"On White Privilege"

[rturner76]

No, your take on white privilege is still nonsensical as this post of your shows. When presented with facts you assume it has nothing little to do with race, presumably you know better than the head of university admissions in the UK? That race is not the only factor involved does not mean it is not racial, as any intersectionalist will tell you.

And no, I'm not cherry picking. I've never said that white advantage doesn't exist, what I object to is the notion attached to the white privilege concept you are using that whites never have anything bad happen to them based on their race. It is simply at odds with reality.



But you do see how ridiculous it is to claim society is set up to benefit white men when there are institutional issues affecting them along racial and gendered lines, right? If it's set up to benefit white men, why are white men being disadvantaged by it?

Ok I think somewhere either I have misrepresented myself or you misinterpreted something I have posted. I most definitely don't think whites never have anything bad happen to them. Especially on an individual group level I would even agree it is nonsensical to say whites haven't had bad things happen to them based on their race. However I'm glad you do acknowledge that white "advantage"(we don't have to use the word privilege) does exist in society.

Sp your other question:"But you do see how ridiculous it is to claim society is set up to benefit white men when there are institutional issues affecting them along racial and gendered lines, right? If it's set up to benefit white men, why are white men being disadvantaged by it?"

I'm sorry but I can only answer that woth two questions.........What institutional issues are affecting white males along racial and gendered lines? How are white males being disadvantages?

I'm not being argumentative, I honestly don't know the answers to those questions in orer to be able to give a logical response.

 

[SummerMadness]

Payday loans, pawn shops, and check cashing services that charge those high fees and interest rates are just examples of business going where they can make the most money. people in rich neighborhoods will stay away from those places, people in poor neighborhoods will flock there because of their poor credit scores.

This is more about personal responsibility than anything else; if you are an adult, you should know what you can, and cannot afford. Nobody is forcing them to go there and take out those loans.

The argument is complete bunk. If you are a lender and you offer products and services to a community, but do not provide those services equally, then the lender is liable. People of any racial or ethnic group have a personal responsibility to get the best loan they can get, but if you're not offered the same deals as others, then it does not matter how educated you are on the subject. What you are arguing is that African Americans and Hispanics have to be even more educated on home loans to receive the same loans as their white counterparts. You seem to be missing the fact that these people have the same credit worthiness, but are not being offered the same product. What does their personal responsibility have to do with a lender that is providing products in an unequal manner? By law, the lender must provide the same counsel and product availability to anyone, regardless or their race or ethnicity; they are not doing that. If I go to a restaurant and they refuse to serve me equal to other customers, I am not at fault. This personal responsibility argument is utter garbage. Personal responsibility wrests on the people with discriminatory practices.

I remember that article. I’m not saying these things don’t happen from time to time, I’m saying when you do get the interview, how you dress and present yourself does matter.

Your statement makes no sense. I refer to discrimination based on name and you talk about "thug life." Do you have evidence that African Americans are presenting themselves in a different manner when going to interviews? Please provide the information, "I heard..." and "I've seen..." do not apply. Moreover, discrimination based on name is not something that is happening randomly, it is occurring at a rate higher than random chance.

Gang tatoos and gang clothing matters because those clothes and tattoos can get you shot by rival gang members, and when they shoot you, they will often shoot those next to or around you in an effort to just kill you.

Stop and frisk is in high crime neighborhoods. If crime in rich white neighborhoods were akin to the crime in some of the poor black neighborhoods, they would implement stop and frisk in the rich neighborhoods as well.

Do you have evidence that a large proportion of African Americans have gang tattoos and gang clothing? Do you have evidence that most of the people stopped using stop-and-frisk policies fall into this category? Referring to stop-and-frisk, they yield positive results about 10% of the time, how do you justify a policy that is 90% ineffective? And I still fail to see what this has to do with personal responsibility? If I am unjustifiably stopped by the police, what is my responsibility? Perhaps the responsibility is on the police to not racially profile.

Actually it does; the negative attitudes people have against others is a choice.

Negative attitudes about race have not always been a part of human civilization. In my opinion, such attitudes will disappear.

*Personal responsibility is about not having children until you can afford them.
*Personal responsibility is about speaking, dressing, and presenting yourself in a professional manner and refusing to associate this with “acting white”
*Personal responsibility is about resisting the music, crowd, and culture that glamorizes a lifestyle that often results in death, or prison at a young age.

And what does this have to do with job and housing discrimination? Sure, let's list a bunch of stereotypes about African Americans and argue that if someone is a victim of racial discrimination it is because they have can't afford to take care of their children (even the childless?), they don't present themselves in a professional manner (somehow they have presented themselves unprofessionally by having the "wrong" name), and then a list of arguments about a lifestyle that most people are not following.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Your entire argument boils down to racist caricatures that have nothing to do with racial discrimination. Nothing listed above has anything to do with housing discrimination. An African American or Hispanic person with a credit score identical to a white person does not have to "act" and should not have to act a certain way to be equally treated. An African American or Hispanic person should not have to change their name to receive equal job opportunity. There is talk of personal responsibility, but the real responsibility and punishment should be handed out to those with unlawful practices.

 

[Sistrin]

Referring to stop and frisk, these policies to lead to better outcomes and are effect about 10% of the time, how do you justify a policy that is 90% ineffective?

The Progressive Left attempts to justify restrictive gun control laws with the question what if they prevent even one tragic loss of life event. You can't have it both ways.

 

[dogs4thewin]

They choose to name their kids those names because they want to dissociate from 'white man' names even though their surname is a white man's name or a name that was given to them. They dislike that and that is very understandable, I can understand that. They want their own culture, identity.

Which is fine, but they have to understand that they live within a bigger culture, and so it is human nature to want to be with "your kind" and their "kind" happens to be outnumbered. That is why I liked how "Boomer" does it he goes by "Boomer, but he will answer to his given name.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You're right, it isn't. Does this mean we should stop trying to make it better? Life wasn't fair 200 years ago, when your skin color was the difference between being a citizen with rights and being property. Should we have just accepted that as the way things are, and not tried to make things more fair? Because lemme tell you - the world is definitely a better place due to the fact that people said, "This is ridiculous, this has got to change" and made things more fair.



No. I have neurotypical privilege over my friend Nahum. I didn't do anything to gain this privilege, he didn't do anything to give it to me, neither of us can do anything about the fact that he is autistic, nobody is at fault here. This does not negate this privilege. Do not conflate "responsibility" with "fault".



Why should anyone consider "has the same skin color as me" to be their group?

It is human nature as I pointed out people STILL segerate. In prisons, it is more racist, but even in the "free world" you still have black funeral homes, black curches ( particularly here in the south) and yes neighborhoods that are mostly black. I am white and prefer white churches because they do things differently. There are different culatures and people prefer their own culture. Are some people more violent about it certainly, but it is always there.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You should read what I wrote, a "more perfect union" != perfect union. A union without handicapped access is a less perfect union than one with handicapped access. A union where left-handed children are forced to write with their right-hand is a less perfect union than that does not force children to. No one is saying things are perfect, but there is push to become more perfect. Becoming more egalitarian means becoming more perfect.

Thankfully, the despicable attitude of people going with "their own kind" is dying, which brings us closer to a more perfect union.

Actually, it is not dying. It never will. It is human nature. There are certain schools that build themselves as black schools. I am white they cannot refuse to accept me based on that, but I would have no reason to go there because most people there are black. Same with churches and funeral homes in the south. I do not go to a black church and would not if I knew it was a black church. They do things differently. That is not to say that we kick people out of our "white church" who happen to be black but both sides know that "their" church is right across the way and we rarely mix.

 

[SummerMadness]

Which is fine, but they have to understand that they live within a bigger culture, and so it is human nature to want to be with "your kind" and their "kind" happens to be outnumbered. That is why I liked how "Boomer" does it he goes by "Boomer, but he will answer to his given name.

It is not human nature to be "with your own kind," race is not a kind, racism is an attitude that is taught. But that's besides the point, yet again, you're arguing that the society favors white people because they're in the majority, but are among the people that don't want to call this white privilege. Would a change in terminology help? White advantaged? White favored? White preference? The notion of sticking with "your kind" is nothing more than modern day phrenology, "And this bump shows..."

