doesn't say there isn't. But tell me, how many white people do you think feel they have to teach their children how to behave in front of the police so they won't get killed? How many white people do you think wonder if they might get killed in the next 20 minutes when they get pulled over by the police? How many white people who have paid for their merchandise at Barney's get stopped for shoplifting? How many white people... well there's hundreds more but hopefully you get the idea.
It's about society as a whole favoring white people in a systemic way, an institutional way. And if you don't think that that is wrong and that the Dem Party stands against that, racism, then I don't know why you like the Dem Party.
Rilgin
(793 posts)Well,
I was born in this country. My parents were born in this country but my grandparents were not. They were born in russia/poland and are lucky to be alive. My family have not been in the United States for lots of generations nor were they here during the periods during the "entire history" you probably are using as the basis of a definition of privilege in the United States. In fact, during this period (the last century), over 50% of my extended family was killed in a racial genocide.
My background is not unique. The demographics of this country and immigration and interracial marriage mean that not every white person has any substantial connection to any historical period of American history which had specific racial problems. Even those white people who you could trace back, it was their grandparents and great grandparents not them who were alive during those times.
Continuing my story, growing up I was not told how to behave in front of police. I will give you that. I was messaged other things by my family and by society. I was told that society might change and kill you and to be wary of societal genocide by my older relatives. I was also told how to behave with authorities and I was told by society how to survive safely on the streets of a city by personal experiences with crime. As a racial matter, my father blames the whole German race and hates every german regardless of their age and regardless of how they live their lives. I have relatives that are poor, rich, gay, disabled, dead, suicides, and extremely successful as they have faced life and society. Individuals born into my family bear other scars then police interactions. Do you really want to judge the significance of these scars versus the scars of other races and individuals experiences.
You acknowledge that there are "downtrodden whites" but the acknowledgment seems to only be window dressing. Ultimately, you judge other problems as not important in defining societal privilege by asserting that what matters in defining privilege is that black parents have to tell black youths how not to be killed by police as the single factor that defines whether someone is privileged. As a personal note, I have had a police gun in my face for something somewhat innocent (an innocent trespass). I assume that I could have been shot as well if things had gone sour. Instead I was handcuffed and booked and ultimately released by a judge. I have many arab friends and their police interactions are horrendous. However, I mention these facts and my families history as victims of genocide because black experiences are not totally unique. All of our experiences in life (regardless of race, sexual preference and gender) have differences and similarities. Ignoring the similarities leads to emphasizing the race and de-emphasizing the individual factors that apply to every individual.
In my life I have been fortunate to live mostly in fairly liberal environments -- NYC and San Francisco. Even in these places, I have seen both overt and covert racism. However, it is not reserved to only the "white race". I have encountered public comments about black and brown and gay people in public gatherings from white people (including to my shame some relatives) but I have also heard racist public statements from black people. In New York, some of the worst racism I have witnessed was against Puerto Ricans by black people. In fact, the most recent racist public comment I heard was from a black guy about jews not knowing I was jewish.
What I have taken from these experiences is the opposite of your point and other points mentioned by others in this thread. Every individual has their own strengths, privileges, impediments and blockages in dealing with society. Arguments that only white people can be racist are bull as are arguments that white people are privileged regardless of what their individual factors are. Other things that matter in society are appearance, sexual preference, gender, height, weight, disability, economic class, dress, athleticism, geographic location and countless other factors equally important to determining ones status in society. I am sure there are plenty of other such factors including just luck.
The use of the term white privilege to apply to all white people is an attempt to ignore or lessen the fact that we are all individuals with our own experiences and factors. As an argument, it is used to elevate one form of societal problem and one individual characteristic over every other one as the only one that really matters. I am not even sure what posts trying to get everyone to use the term rather than the term "racism" to define some societal problems are even attempting to accomplish. In this post, it seems to be that if you don't "accept" the term, you are not a democrat or progressive but does not actually seem to define acceptance or define what you are to do with that acceptance.
