"WHITE LIBERALS HAVE WHITE PRIVILEGE TOO!"- ALTERNET ARTICLE WITH 267 COMMENTS

[Orwellian_Ghost]

It often seems that the only way liberals can talk about race is to encircle the "racists" and point at them -- either for a laugh or a morality tale. The former is one of the many tricks that faux news personality Stephen Colbert employs in his caricature of a conservative. His racist schtick makes fun of racists, and there's a comfortable distance between the satire and the show's mostly liberal viewers. The critique goes down easy because it represents something the viewer isn't.

....

1. White supremacy? You mean white men in white sheets?

....

White supremacy more accurately describes racial hierarchy in a way that "racism" doesn't. Racism is generally individualized -- e.g., What Bill O'Reilly said was racist! -- and doesn't describe the institutionalized systems that engender those moments. Anyone can be a perpetrator or a victim of racism, but that leaves out the reality that people live in a world with unequal claims to power -- a racial epithet directed at a white man is not the same as its opposite because a nonwhite person does not have the institutional power to pack her verbal punch. Racism has a mutability that white supremacy doesn't.

....

His desire to ignore race reinforces the dominant discourse. Alterman's vision of political discourse effectively invalidates people of color and prevents them from articulating their political concerns and personal experiences. In other words, who is this white man telling me how to talk about race?

4. Kumbaya, multiculturalism!

A popular perspective favored by many college admissions officers is the "It's a small world" multicultural approach. When celebrating "diversity," everything is positive, and nothing is unsavory. We can admire an African mask, hit a piñata with verve and gobble down a steamy bowl of pho -- all without political concerns. Stanley Fish calls it boutique multiculturalism. But it's just food. Or earrings. Or music. It reduces culture to benign, apolitical trinkets.

Boutique multiculturalism is most obviously inappropriate when it happens to domestic people of color, in the form of "ghetto fabulous" parties, where white college students -- or government officials -- don their favorite imitation of blackface. But the most uncriticized suspects are hipsters, hippies or other variants of alterna-whiteness. Their faddish diets often consist of keffiyehs (a symbol of Arab solidarity), dreadlocks (originally from Rastafarianism and black self-empowerment in Jamaica) and trips to Asia or Latin America -- all of which are part of their post-modern, post-cultural and post-political philosophy, where discrete cultures no longer exist, and everything is fair game. The consumer gains a "cool" credibility and some self-improvement, -discovery or -awareness.

....

In "The Souls of White Folk," W.E.B. Du Bois, describes the separation:

So long, then, as humble black folk, voluble with thanks, receive barrels of old clothes from lordly and generous whites, there is much mental peace and moral satisfaction. But when the black man begins to dispute the white man's title to certain alleged bequests of the Fathers in wage and position, authority and training; and when his attitude toward charity is sullen anger rather than humble jollity ... then the spell is suddenly broken, and the philanthropist is ready to believe that Negroes are impudent, that the South is right, and that Japan wants to fight America.

...

10. All that guilt.

....

This conversation about race is an easy one to ignore (Hi, Alterman!). Privilege, by its nature, can choose what it wishes to engage with. Being critical of white supremacy is not designed to make white people feel bad about being white and replace the knapsack of white privilege with one of white guilt. Rather, it is asking white people to take off the knapsack and chuck it down the river. White people not only need to acknowledge their individual advantages, but also build a resistant collective consciousness that privileges marginalized peoples. But the question remains, can they do it?

http://www.alternet.org/story/71290/?page=entire

If you send an e-mail request to the author you can reproduce the entire article with permission and credit.

[Hardrada]

1. No. Because of the millenia of the racial collective

unconscious. Or maybe I should say "Probably not" since a few of the superficial attitudes may be altered by circumstance.

[nealmhughes]

94. I would have to disagree with any millenia of racial collective subconscious.

If we are generous and take 1008 as being only one millenium from the present, one would be hard pressed to see "race" as an item of mutual identity for any group. Racism is by and large a modern phenomenon, in other words, if one doesn't know that the "other" exists, how can they be aware of their "sameness"?

In short, the awareness of one's own "race" and the fact that "other races" exist could only be a product of fairly recent times on any large degree, due to the limitations of travel.

