White Privilege Conference

YmirGF said:

So... if folks don't buy into the narrative, for whatever reason, it isn't because it is a weak narrative, but rather due to their inability/refusal to appreciate the brilliance of the narrative's deep understanding of these complex social issues. Gotcha.

Click to expand...

No, those who believe recognition of various forms of privilege is racism against white people typically are unable to accurately describe what is meant by privilege.

Much like those who believe evolution is a giant hoax are typically unable to accurately describe what is meant by evolution.

That's what happens when you're so threatened by ideas that are at most mildly interesting that you need to turn them into an unspeakable outrage in order to block them.

Alceste said:

No you won't. Your mind is already firmly made up, and you arrived at that point without ever having looked up what is meant by white privilege.

You will be waiting to reject whatever we say and repeat your claim that noticing systemic unfairness toward minorities is racism against white people.

What good do you think it would do any of us for people who understand what is meant by privilege to explain it to you?

Click to expand...

I will make this easy for you. Since you and everyone else has been given the opportunity to explain White Privilege (Theory), but choose not to.

What type of systemic unfairness toward minorities exists in our society (America or U.S.) that white people should acknowledge or be aware of and what are white people supposed to do about?

I must be completely oblivious to White Privilege, because everything I have read on Critical Race theory is about accepting racism as a normal part of society. It is suggesting that white people are inherently racist, and bias towards other races. I reject this notion, because I’m not racist. This could also apply to every other ethnicity, so why is White Privilege the only one being discussed and why are white people being kicked out of conferences on topics of White Privilege if they want to learn more about it?

This is no different than me and several others constantly asking for a proponent of WP in this thread for an explanation that hasn't been given. So please explain this theory, you, George, and everyone else claims to know so much about.

Slapstick said:

I will make this easy for you. Since you and everyone else has been given the opportunity to explain White Privilege (Theory), but choose not to.

What type of systemic unfairness toward minorities exists in our society (America or U.S.) that white people should acknowledge or be aware of and what are white people supposed to do about?

I must be completely oblivious to White Privilege, because everything I have read on Critical Race theory is about accepting racism as a normal part of society. It is suggesting that white people are inherently racist, and bias towards other races. I reject this notion, because I’m not racist. This could also apply to every other ethnicity, so why is White Privilege the only one being discussed and why are white people being kicked out of conferences on topics of White Privilege if they want to learn more about it?

This is no different than me and several others constantly asking for a proponent of WP in this thread for an explanation that hasn't been given. So please explain this theory, you, George, and everyone else claims to know so much about.

Click to expand...

Why don't you just look it up if you're curious about it? Here's a link to get you started.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality)

Alceste said:

Why don't you just look it up if you're curious about it? Here's a link to get you started.

Privilege (social inequality) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

You do realize privilege (social inequality – what you are referring to) and white privilege are two entirely different things right? Also, I’m not sure if you know how a debate works, but usually someone who is in arguing a position makes substantive or compelling argument or response and not tell someone to “look it up”. If you think social inequality exists, then you are supposed to state the inequalities. Also if you have been paying attention to anything that anyone has been debating in this thread so far you would know that most people realize “White Privilege” is biased, in and of itself. That is like saying “Oh that is some stuck-up white person.” “I don’t like those stuck-up white people.” “I can’t stand to be around those whites who think they are better than everyone else.” “Who do they think they are with all those privileges and stuff?”

The wiki link you posted is full of statements with no citations as well. Not a very good source or reference for anyone that needs to know what it is. Not that I do or anything. The actual white privilege wiki is really more of a critical analysis, and even states how biased a lot of those positions are. So I can see how it may be challenging to make a compelling argument for it.

You could have possibly linked some stuff on Mrs. Obama’s speech she recently had about race. “This issue is so sensitive, it’s so complicated, so bound up with a painful history,” Obama told soon-to-be graduating high school seniors in Topeka, Kansas—the city that was at the center of the Supreme Court’s decision. “No matter what you do, the point is to never be afraid to talk about these issues, particularly the issue of race, because even today, we still struggle to do that.”
…
“We need all of you to ask the hard questions and have the honest conversations because that is the only way we will heal the wounds of the past and move forward to a better future,” Obama said, who prior to her speech visited the Brown vs. Board of Ed National Historic Site.
Read more: Michelle Obama: Talk about race - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com

Having a debate or conversation on “White Privilege” is not an honest conversation for starters.

