General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's disappointing to see "liberals" deny the existence of white privilege
Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:31 AM - Edit history (1)
Some started such a thread about objectification, and I feel the need to reciprocate for our members of color. I just want to say I value your contributions here on DU, and I oppose the sort of hostility to your points of view that is evident in the declaration that white privilege should not be mentioned. It is not becoming a liberal, progressive, or Democratic online community. A do not accept the view that a handful of white members can control how racism should be discussed. We do not experience racism and therefore it is presumptuous for us to claim we should be able to limit conversations about it.
I won't repeat arguments I have made elsewhere. I just want to provide a thread for DUers to express their support for the members of color on this site.
Edit: Title edited because the original version used the word "ashamed," echoing the wording of a previous thread on objectification. A few members have pointed out that the idea of collective shame is mistaken, and I actually agree with that so I have changed the title.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)BainsBane
(53,029 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'm sorry, but that's just fucking crass right there.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That black people are in some sense inferior? Because if there's no white privilege, what else could account for the gap in educational and economic achievement between white and black Americans?
So I agree that denying white privilege, or fighting against the discussion of it, helps to perpetuate the racist idea that white people are naturally superior.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Again, it's not that white people are advantaged(most of us really aren't, myself included!), it's that People of Color are unfairly DISadvantaged.
Further more, your assertion that "denying" "white privilege", or rather, disagreeing with this theory, is somehow perputuating white supremacy, is honestly fucking naive at best.....and extremely disingenuous at the worst.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And what "theory"? This is just the everyday lived experience of most people of color! You and I, being white, may be spared such treatment (on the basis of skin color at least) but that doesn't mean we can't be aware of it.
The distinction you're making is really one without a difference. Again, why the need to complicate things?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But you know what? That's exactly what it does. I've seen this first hand. First hand.
TeamPooka
(24,218 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)while denying that you can object to theirs. (I say "more" because I've already noticed the same thing in two other threads.)
And they wonder why people aren't interested in equality lessons from them. Can't imagine why.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And yeah, maybe I should take my own advice, but I'm not the one telling people of color that their own lived experiences are an inaccurate picture of things!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)but I'm not the one telling people of color that their own lived experiences are an inaccurate picture of things!
Here's the problem: you assume that ALL People of Color subscribe to "White Privilege", as a literal thing. Here's the thing, though; not all PoC do. In fact, many don't(yes, even some of those who may still use it as a philosophical tool).
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Seems out of proportion to what you claim your objection is.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And, to a lesser extent, because it's also been used by some more hardcore individuals as a bludgeon against those who disagree with them.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)because I don't want to drag out a largely useless argument any further...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Male Chauvinists...
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Here's a post from a black DUer telling her so, and she blows him off. He says to her...
Your argument has been that whites don't have any business telling black folks about how to combat racism but here you are telling a black person that you are right and I need to agree with the tune you want to play.
...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024575218#post382
His whole post is very worthwhile, if anybody cares about this subject. That subthread is one of the more rude and arrogant things I've seen on here. Not to mention the off-the-charts hypocrisy.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)If nothing else, I would tend rather automatically to defer to a black person's "expertise" on the subject of racism, unless they're an obvious Thomas Sowell/Clarence Thomas type, and no one on DU strikes me as that, particularly.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:22 PM - Edit history (3)
Waiting for Everyman is deliberately distorting to advance her own agenda. I did not tell that member to believe anything. I did not even know he existed when I wrote the post he referred to. The response he objected to was to the OP, where I asked whether his version of a productive conversation on race including blaming republicans and undertaking no self examination.
To claim I was lecturing to black people is blatantly false. That is the OP of the other thread's thing. I merely pointed out to the poster that his contention that only white people cared about "white privilege" is not in keeping with the perspectives of many of the posters in the African American forum. I have told no person of color what to think. I suggest you read the entire thread rather than taking the word of someone who called a survivor of child rape the abuser of her rapist. http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post79
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I guess the line between "questioning" and "criticizing" may be quite thin at times, but I should probably give you more of the benefit of the doubt than the average DU poster, knowing you're one of the more intelligent and perceptive folks on here.
And actually, yeah, reading those posts a second time, it does seem more of an equal back and forth than either of you "lecturing" the other. I don't think you were condescending towards him in the way that white people, unfortunately, often are towards minorities whether they consciously realize it or not.
On a final note, I don't want to get a post hidden - not that it really matters since I have 0 currently - but I do feel kind of stupid for forgetting who I was replying to earlier. The previous post you speak of was vile to say the least.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)
You know full well I didn't post that to the member you are accusing me of. I was responding to the OP. I am not even involved in this subthread. For you to take a disagreement to present quotes out of context in an attempt to smear me is underhanded.
