Poll Is white privilege real? (577 votes)
Is white privilege real in certain countries?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Is white privilege real in certain countries?
"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.
@lunacyde: I don't know man, I have a Jewish friend but I wouldn't call him an entire different race. It's like if a Jewish man's son decided to be Christian he would be considered Jewish
"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.
"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."
While that's also true, privilege, in this context, is more to suggest that a group has a head start over another group; one privilege is that the people who's determining who will receive a job or business loan will likely be white, when it's a hard choice between an African American or Caucasian, or a handsome man verse a not so good looking man, where often times that would likely also involve a pick between a not so handsome African American (or, at least perceived African American) versus a handsome Caucasian. And, honestly, there are quite a few nefarious past occurrences that lead to the Caucasian's dominance in the United States, placing them in positions to determine who will be employed or receive an education at an elite university which is likely to lead to employment, and who remains unemployed.
"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."
But, I'm not talking about the biggest obstacle, especially if it turns out to be obscure, I'm talking about a clearly obvious obstacle, which is white privilege. I'm from a single parent home, and I succeeded, as I was totally ignorant of factors that I'm now aware of and concerned about, that I know is a very deciding factor in my return to the workforce. In the earlier case, I was fresh out of school; in this case, I'm not fresh out of school and in a position where I'm not able to defend myself in fair debate and judgment about allegations being lodged against me, but which the laws are structure so that I'm unable to know what comments are being lodged against me, but which comments are used and keeping me from returning from the workforce; and that's combined with have no law to go after an employer for refusing to hire me for no other reason except my looks or perceived disability, because of a speech impediment (e.g. this one may have a law on my side); if I had white privilege, than I'd be more likely to receive a justification for a refusal to hire me which I'm likely to be able to address in the next go around.
"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."
White guilt could be necessary, because whites who are in positions to amend the applicable laws (e.g. employment related laws and making looks a new protected class in Title VII) simply wont (e.g. Congress being virtually all white); thus, it's quite necessary, when you put effort into it from the other guy's perspective.
"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."
Well, it would correct the situation virtually 100% in cases like me. All you suggesting, if we can't find a one size fits all or most, than why bother trying at all?
@lunacyde: I don't know man, I have a Jewish friend but I wouldn't call him an entire different race. It's like if a Jewish man's son decided to be Christian he would be considered Jewish
I'm not telling you what I feel, I'm telling you the leading scientific theory at this point in time. Jews are genetically distinct according to leading research, although that research is questioned by some.
There are two different kinds of Jews, racial/ethnic Jews and religious Jews. A person who does not practice Judaism, but is genetically Jewish is a Jew. A person who is racially not a Jew, but practices Judaism is also a Jew. They are simply different kinds of Jews.
@lunacyde: I don't know man, I have a Jewish friend but I wouldn't call him an entire different race. It's like if a Jewish man's son decided to be Christian he would be considered Jewish
I'm not telling you what I feel, I'm telling you the leading scientific theory at this point in time. Jews are genetically distinct according to leading research, although that research is questioned by some.
There are two different kinds of Jews, racial/ethnic Jews and religious Jews. A person who does not practice Judaism, but is genetically Jewish is a Jew. A person who is racially not a Jew, but practices Judaism is also a Jew. They are simply different kinds of Jews.
My new drinking game. Every time lunacyde says Jew I do a shot.
@lunacyde: I don't know man, I have a Jewish friend but I wouldn't call him an entire different race. It's like if a Jewish man's son decided to be Christian he would be considered Jewish
I'm not telling you what I feel, I'm telling you the leading scientific theory at this point in time. Jews are genetically distinct according to leading research, although that research is questioned by some.
There are two different kinds of Jews, racial/ethnic Jews and religious Jews. A person who does not practice Judaism, but is genetically Jewish is a Jew. A person who is racially not a Jew, but practices Judaism is also a Jew. They are simply different kinds of Jews.
My new drinking game. Every time lunacyde says Jew I do a shot.
I disagree with the idea that white people are handed everything on a silver platter. That concept harkens more towards just being filthy rich, but being white definitely helps in america.
America is insanely racist lol.