Or you could have linked some information on the 60th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education and how more needs to be done with educational institutions to provide children, regardless of race, with a better education. Which I think is obvious and most people on this forum would agree with. But Rights and Privileges are two entirely different things, as noted on the handy-dandy wiki page.

Privileges vs. rights (White privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The notion of white privilege raises the question of the difference between rights and privileges. Lewis Gordon rejects the idea of white privilege, arguing that the privileges from which whites as a group are supposed to benefit are, in fact, social goods to which all people aspire. As such, he writes, they are not privileges:

"A privilege is something that not everyone needs, but a right is the opposite. Given this distinction, an insidious dimension of the white-privilege argument emerges. It requires condemning whites for possessing, in the concrete, features of contemporary life that should be available to all, and if this is correct, how can whites be expected to give up such things? Yes, there is the case of the reality of whites being the majority population in all the sites of actual privilege from prestigious universities to golf clubs and boards of directors for most high-powered corporations. But even among whites as a group, how many whites have those opportunities?"[29]

Viewing whites as universally privileged constructs "a reality that has nothing to do with [the] lived experience" of the majority of whites, who themselves do not have access to elite institutions.[29] Their "daily, means-to-means subsistence" is a right, of which it makes no sense to feel guilty.[29] Naomi Zack similarly criticizes the term white privilege as a misunderstanding of the difference between privileges and rights. Discrimination against nonwhites does not create a privilege in the normal sense of the term, a "specifically granted absolute advantage," a "prerogative or exception granted to an individual or special group."[30] In the United States, Zack writes, discussion of "white privilege" distracts from the discussion of social exclusion of nonwhites, which is the origin of racial disparities.[30]

Slapstick said:

I will make this easy for you. Since you and everyone else has been given the opportunity to explain White Privilege (Theory), but choose not to.

What type of systemic unfairness toward minorities exists in our society (America or U.S.) that white people should acknowledge or be aware of and what are white people supposed to do about?

I must be completely oblivious to White Privilege, because everything I have read on Critical Race theory is about accepting racism as a normal part of society. It is suggesting that white people are inherently racist, and bias towards other races. I reject this notion, because I’m not racist. This could also apply to every other ethnicity, so why is White Privilege the only one being discussed and why are white people being kicked out of conferences on topics of White Privilege if they want to learn more about it?

This is no different than me and several others constantly asking for a proponent of WP in this thread for an explanation that hasn't been given. So please explain this theory, you, George, and everyone else claims to know so much about.

Click to expand...

Privilege is not the same as Rights. They are two very different academic terms in sociology.

Privilege is a subliminal and transparent advantage, where one does not have the same hurdles in life as others who are disadvantaged. It speaks nothing about the character of the person. If one earned a privilege or not. It's simply a term that describes a one-less-thing-to-worry-about that others systemically experience on an everyday basis.

Where I recognize my privilege as a white woman:
- flesh-colored bandages are in my skin tone and only in my skin tone
- hair products that help me groom are made for my hair type, whereas "ethnic" or "black" hair products are located in a smaller section
- nude-colored tights or hosiery are available in my skin tone. Tan-colored tights are suited for white skin that has been tanned.
- I can drive in neighborhoods without being regularly followed by police
- I can enter into various stores without being regularly followed by security
- I do not have a looming statistic of risk of incarceration of a family member
- I can read history books and learn how people with my skin color brought "civilization" to the New World.
- My race is represented by the country's Founding Fathers
- I do not have to hear "get over it" when it comes to the atrocity of slavery in the U.S. (though we will "never forget" the Holocaust, 9/11, or the sinking of the Titanic)

Another personal anecdote...every now and then I'd go to the movies with friends of mine who are people of color, and I'd be the only white woman in the theatre. Or, I'd go to a comedy club where the comedian is black, and being the one woman who was white in the club, I'd notice how I stood out. I'd hear from my friends how that is how they feel every day.

That is another way that I am oblivious to my privilege.

None of these are things that I am expected to apologize for. It's simply a perspective to get me out of thinking that the white experience is the default experience of Reality.

Perhaps that helps a little?

Slapstick said:

You do realize privilege (social inequality – what you are referring to) and white privilege are two entirely different things right? Also, I’m not sure if you know how a debate works, but usually someone who is in arguing a position makes substantive or compelling argument or response and not tell someone to “look it up”. If you think social inequality exists, then you are supposed to state the inequalities. Also if you have been paying attention to anything that anyone has been debating in this thread so far you would know that most people realize “White Privilege” is biased, in and of itself. That is like saying “Oh that is some stuck-up white person.” “I don’t like those stuck-up white people.” “I can’t stand to be around those whites who think they are better than everyone else.” “Who do they think they are with all those privileges and stuff?”

The wiki link you posted is full of statements with no citations as well. Not a very good source or reference for anyone that needs to know what it is. Not that I do or anything. The actual white privilege wiki is really more of a critical analysis, and even states how biased a lot of those positions are. So I can see how it may be challenging to make a compelling argument for it.

You could have possibly linked some stuff on Mrs. Obama’s speech she recently had about race. “This issue is so sensitive, it’s so complicated, so bound up with a painful history,” Obama told soon-to-be graduating high school seniors in Topeka, Kansas—the city that was at the center of the Supreme Court’s decision. “No matter what you do, the point is to never be afraid to talk about these issues, particularly the issue of race, because even today, we still struggle to do that.”
…
“We need all of you to ask the hard questions and have the honest conversations because that is the only way we will heal the wounds of the past and move forward to a better future,” Obama said, who prior to her speech visited the Brown vs. Board of Ed National Historic Site.
Read more: Michelle Obama: Talk about race - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com

Having a debate or conversation on “White Privilege” is not an honest conversation for starters.

Or you could have linked some information on the 60th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education and how more needs to be done with educational institutions to provide children, regardless of race, with a better education. Which I think is obvious and most people on this forum would agree with. But Rights and Privileges are two entirely different things, as noted on the handy-dandy wiki page.

Privileges vs. rights (White privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The notion of white privilege raises the question of the difference between rights and privileges. Lewis Gordon rejects the idea of white privilege, arguing that the privileges from which whites as a group are supposed to benefit are, in fact, social goods to which all people aspire. As such, he writes, they are not privileges:

"A privilege is something that not everyone needs, but a right is the opposite. Given this distinction, an insidious dimension of the white-privilege argument emerges. It requires condemning whites for possessing, in the concrete, features of contemporary life that should be available to all, and if this is correct, how can whites be expected to give up such things? Yes, there is the case of the reality of whites being the majority population in all the sites of actual privilege from prestigious universities to golf clubs and boards of directors for most high-powered corporations. But even among whites as a group, how many whites have those opportunities?"[29]

Viewing whites as universally privileged constructs "a reality that has nothing to do with [the] lived experience" of the majority of whites, who themselves do not have access to elite institutions.[29] Their "daily, means-to-means subsistence" is a right, of which it makes no sense to feel guilty.[29] Naomi Zack similarly criticizes the term white privilege as a misunderstanding of the difference between privileges and rights. Discrimination against nonwhites does not create a privilege in the normal sense of the term, a "specifically granted absolute advantage," a "prerogative or exception granted to an individual or special group."[30] In the United States, Zack writes, discussion of "white privilege" distracts from the discussion of social exclusion of nonwhites, which is the origin of racial disparities.[30]

Click to expand...

You certainly have a lot to say to me for someone who has not yet been presented with my opinion.

The reason I don't feel interested in engaging you on this subject is that you are too zealous and emotional for a productive and mutually enjoyable conversation.

MysticSang'ha said:

Privilege is not the same as Rights. They are two very different academic terms in sociology.

Privilege is a subliminal and transparent advantage, where one does not have the same hurdles in life as others who are disadvantaged. It speaks nothing about the character of the person. If one earned a privilege or not. It's simply a term that describes a one-less-thing-to-worry-about that others systemically experience on an everyday basis.

Where I recognize my privilege as a white woman:
- flesh-colored bandages are in my skin tone and only in my skin tone
- hair products that help me groom are made for my hair type, whereas "ethnic" or "black" hair products are located in a smaller section
- nude-colored tights or hosiery are available in my skin tone. Tan-colored tights are suited for white skin that has been tanned.
- I can drive in neighborhoods without being regularly followed by police
- I can enter into various stores without being regularly followed by security
- I do not have a looming statistic of risk of incarceration of a family member
- I can read history books and learn how people with my skin color brought "civilization" to the New World.
- My race is represented by the country's Founding Fathers
- I do not have to hear "get over it" when it comes to the atrocity of slavery in the U.S. (though we will "never forget" the Holocaust, 9/11, or the sinking of the Titanic)

Another personal anecdote...every now and then I'd go to the movies with friends of mine who are people of color, and I'd be the only white woman in the theatre. Or, I'd go to a comedy club where the comedian is black, and being the one woman who was white in the club, I'd notice how I stood out. I'd hear from my friends how that is how they feel every day.