In ancient times, there appears to be little more than noting the superficial skin and hair and eye differences of individuals with no comment as to what the differences "meant." They simply were.

George M. Fredrikson, in The Black Image in the White Mind finds such racial stratification a product of Spanish/Portuguese contact with Africans in Africa and the Muslim conquest of Hibernia in the 900s.

Prester John, an alleged Ethopian Christian king, for example was held up in Medieval Europe as a paragon of chivalry and Christian virtue in a land held hostage by Muslim usurpers.

The large difference then was a Christian v. Muslim identity, not dark skin v. light skin, that was coopted by the idea of limpieza de sangre during and after the Reconquista.

Nor, for example on the Silk Road do we find overt mention of "race." It is language, religion and location that marks men as differing.

Now, I have no idea of the Chinese concept of race, as my entire study on the topic has been Western, i.e., American, European, African and SW Asian.

[Karenina]

95. Dark vs. light skin...

I'm trying to compose some thoughts on this but find it overwhelming.
Thinking about the religious institutionalized Indian caste system to the American caste system to the South American, South Afican caste system to the Japanese caste system (where the SLIGHTEST curl relegates one to permanent "lower caste" status...)

Where do we even BEGIN to unravel this tangled, twisted skein?

And CHECK THIS OUT!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2556906

[nealmhughes]

96. You are braver than I for that undertaking! I wouldn't touch it with a 10 meter pole.

Coward? When it comes to intergroup dynamics of which I am not a part, darned tootin' I am!

That is one of those topics that need to be addressed, but it will take a brave soul not to be eaten alive in the research if not reguritated and then eaten again upon presentation!

[Karenina]

98. Yo, Neal! If you would be so kind to engage

maybe we can both take a walk on the wild side while tiptoeing through the landmined tulips. :silly: Maybe others will join us! ;-) "White" society is certainly not unaffected by "colourism." The cosmetics industry rakes in BILLIONS on blonde hair dye alone. Have you not ever witnessed this amongst the female members of your own family?

Some years ago I saw an interview with an octogenarian who lived through the 3rd Reich. She spoke of being a brunette in school as the teacher had the blondest of blonde kids stand in front, admiring her perfection. While she spoke the tears began to flow, telling of her feeling of inferiority. It was SO painful to watch.

This leads us to the first of Alex's points:

1. White supremacy? You mean white men in white sheets?

Contemporary images suggest that white supremacy is a white man driving a pickup with a noose trailing from the back and a Confederate flag tattooed on his arm. Rather, it is simply the idea that white people, neighborhoods, concerns, beauty and self-worth are more important then nonwhite ones.

This system is one people of color imbibe as well, albeit to their detriment. For an extreme example, Michelle Malkin as a token Asian-American conservative hurts people of color despite being one. Even beyond conventional politics, internalized white supremacy often permeates communities of color, perpetuating whiteness as a desired standard. Those standards are the most visually arresting when they relate to expectations of beauty. It's not uncommon, for example, to see communities of color awash with lighter-skinned, rounder-eyed and thinner-haired images.

White supremacy gives white individuals a special racial privilege, be it through economic policies, law enforcement, schooling or magazine covers; consequently those people of color who seem whiter -- whether it is in appearance or action (the two often go hand-in-hand) -- receive special treats for their excellent performance.

White supremacy more accurately describes racial hierarchy in a way that "racism" doesn't. Racism is generally individualized -- e.g., What Bill O'Reilly said was racist! -- and doesn't describe the institutionalized systems that engender those moments. Anyone can be a perpetrator or a victim of racism, but that leaves out the reality that people live in a world with unequal claims to power -- a racial epithet directed at a white man is not the same as its opposite because a nonwhite person does not have the institutional power to pack her verbal punch. Racism has a mutability that white supremacy doesn't.

[nealmhughes]

99. OK, start with Frederickson's Black Image in the White Mind.

I have a copy, as it is one of the best pieces there is on intellectual history, period. Orlando Patterson is another good basic text for the historical background of slavery in general, from ancient times to Modern. I shall get out my magical mystery wand and hit the databases and try to see what I can find in French, English and Spanish on the entire "color" thang.

I think that historically, some of it was the prejudice for lighter skinned people as exemplifying limpieza de sangria and also cultural idea that light skin marked the ability to avoid the sun, i.e., the fields, hence the use of "red neck" as a pejorative, the Chinese aritocracy with female bound feet and long fingernails during the Empire.

