Plenty of white people starving, and living on the street. Its the lefts oldest propaganda trick.
You must consider that folks may vary in their interpretations of "White Privilege." It's semantics.
I believe White privilege is mostly based on social and historical factors as of today. I don't find it's always the case for White folks, as the case you've mentioned. In an overall sense though, then yes, I'd say it's real.
Plenty of white people starving, and living on the street. Its the lefts oldest propaganda trick.
You must consider that folks may vary in their interpretations of "White Privilege." It's semantics.
I believe White privilege is mostly based on social and historical factors as of today. I don't find it's always the case for White folks, as the case you've mentioned. In an overall sense though, then yes, I'd say it's real.
It is logically flawed to assume white privilege exists. I have seen whites face discrimination. Making your response completely meaningless, and unrealistic.
Plenty of white people starving, and living on the street. Its the lefts oldest propaganda trick.
You must consider that folks may vary in their interpretations of "White Privilege." It's semantics.
I believe White privilege is mostly based on social and historical factors as of today. I don't find it's always the case for White folks, as the case you've mentioned. In an overall sense though, then yes, I'd say it's real.
It is logically flawed to assume white privilege exists. I have seen whites face discrimination. Making your response completely meaningless, and unrealistic.
My point is that White privilege doesn't always work in every case. However, it currently does in a general sense I'd say. Perhaps you could say there are particular general social advantages in each minority race/culture in the US, but I find them rather insignificant when compared to White folks.
Nice try with this whole "Black Privilege" example, but I find most if not, all of those claims supporting Black privilege are insignificant or very debatable/unclear when compared to White privilege.
I think all heritages have a distinct privilege, its just that I dont agree with how white privilege is used in the common community
As shown by the graph above, Asians have the highest income rate. The graduate school at the highest rate. They commit less crime in relation to their population. Was the Constitution written for Asian, by Asians, in Korea? I think its hard to claim a majority privilege when another minority group is actually doing better than the majority group one says is doing better than the other minority group. It doesn't make sense and just using vacuum thinking
@boschepg: I think graphs shouldn't matter as there will always be differences when cultures are put into the mix. Black people and men are more effected by longer criminal sentences than white people and women. We cannot effectively combat societal tendencies like "white priviledge" if it can't be applied on the micro level. We can only look at unjust circumstances like black people being sentenced unproportionally long for the same crime. In a society were are relatively equal but there are some circumstances where it helps to be white and female. That is when it comes to criminal sentencing.
No and no. if it is it is hidden well. I get no special damn treatment. Nobody I know gets any special treatment. Ask do rich people get treated better then others and your answer is yes they are. Ask does one group of people treat other groups of people different then you may get a yes as well. When filming the wizard of Oz they said everybody stayed to their own group. Midgets with midgets and so fourth. So do we look on groups as outsiders? I joined the army and we became green. No color just a group of green people. No room for racist. Yet Marines or navy was another story lol...always a contest I guess but military is military. Brothers and sisters till the very end. You will get out of life what you put into or what you look for. What is the saying. Go looking for trouble your most likely to find it.
^ Not a fair comparison, considering that White folks are still the great majority of the USA populace. So of course there would be higher stats for White folks in those instances.
Median US Household Income, 2014.
There are minorities who may average out with greater household income than White folks, but when I say White privilege, it doesn't necessarily mean that White folks will always be at the top. Countless other minorities have been left out of the graph as well.
^ Really? An anecdote... See, this is merely showing that my and your interpretation of white privilege aren't compatible. Your interpretation seems to be based on stereotypical White privilege claims, making it seem as if it's the typical black and white argument.
@chechenwolf876: and for some satirical balance, I can play your game too (I'm actually not 100% sure on agreeing with the pics though):
I'm not playing any game. Stop blaming me for your problems on me. Its not fault huge percent of blacks don't want to study, and apply themselves. You want everything handed down to you like a princess.
@chechenwolf876: and for some satirical balance, I can play your game too (I'm actually not 100% sure on agreeing with the pics though):
I'm not playing any game. Stop blaming me for your problems on me. Its not fault huge percent of blacks don't want to study, and apply themselves. You want everything handed down to you like a princess.
Wow.. look at the poor black kids.
"I'm not playing any game. Stop blaming me for your problems on me. Its not fault huge percent of blacks don't want to study, and apply themselves. You want everything handed down to you like a princess."
But, that's not justification for the continued unfair treatment in things like rejected job applicants for the African Americans who are trying to better themselves; applying for a job or business loan is not the time to consider making me my brother's keeper.