That is another way that I am oblivious to my privilege.

None of these are things that I am expected to apologize for. It's simply a perspective to get me out of thinking that the white experience is the default experience of Reality.

Perhaps that helps a little?

Click to expand...

Those are all real examples of what would be, or be related to "privilege". But they are culled for uniformity to support the claim of "white privilege". I find this an incomplete picture of "privilege" in general, since it's only about white folk, & how others suffer at their hand. If discussion of the problem of privilege is limited in this fashion, is this not also racist? It smacks of word weaponization...you know, a shorthand phrase to dismiss a group or an argument, eg, Anti-semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic. But this one seems sneakier in that it's to dismiss without apparent insult.

Revoltingest said:

Those are all real examples of what would be, or be related to "privilege". But they are culled for uniformity to support the claim of "white privilege". I find this an incomplete picture of "privilege" in general, since it's only about white folk, & how others suffer at their hand. If discussion of the problem of privilege is limited in this fashion, is this not also racist? It smacks of word weaponization...you know, a shorthand phrase to dismiss a group or an argument, eg, Anti-semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic. But this one seems sneakier in that it's to dismiss without apparent insult.

Click to expand...

There are various forms of privilege. Alceste even brought up a privilege just for being taller. As a very short person, I can attest to that, given that taller people are able to sit in chairs comfortably more often than the very short folks.

It's not an attack. It's simply recognizing a comfort zone and the luxury of being oblivious.

If somebody who simply brings up race is thought of as racist, then how is it possible to bring up the phenomenon of Driving While Black, or the disproportionate rates of incarcerated people between whites and people of color?

That might be as problematic as hearing somebody say "I don't see color. It doesn't exist."

MysticSang'ha said:

Privilege is not the same as Rights. They are two very different academic terms in sociology.

Privilege is a subliminal and transparent advantage, where one does not have the same hurdles in life as others who are disadvantaged. It speaks nothing about the character of the person. If one earned a privilege or not. It's simply a term that describes a one-less-thing-to-worry-about that others systemically experience on an everyday basis.

Where I recognize my privilege as a white woman:
- flesh-colored bandages are in my skin tone and only in my skin tone
- hair products that help me groom are made for my hair type, whereas "ethnic" or "black" hair products are located in a smaller section
- nude-colored tights or hosiery are available in my skin tone. Tan-colored tights are suited for white skin that has been tanned.
- I can drive in neighborhoods without being regularly followed by police
- I can enter into various stores without being regularly followed by security
- I do not have a looming statistic of risk of incarceration of a family member
- I can read history books and learn how people with my skin color brought "civilization" to the New World.
- My race is represented by the country's Founding Fathers
- I do not have to hear "get over it" when it comes to the atrocity of slavery in the U.S. (though we will "never forget" the Holocaust, 9/11, or the sinking of the Titanic)

Another personal anecdote...every now and then I'd go to the movies with friends of mine who are people of color, and I'd be the only white woman in the theatre. Or, I'd go to a comedy club where the comedian is black, and being the one woman who was white in the club, I'd notice how I stood out. I'd hear from my friends how that is how they feel every day.

That is another way that I am oblivious to my privilege.

None of these are things that I am expected to apologize for. It's simply a perspective to get me out of thinking that the white experience is the default experience of Reality.

Perhaps that helps a little?

Click to expand...

I recently moved to a neighborhood where nearly all of my neighbours are Asian. As a result of the demographic make-up here, nearly all the local shops cater to the Asian population. I don't even recognize many of the products in the local grocery stores, so gathering the ingredients for recipes I'm most familiar with usually requires a car trip to a more distant grocery store even though there are five or six perfectly good, super cheap shops within walking distance.

So I've gotten a small taste of what a daily inconvenience it is to be a minority myself.

Meanwhile, when I go to work, almost everyone is white. All the actors, producers and 90% of the crew on every show are white. But since they are American productions, they often use a whole lot of black background actors for a more realistic demographic make-up. But hardly any Asians, Indians, first nations or latinos.

This is the situation in a very liberal industry where the decision makers believe themselves to be relatively free of racism. And they ARE free of racism - you don't often hear edgy or offensive racial comments or stereotypes on a film set.

However, when it comes time to hire, every department head has complete autonomy over who to employ, which they always accomplish through networking or vouching. Being straight white men nearly all the time, so they tend to hire either a) other white men they identify with or b) really good looking white women.