Personally, I think the word "racism" is a much better term than "white privilege" and would be more effective in building common ground. An assertion of racism or a racist interaction is usually an assertion about a specific event or interaction and how they affected specific individuals. Further, it is a description an event you witnessed or which occurred to you or someone you know. White Privilege as a "term is not used as a term to discuss your own life or even some event that actually occurred, it is an assertion about someone who is not you and is about bad interactions that did not occur and also points fingers only one direction. If you say, "I encountered racism", I can understand that it affected you or described an event that happened that was wrong. Three people walk into a store (2 black and 1 white). One of the black guys is followed by a store clerk as he shops, the other two aren't. In these white privilege posts, this is described as white privilege of the white guy for an event that did not occur. The description ignores the fact that the racial event also did not occur to the one black guy who was also not followed on that day and in that store. It ignores the fact that racial bias does not occur to every black guy walking into every store or manifest in every interaction. The use of the term does not actually identify the real problematic event and interaction which was the store clerk following the one black guy because of inherent racial bias. Instead it is a term that describes an event that did occur. The paradigm example is trying to describe the shooting of a black man by the police as an example of white privilege because some other non-existent person did not get shot.
In addition, every use of the term seems to be tied to a demand for something personal. Acknowledging that racism can and does exist in the world does not seem good enough. It requires some other type of acknowledgment tied to division between people. The use of the word 'privilege" further implies some type of personal responsibility without actually saying it or providing guidance as to exactly what needs to be addressed or done by the "privileged" person. Last, it does not unify. It is not a nuanced term but is one that cements the relationship between black and white in permanent division and turns the word privilege on its head. A white homeless guy is privileged but a black guy in a penthouse apartment is not.
Turning to personal feelings when I read these threads. When I read the term, I know it is directed at me by the poster without the poster knowing anything about me. I know it is not being used by the poster to discuss himself. As noted above, my family history over the last century might not be described as "privileged" unless you consider having half your family killed to be privileged. Further, my ancestors did not have any connection with slavery or jim crow or any other facet of society usually identified as institutional racism. My family would be better described as suffering from institutional racism for much (although not all) of the last century.
Moving to my personal privileges, I do not need to discuss my individual struggles nor do I need to set out my problems that have interfered with my life. They are there and I have had significant struggles in the last 20 years. Rather than having to read on a progressive site that I am somehow part of a privileged class of people by posters that do not know my circumstances and rather than having to encounter multiple threads castigating me because I do not accept a label of "privilege", I would suggest that the truly progressive outlook is not to label others but to discuss yourself. Defining me by problems I do not have rather than my actual individual characteristics is just sloppy and creates divisions within people who should be fighting the same issues. For some reason, I thought finding common ground and our common humanity was the goal of a truly progressive politics.
If you are black and encounter racism (covert or overt), it is a significant problem and should be an issue for all progressives. If you just want to ignore individual factors and tell or imply to white others that their individual problems in life are not important because they have white privilege, it might make you as a poster feel good but I do not consider it progressive. Moreover, not only do I not consider it progressive but I also believe it is not an effective strategy in reducing racial tensions in the world and working us toward a race and gender neutral society where individuals are seen as individuals.
You ended your post in line with the original post by questioning the relation of any one who does not accept the original post to the democrat party. Personally, I thought that the progressive wing of the democrats favored fighting racism but also recognizing our common humanity and the ties that bind us together so we can have a society without any racial, gender, or sexual prejudices from all sides. That is why I am here and why I even responded rather than ignored this thread.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And this is coming from a long-time dedicated anti-racist/anti-fascist and (more recently) a dedicated Obama supporter.
flvegan
(64,618 posts)Vine Gatherer
(94 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)People here love the New Deal. But it was a white supremacist project; a combination of northern industrial corporatism and southern progressive racism (the 1910s-1920s incarnation of the KKK was entirely a Progressive phenomenon -- they championed prohibition, municipal reform, eugenics, women's suffrage... all the Progressive buttons were pushed). (This is another reason I'm not entirely comfortable with the label "progressive", because of its past.)