"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.
"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."
While that's also true, privilege, in this context, is more to suggest that a group has a head start over another group; one privilege is that the people who's determining who will receive a job or business loan will likely be white, when it's a hard choice between an African American or Caucasian, or a handsome man verse a not so good looking man, where often times that would likely also involve a pick between a not so handsome African American (or, at least perceived African American) versus a handsome Caucasian. And, honestly, there are quite a few nefarious past occurrences that lead to the Caucasian's dominance in the United States, placing them in positions to determine who will be employed or receive an education at an elite university which is likely to lead to employment, and who remains unemployed.
"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."
But, I'm not talking about the biggest obstacle, especially if it turns out to be obscure, I'm talking about a clearly obvious obstacle, which is white privilege. I'm from a single parent home, and I succeeded, as I was totally ignorant of factors that I'm now aware of and concerned about, that I know is a very deciding factor in my return to the workforce. In the earlier case, I was fresh out of school; in this case, I'm not fresh out of school and in a position where I'm not able to defend myself in fair debate and judgment about allegations being lodged against me, but which the laws are structure so that I'm unable to know what comments are being lodged against me, but which comments are used and keeping me from returning from the workforce; and that's combined with have no law to go after an employer for refusing to hire me for no other reason except my looks or perceived disability, because of a speech impediment (e.g. this one may have a law on my side); if I had white privilege, than I'd be more likely to receive a justification for a refusal to hire me which I'm likely to be able to address in the next go around.
"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."
White guilt could be necessary, because whites who are in positions to amend the applicable laws (e.g. employment related laws and making looks a new protected class in Title VII) simply wont (e.g. Congress being virtually all white); thus, it's quite necessary, when you put effort into it from the other guy's perspective.
"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."
Well, it would correct the situation virtually 100% in cases like me. All you suggesting, if we can't find a one size fits all or most, than why bother trying at all?
@dshipp17 said:
While that's also true, privilege, in this context, is more to suggest that a group has a head start over another group; one privilege is that the people who's determining who will receive a job or business loan will likely be white, when it's a hard choice between an African American or Caucasian, or a handsome man verse a not so good looking man, where often times that would likely also involve a pick between a not so handsome African American (or, at least perceived African American) versus a handsome Caucasian. And, honestly, there are quite a few nefarious past occurrences that lead to the Caucasian's dominance in the United States, placing them in positions to determine who will be employed or receive an education at an elite university which is likely to lead to employment, and who remains unemployed.
...I'm talking about a clearly obvious obstacle, which is white privilege. I'm from a single parent home, and I succeeded, as I was totally ignorant of factors that I'm now aware of and concerned about, that I know is a very deciding factor in my return to the workforce. In the earlier case, I was fresh out of school; in this case, I'm not fresh out of school and in a position where I'm not able to defend myself in fair debate and judgment about allegations being lodged against me, but which the laws are structure so that I'm unable to know what comments are being lodged against me, but which comments are used and keeping me from returning from the workforce; and that's combined with have no law to go after an employer for refusing to hire me for no other reason except my looks or perceived disability, because of a speech impediment (e.g. this one may have a law on my side); if I had white privilege, than I'd be more likely to receive a justification for a refusal to hire me which I'm likely to be able to address in the next go around.
The term "White Privilege" carries a more loaded connotation with it than just someone having a head start. There is a strong moral aspect to it. If not then why would anyone suggest that whites give up or share their privileges?
Yes there are past injustices such as Jim Crow laws that negatively impacted African Americans. However the only overt racist laws that I am aware of today are in the favor of African Americans and against White people and Asians (such as Affirmative Action laws and Diversity policies). These allow people to legally discriminate against Caucasians in employment hiring, in receiving grants and in bidding for certain government contract projects. African Americans make up about 18% of the Federal Workforce while being about 12-15% of the US population. Not sure how they are being discriminated against there. And in getting into a university - an Asian student has to make at least 50 points above the minimum SAT score to get into a University on average while an African American can make 230 points below the minimum accepted SAT score to get in according to a Harvard Survey. So there definitely is discrimination involved in hiring and school admissions but the codified laws discriminate against whites and Asians. Oh and they don't get notices from the government or universities that they were rejected because of Affirmative Action or diversity laws either but they should. If you are going to discriminate, you should have to disclose to the person you discriminated against that racism kept them out.
