Newsflash: Most White People Suffer From White Privilege

[mhatrw]

Last edited Thu Sep 24, 2015, 08:25 AM - Edit history (1)

For the linguistic police, I am facetiously defining "suffering from white privilege" as benefiting from white privilege, yet being blissfully unaware of or at least woefully underestimating these benefits.

Assuming that the folks representing themselves as Sanders' white supporters here, on DK. and on twitter are actually Sanders' white supporters and not right wing trolls, there are a number of Sanders supporters who have a lot to learn about racism and white privilege.

But does anyone here actually believe that Hillary Clinton's white supporters understand racism any better or suffer from white privilege any less than Sanders' white supporters?

If so, I have a little experiment for you. Ask your favorite white Clinton supporters why they think POC should vote for Clinton. Then, regardless of how they respond, attack them for not understanding or giving enough credence to the very real and urgent problems of institutional and personal racism. Be sure to call them out on the fact that they have no right to champion Clinton to any POC. Tell them that they just don't get it, and that the reason they just don't get it is because of their all-consuming. unconscious, ingrained white privilege. Then be sure to get back to all of us about how they react to this.

[jfern]

1. There's a definite double standard

First BLM protested Sanders even though he had said this the previous day. And he already had a scheduled meeting with BLM.

"I want to see an America where young, Black men walk down the street they will not be harrassed by police officers, they will not be killed and will not be shot."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/19/1403565/-Bernie-Sanders-AZ-RALLY-Liveblog

Then they protested him again, and didn't even let him speak.

The first thing many people ever heard about Sanders was that he had a "race problem"

But Sanders worked constructively with BLM activists like Deray Mckesson to come up with this racial justice platform.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

Meanwhile Hillary, talked down to BLM in a scheduled meeting.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-video

And told BLM to shut up when they protested her.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/29/1416502/-Hillary-to-BlackLivesMatter-protestors-I-m-going-to-keep-talking

And some Hillary supporters decided to start attacking Sanders for not standing up to Hillary as well as not getting BLM.

Needless to say we are sick of this race-baiting from Hillary supporters.

[mhatrw]

2. 1) Make aggressive attacks on Sanders.

2) Demonize Sanders and all of his white supporters when any of his white supporters exhibit any of the symptoms of a condition that the vast majority white people, including the vast majority of Clinton's supporters, suffer from.

3) When any of Sanders' white supporters react defensively to the charge of white privilege, as the vast majority of white people do when they are accused of racism, claim that this is why POC will not vote for Sanders.

It's really the perfect dirty trick.

Yet nobody can name a single policy or issue affecting POC on which he or she prefers Clinton's stance to Sanders' stance.

[Cheese Sandwich]

9. I think your observation here is basically correct

I did see a lot of Sanders supporters making naive comments about race, being blind to their own privilege.

But it's the same thing white people do in general all the time.

I see the same privileged and naive comments coming from the Clinton side but there is no organized attack machine to scream about it.

Hillary was the one who told the bulletproof shirt crew "If that is your position then I will talk only to white people". Which is a bizarre threat if I've ever heard one. I mean that's like literally a racist comment because it lumps all black people together in a group to exclude, but she took no heat for it.

[David__77]

76. I don't find that comment of Clinton's to be racially bigoted.

The man said "There's not much that we can do to stop the violence against us." I think that the "we" there is black people. I believe she meant that she's interested in talking to people who can (want to) do something about it. That's what I got - I understand that it's my own interpretation, and that she said what she said.

[SheilaT]

3. When you are white

as I am, you are almost always blissfully unaware of your white privilege.

Sometimes, rarely, you become aware of it, although you still don't recognize it as such.

My example: I'm an older (now 67) white woman. For the past decade, when stopped by a cop for such infractions as speeding or blowing through a stop sign (although I honestly don't think I really ever blew through a stop sign) I've only gotten a warning, never a ticket. It may help that I live in New Mexico, and (even though I'm not Hispanic) I look like Mom, or more likely Grandma, to the cop (mostly men younger than my own sons) who stops me. And none of them have so far been willing to give a ticket to Grandma.