The New Deal created the white middle class by systematic theft from nonwhites. It was in some senses the "creator of whiteness", because prior to that time Irish, Italian, Slavic, etc. were considered "races"; after that all whites were "white" (the shift in language during this time period is quite striking). Examining white privilege leads to uncomfortable acknowledgements about the systems and structures many on this board put forward as the answers to everything.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Nonwhites had almost no wealth. I would like to know how much wealth was stolen and where it came from. And how the New Deal is responsible for this theft.
Those are some astonishing claims about the New Deal.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)1. The Case For Reparations, an Atlantic piece by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and
2. Fear Itself, the New Deal and the Origins of Our Time, a book by Ira Katznelson
In addition, Coates lists several deeper treatments of the question in his article, a particularly popular (and good) one is The Warmth of Other Suns, a history of the Great Migration by Isabell Wilkerson.
Nonwhites had almost no wealth.
A common misconception. Nonwhites generated a ton of wealth, and it was repeatedly either taken from them, or in some cases simply destroyed. The means of appropriation were varied, and ranged from entirely illegal, through vaguely extralegal, to outright codified by law. Actions like the Tulsa riots, the Wilmington coup d'etat, and the Rosewood massacre (to pick three off the top of my head; there were hundreds) stole what black wealth could be stolen, and destroyed the rest.
And how the New Deal is responsible for this theft.
It's hard to do justice to this question at less length than Coates did, and Katznelson's very thorough treatment is even better for it. To summarize: the New Deal deliberately excluded minorities from the safety net it created by several means: jobs that were often held by nonwhites were left out of social security and medicare, and assigned a lower minimum wage; nonwhites were (by FHA and USDA policy) given home and farm loans that were designed for them to default so their property could be confiscated; later, nonwhite veterans were denied access to the GI Bill. Furthermore, during this period a "second plantation economy" developed in the south (and west, for that matter) based on mostly nonwhite convict labor from state and Federal prisons (with unemployment itself being a jailable crime) -- this isnt just a throw-away point: the numbers involved are staggering.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the Great Migration in northern cities, organized labor systematically shut nonwhite workers out of protections and membership. The labor/capital/government triumverate that the New Deal was based on was, for a variety of political reasons, entirely oriented towards taking wealth from nonwhites to the advantage of whites.
I would like to know how much wealth was stolen and where it came from
We don't know for certain because Congress refuses to allow a vote on John Conyer's repeated initiatives to study the question. Preliminarily, the largest amount of theft seems to have been of homes and farms through a variety of means, but then again the educational and economic policies that prevented accumulation of capital were perhaps even bigger. We could have a better answer if Congress would study the issue...
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Where are your numbers? They may have generated a lot of agricultural wealth during slavery, but the New Deal was in the mid 1930s, about 70 years after slavery ended.
I'm not even asking for some long citation. Just show me how much wealth nonwhites had in the 1930s compared to whites. You should at a very minimum be able to provide figures here as it is the entire basis of the claim. If you need to cite Coates or Katznelson, please do so. Qualitative words like "tons" isn't helping me understand this.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What part of "they weren't allowed to keep any of their wealth" was unclear? The capital formation that the government facilitated for whites (via home loans, education, the safety net, etc.) was denied to blacks (and even when they succeeded, stolen from them).
Are you asking what the value in farms and homes stolen by the government from nonwhite owners was? I've seen estimates of something like $800 billion in today's dollars. Wilkerson (op. cit.) does a good job of describing the value of black-owned housing as it changed over the course of the 20th century; actually by the 1930s blacks were in worse shape than at the turn of the century because the expropriation had already begun. But, basically, the idea of propertyless benighted blacks is just that, a myth: they had houses, they had farms, they had businesses, and the government took them and gave them to white people, and that process was integral to the New Deal.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The high end is $800bn in today's dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States#Net_worth_.28or_equity.29
The net worth of households in the US is $81,763bn. The net worth of nonfinancial corporate businesses is $19,094bn. The net worth of nonfinancial corporate businesses is $8,849bn. And the net worth of financial businesses is $6,196bn. Let's exclude the government's assets, they're probably irrelevant as they didn't go around appropriating property to generate income.
I total that on my calculator as $115,902bn. So if we assume that this mass theft happened as a result of the New Deal, and that the highest figure is accurate, I've got 800/115902 = 0.0062. Meaning that this massive transfer of wealth was a mere 0.62% of the total worth of the US economy, which at the time (and it's still true today) was mostly held by whites. So obviously the white middle class couldn't possibly have been created by such an insignificant amount of wealth relative to all US assets.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
OK, if that makes you feel better.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I'd recommend never proposing a theory that can be destroyed with napkin math.
You can say whatever you want about me and my biases. Numbers have no biases against you, not when the figures I used are yours.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Whatever flaws the New Deal might have had, it was very much intended as a truly progressive and egalitarian movement.
What happened, however, is that the Dixiecrats sabotaged it. They had no love for the New Deal; initially, many actually condemned measures such as Social Security, exactly because of the hardcore version of racism that they subscribed to; really, the only reason they largely backed off after around 1937 or so was because they began to realize that railing against Roosevelt was starting to look like a possible career killer. So they changed their tune, at least in public.
His claims about the Ku Klux Klan being an entirely Progressive phenomenon are also inaccurate(and, btw, this is a favorite claim of right-wing historians as well), and I will address this at greater length at some point in the near future. I will say this: using semi-progressive rhetoric, and occasionally aligning with progressives, does not make one a progressive themselves; otherwise, Rand & Ron Paul would be progressives, because they are quite well-known for doing such(and they are not.).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The "southern Democrats as an unfortunate adjunct to the New Deal" mythology doesn't really withstand scrutiny. Southern Congressional Democrats were the New Deal's primary authors and instigators.
Whatever flaws the New Deal might have had, it was very much intended as a truly progressive and egalitarian movement.
That's a popular view today, and Katznelson's documentation absolutely eviscerates it. It was intended as a way to improve white lives at the expense of nonwhite lives.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And yes, I hate to be harsh, because he means well. But it's revisionist history thru and thru. Always has been.
It was intended as a way to improve white lives at the expense of nonwhite lives.
If that's true, then Ron Paul is actually true-blue progressive and I was once the President of Croatia.....
SMH, dude. You are entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but your opinion, in this case, is one that isn't actually supported by reality.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and then pretend to be sincere. Not that I for a minute think that poster has any sincerity in their posts.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)However, though, I definitely agree with you otherwise: it does disturb me, quite a bit, actually, that some progressives have been suckered in by RW talking points as well. 
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)"Holy shit, I am a terrible judge of character and I have no introspective capacity whatsoever?"
Of course you haven't.
Cad Bane
(68 posts)I used to think this was a trait found exclusively on the right. If you don't like the history, you simply create a sanitized version of it that makes you feel more comfortable.
The idea that America was founded on and rooted in white cultural privilege shouldn't be a controversial idea.
The evidence is literally all around us.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)See my reply at #118. The Klan was not at all genuinely progressive. Never had been.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The very idea that a socialist policy worked so well, drives them insane.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'll try to keep this as short as possible, while still touching on the key points.
Before I do, one must understand that just because a politician may adopt progressive-sounding rhetoric, and even occasionally aligning with progressives, does not make one a progressive themselves; just look at Ron and Rand Paul. Now, on to the gist of things:
1.) Prohibition-Yes, it may be true that many progressives did come around to supporting alcohol prohibition; it was hoped that it could cure many a social ill, including drunkenness, spousal abuse, etc., so yes, much of it was for a noble cause. However, though, there were others who had other agendas in mind: those who wanted to give a big "fuck you" to immigrants, blacks, Mexicans, etc., and who desired to control said folks; the KKK fell squarely in the latter group.
2.)Municipal reform-Adopted more out of desire for support, rather than any sincere conviction of actually helping people.
3.)Eugenics-Some progressives supported it because they thought it would help society; others condemned it as nothing more than a bunch of elitist tripe. Furthermore, many non-progressive elements latched on to eugenics for reactionary agendas; the works of men such as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were eaten up to no end, including by some Klansmen.
4.)Women's suffrage-The Klan had a women's group in some places, true. Some branches even (grudgingly) came to tolerate it halfway.....but only if Klan women voted for their approved candidates(no Jews, no Catholics, no genuine Progressives, no socialists, etc.).
This is but a tiny portion of the truth. But it is the truth. As well-meaning as it can be sometimes, historical revisionism rarely ever really reveals anything truly new or stunning.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It seems to tie in with your failure to understand what privilege is upthread ("nobody said 'This guy is white so give him stuff', so it's not privilege" or something like that). History doesn't make windows into people's souls.
Early 20th century progressivism is definitely a mixed bag with a lot of people supporting different elements for a lot of reasons. You seem to romanticizing a "real progressive movement" that was co-opted by opportunists, with very little evidence for its existence. Similarly, you seem to claim that because FDR and some others didn't have racism "in their hearts", or whatever, the effective white supremacist structure of the New Deal somehow shouldn't be talked about.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, I know that the progressive movement wasn't perfect. That's true, and I never once denied that.
However, though, there was indeed a problem with co-option, even then, just as now. Go look at Ted Bilbo for instance; he was basically a 20th century Southern-fried version of Ron Paul, but nastier.....and also slicker.
Similarly, you seem to claim that because FDR and some others didn't have racism "in their hearts",
It's probable that FDR may have been prejudiced by the standards of today, that may be true. But in order to truly understand, we *need* to look at how things were originally planned out, by F.D.R. and others. In the end, the New Deal ended up being watered down quite a bit, and much of it thanks to Southern Dixiecrat manipulation and sabotage. And that is the reality of things, no matter how sincerely Ira Katznelson & Ta-Nehisi Coates may believe otherwise.
Response to Recursion (Reply #123)
AverageJoe90 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jasana
(490 posts)The continual push to not get it makes me embarrassed to be white.
I feel like I'm 5 years old again and listening to my great-grandfather spewing out the word n****r every five words whenever he talked about black people. I was five years old and I got the fact that it was a bad word. It didn't need to be spoonfed to me in babyfood.
I've haven't been in a college classroom in over 25 years and I've never been lectured by a professor about white privilege but I get it. It's not such a difficult concept. You just have to listen to black people talk so... just. please. stop. the. crying.
P.S. - I'm not really interested in being "nice" about this particular issue on a democratic discussion board so don't tell me to tone it down. At this point, those who don't get it are being willfully ignorant and I'm tired of black men and boys being shot every week. Grow up!
Cad Bane
(68 posts)The denials make my stomach ache and make me want punch the screen.
Intentional ignorance is extremely annoying. Combine that with arrogance and it's a volatile mix.
I call the combination Sarah Palinium. It's a dangerous compound that doesn't belong in Democratic politics.
JustAnotherGen
(33,718 posts)Let me add - intentional ignorance cannot be used as an excuse! 
I've seen some newbies and lurkers pop up since Ferguson - and it gives me hope. It tells me that Mr. Brown's death has people whose eyes were opened opening their mouths . . . And perhaps pushing a button or pulling a lever come November.
The time is now. It's hard to get an affluent black woman on board with "anti third wayism" and the redistribution of wealth when I fear my abilities to help black folks, women, the GLBT community, Latinos, and religious minorities will be crippled and those monies given to communitys that don't realize that getting out of the dug out and up to the plate was a given in life.