I know for a fact, having seen many, many wedding arrangement web sites for Indian couples that "wheaten complexion" is right up there with "sizable dowry" and "post graduate degree" for potential partners' desired qualities.

The first US African-American female millionaire was supposed to have been Mme. C.J. Walker with her extremely successful line of Black hair care products and hot irons for straightening hair. Now, I don't know for sure, but I would wager she also had some "skin lightening" or "blemish removal" products as well.

There is a huge Indian market for supposed skin lighteners. What is so odd that in the West the emancipation of women from the constraints of the corset and home with the Gibson Girl who golfed, bicycled, sailed and sunned herself was a complete inversion of what had been the pale skin and rosy cheeked paradigm of beauty for years earlier!

I think that the cultural norms of "dark skin v. light skin" have been around for a very long time, evidently. Is it a throwback from excusing oneself from the sun when it raged? Or is it a Northern India v. Dravidian phenomenon, or are they merely coincidental? The modern preference of "white over dark" in the US is clearly related to the history of chattel slavery more so than perhaps in the East.

Of course, this would be largely based upon conjecture, for I doubt many people said "EEW! Marie is much too dark for my little Chumley!" But, on the other hand, as recently as the near past, the fact that Nadeja Mountbatten was the Second Marchioness of Milford Haven, the great-great-grand daughter of Peter the Great's page, the polyglot ennobled engineer Abram Gannibal who hailed from Eritrea. Queen Charlotte of the UK, wife of the sad George III was long rumored to be "mulatoo" due to her hair and dark skin. Evidently African ancestry per se was not a huge detriment in society, witness Dumas, pere -- but perhaps the exceptions prove the rule!

Simply fascinating, but like I said, I am not prepared to touch it beyond a superficial level. I was once attacked at a conference when I presented a paper on the six discrete modes of child slave care and did not find the usual plantation gang system of slave child care to have been normative from 1830-65. Why? Because I broached a topic which people wished to leave "settled." My scholarship was exhaustive, yet it did not fit in the idea that people had of 4 year olds with hoes in their hands as what consisted of slave child care. . . I abandoned African-American history after that. The Genoveses and Joyner are much more intellectually brave than am I, unfortunately.

[Karenina]

100. AUSGEZEICHNET!!!

Talk about pokng the honeycomb!!! NOW we're getting out of the tired old loop!

Let's DO look closely at the colour "thang" first. It has long been my contention that the LANGUAGE we use to address these issues is tainted and wholly inadequate. "White Supremacy" is such a loaded term and I drifted off to sleep wondering HOW, for the purposes of our discussion, to take the edge off. I woke up this morning to a EUREKA! moment. Let's call it WHITE PRIMACY. Here's my first shot at a definition. Refine it as you see fit:

A belief, conscious or unconscious, that lighter skin, hair or eye colour confers any significant difference and/or status.

Here's an anecdote to illustrate why I feel that neutralizing the vocabulary we use is so important.

My cousin came to visit and we dropped into a store whose owner is a dear friend of mine. "Leah, I've brought my cousin with me today." Jane this is Leah, Leah, this is my cousin Jane."

30 seconds later Leah asked, "And how do you know each other?"
Jane said politely (whew), "Our fathers had the same mother and father."

"OOOH! So you're FIRST COUSINS!"

"Yes, that's correct!"

Leah is as open and sweet a young woman as I've ever met and I love her dearly. I understood her brain fart. She was simply unable, in those seconds, to process our physical differences with the word COUSIN. She was introduced to a tow-headed "white" woman and her unconscious "white primacy" informed her that white people have white relatives. NO MALICE INTENDED ON ANY LEVEL.

I SO LONG to discuss these issues without malice. THANKS NEAL! :toast:

[Karenina]

183. Dark/Light... Black/White... Good/Bad

The uproar surrounding Obama's victory in Iowa has already begun to put issues in bas-relief. Referring back to the original article:


9. "Good" people of color


At the beginning of Obama's candidacy for president, Joe Klein of Time observed that white people were "out of control" at a rally for Obama, while the black folks were decidedly reserved. Chris Matthews gushed that, with Obama, there was "no history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery. All the bad stuff in our history ain't there with this guy." Indeed, in a speech at Selma, Ala., commemorating the march in 1965, Obama himself stated that in the struggle for equality, the Civil Rights leaders had brought black people "90 percent of the way." Just 10 percent to go!


