Why I don't like the term "white privilege" PART TWO

[shaayecanaan]

A follow on from this thread:- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024544941

A couple of caveats before I begin:

a) I do not deny the existence of racism, or its ability to exist independently of the class structure. Humans are parochial animals, we have fought as kinship-based groups against each other since time immemorial (certainly well before capitalist society existed) - which is of course why racism is so easy for the ruling class to exploit.

b) More importantly, I may have given the impression in the previous thread that a person's experience of poverty will always outweigh their experience of racism. I certainly did not mean to give that impression. Whether one feels more victimised by poverty or racism is of course an intensely personal experience. For example, one person might feel more aggrieved at being harassed by police than being unable to purchase healthcare. Another person may feel quite differently. It is certainly not my intention to imply that a person's subjective experience is less compelling for them just because it may not conform with my point of view.

c) There appears to be some confusion regarding Marxism in the earlier thread and also some associated terms. Despite my having set out a fairly straightforward and orthodox Marxian approach to racism, a lot of people thought it resembled right-wing Republicanism or something that you would see on Fox News. To be frank, some of that criticism may have been less than honest. I do realise that branding anything you disagree with as coming from "Faux News" is a very, very common rhetorical ploy around here.

However, if anyone wants a better idea of where I'm coming from, the following links might be helpful:-

http://academic.evergreen.edu/b/bohmerp/marxracism.htm

http://www.academia.edu/1101634/Racing_class_or_classing_race_A_review_of_Critical_Race_Theory_A_Marxist_response_

***********************

It seemed to me that most responses to the earlier thread were variations on the following:-

1) I am a middle class or well-off Black person (or someone else is). I am still flagged down by the police to a greater extent than a white person would be, even a poor person. Therefore it is untrue to say that discrimination against Black people involves considerations of class.

2) Black people that have attained high stations in life (such as Barack Obama) are still the targets of racism. Therefore Black people would still be subject to the same levels of racism even if they attained economic parity with whites.

3) The reason White privilege exists irrespective of class is because of institutional control, arising from historical circumstances, namely the fact that the US was founded by white colonists who created the rules in order to suit themselves.

In relation to the first point, I readily concede that a Black person may still experience racism despite being wealthy. However, in many cases that discrimination may arise because a Black person is simply presumed to be working class, even if they are not. For example, a couple of posters referred to the recent "Oprah incident" in which Oprah Winfrey was assumed to be incapable of being able to pay for an expensive bag in an upmarket Swiss department store. Oprah's own account of the incident implied that the incident may have had something to do with perceptions of class:-

She said: 'I'm in a store and the person doesn't obviously know that I carry the black card and so they make an assessment based upon the way I look and who I am,' said Winfrey, who earned $77 million in the year ending in June, according to Forbes magazine. 'I didn't have anything that said "I have money": I wasn't wearing a diamond stud. I didn't have a pocketbook. I didn't wear Louboutin shoes. I didn't have anything,' she said. 'You should be able to go in a store looking like whatever you look like and say "I'd like to see this". That didn't happen.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2391880/Oprahs-racist-handbag-Swiss-store-owner-brands-star-sensitive.htm

It would be interesting to see an experiment of how this plays out in real life. For example, have Black people dressed casually enter a store and see if they are ignored by salespeople or shadowed by security, and then compare with Black people dressed in ways which are indicative of wealth. My guess is the behaviour of the sales staff would improve substantially.

Another point: while these anecdotes demonstrate Black disadvantage they don't necessarily prove White privilege. There are many ethnicities in the US, and from all accounts Japanese-Americans or Tibetans or Turks are not systemically harassed by police or ignored or shadowed in upmarket department stores. In fact a goodly number of customers in upmarket department stores these days tend to come from Chinese backgrounds in particular - Louis Vuitton seems to be popular with that market. The defenders of white privilege probably need to come up with some explanation for why some ethnicities can share in "white privilege" but not others. Hint: it probably has something to do with class, or the perception of it.

The second point, I think, is probably the best of the three. Obama, despite being very much a member of the ruling class, is nevertheless the recipient of a great deal of racist sentiment. If racism is primarily a dividing tactic used by the ruling class against the workers, how should one characterise racism towards ruling class people?

In responding, I think that racism can be divided into three types. Firstly, you have racism directed against members of a lower socioeconomic class, or contempt-racism. Examples would be racism against Blacks under slavery or apartheid.

Secondly, there is racism directed at members of a generally higher socioeconomic class, or resentment-racism. The classic example would be anti-Semitism. Other examples would be the experience of Indians during the regime of Idi Amin in Uganda, or the Korean shopkeepers that were targeted during the LA riots in 1992.

The third example is internecine racism amongst members of the same economic class, who must compete with each other for resources. Much of the Congolese Civil War, I fear, would come under that umbrella.

There is also one further important point to be made about ethnic interaction within capitalist society. Very often, the members of the ruling class do not uniformly arise from the dominant or prevalent culture. Instead, there are often "mercantile minorities" or "model minorities" that are disproportionately represented amongst the upper ranks of industry or commerce.

For example, my own family were part of the Lebanese mercantile minority in Africa. Other examples would be Indians in Africa and the US, Jews in Christian Europe, Chinese in Indonesia and the Armenians in Eastern Europe. While this results in certain members of the ruling class coming under racist attack, I believe that resentment-racism against ruling class people of colour still collectively serves the interests of the ruling class. In particular:-

(a) resentment-racism against the ruling class serves to compliment the divide-and-rule tactics used to exploit racism within the working class. For example, the fact that Barrack Obama is Black probably does a great deal to dispel otherwise revolutionary sentiment amongst Black working class people, as well as make them more hostile towards socialist agitation to the extent that it originates from white people and is perceived as being antagonistic towards Obama personally. Thus, Black workers do not merely abstain from white working class politics, but may in fact become actively hostile against them. This is probably worth bearing in mind when assessing Black attitudes towards much of the left-wing criticism that has been aimed against Obama

(b) if working class resentment reaches critical levels, resentment-racism can be used to either morally impugn working class politics, or alternatively to redirect it in a more fascist rather than socialist orientation. For example, working class resentment against the banks and ruling class was channeled by the Nazis into a hatred of Jews. This was beneficial to the ruling class, as it allowed those of them that were not Jewish to continue operating as before. This was the basis of August Bebel's famous quote that anti-Semitism was "the socialism of fools"

The third argument was that white privilege exists for institutional and structural reasons. That is, that the structural rules within society favour whites and therefore enshrine white privilege.

The problem with this argument is that it is essentially circular: privilege begets the institutions that beget the privilege. It does not provide any reason for why whites were capable of institutionalising society to suit themselves. I certainly agree that to some extent the structures in the US were set up to favour whites and specifically WASPs. For example, the language of the United States is English, and not German or Spanish, even though in much of the country native speakers of those two languages may have been more numerous.

The reason why WASPs were able to prevail over other groups in imposing their language, religion, laws, courts and even their sports (golf, tennis, rounders) on American culture ultimately came down to the material power that they wielded as a class. They had the money, the education and the resources with which to do it.

[el_bryanto]

1. White Privilege is a tool for understanding the world we live in

There are benefits a middle class white person will enjoy that a working class black person won't. You could argue that poor white person, particularly a poor rural white person wouldn't enjoy the same privileges and that's true. White privilege is just a part of the economic story of America it's not the whole story.

But it's an important part of the story, particular as we become aware of injustices around us or ones we might unconciously being aware of. I accept, for example, that as a middle class white person I have certain benefits that black people don't, but by being aware of how the scales are tipped in my favor I can take actions to rectify and correct that imbalance as best I can.

In fairness I am a in favor of a well regulated capitalism (i'm definitely not a Marxist) so an incremental approach focusing on awareness and correcting injustices within a flawed but basically OK system fits. If, on the other hand, you do feel like capitalism is basically unjust and needs to be torn down and built back up, well than you are probably going to approach this issue differently. You wouldn't dwell to much on fixing the leaking plumbing if you want to burn down the building and rebuild it from the ground up. By the same token, I would imagine that if you want to end capitalism and replace it with something else, White Privilege is only one of many problems you would want to fix in rebuilding our economic system.

I may be reading too much into what your long term economic goals are, though.

Bryant

[shaayecanaan]

42. I think that you speak for a lot of people here...

Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)

My impression is that most people here are quite a bit more affluent than the norm (certainly I am one). This might explain the attempts in this thread and otherwise to minimise the impacts of poverty.

You are right than I am not a liberal. I am a socialist, although I do agree with liberals on many points. Part of the problem is that in America there is no real socialist left to speak of, only a liberal left. Therefore, American liberals tend to presume that their version of "leftism" is the only one that there is, and to the extent that people deviate from that they must be right wingers.

However, I disagree with you that capitalism can be "reformed" to rid itself of racism. Capitalism is essentially reliant on racism, the ruling class are dependent on it in order to survive. If it did not exist (for example in places like Sweden where traditionally there were no people of colour and therefore no racism) what would probably evolve would be a greatly ameliorated, social-democratic style capitalism (such as what existed in Sweden).

[Scootaloo]

107. I am one of those who is not affluent

In fact I'm one of those white kids that the other white kids referred to as "white trash" (or in my neck of the southern woods, "swamp n****r" whatever the fuck that was supposed to mean.) I've hovered in the areas just above and just below the poverty line for most of my life, lived in the sort of trailer parks you expect to see in teen slasher movies about people wearing other peoples' skin as masks, and spent enough time living subsistence in Alaska that I could probably teach a caveman a thing or two about "roughing it."

One of the adages my mother - bless her heart, Alabama southern all the way - invested in me was "well, at least we ain't n****rs." Yeah. She brings home unlabeled dented cans for dinner, but hey, at least we're still white. What's that mean?

Well, my dad could answer the door holding a gun after the cops were called about his and my mother's screaming jags, and not get gunned down (Good for him, though honestly not sure about the rest of us at the time.) It meant that customer's being rude to my mother at work would sometimes result in another white customer stepping in to tell them off - which never happened with the black women working those counters. it meant that when my dumb ass failed an assignment at school, there would be call from the teacher to see if everything is okay - my friend Lydell never got such house calls when he bombed something, despite generally getting much better grades than I did (and in fact being from a more well-off family.)

It's not a minimization of the impact of poverty. I've been through all kids of shit for being poor. Ever tried to get a good job when you don't have a car and your best clothes are jeans and a polo shirt? Helped a friend hide their grow operation because, hey, it's money? co-housed with eight other poor-ass people? I'll tell you nothing teaches you tolerance like THAT.

But I know for a damn fact that if I were a black man - or a latino man, or a native man, not not a man at all... I'd have it even worse. The white guy in the jeans and polo shirt gets told "I'm sorry Mr. Scootaloo, we don't have any openings at this time," the Mexican guy wearing the same finds the door locked.

The two aspects work in tandem with one another, each reinforcing hte other - a lot of black peopel are indeed mistreated because of the assumption that they're poor... but of course that assumption is becuase they are black. See how that works? One goes with hte other, neither discounts the other.