 

[dogs4thewin]

Do you mean American culture? I don't see how it's any more 'need to know' than any other culture. And how would that change the point I made? You'd still need to learn how to pronounce black names, then, because...there are black people with those names. And besides, the post I was responding to wasn't about the social utility of knowing how to pronounce those names, but instead made the argument that they're somehow too difficult for other people to learn to pronounce, which is just silly given the other potentially difficult to pronounce names that white people have learned to pronounce.



What is and isn't a 'weird' name is a cultural idea in the first place, and since America is not monocultural, there's no standard for what is 'weird'.



Not to put too fine a point on it, but you might not want to put the word 'choose' in ALL CAPS like that when we're talking about black names, given how the ancestors of the majority of black people first arrived to what is now the United States...



Is this thread now about what you want Latinos to do?



Okay. I don't understand the point of this anecdote. You know a person who goes by a nickname, so...what? What should anyone take away from this fact?

no, my point was that if you are going to live in a particular culture to a certain extent you should expect to bend to the calture. As for the Latinos, my point was that if you move somewhere you should not expect them to change for you. If I was going to move to France I would learn French.

 

[SummerMadness]

Actually, it is not dying. It never will. It is human nature. There are certain schools that build themselves as black schools. I am white they cannot refuse to accept me based on that, but I would have no reason to go there because most people there are black. Same with churches and funeral homes in the south. I do not go to a black church and would not if I knew it was a black church. They do things differently. That is not to say that we kick people out of our "white church" who happen to be black but both sides know that "their" church is right across the way and we rarely mix.

"Historically black colleges and universities" has a keyword you're ignoring: HISTORICALLY. These schools accept students of all races and ethnicities. They are predominantly black because African Americans were once barred from attending universities around the country. A church with mostly black people is a black church because they excluded other ethnic groups, they are that way because they were excluded. You can go to a "black church" if you'd like, you will not be turned away. I can't believe people argue that something is racism, not recognizing the fact that the reasons these institutions exist in the first place is due to racism. They were not and they are not exclusionary institutions. There are people attending these churches that could not use the same drinking fountain as you, you are utterly ridiculous if you're calling them racist.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It is not human nature to be "with your own kind," race is not a kind, racism is an attitude that is taught. But that's besides the point, yet again, you're arguing that the society favors white people because they're in the majority, but are among the people that don't want to call this white privilege. Would a change in terminology help? White advantaged? White favored? White preference? The notion of sticking with "your kind" is nothing more than modern day phrenology, "And this bump shows..."

Let me asks you this? Have you noticed how some places are more favored by certain races? There are black and mostly white neighborhoods. There are people who are friends mostly with their own race.

 

[dzheremi]

no, my point was that if you are going to live in a particular culture to a certain extent you should expect to bend to the calture. As for the Latinos, my point was that if you move somewhere you should not expect them to change for you. If I was going to move to France I would learn French.

So maybe you should learn Navajo, Cree, Cherokee, or whatever Native American languages are/were spoken in your area. Gotta bend to the culture, right?

 

[dogs4thewin]

"Historically black colleges and universities" has a keyword you're ignoring: HISTORICALLY. These schools accept students of all races and ethnicities. They are predominantly black because African Americans were once barred from attending universities around the country. A church with mostly black people is a black church because they excluded other ethnic groups, they are that way because they were excluded. You can go to a "black church" if you'd like, you will not be turned away. I can't believe people argue that something is racism, not recognizing the fact that the reasons these institutions exist in the first place is due to racism. They were not and they are not exclusionary institutions. There are people attending these churches that could not use the same drinking fountain as you, you are utterly ridiculous if you're calling them racist.

I UNDERSTAND that my point was that even TODAY there are certain places that certain races favor. Maybe it is history, maybe it is culture, maybe it is some of both, but here we are decades after that is over and it is still that way. Again, I did not say they would turn me away I simply said that I do not go to those churches not that if I did they would kick me out.

 

[SummerMadness]

Let me asks you this? Have you noticed how some places are more favored by certain races? There are black and mostly white neighborhoods. There are people who are friends mostly with their own race.

Redlining anyone? Housing discrimination anyone? There are people who are mostly friends with their own race, and there are people like me who are not. Choosing your "own kind" is just as natural as choosing people that are "not your kind."