Obama is a portrait of calm amicability -- so much so that his own supporters have urged him to ramp up the heat. Walter Shapiro described Obama's debating style as "smooth jazz" for its mellowness (a racialized characterization for sure, but we'll leave it be). Gary Younge has noted that his cadences are also unlike the oratorical styles of black politicians like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. The New York Times has also had a recent orgy of articles calling Obama "post-racial," "post-feminist" and "post-polarization." White liberals have gleefully projected their fantasies (delusions?) of a post-race society on a man who looks black but doesn't "act" black. But what about those who do?


Any group of color -- Asian American, black, Latino -- is incredibly heterogeneous, but experiences a bifurcation of their community into "good" and "bad." And what happens when the "good" start misbehaving? Take Nina Simone: She rose to popularity in the late '50s with her hit I Loves You Porgy, and her music took a political turn in the mid-'60s. On a live recording of Simone singing "Mississippi Goddam," the predominantly white audience laughs initially at her introduction of the song but, listening to the lyrics, slowly grows quiet and uncomfortable. She quips, "Bet you thought I was kidding."


In "The Souls of White Folk," W.E.B. Du Bois, describes the separation:

"So long, then, as humble black folk, voluble with thanks, receive barrels of old clothes from lordly and generous whites, there is much mental peace and moral satisfaction. But when the black man begins to dispute the white man's title to certain alleged bequests of the Fathers in wage and position, authority and training; and when his attitude toward charity is sullen anger rather than humble jollity ... then the spell is suddenly broken, and the philanthropist is ready to believe that Negroes are impudent, that the South is right, and that Japan wants to fight America."


"Good" and "bad" come down to the extent to which a person challenges the hierarchy, whether it is through action or style. I wonder, if Obama started sporting an afro and talking about black empowerment, would white liberals suddenly lose their affection for him? And if Bill Richardson's last name were in the Spanish style of taking both parents' last names, with his mother's maiden name following his father's surname, would he be as successful as Bill Richardson López?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here on DU, we've now regressed to the oft-repeated, heated discussions about the word "articulate." Some whites feel Obama IS a "good boy" and flatly refuse to understand or even consider why describing him as articulate raises the hackles of those of us who have experienced the word as a backhanded slap.

CNN's Jack Cafferty takes up the crusade
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2584921


And for those who enjoy gut-bustingly FUNNY threads, I offer 2 from Xultar. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Huge Wake-up Call
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2586801

A Little Lesson in Racism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2593970&mesg_id=2593970

[superduperfarleft]

97. That's disgusting, I hadn't seen that.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I still think it sucks that quite a few of the attacks on him have been so racial in nature. (supposed drug dealer, the faux-Muslim angle, the "Oprah only supports Obama because he's black" crap)

Hell, I'd even be willing to bet that the photographer meant well, but being a typically clueless white person, they didn't think about how offensive it would turn out.

[Karenina]

101. I once posted several pictures of Harold Ford in Iraq.

One was a group photo and I posited, "Find the black guy."
Another was in a cargo carrier with a few of his fellow honchos.

The OUTRAGED responses were quite interesting. IT'S THE LIGHTING THAT MAKES HIM LOOK WHITE! or thereabouts... :rofl:

If the media wants to demonize a darker-skinned person they simply DARKEN THE SKIN COLOUR.

Why do people dye their hair blonde? I grew ONE BLONDE HAIR at arts camp one summer. :freak: There were close to 300 kids and after my discovery I met at least 250 of them! :rofl:

[M0rpheus]

2. Loved the article, thanks! However...

The comments are Very similar to what would be posted here.


-Denial that there is such a thing as "white privilege"
-Dismissal of the problem. (if we could just not talk about "race")
-Dismissing the article outright because it doesn't offer solutions... If we had a solution there'd be no reason for the article.
-The regular "this is too PC" crap.
-and so on...

Right alongside the people who get it.

I spend a good deal of time here on DU, I rarely post anything of worth, though.
In all of the reading over the years, I've rarely seen this place more divided, than on the subject of race.
I wish I could stop being surprised by it.