What I cannot tell, is how much of that is because I'm so obviously Anglo. White. Maybe that's not a factor, but since I am white, I have no way of knowing. What I do know is that my privilege is very close to invisible.

I try to be sensitive to this. I try to take my privileged status into account. It's almost impossible to step outside of what I am.

When my sons were first driving, I frequently told them that they would get tickets in circumstances when I would not, just because they were young and male. And they weren't even persons of color. I cannot begin to imagine what it's like to be POC, and how you'd instruct your sons.

[Android3.14]

4. Odd, most seem to be more concerned with her support for for-profit prisons & mass incarceration

She may have changed her tune (at least temporarily) on her support for the latter, but informed voters know her actions fail to show actual advocacy for minorities.

[NCTraveler]

5. They don't suffer from it. They benefit from it.

And it isn't some. It's all.

[mhatrw]

8. And thus Sanders' white supporters are bad simply because they are white.

Do Clinton's white supporters benefit any less?

Do Clinton's white supporters recognize their white privilege any more?

[NCTraveler]

14. I don't have any clue how you come to these questions from my reply.

Just asking them shows a complete lack of understanding as to what white privilege is. I will still amuse you with answers.

1) No.
2) No way to know without serious analysis. Without analysis it would be an assumption. I'm not above assuming and will answer no.

Still, extremely strange questions to ask considering I only cleared up a glaring error in the op.

[mhatrw]

18. I was using "suffering from the condition of white privilege"

to mean benefiting from white privilege while completely underestimating or without even realizing those benefits.

But thanks for the correction. Sincerely. Thank you.

[Armstead]

26. I agreed with your original point....until you used the word "bad"

Just as being born Black does not automatically make one "bad" neither does being born white.

All "sides" in this wrongheaded argument that has develop in the political sphere are culpable.

As a white male, I obviously do not understand what it means to live one's life as an AA.

However, the flip side is that neither can a Black person fully appreciate the thoughts, emotions and perspectives of white people who makeevery effort to look beyond their "privilege," and have empathy for others and do what they can in their own lives and/or work to change the causes and effects of racism in the public sphere.

[Snotcicles]

40. I think Advantage would be a better term than Privilege because

to me Privilege seems as though it is a reward or a gift. Advantage seems to be present before any benefit.

Two boxers can have the Privilege to fight (Licensed) but only one can have the reach Advantage.

Changing a light bulb, Dad has the Advantage because he needs no ladder. "Dad can I use the ladder to change the bulb? " "Yes you have earned ladder Privileges"

Whites have benefited from Privilege in this country for so long that they have become inherently Advantaged, I think even possibly genetically.

Am I making sense? or am I off base?

Edited

[BrainDrain]

6. Sorry, no suffering

going on here. Kinda enjoying my life, thank you very much. S'matter? Feeling guilty for some odd reason?

[KentuckyWoman]

7. I dislike this terminology

The problem is not that white people don't deserve the basic common courtesy and respect that is taken for granted. The problem is that people of other races and skin colors deserve and do not get the same basic courtesy and respect from businesses, governments, schools, authorities, medical personnel, etc etc etc etc. The problem is that not enough white people are standing up demanding the crap heaped upon people of color by the elite be stopped.

Police have to be held accountable.
Slum lords must be smacked down and forced to maintain properties.
Shitty schools in shitty neighborhoods must be addressed and adequately funded.
Developers and businesses must be pushed very hard to rebuild the neighborhoods they abandoned simply because the color changed.
Our friends and neighbors who spew prejudiced or racist bullshit MUST be brought to task... EVERY TIME.

It needs to be an unrelenting hammer until the elite can no longer use racism as a weapon to divide us.

I'll say it again. I do not have privileges by being white. But people of color do get a crappy deal in this country and that is unacceptable.