And, the blacks who are not applying themselves, as you put it, aren't seeking to have things handed down to them; and you're insensitive to the phrase "hand down" which should be ringing alarm bells about the topic of the thread "white privilege"; obviously, the above behavior is indicative of something that's totally unrelated to the issue of white privilege, at least in areas where it matters, like in having the financial wherewithal to take care of yourself. The issue is far from resolved and just because an antiquated law is there that has been gutted and allows for the legalization of employment discrimination clearly doesn't mean that now the problem is solved, simply because the courts now sanctions the practices and says that it's ok.
I'm not playing any game. Stop blaming me for your problems on me. Its not fault huge percent of blacks don't want to study, and apply themselves. You want everything handed down to you like a princess.
Wow.. look at the poor black kids.
How am I blaming anyone? As far as I'm concerned, my side of this discussion was supposed to be expressing my interpretation of white privilege, for the most part. I can see that there's a serious issue of many Black folks not taking education as seriously, which can be attributed to how they are disciplined and what environment they were born in. I do not need anything "handed down" to me.
BTW, I'm sure as hell not Black... Mexican/Puerto Rican-American is my actual heritage/culture. In terms of race though, I'm of half indigenous Mexican ancestry, which is technically part of the Native American/Amerindian race. My other half is Southern European ancestry, which is just a fancy and more specific way of saying that I'm half White. I'm sure you've heard of the term "Mestizo," which is what my race would be consider by the colonial caste system in Mexico under past Spanish rule, although I definitely wouldn't appreciate being called a "Mestizo" for various reasons.
Anyhow, I wanted to mention that privilege definitely applies to me as well, especially in Mexico where the dominant race and culture is a general mix of indigenous Mexican and Spanish culture. This is often seen as the so-called "superior" culture in Mexico. So there is definitely Mexican (MIXED) privilege as well when we dominate society the many aspects that matter in current Mexican society and from historical factors. For instance, we did generally benefit from our history over the original and pure indigenous cultures, who were considered inferior and placed in such a position not only by us, but by the elites of society, Criollos and Peninsulares. This impact is clearly shown in Mexican society to this day, where the indigenous population continues to suffer the most in Mexican society...
I find there's a clear parallel to Mexican privilege in Mexico and White privilege in the USA.
Me and mother (who is a pure blooded vainakh with blonde hair) didn't get accept to any job. They hire another black, or Hispanic. Not because they are qualified, because its their kind. The Hispanics and blacks hire amongst themselves. My mother was over qualified for the job.Don't give this privilege nonsense. Their are no such thing as privilege(any kind).
Russian hire Russians..
Polish hire Polish
etc...
People tend to stick with each other because of their nationality.
@chechenwolf876: With all due respect, I don't see how anecdotal evidence is supposed to be supporting your case against mine when you keep on missing a keyword in my interpretation of racial/cultural privilege. I'm already losing interest in the discussion and I must carry on.
White privileged is a BS term used by the left to suggest that any white person not of color isn't qualified to debate on certain things because they're not a minority.
Sounds like a racist thing itself if you ask me, suggesting others are not qualified to speak on certain issues because of their race!!
@fitnesstribesman13:the memes are funny. I don't know how factual they are but they are funny. If true, 5% isn't all that high considering that in America (depending on the year of the census) whites make around 60 to 70% of the population while blacks around 15%. Since whites can flood the market, they have more people. Its like if I had 10 shots a game vs 2 shots a game, the person with more shots is more than likely to score more points - whether they are white or black
This thread is cancer, but the last one is completely ridiculous, I don't see how you could seriously believe Hollywood's perceptions of Black people have been always positive, even in the last 5-10 years. On the small screen its arguably worse
"White privilege" is an unhelpful term in discussing racial issues. Those that toss out the term like a grenade do so to in some form to insinuate or to suggest that a white person is morally disqualified from participating because they do not share the same background as some minority victim. It moralizes the color of someone's skin.
White privilege takes general characteristics about a race and then suggests that all of that race share these characteristics and then uses these characteristics to make moral arguments against the whole group. Imagine doing this against another race. Say taking a generality about African Americans such as African Americans graduate high school at lower rates than whites or that African Americans do lower on standardized tests than white people do.
Let's act like this applies to all African Americans; even though we know in reality it does not. Now lets give this general characteristic a catchy name like "Black Ignorance". How do you think the conversation on "black ignorance" would go? Would it be helpful in identifying issues and reasons for "black ignorance" or do you think the very term would be offensive? Go ahead and try it, start a conversation with an African American about "black ignorance" and see what happens.