[shaayecanaan]

108. You know I have a lot of respect for you...

and the fact that you are are not affluent underlines that. I have seen the dumbest motherfuckers in the room make money hand over fist, while people who were smart as hell stay poor. People who could work for us for something like six months and pick up pretty good Arabic in that time. I still remember a kid like that.

However.

Let me tell you what would have happened if my father had held one over my mother (not that it ever happened). Firstly, no one would have called the coppers, because no one does that to a wealthy man. But if they did, a nice police officer would have called my father and said "Is everything all right Mr Canaan?". At the very most, a policeman would have pulled up at the front of our driveway, he would have politely pressed the intercom and asked for my father, and then he would have waited patiently for him to come outside. With his hat off. There would have been smiles all round and then my father would have asked my mother to come out and talk to the policeman for form's sake.

And that would have been the end of it. If Charles Saatchi has shown us nothing else of utility in his whole life (and he hasn't) its that no police force in the world will stand in the way of a wealthy man's right to give his wife a bit of chin music, Jewish or not.

I accept everything you say about there being a difference between being poor Black and poor White and having a copper knock on your door at night. No question. But its not a patch on the difference you encounter between having money and not having it.

[Scootaloo]

164. We agree, I think

I'm simply making the point that racism and privilege underscore and enhance privilege of class... which, in turn, does the same for racism. It's one of those things where one doesn't come before the other.

[el_bryanto]

123. Yes exactly my point - we disagree on something more fundamental

And that frames how we want to approach this debate. For you concentrating on white privilege in the face of Capitalism is like getting hung up on a sliver while you have a huge knife stuck in your leg. Misplaced priorities. But for myself, I don't see Racism as intrinsic to capitalism so I want to see it eliminated.

I do wish we has more of a socialist left in this country; but I would disagree with them on many points if they did exist.

Bryant

[brush]

178. White privilege is a huge part of capitalism

Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 02:16 PM - Edit history (3)

It couldn't exist without it. And the "it" being an exploitable, low-wage worker class. They don't all have to be black, and of course they are not, but the ruling class has always used, in this country, middle and lower class whites (overseers during slavery for example) as a buffer between themselves and the contemptuous "other" by subtly and not so subtly playing up the virtues of whiteness. We see this all the time in advertising, in so many all-white sitcoms on TV, in renting apartments, in hailing taxis, by the treatment white cops from that very buffer class use on black, brown and other "others".

Of course blacks and browns and other others can work their way into the middle and upper classes but white privilege is not automatically afforded to them like it is to whites. A homeless white guy off the street can clean himself up, apply for a job in person and have a much better chance of his resume avoiding the round file than a black, brown or other other does.

This is well known. It's not some dubious claim. There have been many studies done that send a white applicant and a black applicant to inquire about a job vacancy or about renting the same apartment and quite often the job or apartment is said to be still available to the white person but "already rented" or "filled" is the response the black or brown person gets.

Yep, white privilege does exist even if you don't like the term. And it's probably the more apt term simply because the "others" aren't always just black or brown. We can go around saying "mainstream society privilege" or "majority population privilege" or "privilege not afforded to blacks or browns or others" or male privilege, but it still boils down to "white privilege" really because those other awkward terms really refer to . . . white people, and especially white men.

We can of course recognize other privileges than white privilege that some groups of people enjoy, but most of those privileges are realized by people who have gotten there, fortunately or unfortunately, however you want to put it, because they enjoyed white privilege in getting there — i.e., admissions to elite colleges as a result of living in areas with good schools and tutors which resulted in a better education than say, from an inner-city school.

And I don't get the huge deal being made out of the use of the term. You don't have to like it but it's a fact. Progressive people, whites included, recognize it and many try to do what they can to avoid it's (and not the term's) divisiveness.

Conservatives that don't like it . . . well sorry, but do we really care if they don't like it because they don't recognize it or want to recognize it — when it is what motivates them to vote to restrict voting by black or browns or other others and thereby extend and broaden the very term they don't like — white privilege?

Me thinks they actually enjoy the privileges a lot. They just don't enjoy it being pointed out for what it is.

[el_bryanto]

182. I agree that White privilege exists, I just don't agree that it's intrinsic to capitalism. nt

[brush]

183. What would you call the phenomenon?

The constant seeking out of the lowest wage workers that unregulated capitalism does to turn bigger and bigger profits — thus our constant exporting of American jobs to low wage countries?

Granted, I did insert "unregulated" before the word capitalism. I should have included that in my first post. Historically here in the US, most whites have occupied higher economic classes than the lowest paid, which IMO is a part of the white privilege we're speaking of. Even that however is in full erosion as tens of thousands of middle class jobs have been and are still being moved overseas by the one percenters.

I guess we could call it "dominant demographic privilege" but in 20-30 years that won't even be the case as whites will also be a minority.

I might added that the democratic socialist societies like Germany with national single-payer health care and strong unions that preserve jobs and not export them, is the way we should move.

[el_bryanto]

184. I am in favor of regulated capitalism as you are. Capitalism is good at solving some problems

but bad at policing itself.

Bryant

[sufrommich]

2. Maybe you should just stop telling minorities that

white privilege is irrelevant.

[MellowDem]

46. Did he say that?

I think he doesn't like the term. Neither do I, at least not the way it is usually used. Not because white privilege doesn't exist, but because there are a lot of other privileges out there as well that are being glossed over or ignored, and because lots of things attributed to white privilege are actually due to lots of privilege beyond just being white.

And, it is a great way to continue the racial divide and a very poor way to explain privilege to conservatives, at least as it is usually used, which is broadly and carelessly.

I don't think white privilege is irrelevant, but the way it is spoken about here often enough, you'd think it was the only relevant privilege around. That's the problem.

[shaayecanaan]

54. I didn't

but I've given up on rebutting the bare assertions of racism ("yes you are" "no Im not" "yes you are&quot . The last time I tried that I got annoyed with it and ended up calling someone a troll.

[Fearless]

3. White privilege and racism are two sides of the same coin

It just depends on how you look at it.

Either, white people have certain benefits that non-white people don't have.

OR

Non-white people are treated worse than white people.

It all depends on where you put the bar. Is the starting point where white people are or where non-white people are? Does it matter? I'd suggest that it doesn't really matter; it's just perspective. It is true that the term white privilege has a negative connotation to those who are white and don't feel privileged. This is because it is a generalization--a way to explain why a large group of people are on average disproportionately treated differently than another group. It isn't true in every case, but a generalization that is on average true. The dislike of the phrase white privilege comes from those instances where a person doesn't feel like it's true because of their own experiences. In their case, it may not be true, or it may. As I said, it's a generalization not a certainty. Granted, that doesn't mean it doesn't occur. It does, enough so that we can reliably use the generalization.

So, take your pick between phrases. White privilege or racism. Use which ever feels best for you. And let others do the same.

Live and let live.

[MellowDem]

49. They aren't...

Racism is a very specific ideology. White privilege is a description of societal advantage given to a certain group (well, any privilege is). Defeating one isn't going to be the same as defeating the other because they're different and have different sources.

No doubt they are linked in many ways, but they're linked to all sorts of other forces as well.

[Fearless]

73. I disagree

Write privilege is a result if racism. Stop racism and it will begin to even out.

[MellowDem]

79. Privilege was around before race was a concept...

Racism, as a theory, has been discredited in the US. White nationalist groups are even eschewing it in favor of separatism.

Whites amassing the wealth relative to blacks they have today is partly due to racism, and quite a few other isms, in history. But it's not what keeps it going. That would be conservative economic theories that cement the status quo. They aren't based on racism, they cement power for whoever is in charge. If we had a meritocracy and equal opportunity, racial disparities would cease to exist over time. But we don't.

Given conservative economic theories still reign in the US, it is to be expected that the wealthiest will thrive and any privileges built up by history will only be intensified. That's why blacks still remain disproportionally poor and society remains segregated. Two factors that are a great recipe for racial bigotry, which the US has in spades.

Racial bigotry isn't the same as racism, and conservative economic theories aren't either. Conservative economic theories simply entrench privileges that already existed in a society, even as the original reasoning for those privileges falls away. They do this in other societies than the US.

So discrediting racism as a theory, which has already been done, is only part of the equation. It alone won't even things out. Which is why recognizing privilege and what keeps it going is so important. If we don't attack the forces that maintain privilege, it will stick around. Racial bigotry is a symptom of a society with entrenched racial privileges. It is not the main cause of them.

And bigotry isn't a theory like racism that can be discredited. It makes no claims. Like privilege, it will always be around, and unlike race, which is a social construct, and racism, a theory based on that social construct. It's a state of mind that is the result of ignorance, fear and isolation. Living in a segregated society with vast wealth differences that are entrenched between groups will get you just that. And there are all sorts of bigots out there, unfortunately.

[Fearless]

81. You're merely parsing words

The same meaning lies behind both phrases.

[MellowDem]

89. How so...

I think there are significant differences, both in meaning and in how to address them.

[Fearless]

92. To me if white on non-white racism didn't exist and/or white wasn't the majority

Then white privilege wouldn't exist.

To me white privilege is a consequence of racism. Cause and effect. (One of many effects.) There are other effects as well, such as disproportionate incarceration rates (especially drug related), income inequality, education levels, even life expectancy.

But it all comes back to the question: What is the cause of white privilege... income inequality... etc.

To me the answer is clearly racism... treating those of a different skin color as unequal inherently to white people.

For instance... income inequality... why does it exist... because employers employ non-white employees at lower wages than white on average... why is that... racism

Or... education inequality... why is it unequal... because they don't have the opportunities that white students do... why... because property taxes fund schools and non-white students on average come from poorer areas... why is that... because they have lower paying jobs on average... why is that... because employers don't pay non-white employees at the same rate as white ones... why... racism.

It all eventually traces back to racism.

White privilege is an effect, seen because of racism's effect on non-white populations.

[MellowDem]

94. There are many countries...

With no real history of racism that have tremendous inequalities of everything you just described. That's because there are many forces out there that can cause or maintain privilege and inequality than racism.

Under your theory, if racism disappeared tomorrow, we'd eliminate inequality under our current system. But that's assuming we have a meritocracy and equal opportunity. We don't. We have the same system in place that many other countries with terrible inequalities have, even as they don't have a history of racism. So what makes you think ours would be different?

Before race was even a concept, through most of history, civilizations were terribly unequal.

Little is causing white privilege anymore. Plenty is maintaining it, as well as other privileges. Namely, a form of capitalism. It's why blacks recently immigrated to the US from Africa are doing so well compared to African Americans in the US economically. Our system entrenches groups with power and privilege, whether they be whites from accumulated wealth built on racism or newly arrived wealthier immigrants. That is part of the explanation at least.

Under your theory, Asians should be doing terribly, but they are doing generally just as well if not better than whites, and my theory accounts for why that is.