[mhatrw]

10. I realize I am using the terminology all wrong.

After all, I am white, too.

[KentuckyWoman]

13. No I think you used the term properly.

The term itself very efficiently states whites get privileges. It's isn't you or your OP that I object to. Please understand.

It's just that every time I see that meme I try to make a point that making life just as bad for whites as it is for people of color doesn't solve anything. The powers that be have deliberately framed the discussion to keep us squabbling. If all of us can reject that framing and demand ALL people in this country be treated with equal respect and dignity then we have a chance to take a weapon away from the predator class.

[Garrett78]

77. Except that white folks do receive undue privileges.

Such as not being held accountable or punished when they should be. Or being accepted into colleges based on legacy. Or given preferential treatment in the workplace. And so on.

So, not only are persons of color made to start well behind the starting line, white people are told they can start well ahead of the starting line.

And because the impacts of historical racism (like not having access to Social Security or the GI Bill) are still being felt, some form of reparations is desperately needed in order to have any chance at evening the playing field, though nothing can ever undo the pain and suffering that was inflicted.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. "demanding the crap heaped upon people of color by the elite"

It's not just the "elite" doing the crap heaping. Very few POC actually have day to day contact (direct or indirect) with the "elite". The white sales person at a small urban mall clothing store who is barely making minimum wage, yet who stalks black customers assuming they will shoplift (where the stats indicate that whites are still the biggest shoplifters - which is considered larceny) is not anyone who qualifies as "the elite". Yet this is the type of day-to-day harassment that many of us POC experience. And it adds up.

That is one of the disconnects that many of us POC keep trying to get across when the discussion comes up. It's not a need for "economic justice" in any literal sense. It's a need to counter and reverse centuries of indoctrination that has defined POC as inferior to whites, which is then internalized by many whites of every economic level, resulting in the manifestation of the crap that we see continuing to happen today.

[mhatrw]

12. But not when you talk to Clinton's white supporters. Right?

They all get it. Right?

[BumRushDaShow]

15. I'm not talking about any candidates

This not a candidate forum.

This knee-jerk reaction of "What about Clinton??!!11!!!1!!!" that keeps happening here on DU whenever POC relate their experiences in America, is tiresome.

The egregious behavior is being perpetrated by individuals who are members of certain groups. And the individuals in these groups are going need to make a behavior change INTERNALLY. No candidate is going to be able to cure centuries-long cultural conditioning.

[mhatrw]

19. This is the primary forum. The intention of the OP was clearly "what about Clinton?"

I am sorry you find that tiresome.

I find the constant disparagement of Sanders' campaign because of centuries-long cultural conditioning that affects the behavior of almost all white people, no matter how well-meaning they are on issues of social justice, tiresome. That was my point. The fact that the vast majority of white people have a lot to learn about racism is not unique to any candidate's supporters and is thus a bullshit reason to favor one candidate over another.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. It is tiresome

when DUers continue to insinuate that discussion of experiences of POC is somehow tied to a disparaging "X" candidate when nothing in my post or others' posts assigned any blame to candidates.

Your above post is arguing against what I wrote which is exactly the point of what you write here- i.e.,

The fact that the vast majority of white people have a lot to learn about racism is not unique to any candidate's supporters and is thus a bullshit reason to favor one candidate over another.

Yet you knee-jerk assumed that my post was "anti- Bernie Sanders" and this is why it is tiresome and childish discourse that adds nothing to finding ways to solve issues. You personalized what I wrote to fit your grievance and went way off track.

[mhatrw]

55. Yes. I reacted predictably for a white person who is schooled about racism.

That is the point of the OP. White people in general do not want to think long and hard about racism. When white people in general are schooled on the subjected of racism, they become defensive and often lash out at the person who is trying to educate them about racism or the very idea that they need to be educated about racism. This applies to Clinton's white supporters as much as it applies to Sanders' white supporters.

[BumRushDaShow]

56. See post #35 for a solution. nt

[Number23]

73. Perfectly said, BumRush. And tiresome is just one of many words I'd use to describe this mess

This is why certain posters can look at the AA forum and see it as "pro-Hillary" when regular posters in the forum are ALWAYS saying how cool it is that we are not advocating for a single candidate in that forum. That EVERYONE is welcome, unless they are hostile to black people.

It is just a classic example of what you said, people seeing what they want to see and seeing grievances where none exist and then going off on tangents based on things that nobody said and information they refuse to read or listen to. "Tiresome" is definitely one word to describe it.

[KentuckyWoman]

17. OK now I'm confused

poster didn't say anything about Clinton so where did that come from?

[Romulox]

33. We remember her other posts. She's a Clinton supporter. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

49. If you are referencing me, you will find no such.

[Romulox]

50. I will find no such comments of yours taking Hillary to task for her corporatism. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

51. Read post #35 for a solution to your problem

[Romulox]

53. That's not a critique of Hillary Clinton's Corporatism. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

57. It is a suggestion for productive discourse. eom

[Romulox]

58. More than willing to try. Care to lead off with thoughts on Hillary Clinton's Corporatism? nt

[BumRushDaShow]

59. If it is something that you feel strongly about, have at it.

[Romulox]

60. I think I've made my point. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

62. Corporations are people per "Citizens United"

and there is nothing that Hillary can do about and nothing that Bernie can do about it and nothing that O'Malley can do about it and nothing that Chaffee can do about it and nothing that the 14 remaining clowns running for the GOP primary can do about it.

As a POC, I have "0" power to make a difference regarding corporate hegemony and no candidate will have such power either - see Scott Walker.

[YoungDemCA]

63. Can you define "corporatism"

In any logically coherent way?

[KentuckyWoman]

16. I agree with you 100% and said so in my post.

Our friends and neighbors who spew prejudiced or racist bullshit MUST be brought to task... EVERY TIME.

It needs to be an unrelenting hammer until the elite can no longer use racism as a weapon to divide us

You are 100% right and your example and all the other ones I can name my own self are exactly what I was talking about. It's unacceptable whether it's the retail store clerk or the developer who abandons retail property in a neighborhood with changing demographics (white flight) or the teacher who assumes the black students are less educatable or the lady behind the window at the bank who smiles at white customers and double triple quadruple checks on black customers (seen it).

Reversing the indoctrination is the exact reason why I object to the terminology "white privilege". It implies people of color don't deserve better and whites don't deserve what we have.... need to be taken down a notch. It's a mindset I find somewhat offensive to be honest.....

Anyways, I think we pretty much agree.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. One of the issues of use of terminology

is to clumsily try to identify potential causes of a "problem".

And as is often said - in order to start solving a problem, one must admit there is one, and in order to admit the problem, one must actually try to define or describe the problem so that it can be evaluated. And in order to determine next steps, one needs to try to establish the potential "causes" (and in many cases, it's not a single "cause&quot , and try to address these.

However the critical pieces of evidence of actually having a problem, are the symptoms that we see daily in a very public fashion - the stalking, harassment, mistreatment, unequal treatment, etc. And sadly right now, we are at the stage of not just trying to define the problem or even the causes, but actually admitting there even IS a problem! There is a lot of denial out there.

[Armstead]

27. OKay, but you don't solve one problem by dismissing the other

Economic justice -- and economic injustice -- is an all-encompassing issue that affects EVERYONE who is not among the Economic Elites who benefit. It especially affects people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

It is necessary to change that and provide the opportunity for a secure life for EVERYONE for many different reasons and on many different levels. That's just a basic fact.

Racial injustice and bigotry of all flavors is also a deep and complex issue that also effects everyone, in differing ways. And it must be dealt with on many different levels. And discussed and debated honestly, outside of political agendas.

The problem with the bullshit that has been spread around the Sanders campaign (although it also affects all politics) is this Either/Or polarization that has been stirred up needlessly among the large segment of the population who ultimately agree on these issues. The mutual insults and estrangement defeats efforts at progress on all aspects, including social and economic and racial justice for everyone.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. That is the issue

But the reality is that folks will focus on the one problem that exclusively impacts them the most, which becomes the one that they want to see addressed. But unfortunately, since POC are the minority in this nation and on DU, their voices are drowned out when they insist that the bigotry is what is impacting their day-to-day lives regardless of economic circumstances, yet this is summarily dismissed, and they are accused of being "Bernie Sanders haters".

The "polarization", regardless of the cause, is real, and the way to address it is to not to deny it, but to accept the various perspectives and experiences, agree to disagree if need be, and then find commonalities and move on - NOT insist on what *should be* the "commonality", and try to impose that on someone else.

For supporters of the various candidates to get riled up over sociological circumstances rather than offer concrete solutions, is nonsensical.

[Armstead]

30. I agree with this -- The linkage to a particular candidate is what angers so many

"The "polarization", regardless of the cause, is real, and the way to address it is to not to deny it, but to accept the various perspectives and experiences, agree to disagree if need be, and then find commonalities and move on - NOT insist on what *should be* the "commonality", and try to impose that on someone else. "

The above statement I agree with.

But what bothers me personally (and I think others who support Sanders) is that from the beginning of his introduction to the larger public as candidate, he was instantly branded as something that is the opposite of who he is and what he stands for. And people keep beating that drum -- Against HIM Personally and His Supports -- in a phony opportunistic and/or misguided way.

If people have a problem with something he has said or done that they believe is wrong, okay, fair game. If -- as with all candidates and all issues -- they believe he should have different priorities, that's fair game too. There may be people who believe he doesn't emphasize environmental issues enough, or doesnlt address specific economic issues....whatever. Fine.

But to immediately brand him as racially insensitive and uncaring -- rather than allowing people to get to know about him and his views and actions, and make their own objective assessments and decisions -- is just bullshit. Sorry, that's the only word I can use.

[BumRushDaShow]

35. I think you may see people "beating the drums"

because they are seeing their concerns dismissed here on DU and even occasionally on social media - and often not by the candidates themselves - but by those who have decided to support a candidate, and have gone on the attack or on the defensive. And sadly when candidates do offer solutions or acknowledge certain problems and attempt to address them, then again, the supporters, not the candidates, go on the attack to harshly critique the alternate candidate's action as "not good enough" or "too little too late" or "they are being disingenuous because they did 'x' in the past", or "you should accept what they propose lock, stock, and barrel because they did 'y' in the past", and other nonsense... And that type of negative discourse just feeds the "drum-beating" and further attacks, and we get to where we are today on DU - vicious in-fighting and a complete melt-down.

Rather than debate the ways and means to solve our problems, we ("we" as in "editorial we&quot would rather make it about how a candidate's personality or background or past actions will negatively impact the solutions, without accepting that people may change - either for the good or for the worse, and what they propose may be viable or may need some serious tweaking to be viable. I.e., IMHO, the better way to go about it is to offer the "here is where 'A, B, and C' needs work or could be made better" type of analysis, with suggestions for comprehensive, practical solutions... and if not comprehensive, then at least as a start.

[Armstead]

41. You are correct -- There's a negative feedback loop

DU is a collection of individuals with varying personalities, beliefs and agendas. And at times it tends to bring out the worst sides of people rather than the best.

The negative feedback loops tend to be reinforced when people fall into warring "camps." As in "I support (Candidate A) and nothing (Candidate B) does is right." I also think pride tends to come into play -- people refuse to yield or back down because they feel like they are giving up something. It becomes difficult to say "I believe Sanders is a great candidate but I disagree with him on (X)." or "Clinton is too tied to corporate interests, but her proposal to (do x) is a good idea." or Vice Versa....Instead, people get into "Not good enough" etc.

Also, it is reinforced by the way issues get brought up. Saying "I believe race has to be a higher profile issue in the primary campaigns" is a lot different than "Bernie Sanders is racially insensitive and has a problem with Black people." The first is likely to on either elicit agreement, or at least spark a more civil debate. The second will evoke hostile and defensive counter responses.

It's probably an inevitable byproduct of human behavior, group dynamics and the tendency of the Internet to accelerate those.

[FSogol]

61. +1. Well said. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

39. They are attacking him as the opposite of what he is

Because they are scared of him beating Hillary.

[mhatrw]

69. Yes, people tend to prioritize the issues that affect them the most personally.

There are just as many white Clinton supporters who are proud of the fact that they "can't see race" as there are Sanders supporters. The reason Sanders' white supporters get defensive about race issues is the same reason all white people get defensive about race issues when they are challenged about them.

Sanders supporters are almost universally in favor of social justice as well as economic justice. POC on DU are almost universally in favor of economic justice as well as social justice. We should all work together on both of these important issues. The ubiquitous meme that Sanders' white supporters are somehow uniquely insensitive to issues of racial justice is nonsensical and unhelpful. Many Sanders' supporters need to be educated on matters of racial injustice, but this is equally or more true of the white supporters of every other candidate. Insensitivity to racism is a white person problem rather than a Sanders' supporters problem. Step one is to engage in productive dialog without recriminating generalizations.

[BumRushDaShow]

71. In my post #35

I recommend that people debate concrete policies that have been proffered by the candidates in an attempt to address the various issues that come up among the electorate and here on DU. Yet even in this thread, the barbs continue to be thrown about instead, and everything gets distilled down to 2 generic and nebulous issues - "economic justice" and "social justice" rather than attempting to dissect and improve upon what has been put out so far by the candidates. By doing this, we ("editorial we&quot can act as catalysts for change and try to improve upon what will eventually become the new Democratic platform at some point, with the hope that it will give us a good start at addressing those more nebulous issues.

[mhatrw]

72. Yes, I think getting rid of for profit prisons and reinstituting the federal

parole system is a good first step.

But I would like to see much more done to outlaw local communities from using their criminal "justice systems" as profit centers.

[BumRushDaShow]

74. The local law enforcement "profit centers"

are a HUGE issue that impacts urban, suburban, and rural areas. "Speed trap" towns have been notorious institutions in the U.S. for many decades, and now with the red light camera scams, even more municipalities have found new ways to raise funds to replace what has been slashed from their respective states. This type of predatory practice to get money to operate has escalated thanks to the elimination of federal revenue-sharing to states almost 30 years ago, along with additional funding cuts by states to their municipalities. The subsidies that continue to be dished out to the biggest corporations already having large profits (e.g., the oil companies) should be diverted back to the states. Meanwhile, Democrats need to take state governments back so that extra money can get passed on to their localities.

I wouldn't be surprised that you could draw a correlation between the rise of for-profit prisons and the elimination of federal revenue-sharing.

[mhatrw]

75. 100% agreed. So many municipalities raise revenue in such terrible ways.

And almost always they do so on the backs of those we can least afford it.

[Romulox]

32. Hillary Clinton is White. Hope this helps! nt

[BumRushDaShow]

36. I am an undecided voter. Hope this helps. eom

[Romulox]

42. So what you wrote applies with full force to Hillary Clinton, as well. Hope this helps! nt

[BumRushDaShow]

43. Read the rest of my posts in this thread, that should help. eom

[Romulox]

44. It's obvious that your critique of economic justice is meant for Sanders. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

46. And you just illustrated the problem I'm describing. eom

[99Forever]

20. Oh goody, more racebaiting from Team Weathervane.

Dirty campaigners gotta campaign dirty.

[mhatrw]

21. Perhaps you should read the OP more closely? n/t

[99Forever]

22. I'm sorry, but no thanks.

You lose me at "white privilege." It's a fucking term INTENDED to divide.

