"On White Privilege"

[whatbogsends]

No one is arguing the skin color implications of the OP as being a genetic issue, but that is a cultural and socioeconomic topic - not a biologic topic. It is not a biological fact that white privilege exists (in a vacuum.) Sociologically, and politically it more than exists - it is a serious issue for anyone who isn't "white."

We are talking PHENOTYPE, and the treatment you can get with that vs. GENOTYPE. If race was biologic, then why can Rachael D. vehemently identify as black by lightly tanning her skin and putting some curls and color in her hair?

Why are people treated differently based on how close to the status quo they look (i.e. white?)

Why do people severely tan, or severely bleach their skin if they didn't get treated differently for it?

Race is not a genetic issue; it is a socioeconomic and sociopolitical issue. And, the reason the inflated statistics show the abhorrent connections between "race" and intelligence is:

1) we have just barely come off of the eugenics culture of categorizing who deserves to exist based on how much they are wanted/needed (in public,)

2) we have just come out of very overt slavery, brutality, rape, genocide and segregation in the world, which purposefully put a certain demographics in abominable economic, social, political and cultural pits,

3) there is still a slight toward people who "look" like they are acceptable, and those who don't (ask anyone who looks Muslim, anyone who looks like a black guy in a Hoodie, a black woman with natural hair, or a Latino with tattoos and/or shaved head.) In other words, the mechanism that drives race relations in the States, and in the West generally, are ruled by STEREOTYPES, not genetics.

The statistics mean nothing; the grant money they receive is meant to promote the group(s) from which they received the money, while exhibiting a veneer of transparency and scientific honesty.

And, don't you understand that intelligence, for example, is an issue of resource and anthropological necessity, not genetics alone? Potential is more of a genetic issue, not intelligence - but you don't have to have a smart kid born from two smart parents. In fact, a running joke is two smart parents make a dumb baby, or two ugly parents make a cute baby. This is partly due to public misunderstanding of how traits can skip a generation.

There was a time when science said Black/Africans were animals, or at least lower than human (some people believe this still, and The Origin of Species author believed this, making "religious" crusades and campaigns seem "justifiable" with clergy and scientists preaching this.)

There was a time when homosexuality was considered a mental illness by science.

There was a time when women were considered dumber than men because their brains were smaller by science.

Then, you have former government officials ADMITTING that they put drugs in low income and ethnic neighborhoods on purpose - in order to keep their populations down, make them a criminal categoy, aND get the pepole to hate them and see them as drug addicted criminals who can't be helped.

Some of what you say sounds like Eugenics mixed in with CIA Watergate-age manifesto. I'm "black," and I have three degrees in physics and engineering. I went to college at 16 on academic scholarship. My family is full of either engineers, doctors, nurses or entrepreneurs. I am not an anomaly; there is just too much prejudiced misinformation put out with such frequency it marginalizes many groups' achievements.

Whenever black people allegedly commit a crime, they are animals. Or, the new N-word: thugs. This, of course, ignores how many people got away with crimes by blaming the black guy, and how many of those blamed "black guys" are being aqcquitted. It also ignores the profiling and prejudixe that all but mae them guilty until proven innocent (some people even posthumously bring up things done in the past to justify their prejudice (pre-judging). Those things aren't advertised nearly as often as they happen because it would shatter the status quo.

If people knew the CIA (the same entity that droppedal Crack cocaine in low income ethnic neighborhoods, and LDS on "hippie" college students) also crashed their Gulfstream 2 jet coming from Mexico with kilos of cocaine - what would they say?

If people actually read the declassified hearings, manifests and operations that worked to make certain ethnic groups social and economic pariahs, what would they say? How would it feel to know your championship of a cause was actually a well-orchestrated manipulation by people who wanted your support to continue eugenics programs?

Seriously, the "race is genetic for intelligence, strength, etc." argument is the exact ridiculous demogoguery that allowed Hitler and many other demagogues the citizen-supported platform to justify mass killings, war and imprisonment.

We are specifically talking about a socioeconomic and sociopolitical phenomenon.

Quite the rant. I'm not going to respond point-by-point (as you did not do so for mine), but i will respond.

I'm not sure why Rachel D can choose her preferred association, or why people let her. It seems pretty absurd on its face, and i'm really not sure what this has to do with anything.

Similarly, to "people who deeply tan or bleach their skin", i have no idea as to why they do it. I also don't know why people get purple mohawks, noserings, or whatever, but none of that has anything to do with "white privilege".

You are correct, people are treated differently as to how close to the status quo they look. You are incorrect to say that white people are exempt from that treatment. White people with tattoos/shaved heads aren't given any better treatment than latinos of the same, except among others of the same - which, conversely would also be true in those latino groups. Everyone is based on perception.

You're a fool if you don't think two smart people are more likely to produce a smart child than two stupid people. It is certainly no guarantee (and no one is suggesting it is), but it is a likelihood. Two tall people are more likely to produce a tall child than two short people. Again, it is certainly no guarantee, but it is a likelihood. Traits certainly can skip a generation, but your "running joke" is a poor response to how genetics work.

I haven't once disagreed in the premise "white privilege" exists. I've made that more than abundantly clear, so your rant about some of the injustices regarding race in our history seems a bit misplaced (although, i'm sure, it's intended to "enlighten" me in my "racist" ways). Feel free to look up some of my posts regarding law enforcement and the treatment of minorities. You'll see i consistently stick up for mistreatment of minorities by the police.

The existence and history regarding white privilege doesn't mean i have to listen to fallacies regarding expected outcomes, and that everything is a social machination, where there is clear evidence of statistical differences between ethnic and geographical groups. Different groups with different traits should expect different results. Different groups with different traits yielding the same results would indicate a bias in the process determining outcome. Strictly speaking, "different results", alone, is not a problem. Different results when holding all other things equal, however, is. Very few of the arguments even make an attempt to hold other things equal, and lay all of the differences at the feet of socialization, when it's more complicated than that.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Quite the rant. I'm not going to respond point-by-point (as you did not do so for mine), but i will respond.

I'm not sure why Rachel D can choose her preferred association, or why people let her. It seems pretty absurd on its face, and i'm really not sure what this has to do with anything.

Similarly, to "people who deeply tan or bleach their skin", i have no idea as to why they do it. I also don't know why people get purple mohawks, noserings, or whatever, but none of that has anything to do with "white privilege".