[Fearless]

97. There are many places in the world where things are different.

We are talking about the US though. Inequality is true anywhere. But I'm speaking of inequality based on race. In places where white is the majority, they are privileged over other races. Asian groups do better than many other non-white groups in the US, but they are not doing as well as the white majority in most categories.

And maintaining a status quo is still racism. It's like keeping slaves but not importing them anymore in the 19th century. It's still awful.

[MellowDem]

98. It's awful, but it's not racism...

And the reason I harp on that is because it's important in identifying the problem to come up with a solution.

The current inequalities we have we're surely influenced by racism to a great degree.

I think comparison to other countries is still effective. I know they aren't the US, but they're humans, and it does tell us something.

Maintaining the status quo is keeping the legacy of racism alive and well, not to mention other historical privileges, and it is awful, and it foments racial bigotry, but it's not racism itself. It's conservative economic theory at work. It's unempathetic and sociopathic.

Asians are doing as well as whites on many categories, and if you break down Asians and whites into further groups, you see even clearer that wealthy Asians and wealthy whites are doing tremendously compared to their own poorer racial brethren. Appalachian whites, for example, aren't flying up the economic ladder past Asians, and for good reason.

Other races implement conservative economic policies in their countries and it is just as effective at maintaining the terrible legacies unique to each country and culture, be it ethnic, racial, religious, etc. privilege.

[Fearless]

99. " The current inequalities we have (were) surely influenced by racism to a great degree. "

This is all I'm saying.

[MellowDem]

100. I agree with you there...

I'm just trying to address what is maintaining them, and it's not racism much anymore. I'm all for always denouncing and undermining the theory of racism, but that's not going to fix our problem by itself.

With as much racial bigotry as there is, I think it makes it hard to not think it's all racism still, so I understand why people still think that is the main issue. I disagree, but it I see where people are coming from. However, it's also the reason racial bigotry toward Asians is not as pronounced as towards African Americans.

[Fearless]

102. I'd contend that passive acceptance of a system

Is still support for that system. Therefore passive acceptance of racism is still racism itself.

[MellowDem]

158. Sure it is...

The difference being that the system isn't inherently racist itself anymore, it's one meant to allow the effects of the status quo and legacy continue, whatever that may be, and in the US racism is a big part of it.

People aren't passively accepting racism, they're passively accepting a system that entrenches those at the top and makes social mobility very tough, which means, among other things, they're supporting a system that won't fix the disparities in society caused by past injustices of all sorts.

Most of them doing so don't even recognize the past injustices or how they create the current privilege, that's the problem. They have a sincere belief that this is a meritocracy. To believe that this is a meritocracy and only racism is standing in the way is just as false and no likelier to fix racial or other disparities.

[upaloopa]

4. I read your first post and will continue with this

but I knew before I read them that the replies would be what they are.
There are people here who see the world through some paradigm that creates this white privilege discussion.
I have replied many times to them but no matter what you say it has no effect on what they post in reply.
Basically they say white privilege exists, it is detrimental to non whites and that whites live in denial of it's existence and should therefore feel some guilt because of it.
I agree with that except for the part that says whites live in denial. That is impossible because if you are given a privilege over others than it is obvious to you that the others lack that privilege. The contrast can't be denied. Secondly people are given privilege by others. You have no duty to feel guilty of that since you are not the instigator of an action. Third since you see you have privilege you have a responsibility to use it for the benefit of all not just yourself and many white people do that. Those that don't should feel some sence of guilt for not using privilege in a positive way.
But no matter what I say the privilege paradigm folks will repeat their refrain over and over until you just have to put them on ignore.

[kwassa]

7. I disagree

I agree with that except for the part that says whites live in denial. That is impossible because if you are given a privilege over others than it is obvious to you that the others lack that privilege. The contrast can't be denied. Secondly people are given privilege by others. You have no duty to feel guilty of that since you are not the instigator of an action. Third since you see you have privilege you have a responsibility to use it for the benefit of all not just yourself and many white people do that. Those that don't should feel some sence of guilt for not using privilege in a positive way.

Most whites are completely unaware of the privilege they are born with, because they don't live with or around black people. They would have no reason to see the different way black people are treated.

As to being given privilege by others, this does not require you to feel guilt. No one is asking anyone to feel guilty, but to feel responsible to create a more equitable world, and to push back when people are treated differently because of their race. Many whites don't do this because they don't see it; if it isn't in their life experience, then it doesn't exist. What we are asking here is merely that people open their eyes and see the disparities in the way that different races are treated in this country.

[upaloopa]

8. You make my point

You will repeat and repeat and repeat that refrain even if 1000 OPs try to tell you something.
I will put you on ignore because I know what you will say each and every time

[DanTex]

12. No, you are the one ignoring and repeating. Let me make it simple.

1) Some (many) white people are not aware of their privilege.
2) Nobody is asking white people to feel guilty.
Care to respond?

[upaloopa]

15. Here, in the next few days you are going to start

a thread about white privilege.
That's exactly what you are going to say. Maybe in a few weeks you'll do it again.
You have this need to teach us all about white privilege.

[DanTex]

16. So no answer. How surprising.

BTW I've never started an OP about white privilege. I was just wondering whether there's anything to your denial of white privilege, or whether you are truly unable to address any of the inconsistencies in your argument. But I'm not wondering that anymore.

[kwassa]

17. I've barely talked to this poster, too.

He was quick to put me on ignore.

[Squinch]

35. And he wonders why people keep trying to explain white privilege to him...

[upaloopa]

21. You are just like a right winger that calls a progresive

talk station. You state your talking points then say here defend yourself
Well I don't except your talking points so no I am not going to play your game
On edit
I put people on ignore because I am tired of seeing their one trick pony OP's mostly attacking old white men.
I come here to learn not be preached to by people with an axe to grind.

[DanTex]

106. Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA. Hmm, I think I'm starting to understand...

[AverageJoe90]

149. It's okay. Some of these people are hopeless anyway.

It's probably just better to put clueless folks like DanTex and Kwassa on Ignore if they bother you that much; I prefer to discuss and try to get them to understand a different point of view(even if not agreeing with it), but sometimes that just may be required.

[cui bono]

159. So basically your point is you're closed minded and you don't care what anyone else's opinion or

experience is if they don't agree with you. And if they don't agree with you, you'll just put them on ignore because you are closed minded and you don't care what anyone else's opinion or experience is if they don't agree with you.

Got it.

What I don't get is why you are participating on a discussion board. Hopefully you'll change your tune because I disagree with you as well. Although you might already be ignoring me since I think I recognize your name from the last heated topic on DU.

[kwassa]

13. .

[Squinch]

36. Don't look now, but he pretty much knows what YOU are going to say too.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. This is a great post.

No one is asking anyone to feel guilty. That seems to be the sticking point for some.

[gollygee]

20. Great post

[fishwax]

77. +1

[Iggo]

5. Pretty much played out in Part One.

[kwassa]

6. Your third argument is incorrect

The third argument was that white privilege exists for institutional and structural reasons. That is, that the structural rules within society favour whites and therefore enshrine white privilege.

The problem with this argument is that it is essentially circular: privilege begets the institutions that beget the privilege. It does not provide any reason for why whites were capable of institutionalising society to suit themselves.

White privilege exists because of white racism against minorities, mostly specifically blacks. Whites have privilege because whites had power over minorities from the very founding of this country, both through the oppression and extermination of Native Americans, but through the importation and exploitation of slaves. The reason is historical, not materialist, as all whites, even the poor ones, had advantages over any minorities. What we are seeing now is the remnent of that historical attitude. Hence, current white privilege.

[shaayecanaan]

19. again, this is a circular argument

Racism begets white privilege begets racism. The problem is that this ignores the dynamics of material power. Presumably, black people could not create black privilege by simply being racist towards white people.

It is worth noting that we live in a fairly unusual time. We have had approximately 600 years of Western ascendancy. This is unique. Normally empires are hegemonic for a couple of hundred years at most. People who subjugated and enslaved their neighbours found themselves being enslaved in turn. The fact that the west has managed to keep their empire together has perhaps led people to ascribe an inherent permanence to western hegmony, which frankly is unjustified. Personally I don't think that it will last another fifty years.

[kwassa]

56. Calling an argument circular doesn't make it untrue.

You seem to regard this as some type of proof of something, when you have offered no proof at all. What are you really trying to say?

Your so-called dynamics of material power doesn't eliminate white privilege. Do you believe white privilege is a myth?

[shaayecanaan]

58. Sure

The book is on top of the table because the table is underneath the book.

That is an example of circular reasoning. It is perfectly capable of describing a situation in a truthful way. However, it is incapable of providing any valid reason for why the book is on the table, or for predicting whether one is likely to find books lying on top of other tables elsewhere.

[kwassa]

63. You make no sense, and answered nothing in my post.

My previous assessment of your debating technique was spot-on.

You haven't a clue on this subject.

[shaayecanaan]

66. What was it about the previous post

that you couldn't make sense of? I can particularize it further if you like.

[kwassa]

69. Please particularize this.

The problem with this argument is that it is essentially circular: privilege begets the institutions that beget the privilege. It does not provide any reason for why whites were capable of institutionalising society to suit themselves.

We've given you plenty of historical examples of why whites created these institutions, the most basic being that whites were powerful invaders to this land than then created the institutions, as they subjugated the natives and the imported slaves. I've yet to see you engage a single historical argument in any of these threads. The history is the why, my assumption is that you don't get it because you don't know it, as it is not reflected in your contributions to this or the other thread on this subject.

[Number23]

90. Every post from that person does nothing, absolutely NOTHING but prove that white privilege is real

He even says downthread that the reason the black couples with the same incomes as the white couples were not shown as many apartments and offered higher rents is because the renter could not overcome the "perception" that the black couple was lower classed because of their skin color.

I mean, I keep waiting for the fucking lightning bolt to strike this person. Place your bets, how many of us will be toothless and in nursing homes before he gets what is STARING HIM IN THE FACE???

And nothing, not a word about the discrepancies in prison sentencing for the same crimes. But surely no one is surprised by that.

[shaayecanaan]

93. I read the link in the previous thread about higher sentences for minorities

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/nyregion/a-racial-study-finds-differences-in-jail-sentences.html

Mr. Shechtman said his major concern about the study was that it did not take into account the incomes and community ties of the defendants because such data do not exist. Black and Hispanic defendants tend to have lower incomes, so it is difficult to determine whether they receive longer sentences because they cannot afford bail and private lawyers or because of prejudice, he said.

(snip)

Some criminal justice experts disagreed with Mr. Shechtman, saying that the study was an impressive work that provided new insight into the state's criminal justice system. And they said data on the income and community ties of defendants could not explain away all the disparity that the study discovered.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/nyregion/a-racial-study-finds-differences-in-jail-sentences.html

I'd probably agree with that. I certainly wouldn't expect class distinctions to explain away the disparity completely, but it would likely account for a goodly part of it.