[mhatrw]

24. LOL. It unites all white people! n/t

[99Forever]

28. Really?

[AgingAmerican]

38. Weird

nt

[Trajan]

52. Yeah .. Funny as a heart attack ..

Here is your big LOL

Welcome to IGGYVILLE!

[Doctor_J]

34. I'm with you. I can't figure out what this OP is doing in GDP

I have been trashing more threads lately. This one is headed there.

[Romulox]

31. EVERYONE has White Privilege except fabulously wealthy White Women!!!!11!!!

[YoungDemCA]

65. It's all about money eh?

That's a hopelessly reductionist viewpoint. Money doesn't insulate Hillary from experiencing sexism and misogyny. And if anything, her being in the public eye has made her a lightning rod for misogynistic assholes, regardless of how "progressive" they claim to be.

[Romulox]

66. Backatcha.

Money doesn't insulate Hillary from experiencing sexism and misogyny. And if anything, her being in the public eye has made her a lightning rod for misogynistic assholes, regardless of how "progressive" they claim to be.

If she were a poor woman, or a poor man, you would've never heard of her. So your analysis is at least as "reductionist" as the one you critique.

[mhatrw]

70. No racism, sexism and homophobia are not all about money.

However, economic justice is all about money. Do you favor the class warfare of top 0.1% against the rest of us or do you think enough is enough?

[AgingAmerican]

37. Most of her supporters cannot adequately articulate why they support her

nt

[mhatrw]

48. They do not even try, at least not in terms of policy or issues.

And that is because either:

1) they prefer Sanders' stances on the issues, or

2) they prefer Clinton's stance on the issues, but know that their pro-corporate, hyper-capitalist preferences are wildly unpopular among the Democratic base.

[Zorra]

45. Clinton is a rich straight white privileged corporatist. She won't do jack shit to help POC

if she is elected POTUS.

Nothing is going to change that fact, and erroneously believing that Clinton supporters grasp the facts of white privilege and institutionalized racism more than Sanders supporters do is simply ludicrous.

People vote against their own interests all the time, and when they are successful at voting against their own interests, things get worse for them, and they live with the consequences of their vote. And later, they can't figure out why things are getting worse for them, and then they go and vote against their own interests again.

Doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result, is never constructive.

Personally, it disgusts me when phony people kiss my ass because they see me as some poor, downtrodden minority victim. It's the people who really see that the color of my skin, or my gender, or my sexual identity, don't make me any different from who they are. And that's what I see in my fellow Bernie supporters. They accept me as I am, because that is who we are.

Sanders supporters are real, and we intend to do our best to help minorities, and all people, improve their lives and social and economic conditions. This is what so many Clinton supporters can't seem to grasp. Sanders supporters are light years ahead of them in understanding white privilege, racism, sexism, homophobia/transphobia, etc.

We know for a fact that voting for a wealthy straight white privileged corporatist woman, who has a terrible record steeped in duplicity when dealing with minorities, is not going to improve anyone's social or economic conditions except for the very wealthy.

Believing that electing Hillary Clinton President will do anything to significantly change institutionalized and personal racism, or change the status quo of white privilege in America, is a tragic fantasy.

[Juicy_Bellows]

67. Well said - true words. nt.

[Maedhros]

54. I'm fairly well-aware of my privilege as a white male.[n/t]

[YoungDemCA]

64. This is ridiculous

n t

[Polly Hennessey]

68. I'm white

I, too, am fully aware of my white privilege and advantage. Thank you very much. I am also very aware of my support for democratic principles. However, I must add that I, too, was once stopped by a police officer for speeding and was given a ticket by said police officer. I might also add that I have been a DU member since 2002. Mostly, I comment on animal threads but sometimes I give other opinions. I have voted democratic my entire life and will continue to do so no matter what any one might think. I also champion Hillary and Bernie and Elizabeth. I have a slight hesitation with Joe Biden because I have only partially forgiven him for Clarence Thomas. If someone makes a snide comment about what I said it will be for naught because I'm on to other things and won't be available to read your comments.