But, I'm not talking about the biggest obstacle, especially if it turns out to be obscure,
How could the biggest obstacle to a African American getting out of poverty be "obscure"? I don't understand. Do you really want to ignore the most important "privilege" in upward mobility - the two parent family privilege? The greatest obstacle for an African American child getting out of poverty today is not the presence of the white man, but the absence of the black father. Why would anyone want to ignore this?
White privilege is a thing, so is white guilt. I wish I was Asian or Hispanic sometimes. Damn my Irish roots ?
why..cuz if you were a mix of the two then you would have people like below claiming you have a privilege
@boschepg: T'was a joke! I don't need your basic ass typing a ****ing essay to me fool!
PS: Check yo privuledge hwuyte boi!
its kind of hard to check my privilege when Im not white. My people really cant even vote. It why we are the second highest ethnic score on the government scale behind Native Americans. My people have been oppressed by the Spaniards, the Japanese, and technically US since half of us cant vote anyways. You need to check yo self before you wreck yo self
@lunacyde: do you mind getting rid of the troll chechenwolf876? He seems to be trolling but I'm not sure
@chechenwolf876: If you say so Sir Strawmansalot!
NB4 "wypipo wur slaves 2!"
PS: still check dat privuledge hwuyte boi!
@boschepg: well in that case, don't check ur privuledge *insert whatever the hell you are* boiiieee!
So you find a short video with drunk judaic extremist and a bad dumb montage with some false assumption and I'm suppose to be convinced ? XD
I mean, Erhard Milch was jew, Von Manstein was in question, but curiously all the others are traitors to their side or have been killed early on. (Strasser, Rudolf Hess...) Hell ! How convenient !
You should stop educate yourself with internet and open some real book of history. It wouldn't do you bad, you know... XD
White privilege is a thing, so is white guilt. I wish I was Asian or Hispanic sometimes. Damn my Irish roots ?
why..cuz if you were a mix of the two then you would have people like below claiming you have a privilege
lol True.
Also you one of them mexicans? Mexicano'? Mariachi? Do you work for the Cartells?!
@sirfizzwhizz: Im from where North Korea is threatening to nuke
@chechenwolf876: Bad trolling. Bait is .6/10
@sirfizzwhizz: Im from where North Korea is threatening to nuke
Your korean?
@sirfizzwhizz: no bro. Im from Guam. We Pacific Islanders are worth a lot to the government
@sirfizzwhizz: no bro. Im from Guam. We Pacific Islanders are worth a lot to the government
All, you guys are technically Philippines? I was always confused on that in the Navy.
@sirfizzwhizz: no bro. Im from Guam. We Pacific Islanders are worth a lot to the government
All, you guys are technically Philippines? I was always confused on that in the Navy.
well actually based on the Spaniard conquest of the Pacific, Magellan came to Guam first and then went to the Phillipines and his crew slaughtered. We came first
@chechenwolf876: Hush hwuyte boi! A jar o' mayonnaise ain't supposed to talk anyway.
@sirfizzwhizz: no bro. Im from Guam. We Pacific Islanders are worth a lot to the government
All, you guys are technically Philippines? I was always confused on that in the Navy.
well actually based on the Spaniard conquest of the Pacific, Magellan came to Guam first and then went to the Phillipines and his crew slaughtered. We came first
I now have vision of how you look :)
@lunacyde: do you mind getting rid of the troll chechenwolf876? He seems to be trolling but I'm not sure
I advise you to tag an active mod like @jashro44, @jedixman, or @sc.
@hypnos0929: He's not trolling, but man his arguments are horrible.
There is nothing exclusively "white" in most of the things that have been identified in this thread as "white privilege". It would be more accurately described as "wealth privilege". As someone who grew up in one of the poorest counties in Appalachia, I can tell you that the "white privilege" delivery did not make it to where I grew up. Some of the kids in my "holler" did not own a pair of shoes that didn't have holes in the soles or a winter coat. Many couldn't read and went hungry most nights. It is hard for me to take anyone serious when they suggest that a child of an unemployed white coal miner is more "privileged" than Obama's kids.