[kwassa]

121. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

[me b zola]

82. self delete

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. Whether people agree or disagree with you, I hope they can

Acknowledge the thoughtfulness of your post. You've put in a good amount of effort laying out your points in a methodical and respectful way that addresses others may have different points of view.

Thank you for your thoughts that are clearly informed by study of ethnic minorities and how they succeed in societies or fall victim to racism, prejudice, and persecution.

The one thing I will observe is that if you had four young men enter a department store at different times and all were dressed in what might be considered working class casual attire (Nike polo shirt, Levi's jeans, and tennis shoes) they would be treated much differently if one was white, one Latino, one African American and one Arab American.

Maybe not every single time, but in most cases the only one who could expect to walk through the store without any kind of trouble or nervous glances from sales people is the white guy.

[Number23]

30. The reason he had to start Part 2 was because he had a post hidden in his own thread

for calling someone a "troll" who was trying to get him to understand how ignorant his comments were.

That doesn't sound anything like "thoughfulfullness" to me.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

31. Well, I was not aware of that. But even being aware of it

I stand by my evaluation of this OP he made. DU can bring out the worst in people at times, and I'm happy to see him take another run at the topic.

[Number23]

33. If he wants to continue to loudly broadcast how ignorant he is of American history then you're right

That's on him.

[shaayecanaan]

47. Working class casual attire

The one thing I will observe is that if you had four young men enter a department store at different times and all were dressed in what might be considered working class casual attire (Nike polo shirt, Levi's jeans, and tennis shoes) they would be treated much differently if one was white, one Latino, one African American and one Arab American.

Agreed. The problem is that the race of all those people in itself would be perceived as a signifier of class. The white guy in a t-shirt and flip flops might still be a rich white guy, or he might not. The black guy in flip flops might be a wealthy Black guy, but most people, even subconsciously, would dismiss that as an unlikelier prospect than the white guy being wealthy.

There are not many societies where Blacks are generally higher in socioeconomic status than Whites. The only example I can think of is the Red Legs in Barbados.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlegs

In addition to Redlegs the term underwent extensive progression in Barbados and the following terms were also used: "Redshanks", "Poor whites", "Poor Backra", "Backra Johnny", "Ecky-Becky", "Poor whites from below the hill", "Edey white mice" or "Beck-e Neck" (Baked-neck). Historically everything besides "poor whites" were used as derogatory insults, and the community was perceived as arrogant, alcoholic, and worthless.

How would security officers in Barbados treat these people if they walked into a store? I imagine they'd probably watch them like a hawk.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

48. Quite possible. But I'm discussing the U.S.

[shaayecanaan]

67. Sure

but the fact that whites are lower down the pecking order in Barbados and the fact that they are also regarded as "alcoholic and worthless" is probably no coincidence.

If whites were impoverished in relation to Blacks as is the case in Barbados, would you accept that this would fundamentally affect the dynamic of racism in the US?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

74. No. Indian Americans are wealthier

Than average Americans but are often discriminated against.

[shaayecanaan]

76. But the extent of that prejudice is limited by comparison

they're not harassed by police on a systemic level. They are not subjected to the same level of racism as African Americans. I'm guessing Bobby Jindal would have had a harder time rising up the ranks of the Republican Party if he was Black.

[dendrobium]

145. This is false.

Whites are NOT lower down the pecking order in Barbados. Whites still occupy a higher status in society throughout the Caribbean. In fact in any place there was slavery, whites are still at the top. Therefore even in places where blacks are the majority, the legacy of slavery and colonialism results in a situation where white people are still privileged.

[Romulox]

11. Overriding point: Americans don't consider being denied things because of poverty "discrimination".

So when someone asks that class be taken into account in these discussions, you get the odd formulation "well, all things being equal, a black man and a white man of the same class will be treated differently."

This is true, and it describes a very real problem. However, all other things are not and can not be equal. They are never "equal" in this, the most unequal of all the major developed nations. Class matters. It always matters. It can't be factored out.

So then the question must go to the magnitude of the class effect on how people are treated differently, and the legitimacy of such an effect. Clearly, the impact of class is systemic and total; everything from what kind of food one eats, what medical care one receives, the cleanliness of one's air and water, whether one even has a home or not, what education one receives (even neonatally!), and, well, every experience one has in America is directly effected by the class one is born into.

But since it is "natural" and "correct", to, for example, deny a man a home, food, or medical care because he cannot pay for it, we don't see this as "discrimination". And we get laughable attempts to "factor out" class in discussions about how different groups of people are treated very differently in our society--when clearly "all other things" are not and can not ever be equal.

[shaayecanaan]

14. This is an excellent post...

it hints at something that I think is implied in discussions of white privilege.

Let's unpack the term "white trash" for a moment. The phrase implies that a person is not trash because they are white, but despite being white and the consequent advantages that brings. The necessary implication is that a person who is white trash but that has managed to fail in life notwithstanding being white therefore richly deserves their comeuppance, because if they had any sort of individual merit they would have made something of themselves.

The insistence that even a destitute white person has privilege vis-a-vis any person of colour carries some of the same stigma. Again, the implication is that a privileged white person who nevertheless manages to wind up poor has evidently failed not because of racism but through their own stupidity or lack of merit. We can therefore comfortably dismiss the plight of the white working poor. They had a fair go. If they managed to fuck it up thats not our fault. That they are poor is a "natural" and perfectly acceptable outcome.

[kwassa]

18. You employ a certain debating strategy.

I've seen this before.

You simply ignore any posting that doesn't support your thesis. All the good points raised in this and the other thread rebutting your ideas lack any response from you at all.

Interesting strategy, but it makes your thesis that much weaker. It can't take scrutiny. Repetition alone will not win your argument, though you seem to think it will.

Some of your other insights in the OP were interesting, but you really don't understand the culture of racism in America as an ongoing historic legacy. You don't know what you don't know.

[Number23]

32. I appreciate your efforts in this thread, kwassa

When I saw the bit in his OP that black people in America are discriminated against because we are perceived to be "working class" and that if we went in to a shop dressed to the nines we wouldn't be ignored I just decided not to waste another second on this person.

When you have that much invested in ignoring, minimizing or flat out DENYING facts, knowledge and history, then what can anyone say?

[shaayecanaan]

39. Thats not quite what I said...

My suggestion was that a Black person who stood out as being wealthy would probably encounter a much better attitude from sales staff. Certainly that seemed to be the implication from what Oprah Winfrey said, and being a Black person that is able to project an image of wealth I dare say she knows what she is talking about.

[Number23]

41. And yet OPRAH WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

With a net worth of over one BILLION dollars, it's impossible for her NOT to project wealth whether she wants to or not. And yet, SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST and I have no doubt whatsoever that was not the first time nor will it be the last.

I have absolutely no idea why you keep talking about this. Your point is anecdotal only, ignores facts and is convoluted to the point of total incoherence.

[shaayecanaan]

44. She said that she wasn't projecting wealth on this particular occasion...

and that she wasn't wearing anything that would conspicuously identify her as wealthy. She also seemed to indicating that had she done so, she probably would have been treated much more solicitously.

With a net worth of over one BILLION dollars, it's impossible for her NOT to project wealth whether she wants to or not.

Really? How do you mean that? Can you tell how much I am worth by looking at me?

[Number23]

45. You are the one that puts so much value on that. Seemingly agreeing that if black folks wore diamond

to the grocery store or out to pick our kids up from school and other such things then we wouldn't be discriminated against. That if we just "looked the part" more our lives would be so much better, blissfully ignoring the systemic processes in place that have kept black people in poverty over the last 200+ years.

In all honesty, this is probably one of the most inane "points" I've ever seen raised here. It's embarrassing how dumb this OP is. And that's saying alot because there have always been a few people that have played the "it's not race, it's class" game but you have taken this simplistic, really ignorant analysis to astonishing new levels (depths).

[shaayecanaan]

51. No, it doesnt work that way...

collectively wearing diamond studs only works in the long term as an indicator of wealth if the people are actually wealthy.

For example, many young working class people in the UK took to wearing Burberry coats and gold-plated jewelry (similar trends played out in the United States as well). However, within a short period of time those same trends actually became associated with the working class (the stereotypical chav look) and working class youth then had to keep adopting new styles in order to try and portray an image of affluence.

In a way, this explains the faddish nature of working class youth fashions, in which the kids adopt symbols of affluence and then abandon them as they progressively become stigmatised as working class.

[cinnabonbon]

151. I am doubtful that projecting wealth will actually work.

there have been cases in the news lately that insinuate otherwise:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/barneys-accused-stealing-black-teen-article-1.1493101
http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/barneys-accused-profiling-black-woman-bought-celine-bag-profiled.html

Instead of actually being perceived as being wealthy enough to shop in these stores, these people were automatically presumed to be criminals because of their skin colour. It's gotten so common that people just shorthand it as "shopping while black".

[gollygee]

50. I don't have to dress in a way that projects wealth

for people to treat me well at stores and assume I can afford stuff. I wear scruffy jeans and t-shirts with no obvious signs of wealth regularly. My husband and I worked out in the yard and were a total mess wearing torn clothes and looked at cars on the way to pick up a kid and the guy assumed we could afford the expensive van we were looking at, and tried to sell us on the idea of getting an even more expensive sports car just for fun.

If I can dress down and have people assume I can afford stuff, but Oprah has to dress up for people to recognize she can afford whatever she wants, there is obvious white privilege in play for me and my husband when we go to buy something.

[shaayecanaan]

52. Thats because your ethnic appearance in itself is to some extent suggestive of being middle class

I deal with that at some length in the OP.

[gollygee]

55. Yeah, white

You can't tell me I've spent more on my teeth than Oprah

[shaayecanaan]

57. No, middle class

You can turn up in a t-shirt and flip flops, but if you do that whilst speaking in a strong working-class accent (and the bad teeth) then you'd probably find staff at the Louis Vuitton store losing interest in you.

There is a stereotype that Black people generally have very good teeth. Explains the continuing popularity of "Darkie" toothpaste in Japan and China:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie

[gollygee]

59. I'm not talking about the stereotype

I'm talking about a TV celebrity needing good teeth and therefore spending a lot on them.

Oprah doesn't sound poor. You are totally ignoring the race issue.

[shaayecanaan]

75. I fully accept that she was treated shabbily because she was Black

I also accept that according to her own words she was treated shabbily because she was not perceived as wealthy on this particular occasion.

Oprah doesn't sound poor.

Agreed. On the other hand, she was in Switzerland being served by an Italian migrant with apparently limited English. I doubt the server would have been as cognisant of Oprah's middle-class speech patterns as you or I.

[El_Johns]

84. This is Oprah without makeup/wig etc. She doesn't look rich.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1342753/Oprah-laid-bare-Chat-queen-goes-make-free-cameras--lets-film-bath.html

Presentation.

How do poor americans sound?

I'm poor. I speak in a standard American accent & know a lot of big words.

[gollygee]

111. I don't look wealthy either

and yes most poor white people I know speak just like me. There is not much if any of a visual or obvious difference between most poor and most wealthy white people.

