• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

White Privilege Conference

Alceste

Vagabond
Not only is this evidence of self-hatred on your part, Alceste, but if I bring up height privilege at all when it comes to socio-economic advantage, it means that I'm automatically hostile and anti-tall. AND it means that I want to make life horrible for all tall people.

Shame on both of us. We need to stop talking about it while I just keep telling myself that life isn't fair, you just remember everything you earned had nothing to do with your height (it's all merit-based, so be proud of it) and I just work on my ninja skills on the stepladder.

:cool:

There's that victim mentality rearing it's ugly head again, Heather. Don't hold me accountable for your own shortcomings...
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
Careful, your height-challenged privilege is showing...

You can go places that us big folks cant. It's so unfair.... :drool:

I can fit in shipping boxes.
My kid hands can text better on Blackberry phones.
Lower center of gravity = better ninja coordination skillz
Children see me as their height benchmark for when they're "more growed up"
I'm physically closer to other grown ups genitals (that can be a good OR a bad thing depending on how I feel about them)

Hunh. On second thought, maybe that last evidence of short privilege gives me advantage in job-seeking. I'll go ahead and update my resume now...:yes:
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
More advantages to shortness:
- Win limbo contests without really trying.
- Their feet reach the ground.
- They can be happy with a large dog instead of a pony.
- They're the darlings of the ladder industrial complex.
- They.....uh.....no, I'm not going there.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I can fit in shipping boxes.
My kid hands can text better on Blackberry phones.
Lower center of gravity = better ninja coordination skillz
Children see me as their height benchmark for when they're "more growed up"
I'm physically closer to other grown ups genitals (that can be a good OR a bad thing depending on how I feel about them)

Hunh. On second thought, maybe that last evidence of short privilege gives me advantage in job-seeking. I'll go ahead and update my resume now...:yes:

You could go to Japan and fit through doorways without ducking. When I went there, my neck got sore. Although I always had plenty of room on tightly packed commuter trains - at least from the neck up. Same goes for Guatemala.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
These have been pointed out as well. And I give you that as a good point.

Perhaps a distinction between earned and unearned privileges? It's one thing to be a self-made millionaire. It's another to be born into wealth and enjoy the same privileges, having daddy buy one's place in an Ivy League school doesn't hurt either.

Does it come down to a perception on what privilege actually is? Or what it say about a person's character? Is it an assumption that privilege is always earned? And that if one says they are not a part of a privileged class, it's because they are lazy, entitled, and/or playing the victim card?

I'm wondering if that is what the distinction is, and where there might be a communication breakdown in these types of conversations.

No, none of that has any bearing on what my view about privilege is, or what I'm saying about it. My only point is that if we're going to point out privilege which is substantive on a societal scale, then merely being white doesn't compare to such things as socioeconomic status, level of education, personal/professional associations, and even something like being extremely attractive, and doesn't necessarily convey any privilege at all depending on where you're at and what other factors are present.

Essentially, our country and society is so large and varied from locale to locale, that saying that all white people necessarily have some type of privilge that all non-white people do not have is a generalization too broad to be useful.

Being that people are so ardently opposed to broad generalizations, it seems odd that they would so strongly cling to this one, when there are so many other ones regarding privilege that are far more consistent and useful.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
No, none of that has any bearing on what my view about privilege is, or what I'm saying about it. My only point is that if we're going to point out privilege which is substantive on a societal scale, then merely being white doesn't compare to such things as socioeconomic status, level of education, personal/professional associations, and even something like being extremely attractive, and doesn't necessarily convey any privilege at all depending on where you're at and what other factors are present.

Essentially, our country and society is so large and varied from locale to locale, that saying that all white people necessarily have some type of privilge that all non-white people do not have is a generalization too broad to be useful.

Being that people are so ardently opposed to broad generalizations, it seems odd that they would so strongly cling to this one, when there are so many other ones regarding privilege that are far more consistent and useful.

I don't think the concept of white privilege implies that every individual white person on earth personally has a specific set of advantages.

I think we are saying that in white dominated cultures that white people in general (as a group) have various advantages over visible minorities they might not be aware of.

