I hate to get into it, but here goes

[RainDog]

My dear fellow white people on DU-

PLEASE STOP THIS BULLSHIT regarding the discussion of the term "white privilege" (those of you who are upset about it.)

I KNOW many of you are decent people. Your responses to this issue, however, look indecent. The reason for this is because you are applying individual/personal histories to statistical realities that have been demonstrated again and again.

Don't prove me wrong about my presumptions of decency on your part.

Here's a reality that is hard to talk about - and is precisely why the issue of "white privilege" gets mentioned.

Everyone who grows up in a society with particular oppressed groups of people will be exposed to bigoted assumptions about those groups. Even when people have matured and can examine whether or not those assumptions are true - those prejudicial statements from media, personal relations, random strangers, etc. - that history - are the things someone has to "check" whenever they respond to issues.

This includes the idea that African Americans cannot talk about offenses against them without some white person making it a personal issue about them.

That's what the use of the term "white privilege" comes down to, at its most basic. Check your assumptions and check your anger when someone is talking about societal issues that may or may not reflect your personal reality.

To me, to see these defenses - using poor white people as a rejection of the idea of white privilege - posting stereotypes about other ethnic groups - seeing angry responses that the mention of white privilege is divisive in and of itself - misses the point - and supports the idea that white people do not want to understand the experience of others in our society.

These threads have filled me with sadness.

I thought DU was better than this.

[angstlessk]

1. I see this, the feminist group and the men's group, all as divide and conqure

as democrats, we are supposed to be the 'big tent'...now they want to put up their own tents...NOT A GOOD IDEA!

[RainDog]

5. a big tent has lots of different experiences within

insults back and forth do nothing.

BUT actual discussion of issues is part of respect for difference.

If someone can't do that without insults, to me - that's what creates the divide, not that differences exist.

[alp227]

10. Divisive?

Should a big tent not be inclusive of all sorts of people, who inevitably group into their own groups & have different life experiences?

your post sounds just like how right wingers insist that immigrants should assimilate in the majority American culture instead of introducing foreign cultures.

[CANDO]

21. In a back and forth in one of the other threads...

"Controlling the conversation" sort of nailed it for me. What the posters of the privilege threads are insisting upon is that everyone accept their control of and definitions of the term white privilege. Bottom line is it boils down to arguing over who defines the term for whom. It's why I've caught all kinds of holy hell for daring to challenge those who insist they know my life and my experiences and want to tell me all about it. Then they try to say "well it's not about you". Then why the term white privilege if its not about white people? I thought it was about ending racism and sexism. So they attack any random white person who wonders into the trap and god forbid they view things through their own life's lens. These threads are not about ending racism and sexism. They are about shaming white people.

[alp227]

26. Whoa. So you're essentially arguing the same thing that spammers argue,

that "ANTI RACIST IS A CODE WORD FOR ANTI WHITE", it seems.

"Then why the term white privilege if its not about white people?" Uhh, look up systematic discrimination. It is certainly not just about your anecdotal experience.

[CANDO]

28. Where are you coming up with that?

Entirely in your own imagination, I can assure you. Yeah, I've been here at DU for 12 years and all along I've been a dormant racist spammer just lying in wait to burst onto the scene! Christ, I give up.

[alp227]

32. when I saw the "bash white people" part of your post,

I immediately thought of...http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-racist_is_a_codeword_for_anti-white

[boston bean]

27. no one is talking about YOU!

They are discussing a reality they face and their life experiences.

[RainDog]

34. It's a term that has been around for a while

and initially was used for people who work in jargon to speak to one another. Sometimes people will put things in a certain frame to cause others to see an issue somewhat differently.

I don't think anyone here thinks they know your circumstances or experience and can tell you about it.

The idea that there are things that go on in society that are constant... assaults to the dignity of some but not to others - based upon nothing other than their cultural heritage is part of life in this society.

It's not about separate issues - it's the whole situation about people who, even into the 20th century, were held in slavery by trumped up laws - and all that implies. It's about having to face that history every day, having to negotiate a society in which you're not a majority to read the signals of those who can cause you real harm based upon nothing but assumptions. But - NOT ALL experienced that situation - nevertheless, that situation had impacts on all.

People feel shame for all sorts of reasons.

No one can make you feel shame once you recognize your reaction is outside of one moment - and is really more about the things your society has told you about how you "should be" - even when you know, in your reasoning mind, this shame makes no sense.

but when someone feels shame, they sometimes try to displace it - and sometimes it's placed where it doesn't belong.

Love yourself, and forgive yourself first. sorry if this sounds silly - but it's really where I'm coming from when I say that we all share far more than we differ, in terms of our goals and hopes and even in the ways to accomplish them.

[CANDO]

38. Thank you for a positive and constructive response

That makes sense. Engage rather than attack. A concept not often applied here. And I include myself.

[RainDog]

40. Thank you for taking the time to listen to my rambles

[Squinch]

104. Yes, yes. People different from you talking about their experiences really just boils down to

them shaming you. What else could possibly be the purpose?

So you better get busy and define the term white privilege for those who are not on the receiving end of it.

[ismnotwasm]

109. *sigh*

White privilege 101: Here’s the basic lesson Paul Ryan, Tal Fortgang and Donald Sterling need

And yet, Katie McDonough correctly argued, his denial of racism and his own privileged position represents a new majority view among whites, who think they’re more discriminated against than blacks, despite all manner of evidence to the contrary (more on that below). And this is where the danger and the challenge to progressives lies — as well as the challenge to the Democratic Party. If—as recent research suggests — whites grow increasingly conservative as perceived minority voting power grows, then the “Rising American electorate” argument itself is in danger. It could be every bit as much a fantasy, in its own, much more sophisticated way, as the Tea Party fantasy that the GOP can just double down on where it is, and get by on better messaging and a sprinkling of more diverse spokes/front people.

There is a way to fight back against this very real, and so far unrecognized, threat. And that is for white people — especially white men — to step up and push back (lovingly or forcefully, as the situation dictates) against this sort of polarizing rhetoric and the thinking and feeling that’s connected to it. It’s not just a matter of paternalistically “helping out” women and minorities when they’re attacked. The fortunes of white working-class men have plummeted since the early ’70s — not because women and minorities have stolen their cheese, but because they’re snookered into thinking like that, making themselves easy marks for far more sophisticated actors to take advantage of. And what’s long been true for working-class white men will increasingly become true of white men with college degrees as well. One of Thomas Piketty’s central points is that any sort of labor, however skilled it may be, is going to lose out to inherited capital in the long run, if the basic structures of today’s capitalist economy aren’t changed.

So how do white men fight back, not just for the sake of others, or society as a whole, but for themselves, as well? There are lots of ways they can do this, but here I’d like to focus on just one: by gaining a much a more solid, objective understanding of what minorities (especially blacks) and women already largely understand as a basic fact of life — how racial and gender privilege work, with white male ignorance as a key component. It’s only by unifying against an already unified economic elite that Americans of all races and ethnicities can keep hope alive for a more prosperous future.

Before going any further, I just want to quote from McDonough’s article, where she references a sampling of the information already out there:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/09/white_privilege_101_heres_the_basic_lesson_paul_ryan_tal_fortgang_and_donald_sterling/

[RainDog]

151. I see this quote as key

So how do white men fight back, not just for the sake of others, or society as a whole, but for themselves, as well? There are lots of ways they can do this, but here I’d like to focus on just one: by gaining a much a more solid, objective understanding of what minorities (especially blacks) and women already largely understand as a basic fact of life — how racial and gender privilege work, with white male ignorance as a key component. It’s only by unifying against an already unified economic elite that Americans of all races and ethnicities can keep hope alive for a more prosperous future.

But I wouldn't call it white male ignorance so much as anxiety.

Michelle Alexander makes a cogent point about desegregation in the mid twentieth century - wealthier whites always had their kids in private schools. It was the middle and lower class white groups who had to share a space - and had what could've (and was and is sometimes) viewed as competition... for those crumbs falling from the table of the wealthy.

She said that those white populations saw themselves as getting a "social demotion" because the reality is that African Americans in this society, overall, were seen as the group that has been treated the worst (and some people felt this was "correct" because it gave them some social status in a world with little of that available to them based upon access/income.

So, when I heard her say that, again, recently in a video I posted (about the drug war as the newest iteration of denying African Americans their freedoms and discriminating via targeting - long before adulthood) - I can see how the idea of privilege as a social group (not individual) might seem threatening to some because the little "privilege" they have was being challenged in a new way. So, it's a two-sided coin - poor white people say - I'm not privileged because I don't have the economic power of the wealthy, but the privilege that may exist is now up for grabs.

I even saw this from some here (don't remember who, specifically.) I thought... no one wants to "demote" you on the privilege ladder - but seeing that statement, more than once, makes me think some do understand how this works.

And, that's how the Republican party has been able to appeal to so many middle and lower income whites.

But the way for them to win, too, is to join with those who share their issues and see they are manipulated because politicians know this mindset (as Lee Atwater demonstrated all too well.)

So, this is why, even tho I have talked to white folks here on this thread - I think, as a strategic form of communication - attacking those who have to go through the process of coming around to recognize the 99% as a group to which they belong - using jargon that ignores the anxiety such a term invokes is a poorly thought-out rhetorical strategy.

It may make people feel good to accuse and berate when a poorer white person is upset- but does it really do anything to advance the goal of unity? I don't think it does.

HOWEVER - this OP really talks about not falling into that trap by allowing people to use phrases even when they seem inadequate to explain people's lives - esp. since the term came into use long before the loss of jobs to outsourcing, etc... maybe the term is past its "use by" date.

[applegrove]

137. I think we need to stay away from broad brush generalizations of everybody. White privilege? Give

a specific example.

[mattclearing]

163. I don't think you understand what big tent means. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

200. It doesn't mean "do whatever you can not to make the majority uncomfortable." n/t

[notadmblnd]

2. I stay out of a lot of discussions here

Cause somewhere down the line. I've learned that it's better to keep your mouth shut and look like a fool, than to speak and prove it.

Btw, the above comment was not in regards to your OP, it was in regards to some of the comments I've read posted on the subject.

[mike_c]

3. rec'd

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Dang!

whoop, whoop, whoop.

[RainDog]

48. this guy said it better than me

[Fumesucker]

6. The phrase "white privilege" couldn't be better designed to put poor whites on the defensive

I completely agree that whites and white males in particular play life on the "easy" setting. At no time have I denied that.

So where does that leave poor whites?

"Hey, you're the world's biggest loser, you lost in the greatest economy in the world playing on the easy setting but we would like you to come and join with us"

Is that really a message which will bring poor whites to our cause? Or could it be put in some way that lets them keep a shred of self respect?

Putting someone on the defensive and attacking their self respect is a sure fire way to get people to stop listening to you.

I'm surprised that some posters here seem unable to grasp that.

[RainDog]

7. Think of it as a test of character

If the use of the phrase bothers you - hide a thread, etc.