[El_Johns]

114. It depends. Catch them getting out of bed you might not see a clear difference.

But in other contexts, you will see the difference.

[gollygee]

115. There's still privilege there

People assume African Americans are poor. AA friends complain about this, that people assume they're poor no matter what they wear or what they're doing. A friend who is a lawyer had someone comment to someone with them at the grocery store wondering how she can afford a nice new iPhone. She said that kind of thing happens often enough that she isn't surprised by it. No one comments on my nice new iPhone no matter how I'm dressed.

[Romulox]

124. Back to the overriding point--treating people badly because they're poor isn't our goal, is it?

Because the argument seems to go back to the "even if they're RICH! they are treated this way!" as if it is OK treat the poor (of any race) worse than everyone else.

[gollygee]

129. That's not the point

It's like there are two issues

The poor are treated badly.

People of color are treated badly.

But he's saying that wealth solves the problem for people of color. But no, they still receive that bad treatment even when wealthy.

It is wrong no matter whom it's said about, but it is something said about the poor, and people of color, and poor people of color certainly, but something like that would not be said about people who are white and not obviously poor. Both kinds of discrimination exist.

[Romulox]

132. It is *literally* the point that began this subthread (My post #11).

It's like there are two issues

The poor are treated badly.

People of color are treated badly.

But he's saying that wealth solves the problem for people of color. But no, they still receive that bad treatment even when wealthy.

It is wrong no matter whom it's said about, but it is something said about the poor, and people of color, and poor people of color certainly, but something like that would not be said about people who are white and not obviously poor. Both kinds of discrimination exist.

No. That's not it. If you read through this and other threads, you'll find that there's a dedicated group who denies the importance of class based privilege. Nobody here denies the reality of racism. But there is a large group of DUers who talk about an undifferentiated "White Male Privilege", and deny the effect of class.

[gollygee]

133. To say that white male privilege exists

is not to deny the effect of class privilege. What I find is that people say that class privilege is all there is and talking about racism and sexism is taking away from or denying class privilege. I find that frustrating.

[Romulox]

136. Not necessarily, no. But that's what a large group at DU does, day in, day out.

It's a false dichotomy to think that classism and racism somehow "cancel each other out", or "stand in for each other", or that one matters and one doesn't. But that false dichotomy is very much present in the dialogue here.

So, not speaking for anyone else, I am not arguing against the uniquely pernicious effects of racism in US culture.

[gollygee]

138. I think I'm in the group you're talking about

and I'm afraid you're assuming that by talking about white privilege or male privilege, we are saying that classism doesn't matter. If a conversation is about racism, we talk about racism, but that doesn't mean we think classism and racism cancel each other out or that classism doesn't matter, just that it isn't the focus of that particular discussion. Some issues concerning class or race show up in our class structure as it is in a way they would not show up in a more egalitarian structure, and discussing those specific manifestations of racism does not mean that we deny the problem of classism.

[Romulox]

139. No. I'm talking about a large group who *defend* our economic system, while claiming to critique

our racial injustice.

I am not suggesting discussing racism means you think classism doesn't exist (or isn't important). It's not some interpretation I've come up with on my own--I've been flat out told that many times by poster who feel that way. Some of them are posting in this thread.

At any rate, we seem to be talking past each other. We can't argue someone else's positions by proxy.

[AverageJoe90]

150. Unfortunately, this is all too true.

Even the statements made by gollygee are representative of this in a way. Yes, classism does indeed matter and in fact, actually helps to prop up not just the remnants of structural racism/other prejudices but on the interpersonal level as well.

[shaayecanaan]

37. I tried to respond to all the queries on the last thread...

unfortunately I got into a slanging match and one of my posts got canned before I could respond fully.

There were two points raised on the last thread that I would have liked to address. The first were studies that involved Black people and White people approaching a real estate agent and professing similar incomes, education levels and histories. White people were shown more apartments than Black people.

My concern with this argument is that I don't think that simply professing a similar income is sufficient to fully dispel perceptions of socioeconomic class. For example, a white, well-educated person of visibly middle class background would probably do better with the same real estate agent than a seemingly less educated white person with a working class accent, even if those two people professed to have similar levels of income.

The other interesting point raised was regarding racism within the trade union movement. That is a whole other discussion, hopefully that person will revive it in this thread.

[kwassa]

61. As others have already noted, it is impossible to tell class by dress these days.

The US has become vastly more casual in the past 50 years. One can't judge financial class by dress, or often by speech, either.

You avoided, in your post, the fact that in housing and job discrimination on a racial basis still exists, as the testing groups have proven by sending in blacks and whites of equivalent backgrounds to apply for housing and jobs. That is white privilege in a nutshell, and proof that discrimination is still widespread. It would be nice if you acknowledge this point, but I won't hold my breath.

As to labor unions, it has been a very mixed picture since the beginning, with much of the mixture racist. Some promoted integration, many did not.

This is an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/October-2012/Rahm-Emanuel-Trade-Union-Racism-and-the-Burden-of-History/

As Thomas Sugrue writes in Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North:

In the early twentieth century, northern blacks and leading civil rights organzations had been deeply skeptical about trade unionism as a strategy for black advancement. They had good reason. The American Federation of Labor had an abysmal record of excluding blacks from membership and, as a result, of keeping crucial sectors of the economy all-white. The pervasiveness of discriminatory practices in unions (from attacks on black “scabs” to the separation of blacks into inferior locals to the countenancing of racially separate job and seniority lines) made unionization a hard sell. Further hindering unionization efforts, many black elites cast their lot with white employers. The Urban League, which had as its primary task expanding economic opportunities, did so by accepting close, often paternalistic relationships with corporate leaders in exchange for a small number of jobs. The key part of this bargain was opposition to unionization. Upwardly mobile black ministers often curried favor with white philanthropists and business leaders, hoping to open a few well-paying jobs to members of their congregations. In Gary, Indiana, “the churches,” lamented one clergy leader, “have become subsidiaries of the steel corporation and the ministers dare not get up and say anything against the company….” To break down the deep-rooted antiunion sentiment among blacks would require simultaneous efforts to overcome union-sanctioned racism and to wean black leaders from their dependence on white business.

Industrialists used racial tensions and union segregation to their advantage, such as in the 1905 Chicago Teamsters’ Strike, in which 21 people died, the second-deadliest labor conflict in the 20th century, during which mobs attacked black strikebreakers who were brought in to drive wagons. These racial dynamics of convenience evolved into concrete racial identities, and were a part of the evolution of early Chicago’s melting pot of immigrants into color lines dividing “us” versus “them"

[shaayecanaan]

80. This part's very interesting, don't you think?

Further hindering unionization efforts, many black elites cast their lot with white employers. The Urban League, which had as its primary task expanding economic opportunities, did so by accepting close, often paternalistic relationships with corporate leaders in exchange for a small number of jobs. The key part of this bargain was opposition to unionization. Upwardly mobile black ministers often curried favor with white philanthropists and business leaders, hoping to open a few well-paying jobs to members of their congregations.

The AFL unions certainly have a bleak history as regards racism. However, these unions were never particularly left-wing, but instead consisted largely of craft guilds and unions comprising skilled artisans and workers. These unions did not strongly identify as left-wing or as part of the class struggle, but instead functioned (and continue to function) as narrow, sectional syntechnic groups (essentially like the Bar Association or the American Medical Association). They are basically professional associations in all but name.

The more left wing unions that appealed explicitly to class ideology have an altogether better record:-

However, in a study called The Black Worker, Spero and Harris observe that more strikes (in American labor history) have been broken by white workers than by black workers.[19] Most blacks were barred from membership in the AFL not because of their skin color, but because they never had a chance to learn a skill, and "most A.F. of L. unions did not admit unskilled mass-production workers."[20] While the AFL-CIO is the modern version of the AFL, it is much more open to membership by women, immigrants, and different nationalities. Other unions, such as the Industrial Workers of the World and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, were created without regard to race from the very start.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_trade_unions#Racist_policies_in_the_past

[kwassa]

83. Many unions were racist. Their working class members were racist. It is not about class.

It is about race.

Here is a book quote about racism in the ILWU.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fbpYaLmSfkcC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=international+longshoreman+racist+history&source=bl&ots=VWGIWmCLmv&sig=7hZ5QTPGDO771NBo3yCqpKAPF34&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H78OU9H9MezMsQTViIEY&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=international%20longshoreman%20racist%20history&f=false

[shaayecanaan]

91. many black clergy were anti union

and many members of the black intelligentsia consorted with white elites to discourage coalition building between white and black members of the working class.

According to the passage which you yourself posted , the situation had more to do with issues of class than you are prepared to acknowledge.

[kwassa]

120. sorry, that is how you are interpreting the passage

It doesn't say why they discouraged it, which might well have nothing to do with issues of class, but of race.

[shaayecanaan]

162. And some people accuse me of being in denial (nt)

[kwassa]

163. There is also the racism in contemporary unions, particularly the construction trades.

It is rather ironic that, last week, union bosses used the anniversary Rev. Martin Luther King’s assassination to try to drum up support for the union cause. You see, even after all these years, racism and discrimination within the walls of the House of Labor is still very real. As noted by UnionFacts.com, since 2000, there have been over 4,200 complaints filed against unions for racial discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. In some cities, it is a bigger problem than in others. However, the one area where union racism seems to rear its ugly head the most often is with the construction trade unions, where African Americans are often excluded from work.

.........................................................

This exclusionary racial system is still prevalent today and has been the subject of much controversy in the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia.

A January 2008 review of trade unionists working on $500-million worth of Philly public projects during the preceding five years conducted by then Inquirer columnist Tom Ferrick concluded, “these well paid union jobs … remain all-male, nearly all-white and the majority live in the suburbs.”

http://laborunionreport.com/2011/04/10/unions-racism-an-age-old-institutional-problem-continues-unabated/

[shaayecanaan]

165. That is a right-wing anti-union site...

Congratulations, you just became the latest unwitting shill for the ruling class. How does it feel?

Surely this part should have tipped you off:-

It was because of this, that construction unions in the North were formed to block out Black crews from coming into communities and providing a better service for a cheaper price. Soon after the unions were formed they set in motion the Davis-Bacon Act (named for two New York congressmen). This act set up arbitrary labor wage scales so that Black craftsmen could no longer under price their white counter parts. They all had to pay a certain price, prevailing wage, at a minimum and competition became no more.

Yeah, they had to pay their Black workers the same award wage as white workers.

What a racist concept.

Do you actually read any of this shit before you post it?

[kwassa]

166. Yes, I do read it before I post it.

Protectionism in unions has a long history. If one can exclude others, on any basis, and one can control contracts, one can also influence wages upwards. Protectionist strategies include racist exclusion of blacks from membership.