Colored Mohawks and nose rings have nothing to do with white privilege because Mohawks and rings have to do with removable outside aesthetics. Moreover, the mowhawk and noserings arent intrinsic racial aesthetic. You would make a better argument for connecting them to religious or spiritual culture. But, you can't remove your skin color, and that is what we are talking about. Not mowhawks. Not earrings. Not shoe style.

Now, if you want to apply aesthetics to the already founded base of racial sociopathy, respectively, that is also another story. For example, braids are not inherently about racial discrimination, but when a black male or woman is discriminated against, and/or profiled because s/he is wearing braids, then it becomes a secondary component to the primary problem: prejudice and discrimination by skin color. Rachael D. exploited this, and the glib attitudes toward people who want to identify as anything absurd whilst admonishing opponents.

You are correct, people are treated differently as to how close to the status quo they look. You are incorrect to say that white people are exempt from that treatment. White people with tattoos/shaved heads aren't given any better treatment than latinos of the same, except among others of the same - which, conversely would also be true in those latino groups. Everyone is based on perception.

You can't say with a straight face that a Latino male with a shaved head and tattoos wouldn't be discriminated against when competing with a white male with the same tattoos, and same hair style. That type of stuff literally happens every day, and it is asinine when people say it doesn't happen - especially when you can PERSONALLY attest to your own experiences as well as others. No, stop dismissing what you don't believe because you don't see it.

You're a fool if you don't think two smart people are more likely to produce a smart child than two stupid people.

I wouldn't be a fool, I would be scientifically realistic. As I said before, your mind is on eugenics without you even knowing it. Darwin thought the same breeding techniques as you describe would work, and he ended up with a family of invalids. Something as simple as a Punnett Square can show that traits - dominant and recessive - can skip generations. So, two smart parents (Ss, Ss) have at least a 25% chance of having a not so smart child, and in genetics 25% is huge.

It is certainly no guarantee (and no one is suggesting it is), but it is a likelihood. Two tall people are more likely to produce a tall child than two short people. Again, it is certainly no guarantee, but it is a likelihood. Traits certainly can skip a generation, but your "running joke" is a poor response to how genetics work.

Didnt I say my running joke was generally based on people's misunderstanding of how traits skip a generation? And, you are mistaking probability for reality. Likelihood does not mean it has to ever exist. Like Schrodinger's cat, the likelihood of the cat being alive of dead is completely irrelevant until you observe the wavefunction of its life - until you open the box. You are extrapolating probability for dominance in likelihood.

And, as I said, intelligence, and mental potential are two different things based upon many determining factors. You can have infinite potential for, say, mathematics thanks to your parents, but unless you properly develop that potential, it will stay potential unmanifested.

Drugs, alcohol abuse, improper nutrition, quality of air water and food, and many other factors of resource have a cumulative greater affect on intelligence than raw genetics. This is why it is dishonest and ridiculous to compare intelligences of different "races," because part of the sociopathy is by design different races do not have access to the same resources.

I haven't once disagreed in the premise "white privilege" exists. I've made that more than abundantly clear, so your rant about some of the injustices regarding race in our history seems a bit misplaced (although, i'm sure, it's intended to "enlighten" me in my "racist" ways).

For one, it wasnt a rant. It may have sounded like that because of your mental alignment on this topic already. I dont blame you; that cant be helped. Maybe it is the angry "ethnic black" man in me trying to get out... [/sarcasm]

Which brings m to the next point: it isnt my job to enlighten you, and if you think so, or you feel these exchanges are meant for you only, then you should appreciate the irony of privilege even more. On the contrary, I am highlighting things for people who read this, specifically people who aren't members, but find this through search analytics.

My problem with your analogies is you have a eugenist mentality concerning something that is social in nature. You seem to firmly believe that "race" and "intelligence" can be stochastically modeled in a way that would be 100%, or even 50% objective. I am saying you dont even understand what you are saying - and how deceptively destructive it is over most all social situations.

Feel free to look up some of my posts regarding law enforcement and the treatment of minorities. You'll see i consistently stick up for mistreatment of minorities by the police.

That is fine if you do or dont; right now we are talking about the way you are confusing biology with sociology.

The existence and history regarding white privilege doesn't mean i have to listen to fallacies regarding expected outcomes, and that everything is a social machination, where there is clear evidence of statistical differences between ethnic and geographical groups.

Who determines what is fallacious? Can you tell a Muslim how s/he should feel about discrimination in America as an atheist? Would you call his or her experiences fallacious because you see no evidence of it? Because, that is what you are doing. (And, ironically I can sympathetically see that a lot of Westerners do this - as someone who has it done to me often.) You are using statistics to inflate and conflagrate an issue in which you really have no idea the inner workings. Or, if you do you have denied much of its quintessential points of legitimate protest and problem. Then, you want to press the eugenics ideas on the issues as if it is the truth - truth so much that you are confident in aligning your mentality with some minds that thought the same way and made some serious egregious crimes against humanity. If that is you, then own that. But don't have us make believe something your own words are categorically against.

Ethnicity is not genetic; ethnicity is anthropological and cultural. You continue to mix sociology, culture and anthropology with genetics. Check out Western Australia: there are white, blond, Ethnic Aborigines who just as athletic and prone to survival as the "black" aborigines. Their ethnicity, and even geography, isn't determined by their genetics. What race would you call them, and why?

Or, what about melanasians? Why are they, and Indonesians so different if theyou are literal geographic next door neighbors?

Why do Central Africans, Western Africans and Eastern Africans have such diversity within their own region if they are all African/"black"?

Different groups with different traits should expect different results. Different groups with different traits yielding the same results would indicate a bias in the process determining outcome. Strictly speaking, "different results", alone, is not a problem. Different results when holding all other things equal, however, is. Very few of the arguments even make an attempt to hold other things equal, and lay all of the differences at the feet of socialization, when it's more complicated than that.

Yes it is much more complicated, but you have grossly oversimplified genetics in exchange for coupling it with social, anthropological and cultural elements - which change extremely often at high frequency (unlike genetics.)

 

[tatteredsoul]

I think I have to be done with this thread - seriously this time.

If you want to learn more, sign up for Anthropology, Sociology or Social Psychology at your local community college, or university (or even MIT open coursworks.) I also recommend starting with the books:

Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman

Einstein on Race and Racism

Why are all of the Black Kids Sitting Together at the Cafeteria?