I did not blow him off. I suggested he read the posters in the African American forum who have raised the issue of white privilege because his contention that only white people care about the issue is false. If you had ever read that forum you would know that. You see one person who affirms your own desire to acknowledge privilege and you point to him.
I suggest you pay attention to your own posts and knock off your personal vendetta or whatever it is that compels you to gossip about other people. I think it's pretty clear we agree on nothing and share no common values. Assume that to be a constant and quit your BS gossip about me. No amount of shit stirring on your part will ever take a way from the fact that you accused a survivor of child rape of being the abuser of her rapist. I know that is the one thing I will always remember about you, as I suspect others who read that thread also will. http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post79
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)I think Duers can recognize whose well-known m.o. is mistranslating the words of others.
I quoted a post of yours on this same topic from another current thread, in which you violate the premise you stated in this OP yourself (I think that's relevant); while you bring up an old post from an unrelated topic. But that's so similar, isn't it? More false equivalence.
For your information and enlightenment, I have had the post you linked to in my journal ever since it was first posted. So? I encourage people to read it, and my replies in the subthread following it.
But since you brought up the topic of old news, how about this link here, in which I learn that YOU are such a pillar of this community that you create sockpuppets to get around the alerting software's limits. And you get your sock PPR'd for it... adogslife. Your followers must be so proud, particularly, of that gambit.
(Jury: This is a page posted by admin and available for every DUer to view in the name of transparency.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans
You don't like one of my old opinions? Big deal. That transparency page proves that you have no respect for the standards of this community. And then you have the nerve to tell other people how they should be, and what they should think. That is what sums you up for me.
JI7
(89,244 posts)those who deny there was racism or other discrimination in various news stories that are posted.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Lots of conservatives here now, unfortunately.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)but generally their faith is not the same as what should be here.
pro life arguments are okie dokie here now! wow, big huge monstrous tent here! step up to the big huge monstrous tent!
lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)are okay now at DU? Haven't seen those.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,698 posts)Things have changed tremendously for the better since those days. I was one of the early posters who tried to bring attention to the Trayvon Martin killing and I was called a race baiter because of my name. I did notice something about the posters who wanted to shut my threads down. Not only did they show a lack of tolerance to "race baiting" but they were also 2nd Amendment proponents.
After Sandy Hook and after Al Sharpton paid a visit to Sanford in Seminole County and after this last presidential election where racism became an issue---All those things were game changers.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I may not understand all as I do mine, but I try my best to not assume I know better when I know I damned well can't.
1000words
(7,051 posts)There is a lot about DU that is shameful, but I will not take responsibility for something I have no control over.
That includes your idea of "discourse."
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Personally, I disagree with "White Privilege" as a term, mainly for practical reasons. However, though, I personally don't have an issue with *everyone* who uses it; to be truthful, I think the vast majority of the problem lies with those few people who try to control and manipulate these discussions by saying that anybody who disagrees with their usage of the language doesn't understand reality, or that we're in denial, etc.
delrem
(9,688 posts)white privilege has existed since the days of the great colonial empires, and it still exists.
But I refuse to take on some collective shame for those DUers who deny it. *That* idea of collective shame is just plain ridiculous.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)The reason I used that language was to echo this thread that I found personally supportive: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4538977
I saw it and thought, I should do one like that to show my support for African American members and other DUers of color.
It's not so much that I think you should bear shame for what others say. I don't believe that. Rather, I find it disappointing to see reactionary ideas voiced by people who purport to be liberals. I've edited the title to reflect your concerns.
delrem
(9,688 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)At least we agree on something.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts).....if anything at all, it's certain of the defenders(well, not all, but certainly some) of the use of "white privilege" language who've been trying to control a lot of these conversations here(and not the other way around!).....but that also, there are some real practical problems with the term.
A large part of the problem has to do with the term's own shortcomings; not only does it fail to adequately address class, political and even gender issues, but it's more modern iteration in particular assumes that all white people will always have it better than all People of Color; the reality is a lot more complex than that.
For example, at least on the coasts(OK, Georgia, South Carolina, north Florida and Orange County, CA excluded), does one really think that a working class white man in a beat-up old car smelling of cigarettes is necessarily going to have less of a chance of being pulled over or needlessly detained than a wealthy PoC driving a Mercedes-Benz or a BMW? Or that a poor white woman that was driven into sex work will necessarily be viewed as more respectable than a nicely dressed Woman of Color who works a regular job?
As to the latter, perhaps the out-and-out racists would see the poor white woman in a better light than the nicely dressed African-American or Latina or Lebanese, etc. lady who has a respectable full-time job. But the public wouldn't necessarily agree with that; even many of those who lean culturally prejudiced might be inclined to have more respect for the latter woman than the former(particularly if they're really uptight).
And in many parts(not all, though!) of the country, a well-liked politico or other authority figures who happens to be a PoC is likely to let off a bit easier than some poor white guy from the local trailer park, if they ran a red light, or were caught drunk behind the wheel, etc.