Being in the latter category myself, I have a much better chance of working than minorities and less attractive white women. In fact, I talked to a woman just the other day who wanted to try my department but was put off because she'd never met women in that department before. I tried to give her some encouragement, then spoke to my boss to let him know I might spend some of my down time training her up. He said "she's not fit enough". It's true that she's a little overweight, but so are many of the men he hires and works with.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I guess I'm trying to say that being aware of my own advantages need not be a distraction from awareness of the disadvantages of others. It's a symbiotic relationship. In the future when I'm in a position to pick crews, I intend to give a little extra help to women and minorities. Not because I don't like white men, but because they don't need my help. They can keep themselves working and advancing relatively easily in this industry, as anyone can see from taking a stroll around a film set.

MysticSang'ha said:

There are various forms of privilege. Alceste even brought up a privilege just for being taller. As a very short person, I can attest to that, given that taller people are able to sit in chairs comfortably more often than the very short folks.

It's not an attack. It's simply recognizing a comfort zone and the luxury of being oblivious.

Click to expand...

You see it as not an attack because you aren't attacking, & you tend to look upon things in a positive fashion. (I've diagnosed this weakness in you....you see the best in things which appeal to you. And yes, I'm qualified....because I've landlorded so many psychologists & psychiatrists.) But I sense something different, particularly because of the narrow focus on white folk, & the sloganeering aspect. Many see this as shorthand for how white folk get undeserved advantages, everyone else is a victim, & that is THE problem. Even if you find this perspective invalid, to ignore it is to polarize & make difficult the discussion of problems & solutions of "privilege".

If somebody who simply brings up race is thought of as racist, then how is it possible to bring up the phenomenon of Driving While Black, or the disproportionate rates of incarcerated people between whites and people of color?

Click to expand...

If a larger problem is reduced to an element by ignoring other races, then yes, this could qualify as racism. No one, including I, say those particular problems don't exist. What is at issue is how those & other problems are discussed. Civil discourse should be about language which facilitates common understanding, but divisive terminology (even well intended) interferes.

That might be as problematic as hearing somebody say "I don't see color. It doesn't exist."

Click to expand...

I am not one of those who say race doesn't exist. But I wonder....how many
people who believe that race doesn't exist would also talk of "white privilege"?

Slapstick said:

I must be completely oblivious to White Privilege, because everything I have read on Critical Race theory is about accepting racism as a normal part of society.

Click to expand...

Well, if I can help make it less oblivious to you:

"White Americans are more likely than black Americans to have used most kinds of illegal drugs, including cocaine, marijuana and LSD. Yet blacks are far more likely to go to prison for drug offenses.

This discrepancy forms the backdrop of a new legislative proposal in California, which aims to reduce the disproportionate incarceration of black people in the state. Supporters of the bill, SB 649, point to some striking national data.

Nearly 20 percent of whites have used cocaine, compared with 10 percent of blacks and Latinos, according to a 2011 survey from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration -- the most recent data available.

Higher percentages of whites have also tried hallucinogens, marijuana, pain relievers like OxyContin, and stimulants like methamphetamine, according to the survey. Crack is more popular among blacks than whites, but not by much.

Still, blacks are arrested for drug possession more than three times as often as whites, according to a 2009 report from the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

Of the 225,242 people who were serving time in state prisons for drug offenses in 2011, blacks made up 45 percent and whites comprised just 30 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Jamie Fellner, author of the Human Rights Watch report, offered an explanation for this discrepancy.

"The race issue isn't just that the judge is going, 'Oh, black man, I'm gonna sentence you higher,'" she said. "The police go into low-income minority neighborhoods and that's where they make most of their drug arrests. If they arrest you, now you have a 'prior,' so if you plead or get arrested again, you're gonna have a higher sentence. There's a kind of cumulative effect.""

When It Comes To Illegal Drug Use, White America Does The Crime, Black America Gets The Time

4.4 percent of all white men will go to jail. 28.5 percent of all black men will go to jail. 16 percent of all Hispanic men will go to jail.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/LLGSFP.PR

It is suggesting that white people are inherently racist, and bias towards other races.

Click to expand...

Source?

Revoltingest said:

Many see this as shorthand for how white folk get undeserved advantages, everyone else is a victim, & that is THE problem.

Click to expand...