Invisible Privilege: A Memoir About Race, Class, and Gender

Power, Privilege and Difference

 

[whatbogsends]

Colored Mohawks and nose rings have nothing to do with white privilege because Mohawks and rings have to do with removable outside aesthetics. Moreover, the mowhawk and noserings arent intrinsic racial aesthetic. You would make a better argument for connecting them to religious or spiritual culture. But, you can't remove your skin color, and that is what we are talking about. Not mowhawks. Not earrings. Not shoe style.

You brought up hoodies, tattoing, and shaved heads as examples of how white privilege negatively impacts others.

3) there is still a slight toward people who "look" like they are acceptable, and those who don't (ask anyone who looks Muslim, anyone who looks like a black guy in a Hoodie, a black woman with natural hair, or a Latino with tattoos and/or shaved head.) In other words, the mechanism that drives race relations in the States, and in the West generally, are ruled by STEREOTYPES, not genetics.

Dying your hair purple isn't similar to shaving your head? Are people born tattoed now? Can black people not remove their hoodies?

Now, if you want to apply aesthetics to the already founded base of racial sociopathy, respectively, that is also another story. For example, braids are not inherently about racial discrimination, but when a black male or woman is discriminated against, and/or profiled because s/he is wearing braids, then it becomes a secondary component to the primary problem: prejudice and discrimination by skin color. Rachael D. exploited this, and the glib attitudes toward people who want to identify as anything absurd whilst admonishing opponents.

You can't say with a straight face that a Latino male with a shaved head and tattoos wouldn't be discriminated against when competing with a white male with the same tattoos, and same hair style. That type of stuff literally happens every day, and it is asinine when people say it doesn't happen - especially when you can PERSONALLY attest to your own experiences as well as others. No, stop dismissing what you don't believe because you don't see it.

You can't say with a straight face that i haven't repeated acknowledged white privilege in this thread. You're either not reading my posts, or not comprehending them.

I've seen people of all races get discriminated against, including whites. Does it happen less to whites than others? I agree that it happens less to whites, and i didn't dismiss anything.

I wouldn't be a fool, I would be scientifically realistic. As I said before, your mind is on eugenics without you even knowing it. Darwin thought the same breeding techniques as you describe would work, and he ended up with a family of invalids. Something as simple as a Punnett Square can show that traits - dominant and recessive - can skip generations. So, two smart parents (Ss, Ss) have at least a 25% chance of having a not so smart child, and in genetics 25% is huge.

Of course, your 25% chance assumes that "smart" is 1 gene pair, and thereby a binary distinction. You like to pretend that your dealing in science, when, in reality, you're dealing in oversimplified science-esque thinking. Intelligence isn't one gene pair with a binomial distribution.

"Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals. Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. These studies have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. It is likely that a large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence."

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence

Of course, this article references a study which seems to go a bit further:

"Researchers have believed for some time that intellect is inherited with studies suggesting that up to 75 per cent of IQ is genetic, and the rest down to environmental factors such as schooling and friendship groups.

But until now, nobody has been able to pin-point exactly which genes are responsible for better memory, attention, processing speed or reasoning skills.

Now Imperial College London has found that two networks of genes determine whether people areintelligent or not-so-bright.
...
“We know that genetics plays a major role in intelligence but until now haven’t known which genes are relevant,” said Dr Michael Johnson, lead author of the study from the Department of Medicine at Imperial College."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...elligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

Don't tell me, these scientists are agenda-driven eugenicists.

This article references the same study, but i'd like to highlight something...

"British scientists believe they have made a huge step forward in the understanding of the mechanisms of human intelligence. That genetic inheritance must play some part has never been disputed. Despite occasional claims later dismissed, no-one has yet produced a single gene that controls intelligence."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...elligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

"Never been disputed". I'm guessing those people never debated on ChristianForums before...

Didnt I say my running joke was generally based on people's misunderstanding of how traits skip a generation? And, you are mistaking probability for reality. Likelihood does not mean it has to ever exist. Like Schrodinger's cat, the likelihood of the cat being alive of dead is completely irrelevant until you observe the wavefunction of its life - until you open the box. You are extrapolating probability for dominance in likelihood.

And, as I said, intelligence, and mental potential are two different things based upon many determining factors. You can have infinite potential for, say, mathematics thanks to your parents, but unless you properly develop that potential, it will stay potential unmanifested.

Drugs, alcohol abuse, improper nutrition, quality of air water and food, and many other factors of resource have a cumulative greater affect on intelligence than raw genetics. This is why it is dishonest and ridiculous to compare intelligences of different "races," because part of the sociopathy is by design different races do not have access to the same resources.

For one, it wasnt a rant. It may have sounded like that because of your mental alignment on this topic already. I dont blame you; that cant be helped. Maybe it is the angry "ethnic black" man in me trying to get out... [/sarcasm]

For one, it was absolutely a rant.

In EVERY post i made on the subject, i've said genetics influences intelligence. I didn't say determined, i didn't say race X is superior, race Y is inferior.

Even your (and others) direct rebuttals to my arguments acknowledge that genetics influences intelligence.

One's environment obviously plays a significant factor in manifesting one's potential. I've not once argued anything to the contrary, although both you and SummerMadness have put forth rebuttals to arguments i never made.

Which brings m to the next point: it isnt my job to enlighten you, and if you think so, or you feel these exchanges are meant for you only, then you should appreciate the irony of privilege even more. On the contrary, I am highlighting things for people who read this, specifically people who aren't members, but find this through search analytics.

My problem with your analogies is you have a eugenist mentality concerning something that is social in nature. You seem to firmly believe that "race" and "intelligence" can be stochastically modeled in a way that would be 100%, or even 50% objective. I am saying you dont even understand what you are saying - and how deceptively destructive it is over most all social situations.

That is fine if you do or dont; right now we are talking about the way you are confusing biology with sociology.

In the human condition biology and sociology are intertwined from a historical perspective. Sociology influences biology through natural selection.

I'm not, and haven't said "being race X will yield result Y". That being said, you seem to dance around the observed statistical differences in traits of the current population and seem to think that they shouldn't play a role in influencing outcomes, and that connecting "traits" with "outcomes" is a racist/eugenist basis, when it could easily be applied to two groups of the same "race" with some other differentiation.