It seems odd to me to focus so much energy on "white privilege" and removing confederate Democrat statues, rather than addressing the real issues that are keeping many African Americans in poverty - single parent families, education, and jobs. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting rid of statues of Democrats, I just don't think that will really lift anyone out of poverty. Informing a white person of his "privilege" may be a glorious achievement but it probably won't change a single failing urban school.
@dshipp17: @fitnesstribesman13:
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.
Black Nazi's
"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.
Black Nazi's"
I'll give you the privilege claim again, because I've been rejected from hundreds of jobs that I've been over-qualified to fill, simply because of the perception of African American, looks, and perceived disability, due to a speech impediment. What, you're stating these broad stroke claims, simply because you and your mother very recently applied to a job (from the sound of it), but the position got filled by a Hispanic? Clearly, being white, you just simply apply for employment again and you'll probably get it. What was the position that you two applied? For example, although I have lots of education and job experience in science (as a chemist, for example), depending on what criteria were used, although I find suspicious and extremely unlikely, there may be a reason that someone who barely got a GED, multiple firings from previous jobs, and an extensive criminal was hired to fill a position at a fast food restaurant over me (but, this is speaking more for you two in your cases; in my case, besides race, looks, and perceived disability, I'm also being blacklisted by a former employer, something else that neither of you are likely facing, speaking more in your mother's case, as you may not be old enough to be done with high school, yet). And, are you even old enough to have graduated from high school yet? There is just a lot here that you didn't explain to even start commenting about. You sound young and in the early stages of becoming bitter over this one incident; but, listen to reason, and reverse course before you actually become bitter over a single incident that's happened to me thousands of times (and similar incidents that happen to African Americans in every case imaginable on a daily occurrence with impunity, with no apparent or conceivable end in sight, thanks to Congressional in action, since the enactment of Title VII; of course, it was a daily occurrence for centuries before that law; that law was just used to instill calm, in the face of the civil rights movement, which it did, while the courts legalized employment discrimination, or made it just a bit less subjective, over the decades since that law; now, the organizers of the previous civil rights movement need to grasp what I just said about the current state of legalized employment discrimination and fight for members of Congress to start discussing the issue again, with the intent to amend the employment laws).
No, it's a load of bullshit.
If anything there is racial hatred among all colors of the flesh. It's stupid and petty, and it's holding us back as a race/species. I mean, honestly, why should it matter if you're white, black, brown, yellow, red, or any damn kind of color/ethnicity? People are people. You have good & bad in all races, of all religions, sexes, politics, countries, etc.
White privilege definitely exists, and it's systemic nature is definitely propagated by people like our current POTUS...but I'm also not a fan of the mentality some white people have where they feel the need to "save" us people of color because of transgressions they never committed. It's patronizing as hell.
White privilege is talked about in anthropology studies and the concept seems to exist today only by the lasting events.
Government files talk about white privilege. http://www.oregon.gov/das/HR/Documents/whiteprivilege_peggymcintosh.pdf
Anthropologists understand white privilege. It's called whiteness studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/
White privilege definitely exists, and it's systemic nature is definitely propagated by people like our current POTUS...but I'm also not a fan of the mentality some white people have where they feel the need to "save" us people of color because of transgressions they never committed. It's patronizing as hell.
I have noticed a lot of people speaking for the black community and other minority groups are white upper class people. They tend to speak over many black voices so they get recognized for how good they are by everyone else.
White privilege definitely exists, and it's systemic nature is definitely propagated by people like our current POTUS...but I'm also not a fan of the mentality some white people have where they feel the need to "save" us people of color because of transgressions they never committed. It's patronizing as hell.
I have noticed a lot of people speaking for the black community and other minority groups are white upper class people. They tend to speak over many black voices so they get recognized for how good they are by everyone else.
Yes, it's a problem I have with society as a person of color. Yeah I want to be treated with compassion and humane respect, but don't give me special treatment.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment