A Tale of Two Mothers in America in a Post Racial Society

[sheshe2]

A tale of two mothers…. The one with red hair on the left, Catalina Clouser decided to get high and drove for 12 miles with her 2 month old baby on the roof of her car..By the time she realized her baby wasn’t in the car, it was too late.. The baby fell off and was found still in his car seat in the middle of busy freeway.. fortunately unharmed…Clouser was just sentenced and got probation..http://nydn.us/1m7ogNE

Meanwhile in the woman on the right Shanesha Taylor was homeless and trying to get her life on better footing. She had a job interview and could not get anyone to watch her kids ages 2 yrs and 6 months , so she left them in the car, with window open and went inside to do her job interview.. This mom was arrested and charged w/ a felony, her kids were taken away.. Both women live in Arizona..http://bit.ly/1l1yKym



http://hiphopandpolitics.com/2014/04/16/tale-two-mothers-america-post-racial-society/

Any questions?

No white privilege here! Move along nothing to see, move along nothing to see here....

[nomorenomore08]

1. Butbutbut... talking about "privilege" isn't helpful because it makes white people uncomfortable!

And I knew a white guy once who was really really poor! So there's no white privilege!

[AverageJoe90]

12. It's not helpful because it has FAILED to educate the public.

This has already been explained by myself and some others time and time again, why "white privilege" has failed, as a teaching tool or anything else to help educate the general public.

And this is coming from someone who used to believe in it myself, when I wasn't as knowledgeable about socio-political realities as I am now; I was also, at that same time, a hardcore Obama critic.(This was before I joined DU, of course, but it really shouldn't matter all that much). So that should *really* tell you something, shouldn't it?

That truth was hard for me to accept at first, but I *did* eventually come around to it.

[nomorenomore08]

43. So how the hell else are we supposed to frame the issue in a simple, understandable way?

And simply ignoring racial inequalities is not an option.

[AverageJoe90]

46. "And simply ignoring racial inequalities is not an option." That is true, TBH.

But there are better ways...and no, "White Privilege" is not at all understandable to most ordinary folks. When they think of that, they think of money and hard political power.....something that even most whites don't have, and we are the "norm" for Pete's sakes!

Here, I found this comment by ShariC on Jezebel that kinda sums up the problem(though not perfectly, TBH), but more importantly, how it can be explained:

Some commenters think white people don't want to think deeply about "white privilege" (which is a misnomer - not experiencing unfair negative treatment is not "privilege" - that word conveys benefits above and beyond the norm). It's not that they don't want to think it, but that the reality is too difficult for them to effectively inhabit. It's the same reason why someone who has never done any drugs can't understand what it's like to be a drug addict or how an atheist can't understand how someone can believe religious texts as if they were facts. It's hard for anyone who fully understand what its like to live in another person's skin.
...

So, don't conclude ones white skin means they don't understand, but try to know that it is hard for most to understand because you really can't know what it is to be someone in a particular culture unless you can have a similar experience. It's not willful ignorance. It's just the limits of human perception and the capacity to really internalize another person's reality.

[nomorenomore08]

53. Okay, fair enough. But I see no reason to abandon a perfectly valid concept just because

some find it difficult to understand.

[1StrongBlackMan]

137. I don't think this supports the position you have been arguing here. eom.

[boston bean]

95. Democrats might lose elections if we discuss this!

I'm being sarcastic, of course. But repeating something I've seen posted here.

[nomorenomore08]

99. Never knew we on DU had so much power over national politics.

Hell, I assume if we actually did, we wouldn't be sitting here arguing on the Internet.

[AnalystInParadise]

114. I will be more than happy to have a discussion on race

WHEN a sentence is handed down. Until such time as we have comparable results, racism is useful for certain people trying to push certain cultural memes.

[LanternWaste]

161. Much as calling racism useful for certain people is also quite useful for certain people...

Much as calling racism useful for certain people is in itself, also quite useful for certain people...

(six of one, half a dozen of the other...)

[AverageJoe90]

174. True. And, by the way.....

I don't think we'll find any genuine user on here who is willing to deny that social disparities still exist. But as I've pointed out, what good has this "white privilege" meme actually done in the overall scheme of things? Sadly, anyone who's been paying attention knows the answer: Zilch. Zip. Zero.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

3. so wrong

Disgusting. So goddamn fucking wrong. And typical, which makes it worse.

[VScott]

4. Where was Leonard Smalls when you really needed him?

[Igel]

5. Not a highway.

Residential neighborhood that went into a decent decline about 10 years ago. I've been in the other part of it, on the east side of 43rd (which is a bit of a "highway&quot many times. Brother and his wife used to live there before bailing 5 years go.

And the verdict is viewed with a bit of shock by those who've noticed. Father had been stoned and driving with the kid in the car prior to the incident, almost got them killed.

The incident also happened a couple of years ago. No real incidents since then.

Good try, though. Better than the last attempt to show the identicality of apples and quince.


More telling would have been the consequences if what should have happened to the young Latina-American woman did--having her kid placed in protective services--had happened. That would have been precisely ... Nothing. No defenders. No outcry. No attempt at fundraising to help her. Everybody would have said, "Yup, that's about right."

Except perhaps those who say that marijuana has no bad effects, but makes people good and reasonable. (And forgetful, but in this case it's probably a combination of things that made the young woman race off.)

[brush]

6. What does this post mean?

It's all over the map. So you think there was no disparity in the treatment the two women got in the AZ. justice system?

Is that what you're saying?

If not, what?

[sheshe2]

7. First

"Good try, though. Better than the last attempt to show the identicality of apples and quince."

What the hell does this mean?

Thank god it wasn't a highway! Does that make it okay that she drove 12 miles with her child on top of the car! WOW! OMG! Your lack of outrage is pretty disgusting.

As for her being Latina? Link please, I could not find one.

Your post is word salad and very hard to follow.

[uponit7771]

9. Wow!!!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. What neighborhood was it ...

I didn't see it mentioned in the article; but I'm pretty familiar with Phoenix. Also, in Arizona, the term "Highway" is pretty much the same as "street."

Good try? I think the point was well made.

[sweetloukillbot]

147. Says 45th Ave and Cholla in the linked local story.

I grew up in that neighborhood and went to school at that intersection - it's a two-lane residential street that ends at the canal a couple blocks away - although it is about a 1/2 mile from a larger 4-lane street. Honestly she probably hit a speed hump that threw the kid off the roof...