Who determines what is fallacious? Can you tell a Muslim how s/he should feel about discrimination in America as an atheist? Would you call his or her experiences fallacious because you see no evidence of it? Because, that is what you are doing. (And, ironically I can sympathetically see that a lot of Westerners do this - as someone who has it done to me often.)

The fallacy is that unequal input sets should yield equal output sets.

You (or a Muslim, or whoever) can feel what you want, but just because you feel something doesn't make it a valid argument.

I have an extreme bias against magical thinking, regardless of the subject.

You are using statistics to inflate and conflagrate an issue in which you really have no idea the inner workings. Or, if you do you have denied much of its quintessential points of legitimate protest and problem. Then, you want to press the eugenics ideas on the issues as if it is the truth - truth so much that you are confident in aligning your mentality with some minds that thought the same way and made some serious egregious crimes against humanity. If that is you, then own that. But don't have us make believe something your own words are categorically against.

You are disregarding statistics because some people used statistics to promote the idea of eugenics or genocide. While statistics may have been part of their sales rap, statistics alone are just that.

You're shutting down discussion because of an uncomfortable association. I'm linking studies (mostly articles which discuss the results of studies) which support my position, and i'm being responded to with "those studies are racist" rather than studies which would show the flaws in the studies i present.

Ethnicity is not genetic; ethnicity is anthropological and cultural. You continue to mix sociology, culture and anthropology with genetics. Check out Western Australia: there are white, blond, Ethnic Aborigines who just as athletic and prone to survival as the "black" aborigines. Their ethnicity, and even geography, isn't determined by their genetics. What race would you call them, and why?

Or, what about melanasians? Why are they, and Indonesians so different if theyou are literal geographic next door neighbors?

Why do Central Africans, Western Africans and Eastern Africans have such diversity within their own region if they are all African/"black"?

I'm not interested in calling anyone a particular race. But when race is alluded to in as the topic of the thread, it's difficult to respond without addressing the central theme.

Yes it is much more complicated, but you have grossly oversimplified genetics in exchange for coupling it with social, anthropological and cultural elements - which change extremely often at high frequency (unlike genetics.)

I'm simply showing that the arguments put forth regarding outcomes of certain groups are using fallacies in their assumptions, specifically the assumption that "outcomes should be equal" if no social racial bias existed in that present day instance of society.

Lastly (i responded to this post before seeing your subsequent post). thanks for the book suggestions. I'll look into those.

 

[SummerMadness]

I'm not saying "race is biological" i'm saying that "social race" is comprised of groups which share traits in common. Different "social races" possess different traits. Possession of a particular trait does not necessarily place a person in or out of a social group.

They don't really share common traits aside from skin color. "Social race" is an artificial construct, there is not a commonality among their genes. As said by tatteredsoul, their phenotype does not summarize anything about their genotype.

Genetic rules (dominant genes, etc) do apply to humans. Differences between can be influenced by genetics - not by "this race is X", but natural selection, which is the passing of certain traits on to those in that particular group. Natural selection is a genetic process.

And the differences in IQ by racial groups is not a result of natural selection.

When you say "Yes, intelligence is partly genetic, but the differences we see in American society are not caused by genetics, it is caused by social choices in our society." you are contradicting yourself. You acknowledge (correctly) that intelligence is partly genetic, but then deny genetic differences as part of the possible differences between ethnic groups in our society, attributing them solely to social choices. Are social choices influential? Absolutely? Are they the sole determinant? Absolutely not.

There is no contradiction. Inheritance is heritable, but that does not mean it's the reason for differences between groups. You talk about common traits among ethnic groups, but their common traits are superficial, not biological. You seem to argue that if you take ethnic groups in Europe, then you'll find common traits; do the same thing with ethnic groups in Africa and you will find common traits, but that's not how it works. Ethnic groups in Africa do not share a lot in common, they are more genetically diverse than than ethnic groups in Europe.

To say their genes account for group differences and that because intelligence is heritable, that's the reason for the difference is a leap too far. If I have children and they also get PhDs, and someone with a bachelor's has children, but they don't get a PhD, that does not mean our achievement difference is biological, unless of course, everything else (social, economic, environmental factors, etc.) is equal between us.

I'm not arguing a distinct biological trait. I'm arguing that different ethnic groups have statistically different traits. I'm arguing that socially, many "similar" ethnic groups are often grouped together in discussions about "race". I'm arguing that between any 2 given populations, there are disparities of traits, be those traits physical (such as height, weight, and skin color) or mental (intelligence). I'm arguing that between any 2 given populations which have different average traits, expecting equal outcomes is a fallacious argument.

What are the different average traits? The differences that exist are not a result of a underlying biological principle, it is based on socioeconomic differences. It is based on a social construct, this construct also affect economic and educational mobility. This is one of the reasons why early childhood development is so important, because it has a great effect on subsequent achievement and intelligence. You seem to argue that if we remove all those socioeconomic problems, there will be an underlying biological difference, but there isn't one as there is no social group with common biological traits that make them distinct from another social group.

 

[SummerMadness]

You can't simply link intelligence as heritable to differences in intelligence between groups. Talking about inheritance and talking about the reason for a difference are two different subjects. Could inheritance be a reason for the gap? Yes, but in the case of the "racial achievement gap" it's not.

I think it helps to look at the "other" achievement gap and then it becomes more apparent that it's not genes, it's socioeconomic and cultural practices.

Explaining Asian Americans' academic advantage over whites

Asians don't do well because of their genes.

 

[whatbogsends]

They don't really share common traits aside from skin color. "Social race" is an artificial construct, there is not a commonality among their genes. As said by tatteredsoul, their phenotype does not summarize anything about their genotype.

And the differences in IQ by racial groups is not a result of natural selection.

There is no contradiction. Inheritance is heritable, but that does not mean it's the reason for differences between groups. You talk about common traits among ethnic groups, but their common traits are superficial, not biological. You seem to argue that if you take ethnic groups in Europe, then you'll find common traits; do the same thing with ethnic groups in Africa and you will find common traits, but that's not how it works. Ethnic groups in Africa do not share a lot in common, they are more genetically diverse than than ethnic groups in Europe.

"Europe" and "Africa" are not "ethnic groups", they are continents which comprise a vast number of ethnic groups. "Ethnic groups" refer to small, geographically distinct groups of people.