Much like we tallish people may not be aware of how simple a thing driving is for us compared to Heather's daily struggle to both reach the gas pedal and see through the windshield at the same time. :D

Edit: Also, being conscious of advantages I enjoy because of my skin tone does not make me any less conscious of the rather enormous advantages I enjoy just for living in a first world country.
 
Last edited:

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I don't think the concept of white privilege implies that every individual white person on earth personally has a specific set of advantages.

I think that people are actually saying that, in the US at least, all white people have substantive advantages and privileges that all non-white people do not have.

I think we are saying that in white dominated cultures that white people in general (as a group) have various advantages over visible minorities they might not be aware of.

I'm not sure how it is in Canada. However, in the US, this ignores the wide variances in local cultures and environments which makes this generalization too broad to be meaningful. I'm not ignoring the fact that this may be the case, to varying degrees, in various places. However, if we are making generalizations regarding privilege, there are a whole host of more attributes which convey more substantive and consistent privileges than merely being white in the US.

Much like we tallish people may not be aware of how simple a thing driving is for us compared to Heather's daily struggle to both reach the gas pedal and see through the windshield at the same time. :D

And this would be a consistent advantage that all tall people would have over very short people. No such consistent advantage applies to all white people over all non-white people - at least in the US.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I think that people are actually saying that, in the US at least, all white people have substantive advantages and privileges that all non-white people do not have.



I'm not sure how it is in Canada. However, in the US, this ignores the wide variances in local cultures and environments which makes this generalization too broad to be meaningful. I'm not ignoring the fact that this may be the case, to varying degrees, in various places. However, if we are making generalizations regarding privilege, there are a whole host of more attributes which convey more substantive and consistent privileges than merely being white in the US.



And this would be a consistent advantage that all tall people would have over very short people. No such consistent advantage applies to all white people over all non-white people - at least in the US.
I edited my post to add that being conscious of white privilege does not make one any less conscious of socio-economic privilege, or any other form of privilege. I've yet to see any rational explanation of why that would be so.

Also, not ALL tall people have the same ease as we do with driving. For example, some tall people are disabled. Others drive ridiculously small vehicles.

And finally, regional variation means some areas are not adapted to the particular demands and tastes of an ethnically European majority. For example, the neighborhood I live in, where I can not find a box of mac and cheese for love or money. It is nevertheless true that in general I have an easier time succeeding and fitting in in Canada than my Asian neighbours.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I edited my post to add that being conscious of white privilege does not make one any less conscious of socio-economic privilege, or any other form of privilege. I've yet to see any rational explanation of why that would be so.

There isn't. It just seems silly to put so much focus on the concept of privilege in relation to the broad construct of race, when there are a myriad other variables and attributes which convey much more substantive and consistent privileges, particularly when the broadness of the supposed privileges based solely on race are hardly consistent or applicable to all. In other words, it's attempting to define an "average" where doing so creates a generalization that is too broad to be useful.

Also, not ALL tall people have the same ease as we do with driving. For example, some tall people are disabled. Others drive ridiculously small vehicles.

And finally, regional variation means some areas are not adapted to the particular demands and tastes of an ethnically European majority. For example, the neighborhood I live in, where I can not find a box of mac and cheese for love or money. It is nevertheless true that in general I have an easier time succeeding and fitting in in Canada than my Asian neighbours.

I'm sorry you can't find your mac and cheese, but I don't think this addresses the idea that some generalizations are too broad to meaningfully be applied across the board in large and varied societies.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
No, none of that has any bearing on what my view about privilege is, or what I'm saying about it. My only point is that if we're going to point out privilege which is substantive on a societal scale, then merely being white doesn't compare to such things as socioeconomic status, level of education, personal/professional associations, and even something like being extremely attractive, and doesn't necessarily convey any privilege at all depending on where you're at and what other factors are present.

Essentially, our country and society is so large and varied from locale to locale, that saying that all white people necessarily have some type of privilge that all non-white people do not have is a generalization too broad to be useful.

Being that people are so ardently opposed to broad generalizations, it seems odd that they would so strongly cling to this one, when there are so many other ones regarding privilege that are far more consistent and useful.

I can't remember....do you disagree with the phenomenon of Driving While Black? That it actually occurs?
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I can't remember....do you disagree with the phenomenon of Driving While Black? That it actually occurs?