And that's just one thing; this doesn't even cover public confusion over just what we mean by "white privilege", and many other things.
In any case, this can be said: although "White Privilege" may have been intended to be thought provoking, and perhaps it has been, it just hasn't worked out as a teaching tool for the general public. And all I and others are saying is, it wouldn't hurt to consider trying something else.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Seriously, ask him.
merrily
(45,251 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)Sure, the white guy feels oppressed. But he knows it could be worse - he could be black. Not as a matter of empathy for a fellow victim of oppression, of course, but simply as a matter of who he'd place lower on the totem pole than himself. It helps ease the pain to have someone beneath you on whom you can look down, no matter how far down you are.
Always good to see you, too, dear friend!
RC
(25,592 posts)Find something else to discredit a post(er), rather than address the post. Sure works on DU a lot lately, doesn't it?
How about asking that Black man if he's rather be that white man, driving that beat up old car and see how that goes.
brush
(53,764 posts)And that white man in the beat up will has less of a chance of being stopped as a "driving while black or brown" person in a late model Benz.
The Benz itself, coupled with a person of color driving it is like a bull seeing red for some cops wanting to know if the car is stolen.
It exists and I don't get why there is denial about it on an allegedly progressive site.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)in a sociology class.
Basically, let's take this paragraph: "A large part of the problem has to do with the term's own shortcomings; not only does it fail to adequately address class, political and even gender issues, but it's more modern iteration in particular assumes that all white people will always have it better than all People of Color; the reality is a lot more complex than that."
It doesn't adequately address those other issues because those issues are SEPARATE sources of inequality. White privilege is a term the focuses solely on race inequality. You cannot attribute the source of ALL income or other inequality in the country/world to white privilege/racism. There are plenty of other reasons for inequality in our society, but they have nothing to do with white privilege. Yes, a visible minority male can be poor because of 'deindustrialization' or 'job deskilling'....or a white guy can be rich based on 'meritocracy' however, the rich white guy would likely be less rich if he was black, and the visible minority guy would likely be better off if he was white. THAT is white privilege...it's not the reason those people are in those positions in the first place, but it can be a pressure to worsen or lighten the load of a person in that position. As someone else said in this thread: As a poor white guy if he'd rather been black in his position. Chances are he'd say no.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)However, I must respond.
It doesn't adequately address those other issues because those issues are SEPARATE sources of inequality. White privilege is a term the focuses solely on race inequality. You cannot attribute the source of ALL income or other inequality in the country/world to white privilege/racism.
Never implied that you could, TBH. But you and I can at least both agree that things DO sometimes intersect.
There are plenty of other reasons for inequality in our society, but they have nothing to do with white privilege. Yes, a visible minority male can be poor because of 'deindustrialization' or 'job deskilling'....or a white guy can be rich based on 'meritocracy' however, the rich white guy would likely be less rich if he was black, and the visible minority guy would likely be better off if he was white. THAT is white privilege...it's not the reason those people are in those positions in the first place, but it can be a pressure to worsen or lighten the load of a person in that position.
This is an interesting view you have, but here's the million-dollar question: why call it "privilege"? Because as I (correctly!) pointed out earlier, whether we may like it or not, there are a fair share of people that, when they hear this, they get the impression that white people need to be brought down to the level of PoC, that they need to suffer all of the problems that PoC do, in order for us to be truly equal. I've seen this over and over again, and frankly, it's damned embarrassing. That's not what we liberals really want; we want to bring everybody *UP* to the "normal" level so to speak, so that everyone may enjoy equal standing.
I hate to say this, but this kind of impression actually ends up feeding into the very same RW memes that we're trying to fight.
Honestly, if some people still want to keep "white privilege" as a philosophical idea, which is how it started out originally, btw, that's fine. My primary issues are that it has not only failed as an educational tool in the large majority of cases, but also that some people, even here on DU, as using it as a basically a tool to control discussion and as a bludgeon against anyone who may disagree with their interpretation of things.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)honestly, before I joined here and started talking about, and starting to understand these issues, I didn't see it.
It's not always easy to see, if you were raised in it, despite political affiliation.
Now I understand, now I try to take it into account.
woolldog
(8,791 posts)nt
I can only take so much righteous outrage from a single source so seriously...
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)woolldog
(8,791 posts)Don't assume I'm not a person of color because I am. I'm just tired of these threads calling out and lecturing DUers. It's not productive. And creates needless antagonism and division when the focus should be on the right.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I really have to wonder what the hell's going on.
RC
(25,592 posts)It is more about trying to control the message. And is hostile to Liberal and Progressive discourse.