To say their genes account for group differences and that because intelligence is heritable, that's the reason for the difference is a leap too far. If I have children and they also get PhDs, and someone with a bachelor's has children, but they don't get a PhD, that does not mean our achievement difference is biological, unless of course, everything else (social, economic, environmental factors, etc.) is equal between us.

I don't say "their genes account for group differences", i say "their genes influence group differences".

You dismiss genetics as a factor, and lay every difference at the feet of societal bias. I think it's obvious that there is a combination of genetics and sociology in play, as does essentially any study i've read on the subject. Sociology can influence genetics through natural selection - if a particular society finds X trait desirable and Y trait undesirable, that society will, over time, yield more descendants with trait X and fewer with trait Y.

You don't have to have distinct races to have different group populations have different traits.

What are the different average traits? The differences that exist are not a result of a underlying biological principle, it is based on socioeconomic differences. It is based on a social construct, this construct also affect economic and educational mobility. This is one of the reasons why early childhood development is so important, because it has a great effect on subsequent achievement and intelligence. You seem to argue that if we remove all those socioeconomic problems, there will be an underlying biological difference, but there isn't one as there is no social group with common biological traits that make them distinct from another social group.

Height is a pretty straight-forward one:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/ethnic-groups-and-height

While the article stresses that there is more variation within an ethnic group than between ethnic groups (very similar to what you are saying), it still acknowledges that there are differences between ethnic groups.

Does childhood development play a large part in achievement and reaching their intelligence potential? Absolutely. Are there genetic factors that influence this as well? Absolutely.

You act as if the nature vs. nurture debate has been settled, and that the final score was nurture 100-0. It's not, and both play a role. You're essentially putting forth an argument that ignores a key component of the discussion, and yelling "racism" whenever that component is brought up.

 

[whatbogsends]

You can't simply link intelligence as heritable to differences in intelligence between groups. Talking about inheritance and talking about the reason for a difference are two different subjects. Could inheritance be a reason for the gap? Yes, but in the case of the "racial achievement gap" it's not.

I think it helps to look at the "other" achievement gap and then it becomes more apparent that it's not genes, it's socioeconomic and cultural practices.

Explaining Asian Americans' academic advantage over whites

Asians don't do well because of their genes.

So, it's fair to attribute the success of "asians" to "cultural differences in beliefs regarding the connection between effort and achievement" (i agree, this is a huge factor) but when we're discussing the poor outcomes for "blacks" it's "society's fault, as a whole", and not the result of "cultural differences in beliefs regarding the connection between effort and achievement" among their own communities.

Even the studies you linked make statements like "Only East Asians have a sizable advantage in cognitive ability." (hint: they're the only Asian population with a sizable advantage in cognitive ability, not the only Asian population with any advantage in cognitive ability.

in this linked extract: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8416.full.pdf?sid=42de9af1-b68d-42bf-8d3b-c0744fbad9da

If there are no inherited differences in ethnic groups, why does the study - which contends that the majority (not all) of difference in academic achievement is due to a culture stressing effort - acknowledge the difference in cognitive ability of an ethnic group? Moreover, why do they caveat their assessment with "First, the growing Asian-American advantage in academic achievement relative to whites is due more to a growing Asian–white gap in academic effort than to a gap in cognitive ability". It's not due "solely to a gap in academic effort and not to a gap in cognitive ability, rather it's more due to the gap in effort than cognitive ability.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not strictly true: I understand many of the root causes, even though I fully admit there are many factors that come into play. What I've said, instead, is that I'm not as interested in causes as I am in solutions.

That seems rather selfish...wanting everyone to acknowledge a problem but never wanting to discuss it's causes. We'll come back to that...

No analogy is perfect.

Especially your burning house analogy.

No, and that isn't even close to what I've actually said. But feel free to go back and review what I've said before, it won't change.

I'm not going to quote you're whole scene by the A2SG players. The one where by merely being aware of white privilege it magically disappears. You know what you said.

Except that the problems faced by black people (and others) in this country are not imagined sounds at night, they're real and they affect their lives on a daily basis.

Well we'd need to know the causes and effects to establish that. Much like your ghosts...they could be imagined or a matter of perspective.

Sure, things are changing, and that's a good thing. But any exceptions to what I said are recent, or are notable for being exceptions, like the Cosby Show back in the 80s.

You said I'd find no example...then when I do it's the "exception". You go ahead and just place those goalposts where you like them A2.

If our culture reflects who we really are as people, that's better than if it only reflects part of us.

Funny...I thought entertainment was to entertain. Now it's supposed to reflect our culture?

They should. Idris Elba would make a fantastic James Bond, and Hayley Atwell would be amazing as The Doctor.

Are these facts or matters of opinion?

I believe it's everyone's responsibility to leave the world a better place than they found it.

Sometimes that means teaching a man to fish instead of giving him one.

It is my responsibility, and everyone's, to deal with the issue of terrorism. I agree.

Then you missed my sarcasm. You're woefully unprepared to combat terrorism.

First, I never said anyone's entire worldview changes. Second, I didn't use the word "racist" for a very specific reason.

And yet what you described was racism.

Yeah, I've seen Law and Order once or twice too.

Fact is, cops do work to apprehend those they feel are guilty of a crime...even as they know it's up to the courts to prove them guilty.

What are you basing this "fact" on?

And I'm still not interested in finding someone at "fault" for these issues which go back several generations.

Malik's inability to get a job interview is an issue who's cause goes back several generations?

Here's exactly what I said: "I think it's a complicated issue, but to simplify it for a moment, if more black people are being arrested than whites, the assumption is that black people are more likely to be criminals than white people. It's a flawed conclusion, but it happens."

What's the complicated part? If blacks are (for example) identified as perpetrators of 55% of rapes....what's the complicated part of that issue?

I understand the relevance, but I still believe it's more important to find a better way going forward.

No I don't think you do. Using my example above ....if 55% of rapists are described as "black" no amount of whining about white privilege will change that. That's something that the black community will need to address.

Yeah, because ignoring our problems always makes people want to fix them.

When did this become "our problem"? You said I'm not at fault...and I'm certainly not the one complaining. It seems this problem isn't my issue at all.

When those assumptions dictate how you're treated and what opportunities are open to you, then it becomes an uphill battle fighting them to get past them. And sometimes, even if you do get past them, they're still there. When you don't have to deal with assumptions like that, it's hard to see how difficult it makes things.

Don't we all deal with such assumptions? Why should only the assumptions made about minorities get lip service?

Which is why people who are victims of earthquakes or tidal waves are the only ones who should deal with them. They're the ones with the problem after all, not the rest of us.

Straw-man.

Oh don't worry, I'm plenty sarcastic a lot of the time. That was one of the rare times I wasn't.

Ok.

One that could be better still. I'd much rather see that 1000-2000 number be a heck of a lot closer to zero.

Well then you'll feel better when you read it again and realize that the vast majority of those 1000-2000 were legitimately threatening the lives of police or others.

I'm not going to debate Ferguson all over again. Suffice to say, that whole tragedy brought many problems to light, and we need to remember the lessons that came from that day going forward.

Lessons such as? Problems such as?

And you wonder why I'm not all that interested in finding fault?

No...I've got a pretty good idea why you don't want to discuss it.

I guess that depends on how you define "resist." Take Eric Garner as an example.

Actually, and this is a common misconception, it's got nothing to do with how I define resist. It's how the law defines resist. As far as Garner goes...he resisted the police.

But, I don't want to get caught up in dueling examples. If you want to dismiss the experiences of people who see things differently than you do, there's not much I can do about it.

As long as they dismiss my experiences...we're on equal footing.

I've seen discussions about both in many different places.

That makes one of us.

Not making judgments is a good thing, I guess. But part of "white privilege" is being able to not see that the US has a lot of problems when it comes to racial issues.

-- A2SG, can't say much beyond that.....

Oh...I agree we have racial problems. I just don't agree on what they are.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No thanks.

-- A2SG, but thanks for the example, nonetheless.....

Remember what you said about dismissing the viewpoints of those who see things differently from yourself?

Time to take your own advice.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was part of it. From what I remember, Stuart's more detailed description came later, after the manhunt had started. After some started to doubt his story.

-- A2SG, but it was a long time ago, I admit my memory may be a little fuzzy.....

Actually that had nothing to do with it. Someone claimed that he was an attorney for defendants who had been stopped on nothing more than descriptions limited to "a black man".

You proposed the Stuart case as an example of this. Now that I've shown that false, you moved the goalposts.

 

[A2SG]

That seems rather selfish...wanting everyone to acknowledge a problem but never wanting to discuss it's causes.

Usually, discussing causes for issues like racism usually means trying to assign blame, and that's counterproductive, so that's why I prefer to not get too deep into that subject. At least as far as I'm concerned....you're free, of course, to discuss it to your heart's content.

We'll come back to that...

Something to look forward to...

Especially your burning house analogy.

*Shrug*

I'm not going to quote you're whole scene by the A2SG players. The one where by merely being aware of white privilege it magically disappears. You know what you said.

If you don't want to quote it, that's fine...but maybe you should go back and reread it, because you're not even close!

Well we'd need to know the causes and effects to establish that. Much like your ghosts...they could be imagined or a matter of perspective.

Or they could not be. That's the thing about matters of perspective, just because you can't see someone else's problems, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Thing is, we don't need to know the cause to try and be better about such things going forward. All we need is to decide to do that.

You said I'd find no example...

No, I didn't.

then when I do it's the "exception". You go ahead and just place those goalposts where you like them A2.

I described a general situation, I never maintained it was an absolute, nor that no exceptions existed. I maintain that what I claimed is far, far more true than it isn't, and that I can find a lot more examples that follow my generalities than you can find exceptions to it. And the further back we go, the less exceptions you'll see.

You found one example, I mentioned another. If we wanted to, I bet we could come up with a few more, especially if we expand the definition of "race" and include other things like gender. We might even come up with a dozen, maybe close to two dozen, examples overall, throughout the history of television (though, most of them would probably be from the last ten years or so).

Versus how many?

The point being, the situation I described is the norm. Exceptions always exist, but that doesn't change what the norm is.

Funny...I thought entertainment was to entertain. Now it's supposed to reflect our culture?

Doesn't it always do both?

Are these facts or matters of opinion?

You tell me.

Sometimes that means teaching a man to fish instead of giving him one.

Sure.

Then you missed my sarcasm.

Not at all.

You're woefully unprepared to combat terrorism.

How could you know that?

And yet what you described was racism.

I think it goes deeper than that, and involves more than just race, which is why I specifically avoided the term.

Fact is, cops do work to apprehend those they feel are guilty of a crime...even as they know it's up to the courts to prove them guilty.

What are you basing this "fact" on?

Basic job description of a cop.

Malik's inability to get a job interview is an issue who's cause goes back several generations?

Individually, no. But as regards the general issue of race and hiring, the causes of inequality go back at least that far.

What's the complicated part? If blacks are (for example) identified as perpetrators of 55% of rapes....what's the complicated part of that issue?

If true, that statistic doesn't mean any individual black man is 55% more likely to be a rapist than any other white man.

But the entirety of how race, poverty and crime all interact with each other is the complicated issue I was referring to.

No I don't think you do.

Um, dude, just because we disagree, please don't equate that with a lack of understanding. I'd say we both understand the issues we're discussing, even if we have different perspectives on it.

Using my example above ....if 55% of rapists are described as "black" no amount of whining about white privilege will change that.

Except that statistics like that are useless when presented alone, without context. For example, does that figure comprise convicted rapists, or does it include suspected ones? What about those who aren't caught? Does the possibility that it's more likely for a black man to be convicted of a crime than a white man who may be just as guilty affect how real that figure is?

As I said, it's a complicated issue. We can debate the causes of the issue all day long, and be no closer to changing things than we were before we started. However, if we accept the idea that it's possible that white people get away with crime more than black people do, we could examine our prejudices going forward, and maybe not automatically leap to the conclusion that the rapist we're trying to catch is probably a black guy based on a statistic that may be misleading.

That's something that the black community will need to address.

Them too, but not just them.

When did this become "our problem"?

Because we're all part of our society.

You said I'm not at fault...and I'm certainly not the one complaining. It seems this problem isn't my issue at all.

Yeah, because all men are islands; they're not affected by the society around them.

Don't we all deal with such assumptions?

Sure, to different extents.

Why should only the assumptions made about minorities get lip service?