I'm not a big sloganeering person myself, but looking upon the racial discrepancy for drug crimes in my last post (and crimes in general, but I didn't provide that specific info), do you see leniency in the criminal justice system for people who just vaguely have lighter skin color as a deserved advantage? Might a double standard on culturally-engrained-and-maintained notion on the color of skin appear to tend to victimize one group is relation to the other.

I mean, don't get me wrong... most of those people would probably be victims if I met them one on one. But, it isn't too surprising when the group getting the short end of the stick takes offense to it, is it?

Slapstick said:

Is this suppose to be a rebuttal? I see no reason to make excuses for biggoted hate speech. I would like to hear your excuse for white privilege theory being a legitimate theory. That means when you explain a theory you need to have facts and proof to back up your argument. Not a statement "Im getting the impression..." blah blah blah when you havent added anything to the debate. So I will be waiting for you to enlighten me and everyone else.

Click to expand...

let me understand the terms: you want me to take the time to gather legitimate evidence that demonstrates current prejudices relating to race. If this evidence demonstrates that racial prejudices exist to the disadvantage of racial minorities, you will then admit that white privilege does indeed exist?

dust1n said:

I'm not a big sloganeering person myself, but looking upon the racial discrepancy for drug crimes in my last post (and crimes in general, but I didn't provide that specific info), do you see leniency in the criminal justice system for people who just vaguely have lighter skin color as a deserved advantage? Might a double standard on culturally-engrained-and-maintained notion on the color of skin appear to tend to victimize one group is relation to the other.

Click to expand...

Everything you say is obvious & not in dispute. Does it serve discussion of problems & solutions to use language which makes it about advantage attributed to a group (but not all individuals), instead of systemic worse treatment of another group? Moreover, isn't your example's fundamental problem a dysfunctional war on drugs? Tis better to recognize & correct an injustice which afflicts all, & not just one race.

I mean, don't get me wrong... most of those people would probably be victims if I met them one on one. But, it isn't too surprising when the group getting the short end of the stick takes offense to it, is it?

Click to expand...

And those of us supposedly wielding the stick resent being painted with a broad brush which includes the perpetrators.

Revoltingest said:

You see it as not an attack because you aren't attacking, & you tend to look upon things in a positive fashion. (I've diagnosed this weakness in you....you see the best in things which appeal to you. And yes, I'm qualified....because I've landlorded so many psychologists & psychiatrists.) But I sense something different, particularly because of the narrow focus on white folk, & the sloganeering aspect. Many see this as shorthand for how white folk get undeserved advantages, everyone else is a victim, & that is THE problem. Even if you find this perspective invalid, to ignore it is to polarize & make difficult the discussion of problems & solutions of "privilege".

If a larger problem is reduced to an element by ignoring other races, then yes, this could qualify as racism. No one, including I, say those particular problems don't exist. What is at issue is how those & other problems are discussed. Civil discourse should be about language which facilitates common understanding, but divisive terminology (even well intended) interferes.

Click to expand...

Hmmm....

Is it the narrowing of racial terms like "whites" when the acknowledgement is hoping to expanding to other racial identities, such as Hispanic, Indigenous, Pacific Islander, etc.? And that to reduce white vs. black is too small of a scope when discussing racial politics?

Just trying to get where you're coming from.

I am not one of those who say race doesn't exist. But I wonder....how many people who believe that race doesn't exist would also talk of "white privilege"?

Click to expand...

Oh, way too many. That's something else I find extremely problematic. And it's those who I find who may understand the academic side of institutionalized racial prejudice, but wouldn't dare set foot in neighborhoods of color....especially poor neighborhoods of color. I think it was Chris Hedges that said it best (I'm paraphrasing): "Intellectual liberals tend to like talking about the poor, but they truly hate the smell of the poor." And my personal experience has been that while some people will easily champion minority rights many of the same people will also do whatever they can to stay away from certain zip codes or won't hang in minority circles.

What I find helpful with the term "privilege" is that I can't think of a better term for identifying classes of people who make up the default setting of a community's or culture's narrative. Advantaged? In-group? These I've heard before, too. But privilege offers something distinct in that it identifies where a citizen has lesser hurdles than others. Wealth offers easier day-to-day living than poverty or middle-class. Having good looks does too. Identifying as Christian, getting educated at specific schools, having the right zip code, being male, heterosexual, cis-gendered....they all have various ways of experiencing day to day life that offers less hurdles than others. To me, if one doesn't have to consider being the "spokesperson" for an entire class of people, or one can freely wear a hoodie without being marked as a potential threat...one is free to be oblivious.

I dunno, is there a better term for that?

MysticSang'ha said:

Hmmm....
Is it the narrowing of racial terms like "whites" when the acknowledgement is hoping to expanding to other racial identities, such as Hispanic, Indigenous, Pacific Islander, etc.? And that to reduce white vs. black is too small of a scope when discussing racial politics?
Just trying to get where you're coming from.

Click to expand...

It might just be some Chocolate Stout, but I don't understand the question.

Oh, way too many. That's something else I find extremely problematic. And it's those who I find who may understand the academic side of institutionalized racial prejudice, but wouldn't dare set foot in neighborhoods of color....especially poor neighborhoods of color. I think it was Chris Hedges that said it best (I'm paraphrasing): "Intellectual liberals tend to like talking about the poor, but they truly hate the smell of the poor." And my personal experience has been that while some people will easily champion minority rights many of the same people will also do whatever they can to stay away from certain zip codes or won't hang in minority circles.

What I find helpful with the term "privilege" is that I can't think of a better term for identifying classes of people who make up the default setting of a community's or culture's narrative. Advantaged? In-group? These I've heard before, too. But privilege offers something distinct in that it identifies where a citizen has lesser hurdles than others. Wealth offers easier day-to-day living than poverty or middle-class. Having good looks does too. Identifying as Christian, getting educated at specific schools, having the right zip code, being male, heterosexual, cis-gendered....they all have various ways of experiencing day to day life that offers less hurdles than others. To me, if one doesn't have to consider being the "spokesperson" for an entire class of people, or one can freely wear a hoodie without being marked as a potential threat...one is free to be oblivious.

I dunno, is there a better term for that?

Click to expand...

I like the old term, "discrimination". The problem is not that some have advantage, but rather that others have disadvantage. "Discrimination" makes it about the specific group which suffers, while "privilige' makes it about an entire group which fares well, many of whom have no culpability for those who suffer. The whole "privilege" business seems to add nothing new, while obfuscating & alienating.

This "hoodie" reference just muddies the waters. Martin's garb was irrelevant, & what got him killed was apparently his attacking Zimmerman, provoking a deadly offense by the "cracker".

Revoltingest said:

It might just be some Chocolate Stout, but I don't understand the question.

Click to expand...

It also might be the fatigue on my part, but I wasn't understanding where you were coming from either. No worries, though. I can revisit that another time when I'm not so brain-foggy.

I like the old term, "discrimination". The problem is not that some have advantage, but rather that others have disadvantage. "Discrimination" makes it about the specific group which suffers, while "privilige' makes it about an entire group which fares well, many of whom have no culpability for those who suffer. The whole "privilege" business seems to add nothing new, while obfuscating & alienating.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think this brings us back full circle again. We certainly do see the terminology differently. But thanks for clarifying where you're coming from.

Maybe saying "hokey pokey penny dragon" three times fast? That would help to respectfully include all people in the conversation where and when discrimination occurs?

MysticSang'ha said:

It also might be the fatigue on my part, but I wasn't understanding where you were coming from either. No worries, though. I can revisit that another time when I'm not so brain-foggy.

Click to expand...

Ain''t we a pair.

Yeah, I think this brings us back full circle again. We certainly do see the terminology differently. But thanks for clarifying where you're coming from.

Click to expand...

Hey, it's all about a common understanding, especially of differences.

Maybe saying "hokey pokey penny dragon" three times fast?

Click to expand...

I might be rough & gruff, but I'd never use such language in mixed company.

Alceste said:

You certainly have a lot to say to me for someone who has not yet been presented with my opinion.

The reason I don't feel interested in engaging you on this subject is that you are too zealous and emotional for a productive and mutually enjoyable conversation.

Click to expand...

Okay fine, make up a bunch of stuff and have it your way. But if you decide to opt back in and want to have a "civilized debate" like rational civilized people would do then you can.

dust1n said:

Well, if I can help make it less oblivious to you:

Click to expand...

It was sarcasm, but okay.

dust1n said:

"White Americans are more likely than black Americans to have used most kinds of illegal drugs, including cocaine, marijuana and LSD. Yet blacks are far more likely to go to prison for drug offenses.

This discrepancy forms the backdrop of a new legislative proposal in California, which aims to reduce the disproportionate incarceration of black people in the state. Supporters of the bill, SB 649, point to some striking national data.

Nearly 20 percent of whites have used cocaine, compared with 10 percent of blacks and Latinos, according to a 2011 survey from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration -- the most recent data available.