[AverageJoe90]

15. Yeah, pretty much, sadly.(I disagree re: the marijuana thing, though)

There are some real disparities in the justice system. That is undeniable. But it sure as hell doesn't add up to "white privilege", that's for sure. Because there's poor white people who get screwed over, too.....and even a few People of Color who manage to get a pretty lenient deal(I'm afraid I'll have to mention the Steubenville case, because one of the accused happened to be a black guy.....as far as I can tell, he was never convicted, along with his teammates). So these problems are just so much more complex than what "white privilege" is able to cover.

[1StrongBlackMan]

126. Yes Ma'lik Richmond was convicted ...

just like his white team-mates.

In fact, he was the first to go to trial and the first convicted.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/steubenville-ohio-high-school-student-convicted-rape-released/story?id=21435713

[AverageJoe90]

129. My mistake. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

132. It's understandable. eom.

[Raine1967]

21. Fail.

see other responses to this post.

once again: fail, sorry friend.

[AverageJoe90]

8. Normally I'd agree with you, but.....I'm afraid it's not about "white privilege"....

Because it doesn't exist. Not in a literal sense, anyway.

Though it's definitely true that the woman on the right did get a harsher sentence than she had deserved and the woman on the left got it too easy. I'm just not convinced that race necessarily played any role in even the Taylor case, let alone the Clouser incident.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. B.S., Your denying that white privilege exists ...

doesn't make it so.

Though it's definitely true that the woman on the right did get a harsher sentence than she had deserved and the woman on the left got it too easy.

MUST ... AVOID ... THE ... OBVIOUS!

What would convince you of what you refuse to acknowledge ... despite all evidence?

[AverageJoe90]

16. Your belief in literal "white privilege" doesn't make it factual, amigo.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Not MY belief ...

the opinion of sociologists that have researched and written peer reviewed studies on the topic. Non-amigo. ... Why do "non-racist" white folks think that sh!t is okay?

[AverageJoe90]

20. .....

the opinion of sociologists that have researched and written peer reviewed studies on the topic.

Keyword is OPINION. One that you happen to share.

Why do "non-racist" white folks think that sh!t is okay?

What's wrong with what I said?

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Yes ...

Opinions informed by study; as opposed to an opinion informed by a stubborn desire to preserve that which you do not believe exists, not fight to preserve, never the less.

What's wrong with what I said?

Amigo? Are you Hispanic? Were we speaking Spanish? Come on, mannnn!

[sheshe2]

35. "Keyword is OPINION."

1StrongBlackMan

"Not MY belief ...

the opinion of sociologists that have researched and written peer reviewed studies on the topic. Non-amigo. ... Why do "non-racist" white folks think that sh!t is okay?"

Yet your 'OPINION" stands!

[AverageJoe90]

39. "Yet your 'OPINION" stands!" Clarify, please?

[sheshe2]

55. Clarification

"Normally I'd agree with you, but.....I'm afraid it's not about "white privilege"....

Because it doesn't exist. Not in a literal sense, anyway.

Though it's definitely true that the woman on the right did get a harsher sentence than she had deserved and the woman on the left got it too easy. I'm just not convinced that race necessarily played any role in even the Taylor case, let alone the Clouser incident."

White Privilege does not exist according to you!

[AverageJoe90]

59. Okay, never mind. That's what I meant.

BTW, if you want more details, I wrote a reply to nomorenomore08 with a really good comment somebody made on Jezebel. I can repost it if you'd prefer.

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. Kind of like the Climate change "change "Debate", huh? ...

The opinion of the 2% of Koch-paid researchers equals the opinion of the other 98% of climatologists.

Or better yet, like in the Economic "Debates" where the opinion of a journalist (with a bachelors degree in Hotel Management) is to be equal to the opinion of a economics Nobel Prize Laurate holding, PhD ...

It's kind of like that, huh?

[sheshe2]

28. White privilege exists.

I know that because I am white.

I also know males are more privileged in society and the work force. I know that because I am a woman. So in some ways I am privileged, as a women I lose that status.

Those are facts....amigo~

[Raine1967]

30. Hola Amigo!

The OP blows me away.

Let's look at the repercussions.

I think that says it all.

privilege exists. --> people are actually denying this?

[AverageJoe90]

42. There's nothing TO deny. That's the problem, TBH.

You can acknowledge that disparities still exist in American society without going into this whole "white privilege" weirdness.

Also, think about this for a second: the word "privilege" in and of itself implies, whether intentionally or not, that a group enjoys benefits above and beyond a norm. But have "white" people ever been anything but the "norm" in this country? That is to say, have "whites" ever been anything but the majority in America? The answer to both is obvious, TBH: no. It never has been.

Now, to be fair, we could theoretically probably make exceptions for countries such as South Africa, for instance, in which both the most common cultures and most numerous people were Black(so they were part of the norm, and not "whites", in S.A.'s case.): "Whites" were never the majority at any time.
'

[nomorenomore08]

44. What's "weird" about it? And it's not so much about tangible benefits, as all the bad things

(like incarceration) that are less likely to happen to you if you belong to a relatively favored group.

[AverageJoe90]

47. See my other response. nt

[herding cats]

74. Privilege, in this context, is used to describe a social inequality.

Such as the use of 'wealth privilege' is used to point out how those of more wealth enjoy the benefits of their wealth in society in ways those without wealth cannot, or how 'first world privilege' is used to describe those who enjoy the benefits of living in a developed country vs. those who do not. It's actually not dissimilar to your use of "disparities" to describe social inequality, really. It's just the result of more in depth study that the word has come to be applied. It's not in anyway something a person should be taking offense from. It's simply a descriptor used to clarify the meaning of what is taking place. There have been many a scholarly article written about various social privileges.

I've seen arguments over this use on the internet before. They confuse me. No sociologist is attacking those who live in a first world, are Christian, of the country in questions majority race, heterosexual, male, etc. by using the word. It's simply a way of pointing out the social inequality taking place in the world today. It's been observed certain groups enjoy more privileges than others in specific regions of the world. Social privilege exists, it's just a fact. Not unlike how climate change exists. What people would be able to debate is what the causes are, not the fact that these things are. That's a waste of energy, and counterproductive in my opinion.

[RainDog]

105. your argument makes no sense

you talk about the issue of group privilege, then claim such privilege doesn't exist because the privilege is geared toward a majority of the population.

so what?

it's really about institutional racism - which most certainly does exist. I'm not talking about this particular case.

One way people have demonstrated this is when they have used the same resume with different names. Names that were identified with black culture on resumes resulted in a more negative view of the applicant than when that same resume was presented with one identified with white culture.