They don't, but that's the subject of this discussion. You wanna discuss male privilege, or beauty privilege, able-bodied privilege, or even right-handed privilege, feel free to start a thread.

Straw-man.

Example, actually.

Ok.

Cool. I hope I've reached an acceptable sarcasm level with this post.

Well then you'll feel better when you read it again and realize that the vast majority of those 1000-2000 were legitimately threatening the lives of police or others.

I'd still like to see it closer to zero.

As I've said before, I know a few cops. I know the dangers they face, and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination trying to downplay them. But, for that, I still maintain that their job is one with an awesome amount of power, and that power needs to be balanced with an equal, if not greater, sense of responsibility.

And for the record, most cops know this too. Very few of them take their responsibilities lightly...but that doesn't mean we should go lightly on those who shirk that responsibility.

Lessons such as? Problems such as?

Sorry. Like I said, I'm not going to debate Ferguson all over again here.

No...I've got a pretty good idea why you don't want to discuss it.

If you did, you wouldn't have replied the way you did.

But hey, if you want to assume you know my mind, I can't stop you. Assume away!

You do know what happens when you assume, right?

Actually, and this is a common misconception, it's got nothing to do with how I define resist. It's how the law defines resist.

No, it has more to do with how the cops in that situation defined it at the time. The law doesn't weigh in until later, at trial. If there is one.

As far as Garner goes...he resisted the police.

The relevant question here is, would the cops have treated a white man the same way? The public reaction to this case, as with others, says that many believe they wouldn't have.

As long as they dismiss my experiences...we're on equal footing.

True. However, we'd all be on better footing if we all tried to see things from perspectives other than our own.

That's just my opinion, though....

That makes one of us.

Seek it out then, if you're interested.

Oh...I agree we have racial problems. I just don't agree on what they are.

Which is why discussions like this are a good thing!

-- A2SG, kinda hard to see the problems other people have if you don't ask them about them, and listen to what they say......

 

[A2SG]

Remember what you said about dismissing the viewpoints of those who see things differently from yourself?

Time to take your own advice.

But I'm not dismissing your viewpoint, I'm just choosing not to comment on it.

-- A2SG, not much I can say about it, really.....

 

[A2SG]

Actually that had nothing to do with it. Someone claimed that he was an attorney for defendants who had been stopped on nothing more than descriptions limited to "a black man".

You proposed the Stuart case as an example of this. Now that I've shown that false, you moved the goalposts.

I'm not moving the goalposts at all. I simply accepted that the Stuart case may not have been as on point as I remember it being.

-- A2SG, I wasn't personally involved, so I only know what I heard.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's because discussing the causes usually means trying to assign blame, and that's counterproductive. At least as far as I'm concerned....you're free, of course, to discuss it to your heart's content.

Well I'm trying to...but you're avoiding the topic.

If you don't want to quote it, that's fine...but maybe you should go back and reread it, because you're not even close!

It was a specific example wherein upon learning about white privilege....the employer at fault avoided it's consequences. Is that not an accurate description of your little scenario?

Or they could not be. That's the thing about matters of perspective, just because you can't see someone else's problems, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Or it could be imagined. Do you see the importance of knowing the causes of problems now? Whether it's a ghost or a creaky floorboard makes a difference in how we solve the problem.

Thing is, we don't need to know the cause to try and be better about such things going forward. All we need is to decide to do that.

See above for why this is wrong. If we blame white privilege and it's not the problem...the problem doesn't get solved. Frankly, that's why I...and everyone else...shouldn't just take your word for it.

No, I didn't.



I described a general situation, I never maintained it was an absolute, nor that no exceptions existed. I maintain that what I claimed is far, far more true than it isn't, and that I can find a lot more examples that follow my generalities than you can find exceptions to it. And the further back we go, the less exceptions you'll see.

"If you cast anyone other than a caucasian, the show becomes about that race. Tell you what, think of any TV show where the lead is played by someone who isn't caucasian and see if that show would be any different than if they cast, say, Ryan Reynolds in that role instead."

You clearly said any t.v. show...meaning "any t.v. show". You moved the goalposts...because now you're saying that you were describing a "general situation" with exceptions.

You found one example, I mentioned another. If we wanted to, I bet we could come up with a few more, especially if we expand the definition of "race" and include other things like gender. We might even come up with a dozen, maybe close to two dozen, examples overall, throughout the history of television (though, most of them would probably be from the last ten years or so).

Versus how many?

The point being, the situation I described is the norm. Exceptions always exist, but that doesn't change what the norm is.

So what you meant was that some t.v. shows where the lead actor isn't white are about race...is that it?

Doesn't it always do both?

No.

You tell me.

It's an opinion...no more valid than anyone else's.

How could you know that?

Call it a hunch based on experience.

I think it goes deeper than that, and involves more than just race, which is why I specifically avoided the term.

Deeper in what way?

Basic job description of a cop.

Not really...no. They may feel like you're guilty, but if the evidence isn't there...it doesn't matter.

Individually, no. But as regards the general issue of race and hiring, the causes of inequality go back at least that far.

That's not very helpful.

If true, that statistic doesn't mean any individual black man is 55% more likely to be a rapist than any other white man.

Of course not, it just means that if 55% of men locked up for rape are black...it doesn't mean white privilege is the problem.

But the entirety of how race, poverty and crime all interact with each other is the complicated issue I was referring to.

I don't see how someone can be black enough and poor enough to excuse rape, or murder, or assault.

Um, dude, just because we disagree, please don't equate that with a lack of understanding. I'd say we both understand the issues we're discussing, even if we have different perspectives on it.

Your dismissal of my point about the ghost analogy shows otherwise. You need to actually show white privilege is the cause of a problem...not just claim it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But I'm not dismissing your viewpoint, I'm just choosing not to comment on it.

-- A2SG, not much I can say about it, really.....

So when people like yourself and the OP who think everyone should acknowledge white privilege so we can fix it....if everyone just ignores you....we aren't dismissing your viewpoint, we're just not commenting on it??

 

[A2SG]

Well I'm trying to...but you're avoiding the topic.

Just that part of it. As I said, I'm not interested in assigning blame or focusing on causes. I'm more interested in discussing where we go from here.

It was a specific example wherein upon learning about white privilege....the employer at fault avoided it's consequences. Is that not an accurate description of your little scenario?