I read a similar article on that right wing site Salon. (sarcasm for the sarcasm impaired) I am sorry these articles don't support your workers-of-the-world-unite fantasies.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/02/labor_pains_the_racist_postwar_policies_that_set_workplace_equality_way_back/

"Labor pains: The racist policies that set workplace equality back decades
In the Jim Crow-era South, white soldiers returning from war used their bargaining power to get black workers fired"

How did white workers earn higher wages from discriminating? Classic collective action explains these wages as a sort of monopoly profit. By forming a union that excluded black workers and by pushing employers to hire whites only, white railroad workers could drive up wages relative to their black and brown counterparts.

Employers also profited from discrimination in their fight against unions. By dividing the labor market in two, railroads maintained a ready-made stable of black strikebreakers perpetually on call to undercut the power of the white union. For railroad and workers alike, then, discrimination was win-win. And those benefits came at the expense of black workers, in the same way that cartels displace the costs of their profits onto someone else.

This essay suggests that we can better understand the nature of Jim Crow discrimination if we think of it as cartel conduct. A cartel story focuses on the material benefits to collective action that monopolize benefits for one group at the expense of another. Collective discrimination earns its keep in the form of higher wages, better housing, higher property values, and greater political power.

[shaayecanaan]

167. And there are no class implications in any of this?

Pretty much every source you have posted admits that racial tensions were used by employers for the purposes of union busting. Again, this is according to the sources you have posted.

Do you stand by your contention that this has nothing to do with class?

[kwassa]

169. Are there no RACIAL implications in this? No WHITE PRIVILEGE?

I think you have problems with simple logic.

RACIAL TENSIONS ARE NOT CLASS. THEY ARE RACIAL.

Get it? Yet? or do I need to write in crayon for you?

[shaayecanaan]

170. I never said that. More deliberate misquoting

In fact, I readily acknowledged racism in the trade union movement about three posts ago:-

The AFL unions certainly have a bleak history as regards racism.

On the other hand, you have sought to completely deny that employers deliberately inculcated racial tensions (amongst workers black and white) in order to destroy union solidarity.

And I quote:-

It is not about class. It is about race.

This is despite the fact that most of the evidence you present, including even from right-wing Republican sources (good job not copping to that by the way, makes you look even less credible) quite openly set out how employers used those exact tactics.

You can write in crayon all you like. In fact I recommend it. At least you probably wouldn't be out of your depth that way.

[kwassa]

173. The racist impetus came from the workers, not management ....

the racism exists in both white workers and white management, if you read the rest of the Salon article you would see that it originated with the workers. Not the employer, who later, to use an expression, capitalized on the situation.

I've never denied that management exploited racism to control workers; they do. But workers sometimes do the same thing to protect their privileged positions. This is where your philosophical narrative falls apart. It is not about ruling elites vs. the working class, whites at every level of society are involved in extending their white privilege, and being quite racist in the process, when it suits their self-interest. This is why your denial of white privilege is so false. White privilege is about race. It can be a tool of any class of whites when it suits that class.

And yes, the first article came from a right-wing site, and the second came from a liberal site, and both point to this.

[shaayecanaan]

174. So unions are not there to advance workers' rights

but are instead racist organisations trying to prevent black people from getting a job?

Do you think that there is any moral difference between a white person afraid that a Mexican migrant is going to take their job, and a Black person worrying that a Mexican migrant is going to take their job?

[kwassa]

177. Unions might only advance white workers rights.

They may or may not allow black workers, and advance black workers rights as well.

Do you think that there is any moral difference between a white person afraid that a Mexican migrant is going to take their job, and a Black person worrying that a Mexican migrant is going to take their job?

I think this might affect the price of rice in China, but I am not sure.

You are the king of the non sequitur.

[shaayecanaan]

179. Its the price of *tea* in China

Here's the question again, if you ever feel game to answer it:-

Do you think that there is any moral difference between a white person afraid that a Mexican migrant is going to take their job, and a Black person worrying that a Mexican migrant is going to take their job?

"Unions might only advance white workers rights."

Right. So how do explain that Black workers are actually more likely to be members of unions than whites?

Among major race and ethnicity groups, black workers had a higher union membership rate in 2013 (13.6 percent) than workers who were white (11.0 percent), Asian (9.4 percent), or Hispanic (9.4 percent).

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

I guess you should tell all those deluded people what a racist movement they've signed up for.

Its worth noting that the trade union movement is essentially unique in this regard. There isn't a single other institution in America where the average Black guy is more likely to be a member than the average white guy. Not government, not the universities, not professional associations, surgical colleges, and sure as hell not Democratic Underground.

You might think that unions are a bunch of racists, but from what I can see they stand head and shoulders above pretty much everything else in the US in that regard.

[kwassa]

180. You are grasping at straws, and are in denial that unions can be racist.

Not my problem. Looking at the aggregate total union members doesn't tell the story of individual unions like the AFL and like the construction unions.

Some unions definitely do represent their black workers.

Bottom line: white workers can be racist, too, a point you are unwilling to admit in your simplistic binary world of workers vs. management.

[shaayecanaan]

181. Again, deliberate misquoting

Once again, I readily acknowledge racism in unions (for the third time I believe). It shows how pathetic and threadbare your arguments are that you have to resort to misquoting.

Looking at the aggregate total union members doesn't tell the story of individual unions like the AFL and like the construction unions.

BINGO! Or about as close as you're likely to get.

Closed shop unions (such as longshoremen, craft guilds, some construction workers, some transport unions and some mill workers) are probably about 5% of the total union movement. Yes, they are protectionist. Its not so much that they won't let in Black workers, rather that they won't let in anyone who's not a close friend or family member of someone already in. But obviously, the clear effect has been to deny Black workers.

They are a tiny minority, mainly because those unions have some control over who gets into a workplace. Strike action at the waterfront can be devastating, and in construction trades and guilds new workers have to be apprenticed to old workers.

Thats a lot different from Walmart or office jobs or government jobs where unions have no control over employment, the bosses can go out and employ as they like. In those workplaces, they have to try and unionise as much of the workforce as they can to have any power. Therefore, they recruit everyone Black and white (or try to) as otherwise, they have no chance.

Bottom line: white workers can be racist, too,

You seem unwilling to admit that Black workers can be just as racist when it comes to recent Latino migrants. But then again you seem in denial about a lot of things.

[Egalitarian Thug]

110. I think an actual debate forum here would be a good idea. So many of us have both

education and writing skills, so when these disingenuous tactics are brought to bear, we can issue a challenge to take it to the debate forum, where rules apply and a winner is declared.

I think it would be both interesting and disappointing in that it would expose the bankruptcy of so much "common knowledge" and the weakness of so many "established facts that everybody knows".

[kwassa]

143. I agree, but ...

knowing this place, we could have endless flamewars about what a debate really is.

Somewhat like Monty Python's "argument clinic" sketch.

[Egalitarian Thug]

146. Look, I came in here for an argument! n/t

[gollygee]

22. The term "white trash"

means "unlike that other trash" which is people who aren't white, and are just regular old trash.

A destitute white person has white privilege even while he/she lacks class and wealth privilege. People of color receive discrimination all the time because they are more easily visually identifiable as people of color than poor people are as poor. Poor people are not always easily seen as poor, and even in those cases where it's obvious, if they are dressed up in different clothes the ability to visually identify them as poor disappears. And poor white people when in a situation with primarily people of color are sometimes regarded as "Cinderellas" or poor people who don't deserve to be poor, but that doesn't seem to happen to people of color. They're assumed to be poor no matter what their wealth status, and they're assumed to belong among poor people in all cases. (Based on my experiences as a white person who grew up in a school district with a large minority population.)

Did you see the statistic I gave you that white people with criminal records have an easier time getting a job than African Americans with no criminal record? Google it. Racial discrimination in the US is huge.

[Romulox]

24. Being poor is more than clothing. When a poor person opens their mouth, people know--

based on the cracked, yellow teeth, the accent and the vernacular. And the untutored words.

More importantly, a poor person doesn't ever get a shot. Connections are what the poor most lack.

[gollygee]

25. Not all poor people have those traits

but those who do can see a dentist certainly, and work on their language. They are not as visually identifiable as people of color. And a poor person of color has all the identifiable traits you're talking about AND the identifiable trait of skin color.

And people of color are denied connections as well, even wealthy ones are denied connections their white colleages have. Poor people of color lose out in both ways, and the fact that there are two ways shows how there is both class privilege and white privilege.

[Romulox]

26. Being poor isn't a moral failing. Not being able to afford dentistry is common

where I come from.

"And people of color are denied connections as well, even wealthy ones are denied connections their white colleages have. Poor people of color lose out in both ways, and the fact that there are two ways shows how there is both class privilege and white privilege."

Right, but it seems like one side of the argument wants to conflate race privilege with class privilege. That's clearly not right. They are two separate things, to be considered separately. To argue, for example, that wealthy black people lack the connections that poor white people have, is, of course, ridiculous. Wealthy blacks may have less connections (or opportunities) than wealthy whites, but they also self-evidently have more connections (or opportunities) than do poor whites.

So we can say that class matters, and race matters. They are in no way in conflict in the "mattering" stakes, nor does one "cancel out" the other, nor "stand in" for the other. They are two different, but inter-connected, concepts, which must be considered as such.

[gollygee]

27. I agree that both exist

I think they are different and interconnected as well, but I think they kind of multiply to some degree when added, like the whole is equal to more than the sum of the parts.

I never said being poor was a moral failing.

Anyway, I don't see any disagreement with this post.

[El_Johns]

85. I am poor. I don't have cracked yellow teeth and I speak in a standard american (tv) accent. I

know lots of big words, too. and I can change my register and speech patterns depending on whom I'm talking to, speaking more politely to authorities and superiors and more casually and informally to peers.

Your description of "poor" is just another stereotype.

Not all people who can't afford dentists have bad teeth. It largely depends on genetics and health habits, brushing, smoking, diet, drugs, etc.

[Romulox]

122. It's nonsense to suggest that all the poor lack is a suit of clothes. If that were true, I'd loan

you one.

Do you really, as a poor person, want to argue that class doesn't matter?

[shaayecanaan]

28. You nailed it, inadvertently...

They're assumed to be poor no matter what their wealth status, and they're assumed to belong among poor people in all cases.

Correct. This is what I mean when I say that racism to a large extent involves connotations of class.

Certain things will mark you out as being working class. Having an Appalachian accent, bad teeth, using inflections and mannerisms associated with the working class. Wearing flip flops, NASCAR shirts and a trucker's cap.

Of course, not all people with a strong Appalachian accent are poor. But enough of them are to create the association, at least for most people.

Likewise, not all Black people are working class, but they certainly tend to be working class to a greater extent than whites, at least enough for some people to create the association.

How much of racism is simple colour racism? It is difficult to unpack the two. But you can point to other (generally affluent) people of colour such as Indian Americans, who experience much less systemic harassment than African Americans.

[gollygee]

29. No those aren't comparable in the US

People treat new immigrants who came to this country with wealth differently than African Americans who were brought here as slaves. There are some distinctly American issues to racism here that you aren't accounting for.