Anyway, K&R
Hope this thread has a bit of life to it.
:popcorn:

[Skidmore]

6. I think many Caucasian people see

"white" as a neutral background on which all others and their cultures stand in relief. To recognize "white privilege" there needs to be an understanding that being "white" is in and of itself a culture. That would, of course, require some introspection and willingess to deal with a lot of historical wrongs that have been rationalized or swept under the carpet.

[ThomCat]

9. Excellent point, and good post..

It's always surprising to talk to people here who simply don't believe that there is any such thing as white privilage, or male privilege, or straight privilage.

I always come away wondering if they've bothered to put any effort at all into actually thinking about prejudice, or if they simply spend their time rationalizing it away.

[M0rpheus]

12. I rarely have to wonder...

In my experience, the answer is usually no, they don't put any effort into it, because they don't have to.
The rationalization comes after you've brought it to their attention, as this article does, not before.

Even in myself, I have trouble acknowledging Male privilege, because I really don't have to think about it in the circles I usually run. That said, I don't backpedal when I get called on it.
I'm at least open enough to see where the offense stems, and how I can stop contributing to it's continuation.
I will admit that being the father of three young women, is quite eye opening in that regard.

[Karenina]

14. OUR GRAND PRIZE WINNER!!!

...the answer is usually no, they don't put any effort into it, because they don't have to.

The article is EXCELLENT and cuts it up into bite-sized pieces. Of the now nearly 300 responses, some get it and most are desperately trying to maintain their distance. I can certainly imagine 3 daughters have put you on notice about bidness as usual! :rofl:
All good things to you and your family in this Holiday Season and beyond!

Welcome to DU!!! :toast:

[scarletwoman]

16. Hey, Karenina! Over the years I have attempted to point out that it is so easy to be unconscious.

It is much harder to consider shaking up our certainties.

We are all swimming in culture in which "white" -- and usually "male" -- is automatically perceived as the default setting for human beings. It is entirely unconscious. Few fishes understand water.

sw

[Karenina]

20. In her book, "THE LANGUAGE WAR"

which I highly recommend, Robin Tolmach Lakoff uses the term "exnomination."

"Exnominated groups... become "normalized": they become apolitical and nonideological. They just are. Their rules become the rules... experienced as the evident laws of natural order.

(It) is the means by which whiteness avoids being named and thus keeps itself out of the field of interrogation and therefore off the agenda for change." (pg. 54)

[scarletwoman]

21. "...the evident laws of natural order." -- That's exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks!

Is Robin Tolmach Lakoff related to George Lakoff?

[Karenina]

22. Her husband. Andrew is her son.

[Marr]

67. That's a very interesting point.

I'll have to pick that book up-- thanks for the lead. :D

[Karenina]

74. It 's from 2000

and has a whole chapter devoted to the language used to describe then First Lady HRC. In view of current events it is HIGHLY INFORMATIVE even if one is less than supportive of her candidacy.

Linguistics is a fascinating field. When we talk about "race" on DU I am continually disappointed that over the years we have been completely unable to develop our own references to discuss it in any meaningful way.

[Swamp Rat]

76. Love linguistics

see post #75

oi amor! :hug:

[Karenina]

78. LIEBLING!!!

:*

[Swamp Rat]

75. One of my favs

Too bad hurricane Katrina took that book from me. I had written a lot of notes in the margins. :(

Proof of male privilege = Clarence Thomas confirmed as SCOTUS judge. Anita Hill, for example, is clearly more qualified for that position.

[Karenina]

79. Indeed!

[zanne]

103. I love the fishes comment, scarletwoman. nt

[M0rpheus]

44. I won?!?!?

:bounce:
Does that mean I can stop asking the guy at Starbucks for "my big bag o' money"?
or...
Does that just mean I'm just a step ahead of the denial crowd? :freak:

My daughters definately keep me on my toes, one in the Army now :grr:, one trying to "find herself", and the last just "graduating" from high school. I have to keep them aware of the obstacles they'll face as double-minorities and try to drive them to get the tools to overcome them. That's a full time job, right there.


Thanks for the welcome, I've been here since 2002 or some amazingly long time, before the change in forumware. I just don't post much. You guys usually cover all my points before I can get to em.