I whole hardly agree with woolldog here. Finding areas of agreement, rather than tearing down is a much better way to find consensus. One will never find real consensus by dictating what it should be.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:05 AM - Edit history (2)
Undoubtedly. But they did not come to this land as paupers nor slaves. They did not have their children sold off, nor were they assaulted by white people.They were not in the least bit discriminated against, except occasionally for religion. It is not a matter of white guilt for me, it's basic logic.
400 years of knowing one's own name, getting to decide where one lives even through the tides of misfortune, and all of that built up.
Not that there is any fortune in my family, no wealth of any kind to speak of, except what little was given by hard work and opportunity.
Opportunity. Such a long word, that encompasses privilege and rights and the peace to go about one's own business unmolested. People who have always had it don't see the beauty in the word.
Chances that natives, blacks, hispanics had stolen from them and thus are not where my family could be in society if that was what we lived for. We had peace, and they did not.
I am talking about the personal effect and the dysfunction from being deprived. Yes, we had deprivations; but not because of law, our color or ethnicity.
It would be dishonest for me to deny it. I believe that those who have been given much should give back in return.
Peace does not come from injustice, not peace in the heart or body, or a nation.
For all of us to survive, we must treat each other equally. Who knows what tomorrow will bring and does not need the goodwill of others?
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)I also used the qualifier 'some.' As to the rest of my post, you have no comment?
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)privilege, your idea of what it means.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)It allowed us to prosper. Many others, native and immigrant people of color, worked as hard or were just as smart, but were not given opportunity. That's as simple as I can make it for you.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Anyway, it seems you're not interested in the question, so I'll butt out. I think it's an interesting one myself.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)Because it is how from generation to generation you came to experience the world.
This -
It would be dishonest for me to deny it. I believe that those who have been given much should give back in return.
And funny - it was a challenge placed on me by my parents - as my dad's father placed on him. In a country where very few people that look like you - you have the privilege of money - make sure you reach back and pull others up.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)and this one is one of my favorites. Well stated, freshwest.
Response to BainsBane (Original post)
Post removed
Rex
(65,616 posts)Rex (42,178 posts)
38. I am a white man that does not mind talking about White Privilege.
Why are you pretending someone is forcing White Privilege down your throat? Almost like you have a persecution complex.
HEY, I know...don't like a thread on DU, don't read it! Amazing concept.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)One can support all anti-discrimination measures, and work to end discrimination, without necessarily buying into the term "white privilege".
Intellectually this thread is pretty much as low as it gets with adults. Rather than any sort of logical persuasion it's childish shaming.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Which you appear to see as more important than the oppression of people of color. Obviously our values are diametrically opposed, since I consider it far lower for white men to tell people of color how they are allowed to speak about racism and which manifestations of racism they are allowed to fight for. This purpose of this thread is to say that I stand as one white person who doesn't believe I am more important than the members of color on this site and that I support their right to frame issues as they see fit. I see the same cast of characters who attack my equal rights taking aim at members of color, and I want to make clear that I do not support their reactionary aims. I will always stand up for equal rights, and I will never privilege the egos of a few self-entitled white men above social justice. Therefore what you think of "as low as it gets" is meaningless to me.
Desert805
(392 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I am a white woman who also recognizes that she benefits from white privilege.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)It just so happens in this case the people denying white privilege are men, at least the one's I've seen write about it. The general principal holds regardless of gender: Since we do not experience racism, it is not for us to determine how arguments to combat it should be framed.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)"How dare you not believe as I do! You should be ashamed"
Intellectual fluff
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)I had originally used the words "collectively ashamed" only to echo another post about objectification, which I appreciated. I don't actually believe in collective guilt, and I nor any one else here is responsible for the posts a few self-absorbed members. I therefore changed the title to say: It is disappointing to see "liberals" deny the existence of white privilege.
However, since you raised the issue of shame, I will address it, even though it isn't how I see the purpose of this OP. As I said, it was to show solidarity to DUers of color. Naturally you focus on yourself, which is in keeping with how you tend to relate to issues concerning the rights of subaltern groups. In actuality, I consider it pointless to try to impose shame for a variety of reasons. That, however, does not mean certain acts or positions are not shameful. You might believe in moral relativism, as though racism and equality were both equally valid. They are not.
Now, this post is in response to an OP telling people of color they shouldn't talk about white privilege because it makes some white people feel bad. Guess what really feels bad? Racism. White privilege exists. That is a verifiable fact. To deny its existence is reactionary. I also know that people more concerned with their own sense of entitlement than the experiences of people of color do not work to end racism; they perpetuate it, which is precisely what denying white privilege does. They enact white privilege for all to see: in telling people of color how they must frame their struggles, they seek to elevate their own whiteness above the rights of non-whites. Members of color experience that as racism, which means it is racism and most certainly is shameful.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Non-white Hispanics and AAs use drugs in similar proportion as Caucasians. And yet, the former are arrested, prosecuted, and jailed, at a far greater percentage, per capita, than the latter.