[shaayecanaan]

34. So people treat Kenyan or Nigerian immigrants differently from the descendants of slaves?

I certainly don't disagree with that, particularly to the extent that most of those Nigerian Americans came from the professional class.

[gollygee]

38. Well except for those from Africa

because they visually resemble African Americans to some extent, I imagine. But it's still based on the history of slavery in the US. You aren't accounting for our history and stereotypes that come from that history.

[shaayecanaan]

40. So it is based on visual appearance?

A Black person of white appearance (I think the term usually employed is a Black person who "can pass for white&quot enjoys "white privilege"?

[gollygee]

43. To some extent

depending on whether people know their family. There's a video that's been in some of the white privilege threads that uses that very example.

[shaayecanaan]

60. But you are prepared to accept

that the experiences of Black people cannot be summarised according to monolithic notions of "white privilege" or "Black dis-privilege" but are instead contingent upon context?

To some extent depending on whether people know their family.

What about if I do know their family, and I know that they're absolutely loaded, which makes me more inclined to show them respect. Do they still have white privilege?

[gollygee]

62. Huh?

Wealthy black people are still discriminated against and receive negative attention due to their race, and are overlooked as far as positive attention goes due to their race. There is also class privilege, but race privilege exists as well, and is a real thing.

[shaayecanaan]

68. Was the question clear?

I am happy to rephrase or explain it further if need be.

[kwassa]

70. Here is my answer to your question.

But you are prepared to accept that the experiences of Black people cannot be summarised according to monolithic notions of "white privilege" or "Black dis-privilege" but are instead contingent upon context?

No, I am not, white privilege will be an overlay that will always be involved.

[shaayecanaan]

71. Even for a Black person that can "pass as white"?

or even in other contexts or societies where the racial dynamic is substantially different?

[kwassa]

78. You are mixing up two unrelated issues.

Very, very few African-Americans can pass as white. Those that could would certainly gain white privilege, which used to be the motivation for doing so.

Other societies do have entirely different racial dynamics than the United States, though there are many others where being lighter skinned are also the ruling elite of the country, even if the racial lines are more fluid than the United States. You have certainly experienced some of these societies yourself.

This discussion of white privilege is about white privilege here in the US.

[shaayecanaan]

104. the term "white trash" was invented by Black slaves

The term White trash first came into common use in the 1830s as a pejorative used by house slaves against poor whites. In 1833 Fanny Kemble, an English actress visiting Georgia, noted in her journal: "The slaves themselves entertain the very highest contempt for white servants, whom they designate as 'poor white trash'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash

I don't think that the Blacks that created the term intended to refer to themselves collectively as trash, and to poor whites as merely a subset of that trash. Instead, I think that they intended to confer upon white trash a special category of contempt - that these were people who had effectively failed at being white.

[gollygee]

116. I don't care who invented it

I know how it's used now.

Though really it's the same thing. To fail at being white means that the natural order of things is for white people to be wealthy. That the potential exists for us. And it denies that potential to others.

We have a caste system in this country based on race. People of color who become wealthy still find themselves in the same caste, no matter how much money they make. We need to recognize the caste system to dismantle it. Pretending it doesn't exist will just perpetuate it.

[shaayecanaan]

118. Right. A caste system...

Presumably, as a dusky-skinned Arab, I am in a lower caste than you. Does that mean I am confined to mucking out horse's stables or am I a few more rungs up the ladder, maybe weaving basket nets or something? You do know what a caste system means, right?

I realise you're just trying to be a good liberal, but honestly...

[gollygee]

119. You're still confusing how it works in other countries

with how it is in the US.

It is not the same racial caste system but it is a racial caste system. The US is a highly developed country and people can get wealth regardless of race but they still receive the same general treatment of everyone of their racial caste. They still find themselves hitting up against the walls of it. Even wealthy African Americans don't find they have the same advancement potential in their work lives, and only because of race.

The US has a unique history where our country was initially created through racial genocide, and then built with racial slavery. And even after slavery ended we've had Jim Crow, lynchings, the KKK, etc. This is the whole history of the US.

[Romulox]

23. The counter-argument is based on an internalized acceptance of inequality.

The counter-argument assumes inequality is "natural", and that society should simply seek to promote a diversity amongst the oligarchy.

[shaayecanaan]

53. Absolutely correct

supposedly, when the ruling class becomes ethnically representative of broader society, all of our problems will be solved. The growing income gap between the working class and ruling class is treated as essentially irrelevant.

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. IOW, neoliberalism. Walter Benn Michaels explained it in "Let Them Eat Diversity":

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-diversity/

(emphasis added)

Walter Benn Michaels: The differentiation between left and right neoliberalism doesn’t really undermine the way it which it is deeply unified in its commitment to competitive markets and to the state’s role in maintaining competitive markets. For me the distinction is that “left neoliberals” are people who don’t understand themselves as neoliberals. They think that their commitments to anti-racism, to anti-sexism, to anti-homophobia constitute a critique of neoliberalism. But if you look at the history of the idea of neoliberalism you can see fairly quickly that neoliberalism arises as a kind of commitment precisely to those things....

...Stalin famously won the argument but lost the war over whether there could be socialism in one country, but no one has ever been under the impression for more than a millisecond that there could be neoliberalism in only one country. An easy way to look at this would be to say that the conditions of mobility of labor and mobility of capital have since World War II required an extraordinary upsurge in immigration. The foreign born population in the U.S today is something like 38 million people, which is roughly equivalent to the entire population of Poland. This is a function of matching the mobility of capital with the mobility of labor, and when you begin to produce these massive multi-racial or multi-national or as we would call them today multi-cultural workforces, you obviously need technologies to manage these work forces.

In the U.S. this all began in a kind of powerful way with the Immigration Act of 1965, which in effect repudiated the explicit racism of the Immigration Act of the 1924 and replaced it with largely neoliberal criteria. Before, whether you could come to the U.S. was based almost entirely on racial or, to use the then-preferred term, “national” criteria. I believe that, for example, the quota on Indian immigration to the U.S. in 1925 was 100. I don’t know the figure on Indian immigration to the U.S. since 1965 off-hand, but 100 is probably about an hour and a half of that in a given year. The anti-racism that involves is obviously a good thing, but it was enacted above all to admit people who benefited the economy of the U.S. They are often sort of high-end labor, doctors, lawyers, and businessmen of various kinds. The Asian immigration of the 70s and 80s involved a high proportion of people who had upper and upper-middle class status in their countries of origin and who quickly resumed that middle and upper middle class status in the U.S. While at the same time we’ve had this increased immigration from Mexico, people from the lower-end of the economy, filling jobs that otherwise cannot be filled—or at least not filled at the price capital would prefer to pay. So there is a certain sense in which the internationalism intrinsic to the neoliberal process requires a form of anti-racism and indeed neoliberalism has made very good use of the particular form we’ve evolved, multiculturalism, in two ways.

First, there isn’t a single US corporation that doesn’t have an HR office committed to respecting the differences between cultures, to making sure that your culture is respected whether or not your standard of living is. And, second, multiculturalism and diversity more generally are even more effective as a legitimizing tool, because they suggest that the ultimate goal of social justice in a neoliberal economy is not that there should be less difference between the rich and the poor—indeed the rule in neoliberal economies is that the difference between the rich and the poor gets wider rather than shrinks—but that no culture should be treated invidiously and that it’s basically OK if economic differences widen as long as the increasingly successful elites come to look like the increasingly unsuccessful non-elites. So the model of social justice is not that the rich don’t make as much and the poor make more, the model of social justice is that the rich make whatever they make, but an appropriate percentage of them are minorities or women. That’s a long answer to your question, but it is a serious question and the essence of the answer is precisely that internationalization, the new mobility of both capital and labor, has produced a contemporary anti-racism that functions as a legitimization of capital rather than as resistance or even critique.

[shaayecanaan]

109. thanks, great post

Sounds like a book I should read.

[Romulox]

128. This is it, crystalized to its very essence:

they suggest that the ultimate goal of social justice in a neoliberal economy is not that there should be less difference between the rich and the poor—indeed the rule in neoliberal economies is that the difference between the rich and the poor gets wider rather than shrinks—but that no culture should be treated invidiously and that it’s basically OK if economic differences widen as long as the increasingly successful elites come to look like the increasingly unsuccessful non-elites.

This is what DU can't deal with. Not even our so-called "Marxists".

[shaayecanaan]

175. ???

This is what DU can't deal with. Not even our so-called "Marxists".

I've certainly got no bones with that. Not sure what you meant by that.

[El_Johns]

113. and as soon as minority representatives achieve power, the majority of them vote just like rich

white people.

at least on economics.

[Romulox]

130. That's class privilege for you. nt

[JI7]

64. there are actual scientific studies which have been done , of course those with agendas will ignore

it and keep spouting racist bs .

[MrScorpio]

65. The greatest gift that White Privilege gives to its beneficiaries...

Is the self-imposed right to the delusion that it doesn't really exist.

[cinnabonbon]

153. That is a good one. (although depressing)

reminds me of this one:

[Capt. Obvious]

72. My reading of your thoughts on white privilege: PART TWO

Again, I scrolled right past your screed to read the comments.

[Starry Messenger]

86. Orthodox Marxism concerns itself with racism.

Any argument otherwise is a misreading of Marx.

[shaayecanaan]

88. Never implied otherwise

but it approaches racism primarily through the prism of class struggle.

[Starry Messenger]

140. "Despite my having set out a fairly straightforward and orthodox Marxian approach to racism"

You aren't.

[shaayecanaan]

176. I know you aren't but what am I?

You aren't.

Don't waste my time with bare assertions. If you've got an argument, advance it.

[Harmony Blue]

87. Good post

basically I look Lebanese so when I tell people I am white they don't believe me. And even so they don't give me the white guilt talk because it is a self defeating to do so. Most strong, independent adults realize you DO have control of some of your destiny and your life path.

It is like those people that believe that the voting process is completely rigged. Yes it isn't ideal but by not GOTV you are enabling the cycle to repeat itself by doing nothing and arguing you have no control over your own destiny as a citizen of the United States.

This is why such defeatism I utterly detest.

[shaayecanaan]

95. Not quite where I'm coming from...

I'm don't endorse the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" sort of sentiments.

I think that a lot of people need to examine their attitudes towards class. There are a lot of dismissive attitudes towards poverty this thread in particular:-

Just put on a good suit.

Can't talk educated? Then go to night school.

Bad teeth? Just go to the dentist.

Pretty disappointing really.

A left that doesnt care about the working class, in my opinion, isn't worth an inch of shit.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

96. Whether you like the term or not, White Privilege does exist. It is a vicious cycle.

Indeed, it is a circle. Everything you are writing is proof that it exists. This is some of the most bizarre stuff I have ever seen on DU.
You are saying you don't like the term and, then writing about it and, proving that it does, indeed, exist.

You can call a rose by any other name and, it would still smell as sweet.

Except, this ain't no rose and, it damn sure does Not smell sweet.