Some things just aren't defensible - it's not about whether or not the phrase is the best possible, etc.

It's about the expression of anger when the issue is about the way society is structured - beyond any one person's reality.

[NuclearDem]

8. No, the stupid strawman erected about poor white people is what's designed to do that.

Privilege is benefiting from a set of cultural assumptions about you based on your skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or income level.

It is not the stupid argument that white people can't fall on hard times themselves. The only people putting poor white people on the defensive are the ones making that argument.

[Fumesucker]

9. I personally understand that

But that's not the way it will sound to a lot of poor whites.

America is all about money, if you don't have it you are very sensitive to that fact.

[RainDog]

11. I understand what you're saying, too

but look at these averages (which OBVIOUSLY do not reflect individual differences) If someone is far below those averages, all they have to do is simply acknowledge that "white privilege" - in terms of income - is obviously not applicable to them. It doesn't mean someone is a bad person because they don't fall into that statistical frame - it means their personal experience is not represented by the average in one area.

But, just to note - as I have here before - this exact thing is why I don't like the term personally - but I am not going to argue about the issue - as a statistic, b/c I don't like the term. The reason I don't like the term, however, is precisely b/c of that reality that many whites don't fit into the income assumption. But, again, this term derived from academia - so it carries with it, in some ways, that elitism that some educated people carry around with them like a gucci bag - or a knock off if they can't actually afford an original... iow, the term isn't useful to me precisely b/c it aligns all whites with their privilege as all-encompassing, while ignoring the frustration of lower income whites - or getting angry with them when they note their personal experience as a way to refute a stat.

It would seem to me that a great use of the "privilege" that a white person has who is not among the income favored is the ability to provide a voice for unity across cultural lines - because sometimes white people can speak to some other white people who wouldn't listen to someone else. Issues of economic stratification cross cultural lines. As a female, I don't have the same economic privilege as the majority of white males - but I can understand that this doesn't nullify other privileges that I experience - and it doesn't make me feel that I have to be defensive.

...because, again, WP is about systemic problems - and one among many places where economically disadvantaged whites find common ground is in their shared economic struggle with people of color.



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/income-raceand-voting/

[Chathamization]

23. Yes, talk of privilege is undermined with the Randian "you deserve what you got" mentality

where the successful are virtuous and those that struggle are unintelligent or lazy. Equality of opportunity is the same as equality of outcome, and a discrepancy in one signals a discrepancy in the other. Grasping the full extent of what we call privilege includes not viewing individual success (including our own) as a personal triumph but rather as a manifestation of one's luck, and working to create a society where all share that success. Of course, looking through this lens, especially at something one is particularly proud of or a set of people one views as their enemy, is difficult and requires facing down the ego.

[nomorenomore08]

201. Luck and personal effort are both involved. It's not either/or.

I think part of the reason people get so defensive is that their thinking is way too binary and simplistic.

[Chathamization]

205. "Personal effort" is a poor term for it

It ties into the narrative that (for instance) those that go to college or grad school simply work harder. Except just about anyone would enjoy four years of college to four years of working in retail, so it's screwed up that we get told the later is slacking off while the former is hard work. In my experience, a lot of the time when people don't go to college, it's because they don't believe they have the means, or they think their status in life is already firmly set and they can't change it.

Or for instance, people that say that executives deserve their higher salary because they simply work harder. But give executives the exact same salary as a janitor, and offer the two jobs to people - which one do you think they'll pick?

We've been fed the lie that partying in college for for years then sitting in an office represents more personal effort than doing manuel labor right out of college or scrubbing toilets. But when people talk about "personal effort" or "hard work", they are really referring to how savvy one is at navigating the maze of modern society - being aware of what credentials and paths are needed to move into the upper brackets, and who have been given the confidence that they can get their. Many people who believe that they merely need to work hard will end up exerting much more personal effort and won't move up at all.

And of course, there can be a very small subset of the population that will try to avoid personal exertion all together. This too is tied to luck, however, it's connected to one's upbringing (unless you believe people are just "born bad", in which case it'd be connected to genes), and the results of such an attitude are going to be heavily tied to other aspects of the persons life. But in all cases, the upbringing that gave the person such an attitude is going to give them a worse life than those who had a better upbringing.

[nomorenomore08]

210. I agree with you. There is a lot in life we can't control, starting with the parents we're born to.

Maybe I didn't phrase things quite right, but I think it's possible to acknowledge achievement and success while also acknowledging that sheer luck - beginning, as I said, with one's upbringing - plays a huge role in people's circumstances.

[Chathamization]

214. True, it's a hard line to walk.

Naturally we don't want to seem like we're disparaging individuals, or telling people that they shouldn't try since it's all beyond their control. But we need to acknowledge that the inequality in our society and that the reason for this inequality is societal, not a failure on the part of those that end up at the bottom. Those who are successful in one area should realize that it's the result of fortune, and understand that they have an obligation to make sure others eventually benefit from the same kind of fortune.

Stuff like government assistance isn't there because we don't think some people can do as well as others. They're there precisely because we know they can - if they are given the same opportunities.

Another aspect that I feel needs to get more play (and one of the reasons why I feel privilege isn't a great term) is that inequality is poisonous for everyone in society. Greater equality hurts individuals at the top the same way that healthy diets hurt children - though some may desire to wallow in excess until they feel ill, in the end, balance will leave everyone better off. I realize this is more of a personal opinion, however.

[nomorenomore08]

215. Agree with everything you wrote, especially "those that end up at the bottom" not being at fault

for the most part. Frankly, most people aren't as special or talented as they probably think they are. I think we all tend to overplay our personal merit and downplay our good fortune.

"Stuff like government assistance isn't there because we don't think some people can do as well as others. They're there precisely because we know they can - if they are given the same opportunities."

Could not agree more. That dismantling the social safety net leads to greater inequality should be a "no shit" proposition.

"Greater equality hurts individuals at the top the same way that healthy diets hurt children."

Great analogy - especially considering how childishly they tend to behave when asked to "share."

[Chathamization]

217. Well said. Thanks for going over some of this stuff with me. N/T

[RainDog]

216. Thanks for your contributions to this thread

and for the discussion b/t the two of you here. (thanks nomorenomore08, too)

One BIG problem is the elitist attitude that any sort of manual labor itself is somehow lesser than any sort of white collar work (and I use the difference "labor" and "work" specifically.)

There is nothing disparaging about working with your hands, or putting your back into work - yet people constantly deride manual labor when people doing it are often contributing more to this society than someone pushing paper in middle management (tho, like union jobs, those are now being weeded out or outsourced, etc.)

It is HONORABLE to do work that contributes to the well being of society - but those jobs - even in situations that require college (such as education) are treated as lesser in the U.S. (which, fwiw, is not the case in social democracies where kids and parents are respectful toward educators - even primary level ones.)

I'm too much of a klutz to do many jobs in manual labor. But my skills are in areas that are also not highly paid unless someone hits the "work lottery" - or specifically targets their work toward the sort of projects that are favored by the majority of people for one reason or another. that, too, has nothing to say about the value of work - because economic value isn't the only value.

the problem in this nation, as I see it, is that we have this mindset that money is everything, even when we pretend it's not. but our attitudes reveal it is - esp. in those who claim they hold the high moral ground - which gets back to that Rand (Ayn and Paul) shaming and blaming and, frankly, repulsive attitude toward anyone who is honest about the reality that this nation favors things not based upon worth, but based upon how much such works continues to perpetuate the privilege and the elitism of the elite.

[Chathamization]

218. Thank you for making a thread that's fostered such a good discussion

and has showed that we can have a real discussion about these issues. And you're absolutely right, it's a huge problem that people who do things with their hands (who make the things that are needed for society to function), or who educate the next generation, are viewed as inferior. And I wish that when people bemoaned the problems with our education system or infrastructure, it was pointed out that the state we are currently in reflects our priorities and the choices we make (though I suppose that's part of a longer discussion).

I wonder how many people, if you discussed the prejudice against manual labor with them, would nod their head and say that it was a problem and that they don't find manual laborers inferior. And then afterwards avoid any topic they considered intellectual with said people (or go out of their way to explain it). Or when being asked if it's fair that they make 3x the amount of others, explain that it's because they went to graduate school and gained X skills.

There are these 10,000 hierarchical checks that we've internalized and quasi-consciously run throughout the day, mostly without questioning them. And when everyone treats you like that, you internalize it yourself. I think some people miss the number of these below the surface checks that occur against minorities, since a lot are much more subtle than the image that most people have of racism. And don't realize that these subtle checks mean that those who do pass them are going to benefit from having competition knocked out of the game by racism.

At the same time, I can understand some of the resistance to the term "privilege", since if you're in a group that is worse off materialistically because of inequality, you're naturally going to be resistant to being told that you're benefitting from inequality - as long as we restrict the inequality in question to inequality that doesn't affect you.

But again, that's only if we look at things materialistically. I feel inequality is a disease that makes everyone, even the very wealth, worse off.

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. it was not meant to "put poor whites on the defensive"....

perhaps they should check that....perhaps if they are feeling defensive....perhaps said" poor white person has a guilty conscience and that is why it "makes them feel" that way....

[RainDog]

49. please don't try to read others' minds

let's try to have a constructive conversation here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. I was responding TO reading of minds.....

besides....

No one can MAKE you FEEL anything. That is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy 101.

So this ....it makes me "feel" uncomfortable is just bogus from the premise....those without feelings of guilt wouldn't "feel" anything in regards to the phrase in question. Think for example of all the "icky feelings" that those who are not White or male have had to endure and work through during their lifetimes.....

[RainDog]

53. that person talked about phrasing, not mind reading

so, no. you are wrong about what that person said. - the intent was clear in the OP.

blame and shame from others is toxic. that's even more basic than cbt and NO ONE gains insight into themselves by others blaming and shaming them incessantly. if such were a family relationship, it would be considered emotionally abusive.

however, yes, I agree that "I feel" statements are central to interpersonal relationship issues. so you can say what you feel about your experience. you don't get to tell others what they feel.

your assumption that white males are one entity or that some of them have not had to endure "icky feelings" is not based upon reality. don't blame all for the actions of some.

all or nothing thinking is a basic concept of erroneous perception in cbt as well.

as I said - I didn't create this op to have fights between people. there are plenty of other threads where that's possible.

[Fumesucker]

55. Why are certain words, terms and phrases essentially banned on DU?

Because of the feelings those words, terms and phrases invoke in some people who hear them.

Yes, failure often brings a sense of guilt.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. Failure....

GMAFB....

As a group ....no..


Being born White and male is a DISTINCT advantage:

as of 2010 compared to White male's salaries in the U.S. (at 100%)

Black men 74.5% (of White males salaries)
Hispanic men 65.9% (of White males salaries)

White women 80.5% (of White males salaries)
Black women 69.6% (of White males salaries)
Hispanic women 59.8% (of White males salaries)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html

If that's "failure".....what are you going to call these other groups mentioned? and isn't THAT insulting to THEM?

[Fumesucker]

62. But they weren't playing on the "easy" setting

They have an excuse.

Poor whites on the other hand have no excuse, if they are poor it's their own damn fault since they were playing on the easy setting.

That's what you want them to know, right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. No one said anything about that but YOU!

Why is it supposed to be "easier" for White males than anyone else?

[Fumesucker]

68. Isn't that that the implication of privilege?

That things are easier for those who have privilege?

Things are certainly more difficult for the person who doesn't have privilege.

For instance I pointed out just this morning where whites have a major privilege over minorities, possibly the biggest one of all. But few posters seem interested in that aspect of things, only a very few even bothered to comment on the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4957032

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. and every indication says that if you are a White male...in any situation

is still much better off than anyone else who isn't!

Its not a zero sum game....you don't lose anything if we close that gap.

[Fumesucker]

72. Isn't that what I said?

Where do we actually disagree?

If you are white and poor it's your own fault, you had it easy, you are a loser and if you are a poor white male you are the biggest loser on the planet.

That's the implication of privilege.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. So are you saying that those who are poor and not White male are even more at fault?

is THAT your contention....because it certainly isn't mine


and NO that is not what the implication of privilege is. It doesn't mean every White male will be rich either does it? But chances are....if you are ....you are likely to be White and male...(even IF some rich people are neither).

I don't play your silly word games....

[Fumesucker]

75. No, just the opposite and you know it

Of course not every white male is going to be rich, some are born losers, others reached loserdom through sheer effort.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. No....this is the dumbest argument for your position ever...

Unlike you I don't think anyone is born to lose....

[Fumesucker]

83. Explain how the uber-privileged fail then..

Unless they are losers.

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. Are they?

[Fumesucker]

87. Evidently we are in violent agreement

All statistics show white men have a huge advantage.

So those who fail at life are losers.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. Well you have...whether you know it or not...

Women's median usual weekly earnings as percentage of men's, for full-time workers, by industry, 2009.[8]

[Fumesucker]

95. I already said that and explained what as I see as some implications

Either white men are smarter and better workers than everyone else which we both know know is not the reality of the situation or those white men who don't make lots of money are losers.

Is there something wrong with calling a loser a loser?

Aren't we all about calling things what they really are here on the DU?

[VanillaRhapsody]

96. Yes calling it like it TI is...

[Fumesucker]

99. I'm glad we had this little chat

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. Giving up so soon?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a60rUXCxBqs/T5g-8zEuMyI/AAAAAAAABTQ/BGuWjPcjbrE/s1600/occupation+gender+gap.png

What does this mean over the course of a lifetime?


Over a 40-year working career, the average woman loses $431,000 as the result of the wage gap. The pay gap accumulates in no small part because initial pay matters: If a woman earns less in her first job, when she takes a new job and her new employer sets her pay scale, they will often base it on her pay history. The lifetime wage gap for a woman who did not finish high school is $300,000, while the lifetime wage gap for a woman with at least a bachelor’s degree is $723,000. Making sure that young women understand the importance of negotiating for good pay from day one should be a pressing policy concern and is included in the Paycheck Fairness Act.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/04/16/11391/the-top-10-facts-about-the-wage-gap/

[Fumesucker]

105. What part of "I agree with you" do you fail to understand?

I'm not sure how to put it any more clearly or succinctly.

Any non-wealthy white male is a loser since they played on the "easy" setting and lost by the way we keep track of such things in America.

Why would anyone want a bunch of losers in their political party?

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. I am sure you do....

In 2011 more than 62 percent of minimum-wage workers were women compared to just 38 percent of male minimum-wage workers. Slightly more than 2.5 million women earn the minimum wage or less, while approximately 1.5 million men do. This imbalance is even more drastic once you consider that women were just 46.9 percent of all employed workers in 2011.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2012/06/20/11682/women-are-the-biggest-losers-from-failure-to-raise-minimum-wage-2/

[Fumesucker]

114. Exactly, fairly shortly men will be unnecessary for reproduction

I'm looking forward to the Brave New World.

Poor Huxley, such a brilliant vision with such a fundamental flaw.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. Of course you are....

[VanillaRhapsody]

119. Of course you are...

poor poor put upon White dudes....sucks to be you I guess...

[Fumesucker]

120. Nice graphics

Have you got any about the racial disparities involved with the drug war?

I always find those particularly revealing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. I know they are..

[Fumesucker]

123. The drug war is somewhere the government could make a *huge* difference in white privilege

And it could be done just by ~stopping~ something, no extra spending required, it would save a hell of a lot of money and get the political party that did it a lot of votes.

[VanillaRhapsody]

124. Yeah right....sure whatever...

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. If you are poor and White male...it is still easier than being poor and Black and or poor and Female

sorry to disappoint you....

[Fumesucker]

76. Where do we disagree?

I said being white and male is winning the lucky sperm lottery, the "easy" button in life.

And no, I'm not beings sarcastic.

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. Then you admit you are just trolling?

[Fumesucker]

82. How is agreeing with you trolling?

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. How is what you are saying agreeing with me?

[Fumesucker]

155. You don't think white males have a significant advantage in life?

Because that's what I've been saying all through this entire thread, white males play the game of life on the "easy" setting.

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. Of course you do...

WASHINGTON — Millions of Americans suffered a loss of wealth during the recession and the sluggish recovery that followed. But the last half-decade has proved far worse for black and Hispanic families than for white families, starkly widening the already large gulf in wealth between non-Hispanic white Americans and most minority groups, according to a new study from the Urban Institute....

... As of 2010, white families, on average, earned about $2 for every $1 that black and Hispanic families earned, a ratio that has remained roughly constant for the last 30 years. But when it comes to wealth — as measured by assets, like cash savings, homes and retirement accounts, minus debts, like mortgages and credit card balances — white families have far outpaced black and Hispanic ones. Before the recession, non-Hispanic white families, on average, were about four times as wealthy as nonwhite families, according to the Urban Institute’s analysis of Federal Reserve data. By 2010, whites were about six times as wealthy...

...All in all, Hispanic families lost 44 percent of their wealth between 2007 and 2010, the Urban Institute estimates, and black families lost 31 percent. White families, by comparison, lost 11 percent of their wealth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/business/racial-wealth-gap-widened-during-recession.html?pagewanted=all

Still think its funny "Democrat"?

[Fumesucker]

162. What are you arguing with?

I agree, everyone but white males has it worse than they do.

How many times do I have to say it?

Therefore any white male who is not wealthy is a loser because they had it easier than everyone else, if they weren't lazy, stupid or both they'd be wealthy.

The Democratic party should only countenance wealthy white males because who wants to be associated with a bunch of losers?

[VanillaRhapsody]

164. I am not arguing....nor am I making light of a serious issues people are facing in this country...

[truedelphi]

181. Boy it sure doesn't take much to get an ad hominem response from you

And then you' re the one using the term "trolling?" Oh Brother!

[RainDog]

195. fwiw

Last edited Sat May 17, 2014, 12:35 AM - Edit history (1)

this person has done this same sort of "t-word" - or whatever it is - in multiple threads over months and months. It's pretty astonishing to see. It reminds me of someone who came to my attention recently in relation to this issue, doing this from another perspective. This person, however, does this through the "male privilege" accusations. Most people just give up because they assume someone is clueless, not "t-wording."

Anyway, knowing this history is part of how this person interacts here is why I asked, as soon as she showed up, to not do what she usually does. She did it anyway.

That would be a pretty sophisticated way to get people angry about feminist issues if that were the case. But who knows.

cf: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10024261447
where someone noted the insta-rant was bizarre

[VanillaRhapsody]

213. fwiw

I do not care one whit what you think about me.....I have seen your positions....

and irregardless of what you think of my posts....White male privilege still exists...

[VanillaRhapsody]

212. Ad Hominem I have been posting chart after chart to prove my point...

Yeah not having anything to back up a point that nearly no one agrees with and pretending you agree when you clearly do not.... is trolling in this case...

[truedelphi]

115. I know from visiting my son's college and being on his campus for some two weeks,

That most of the "diversity" is a rather phoney baloney diversity.

Since the kid was in first grade, I had tried to have him exposed to a rainbow's worth of different kids to be around. And the trend did not end when he went off to a rather elite university.

But all the college frosh I met, regardless of skin color, were from a rather homogenized background. Sure there were African American students, but their parents tended to be top notch lawyers or orthodontists, or brain surgeons, successful inventors, electronics experts, etc.

I didn't get the sense that anyone I met on the campus didn't deserve to be there simply on account of brain power. These were some very smart young people. But oh the similarity - I could almost imagine 90% of these kids coming from the exact same large houses with the exact same name brand furniture and decorative touches.

He was probably from a less ideal background, in that we often just scraped by. I didn't meet one other kid there who grew up without a whole lot of privilege.

Since that experience, I believe that as a nation, we need to start addressing the fact that social classes exist. I wish college administrators were forced to pull someone (or a hundred someone's) out of a vastly different pool of people, just to change things up a bit.

[Chathamization]

173. Selective admissions in general are anathema to equality and public money shouldn't go to

tertiary institutions that engage in such practices. Public investment in education should be about improving the capabilities of the population, not elevating those who already have a head start. But there's a lot of inequality in our society that we've internalized to the point where we don't even see it as a problem.

[JoePhilly]

128. I'm going to try to speak to this point ...

I've stayed out of this entire discussion mainly because the topic is so complex that any effort to discuss it, via text on forums, tends to fail because there are so many little details that can lead to the discussion moving in a new direction ... and that can turn an honest discussion here down unintended paths.

Being a white guy who was poor, and now is not, I know plenty of poorer white people. Not all of them are racists, but some are. And for some of them, the idea of "white privilege" eludes them because while other whites they know have succeeded, they have not.

In their minds, they think that if white privilege existed, they'd be doing better. In their minds, they've worked hard and should be more successful, but they are not.

Objectively speaking, they have benefited from white privilege, but many of them can't see it. From where they sit, they are poor, many blacks are poor. See "equal". No one is getting anything extra, including them.

They don't feel guilty about receiving a privilege which, from their perspective, didn't move them any farther forward than where they are, which is also where their parents were.

To them, a privialge would have led to a life better that the one their parents had. Which was crappy to start with. Things for them are no better, therefore, no white privilege exists.

In psychological research, we talk about variables that interact. I tend to think there is some "interaction" here between "white privilege" and "economic class". The impact of white privilage can be stronger or lesser, when economic class is included.

I'd state it this way ... the impact of white privilege interacts with economic class such that as economic class increases, the impact of white privilege also increases. When one's economic class is lower, the actual impact of their white privilege is similar reduced.

A third variable at play here is gender. Being a male, upper class, white guy, means a greater impact over all. Female, lower class, woman, very limited impact of any "privilege".

A forth variable would be sexual orientation.

And so, a gay, white, man, loses some of the impact of being white. If he's poor, he loses more. If he's wealthy, being gay probably reduces the white privilege some, as compared to a straight white male.

The extent to which one recognizes theor own privilege can vary ... and in some cases, like in the case of poor white men, they can't have a privilege AND be poor, because that would mean THEY are doing something wrong, and that can't be why they are poor. Its something else.

[RainDog]

138. Thanks for your thoughtful reply

I think all agree there are intersecting and conflicting issues of "privilege" - which is also why I find the word less than useful.

[JoePhilly]

176. Thanks ...

... I was worried about writing anything because its so easy to run off the road on this topic.

I have had successful face to face discussions on this topic in real life. Its easier to identify and resolve small misunderstandings in that context.

So when I read these treads, I can quickly spot instances where what could be a thoughtful discussion goes haywire because some one takes a single comment and extends it (in some cases just a little) past what was intended.

And once that happens, everyone shifts to a defensive posture, and no more progress can be made.

I also notice that if some one wants to derail these discussions, its very easy to do. All of the very real complexities provide excellent opportunities for some one to sabotage the discussion.

[ctsnowman]

58. Nailed it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. No he didn't

Being born White and male is a DISTINCT advantage:

as of 2010 compared to White male's salaries in the U.S. (at 100%)

Black men 74.5% (of White males salaries)
Hispanic men 65.9% (of White males salaries)

White women 80.5% (of White males salaries)
Black women 69.6% (of White males salaries)
Hispanic women 59.8% (of White males salaries)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html

[Eleanors38]

81. Yep. Great outreach program.

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. So by your theory....since we have a Black President....Racism is over right?

same damn "logic"

If even one Black person manages to succeed it must mean racism doesn't exist anymore, because, if even one White male person is poor, that means that the rest of them do not benefit from any form of White male privilege.....


This is your theory right?

[RainDog]

165. Thank you for your consideration

When I asked you, far upthread, to let this be a place where people could have a conversation. Thank you for demonstrating something that is a problem here, even when some people don't know it - or maybe they do, who knows, TBH, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, I asked Fumesucker to simply no longer reply to you on this thread so that you couldn't continue to make statements that have nothing to do with what he actually said.

He, unlike you, agreed.

I appreciate his ability to demonstrate some consideration of others.

[VanillaRhapsody]

166. hahahaha he has?

[Squinch]

12. Kick. Denial and arguing that "I probably have it worse than a person of color

because I'm poor/ugly/short/plagued-by-halitosis" just make people look ridiculous.

[boston bean]

18. to read that shit here is just heartbreaking and maddening.

This website is the last place one should expect to read such garbage. This place use to be different.

We aren't setting any standards. I mean the jury left the absolutely, undeniably racist Asian privilege post to stand. As if that is a standard most would want for this site. It is just disgusting.

[Squinch]

39. Yes. That was beyond the pale.

[DesertDiamond]

13. BRAVO Raindog!!! As a poor white person who's been through a lot... it's NOTHING compared to what

my African American friends have been through. Do you really think the battle for equality is over? White privilege is REAL and, although we've come a long way, it's not nearly far enough. My dear fellow white persons. Does it really cost you anything to admit that?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

19. It's the strangest thing, how some people deny and get offended

whether you're trying to talk about racism or sexism as a part of a very long-lived system, there are people who can not or will not step back and understand that, if you're not guilty of the behavior, then talking about the reality isn't a personal insult.

As you say, what in hell does it cost the personally offended to admit something exists? How is it they don't get that you can discuss a problem without being *responsible* for it existing?

[RainDog]

37. I agree

that's why it's best to keep personal insults out of discussions of issues because they just magnify rather than mitigate problems and obscure commonalities.

[freebrew]

70. I agree mostly, as well...

what I object to is the tendency for posters to claim that ALL persons of a defined 'group' act a certain way.

While rarely, that situation occurs, as in groups like the teabaggers, people that are born into a certain group don't have any other choice. Saying that doesn't mean white privilege doesn't exist, it most certainly does.
As a poster stated above, I am very lucky as a poor white person, to be white. Most others in my position would be in a very different place.

But this is DU and I expect more honesty and thoughtfulness than I have been seeing lately.

[Initech]

14. It's the outrage du jour!

I say don't get mad, pass the butter and watch th e flame wars!

[RainDog]

15. I see hurt on both sides

but I think, in this instance, it's harmful to both and it's far more useful to talk about ways people can work together.

As part of the majority of a population within this country - finding common ground that expresses common goals is the best place to put energies, imo.

It's not simply the outrage du jour. If you're an African-American, it can look like a refusal to acknowledge their struggles, simply because you have your own.

[justhanginon]

16. Excellent post RainDog and well said. Thank you.

[RainDog]

47. Thank you

[blackspade]

17. Only a fool believes that white privilege doesn't exist.

Seriously?

I grew up poor, and was still privileged compared to my poor black neighbors.

[riqster]

57. Damn right.

I finally got an opportunity to get a good job: scrounged, went hungry for a couple days and so was able to blow ten bucks for a suit at goodwill and a hair cut, and hid my poverty thereby. I looked like "one of them" and so was better able to get the gig. Being an "other" of any sort is a disadvantage in the job market, and being white I was able to hide my otherness.

You can't do that with color or gender.

[bhikkhu]

67. Yes, I grew up poor and made plenty of bad decisions

but the costs to me were minimal. All it took was a haircut and some decent clothing and the doors were open. Being part of a rigged system always made me much less interested in being a part of it or taking advantage, though the advantage was always there on offer. I'd like to see things change, even if it leveled the playing field and made things harder for me.

[shaayecanaan]

88. Problem solved!

We can solve the whole poverty problem by giving all those two-toothed hillbillies a collective haircut and a change of clothes!!!!

You're a fucking genius!!!

Why didn't we tell them all to pull themselves up by their bootstraps earlier?

[bhikkhu]

150. We can admit that there is both a poverty problem and a race-based inequality problem

as well as a gender-based inequality problem. There's lots of other problems as well.

My perspective is anecdotal, based on my own experience. I'm not a two-toothed hillbilly, and I don't know that I've ever met a two-toothed hillbilly, as I grew up in a typical suburban setting in a large city, and have lived largely in large urban and suburban settings my whole life.

Currently I live in a smaller semi-rural town, but the opportunities here are essentially the same as anywhere else: if you're a white male, you're the best candidate for a job and you get better pay. If you're anyone else, not so much. That's not to say that its easy for anyone, but it is certainly easier if you're a white male - just saying what I've experienced, and what I see. I wish it were different.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

20. Well Said!

Very well said.


(though, if you look at the same phenomenon happen when trying to discuss the existence of male privilege , you see that there are people on DU who aren't better than this.)

[boston bean]

22. true, many of them are one in the same.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

25. that's a fact.

yecch.

[Shandris]

29. As a matter of principle, I'll just take a moment to note that perhaps, JUST PERHAPS...

...discussing things based on the 'average' is -not- the best way to approach a problem. Either it's applicable or it's not, and if large chunks of it aren't necessarily applicable to any given person, then it's a wasted conversation to begin with. "Well, yah, large portions of this don't actually apply to you, but you see, you have it anyways, so you're a racist. Even though you're not...but you benefit from it, so like...you are. But I'm just talking about on average, of course...so long as you admit you personally have it."

It's easy to talk about 'averages' and calling 'poor white people' a strawman. You're not one. Only an idiot thinks that an 'average' person would prefer to be black than white with every other little thing remaining equal, and I don't see anyone claiming that. I don't see people denying that the academic concept of privilege in and of itself exists (although I'm sure there are some outliers, and that's okay -- people are allowed to be wrong). What I -do- see are people saying that there is no combination of circumstances that unilaterally would make a person always choose white. For instance, if you ask a person on the street if they'd rather be poor and white or wealthy and black, I know what the answer's going to be for most people and its not white. I suppose racists may say white, and that's fine -- I don't put stock in what racists say.

Since you can mix and match a lot of different circumstances that will end up in various answers, you've got to realize that the topic alone can not and will not solve anything even if it were somehow physically possible for every white person in America to simultaneously say together that all other things being equal, they would choose to be white because all other things will never be equal. And that recognition is why you have so many people saying, "What's the plan?". What's the solution? The endgame? When do we declare victory? What is the measuring stick? Can you show me a metric, an idea, a description, anything that involves the phrase 'white privilege' that will, at any point in the future, allow us to decisively show we have definitively combatted racism? And if not, then why are we dividing people with the label?

[RainDog]

30. I think that's one reason the term isn't the best

but it's out there and part of the way people discuss broad generalities - we all do this from time to time.

I don't fit many generalities that would be made about me based on different things - so I just ignore articles, etc. that talk about them, while others find them useful.

I'm really just appealing to your better nature (tho I could've been nicer - but was sort of saying LOOK!) to look beyond your personal circumstance to the reality of oppression in our society based upon color - which I'm sure you do when you don't look at one factor that bothers you - and there are so many reasons this can be bothersome to anyone - Republicans constantly harp on people in difficult economic situations - they use it as a dog whistle to signal racism - but they also do it b/c they're beating up on white people too, in order to save a few bucks for a billionaire (as I mentioned to someone above, but the post was deleted before I could reply.

So, a hug to you.

We're really all in this together - and sometimes you have to just move beyond one facet of an issue (economic) to the wider view of the way this issue impacts others far, far, far beyond economic issues.

[Shandris]

35. Well said, and I can't (and wouldn't want to) argue with the overall sentiment one bit.

In truth, I don't think the economic is an overriding factor anyways even though its one I can personally relate to; I think its the intersections of -all- different privileges (and identifying them to ourselves) -- ie, personal awareness and truthfulness in self-examination -- that need more focus, and among those are certainly white privilege. When we can identify which privileges we as people have, and which ones we do not, then its easier (imo) to match up how we feel when our non-privileged portions of life are ignored, and that allows us to share some common ground with people lacking in other privileges. It's clearly not perfect, but every ounce of understanding is one less obstacel for the future. Its the whole 'separation' thing I don't like, any more than I like it when other people go on single-privilege tangents.

But the overriding sentiment is -definitely- shared, and you put it very eloquently here.

[RainDog]

36. well said

[TheKentuckian]

178. You cannot "set aside" economics in probably any political discussion, definitely not in the US.

Even the institutional racism was built on economics as was slavery, the near slavery of many Asians in the west, the native genocide, and the plight of migrant workers now.
You set aside economics and what you come up with will not only be false and probably a wild goose chase if actions toward correction are the goal.
Many that like to set economics aside as just one factor are usually folks that are doing pretty well and aren't about to "check their privilege" on that note because "they built that" and had to overcome negative privilege to do it.

I also continue to believe that the phrasing is significantly counter productive language to express a very real thing and tends to make the very people who need to "get it" defensive and likely to push back which makes me as a person of color wonder what the real goal even is. Why would certain folks be so hell bent on a phrase that isn't even in common usage that also isn't effective communication?