That's an example of white privilege.... the assumption that whiteness makes someone more qualified.

This same idea was demonstrated in blind orchestra auditions regarding male privilege. When musicians auditioned for positions in orchestras behind curtains, so that their genders were unknown, females gained more seats on an orchestra. When auditioning where gender was apparent, more females are judged as less talented musicians than males.

In both of these studies - none of those making evaluations assumed gender or race informed their opinions - but results demonstrated that simply being considered black, or simply being considered female had negative impacts on people's options for jobs, for their perceived competence, etc.

I don't know why anyone here argues about the idea of whether or not white or male privilege exists since both have been demonstrated repeatedly via studies regarding the same.

Whether a white or male INDIVIDUAL has experienced the same benefit from white privilege is immaterial regarding the issue of whether or not such benefit exists.

[AverageJoe90]

106. ....

you talk about the issue of group privilege,

Umm.....it looks like you misread what I wrote. Read it again, please. Several times if you need to.

One way people have demonstrated this is when they have used the same resume with different names. Names that were identified with black culture on resumes resulted in a more negative view of the applicant than when that same resume was presented with one identified with white culture.

This same idea was demonstrated in blind orchestra auditions regarding male privilege. When musicians auditioned for positions in orchestras behind curtains, so that their genders were unknown, females gained more seats on an orchestra. When auditioning where gender was apparent, more females are judged as less talented musicians than males.

Okay, but that's not actual privilege. If anything, it's the exact OPPOSITE of privilege. To be truthful, most people aren't going to understand an argument that is supposedly the opposite of how it reads. And although it seems that you don't mean it in the *literal* sense, here's the (huge!) problem; it seems rather clear by now that a lot, maybe even most, of your fellow "white privilege" proponents *do* take it literally. Believe me, I've seen this problem unfold more times than I can possibly count them all.

Maybe it seems I'm being a little bit of a hard-ass to people sometimes and I do apologize for that. But I can assure you that I have perfectly reasonable and altruistic reasons for pointing out what I have.

[RainDog]

107. Norm

means, in the context of sociology, "the informal understandings that guide a society's behavior."

To say that white privilege doesn't exist because American society is racist is a circular argument.

eta - your claim that my examples are not example of white or male privilege is simply wrong. both examples indicate privilege granted made by assumptions of race or gender.

[AverageJoe90]

108. You misread me again.

To say that white privilege doesn't exist because American society is racist is a circular argument.

I never said or implied American society as a whole was racist(WTF?); and it actually isn't by and large. Although that doesn't mean that racism isn't still a problem, because it is.
For a comparison, many Muslims in the Middle East are not at all anti-Semitic. But anti-Semitism does remain a serious problem in a large number, if not most, of these nations. And likewise, many Israelis have no real hatred towards Palestinians. But anti-Palestinian bigotry & discrimination, including the systemic kind as well as the individual type, does still remain even today.

So obviously, it's more complex than just "X society is Y(racist/sexist/etc.), therefore, Z". As a student of history, I'd understood this on at least a basic level even when I subscribed to "white privilege" theory once upon a time. But now that I have moved on, I have been able to gain an an even significantly greater, (and much more nuanced, for that matter) understanding.

[RainDog]

116. American society is racist

anyone who disputes this has little to no knowledge of past or current history, and maybe even a lack of understanding about the very term "racist society."

but please tell me how your study of history has indicated that America is not a racist society.

fwiw - to note an overarching political and social reality is not to say every single person within a society is racist, or that people do not try to address the racism that is part of the cultural atmosphere within a society in which someone lives, and which they breathe in, without thought, but simply b/c it is all around them, like the air...if the majority of history and law and the application of the law demonstrates racism that repeats itself with variations generation after generation - that's a racist society...and I don't say that as an accusation toward any person - just as an acknowledgement of culturally available facts that demonstrate bias against, in this case, African Americans in the United States.

France is a racist society, even though it was the first to agitate for the end of all slavery, and even though African Americans in the past - and present - often find French society less racist than American. If you talked to immigrants from Algeria, etc. you would know about this racism more than you would as a African-American visiting that nation.

[AverageJoe90]

118. I have plenty of understanding, thank you.

but please tell me how your study of history has indicated that America is not a racist society.

Modern America isn't a racist society by and large; that's actually pretty obvious just by looking around. By the same token, it is also true, however, that social disparities do remain a problem, and not just racism, but sexism and even basic prejudices(culture, economic status, etc.) as well.

and I don't say that as an accusation toward any person

I believe you, but TBH, it does seem clear that you have too much of a black-and-white view on things. And yes, standards do change. Standards have gotten higher over time. But in all honesty, the reality is far more complex than just whether or not a society is racist or not racist(besides, where does one draw the line, anyway?). You may have a few people who are racist, and some who are not; but you will also have many who could be persuaded one way or the other; this has always been true, at least to varying extents, for every society, West or East.

If there was any really solid example of a truly racist society overall(in which a majority of people actually profess real hatred and/or solid feelings of racial superiority & open approval of the smashing down of "others&quot , perhaps the most extreme example would probably be Nazi Germany, in which the majority of people actually did truly approve of Hitler's violent crackdown on Jewish denizens and others whom they thought "undesirable&quot which later led to the Holocaust, as we all know.). Croatia under the Ustashe would be a close second. And a less extreme, but still awful example would be that of South Africa(Australia before WWII might count as well, but that's kind of debatable), which very well could have gone down the Croatian route themselves at any point(it's quite fortunate that they didn't, honestly!).

[RainDog]

119. where are your studies that indicate

modern American society is not racist by and large?

I have never seen a study that demonstrates this. However, to make the statement, I would assume you have evidence to back you up.

Otherwise, you're just making a statement with no evidence to support your claim.

[AverageJoe90]

120. I don't need any studies, btw.

Of course, if you have any studies of your own, I'd like to see them, so I may gain a better understanding of where your opinion is coming from, even if none of them are at all likely to disprove my points(pretty much every legitimate study out there would actually back me up, btw).

Because the truth is, my opinion is based on factual observations & real world experience. I don't claim to be omniscient or anything (I know I'm not!) but I do know that what I have said is factual overall; that much is undeniable.

[RainDog]

122. here ya go

ACLU Report: The War on Marijuana in Black and White
http://www.aclu.org/billions-dollars-wasted-racially-biased-arrests

STAGGERING RACIAL BIAS
Marijuana use is roughly equal among Blacks and whites, yet Blacks are 3.73 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.

and more about it here:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/marijuana_and_race_aclu_finds.html

Blacks are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites – even though usage rates are comparable, according to a report issued today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Marijuana enforcement has unfairly targeted black people, said the report, entitled “The War on Marijuana in Black and White.”