In order to work to end this well documented discrimination would you;
1) Advocate for increased prosecution of white people? Or would you;
2) Recognize white privilege and seek to reduce the prosecution of non-white people?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)It's not a "privilege" not to be targeted by a racist War on Drugs--it's a basic right as a US citizen.
People of color in America are clearly target by a racist War on Drugs (one perpetuated by a black President and Attorney General, I will point out!) But it also doesn't mean we can solve the problem by incarcerating more white people for non-violent drug crimes, which is one logical inference of the "privilege" framing--we need to end the racist War on Drugs and stop filling for-profit prison with young Americans of any and all colors, and that's the only solution that will lead to social justice.
merrily
(45,251 posts)their color, gender, or other visible characteristics have a lot of incentive to deny the existence of privilege. I wonder if even they believe what they are saying.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)different criteria being put forth to mold DU into a uniform body that all believe the same thing.
How many times have I seen posts that say we should be ashamed if we dont believe in a certain way. I would hope that politically liberal posters here would tolerate different opinions.
There are a number of subjects that I stay away from because of the danger that I will be attacked for my views by the self-righteous vigilantes. This shouldnt happen on a "politically liberal" message board.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)It shouldn't be very difficult for Democrats to agree that the voices of people of color matter and that white men are not entitled to control how racism can be discussed and which concerns people of color are allowed to fight for. I understand, however, that's not the case. I've read enough to know that some members are hostile to equal rights. However, equality and inclusivity are core values to the Democratic Party.
I tried to make the purpose of this thread clear in the OP. It's simply an opportunity for members to show their support for Duers of color to speak about racism as they see fit. I saw the thread on objectification and thought back to how much I appreciated that and figured I would reciprocate the act, using the same language. The fact is there is racism on this site, and I want to make clear that this white person opposes it. People are free to express whatever they want in response.
1awake
(1,494 posts)It's very confusing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to be ashamed. I appreciate your edit.
msongs
(67,394 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Please, elaborate, share some examples.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)But maybe I'm assuming things.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)BainsBane
(53,029 posts)It's to my post but you can scroll up to the OP of that thread. Is it really so complicated?
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)That quote was from your OP here, not there.
Again, please elaborate, give some examples.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)And I got pissed over some of the comments I read. Then I got more disgusted.
dilby
(2,273 posts)I would assume 75% of this site is nothing but attacking one another due to race, religion or sex. 20% is just repeating headline news from other sites and 5% is about actually pushing progressive ideas.
Congrats you don't suffer from white privileged and I am sure the rest of the site was waiting on pins and needles to hear your position, but seriously is this helping the liberal cause? Is this changing politics or is this just making you feel better because you get a chance to put someone else down based on their skin color?
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)BainsBane
(53,029 posts)and to say that I don't want them driven off. I value their contributions far more than I do those who seek to silence them.
Put someone down based on skin color? WTF are you talking about? I oppose their reactionary ideas, not their skin color, which I happen to share. Equal rights is pretty basic. If you're more worried about "racism" toward whites than actual racism, I have to wonder what's going on.
Response to dilby (Reply #28)
Desert805 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Judi Lynn
(160,515 posts)You could be doing yourself a powerful favor.
You may be new, but you have no grasp of what progressive people are.
Stop trying to launch an attack at the O.P. That's not appropriate.
1awake
(1,494 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)and helping the liberal cause.
As is fighting homophobia and sexism.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Sadly, "white privilege", these days, has been largely used as a tool, at least by it's active defenders anyway, to push rhetorical bullshit by certain cliques of the kookier parts of the far-left(we're talking Fire Dog Lake territory here).....as well as a tool to silence anyone who disagrees with their (often wacky) interpretations of things.....yes, it's a problem even here on DU(you can probably point out at least a few right here on this thread, in fact!).
gollygee
(22,336 posts)or wacky, or any other dismissive term you want to use.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Hey, I used to be on the fringes myself, by the way. So I do have at least a basically good idea of what I'm talking about; even if it wasn't originally a problem(and it may not have been) that's what has indeed happened in recent years.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)has immediately demonstrated that he knows absolutely nothing about politics of the Left.
There is no "far left" on either of those sites: nobody is calling for revolution, nationalization of industry or state seizure of capital.
You're just using the term "far left" as a pejorative to attack and belittle those with whom you disagree, but to whom you can't muster a convincing counter-argument.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)pushing progressive ideas. The circular firing squads and navel gazing seem to be much, much more popular.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...is the oldest ploy they've got on the books. And they keep using it because it still works.
- Which is the real pity......
K&R
AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)It is bad framing to allow rights to be demoted to "privileges".
