Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I assume you've heard of implicit bias?
Yes.
Do you assert that every person is afraid around black people? Because they are not.
I have not argued that people have no biases. I have argued that a method that leaves you still afraid of black people for no reason is not a working method.
I have not asserted that.
My turn: do you assert that you have no implicit bias whatsoever, based on race?
Great. This thread is still about white privilege, right?
No, which is why I asked.
That is hard to say. I am sure I could take a test that is hard to reproduce results the same way the second time to find out. But when people talk about bias in regards to being afraid of people, they know whether they are or not.
If I did find I had a bias, what should my response be? This is not an academic question for me. I was raised by racist parents who were themselves raised by racist parents. I rejected their world view, and accepted the view I learned of God that all people were created by Him, and He sent His Son to die for all people.
When my parents express their thinking I challenge it. If I were ever to register their thinking in my own thoughts, I would challenge it as well. But I do not find that this process of thinking should last forever. If my mind is transformed to a different view, I don't have to constantly deal with the old view. That is not an instantaneous process, but it should not last forever either.
Of course it is. And the whole point of talking about white privilege is what? To try to address thinking patterns? To realize an advantage one had?
But the term is not actually doing just that. It is labeling a whole group, the same way that racists labeled a whole group before. And if it is not contributing to removing racist thinking, but may even be causing a reaction among whites, then it may not be helpful if your goal is to remove racist thinking.
I'll respond to the rest of this in a bit. For now, if calling out racism causes more racism, should non-whites just go along to get along?
Sorry, but the racist knows they are racist. They are not really cluelessly passing these folks by.
That's not true, more often than not today.
This is something we were discovering happening in the military by the 90s. We supervisor determined that we did have unconscious biases that crept in to the way we rated and mentored our subordinates.
This could be something like at performance review time, Sergeant Jimmy Smith remembers that Airman Jane Doe calls in sick every 28 days, but doesn't remember that Airman Mike Jackson comes in late the Monday after every payday.
It happens.
Calling out racism is not the same as attributing racism to all members of a particular group, or saying that all members of a particular group benefit from racism.
I call out racist actions or comments. I do not attribute them to people who have not expressed such.
Nor would I call the ability to live without being judged on the basis of race a privilege. I would call it a right of all people that is too often violated.
Okay. You feel that white privilege attributes racism to all white people?
Have you considered that not all racism is explicit?
Well, for the sake of the thread, let's call it a privilege. Just so we stick with the terms in the OP.
In the scenario you gave that could happen with any two service people, regardless of race. You may have some reason you remember the shortcomings of one more than the other.
But if it is racially motivated, you don't think the person knows that?
Being aware that we need to document any actions that we will hold against someone's employment is common practice, regardless of race, because of this fact. It should always be necessary to evaluate based on factual data.
The added element of possible racial discrimination makes it all the more necessary to go by factual data.
I think that the way the term is used attributes benefits to all white people that are not perks or privileges, but are what should be a right for all.
However, I also think that nearly every conversation I have been in when discussing it, the notion that went along with it was that whether people realize it or not they are all acting in racist ways. And that their privilege entailed not only being free from discrimination, but being blissfully unaware of all the ways they were discriminating.
That seems to be what has been asserted in this thread so far as well.
I will need you to spell that out to understand what you are asking.
If we went by the terms in the OP you still wouldn't be posting. No thanks. I will not refer to the notion that people should not be discriminated against as a privilege. People should not be discriminated against, and being free from it should not be the perk but the norm. And those who have that condition now, to whatever degree they have it, should not be resented for it, but should be viewed as the first step toward everyone having it.
No, a lot of times they don't know.
Along with trying out for a pro sports team, auditioning for an orchestra ought to be one of the most egalitarian pursuits in the professional world. There is no financial incentive for the orchestra to discriminate on anything other than playing ability. After all, the audience wants the performance they can get and aside from featured soloists, the conductor, and maybe the first chair violinist, the rest of the players are virtually anonymous as far as the audience is concerned - so it's not like they would really be turned off by "the wrong sorts of folks" playing in their orchestra. And liberal artsy types like those who run orchestras are at least supposed to support work opportunities for minorities (in theory, right?).
And yet, orchestras kept hiring disproportionate numbers of men... until... they started using blind auditions where the applicants performed behind a screen, without shoes (so you couldn't identify gender by footwear). Magically, the numbers of women getting hired starting shooting up.
Even well-intentioned people can harbor biases they don't see or won't admit.
And then plenty of people with ill intent may not even be able to reconcile with the realities of their views. I've had conversation with folks on this board claiming that they weren't racist - they just thought it was better if whites and blacks didn't mix, for their own sake.
No, it is not reality. So talk about the things that cause things to fall short of the reality--discrimination. Don't make it sound like anyone who has managed to not be discriminated against is to be resented because they got a leg up. That is what we want for everyone.It should be. Is it a reality?
Not all racism is based on cognitive thought. Some is unconscious, automatic, or unintentional.
You kind of had me until the end. It's kind of hard not to resent a group that has what you want. Especially when the forces that prevent you from getting it, are part of that group.
No, it is not reality. So talk about the things that cause things to fall short of the reality--discrimination. Don't make it sound like anyone who has managed to not be discriminated against is to be resented because they got a leg up. That is what we want for everyone.
And the solution is what? Methods to prevent it, and change of thinking, correct? But then if people do try to change their thinking and it is told to them it is never enough, they still have biases they must be on the alert for at every moment, what is the point? Then interactions can never be normal. We are fixated on race constantly.
If there is something I am doing that is discriminatory, sure, point it out. But if not, then focus on those who are doing something that is discriminatory.
Part of being the key. Resent the ones keeping you from it, if that is how you view things. Resenting those who are free from much of the effects of discrimination should not be a cause of resentment, if they are not part of the ones causing your disadvantage.
I have had times where my health failed. I didn't resent the healthy. Now if someone had intentionally harmed my health, then I might be tempted to resent them, and from my personal perspective should try to forgive them.
So why do you think some people got a leg up, and others didn't?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?