The racial disparity in marijuana arrests has markedly increased in the last 10 years, the ACLU found. Although black people are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for possession than white people, blacks are now 30 times more likely to to be arrested for the drug in the counties with the widest disparities, they found.

The private prison industry benefits from this racism - but doesn't create it - that is being done by LEOs - even AFTER reforms for stop and frisk in places like Chicago, for instance, as was noted here recently.

Higher Profits Explain Why There Are More People of Color in Private Prisons

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/07/higher-profits-explain-why-there-are-more-people-of-color-in-private-prisons/

The law is applied in a racist manner and contributes to stereotypes and, worse, denies access to education for those who are TARGETED by stop-and-frisk and labeled, early, by such an arrest for such a nothing offense that contributes to the continuation of a cycle of racism in this nation. This needs to stop. Now.



Sentencing disparities from the crack era - that have just recently been corrected for the racial bias that created those laws in the 1980s. The Fair Sentencing Act - to address racism - https://www.aclu.org/fair-sentencing-act

How many white professors do you think get arrested for trying to open their front doors?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/henry-louis-gates-jr-arre_n_241407.html

The number of black men stopped for "driving while black" has no comparison among whites in this nation - it doesn't happen. You can find tons of examples of famous people who have dealt with this - including one excellent writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has written about his own experiences, and those of others.

There is no comparison for "shopping while black" for white people, but numerous examples of the same, every day, for African-Americans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/07/barneys-racist_n_4225710.html

In a 2007 Gallup survey, 47 percent of black people surveyed said they are not treated equally by retailers. More than one-quarter of those surveyed felt they were targeted because of their race while shopping in the last 30 days.

Racial profiling lawsuits against major retailers have made headlines across the country. In 2005, Macy's paid New York state a settlement of $600,000 after the attorney general found that the majority of people detained at a sampling of Macy's stores were black and Latino -- a disproportionately high number compared with the percentage of minorities shopping at the stores.

A few years earlier, store employees at a national retail chain admitted that they were instructed to follow black customers around the store and avoid giving them large shopping bags.

http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=7131333

A scholarly look at that issue here: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2646965?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103885772487

In jobs -

http://www.techyville.com/2012/11/news/unemployed-black-woman-pretends-to-be-white-job-offers-suddenly-skyrocket/

http://jezebel.com/5822293/man-takes-fake-white-name-to-test-job-discrimination

This isn't limited to a few examples - http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html

In total, the authors responded to more than 1,300 employment ads in the sales, administrative support, clerical, and customer services job categories, sending out nearly 5,000 resumes. The ads covered a large spectrum of job quality, from cashier work at retail establishments and clerical work in a mailroom to office and sales management positions.

The results indicate large racial differences in callback rates to a phone line with a voice mailbox attached and a message recorded by someone of the appropriate race and gender. Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. This would suggest either employer prejudice or employer perception that race signals lower productivity.

The 50 percent gap in callback rates is statistically very significant, Bertrand and Mullainathan note in Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination (NBER Working Paper No. 9873). It indicates that a white name yields as many more callbacks as an additional eight years of experience. Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller.

http://craigeisele.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/subtle-racism-still-very-prevalent-in-society-today/

A study conducted by San Francisco State University Professor Alvin Alvarez identified everyday racism as “subtle, commonplace forms of discrimination, such as being ignored, ridiculed or treated differently.” Explains Alvarez, a counseling professor, “These are incidents that may seem innocent and small, but cumulatively they can have a powerful impact on an individual’s mental health.”

Alvarez's study is also mentioned here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100401085344.htm

Annie Barnes further illuminates the matter in her bookEveryday Racism: A Book for All Americans. She identifies such racism as a “virus” of sorts exhibited in the body language, speech and isolating attitude of racists, among other behaviors. Due to the covertness of such behaviors, victims of this form of racism may struggle to determine for certain if bigotry is at play.

In a study done by the Entman-Rojecki Index of Race and Media, 89% of Black women in movies are shown swearing and acting in offensive behavior while only 17% of White women are portrayed in this manner. From "Interracial Communication: Theory Into Practice, published in 2014.

Tuscaloosa, Alabama is going back to segregation- http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/segregation-now/359813/

anyway, that's just a quick look to demonstrate that racism is currently an issue in American society. You have an opinion not informed by facts, iow.

[AverageJoe90]

125. "that's just a quick look to demonstrate that racism is currently an issue in American society".....

Okay, and I never actually argued against that, btw. However, though, none of these links prove any *literal* "white privilege", however, nor do they prove that society as a whole is racist, even if they do prove, by the same token that social disparities do still exist.

[RainDog]

130. I am going to assume

you are doing a form of trolling, perhaps, and not that you lack the ability to understand the concepts you claim don't exist.

Maybe your problem is that you simply don't understand what you're talking about.

Anyone who reads this back-and-forth, however, who is not being intentionally obtuse will understand quite clearly that racial discrimination faced by one group and not another is the very definition of white privilege at its worst.

[AverageJoe90]

134. "Trolling"? Not really, TBH.

BTW, I'm not offended or anything, just so you know. It's just not factual, that's all.

[RainDog]

135. LOL

Dunning Kruger effect in action.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/revisiting-why-incompetents-think-theyre-awesome/

I'm done with this. I put people like you on ignore and my experience of DU is the better for it.

[AverageJoe90]

144. Your choice, I suppose.

(BTW, since you went there, that study actually seems to apply quite well to your end of the argument. Because you've failed to provide any evidence of literal white privilege. Period.)

[RainDog]

146. for old time's sake, Joe

White privilege is a set of advantages and/or immunities that white people benefit from on a daily basis beyond those common to all others. White privilege can exist without white people's conscious knowledge of its presence and it helps to maintain the racial hierarchy in this country.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/org/wsar/intro.htm

examples here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4837583

[AverageJoe90]

150. And Dr. Avakian has every right to her viewpoint, as you and I do.

But again, I'm more objective than some others. But again, look at the overall results; outside the "choir" it hasn't done well in terms of educating the general public. And we as progressives CAN do better. We have to if we want to win the fight for America's soul, as it were.

[RainDog]

155. It's a term that derives from academia

It wasn't initially meant to educate the general public - it was meant to provide a way for people to understand concepts by viewing them from a particular perspective...that racism is not simply in individual acts, but also in cultural constructs that perpetuate racism. If you are a white person, and racism doesn't directly impact you, you are often blind to the ways it is expressed - while those who experience this racism understand from experience.

The use of "privilege" as a verb is used within that same context. Sometimes people in academia use familiar words in somewhat unfamiliar ways to make people have to think about an issue. Sometimes they do it to indicate in-group/out-group - which is why I don't like jargon in general unless it applies to specific concepts unique to a field of study for the purpose of discussing something related to that field. But that's the way it's done, whether I like it or not.

It's jargon-y - which is why I don't generally use it, apart from speaking to the choir on DU who uses it quite often. But we're here with the understanding that we support the same goals, as expressed by the Democratic Party - including creating a more level playing field as part of that overall goal - and that applies to anyone of any gender, creed, color, or economic group.

The only people I have even seen who object to the term "white privilege" are people on DU - but the people I am friends with would have no problem accepting the term and understanding how it is practiced in the U.S., and most of them know the term - it's just not one that used - racism is more likely used because it's more to the point.

As far as privilege goes - in any society, those who have positions of privilege are less likely to understand the experience and/or environment of those who do not have it. This holds true for a variety of situations. Again, there are studies that demonstrate those with "privilege" are ignorant about the reality of the lives of those who aren't, often.

So we'll just chalk it up to that, and not to trolling.

[U4ikLefty]

148. How old are you?

[AverageJoe90]

151. 23. But I'm kinda smart beyond my years.....

I don't mean to come across as a total know-it-all, though; TBH, my analysis is based on years of observations, studying of history, and even personal experience(you're talking to a former "white privilege" adherent, by the way). I don't claim to be perfect, and frankly, I'm really not. But I do try to be as objective as possible, and what my observations are telling me is that "white privilege" sadly hasn't done all that well as a teaching tool to describe very real socioeconomic inequities faced by minorities, for the general public at large. That isn't something I can just ignore, even if some others here do seem to be genuinely unaware of the problem.

[U4ikLefty]

153. With all those ears of experience, how could anyone question your wisdom?

You have convinced me.

[AverageJoe90]

154. Did you read the rest of my reply? nt

[RainDog]

160. ...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concern_troll

And not a very convincing one.

[LanternWaste]

162. And more objective, and have more knowledge of this than the academics...

"But I'm kinda smart beyond my years..."

And more objective, and have more knowledge of this than the academics... you certainly tell us that, but I have little evidence to date to validate these statements, or to give your subjective premises lacking any sources or citations any more warrant than that of any other bit of bumper-sticker branding.

[LisaL]

24. Woman on the right didn't get any sentence yet. None whatsoever.

And people collected over 100K for her.
So, what evidence do you have that one was treated harsher than the other?

[Raine1967]

32. One was arrested and lost custody of her children for GOING TO A JOB INTERVIEW

you seriously do not see the difference?

maybe you should read the links.

Really, get some onto on the backstory. You look really uninformed.

[LisaL]

33. It doesn't matter where she went. Her children were left in the car unattended.

There is no law that says you can leave your children in car if you need to go to a job interview.
Do you not understand that?

[Raine1967]

40. I do.

Is there a law that says heehaw let's leave a kid on top of a car?

You really need to check your thought process.

You are defending the woman on the left and slamming the hell out of the woman on the right.

seems to me that you are making the op's point.

[LisaL]

45. What if the one who left the child on top of the car was driving to the job interview?

Would it be o'key then?
So maybe you should check your thought process.
And I am not defending any of them.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

41. You do realize that this is deadly

• Child vehicular heat stroke deaths for 2012: 33
• Child vehicular heat stroke deaths for 2011 : 33
• Child vehicular heat stroke deaths for 2010: 49
• Child vehicular heat stroke deaths for 2009: 33

http://www.kidsandcars.org/heatstroke.html

[nomorenomore08]

49. Still not as dangerous as what the other woman did. Or as stupid.

[LisaL]

52. How is it not as dangerous when children can die if left in a hot car?

[nomorenomore08]

58. Sure it's a pretty bad idea. But compared to leaving a baby seat on the *roof of your car* while

driving down a highway at (most likely) considerable speed? And having the baby seat fall off and sit there in the middle of the road where anyone could hit it and kill the kid instantly?

How are those in the same ballpark, even?

[LisaL]

60. If she had left the infant on the roof of the car on purpose you might have had a good

argument. As it wasn't on purpose, you got none.

[nomorenomore08]

62. Do you really think she would've done that if she hadn't been out of her mind on God knows

what substance(s)? I'm not anti-drug as a general rule, but some people really can't handle themselves responsibly.

[LisaL]

64. Do you know that there was already CPS involvement with Shanesha Taylor prior to her leaving the

kids in a car?

"According to police, Child Protective Services already had an open case involving Taylor's youngest son..."

http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurie-roberts/2014/04/11/shanesha-taylor-arizona-child-abuse/7565687/

[nomorenomore08]

66. I'm not saying she's a great mother. I honestly have no idea.

But CPS visits do tend to skew toward certain economic and racial groups, even if many such visits are indeed justified.

[LisaL]

71. Did you read why CPS was involved?

[sheshe2]

81. So that makes it alrighty then!

She didn't do it on purpose.

She was high on drugs and did not do it on purpose! Therefore you are indeed giving her a pass! OMFG!

My head hurts here at your convoluted logic!

[LisaL]

82. What makes it alrighty?

And don't make false statements about what I said. I haven't said it's o'key or that she needs a pass.
If it were up to me she'd be going to prison.

[LanternWaste]

163. It begs the question then, what were the local temperature conditions on that day

It begs the question then, what were the local temperature conditions on that day, at that specific time and in that area?

[LadyHawkAZ]

67. I don't think anyone's arguing that leaving the kids in the car was fine and dandy

it certainly wasn't, although there's a whole discussion there about the need for universal child care that needs to be had- again.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

73. I am with you on universal child care.

[Vashta Nerada]

72. Shhhhhh!

We're supposed to be outraged over these sensationalistic stories!

Or something.



People leave dogs in hot cars and people here are reporting stories on how stupid/inconsiderate the dog owner was. But leaving kids in a car on a hot day? OMG, that's like, okay, or something.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

75. your right

like the cat pic.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

56. I see 2 cases of child endangerment

This is not about going to an interview. This is about leaving children in a car. How many hours can you sit in a car in Scottsdale.

http://www.kidsandcars.org/heatstroke.html

When case to goes to trial, and she does not get 18 years minus the age of the youngest child probation.
Then we can discus why that is.

[AnalystInParadise]

109. But. but .but

How do we know it is white privilege? How do we know something else was not going on BEFORE these women were charged that altered the situation in the way we are looking at it? All I am saying is how do we know, how do we know????? Why are you so quick to rush to judgement on white privilege? Sound familiar? It is your freaking argument for the bully on the bus situation with the young black girl and the young white boy.....In that case we had evidence in the form of video to prove what we were seeing. In this case we have no evidence it is white privilege, and YET you WONT ACCEPT ANYTHING other than white privilege. How ironic that when the races are reversed, you are ready to believe without a doubt.............How freaking pathetic and obvious on your part.

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. Well, something did happen before these women were charged ...

400 years of US brand white supremacy.

In this case we have no evidence it is white privilege, and YET you WONT ACCEPT ANYTHING other than white privilege.

Uh, yeah I do ... 400 years of US Brand white supremacy.

But relax AnalystInParadise EmotionDenial ... you are way to angry about racial issues. Maybe you should analyze that?

[AnalystInParadise]

121. Hahahahahahahaha

hahahahahaha

I am not angry at all, I am consistent, you seem to be the one that can't see reality for what it is. But like I always say, keep trying to sway people with your false reality bullshit, the weak and gullible will believe you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. And the defensive and insincere will use profanity ...

to make their non-angry, but consistent non-points.

It is clear that my non-privileged reality, as a Black man in this racist nation, is different from your privileged existence.

[AnalystInParadise]

127. I am sorry

Are you mistaking me for white? How very stereotypical of you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. Yes, you are ...

whatever race you claim to be ... know, non-white agents of white supremacy, in fact, practice the same racism as their white benefactors.

[AnalystInParadise]

133. Hahaahahahahahahaha

Oh man....you are hilarious. So even though I am not white, you are classifying me as white. Keep it up. Keep it up.

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. That's not what I said ...

I classify your defense of white supremacy as being an agent of white supremacy, regardless of what race you claim to be on this anonymous message board.

BTW, what do you analyze? Please tell me it's numbers; not people or facts.

[AnalystInParadise]

141. I have no reason to believe you

are in fact strong or a black man then? Is that what you are saying? Because I generally believe people when they tell me something about themselves.

It is ironic though that for the crime of not agreeing with you, I must not be authentically the race or ethnicity I claim to be. That's really rich coming from you.

As for what I do, I am a Senior All Source Intelligence Analyst and SME (Subject Matter Expert) for the U.S. Army concerning Russian military doctrine and Order of Battle. I am retired military and now work for the private sector in the Defense Contracting business, my particular client at this time is the 1st AD G-2 at Fort Bliss, Texas. Before that I was the Senior Analyst for North Korean military doctrine and Order of Battle at Fort Shafter, HI.

[LanternWaste]

165. Might be an easy mistake. I mistook you for sincere last week...

"Are you mistaking me for white?"

Might be an easy mistake. I mistook you for sincere last week-- which now appears to be a pretty inaccurate perception on my part.

How very stereo-typical of me too...

[AnalystInParadise]

172. In what way?

n/t

[AnalystInParadise]

173. Is my consistency

on racial matters disconcerting to you?

[sheshe2]

17. "Normally you would agree?"

So what is abnormal about these two cases that you cannot agree?

You are "afraid" it's not about white privileged?

I am afraid that you are very wrong in your assumption.

[AverageJoe90]

19. Normally I agree with you, is what I meant. But for reasons I've outlined, this is an exception.

Hope that clears things up.

[Armadotrasgo]

11. Was it the same judge

Or even the same county?

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. Not same Judge; but same county and same court. eom.

[Raine1967]

23. This answer should be the end all to every response in this thread.

(although I suspect that there will be people who will make it all about the judge)

White Privilege is is right here in this very OP.

[Egnever]

104. And it would be if...

there was actually a verdict and sentencing in the case of the woman who left her kids in the car.

[AnalystInParadise]

110. Hmmmm

same county, same court, different judge, different crime.........How weird with a different judge and a different crime there is a different charge....That is like Twilight Zone Bizarro Dude. I mean what other proof of racism do you need? Different crime, different charge....weird......Like that has not ever happened....how odd......man...weird......Is the sarcasm evident yet? I hope so.

[LanternWaste]

166. Almost as weird as the atypical racial disparity in the prison population.

"How weird with a different judge and a different crime there is a different charge..."

Almost as weird as the atypical racial disparity in the prison population. Twilight Zone weird, huh?

[LisaL]

22. Did somebody collected over 100 K for Catalina?

I am just curious as to why you claim one was treated harsher than the other, considering all the public sympathy and money collection was for Shanesha Taylor that women accused of child abuse/neglect normally don't get.
Furthermore we don't yet know what Shanesha Taylor's sentence is going to be, and if she will get any prison time.

[Raine1967]

25. this response makes little sense wrt to the OP.

should someone collect money to make it all equal?

[LisaL]

26. OP makes claim one woman is treated harsher than the other.

Yet there is no evidence to support that claim.

[Raine1967]

29. Actually, there is a LOT to support the claim.

it's all right there in the OP.

It's pretty clear cut from reading the OP and the link provided. It's white privilege.

It's about acknowledging it exists. I think this is a pretty powerful example. I choose to not look at things with a myopic view. the big picture is was matters here.

[LisaL]

31. Name one.

Both of the women were arrested and charged. There is no sentence yet for Shanesha Taylor. Her case hasn't gone to trial. Public collected a large amount of money for her (and none for Catalina, I presume).
Yet the claim is that Shanesha was the only treated more harshly? So, what is the evidence of that?

[Raine1967]

36. I'm not here to try the case.

you appear to be unable to understand wheat the OP is saying.

I understood it. You seem to want to three a needle to disprove the OP's point. It's almost as if you want to deny the idea of White Privilege. You don't deny that, I hope.

I ask that you at LEAST give some credence to aha the OP is getting at.

[LisaL]

38. Oh I understand what she is saying.

Last edited Thu Apr 17, 2014, 01:51 AM - Edit history (2)

But what she is saying is not supported by any evidence. Furthermore, given the amount of public sympathy Shanesha Taylor has been given, including a large amount of money collected for her, but not for Catalina, the claim makes no sense whatsoever to me.

[sheshe2]

85. Make that what she is saying.

I am a woman not a man.

[sheshe2]

79. So

You are starting a fund for Catalina now LisaL?

You believe that she was treated unfairly because no one raise funds for a woman that left her two month old child on the top of her car? She was stoned out of her mind and drove 12 effing miles before she realized her baby was not in the car.The CHILD FLEW OFF THE TOP OF THE CAR! The child landed on the highway, for the grace of God that child lived.

And yes I am yelling here! WTF are you defending!? Your logic is warped.

[LisaL]

80. Why don't you take a look at your own logic first?

You are defending someone who left her kids in a car unattended.
In AZ.
You do realize that kids left in hot cars die every year, or don't you?
You are also claiming disparity in two cases even though there has been no sentencing or trial in Taylor's case.
Why is that?

[sheshe2]

83. No!

You take a keen look at your logic first!

Pointing fingers....you defend a woman high as a kite leaving her child on top of her car.

You do realize that children die when left on top of a car when their mother drives down the highway for 12 fricking miles not realizing they had not strapped said child safely into the back seat. The baby flew off the top of that car!

She got parole. Parole?

White effing privilege! Yes indeed.

[LisaL]

84. Excuse me?

I don't defend a woman who left her child on top of her car.
Of course it's dangerous to leave children on tops of cars.
It's also dangerous to leave children unattended inside cars.

[LanternWaste]

167. Well, rationalizing a thing to force a false equivalence, but certainly not defending it.

Well, rationalizing a thing to force a false equivalence, but certainly not defending it.

[AverageJoe90]

51. That's true.

Although, TBH, I suspect a lot of that sympathy probably came because because Mrs. Taylor was in a really bad situation, and was having a lot of trouble with unemployment, etc.; I do acknowledge she really dropped the ball on that. But I understand why there's more sympathy for her than Mrs. Clousen.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

27. Not the same.

Perhaps you would like to revisit this after the second case goes to court.
Case 2 has yet to go to trial.

[Nye Bevan]

37. So they were both arrested and charged with felonies.

The woman on the left was sentenced to 16 years probation; the woman on the right has not yet been convicted of anything, let alone sentenced.

Sorry, not seeing the "privilege" here.

[nomorenomore08]

50. But what the woman on the left did was far worse. So similar treatment *isn't* fair treatment

in this particular case.

[LisaL]

54. What makes it "far worse?"

Children could have ended up dead either way.

[nomorenomore08]

61. One woman was on drugs and utterly careless, and very nearly got her child killed.

The other was poor and desperate and had no one to watch her kids, so what was she supposed to do? Leaving her kids in the car was a bad idea, of course - no one disputes that - but she was faced with a nearly impossible situation.

[LisaL]

63. Leaving the children in a car unattended in AZ could lead to them ending up dead.

No matter for what reason.

[nomorenomore08]

65. I don't dispute that. But even so, I doubt the risk of death is comparable to the other situation.

Not to mention this woman wasn't on drugs and was actually trying to do something with her life.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

68. so if she left them in an oven, you would be good with that then ?

because she decided to do that, and it was an interview after all.

[nomorenomore08]

87. Of course leaving them in the car is a bad idea - in the middle of summer it could easily have been

fatal, but this was March. The oven comparison is a little silly, honestly.

[LisaL]

88. It can get very hot inside the car even if it's not very hot outside.

From what has been reported, temperature inside the car when children were found was at 100 degrees.

[nomorenomore08]

89. Look, she made a big mistake and she's paid for it with an arrest and public humiliation.

100 degrees is uncomfortable, at the least, but not likely to kill even a small child in a short period of time.

Sorry, I still don't think what she did was as egregious as the other woman. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[LisaL]

90. She also got 100 k in donations.

100 degrees might not be likely to kill a small child, but that temperature inside the car was when police showed up to save the children. So if they weren't discovered how high could the temperature have gotten by the time she came back from her interview?

"Taylor was arrested after returning to the car, which was about 45 minutes after police were called."

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/22/kids-hot-car-job-interview/6730039/

[Egnever]

124. Wait what?

The one woman is evil incarnate because she was stoned and forgot her child was on the roof but the other who intentionally left them to bake just made a mistake?

[nomorenomore08]

128. She's not evil incarnate. But what she did was still worse in my book, in part because it wasn't

born of sheer desperation.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

98. March in the desert

[Nye Bevan]

57. Well.... one woman made a deliberate, conscious decision to leave her kids in a hot car.

The other woman forgot that the car seat was on top of the car.

[AverageJoe90]

171. That does kinda make a difference, TBH.

At least namely that the other woman actually genuinely forgot that the baby seat was on top of the car.....

[HipChick]

48. Racism and White Privilege are factors in today's society...unjust treatement

is one reason, for high number of incarcerated blacks...next question

[Cha]

69. It's sickening the disparity in sentencing if you're are White and then

again if you're Black.

The poor homeless Mom who was going to a job interview and had no one to watch her kids.. and she ends up losing them!

As for the Mom who left her baby on the roof because she was "high".. she was damn lucky the poor thing wasn't killed!

A petition calling for leniency for Shanesha Taylor ..

https://www.change.org/petitions/bill-montgomery-drop-the-child-abuse-charges-against-shanesha-taylor#share

Fundraiser for Shanesha..
http://www.youcaring.com/help-a-neighbor/shanesha-taylor-fundraiser/153519

Thanks she for shining some light on this~

[LisaL]

70. What disparity in sentencing?

There was no sentencing or trial yet in the Taylor's case.
Both of these women are lucky their children are not dead.
And maybe, just maybe you should wait until there is sentencing to argue there is a disparity.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

76. I do not believe some of our DU friends posting here, realize how deadly this is.

That is the only thing that explains, some of the post.

[Egnever]

101. Agreed

As someone who lives in Vegas but has lived elsewhere, I think it is very easy for people in northern states to overlook the danger posed by leaving your kids in the car.

[sheshe2]

86. Thank you Cha.

[Egnever]

102. There hasn't been a sentence yet

And I don't think you fully understand the danger of leaving children in the car in the desert. Both of these actions were potentially deadly.

As someone who lives in the desert what Shanesha did was horrific. The baby on the roof was not intentional just stupidity or carelessness. What Shanesha did was intentional. Both were potentially deadly I would argue what Shanesha did should carry a harsher sentence because it was willful endangerment.

Not that I think there isn't disparity in sentencing but this woman is not a good example for it.

[oneofthe99]

77. They both messed up pretty bad , I don't think race has anything to do with this case

Sometimes it's just luck of the draw on which judge you get.



You have judges that for some bizarre reason will go light on certain cases that involve the children and mother.

Then you have other judges that will take it personal in their courtroom and sentence a max penalty
on anything involving children.