Seems silly to me unless the subject is actually intended to be a distraction from the central fault line, money and the plight of people on the scuffle in order to keep resources in as few a hands as possible and maintain the status quo.

[RainDog]

187. I agree, of course

I mean this in the context of personal experience - in terms of being able to hear what someone else has known - tho, obviously, as links I posted below indicate, African Americans still deal with more economic hardship as a group in this nation.

...and the entire reason I mention it, as you note, is that the phrase is counter productive for the very people who need to "get it" to realize where their self interest exists, as well as their interests for the improvement of our entire society.

AND I ABSOLUTELY agree that its use within political discussion across the U.S. population - not just here on DU, creates defensiveness and, thus, an inability to hear the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of all of this, in terms of economic issues - and that's the reality that the 99% is made up of all sorts of ethnic identities who share common interests and the common need to redistribute wealth from those who have, for the most part, inherited and accumulated via political policies that have hurt all working people - but, most of all, have hurt African Americans in this society because this nation was built on the backs of unpaid labor mostly supplied by Africans who were used and abused as slaves.

To me, in a way, this phenomena is like the reality that so many who fought in the civil war from the south were not slave holders. To call the issue of the time "state's rights" was a way to get the 1% in the south to align with them.

We don't need to do the work of the right wing for them through the use of a phrase that provokes status anxiety in the white working classes.

[truedelphi]

116. Your comment is extremely petinent. n/t

[Ohio Joe]

31. K&R

Well said

[ancianita]

41. With you. High five. Unity need not be conflated with uniformity of outlook and purity of soul.

The threads reflect frustration and too much need for trust testing, when just sharing news, info, ideas, solutions, fairness, encouragement and humor are already a lot to do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

42. When people of color discuss our experiences here on DU regarding race, PLEASE

believe us! Please listen to us!

Thank you for this thread, RainDog! Thanks so much!!!

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. +1

Always

[RainDog]

46. I've really not been aware of the level of aggravation

many here have faced.

I know there was trolling, etc. during the Zimmerman trial - I just didn't participate in those threads - or talk about the case anywhere other than my rl friends who would not say some of the things I later read were said here. I got my information about it from trusted sources online - from African-Americans, mostly.

When I have come across others making what seem to be blatantly racist remarks, if they don't get ppr'd - I put them on ignore, often, with the idea that no one really has to see what they have to say. So, that's one instance in which I'm unaware of what's gone on here. Maybe that shouldn't be my response - but sometimes I wonder if it's worth your bother to even acknowledge them. At the same time, I understand why you wouldn't want to let something stand unremarked.

I can't imagine someone would ignore what someone would say about their own experience - it's just incredible to me that anyone would try to tell others about situations they don't have experience of themselves - especially concerning an issue related to a minority experience.

But I remember reading something Questlove wrote about - thinking women wouldn't make eye contact b/c he's an African-American - I thought... but women often don't make eye contact with ANY man - color doesn't matter. So, sometimes I think there are different understandings of the same moments - but when the issue is about an overall experience of life - that's something else entirely.

Thanks for the kind words. Let me repeat yours - When people of color discuss their experiences regarding race - listen to them, believe them, try to understand them. Don't be defensive, white people. Try to be open to learn from others' experience in life.

[bullwinkle428]

44. White male poster here - can't disagree with a word; happy to K&R.

[Number23]

51. "supports the idea that white people do not want to understand the experience of others"

The hyper defensiveness, the knee jerk dismissiveness and the really awful sneering, condescending ignorance do just that and much more.

K&R I'm glad you got "into it."

[RainDog]

54. I hesitated

because I didn't want to just have another back and forth in anger - but some things that have been posted here recently would certainly call into question judgements - the right wing racist OP link, for instance, is pretty glaring - but a lot of others as well.

I'm so sorry you've had to put up with so much from people who are supposed to be on the same political side.

[MadrasT]

52. K&R, well stated. (n/t)

[valerief]

56. Please stop blaming DU for its trolls. nt

[seaglass]

59. Why? If those views are expressed here and continue to be expressed here with no PPRing or hiding

then clearly they are acceptable views on DU. So the blame does lie with the DU Admins, the DU Community and individual posters all.

[boston bean]

66. You know the poster doesn't want to be lumped in with racists and hell neither do I.

That's the point of some of these conversations. It's an embarrassment and it makes this place a mighty uncomfortable place to post.

But still, the criticism is held for those who speak out against it. Don't get it. I guess people put personality above principle.

[NCTraveler]

65. Excellent post RainDog

Most of DU is better than this. Some seem to be simply terrified about this topic.

[The Wizard]

69. All white privilege means

that white people are less likely to be pulled over by the police for no reason and beaten and arrested on false charges. Unconsciously the police assume non whites probably can't afford good lawyers. It's really not as complicated as some might believe.

[shaayecanaan]

89. The same for Chinese, Japanese, etc

Rates of incarceration for Asians are even less than they are for whites. Asians generally aren't followed around department stores or hassled by the police either.

As I've said before, the experience of black people demonstrates black disadvantage, but it does not establish white privilege.

[totodeinhere]

73. You are presuming to tell people that a particular topic of discussion is off limits.

Last edited Thu May 15, 2014, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

That's what your comment amounts to. You probably don't intend to set yourself up as a censor but that's what you are doing in effect. Your comments are well intentioned and much of what you say is true. But wouldn't it be better to keep the topic out in the open and available for discussion and debate? Most of us at DU are big boys and girls. We can handle discussing a topic such as white privilege. When we start banning particular topics we are going down a slippery slope.

[shaayecanaan]

92. Diversity good, dissent bad...

You can talk about your experiences but please don't try to articulate a point of view that is outside western, bourgeois, anti-socialist, post-enlightenment liberalism. Thank you.

[RainDog]

106. No, honestly, it doesn't say that

I said conflating one personal situation is not the same as looking at an entire systemic experience of other people. I was very aware of my intent - which was to appeal to the better nature of people here to rise above their anger about situations to see what others have been trying to get them to understand.

I have not said one censorious thing to anyone here who brought up their personal grievances about this issue, as well.

The point is that the topic of "privilege" - which I have noted numerous times, here and elsewhere, is not my preferred way to discuss the issue of the effects of being in a society with certain presumptions - is not about one individual and is NOT about the issue when it is limited to personal rather than societal issues - beyond the sort of reaction such a term inevitably evokes in someone who is not a recipient of economic privilege.

Because of our economic system - this is what most people focus on, but it's not the only issue, by far.

[sulphurdunn]

77. I became aware of how priviliged I am

when there wasn't enough to eat growing up because my parents had to choose between eating of living in the street. I got another big dose of how lucky I was from a foxhole in Vietnam. Then again, when I came home, couldn't find a job and lived out of my car. One potential employer was honest enough to tell me that he feared I was dangerous, might have a flashback and go on a killing rampage. Stereotypes are false by definition, simplistic, counterproductive and pointless in fact. They serve only to divide and never to unite. This thread is a good example of that, and is one of many reasons I am always suspicious of those who posit catch phrases used to stereotype groups of people.

[Harmony Blue]

84. Good post

I grew up in southern central Los Angeles County.

Not many whites in my neighborhood or at school. The majority of my classmates were Mexican, with some Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Black classmates.

[bravenak]

98. No wonder you say things like this.

Harmony Blue (3,671 posts)
224. To be blunt prvilege has nothing to do with the fact

that single mothers are on the rise in our country and children simply don't have two parents to help raise them. Also a single mother must work more hours to raise children compared to a household that has two incomes to pull from. The government is tight on money and more and more men (especially black men) are incarcerated for not paying child support whether they are they father or not (biological). Straight Black males have walked away from father hood because there are no role models to look to for inspiration anymore and the entertainment media portrays them as fools. Bill Cosby I rarely agree with but he has talked about how there have always been strong black role models to look to but instead of focusing on black achievement the focus has shifted now.

The black community has the same issues as the LDC of the world in that that birth control education is lacking and that having a lot of kids reduces your spending power simply put. This cycle is difficult to break but it starts at the school level or more specifically public education levels.

[Harmony Blue]

154. No one disproved what I put forth

The Least Developed Countries of the world on average have more children per family and as a result are poorer and have less spending power. Ever since China has made a push to reduce the number of children the spending power of the Chinese has increased to mirror the Major Developed Countries of the world that have an average of 1-2 children. Which is why the MDC's are in stage five where we are seeing stagnant or declining birthrates.

The best way to help the black community it to increase education and educational opportunities. When this is done I have seen positive results in Compton for example after the L.A. riots and the rebuilding of the community began. Most don't realize this but Compton is a melting pot of culture of Koreans, Blacks, Mexicans, etc. The tensions leading to and after the L.A. riots shows how sensitive racial tensions were in L.A. especially towards the police.

Minorities spending power is starting to rise as the number of children they have is reduced. Mexicans tend to be Catholic so they still cling to big family ideals but the consumerist American lifestyle is permeating even that community. It happened to Italy where Catholicism is very dominant and yet the birth rate is declining there rapidly.

[davidthegnome]

80. Competition is in our nature.

When someone says, "Hey! My life sucks!", a lot of us immediately think of how our lives suck worse, then go about trying to explain why. Thus, our lives suck the most, therefor, no one else should complain!

Whatever your race, gender, religion... whatever, being human puts us all on a very large ship. Is it easier to be white than to be black? Probably, but I can't say for sure, I've never been black. So I can't really comprehend what life is like, what the differences are, how much more blacks might struggle. All I can do is learn of their experiences, and, in comparing them with my own, draw possibly faulty conclusions about the whole nature of this stuff.

I do want to understand, but true understanding is not terribly likely to happen. The best we can do is empathize, sympathize, share compassion and generosity.

I guess it's really all about perspective. By it's very nature though, the term "white privilege" will draw out anger and resentment from those who are white who feel not at all privileged. Not that there is anything wrong with the term - as in truth, it simply points out the fact that, generally speaking, whites do not face the same type of oppression and cruelty that minorities do. I wonder if that will change when we become a minority?

I like to think that we're all human first.

[heaven05]

94. oh we are all human first in this country

but it has always been a fact that some humans, because of race/gender, have had an 'easier' time being a human than others. Some on here don't want to recognize that fact for their own reasons. Let them stay in their bubble. Bubbles burst sooner or later, then we'll see what the comments will be. Minority oppression exists in this country. White privilege exists in this country.

[shaayecanaan]

97. To be honest, I've only ever heard the term from pious white liberals...

and occasionally from non-white critical race theorists in universities. I've only very seldom heard any working class person using the term.

Personally I can't stand the self-congratulatory tone of it. Here I am, a tenured academic driving a Saab and drinking grange hermitage but that's okay because I acknowledge my white privilege, even though I have a lot invested in the status quo and I don't have the slightest intention to jeopardise any of it. There's quite a parallel with Christianity when you think about it - you can live a life of abandon and diffidence but as long as you profess belief in Jesus all will be well.

One of the ironies of the new left is that it is dependent on white western hegemony for its survival and is generally incapable of surviving outside of broader white society. For example, Chinese and Indian people, even those in universities, generally don't spend much time sitting around talking about cis privilege or indeed white privilege for that matter. Occasionally this inconvenient truth displays itself when the new left reveals it's opposition to traditional societies, Islamic societies, essentially anything other than the dominant capitalist model.

[heaven05]

85. per your last line

I've learned a thing or two about my fellow travelers that are left of center or 'progressives and liberals' on this site also. It can indeed sadden one sometimes. Hang in, we shall overcome.

[Eleanors38]

90. I appreciate your post, and agree with most of it.

The 2 criticisms of the expression "white privilege" which, IMO, strike home are:

1) "White Privilege" WILL be off-putting to
Millions of poor (and soon-to-be-poor) whites who a progressive Democrat Party Must appeal to;

2) The expression WILL be used some on DU to "check" other DUers with whom they disagree on subjects of race, social justice, discrimination, etc. in an attempt to diminish those views.

I certainly don't want to see threads hidden by those who would like to shape, force, and fit a discussion around certain "facts."

[noiretextatique]

108. we live in a country where a political party routinely uses race

to manipulate poor white people. many of them vote for that party because of race. but if we speak about race and privilege, suddenly they are "offended." it is just ridiculous.

[Eleanors38]

117. If I'm getting what you say, the difference in messages

may be the problem. One side says poor whites are ignored, looked down on, made to feel responsible even when suffering in its own conditions of poverty, and have had their "better" days quashed by an all-powerful government.

The other side says those same folks are "privileged."

That one sides propaganda is distorted, deceitful, and incomplete. And meshes perfectly with the other sides "factual" proclamation of "white privilege."

Are you surprised at the RW's success?

[noiretextatique]

219. bullshit

One side blames minorities, women, immigrants and athiests for the plight of poor whites. The other side is trying to improve the lives of all poor people. Discussions on the internet have ZERO to do with what is actually happening in DC or in state legislatures. Except of course when it comes to fucking over all poor people.

[Eleanors38]

220. Whether it 's the internet or T.V., the message is created

for others to believe in or not. Poor whites are buying into a message that is turning them against the Democratic Party. Clearly, the RW knows their stuff, and at a minimum what remains of progressive thought has offered little and articulated less. Maybe the almighty struggle over "white privilege" is all intramural, a passing intellectual "ZERO" sum game. So I will expect you to blow off the discussion as "bullshit" and work/contribute to progressive causes?

[FairWinds]

93. White Privilege is very real . .

and is substantially attitudinal . .
For example, almost no one at all (except me) complains about
the ubiquitous practice of legacy admissions at nearly all
elite universities (think Dubya at Yale); but folks obsess like
crazy if a minority gets admitted under affirmative action.
All those schools get government money of one form or another,
which means that WE ARE PAYING for white privilege.

[shaayecanaan]

100. 75% of Americans oppose legacy preferences

Amongst working class Americans that percentage is even higher. The irony is that liberal arts colleges that admit legacy students are precisely the same institutions that like to wax lyrical about white privilege.

[kwassa]

149. but preferences for a winning college athelete are just dandy ...

got a link for your assertion?

[shaayecanaan]

186. here you go

http://chronicle.com/article/US-Public-s-Confidence-in/20621

[kwassa]

189. Can't read it, there is a paywall.

[shaayecanaan]

193. then try here

http://m.asia.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204653604577249230164868846?mobile=y

[RainDog]

194. I didn't know this was started to limit Jewish and immigrant kids

...after WWI, from attending Ivy League schools.

interesting.

One reason I find frats so disgusting is also about the legacy practice - and the creation of groups on a campus dedicated to reinforcing gender as well as economic segregation.

[RainDog]

110. I agree n/t

[NOLALady]

101. Thanks RainDog.

I also thought DU was better than this.

It seems that I was wrong.

[uponit7771]

102. AMEN and AMEN!! If we objectify human nature like the OP has done then MAYBE people will stop

...personalizing things so much

[noiretextatique]

111. this shit is so insidious...and yet so obvious

it is an embarrassment, or it should be...the FACT that race and racial inequality is not viewed as a horrible American problem that continues to be used elites by to manipulate some white people.

[paulkienitz]

112. as a teen underachiever, I got a pretty close look at white privilege

...and it's real. You should have seen how hard everyone worked to get me to succeed. Didn't see that happening with the kids from East Palo Alto.

Not to mention my mid-eighties stint of homelessness. I really breezed through that very easily compared to how things could have gone, even when I got arrested once.

[kmlisle]

113. Thanks to RainDog for this Post

My take on this discussion is that our culture of emphasis on individual responsibility and freedom leads us to blame individuals for systemic problems. I know I struggle to separate these two issues and that's what this conversation looks like to me.

That covers everything from the sins of single parent household to the idea of white privilege being somehow a failing of an individual rather than a failing of a whole societal structure and culture to treat people equally.

Its also true that people assume their experiences are the same as someone else when they are actually very different and that too is part of the problem. People can be ignorant and well meaning and good hearted all at the same time. I know that description has applied to me many times in my life.
Of course it's easier to apply a quick fix if you can just blame someone while changing a culture is Hard and takes generations to do.

I have participated in several anti-racism circles in my local town where the office of economic opportunity sponsors them and have learned a lot about how my experiences as a white middle class woman have been very different from those of people of color. And being a single parent helps me relate to the misunderstandings and difficulties involved.

I also think that the fact that people like me and others on this thread are grappling with the idea of white privilege even if it is to react in outrage is a good thing in the long run. Its a new a shocking idea that your world and the world of your classmate or fellow worker who you may have grown to like and admire have such different experiences and opportunities. It actually changes your view of the world and that is difficult for us all. I can tell you as a person who grew up in the South of the early 60s that we are making progress. The world today is very different and a vast improvement on those days.

Finally I think only our children can solve this problem with time and hard work and the willingness to think best intentions of our fellow human beings.

Here are a few links of "A Ha" moments for me on white privilege: http://www.isr.umich.edu/home/diversity/resources/white-privilege.pdf

And Societal Structure versus individual achievement: http://www.preciousknowledgefilm.com/ (watch the clip on critical race theory) this one is especially amazing to me as it is articulated so well by a young person of color.

[RainDog]

144. great reply

thanks - something to read up on tho I haven't had a chance to check out the links yet.

but just wanted to say thanks for the thoughtful response.

[ecstatic]

121. People either get it or they don't

Those who don't will never get it. Beating a dead horse is a huge waste of time.

[Uncle Joe]

125. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, RainDog.

[randys1]

126. Can we resolve Climate Change now, please...next!

[Uncle Joe]

131. Believe it or not, this moves us a step forward in that regard.

The same subconscious mentality that ignores "white privilege" as a real and distinct dynamic is more likely to have a blind spot to the plight of "lesser" nations on the frontline of gloal warming climate change.

Should the OP open a few eyes as to what white privilege is and isn't, this may in turn decrease the inherent false insulation of "second cousin" nationalism in regards to viewing global warming climate change as not just a malady of poor brown nations but a major threat to all nations of the world, including our own.

[randys1]

177. You write good...me stupid compared to you LOL

but yes, I agree with you

[RainDog]

188. Thanks for the positivity

Positivity... I love that word... it sounds silly and happy at the same time. Posolutely.

I wouldn't even assume my post would move to something so important - but I'm glad you're able to see a greater good.

[RainDog]

141. Just when Miami gets to be the Venice of the south?

thanks a lot for nuthin...

j/k- if that's needed.

[Babel_17]

127. If we all take a step back

If we all take a step back I think we'll have a better appreciation of the difficulty our candidates for office have in framing their points regarding the economy and people's socioeconomic background.

[RainDog]

142. Not to mention

how those things get twisted by opponents to create outrage.

[bettyellen]

129. Well said, Rain Dog

[RainDog]

140. Thanks for your kindness

[yurbud]

132. "African Americans cannot talk about offenses against them without some white taking it personally"

That is a very different and worthwhile discussion than the "white privilege" talking point.

Probably because that approach implies some ( or even a lot of) whites and especially those with money and power have harmed black people. If someone takes offense at that, they have issues.

"White privilege" makes it sound like we all get invited into the country club, or up on the porch of the big house to sip mint juleps while the blacks pick the cotton.

While white people have it easier in many ways compared to blacks, it doesn't feel like "privilege" to those of us middle class and below.

If you had to carry around a thirty pound anchor every day, you wouldn't feel privileged because somebody else has to carry a sixty or hundred pound one. You just want to get rid of the dead weight.

And if both of you can figure out that you have variations of the same problem and work together to get rid of it, it will be gone that much sooner.

[RainDog]

167. Good insights

thank you for sharing them.

[The Green Manalishi]

133. the phrase, even if "true" is a big boon to the Tea Party and the GOP

Because when they even mention the phrase to poor or lower middle class white person and follow it with saying "See, those low information liberals think *you* are the privileged ones, even though *they* get to take advantage of affirmative action and 'quotas..." it makes a powerful argument against mainstream liberalism come voting time.

IOW, true or not, bandying the phrase about works to the benefit of our opposition.
You can show hundreds of graphics and thousands of pages of data, all it true, accurate and honestly presented, and all you are going to accomplish is turning lower and lower middle class whites, particularly males AGAINST the liberal agenda.

I am not arguing that there isn't such a thing, statistically or anecdotally. I am saying that using it as an phrase or an argument plays right into the hands of our enemies; I think (just a theory) that since the very phrase itself goes AGAINST the perceived experience of whites who are on the lower end of the spectrum, it de-legitimizes any and all subsequent arguments or information coming from the same source.

Yeah, I had the privilege of growing up white, middle class and male, I'm aware that this gave me options that many others didn't have. But try telling that to many of the guys I grew up with who find themselves economic failures and all you do is alienate them, convince them you are an elitist asshole who wants to screw them over even more (than they believe themselves to have been screwed over) and make them more likely to vote Tea Party or GOP.

Sometimes you can do more damage by being correct. I mean look at the phrase "global warming". Technically, it is true, the average temp is heating up, resulting is wilder, more extreme and more variable weather; but *CALLING* it "global warming" just makes you look like a moron to someone who has just survived a brutal winter; if it had been called "climate change" and nothing but since the 1970's we'd be much farther along in STOPPING it, I think; at the very least we would give the opposition one less red herring to drag around.

the point isn't to be correct; the point is to win elections and influence policy

Just my .02

[RainDog]

145. I agree with you

The phrase is tone deaf outside of the context in which it has been used within academia because it's not specific enough. However, I, again, am not going to have a fit if someone here uses it b/c I can get what someone is trying to say without having to attach pages of codicils to the political death that such a term would certainly create among the political class.

No politician would ever be willing to appropriate such a divisive term - because the goal is to unite for a common goal, not divide and parse privilege. Or, rather, as noted, the only politician who would appropriate such a term is one who wanted to use it to feed resentment among white people who are not economically advantaged.

So, maybe people here should just walk away from such discussions rather than have them take the usual course, if they don't want to treat it as an abstraction that explains group dynamics, not personal experience.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

134. "I thought DU was better than this."

Okay,....THAT was funny.

[NealK]

136. Lol! It sure was.

[RainDog]

146. yeah. sometimes it's like this

[Spitfire of ATJ]

152. Or this....

[RainDog]

153. this is for all you snarkoleptics...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

170. How now brown,....HEY!!!! Sheeze,....white privilege AGAIN!!!

[whistler162]

135. Okay so whites should just get over it.....

dang that sounds familiar!

ANd yes you have proven Mark Twain correct.

[RainDog]

139. Mark Twain

Last edited Thu May 15, 2014, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

was a great champion of anti-colonialism in Africa during the reign of terror by Leopold of Belgium. One of Leopold's enforcers, who cut off the limbs of people in the Congo Free State forced to work on rubber plantations, was the inspiration for Kurtz in Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

People sometimes sold a family member into slavery to pay for their taxes. Leopold exterminated entire villages. He looted the nation and much of that plunder is in a beautiful museum in Brussels... still.

Leopold, Twain noted, was upset because people only wrote about what made the King look bad. Leopold was jealous because all the other European monarchs had colonies, while his intent was to convert them all to Christianity. He meant well.

Mark Twain was ahead of his time in so many ways - sadly, b/c he used the vernacular of speech of his time, he's often seen as supporting rather than opposing what existed. That happens when people don't read with their critical thinking skills involved. I try to remember that.

http://diglib1.amnh.org/articles/kls/

[Vattel]

143. Of course there is white privilege, but it is a pretty useless and misused concept.

I think we should talk about old-fashioned stuff like racism and racial discrimination and social injustice. Those things are inherently wrong, being privileged is not.

[yurbud]

182. I had to think about that last sentence for a minute to decide whether I agree or disagree

and oddly, like the concept of "white privilege," my gut instinct was to disagree but when I thought about it, it was correct--even though it is the opposite of the "white privilege" talking point in some ways.

[justiceischeap]

147. Welfare Queen!

When you read that statement, what comes to mind?

this:


or this:


For most people it's the second and that, IMO, is an easy pictorial depiction of white privilege.

[shaayecanaan]

168. to be honest

I immediately associate that term with white trash. I suppose it is because I assume that if people are going to insult the second family they would do so in explicitly racial terms.

[etherealtruth]

148. Great post!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

156. What do you mean "we", white woman?

[RainDog]

158. I'm a woman

any other questions?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

159. Amended. Joke still stands.

[RainDog]

161. not dat depp

went right over my head... but this stayed there

[hfojvt]

169. Wow, you really seem to have stepped in it

Brave of you to start the 100th thread telling working class white people to shut up.

I see you got totally flamed for it too.

"This includes the idea that African Americans cannot talk about offenses against them ..."

Well, if they talk about white privilege, then they are NOT talking about "offenses against them". Instead they are talking about me. And if you are talking about me, then it IS a personal issue about ME. I happen to be white. So if you start telling me about all the advantages that somebody like me has, then I am gonna set the record straight. Because I happen to know better than anybody about the DIS-advantages I have faced.

And it's not about individuals either.

Here's a little statistical reality. 16.9 million white households with less than $5,000 in net worth. 3.2 million black households with over $250,000 in net worth.

Oh, but the 16.9 million whites are privileged and the 3.2 million blacks are oppressed. Right.

"White people do not want to understand the experiences of others in society"

How about talking about those experiences of others, AGAIN, instead of talking about white people and how fucking privileged they are? Oh, and how disgusting and sad it is that some (a$$holes?, morons?, racists? or maybe the trifuckingfecta) don't embrace the concept of white privilege.

Is THAT too hard of a concept to grasp?

Seeing your post, and the hundreds of others similar to it supports the idea that middle class liberals do NOT want to understand the experience of lower class white people.

Okay, if I was a decent person I would just shut up, eh? Or better yet, I'd agree with you. Stop the bullshit of thinking I have a valid point of view.

[RainDog]

172. so long, farewell, adieu, auf weidersehen

Last edited Sat May 17, 2014, 12:18 PM - Edit history (2)

This will be the last post from me to you - I don't feel the need to see your posts here any longer either. I've talked to you about your reactions several times in the past.

You and I may vote for the same political party - but beyond that, we don't share a worldview and I'm not interested in giving you any more of my time when you are so unwilling to give anyone else any consideration.

Best of luck to you. I hope something wonderful happens to you (I really mean this) to help you get beyond your anger.

[hfojvt]

180. well that's nice, and nice of you to tell me too

really motivated me to read all that YOU posted.

It was YOUR post that made me angry in this case.

Curious isn't it? How somebody with so much privilege could be angry.

I had an experience the other day, shopping at wal-mart. The checker there was a black lady, and she was so cheerful. Just bubbly.

Amazing how somebody so oppressed could seemingly be so happy. Black and female, and perhaps (because she might have a spouse with a better job) even working poor. At least her job pays much less than mine (I am guessing, at best she's making $9 an hour). She wasn't even all that attractive - at least not physically (and tastes vary).

Lately I have noticed some RAGE in myself, so I do not know what is up there. It was before learning that my dear sister has breast cancer. Maybe it's the full time work. The stress from that and all the constant negativity there. I mean the Wal-mart trip was part of another hour of unpaid overtime following my write-up and suspension last Friday.

Just another privilege in my wonderful life.

Not that you want to listen to the experience of a working class white person. As you proved.

Anyway, I found this woman to be inspiring.

So I sang to her. I asked her what all the radio chatter was. She said the intercom was down and said "I wish they would sing a song".

So I did. I sang "Sing. Sing a song. Sing it loud".

She complimented me on my voice and as I was walking away said "Now I am gonna have that song stuck in my head all night." (She was working a night shift too - crappy hours).

So I hummed her a few more bars.

[gollygee]

174. Hmmm

So 16.9 million white people have household wealth equal or lower than the MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD NET WORTH for black people. Clearly, white people have a greater chance of becoming wealthy, regardless of some individuals who are outside the norm.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/wealth-gap-race/

The median household net worth for whites was $110,729 in 2010, versus $4,995 for blacks, according to recently released Census Bureau figures.

The difference is similarly notable when it comes to Hispanics, who had a median household net worth of $7,424. The ratio between white and Hispanic wealth expanded to 15 to 1.

The gap between the races widened considerably during the recent economic downturn, which whites weathered better than blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

The latter three groups saw their median household net worth fall by roughly 60% between 2005 and 2010, while the median net worth for white households slipped only 23%.

[hfojvt]

179. having a greater chance

does not do jack-squat for those who fail to achieve, does it?

A privilege would actually be eating the ice cream, rather than being in a group which has a greater chance of eating ice cream.

And others, who had a lower chance of eating ice cream, are not really oppressed when they are eating the ice cream.

[gollygee]

184. White privilege sometimes leads to wealth and sometimes doesn't

Wealth privilege is something else.

Other white privileges you do enjoy, such as being much less likely to be suspect when driving, when entering a store, etc. Even growing up having most people in history books be about people like you is a privilege, because it creates a different self image than people who very often seen images of people like them mostly associated with criminals. Or not having people act surprised when you speak well. Not being considered to be dressed like a "gangster" if you're wearing a hoodie.

Here's a quote:

When people with privilege hear that they have privilege, what they hear is not, ‘Our society is structured so that your life is more valued than others.’ They hear, ‘Everything, no matter what, will be handed to you. You have done nothing to achieve what you have.’ That’s not strictly true, and hardly anyone who points out another’s privilege is making that accusation. There are privileged people who work very hard. The privilege they experience is the absence of barriers that exist for other people.

[RobinA]

175. Please, Please, Please

Flamebaiters on both side of this issue put "privilege" in your title so those of us who have had it up to here with this topic and have blocked it don't have to trip over yet another rehash of this subject.

Would be eternally grateful.

[In_The_Wind]

183. Kicked and recommended

[Hekate]

185. KnR RainDog

[markpkessinger]

190. K&R! Beautifully and eloquently stated! Thank you! n/t

[markpkessinger]

191. To add to RainDog's excellent OP . . .

Here is a post I made to another thread on this topic, which i offer here as a supplement to RainDog's excellent OP:
=============

The concept of 'privilege' in a social justice context is not about a pissing match over who was more or less privileged. It is possible to be the beneficiary of privilege based on one aspect of oneself (say, race, for example), while simultaneously experiencing the lack of privilige based on some other aspect (say, gender, for example). Nor does the term suggest that you or anybody else have been personally given some special assist or leg up. It is not a suggestion that you haven't had to work for what you have, nor is it about asking you to feel guilty about your racial or ethnic heritage, your gender, or any success you may have obtained in life. But the nature of such privilege is nearly always invisible to the person benefiting from it. I saw a comment on an article at thenation.com, by someone posting under the name of 'socrates2', that explained this really well:

socrates2 Wednesday, May 7, 2014 1:05 p.m.

A long, long time ago in my early twenties, fresh out of college, a friend told me, "Yeah, some people will open doors for you, but once you're inside you had better deliver." So, every _economic_ (or political) "opportunity" is a two-step process. A "gatekeeper" lets you in. This is the "step," most melanin-challenged individuals in the US take for granted to the point of invisibility ("It's like explaining water to a fish.&quot .

Step Two: Once "inside" you can stand or stumble. (On an aside, the beauty of wealth and power is that one can stumble near-unlimited times and _remain_ inside).

Young Fortgang will always stand on solid ground when he defends the meritocracy of "Step Two."
It's "Step One" that's the real, but politely elided obstacle. No one likes to be reminded of American culture's regrettable and shameful past of Jim Crow and other forms of overt discrimination that kept a vast majority of African-Americans economically, academically, and, thus, politically, marginalized for generations where they fell further and further behind and developed class-stratified survival behaviors.
If and as the economy shifted, African-Americans lived the mantra, "Last hired, first fired" regardless of merits, unless the rare occasion where one filled a niche or acquired a powerful sponsor within the organization.

< . . . .>

[RainDog]

192. Thanks for bringing this post to the discussion

Something I have been thinking about lately is the reality of trauma in Holocaust victim children. It's called transgenerational trauma.

The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors were overrepresented by 300% among the referrals to a child psychiatry clinic in comparison with their representation in the general population.

This same phenomena has been noted in the families of war veterans.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/ptsd-epidemic-military-vets-families

And has been discussed in relation to African Americans in American society
http://inthesetimes.com/article/2523

The systematic dehumanization of African slaves was the initial trauma, explains Leary, and generations of their descendents have borne the scars. Since that time, Americans of all ethnic backgrounds have been inculcated and immersed in a fabricated (but effective) system of race “hierarchy,” where light-skin privilege still dramatically affects the likelihood of succeeding in American society.