In just the same way as addressing educational deficiencies as "black ignorance" would be a hindrance to addressing real educational obstacles and issues - a moralistic term such as "white privilege" hinders racial discussions with white people.
"White privilege" is an unhelpful term in discussing racial issues. Those that toss out the term like a grenade do so to in some form to insinuate or to suggest that a white person is morally disqualified from participating because they do not share the same background as some minority victim. It moralizes the color of someone's skin.
White privilege takes general characteristics about a race and then suggests that all of that race share these characteristics and then uses these characteristics to make moral arguments against the whole group. Imagine doing this against another race. Say taking a generality about African Americans such as African Americans graduate high school at lower rates than whites or that African Americans do lower on standardized tests than white people do.
Let's act like this applies to all African Americans; even though we know in reality it does not. Now lets give this general characteristic a catchy name like "Black Ignorance". How do you think the conversation on "black ignorance" would go? Would it be helpful in identifying issues and reasons for "black ignorance" or do you think the very term would be offensive? Go ahead and try it, start a conversation with an African American about "black ignorance" and see what happens.
In just the same way as addressing educational deficiencies as "black ignorance" would be a hindrance to addressing real educational obstacles and issues - a moralistic term such as "white privilege" hinders racial discussions with white people.
""White privilege" is an unhelpful term in discussing racial issues. Those that toss out the term like a grenade do so to in some form to insinuate or to suggest that a white person is morally disqualified from participating because they do not share the same background as some minority victim. It moralizes the color of someone's skin."
No, seems like you're trying to turn a very clear and straightforward phrase into an apples to oranges issue. The key term is "privilege" and it only means about one thing; it has nothing to do with a moral equivalency to speak about something; it's more about being unable to truly relate to a particular perspective, from a position of advantage that's quite unmistakable and completely without ambiguity, based on the clear evidence.
"White privilege takes general characteristics about a race and then suggests that all of that race share these characteristics and then uses these characteristics to make moral arguments against the whole group. Imagine doing this against another race. Say taking a generality about African Americans such as African Americans graduate high school at lower rates than whites or that African Americans do lower on standardized tests than white people do."
What you;'re using is a very real stereotype used by whites to keep African Americans at a position of disadvantage that's quite real and represents reality; on the other end of the spectrum, where you're from is also used in reality that keeps that group at a position of privilege; if you're trying to suggest that the reality is actually different, than you can't be serious, insensitive, or completely disconnected from reality (e.g. that can happen from a position of privilege and wealth). You're actually taking the reality and than suggesting that some other reality exists. Except the issue is a bit more complicated than just race or ethnicity, because things like discrimination based on looks or discrimination based on perceived disability could also be involved to work against the ethnic groups who are not white.
"In just the same way as addressing educational deficiencies as "black ignorance" would be a hindrance to addressing real educational obstacles and issues - a moralistic term such as "white privilege" hinders racial discussions with white people."
If not these, what are you suggesting are the issues instead? The educational obstacles, just like economics, are inextricably intertwined and cannot be separated from the issue of white privilege and using this term is actually necessary to discuss race relations; it's more of an issue that the people who have the platform wont keep the issue front and center in the daily politics in the United States; that's the real problem, members of Congress and the president not being willing to have these issues constantly streaming into the public until a resolution is finally accomplished; these are the central issues to addressing employment and education, and those issues aren't constantly being streamed into the public talk, and, as a result, these issues persist and remain unresolved. All of the issues that are dominating the conversation, currently, need to be put on the back burner for a while.
White privilege does exist to some extent. Is it harder to get a job as a black man with a criminal record than a white man with a criminal record? Yes. Is it hard being a black man and always being watched when walking around a convenience store? Of course. Are more white people legally successful than white people? Yes. Have I personally seen white kids get away with terrible deeds while black kids get harsh punishment? Yes. Do I think that growing up in a white neighborhood would have made me a better person? Absolutely. Do I think white people get away with a lot of stuff that deserves punishment? Yes, but mostly in the South.