I've never heard the term before. However, if you're talking about black people being pulled over more than white people, then, yes, I believe that it occurs. Of course, this varies a lot from location to location, and similar phenomenon exist in reverse as well.

For example, I lived in DC since the age of 18. Before the gentrification of much of the city over the last 10-15 years, DC was black by a substantial majority, and nearly all the police officers were black. Myself, and other white people I knew, got unfairly stopped, harrassed, and even abused by black DC police officers who had no qualms about conveying their disdain and racism for "white kids."

My wife, then girlfriend, was stopped with two male friends. She was taken aside, intimidate and threatened, while her friends were slammed against their car and on the ground, before being let go. This was for driving through the "wrong part of the city." They even complained with no result, as DC culture is rife with corruption and crime.

When I lived in Las Vegas, as a teenager, I was also stopped and harrassed by a Latino and black cop who had no problem with making racist remarks. I was merely walking down the street to my job at McDonald's.

So, do my anecdotes mean that it doesn't happen more to black people? No. Does it mean that such phenomenon go both ways, depending on who you are and where you're at. Yes.

The point is that there is no "average" for this type of "privilege" that is very useful, and it does little to describe any particular individual's level of "privilege" based on such a broad generalization.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
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.

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.

The Forbes article was fine, but there was no disagreement about the existence of white privilege in America. The Murphy article was a joke beyond all means of journalism; the mad rhetorical dream world the guy exists in, where no argument requires reinforcement or thought at all, and where writing an article around a common straw argument becomes sort of laughable.

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.

None of this reinforces what you stated and what I asked about, which is:

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

Now, perhaps some people think that everyone is inherently racist. But I've never were a CRT supporter ever mention the inherent racism that only white people have for some reason.
 
Last edited:

dust1n

Zindīq
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?

Well, sure, I suppose the word itself could be Latinized into a spiffy scientific word. It mine as well be called "institutional racism" which is generally rather synonymous with it. The term itself came from, like, the sixties, man. Many people did have access to the internet to compare their experiences with ease across many populations across the world. Truth is, people are going to divide on every conceivable bases, and hate each other for all sorts of identifications held.

Moreover, isn't your example's fundamental problem a dysfunctional war on drugs?
The cause for the circumstances which allow this racial discrepancy is the war on drugs. We agree the war on drugs is a problem. But the war on drugs is not by itself the cause for the discrepancy in races when it comes to taking the brunt of drug arrests, or harder penalties, or more likely sent to jail. The fact that there is a war on drugs isn't the sole reason of the discrepancy, though obviously, in this particular example, it is a necessary condition for there to be a war on drugs.

So, we all exist under the laws, white or black, in America, and despite whether or not the war on drugs is a good or bad thing, it exists and has existed in America for, what 90+ years now. The privilege being here is that despite the fact the War on Drugs is something we all endure, it's just that white people, and especially white people from middle class and up, and have to endure far less of it, statistically speaking.

There are other examples of racial discrepancy that don't involve the dysfunction war on drugs. It's across the board in crime...

"Male and female white prisoners of all age groups had lower imprisonment rates than male and female black and Hispanic prisoners. Overall, black males were 6 times and Hispanic males 2.5 times more likely to be imprisoned than white males in 2012. Hispanic males ages 18 to 19 were more than 3 times as likely as white males of the same age to be imprisoned, while all other age groups were at least twice as likely as white males to be serving a prison sentence. Black males had imprisonment rates at least 4 times those of white males in all age groups. The rates for black males age 39 or younger were more than 6 times greater than white males of the same age. Male inmates ages 18 to 19 had the largest imprisonment rate disparity between whites and blacks. Black males in this age group were almost 9.5 times more likely than white males to be in prison.

"Almost 1% of all male residents in the United States were imprisoned at year end 2012. A total of 2.8% of black, 0.5% of white, and 1.2% of Hispanic males were in state or federal prison on December 31, 2012. Among black males, this represents a decline from the rate in 2011 (3%). Between 4% and 7% of black males ages 20 to 49 were prison inmates. Black males ages 30 to 34 had the highest incarceration rate (6,932 prisoners per 100,000 black male U.S. residents ages 30 to 34). This age group also had the highest imprisonment rates among white and Hispanic males in 2012.