[JI7]

103. as we have seen with many other issues, and especially today with the anti gay bill

many people are more concerned with terms used to discuss bigotry, oppression , discrimination etc against people than with the actual acts themselves.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

141. Yes, I witness a daily variation of it when discussing human dignity issues. Thank you.

[AverageJoe90]

154. There is, however, a good reason in this case.

"White privilege", sadly, has *not* proven to be a helpful teaching tool when it comes to reaching the general public. As much as some of its defenders will want to trumpet its relatively few modest success stories(and I do mean *few*, btw), there have been far more failures, not the least of which being that it's even given ammo to Paulite Lie-Bert-Aryans and reactionary cons to ridicule and tar us with!

I realize most people of DU, across the color and class spectrum, who use this term, do mean well(with the exceptions of a few trolls, maybe), but those who haven't come to understand what I and others have, need to wake up and realize the truth; it isn't working. We need to try something else.

[moriah]

101. Third argument: USA has a pretty short history. We were founded by WAS(mostly)Ps.

There were a few Catholics, and Quakers, and other religious groups that might not consider themselves Protestant, but pretty much we were the successful colony vs the one that was overthrown eventually, since we came over, totally overran people who didn't have guns, immunity to European diseases, and had been relatively isolated from Eurasian technological development, and settled there instead of trying to exploit it from abroad.

The institution began with whites having the privilege, because white British people were the primary people to own land and vote here when our government started. Everyone else who has come here since has had to deal with the institution in place, and many have went through discrimination and then assimilated into "white" culture (expanding it from predominately ex-British citizens and their descendants to other European cultural groups -- the Irish were always pale but still got a lot of hate for awhile, now Ireland is celebrated on National Alcoholism Day.) How many other hated on immigrant groups have had that much success integrating? And why did the Irish? Because once you got past a first-generation accent.... they looked just like Brits!

[El_Johns]

112. depends on what you mean by 'founded'.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8bvFdq_YwfUC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=slaves+percent+population+1700&source=bl&ots=-WupjU9LVB&sig=83kJ7ZVXBXMB-2to593DXhJElL8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0SMPU_-iLcrloASXlYHACQ&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=slaves%20percent%20population%201700&f=false

[moriah]

147. Yeah, but I was referring to the fact that the majority white property owners had the vote. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

117. Doesn't matter

It exists. All the wordiness and mild intellectualism in the world isn't going to change that.

This thread goes the way of the other one.

[Romulox]

125. As always, there is not a critical mass of DUers with the vocabulary to discuss class.

So it must not be important.

[gollygee]

131. He is denying white privilege

to say he is wrong is not the same as denying class privilege. They both exist.

[Romulox]

134. That's not my read on it at all. The following quote is the best synopsis of the point:

Quoted from friendly_iconoclast's post, above.

First, there isn’t a single US corporation that doesn’t have an HR office committed to respecting the differences between cultures, to making sure that your culture is respected whether or not your standard of living is. And, second, multiculturalism and diversity more generally are even more effective as a legitimizing tool, because they suggest that the ultimate goal of social justice in a neoliberal economy is not that there should be less difference between the rich and the poor—indeed the rule in neoliberal economies is that the difference between the rich and the poor gets wider rather than shrinks—but that no culture should be treated invidiously and that it’s basically OK if economic differences widen as long as the increasingly successful elites come to look like the increasingly unsuccessful non-elites. So the model of social justice is not that the rich don’t make as much and the poor make more, the model of social justice is that the rich make whatever they make, but an appropriate percentage of them are minorities or women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4572501

[gollygee]

135. This creates a dichotomy that does not need to exist

It doesn't have to be an either/or. You can fight against both wealth disparity and racism and sexism.

[Romulox]

137. We agree there. But unfortunately, this is not the mainstream view here at DU, or in academia. nt

[kwassa]

144. I don't think anyone is denying class. I think the OP is denying white privilege.

and stating that only class be considered. That is an old argument around here, and incorrect.

[shaayecanaan]

160. and yet

The poor get poorer and the pundits talk about gay marriage, they slip down the ranks further still and they talk about abortion. Let's talk about legalising pot? Sure. For crissakes Franky, don't talk about the poor. Jesus what kind of a panel show are we? Talk about, shit I dunno what about that girl with three tits. Hey what about we run that bit about people abusing food stamps, that's something they can relate to right? What do you mean they only get four dollars a day? Its four dollars from my taxes those fucking scroungers. You want to have some union rep on the show? Jesus holy Joseph Franky when was the last time you saw a union boy on american television? If there's one rule we all agree on in TV its no unions. Even that emo lesbian in the pantsuit never has them on her show. Jesus Franky its the advertisers that pay our way and no one wants to cater to a bunch of povs, end of story. They love those gay guys though yeah that Dorothy dollar. No kids two incomes and the loft in town, there's some discretionary income there, no question...

[gollygee]

161. Gay rights and reproductive rights are also very important

You still have a dichotomy going. I'm not willing to give up on reproductive rights (which are going away fast) and I don't think gay people should have to ignore fighting for their rights, but I don't see why we can't talk about all.

This is back to my first post to you in the other thread. "We aren't allowed to talk about racism until there are no poor white people."

[seabeyond]

126. people can make all kinds of arguments, excuses, validations why white does not have privilege over

black, why man does not have privilege over woman, why straights does not have privilege over gays. the reality and truth is, there is that privilege. it is a fact. and can be pointed out in a number of ways. factually. scientifically, logically, academically and common sense.

so, one has to ask the person who refuses to acknowledge fact, why?

[ladjf]

127. Move on. nt

[AverageJoe90]

148. This is, honestly, one of the most intelligent and balanced analyses I've seen on the subject

here on DU; indeed, too often, it seems that some people(at least those of a certain mindset, anyhow!) tend to downplay the effect that class can and often does have on prejudices, including that of racism, as well as more standard cultural prejudices, etc.

Why this only has 8 recs, I have no clue. It should have 80, at least, this was so well thought out.

[kwassa]

152. But it isn't balanced; that is the very problem. Hence, few recs.

The OP denies the existence of white privilege because it doesn't fit his Marxist philosophical viewpoint. By doing this, and denying the life experience of people who responded to him, it is apparent that his mind is closed on the subject. He also has very little knowledge of African-American history in particular.

[AverageJoe90]

155. Only in your opinion, kwassa. And it's pretty much dead wrong, too, sad to say.

Is it perfect? Perhaps not. That may be true. But it is still more balanced than 90% of the other stuff that's been done on here, though.

To be frank, I'm afraid that most of the problem is that too many people who've commented have had too narrow of an understanding of the problem; and yes, I realize that it may have been colored by personal experiences in some cases, which is understandable. But it is still something to be overcome; I had to learn this the hard way myself, btw, some time before I joined DU.

[kwassa]

156. In my opinion and most of the other respondents in this thread.

What exactly is dead wrong? You are not specific, at all.

[DanTex]

157. A well-reasoned post, but I disagree with a lot of it.

To address a few of the points. First, I doubt that very much discrimination against minorities, black people in particular, is due to the presumption of being working class. Simply put, white working class people don't face the same kind of suspicion in stores, for example, than black people. It's that a black person needs to demonstrate that they are wealthy in order to granted an exception from suspicion, while white people do not. I've never been treated with suspicion or followed when I entered a store, regardless of what I was wearing.

As to the second, sure, we can examine racism in terms of same-class, lower-to-upper, and upper-to-lower, but none of that means that white privilege doesn't exist.

I also disagree with the premise that race is used by the ruling class to divide the working class. While in some situations it might have that effect, I don't think this is a conscious decision or organized plan by the ruling class. Racism and white privilege do exist in the US, and one effect of them may be to divide the working class, but that in no way implies that race is a derivative or secondary issue with respect to class.

One place where we may have some common ground is the use of the term "white privilege". I agree that such a thing exists, that ceteris paribus white people have advantages that others do not. But the word "privilege" carries with it connotations that may not sit well with white people struggling economically, who justifiably do not feel that they occupy a privileged role in society. And this may compounded by the fact that the people talking about "white privilege", either on TV or in universities or anywhere else, are typically well educated and economically well-off. To put it bluntly, a white person struggling with bills and working long hours at minimum wage, turns on the TV and hears people talking about the privilege he or she supposedly has by well dressed pundits (of any sex or race) who went to Ivy League schools, and by all accounts seem to be living a comfortable life, that might not be so persuasive.

[AverageJoe90]

168. I personally disagree with the concept of "white privilege" but this was a pretty decent response.

[shaayecanaan]

171. Couple of points

I also disagree with the premise that race is used by the ruling class to divide the working class. While in some situations it might have that effect, I don't think this is a conscious decision or organized plan by the ruling class.

There's actually pretty good evidence that it is a deliberate strategy on behalf of the ruling class. Somebody posted this link above:-

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/October-2012/Rahm-Emanuel-Trade-Union-Racism-and-the-Burden-of-History/

Further hindering unionization efforts, many black elites cast their lot with white employers. The Urban League, which had as its primary task expanding economic opportunities, did so by accepting close, often paternalistic relationships with corporate leaders in exchange for a small number of jobs. The key part of this bargain was opposition to unionization. Upwardly mobile black ministers often curried favor with white philanthropists and business leaders, hoping to open a few well-paying jobs to members of their congregations. In Gary, Indiana, “the churches,” lamented one clergy leader, “have become subsidiaries of the steel corporation and the ministers dare not get up and say anything against the company….” To break down the deep-rooted antiunion sentiment among blacks would require simultaneous efforts to overcome union-sanctioned racism and to wean black leaders from their dependence on white business.

Another point which I don't think anyone has tried to seriously rebut is that Black disadvantage doesn't necessarily prove white privilege. There are a whole host of minorities which aren't followed around by rent-a-cops at shopping malls (Chinese, Japanese, Indians, etc). Compare this with institutionalised racism such as apartheid where not only Blacks were banned from swimming pools but all other non-whites as well.

[DanTex]

172. Yes, OK, there are some cases where race is used deliberately by the ruling class.

But the ruling class didn't create racism or white privilege on purpose as a tool to divide the working class. Sure, they exploit already existing racial tensions when they can, and inflame these tensions when it suits them. But in the end racial discrimination is it's own beast. If we were to write a book on race, there might be one chapter about how the wealthy use race to divide the working class.

Another point which I don't think anyone has tried to seriously rebut is that Black disadvantage doesn't necessarily prove white privilege. There are a whole host of minorities which aren't followed around by rent-a-cops at shopping malls (Chinese, Japanese, Indians, etc). Compare this with institutionalised racism such as apartheid where not only Blacks were banned from swimming pools but all other non-whites as well.

This is true, although, Japanese, Chinese, and (American) Indians have certainly faced their share of discrimination in this country. The term "white privilege" is necessarily imprecise, because it is just two words. It is mostly talking about the advantages that white people have over black people. I agree that race is more complicated than just this, and that there are many minority groups, and they all have a unique experience.