Leary suggests that African Americans (and other people of color) can ill afford to wait for the dominant culture to realize the qualitative benefits of undoing racism. The real recovery from the ongoing trauma of slavery and racism has to start from within, she says, beginning with a true acknowledgment of the resilience of African-American culture.

The thing about trauma in various situations is that it's not something everyone in a situation has once the situation improves. But this is not an issue of "character." It's about luck - and about the amount of emotional and physical support someone receives.

Research indicates that sometimes the trauma is reenacted in some families from the person with the initial trauma - a cultural transmission - and some wonder if there's not an epigenetic phenomena - i.e. people with PTSD have physical changes in their brains that impact them and also their children via things like the hippocampus (which is different before and after trauma.)

When we know that African American families have to, for their survival, teach children things about ways to deal with the society into which they are born - EVEN TO THIS DAY - however, this idea that racism creates trauma seems to me like one of those well, d'uh moments.

Being in a situation of poverty (again, no matter someone's ethnicity) takes up so much of some people's mental coping capacity - poverty replicates itself.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/08/how-poverty-taxes-brain/6716/

The finding further undercuts the theory that poor people, through inherent weakness, are responsible for their own poverty – or that they ought to be able to lift themselves out of it with enough effort. This research suggests that the reality of poverty actually makes it harder to execute fundamental life skills. Being poor means, as the authors write, “coping with not just a shortfall of money, but also with a concurrent shortfall of cognitive resources.”

Blaming people for their own poverty in a situation that already creates existential stress - well, it's amazing to me how resilient so many have been in communities when dealing with a society that has systematically set out to impoverish them... because the reality is this is exactly what American society has done to African Americans since its inception.

While your quote talks about the "regrettable and shameful past of Jim Crow" - the reality is that Jim Crow is still going on - and is accomplished through the prison system - which is filled with nonviolent offenders of color who are targeted for arrest for doing the very same thing their white fellow citizens have done - which is use marijuana. It has been accomplished also by creating a two-tier "crack v. cocaine" sentencing system in the past (which the Justice Dept. has addressed.)

Some nonviolent offenders even have life sentences. The majority of them are African Americans.

A Living Death: Life without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses

For 3,278 people, it was nonviolent offenses like stealing a $159 jacket or serving as a middleman in the sale of $10 of marijuana. An estimated 65% of them are Black. Many of them were struggling with mental illness, drug dependency or financial desperation when they committed their crimes. None of them will ever come home to their parents and children. And taxpayers are spending billions to keep them behind bars.

https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/living-death-life-without-parole-nonviolent-offenses-0

Minority defendants are charged with crimes requiring a mandatory minimum prison sentence more often, leading to large racial disparities in incarceration. The likelihood of black males going to prison in their lifetime is 28% compared to 4% of white males and 16% of Hispanic males. Since socioeconomic status has an impact upon imprisonment - the ability to hire lawyers, etc, not just doing a crime - the long legacy of economic discrimination for African Americans has an impact upon perception for those who are unaware of their own privilege, as white people, to remain outside of this targeting based upon ethnicity as well.

This is one reason I support a basic minimum income.

If we, as a society, claim we care about providing opportunity - the way to do this is to create the conditions that lead to the ability to think about something other than poverty that takes up so much psychic energy, or the trauma that impacts functioning. This is true for people across groups - but is, again, particularly true for those who have to deal with the legacy of racism, and its expression to this day.

[RainDog]

199. Dr. Joy DeGruy

I want to note this separately, tho it's part of the first link in the above post. DeGruy talks about a nation that is "sick" because of its racism - because of the pathological denial of racism among the majority population.

DeGruy:

Of course, I’m not the first person to initiate this kind of work into the intergenerational nature of trauma in the African-American community … What I did differently is that I pulled from many different historical sources and scholarly disciplines. In essence, I created a “map” of knowledge so that people could see how African-American self-perception has been shaped.

The root of this denial for the dominant culture is fear, and fear mutates into all kinds of things: psychological projection, distorted and sensationalized representations in the media, and the manipulation of science to justify the legal rights and treatment of people. That’s why it’s become so hard to unravel.

Unfortunately, many European Americans have a very hard time even hearing a person of color express their experiences. The prevailing psychological mechanism is the idea, “I’ve not experienced it, so it cannot be happening for you.”

Attempts to encourage European Americans to join in on a more honest, national dialogue about “race” and racism often results in defensive posturing and positioning. Common responses include “slavery happened a long time ago,” or people saying that they’re tired of being made to feel guilty about something they didn’t do. How do we respond to this detachment from the crucial issues of the legacy of slavery?

So, something for people here to think about when they make the issue of "white privilege" about their personal experience, rather than the experience of African Americans that the majority population needs to hear. To dismiss them is to perpetuate a sickness in this society.

[RainDog]

207. Economic stats that demonstrate systemic issues

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/06/10/shapiro.wealth/

The latest Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) data indicates that a much wider breach has opened up in racial wealth inequality from the mid-1990s to now. This pattern reflects a firmly embedded racial stratification.

In 1998, the net worth of white households on average was $100,700 higher than that of African-Americans. By 2007, this gap had increased to $142,600. The SCF survey, which is supported by the Federal Reserve Board, collects this data every three years -- and every time (this dataa) has been collected, the racial wealth gap has widened.

In short: non-white wealth grew slowly and incrementally while wealth in white families grew 40 percent. Why such a huge gap?

... wealth is accumulated in specific historical contexts that produce varying levels of wealth for different families and social groupings. Even now, social forces serve as a powerful deterrent to black ambitions for wealth.


(This guy has written a whole book about the subject, so you'll have to go the article for more in-depth information or read the book.)

Here's more data (from 2013) from Pew - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/30/black-incomes-are-up-but-wealth-isnt/

Since the 1960s, household-income growth for African-Americans has outpaced that of whites. Median adjusted household income for blacks is now 59.2% that of whites, up slightly from 55.3% in 1967 (though in dollar terms the gap has widened). But those gains haven’t led to any narrowing of the wealth gap between the races. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, the median net worth for black households in 2011 ($6,446) was lower than it was in 1984 ($7,150), while white households’ net worth was almost 11% higher. And as NYU researcher David Low noted in a recent working paper, high-earning married black households have, on average, less wealth than low-earning married white households.

Exactly why income gains haven’t translated into wealth gains for blacks is something of a puzzle. Researchers have identified several possible factors — less intergenerational inheritance, higher unemployment and lower incomes, differing rates and patterns of homeownership, marriage and college education — without reaching any consensus on their relative importance. As Low commented, “here is…little quantitative understanding of why the black-white wealth gap exists, despite an almost embarrassing number of potential explanations.”

A 2013 Brandeis University report noted that not only is home ownership lower among blacks than whites, but that black-owned homes tend not to appreciate in value as much as white-owned homes, which the Brandeis researchers attributed to “residential segregation artificially lower demand, placing a forced ceiling on home equity for African-Americans who own homes in non-white neighborhoods.” Blacks also tend to carry proportionately more mortgage debt, at higher rates, than whites. And, as a 2011 Pew Research Center report found, the housing crash was harder on blacks than whites (though both groups fared better than Hispanics).

The Brandeis researchers argue that, due to discriminatory employment patterns, “black workers predominate in fields that are least likely to have employer-based retirement plans and other benefits, such as administration and support and food services. As a result, wealth in black families tends to be close to what is needed to cover emergency savings while wealth in white families is well beyond the emergency threshold and can be saved or invested more readily.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/

ten charts show the black-white economic gap hasn’t budged in 50 years - you can follow the link to see the charts.

[RainDog]

196. I also want to provide a link to this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4956746

from Woolldog - if you or others didn't see it.

A note on white privilege--my experience

I know a lot has been posted about white privilege lately. And most of you are sick of hearing about it. But I wanted to relate a recent experience. Recent as in a couple of hours ago. Maybe it's relevant. Maybe it isn't.

I'm sitting at a bar in Alabama (I'm in Alabama apartment hunting for my new job as a civil rights attorney for the federal government) and the police walk in. There are about 10 other people in there. But they go straight to me. They don't look at anyone else. They make a beeline towards me.They ask me for my ID. I'm shook up but I give it to them. I've got nothing to hide. They ask me where im staying. I'm staying at the days inn next door. They tell me I "match the description" of a suspected felon. The (white) bartender tells them I've been sitting at the bar for 3 hours at least. Yes 3 hours. They ignore him. They are rude to hm. They tell him to shut up. I ask what the description is. They tell me the description is a "light skinned black man". That's it. No height. No weight. No clothing. No facial features. No hair length. No distinguishing characteristics.. Nothing except for a light skinned black guy. lol.

...read the whole post at the link.

[Sissyk]

197. Thank you, RainDog! Well said.

I have stayed out of these threads because they all seem to turn into shouting matches. I think some posters intend them to be that way; and even when ask to tone it down, they continued to disrupt.

Because you were willing to take the time and really listen to people, explain your opinion more in depth, and come to an agreement in some cases; this thread has been one of the only threads on this subject that I have read all the way through.

Again, thank you!

[RainDog]

198. thank you so much

that's a really sweet thing so say.

[nomorenomore08]

202. Thanks so much for this post. Hopefully it'll make at least a few folks stop and think.

[Major Hogwash]

203. Plus the anniversary of the decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka was this week.

Nothing could have been better this week than watching the discussion that took place on tv this week of that monumental decision by the Warren Court.
Back in 1954.

Seems to me like the Republican party has forgotten that decision ever happened, desegregating schools in this country.

[RainDog]

204. was it on tv?

I only watch shows online, so I don't see news programs, etc.

My favorite song about that time - well, the 1957 Governor Faubus incident. This isn't the original album version (it's all instrumental, but this is a great version:

Oh Lord, don't let them shoot us
Oh Lord, don't let them stab us
Oh Lord, don't let them tar and feather us
Oh Lord, no more swastikas!
Oh Lord, no more Ku Klux Klan!
Name me someone ridiculous, Dannie
[Dannie:] Governor Faubus
Why is he sick and ridiculous?
[Dannie:] He won't permit integrated schools (Mingus: Then he's a fool)
Boo! Nazi fascist supremacists/Boo Ku Klux Klan!
Name me a handful that's ridiculous. Dannie Richmond?
[Dannie:] Bilbo. Faubus. [Unintelligible]. Rockefeller. [Unintelligible]. Eisenhower.
Why are they so sick and ridiculous?
[Dannie:] Two, four, six, eight [All:] They brainwash and teach you hate!

[Major Hogwash]

209. Yes.

I saw a discussion of it on PBS moderated by Gwen Ifill.
It was very interesting.
I don't think Eisenhower would be accepted in today's Republican party.

[A HERETIC I AM]

206. I am SO glad I leave this kind of shit alone.

And this purely vain post announcing it is making me want to take a nap.

[RainDog]

208. When a right wing, blatantly racist post is allowed to stand here

sometimes you simply have to talk about why that is unacceptable.

[nomorenomore08]

211. +1