"Among female prisoners in 2012, black females ages 18 to 19 were 3 times more likely to be imprisoned than white females. Hispanic females in this age group had imprisonment rates nearly twice those of white females. White and Hispanic females approached parity imprisonment rates among prisoners ages 35 to 44. Hispanic females age 65 or older were more than twice as likely as white females of this age to be serving time in prison, the age group of greatest disparity. Black and white female imprisonment rates were closest among prisoners ages 25 to 39, when black females were less than twice as likely as white females to be imprisoned."

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12tar9112.pdf (sorry for clumsy pdf).

Tis better to recognize & correct an injustice which afflicts all, & not just one race.
I'm not sure how one prioritizes injustices. Ideally, it would be obvious to eliminate all injustice. I'm assuming that most people are most sensitive to the injustices they themselves are most familiar with.

And those of us supposedly wielding the stick resent being painted with a broad brush which includes the perpetrators.
No want likes to be misrepresented, sure. "White privilege" is not really meant to a prerogative term against white people. It's a descriptive for privilege granted for white skin, a privilege being something others aren't granted.

That being said, I don't think these notions discount the fact that rural white people (and almost all rural people throughout societies) are also discriminated against unfairly in various ways. And rural people can be very discriminating in ways as well.

Oh what a complicated world.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well, sure, I suppose the word itself could be Latinized into a spiffy scientific word. It mine as well be called "institutional racism" which is generally rather synonymous with it. The term itself came from, like, the sixties, man. Many people did have access to the internet to compare their experiences with ease across many populations across the world. Truth is, people are going to divide on every conceivable bases, and hate each other for all sorts of identifications held.

The cause for the circumstances which allow this racial discrepancy is the war on drugs. We agree the war on drugs is a problem. But the war on drugs is not by itself the cause for the discrepancy in races when it comes to taking the brunt of drug arrests, or harder penalties, or more likely sent to jail. The fact that there is a war on drugs isn't the sole reason of the discrepancy, though obviously, in this particular example, it is a necessary condition for there to be a war on drugs.

So, we all exist under the laws, white or black, in America, and despite whether or not the war on drugs is a good or bad thing, it exists and has existed in America for, what 90+ years now. The privilege being here is that despite the fact the War on Drugs is something we all endure, it's just that white people, and especially white people from middle class and up, and have to endure far less of it, statistically speaking.

There are other examples of racial discrepancy that don't involve the dysfunction war on drugs. It's across the board in crime...

"Male and female white prisoners of all age groups had lower imprisonment rates than male and female black and Hispanic prisoners. Overall, black males were 6 times and Hispanic males 2.5 times more likely to be imprisoned than white males in 2012. Hispanic males ages 18 to 19 were more than 3 times as likely as white males of the same age to be imprisoned, while all other age groups were at least twice as likely as white males to be serving a prison sentence. Black males had imprisonment rates at least 4 times those of white males in all age groups. The rates for black males age 39 or younger were more than 6 times greater than white males of the same age. Male inmates ages 18 to 19 had the largest imprisonment rate disparity between whites and blacks. Black males in this age group were almost 9.5 times more likely than white males to be in prison.

"Almost 1% of all male residents in the United States were imprisoned at year end 2012. A total of 2.8% of black, 0.5% of white, and 1.2% of Hispanic males were in state or federal prison on December 31, 2012. Among black males, this represents a decline from the rate in 2011 (3%). Between 4% and 7% of black males ages 20 to 49 were prison inmates. Black males ages 30 to 34 had the highest incarceration rate (6,932 prisoners per 100,000 black male U.S. residents ages 30 to 34). This age group also had the highest imprisonment rates among white and Hispanic males in 2012.

"Among female prisoners in 2012, black females ages 18 to 19 were 3 times more likely to be imprisoned than white females. Hispanic females in this age group had imprisonment rates nearly twice those of white females. White and Hispanic females approached parity imprisonment rates among prisoners ages 35 to 44. Hispanic females age 65 or older were more than twice as likely as white females of this age to be serving time in prison, the age group of greatest disparity. Black and white female imprisonment rates were closest among prisoners ages 25 to 39, when black females were less than twice as likely as white females to be imprisoned."