I can't undo what banks did 60 years ago - and even 8 years ago . . . But I can give to organizations that can either directly help (UNCF, Children of the Night) or influence (NOW, SPLC) the ability for people to get up to bat. I can help the elderly white woman that made less than her male counterparts thus getting less in Social Security by my efforts with Food Banks.
To me - I will bypass the party and get down in the dirt as long as the party has folks pulling us away from human beings who need the most help.
gaspee
(3,231 posts)getting on your case for just joining bother you. You are a refreshing voice who can write coherently and argue using points, not insults. I'd been getting pretty down on DU lately with the atmosphere (mostly the pushbacks against feminists and people who accept the reality of white privilege.)
I've been here a long time but have far fewer posts than people who've been here less than a year. I ignore the people who argue post count instead of points.
All that being said, this thread alone has brought quite a few low post count individuals with undemocratic viewpoints out of the woodwork - so I do kind of get their point.
Echoing the post before mine - I'm glad you're here too.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
The only dude that whipped a Jedi's butt (Ventress was a chick but she got her licks. Whupped Anakin and Obi One AT THE SAME TIME). And more than once too...
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Thank you for speaking up as a White person yourself, but one who refuses to deny that White privilege has always existed.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)DesertFaux
(15 posts)Angry, angry, angry. I am sick of someone blaming me for their problems based on my skin color. Take your sanctimonious rant.... and try to understand the Democratic party is about investing in people, today, this approximation is as good as it gets. The republican party is not about the dislike of 'colored' people, they are about manipulation chiefly, money, corporations, and power, all to serve themselves a close second. True Conservatives are long dead, these people don't want to conserve what works, this is about a new type of politician that can't see anything but themselves. This isn't a black or white issue. If 'black' people gave them all the money they needed to get reelected, republicans would represent and pass laws for everything they needed.
Cad Bane
(68 posts)Angry, angry, angry. I am sick of someone blaming me for their problems based on my skin color. "
"The republican party is not about the dislike of 'colored' people..."
Can you explain to me why in 2014 in the face of insane Republican racism against President Obama, black folks, Hispanics, Muslim Americans etc you feel the need to defend them?
WTF is this?
brush
(57,800 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 3, 2014, 12:43 AM - Edit history (1)
As the OP clearly states, 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.
Stop with the mental gymnastics and deal with the bare factual truth that was clearly stated in the OP — again, America was built on land stolen from Native Americans and much of it was worked by enslaved people denied compensation for their labor.
It's not that hard to get. And no one is asking the anyone to take on centuries of "guilt" over just acknowledging that simple fact and then just trying to not perpetuate it in the future — especially by denying it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)is showing.
How do you think this country was built? JFC, do you really not know about slavery and the civil rights movement and the murdering of black children by the police???
It's not about you, so stop taking it personally. All I see in your post is "angry, angry, angry". Well that's not true, I stated already that I saw ignorance. Seriously, you need to go learn something about this because it's not about individual people, it's about the systemic issue of racism.
How can people posting on a Democratic political message board not understand that racism is alive and well and it is systemic???????
Boggles the mind.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)and distraction takes the sting out of truth for some people. They really are clueless. Racism, white privilege, bigotry, prejudice, civil/human rights rolled back punctuated by bullets into unarmed people, voting right rolled back. All ignored because........???? Many reasons. The truth hurts.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)I'm white and I don't hate myself.
But sometimes we just need to face some realities.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)There are those who do, yes, and that is quite shameful. But in all fairness, many do not. Many are actually genuinely supportive of protecting minority rights in this country, even if I personally disagree with some of their rhetoric.
gaspee
(3,231 posts)That you add the word "truthfully" every single time you post. I'd kinda been skipping your posts because I disagree with you on just about everything you've ever posted so I hadn't noticed that little quirk.
Let me tell you a story. My sister (who is my Irish Twin - not relevant except to show our closeness) is mentally ill from many years of living with MS - she has lesions on her brain. Over the course of her illness, she has become a pathological liar. Can't believe a word that comes out of her mouth. Not a one.