I UNDERSTAND that my point was that even TODAY there are certain places that certain races favor. Maybe it is history, maybe it is culture, maybe it is some of both, but here we are decades after that is over and it is still that way. Again, I did not say they would turn me away I simply said that I do not go to those churches not that if I did they would kick me out.

Perhaps because ending legal racial discrimination does not make the effects of slavery and segregation disappear? Why would you not want to go to those churches? I dance, I dance a particular style mostly done by Cubans, I have no problem entering those circles and they have never rejected me.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So maybe you should learn Navajo, Cree, Cherokee, or whatever Native American languages are/were spoken in your area. Gotta bend to the culture, right?

Are they in the majority, any more or even close? Again, if I was going to move somewhere I would learn and practice their way of life (to a degree), but I live where I am in the majority, so I do not, but if I lived in a culture different from my own, I would learn, try to understand, and build that culture into my life.

 

[SummerMadness]

Are they in the majority, any more or even close? Again, if I was going to move somewhere I would learn and practice their way of life (to a degree), but I live where I am in the majority, so I do not, but if I lived in a culture different from my own, I would learn, try to understand, and build that culture into my life.

African Americans are part of American culture, why are they required to change in their native-born country? How is this not an example of privilege and then demanding everyone conform to suit your standards. Are you arguing this is something correct and desirable?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Redlining anyone? Housing discrimination anyone? There are people who are mostly friends with their own race, and there are people like me who are not. Choosing your "own kind" is just as natural as choosing people that are "not your kind."

Perhaps because ending legal racial discrimination does not make the effects of slavery and segregation disappear? Why would you not want to go to those churches? I dance, I dance a particular style mostly done by Cubans, I have no problem entering those circles and they have never rejected me.

I was speaking of general human nature. I know there are people who have more deverse friends do more deverse things. Why do I not want to go to those churches? They just tend to do stuff differently not the least of which tends to be longer services, but when a black ( and we do have a few from time to time come to our church walks in it is not that we kick them out or even ( unless they were to asks) tell them about the church right across the way that is the "black church". As for slavery I will just be blunt with you I do not see what the big deal is over 150 years later.

 

[dzheremi]

Summer Madness' point is a good point, which also applies to many Latinos (having been born here and all, and even in places that were historically and continue to be currently majority-Hispanic).

My point, though, is that it's easy to say "you've got to bend to the culture" when you are in that dominant culture precisely because your ancestors did not believe or practice that.

 

[dogs4thewin]

African Americans are part of American culture, why are they required to change in their native-born country? How is this not an example of privilege and then demanding everyone conform to suit your standards. Are you arguing this is something correct and desirable?

They are not. If they were we would have laws that you could not name your child certain things. We would put restrictions on that culture which we do not. I treat people of all races and religions the same unless and until a particular person proves he or she does not deserve it. The only person I have ever hired was a middle age black woman with a somewhat different name, but she was a great employee and the only reason her employment was ended was that I dropped out of school ( for reasons having NOTHING to do with her), as a result I no longer needed her to help me get ready for class or to go out each morning.

 

[dzheremi]

They are not. If they were we would have laws that you could not name your child certain things. We would put restrictions on that culture which we do not.

How would that be evidence that they are part of the culture when the thing you've chosen to highlight here is not something that is present in white American culture? There are no laws or parameters on what white people can name their children. Gwyneth Paltrow (a white person with a weird name) named her daughter Apple. Apple. What a traitor to regularly-named (white) culture!

Also, when you say "we", you're clearly talking about white people. White people would put restrictions on black people which they themselves clearly do not follow. Are you sure you're being honest with yourself when you write things like the following:

I treat people of all races and religions the same unless and until a particular person proves he or she does not deserve it.

It doesn't seem like it.

 

[dogs4thewin]

How would that be evidence that they are part of the culture when the thing you've chosen to highlight here is not something that is present in white American culture? There are no laws or parameters on what white people can name their children. Gwyneth Paltrow (a white person with a weird name) named her daughter Apple. Apple. What a traitor to regularly-named (white) culture!

Also, when you say "we", you're clearly talking about white people. White people would put restrictions on black people which they themselves clearly do not follow. Are you sure you're being honest with yourself when you write things like the following:



It doesn't seem like it.

Yes, I have known many different people many different blacks and some of those blacks I respect more than most whites I know.