[Karenina]

48. You made SUCH an important point, MOrpheus

In order to SURVIVE, we, the other, MUST get a handle on the dynamics of the "dominant culture" and even then are at risk of being "put under the thumb" as we say in these parts. I've challenged many friends, "When YOU'RE ready and willing to SHUT UP AND LISTEN, we'll discuss it. NOT before." My challenge to date was taken up ONLY ONCE, by a suy on the train. We discussed the word, "Neger." His eyes got big and he looked at me directly saying, "I just NEVER thought about it in the way you describe." I told him, "You never had to."

[IsItJustMe]

57. I think it is all a matter of life experiences. I am a white male and I have recognize that there

are privileges, in this country, to being male and being white.

But the opposites are also true. It's called human nature and it is what it is.

[Karenina]

61. Please 'splain to me what advantages are accrued

being born native/black/"hispanic"/Asian and FEMALE in the good ol' U.S. of A. :freak:

[Karenina]

81. Are you willing to engage?

And say more about, "But the opposites are also true."?

[hfojvt]

88. I think many Caucasian people simply have the experience of being white

and thus a) receive a fair amout of shocks and insults in life and b) do not always recognize the privileges they enjoy. Thirdly, many of the so-called white 'privileges' are mis-named. For example, is it a 'privilege' to not be harrassed by police or store security? Privilege implies that the white person is getting something extra when the reality is that it is the non-white person who is being deprived of some basic rights. To call the ability to drive down the street without being stopped for DWW a 'privelege' seems to imply that being harrassed by the cops is the norm, sorta the way it should be, except that white people have the 'privilege' of avoiding it. Another reality is the fact that poor whites will often seemingly be harrassed for DWP - driving while poor. It would probably cause fewer semantic arguments if they were called white "advantages" or non-white disadvantages instead of the accusatory "white privileges", particularly since we didn't start the fire.

[Karenina]

90. What do you find "accusatory"

about the word "privilege?" My son found "privilege" in having a white father. Security was tailing him, he hollered "DAD!" when he found what he wanted and upon seeing him security DISAPPEARED!

Being harrassed by cops DWB through a white neighborhood IS the norm. If one actually OWNS A HOME in that neighborhood, being thrown to the curb while jogging is ALSO not unheard of. A white person in a beat up jalopy is deemed an eccentric where a black person in a Porsche is deemed a THIEF. It's te difference betwen "finding" and "looting."

[flashl]

3. K&R n/t

[Quantess]

4. Question: "People of color"

Is it still okay to say "people of color"?

[NOLALady]

8. It's OK to say anything you want to , IMO.

Personally, I don't say anything unless 100% necessary as in a description for an identification. That has sometimes caused confusion with some acquaintances.

[EstimatedProphet]

15. But aren't we all people of color?

Even full albinos. The phrase really has no meaning, and also by its very nature is part of the idea of a white background that all the other races stand out from, like an earlier poster said.

[Karenina]

23. Did you read the article?

Just asking. :shrug:

[EstimatedProphet]

32. Nope, didn't have time.

[Karenina]

34. Are you being snarky?

Just asking and didn't want to assume... :shrug:

[EstimatedProphet]

35. No

Seriously, I was reading over things fast before I was getting ready to leave. Sorry if I missed the context.

[Karenina]

37. Thanks so much for your response!

[Karenina]

43. I hope you will read it in its entirety

and maybe even some of the comments. I've found you to be a thoughtful poster. We'll never have any success in taking back America until we deal with our fundamentals. TOGETHER.

[EstimatedProphet]

50. OK, I'll make a point of it.

[Karenina]

51. Thanx EP! I'll be interested in your musings!

[EstimatedProphet]

72. I did read it

Interesting article. I think there's some valid points.

Racial distinctions are almost like air - you never notice them until you are in a different environment. It's easy for white liberals, who usually are offended by racism, to not see that they make racial distinctions thmselves. All of us spend time with people we are similar to in ideals and social standing. In effect, we naturally filter our experiences without knowing it. when this happens we end up discriminating without realizing it.