Yup. The problem didn't "magically disappear," as you said. Someone recognized that there may be some prejudices involved, unconscious though they may be, reexamined the situation and took steps to try and avoid old preconceptions.

He didn't dwell on why those preconceptions existed, he just readjusted his point of view and moved forward.

Or it could be imagined.

Many things can't be seen, that doesn't mean they're imaginary.

Do you see the importance of knowing the causes of problems now? Whether it's a ghost or a creaky floorboard makes a difference in how we solve the problem.

Since we're having fun with analogies here, if there's a dead cow in the middle of the road, how important is it to find out how it got there? You either clear it out of the way, or go around it.

When faced with the problems of institutional racial bias, sometimes you just have to accept that it's there, and find a way to clear the path, or find a way around it.

See above for why this is wrong. If we blame white privilege and it's not the problem...the problem doesn't get solved. Frankly, that's why I...and everyone else...shouldn't just take your word for it.

Which is why I don't try to assign blame, that way we can just recognized that there's a problem, and try to find a way around the preconceptions.

Go back to my example of the guy hiring John or Malik. Did he dwell on why he had a preconception about one name over the other? Is it necessary for him to figure out why the preconception exists for him to give the matter further thought, and not make the same assumptions he might have made before he gave it more thought?

I'm not saying we can't examine the causes of these issues, but that we shouldn't let the fact that we haven't solved the question prevent us from finding new paths going forward.

"If you cast anyone other than a caucasian, the show becomes about that race. Tell you what, think of any TV show where the lead is played by someone who isn't caucasian and see if that show would be any different than if they cast, say, Ryan Reynolds in that role instead."

You clearly said any t.v. show...meaning "any t.v. show". You moved the goalposts...because now you're saying that you were describing a "general situation" with exceptions.

I never said there can be no exceptions, that it was an absolute. No goalposts have been shifted, my point remains. What I said about casting in TV is still the norm. Exceptions to the norm are rare, and rarer still the further back you go. That exceptions exist doesn't invalidate the point, but the fact that exceptions are rare, and notable for being exceptions, proves the norm exists in the first place.

So what you meant was that some t.v. shows where the lead actor isn't white are about race...is that it?

How about most. Practically all.

Doesn't it always do both?

No.

I disagree. Popular culture has always been a reflection of the culture it comes from. That's true now, it was true in the 1950s, it was true in France back in 1650.

It's an opinion...no more valid than anyone else's.

Yep. But that doesn't change that Idris Elba would make a fantastic James Bond, and Hayley Atwell would be amazing as The Doctor.

There are many reasons to consider either of them for those respective roles, both are very talented, very gifted actors. But there's only one reason to not consider either one: it's not the way we've done things before.

Many good and positive things have come from defying tradition. Never even trying to do things differently leads to stale ideas.

Call it a hunch based on experience.

You do realize you have no experience of me, or my abilities, right? All you have are assumptions, nothing more.

Think about that.

Deeper in what way?

That it involves more than just race. Race is, after all, a social construct. Skin color isn't a significant difference in biological terms, we're all the same biological race.

Not really...no. They may feel like you're guilty, but if the evidence isn't there...it doesn't matter.

It isn't a cop's job to determine if the evidence supports a guilty verdict or not. Their job is to arrest those they feel are guilty...so their views on who is or isn't a criminal are very much relevant. If cops generally operate under a prejudice that leads them to believe those of a certain race are more likely to be guilty than those of another race, that preconception can lead to more people of that race being arrested. And if your'e not arrested, then you can't be tried, let alone convicted. So, under these conditions, you can see how prejudice can lead to skewed results.

Individually, no. But as regards the general issue of race and hiring, the causes of inequality go back at least that far.

That's not very helpful.

Yeah. Another reason why seeking causes isn't very productive. Sometimes, the causes are unclear, or come from a variety of different things.

Of course not, it just means that if 55% of men locked up for rape are black...it doesn't mean white privilege is the problem.

It can if it means suspicion falls on black men more than it does on white men: then more black men will be arrested, and less white men will even be considered for arrest....regardless of who actually did the crime.

I don't see how someone can be black enough and poor enough to excuse rape, or murder, or assault.

Neither do I. Who ever said such a thing?

Your dismissal of my point about the ghost analogy shows otherwise. You need to actually show white privilege is the cause of a problem...not just claim it.

First, I didn't dismiss your example, I discussed it with you. And second, white privilege can be a factor without it being the cause of the problem itself. In fact, the issues of race in this country are so large and so pervasive I doubt we can define the causes to anything more than a confluence of many differing causes, with no one single cause being greater than any other.

Which is also why I think we need to look past the question of what caused the problem of racial bias in the US and try to find a way to get past it going forward.

-- A2SG, after all, we don't need to know why we do something to not do it any more....

 

[A2SG]

So when people like yourself and the OP who think everyone should acknowledge white privilege so we can fix it....if everyone just ignores you....we aren't dismissing your viewpoint, we're just not commenting on it??

I'm sorry....did I miss something?

Earlier, you said you experienced racism every day, and I asked in what way. You told me.

Was there a question about your work environment you wanted to put to me? Because I didn't see one. I had no comment on your work situation because I have no argument to make about it, one way or the other.

-- A2SG, if it comes up again, and I feel the need to ask you about it, I will....

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm sorry....did I miss something?

Earlier, you said you experienced racism every day, and I asked in what way. You told me.

Was there a question about your work environment you wanted to put to me? Because I didn't see one. I had no comment on your work situation because I have no argument to make about it, one way or the other.

-- A2SG, if it comes up again, and I feel the need to ask you about it, I will....

I apologize...you're right, I didn't ask a question. Since this thread is about acknowledging privilege...I guess I expected you to acknowledge the racism and disadvantages I face at work every day as a result of my being a white male. So I'll put it in question form for you...

Would you agree, based upon my example, that I face disadvantages for being a white male?

 

[A2SG]

I apologize...you're right, I didn't ask a question. Since this thread is about acknowledging privilege...I guess I expected you to acknowledge the racism and disadvantages I face at work every day as a result of my being a white male. So I'll put it in question form for you...

Would you agree, based upon my example, that I face disadvantages for being a white male?

Sure.

Were you under the impression that white privilege meant no white person faces any disadvantages, ever? The concept of white privilege is society-wide, it doesn't mean every single white male has it great, all day every day.

-- A2SG, heck, just the other day, I stubbed my toe....