But let's all be honest other races also have our own issues. As a black man I believe we keep ourselves down. Black women go for thugs or talk down to good, successful and smart black men. We allow Tyler Perry movies to keep running despite the fact all of those movies either make the dark skin black man as abusive or morally wrong. To quote Chris Rock "A black man gets more praise for coming out of prison than out of college", I mean it's pretty sad when our own women find prison scars more attractive than a college degree. We allow the idea being a thug is cooler than being intelligent. At the end of the day we can praise Obama, Malcolm X and MLK for being so great but we can't allow ourselves to celebrate for one week a year then turn back to crime and hate the next day. Go online and look at how black women take criticism about their actions, go online and watch innocent people get beat by angry black mobs that mine as well have signs saying "We aren't the KKK but we're pretty damn close.."
"White privilege" is an unhelpful term in discussing racial issues. Those that toss out the term like a grenade do so to in some form to insinuate or to suggest that a white person is morally disqualified from participating because they do not share the same background as some minority victim. It moralizes the color of someone's skin.
White privilege takes general characteristics about a race and then suggests that all of that race share these characteristics and then uses these characteristics to make moral arguments against the whole group. Imagine doing this against another race. Say taking a generality about African Americans such as African Americans graduate high school at lower rates than whites or that African Americans do lower on standardized tests than white people do.
Let's act like this applies to all African Americans; even though we know in reality it does not. Now lets give this general characteristic a catchy name like "Black Ignorance". How do you think the conversation on "black ignorance" would go? Would it be helpful in identifying issues and reasons for "black ignorance" or do you think the very term would be offensive? Go ahead and try it, start a conversation with an African American about "black ignorance" and see what happens.
In just the same way as addressing educational deficiencies as "black ignorance" would be a hindrance to addressing real educational obstacles and issues - a moralistic term such as "white privilege" hinders racial discussions with white people.
Agreed 100%, it pushes racial collectivism, which is what both intersectional social justice warriors on the left base their anti-white crap on, and what the alt-right bases its white supremacist crap on.
The only good way to deal with racial issues is taking an individualist stance, which is what actual liberals (not these neoprogressives and marxists masquerading as liberal), libertarians, and quite a few strains of conservatives hold. Individualism is the antidote to racism, the message pushed by Martin Luther King Jr. and the message we should be pushing to combat racism, since it is only moral and practical for the benefit of the individual and society to judge people on their individual characteristics rather than judging them off of the aggregates for their demographic, and since the best way to create an egalitarian society is to ensure each individual has rights that are protected by the government. Racial collectivism just furthers the notion that people should be judged or treated differently based on their race.
You know, those people never EVER formed another thing than a tiny minority among the soldier in Werhmacht.
And when they were enlisted, it was only because the nazi were desesperate and the choice of those soldiers were often that or starving in a camp. (And I higlhy doubt that the black werhmacht soldier knew anything about the nazi political theory or military situation, by the way...)
@chechenwolf876: lol whatever, I'd say you'd ought to quit with the weak anecdotal or highly debatable evidence and merely pointless supporting YOUR own semantics regarding the topic, which was the original point I've made in the first place!
This is becoming so cringeworthy and desperate. Now hush it albino!
"White privilege" is an unhelpful term in discussing racial issues. Those that toss out the term like a grenade do so to in some form to insinuate or to suggest that a white person is morally disqualified from participating because they do not share the same background as some minority victim. It moralizes the color of someone's skin.
White privilege takes general characteristics about a race and then suggests that all of that race share these characteristics and then uses these characteristics to make moral arguments against the whole group. Imagine doing this against another race. Say taking a generality about African Americans such as African Americans graduate high school at lower rates than whites or that African Americans do lower on standardized tests than white people do.
Let's act like this applies to all African Americans; even though we know in reality it does not. Now lets give this general characteristic a catchy name like "Black Ignorance". How do you think the conversation on "black ignorance" would go? Would it be helpful in identifying issues and reasons for "black ignorance" or do you think the very term would be offensive? Go ahead and try it, start a conversation with an African American about "black ignorance" and see what happens.
In just the same way as addressing educational deficiencies as "black ignorance" would be a hindrance to addressing real educational obstacles and issues - a moralistic term such as "white privilege" hinders racial discussions with white people.
""White privilege" is an unhelpful term in discussing racial issues. Those that toss out the term like a grenade do so to in some form to insinuate or to suggest that a white person is morally disqualified from participating because they do not share the same background as some minority victim. It moralizes the color of someone's skin."
No, seems like you're trying to turn a very clear and straightforward phrase into an apples to oranges issue. The key term is "privilege" and it only means about one thing; it has nothing to do with a moral equivalency to speak about something; it's more about being unable to truly relate to a particular perspective, from a position of advantage that's quite unmistakable and completely without ambiguity, based on the clear evidence.