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Exactly.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I mean, as I've said before, I can get that the term "white privilege" was originally intended to provoke thought. I really can. But it just didn't translate well into an actual slogan for a variety of reasons and that's part of the problem right there.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)It's about attitudes and expectations and common courtesies and day-to-day experiences. You seem to be talking in marketing terms. It won't sell well. Bad framing. So what. It's what millions of Americans experience every day of their lives. Every.single.day. And to tell these people that what they know to be true isn't real won't sell well either.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)are considerably less than the chances of a black woman of possessing pot.
Now. Possessing pot is not a right. So, as an activist, it makes no sense to advocate for equitable prosecutions based on "rights". Neither I, the white woman; or her, the black woman has a right to possess pot.
As an activist, in order to address this inequity, I would have to argue one of two positions;
1) Advocate for increased prosecution of white people. Or;
2) Recognize white privilege and seek to reduce the prosecution of non-white people.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)BainsBane
(53,029 posts)It just removes the issue of drugs. There are still a billion other ways in which we benefit from being white.
What a bizarre, bizarre thing to say. You would ignore all those other forms of discrimination while waiting for some hypothetical legalization for drugs? You seem to think this is just about some empty argument on DU and that it has nothing to do with people's actual lives.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)talking about.
I find your claim that my comment was bizarre quite bizarre.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)You punted. Though, doing so, you admitted that white privilege exists.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)And I don't see how your conclusion follows.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)in our every day interactions.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and acknowledging white privilege in re drug arrests, prosecution, and incarceration.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)You seem hellbent on attributing malice to a post that was intended to point out nothing more than the fact of different options.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)others weren't being malicious toward them, what on Earth would they have to post about?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It almost makes me wonder if some of these folks aren't actually deep cover trolls themselves.....
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts).....believing in literal "white privilege", ya know. Because, to be honest, "white privilege" lectures aren't really going to help anyone, PoC or white, and it's only going to cause confusion & befuddlement.
We can point out the truth of PoC disadvantage without needing to couch it in arcane Cold-War era terminology.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)basic birthright for all.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)with this white privilege term. It falls apart under logical scrutiny and misleads as to the desired outcome.
The right is probably jealous of whoever created it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Is this another version of "We have to be as reactionary as them or they'll be mean to us"?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)You agree racism exists, is a problem, and whites generally have had it easier in the US but don't run around throwing a the term white privilege everywhere because it is the term of the week? Yep, you're a racist.
Think there is a war on women's rights from abortion to lack enforcement of laws, feel people should be judged on content of character and not looks, but are not offended by something you are told you must be? You are a woman hating misogynist.
DU is chock full of racist, rw, misogynistic, uncaring, and just in general bad folks because they won't always agree to be as upset or as outraged as me me me.
So lets play this game.
I have posted things in the past about the US having Yemen cover up drone strikes. No one seemed to care. I guess everyone is just fine with killing innocent men, women, and children as long as they are not American ones. I get that, women here in the US have enough problems as it is with having to see an SI swimsuit issued they didn't want to see. And as for the men that were killed - well, meh. Men have privilege so shouldn't complain.
Child labor from China to Lesotho gets little outrage as we don't admit our privilege here in the US compared to such countries. We consume much more than the rest of the world, drive slave labor markets, waste an enormous amount of things (from food to throw away electronics), and on DU the biggest discussions center around how other people on DU aren't singing the praises of those who tell them they aren't liberal enough. Why? Because you don't care if some little kid gets used as slave labor - their aren't american kids so not really worth the time to discuss. Get that kid on DU and ask them if seeing a pic on here of someone in a bikini and they say no, I am betting they will get plenty of attention then.
Am I doing this right so far? You know if you don't agree it means I was right all along and it just confirms what I am saying. Or something like that.
So many posts on DU now seem to be about DU and it's members. No one is ignoring racism or sexism, we all see it, know it exists, but we also know a lot of problems exists and the groups that have racism and sexism happening to them are also themselves a part of driving problems in the world.
Makeup and fashion drive a big chunk of cheap/slave labor not to mention questionable testing techniques. Illegal drugs, which all groups engage in, drive violence and corruption from the US to South America to Afghanistan. Diamonds are a girl's best friend but a big enemy of those who have their land taken, destroyed, and forced to work in mines to find them.
There is enough guilt to go around for everyone. That you have access to a computer and the internet makes you more privileged than some others whose voice we won't see here. That you can sue if you are discriminated against at work is something people elsewhere don't even conceive of. They are too busy working long hours for pennies to make the keyboard or cell phone you will use then throw away in short order.
The lowest of the low victims in this world would like you acknowledge the privilege you have by being born a citizen of a free country. Not that that will solve their problems. And they won't be able to come here to chastise you if you are not repentant enough in replying to their request.
I got 99 problems and how people rate my values on DU ain't one of em. Especially when I find some of theirs far more questionable than they do mine.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)"There is enough guilt to go around" is more or less true. In some people's eyes, and probably justifiably so, we're all the proverbial fat, greedy Ugly American. Remembering that might help put things in perspective a bit, I agree.