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12tar9112.pdf (sorry for clumsy pdf).

I'm not sure how one prioritizes injustices. Ideally, it would be obvious to eliminate all injustice. I'm assuming that most people are most sensitive to the injustices they themselves are most familiar with.

No want likes to be misrepresented, sure. "White privilege" is not really meant to a prerogative term against white people. It's a descriptive for privilege granted for white skin, a privilege being something others aren't granted.

That being said, I don't think these notions discount the fact that rural white people (and almost all rural people throughout societies) are also discriminated against unfairly in various ways. And rural people can be very discriminating in ways as well.

Oh what a complicated world.
"prerogative" should be "pejorative", eh?
More later. Not done digesting your post.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Being that people are so ardently opposed to broad generalizations, it seems odd that they would so strongly cling to this one, when there are so many other ones regarding privilege that are far more consistent and useful.

Well, then your a Communist, if you want to address "socio-economic" issues. I'd think that contextualized racial privileges would call under socio-economic. I think many people recognize the root issue.

I couldn't really find much about the conference, so I just went to website and read the bio. See 4.

"What is the White Privilege Conference?
  1. WPC is a conference that examines challenging concepts of privilege and oppression and offers solutions and team building strategies to work toward a more equitable world.
  2. It is not a conference designed to attack, degrade or beat up on white folks.
  3. It is not a conference designed to rally white supremacist groups.
  4. WPC is a conference designed to examine issues of privilege beyond skin color. WPC is open to everyone and invites diverse perspectives to provide a comprehensive look at issues of privilege including: race, gender, sexuality, class, disability, etc. — the ways we all experience some form of privilege, and how we’re all affected by that privilege.
  5. WPC attracts students, professionals, activists, parents, and community leaders/members from diverse perspectives. WPC welcomes folks with varying levels of experience addressing issues of diversity, cultural competency, and multiculturalism.
  6. WPC is committed to a philosophy of “understanding, respecting and connecting.”
I think the real crime here is obviously the worst PR concerning a conference name considering the useless articles we'd now expect to see, despite the fact no one really cares anyways.
 

Slapstick

Active Member
The Forbes article was fine, but there was no disagreement about the existence of white privilege in America. The Murphy article was a joke beyond all means of journalism; the mad rhetorical dream world the guy exists in, where no argument requires reinforcement or thought at all, and where writing an article around a common straw argument becomes sort of laughable.
Correct, and I agree with her entire article 100% percent. The problem occurs when someone makes the assumption that just because someone is white, they have special privileges or advantages over other races when this is a false assumption to make. Now, I was going to debate every point you made earlier, but there are way too many factors involved and it’s simply not that black and white. How coincidental. People do not get arrested because of the color of their skin. People tend to get arrested because they have committed some type of crime and got caught doing it. I don’t know why people continue to bring up this argument as if minorities for some reason get singled out by police just because of their skin color.

In 2009 there were 7,389,208 arrests made against white people and 3,027,153 arrests made against black people. Remember they did not get arrested because of their skin color. They got arrested for committing some type of crime. These numbers accurately reflect the demographic racial makeup of our country as well. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0325.pdf

Also, having a discussion or debate about racial inequality is one thing. Having a debate on white privilege is something completely different. The two should not even be allowed in the same debate or conversation, because it becomes nothing more than an argument from ignorance, and never gains any traction. It’s like driving a car with frictionless wheels. It’s never going to go anywhere.
None of this reinforces what you stated and what I asked about, which is:

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

Now, perhaps some people think that everyone is inherently racist. But I've never were a CRT supporter ever mention the inherent racism that only white people have for some reason.
Well, as Carrie so eloquently put it in her article, “At some point, we own our pathologies. We can accept that our parents’ and friends’ negative choices are not ours. We can embrace or reject involuntary exposure to dysfunction. We are privileged to make these choices each day.” I would rather reject the cynicism than buy into it. But that's just me.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Well, then your a Communist, if you want to address "socio-economic" issues. I'd think that contextualized racial privileges would call under socio-economic. I think many people recognize the root issue.

No, I'm not. And, no, they wouldn't. There are far more impoverished white people in this country than black people. In fact, half of all people living in poverty in the US are non-Hispanic whites. A fact very few people recognize.
 
Top