Higher percentages of whites have also tried hallucinogens, marijuana, pain relievers like OxyContin, and stimulants like methamphetamine, according to the survey. Crack is more popular among blacks than whites, but not by much.

Still, blacks are arrested for drug possession more than three times as often as whites, according to a 2009 report from the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

Of the 225,242 people who were serving time in state prisons for drug offenses in 2011, blacks made up 45 percent and whites comprised just 30 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Jamie Fellner, author of the Human Rights Watch report, offered an explanation for this discrepancy.

"The race issue isn't just that the judge is going, 'Oh, black man, I'm gonna sentence you higher,'" she said. "The police go into low-income minority neighborhoods and that's where they make most of their drug arrests. If they arrest you, now you have a 'prior,' so if you plead or get arrested again, you're gonna have a higher sentence. There's a kind of cumulative effect.""

When It Comes To Illegal Drug Use, White America Does The Crime, Black America Gets The Time

4.4 percent of all white men will go to jail. 28.5 percent of all black men will go to jail. 16 percent of all Hispanic men will go to jail.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/LLGSFP.PR

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to discredited anything you have posted, but maybe after you understand a perspective from someone besides those who are proponents of white privilege then we might be able to tackle these individually.

In America We're Pro-Choice: We Largely Choose Our Ultimate Privilege - Forbes
Rex Murphy: Check your bigotry | National Post

As I already have arguments lined up for all of them, but I don't want you to think I'm blowing smoke.

dust1n said:

Source?

Click to expand...

I created an entire post for this and it was lost due to my browser acting stupid and I don't feel like typing it all over again so I will provide you with some abstracts.


Title: Critical Race Theory

Abstract: Critical race theory is a body of work that first emerged in American legalscholarship in the late 1980s and has since spread to other disciplines. It investigates a paradox:how does racism persist despite its nearly universal condemnation by state policy and by thenorms of polite society? Rejecting the conventional liberal position that racism survives only asa relic from a less-enlightened time or as a characteristic of poorly-educated or troubled individuals, critical race theorists take the position that racism is ordinary and normal in contemporary society, indeed perhaps integral to social practices and institutions.


Title: Just what is critical race theory, and what's it doing in a nice field like education.

Abstract: Critical race theory (CRT) first emerged as a counterlegal scholarship to the positivistand liberal legal discourse of civil rights. This scholarly tradition argues against the slow pace of racial reform in the United States. Critical race theory begins with the notion that racism is normal in American society. It departs from mainstream legal scholarship by sometimes employing storytelling. It critiques liberalism and argues that Whites have been the primary beneficiaries of civil rights legislation.Since schooling in the USA purports to prepare citizens, CRT looks at how citizenship and race might interact. Critical race theory's usefulness in understanding education inequity is in its infancy. It requires a critique of some of the civil rights era's most cherished legal victories and educationalreform movements, such as multiculturalism. The paper concludes with words of caution about the use of CRT in education without a more thorough analysis of the legal literature upon which it is based.


Title: Education policy as an act of white supremacy: whiteness, critical race theory and education reform.

Abstract: The paper presents an empirical analysis of education policy in England that is informed by recent developments in US critical theory. In particular, I draw on ‘whiteness studies’ and the application of critical race theory (CRT). These perspectives offer a new and radical way of conceptualizing the role of racism in education. Although the US literature has paid little or no regard to issues outside North America, I argue that a similar understanding of racism (as a multifaceted, deeply embedded, often taken‐for‐granted aspect of power relations) lies at the heart of recent attempts to understand institutional racism in the UK. Having set out the conceptual terrain in the first half of the paper, I then apply this approach to recent changes in the English education system to reveal the central role accorded the defence (and extension) of race inequity. Finally, the paper touches on the question of racism and intentionality: although race inequity may not be a planned and deliberate goal of education policy neither is it accidental. The patterning of racial advantage and inequity is structured in domination and its continuation represents a form of tacit intentionality on the part of white powerholders and policy‐makers. It is in this sense that education policy is an act of white supremacy. Following others in the CRT tradition, therefore, the paper’s analysis concludes that the most dangerous form of ‘white supremacy’ is not the obvious and extreme fascistic posturing of small neo‐nazi groups, but rather the taken‐for‐granted routine privileging of white interests that goes unremarked in the political mainstream.

Just use Google Scholar and research Critical Race Theory and White Privilege. You will find everything I am posting and anything that might be of interest.