Personally, I don't throw around the term "white privilege" in everyday life - in fact, I'd rarely used it even on DU up until today - and I'm sure there are plenty of things that offend some feminist somewhere but don't offend me. Yet I've never once been personally accused of racism or sexism on DU. I can only speculate, but I think it's because I don't presume to dictate others' priorities, or how they should frame a discussion - not saying you yourself do these things, I'm speaking generally - and I also don't take generalized statements about "men" or "white people" personally, because I'm not "men" or "white people," I'm me. Yes, obviously my race and gender have helped to shape my worldview and life experiences, but I'm also an individual.
BTW the recent controversy was never really about "bikini photos" per se - more about the appropriateness of such material for DU, especially GD, and the broader issue of body image and unrealistic beauty standards. And when people talk about "objectification" they don't mean finding someone attractive, or even asking them out - they mean treating a person as less than fully human, e.g. by harassing, assaulting, or verbally demeaning them. The distinction, to me, could not be clearer.
Thanks for the reasoned, snark-free discussion though. We don't get enough of that around here.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)For example, our for-profit prison system and so-called criminal justice system, including the War on Drugs, are obviously the modern extension of the most hideous forms of racism and Jim Crow. They warehouse millions of young black men whose principle crime is being young, poor and black.
Framing this issue in terms of "white privilege" suggests we might make things right by imprisoning millions of young white men. It's an absurd result, and it serves to deflect attention from real corrective actions--i.e. prison reform/ending the War on Drugs and providing economic opportunity for working people.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)The idea that one has gotten to where they are at while benefiting from invisible discrimination is a hard pill to swallow, especially when you are struggling in spite of those advantages. But I don't see how people can deny it when people like George Zimmerman get off while Marissa Alexander goes to jail for firing a warning shot.
I think part of what you are seeing is that DU has a contingent of right wing libertarians as well as some economically liberal social conservatives on the site. For example, I have seen a couple of threads where I get the vibe that some posters wished the democratic party had focused on economic liberalism during the 60's instead of civil rights.
Social justice and fighting racism and sexism are extremely important issues to me. The idea of not fighting for someone's civil rights because someone else deems another issue more important is mind boggling to me. I can't help but feel that their dismissal of the importance of the social liberalism might be indicative of something further.
I don't know, maybe I am being paranoid and just imagining it. But there are occasional posts here and there that make me wonder.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)anti-death penalty, anti-poverty "cred" while implying that women who've had abortions are murderers? And then expect pats on the fucking back for being "consistently pro-life" or some such vomitous swill?
Not to get off-topic, your post just reminded me of something that pissed me off before...
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)boston bean
(36,220 posts)where that type of argument is being made, and those who feel differently must "educate", and remain calm and poised in the face of it.
WTF?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)MO_Moderate
(377 posts)all these "I feel your pain" threads is that people use their personal opinions to redefine what qualifies as racism, sexism, homophobia and even liberalism.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)we are defining as racism, sexism, homophobia, and liberalism, that aren't those things? It would help to have examples because I don't know what opinions you're talking about.
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)to not sharing a certain opinion.
People on this very board, people you know don't have a racist bone in their body, are being labeled racists or borderline racists simply because they do not dwell on the idea of white privilege.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)people here don't "have a racist bone in their body"
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)and referring to GD as the Big House, I find it hard to believe that a few here wouldn't/couldn't have a racist bone in their body.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And most of us don't.....just sayin'.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Not in my book. ...just sayin'.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Especially since actual racism certainly isn't tolerated on DU, and that Skinner and EarlG do take it completely seriously when it does occur. In fact, false accusations of racism should at the very least, be a codified CS violation, and maybe even TOSable as well, in more serious cases.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Those who define what is and isn't racist are the ones subject to it. The same with sexism and homophobia. Members of dominant groups are long accustomed to telling the subaltern that something isn't really racist, sexist, or homophobia. That is precisely how bigotry is perpetuated.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)No one denies that racial prejudices still exist. Framing the fact that white males don't face such prejudice as a privilege is inaccurate and disingenuous. No one should be discriminated against on the basis of race and when it happens, it constitutes an injustice to the people impacted - that is how the issue should be defined.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I know that I certainly do.
Framing the fact that white males don't face such prejudice as a privilege is inaccurate and disingenuous.
How so?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Getting your rights is not a privilege because rights are things that neither the government nor anyone can lawfully deny you. The Bill of Rights is not a list thing of rights that were granted to the citizens. It's a list of things the government does not have the power to do, in effect, it says the rights were always yours and the government can't take them away from you. If you are being denied your rights, as many black people are, you are the victim of an injustice.