"White privilege takes general characteristics about a race and then suggests that all of that race share these characteristics and then uses these characteristics to make moral arguments against the whole group. Imagine doing this against another race. Say taking a generality about African Americans such as African Americans graduate high school at lower rates than whites or that African Americans do lower on standardized tests than white people do."
What you;'re using is a very real stereotype used by whites to keep African Americans at a position of disadvantage that's quite real and represents reality; on the other end of the spectrum, where you're from is also used in reality that keeps that group at a position of privilege; if you're trying to suggest that the reality is actually different, than you can't be serious, insensitive, or completely disconnected from reality (e.g. that can happen from a position of privilege and wealth). You're actually taking the reality and than suggesting that some other reality exists. Except the issue is a bit more complicated than just race or ethnicity, because things like discrimination based on looks or discrimination based on perceived disability could also be involved to work against the ethnic groups who are not white.
"In just the same way as addressing educational deficiencies as "black ignorance" would be a hindrance to addressing real educational obstacles and issues - a moralistic term such as "white privilege" hinders racial discussions with white people."
If not these, what are you suggesting are the issues instead? The educational obstacles, just like economics, are inextricably intertwined and cannot be separated from the issue of white privilege and using this term is actually necessary to discuss race relations; it's more of an issue that the people who have the platform wont keep the issue front and center in the daily politics in the United States; that's the real problem, members of Congress and the president not being willing to have these issues constantly streaming into the public until a resolution is finally accomplished; these are the central issues to addressing employment and education, and those issues aren't constantly being streamed into the public talk, and, as a result, these issues persist and remain unresolved. All of the issues that are dominating the conversation, currently, need to be put on the back burner for a while.
I disagree with you. The terminology of "white privilege" is indeed moralistic. White privilege suggests that one group has "unearned" privileges. This suggests that these privileges have either been acquired by nefarious means or those who are white hold them "unworthily" and that these privileges are either withheld from or not extended to those who are "worthy". That's a moral argument. The term white privilege seeks to evoke white guilt - a moral emotion. It suggests that because a person does not share a certain experience they are not "worthy" of expressing an opinion and are "disqualified" from participating solely because of their race. Again that's moral imagery and language. It is not helpful.
More to the point - white privilege arguments do not address the most important issues that cause poverty in the African American community. The left leaning Brookings Institute's research finds that the biggest obstacle blocking social mobility (getting out of poverty) among the African American community is not "white privilege" or income inequality, but single parent families. Further, the Harvard and Berkley study, "Where is the Land of Opportunity?: The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States, goes even further to say this is not just true at an individual level but also applies at a community level. A quote from the study says "Children of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility if they live in communities with fewer single parents."
So if you want to use unnecessarily evocative language to make white people feel guilty, go ahead. But I doubt white guilt that band-aids come in Caucasian's flesh tones rather than darker tones will be an adequate substitute for the absence of a father in an African American family. Currently over 70 percent of African American homes have a child born out of wedlock. Studies show single parent homes result in greater rates of poverty, school absenteeism, high school dropouts, and incarceration. If you think, making white people aware of their privileges will liberate African Americans more than the presence of a father in the home, continue using language that shuts down the conversation. Just don't expect the problem to go away.
Lol, you know the second picture in the middle is the US army, right, and the last one is probably english, do you ?
Oh, and by the way, I knew there was jew in the Werhmacht, problem is, you forgot to say that was one of the main problem between the werhmacht army and the nazi Party.
Most of the Nazi wanted to get rid of them. The german officer of the Heer wanted to keep them. But he more the werhmacht nazified herself, the more those "half-jew" had it hard in their own army, and their family were often put in camp who were not as hard as you standard concentration camp for spoiling the race. Untill 1942, year where time where the "half-jew" soldier, were throwed off the army... and sent directly to concentration camp. (With the exceptions of those who had the connections, of course.)
@chechenwolf876: you do know you can't be half Jewish right? I mean it's not a race or genetic characteristic it's a religion. It's like calling someone half of lesbian because your parent was a lesbian
@chechenwolf876: you do know you can't be half Jewish right? I mean it's not a race or genetic characteristic it's a religion. It's like calling someone half of lesbian because your parent was a lesbian
Actually Jewish is both an racial/ethnic and religious identity.
Through research the scientific consensus suggests that using the same standards we apply to other races, Jews (ethno-racially) are genetically cohesive enough to be considered a distinct race.
Log in to comment