Shanesha Taylor drew the short straw on this when her case was picked for this judge

[LisaL]

78. Shanesha Taylor's case wasn't yet picked by any judge.

She hasn't gone to trial.

[oneofthe99]

91. I'm sorry I misunderstood , so the first one do you know if

she was also charged with a felony and it was plead down?

I'm thinking no way Shanesha is going to convicted on a felony .
It will be plead down to probation with time served.

Unless she gets a real asshole judge and DA

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

111. did you notice the length of the probation ?

lasts until the child is 18.

if case # 2 does not get time served, plus 18 years probation (minus age of the youngest child in the house), Then we can talk about what is fare.

[oneofthe99]

112. Put me on the jury ..if see doesn't take a plea

If I had the power to let her go and have her children returned , it would be done in a New York minute.

I think what she did was very irresponsible but I also understand she was desperate and living in her car.

[Nobel_Twaddle_III]

113. this child was not so lucky TODAY !

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Father-Left-Baby-in-Car-at-Work-Infant-Died-San-Jose-Police-255662411.html

so your willing to make two more like these, in your "NEW YORK MINUTE"
http://www.kidsandcars.org/heatstroke.html

I am certainly glad, you do not have the power !!


EDIT = Spelling

[oneofthe99]

115. I wish I did because she would have her children back

You can support stripping her of her children , I do not

[LisaL]

143. Her children are with family members.

She does have family members that CPS judged responsible enough to take care of these children.
Why didn't any of them watch her children when she had her interview?

[oneofthe99]

145. I don't know but I'm trying not to judge this woman

that was homeless and living out of her car with her small children.

I have never been without a job in my adult life, never mind throwing homelessness into the mix
and having two children to boot.

I can't imagine what this poor mother was going through or how she felt .
She was so desperate to get this job she had a lapse of good judgment .

Yes we need to think of the children first but we also need to show compassion and empathy on what this women was enduring.

Have you ever been homeless with no job living out of a car with two small children?

My heart is breaking just thinking about her .

[LisaL]

152. Is she actually homeless and unemployed?

Not exactly, according to the DA.

"We've learned since that she actually had part-time employment, so she wasn't unemployed," he said. "She actually had a residence listed, so she wasn't homeless."

http://ktar.com/22/1723981/Defense-attorney-Shanesha-Taylor-made-a-mistake

[oneofthe99]

156. The residence could have been her families or an ex , it doesn't mean she was living there.

Part time job ?

What was that paying or how many hours a week , 5 hours , 10 hours?

So to say she wasn't homeless just because a court record has a residence listed is not accurate

[LisaL]

157. I have no clue how many hours per week her part time job is.

Where did she keep her children during these hours?

[oneofthe99]

158. You would have to know what type of job

I know a single mother that works a part time job at a laundry matt. She cleans up and does other various things there.


When she can't find someone to watch her two year old she takes her daughter with her .
It's not that big a deal because she's only there 3 or 4 hours but still it happens.

Sometimes life throws you a curve ball and it just sucks. I have been blessed.
I had good parents that helped me , a good job when I was older , a home in the country I bought . I worked hard for it but I never forget that for some they were thrown a curve ball in life at a very young age.

Parents on drugs , father in jail , mother an alcoholic etc.. There's a sad story to almost every homeless person you find.

I don't know her life story but I'm willing to bet it's not like mine or yours

[CFLDem]

92. If this isn't damning evidence

I don't know what is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. Apparently, it's not damning enough ...

there can be no white privilege until every white person is rich and completely outside of the law.

[Egnever]

103. There hasnt been any sentence imposed. Nor has the black woman been found guilty of anything yet.

How can you claim disparity? Cause what she did could have been every bit as deadly for her children as what the "white" woman did.

I could make a pretty good case that the white woman was just stupid and negligent. However the "black" woman willfully put her children in danger.

[Skip Intro]

168. Now don't spoil the fun with facts and logic. n/t

[Feral Child]

93. K&R n/t

[Captain Stern]

97. I don't see how any conclusion about white privilege can be reached here...

...until the second case is actually concluded.

What a person is charged with is not usually what they end up being convicted of.

The white one was initially charged with two felonies (child abuse and aggravated dui), while the black one was also charged with two felonies (2 charges of child abuse).

[AverageJoe90]

169. Exactly!

TBH, I don't doubt that real disparities do still exist in American society; pretty much anyone can see that. But "privilege"? C'mon, man, we should have gotten past that by now.

[dilby]

100. Wait till the sentencing then you can compare.

One has been sentenced and the other has only been charged. I can guarantee the other will get the same if not better deal than the woman was already sentenced. Prosecution will always hit you with the highest possible charge because it gives them more room when negotiating a plea bargain.

[maced666]

138. But aren't the black children here receiving better protection than the white child?

If the above stories are 100% accurate, the money would be on the white child's mother endangering the white child again - don't see Shanesha Taylor making this same 'mistake' again. Though I do wonder - where was the father of these two children -

The baby of the white mother is also the child of an Hispanic father (her BF) - http://www.kpho.com/story/18683504/pd-mom-arrested-after-she-drives-off-with-baby-on-car-roof
You can see his DUI at link, an obvious winner she picked - (she's batting 1000 on life right?!)
So, I guess this is maybe half-white privilege(?)

Or MAYBE this is double-white privilege since she got off easy and endangered a half-Hispanic baby?

I swear you need a white-privilege-correct manual just to keep up with all this!

[LisaL]

142. How do you know that Shanesha Taylor wouldn't make more "mistakes?"

Do you know there already was CPS involvement with her, prior to her leaving her children in the car?

[AverageJoe90]

170. "I swear you need a white-privilege-correct manual just to keep up with all this!"

Exactly, and it's getting tiring. We have better things to do than to watch people special snowflake about who is the most "white privilege" Tumblr compliant, or get into pissing contests about who is the "least privileged", etc.

[Horse with no Name]

139. Obviously you are more popular than I, however, this was the similarity I drew

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024787442

Same town and everything

[sheshe2]

140. I just KnR'ed your thread too Horse with no Name. nt

[oneofthe99]

149. This is really starting to piss me off

[dilby]

164. They both were arrested.

What is the difference here?

[JustAnotherGen]

159. Catalina

Was charged with DUI and child abuse and got a 16 year probation sentence? They didn't find any drugs or drug paraphernalia in the vehicle? She was smoking weed when she "forgot" get child was on the roof of her car - did she smoke it all?

Another angle on this . . . And DUers really want everyone walking around with a joint in their hand? *raised eyebrow*