Know what she says when she's trying to convince someone of one of her lies/delusions? She bandies the word "truthfully" about like a talisman.
It's a tell.
Just politely pointing that out since you don't seem to understand that that word braces people to be suspicious of everything that comes after it.
I'm not picking on you - you just don't seem very self-aware and I'm trying to help you become more self-aware.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)clear people on the planet, EVERYONE is colored in one way or another. NOONE is lambasting you for being white simply trying to get you to understand what life is like for people like me. NOONE assumes you're going to steal something when you walk into a store, following you as if there was a wanted poster with your face on EVERY wall but they assume that with me. How many times have you been out, parking near a river, WITH YOUR NEWLYWED HUSBAND, chatting and laughing, only to look up and come face to face with the business end of 5 COPS GUNS...probably more but I couldn't see beyond the bright lights that were blindingly bright? The cops assumed that I WAS A HOOKER, (WTF) and that my husband was conducting a "transaction" with me that also included drugs because he's white and I am a caramel brown woman. Luckily, we had our marriage licence still in the glove box...they backed down and mumbled something about problems with things of that nature in that area and to be careful in the future. Bet you've NEVER had that happen to you. Oh yeah, how many times have you been frisked and handcuffed OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME, WHILE GETTING OUT OF YOUR OWN CAR, after coming home from work? My brother has and he was almost finished with a DOUBLE degree in ASTROPHYSICS & THEORETICAL MATHEMATICS!
How many times was your father, husband, uncle, son or nephew ARRESTED for a bank robbery, because he matched the description of the perp? My father was & came to find out that the suspect was over a foot shorter, at least 20 shades LIGHTER, BALD and skinny with a distinct beer belly. He was kept in gaol for 36 hours...FOR NOTHING!! This is something that you would never in a million years accept because just being white acts like a shield. My husband is white, (BOHEMIAN CZECH) and he is OUTRAGED at how people who look like me are treated. Noone worthwhile hates you for your skin colour. It's something that was bestowed on you when you were born. 3 of my ggreatgrandparents were white. For me to hate you due to your skin colour is insane because I would by extension, hate my husband and MYSELF. White Privilege just means that your skin colour gives you a pass to be treated as just another human being & NOT a potential criminal, murderer, thief, prostitute, thug, gangster, lazy, welfare queen, drug dealer, etc. NOone assumes you plan to rob the place blind because you have brown skin. THAT'S ALL THAT MEANS...in a nutshell.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE... In the end, we are all human beings and we deserve to be treated like regular human beings, American citizens NOT presumed criminals, lazy moochers and amoral creatures. I wonder if the person I responded took a wromg turn and ended up here instead of fr. Sounds TOO much like Lumpball and O'Lielly.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)that the harder someone works to push something away (to deny), the more they should pull it in close and examine it.
And, besides, I don't recall a single solitary post stating that "DesertFaux is solely responsible for all of the prejudice and oppression that I've experienced in my life!"
I have to agree that the post in question is quite oblique...
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)the hatred crap. It was similar to to someone asking what 3X2=? and some nut answering..."CHAIR". I am so sick of people who are asked to try to understand what it's like to walk in the shoes of someone else and all they can do is cry, "POOR ME". I've never understood that mindset.
bhikkhu
(10,760 posts)white privilege should be universal privilege - we don't have to beat one group down for that, and it doesn't cost anyone a thing.
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts) rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)to "believe the U.S. was built on white privilege".
The OP makes it clear that you're acknowledging and attacking the existence of white privilege, but the title makes it sound(wrongly)as if you support it.
Cad Bane
(68 posts)People were saying they don't / didn't believe it existed.
I think my exasperation in the title clearly indicates that I'm not supporting it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's just that, to some people, the words "believe in" seem to mean "endorse". Obviously, that's the last thing you were trying to do, but the phrasing inadvertently caused some confusion(or gave some people a convenient way to avoid the issue).
I'm on your side in this.