Privileges, on the other hand, are things with which the grantor can exercise discretion in giving them to you. Driving on a public road is not a right; it's a privilege. You get the privilege by passing certain tests and keeping a clean driving record. You get the privilege of using certain golf courses or tennis courts by joining a country club. You don't have any right to membership - if the club doesn't like you, they don't have to accept you as a member and you don't get any privileges. That is the club's perogative and they are not breaking any laws if they don't let you in. Do you honestly see civil rights this way?
In the context we're discussing, prejudice involves denying someone their rights because of their skin color. Neither the government nor anyone else has the legitimate power to do that and consequently, there can't be any discretion involved in who gets their rights and who doesn't. For that reason it's inaccurate to call white people getting their rights a privilege.
In another thread, I asked why proponents of the white privilege concept insist on using an inaccurate description and didn't get a straight answer. Perhaps they believe that doing so will attach some stigma to not being denied your rights. If that is true, then the people involved are being disingenuous and manipulative. That in a nutshell is why I don't accept the idea of white privilege.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)The level of suspicion African-Americans have to deal with doesn't generally rise to the level of having rights denied, or rise to the level where such denial can be proven. That is the difficulty.
The grantor of privilege is the dominant culture that rewards white skin color. There is no conscious granting of privileges; it is simply those that don't belong to the dominant culture don't get the benefit that is assumed we all have.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I want to think about it in the context you described.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Know that your voice is appreciated here.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,232 posts)BainsBane
(53,029 posts)and the only difference I can see between it and RW libertarianism is the arguments they use to justify their positions, and even those can be the same at times.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Or do you have nothing?
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)How is it possible that I have to explain this to you? Have you never read any critical race theory? I know that some members were educated several decades ago, but you said you were in graduate school now. I'm shouldn't have to, nor will I, explain concepts to you that are covered in first-year college courses.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)BTW, in anthropology, we don't discuss race. I learned in my bioanthropology classes that race isn't real and it's only culturally constructed. Sociology is the field one should go into if they want to learn about race.
These types of threads are pointless. They're akin to "I acknowledge poverty exists, but let's not talk about ways in which we can fix it".
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)I clearly said I had no intention of repeating myself. Are you unable to open a link? I made the point of the thread clear in the OP. It is to show that not every single white member on this site is determined to ignore the concerns of African American members. That you think that is about nothing really says it all.
Your posts in particular have had an added benefit of exposing contradictions in your earlier claims.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)At least in the way of fixing any problem.
I'm not ignoring the concerns of African Americans. In fact, I've said time and time again that we should figure out ways to get rid of white privilege. I have never denied its existence. You, however, provide nothing to help the problem. All you and others have done is point out that it exists. That's pointing out the obvious. So what do you propose we should do? Sit around and talk about how much it exists some more?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)or that everyone must even understand it?
I would suggest you think back to the time before you discovered CRT, and how you came about to understand it and believe in it. Then realize that many people here are in a state of ignorance similar to your pre-enlightenment state. If you love that doctrine and are motivated to share it with people that's fine, but it's not productive imho to demand that people have followed the same intellectual path that you did.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)think.
CTyankee
(63,901 posts)I remember a co-worker being very upset hat her kid was not accepted into a major New England college. She said her son lost out to a black kid because of affirmative action. I said she didn't know that, but she insisted that if it weren't for affirmative action her son would have been admitted!
And here is exactly where white exceptionalism fits in. It was "expected" that he would get in. He had all the grades and recommendations and background to suggest he would. So the ONLY thing that would deny him his slot was that he wasn't black or hispanic or female.
Here is where the RW centers its vitriolic messaging to the lower class white people like my co-worker. They deflect the message of inclusiveness and diversity very effectively. It is a zero sum game to them.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Where people have asserted that didn't get it because of affirmative action, the applicants couldn't get in regardless. That was true in the case against the U of Texas law school in the 90s and also, I believe, in the more recent one against the University of Michigan. You're absolutely right. They assume everything should be theirs, which is precisely the attitude of many denying white privilege. Note the incredulity that anyone could post a thread in which they aren't the center. Someone posts about racism or sexism, and they have to make it all about themselves.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)industry!
Some really odd people trying to destroy DU!
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)is one place that I have found a most biting example of white privilege. I was talking to a friend who is black and he showed me a copy of a flyer for a slave auction. A family member was trying to discover the identity and age of one of the young men who they believed was an ancestor. He happened to be from my hometown.
After seeing that, I took a look at the book created by a family member that traces our family roots back to Ireland a couple hundred years. I have this romantic historical record. Many of my black friends and native American family members know they have a tragic family history and there often is little or no record to show that their ancestors ever even existed.
With technology, many of us have had the privilege to trace those records and discover our roots more thoroughly than we may have thought possible. It seems that most people who have don't do come out with an adventurous, romantic family history. That is not often available to people of color and it matters.