I think we are going to have a difficult time putting down the knapsack like the author was talking about, because most of us don't even know it's there. Also, I still agree with what I said about the "people of color" phrase - white is a color, it is a valid (albeit privileged) experience, and the phrase simply acts as another division. It may not divide between most other races, but it does still divide between white and the other races, and if we want to have a truly just society we need to f=do away with divisions altogether. That's the biggest thing I find difficult about the way the civil rights movement has been conducted by some - whites have to be included too, otherwise it's not about equality. As a white male I have to put away some of my inherent societal privileges, but nevertheless, all of us, every last one, has to be included at the end, otherwise it isn't about equality.

I think a lot of the issue really is about class and economics, and the article didn't go into it much, although some of the comments did. One of the interesting things I've found out from reading Zinn's A People's History Of The United States is how little real racial division there was in the early colonial period in the Americas. White servants often were involved politically, economically, even romantically, with native peoples and black slaves. The racial divisions between whites and everyone else weren't as distinct at the outset - the real division was between classes. This means that racism really is in part learned, it is not completely innate, and if we get rid of the class structure we may be able to have an egalitarian society.

[Karenina]

73. It IS an interesting article, Alex did a good job.

So many interactions involve unconscious reflexes. Having spent over 5 decades as "the token," what I've always found most trying is the defensiveness and "outrage" exhibited whenever I've chosen NOT to remain silent in the face of color-based bias. It can be quite exhausting.

I don't believe we can dismantle the class structure until we get a good handle on the social constructs of race. I agree with you and would go one step further, it's 100% learned. A baby couldn't care less about such nonsense. Who's feeding me? Who's attending to my needs? Colour? WHAT colour? Pay attention to MEEEE! NOW!

[Karenina]

5. K&R!

[TalkingDog]

7. HUGH Pet Peeve: People who use incorrectly use the term "racist"

to discuss bigotry and prejudice.

Racism is about RACE!!!! About dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics, genetic heritage, skin color, and beliefs about common ancestry.

A personal or political stance or a presumption about another person's personal or political stance does not constitute genetic heritage, skin color or beliefs about those things.

Colbert may be a presumptive bigot or prejudicial in his nightly "schtick", but he is not (to my knowledge) RACIST!!!

Any substantive argument or philosophy this person may have had to offer is negated by the failure to understand the basic concepts of his/her argument.

If they don't understand what the term racism means, one questions how well they understand any of the terms they are using.

:grr: :nuke: /rant off


My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[superduperfarleft]

30. My pet peeve: failing to see the difference between "racism" and "prejudice."

Prejudice is individual, whereas racism is societal. An individual can be prejudiced, but racism is when an individual, or a group of individuals, is powerful enough for their prejudice to affect society at large.

Hence the oft-misinterpreted "black people cannot be racist" line devolving into "yeah but I got called a honky once!" type of arguments. (I saw this "debate" on Fox News one time, and my head almost exploded from the ignorant white anchors berating a black sociology professor about it)

[Karenina]

186. Our collective terminology really sucks.

I had hoped in this thread that we would discuss some common definitions, but alas, the fires are still raging about the word "articulate." Ergo, a kick for more reads. I've been very unpleasantly surprised by the tone here after Iowa. The hostility toward nonwhite DUers has increased exponentially. Oh well. No one said it would be easy...

[M0rpheus]

189. Hey, conversations are still being had, that's something anyway.

They're going to get really ugly before they get better.
Like you told me earlier, fasten your seatbelts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
As if it hasn't been already.

[Karenina]

190. Thanks, MOrpheus

I needed that.

[M0rpheus]

191. It's easy to get discouraged.

It's hard to keep walking this road and fighting the good fight.
Whack-a-Mole is a hard game to play for a lifetime, but you do what you can, when you can.

That's all anyone can ask.
:hug:

[ismnotwasm]

10. K&R

"How easy, then, by emphasis and omission to make children believe that every great soul the world ever saw was a white man's soul" W.E.B. Dubois

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. You know one thing this doesn't cover? Programs like Affirmative Action

are meant to override the inequities of privileges we don't usually see, and which no one, including white people, would have any problem identifying as illegal.

And, not all anglo-Americans have access to the same corrupt privilege. That's why you have half of the anglo-Americans bewildered. They're not in on the corruption, so they don't understand why people of color are getting preferential treatment. So to those Anglo-Americans I would say, let's put down the good ole boy systems, let's destroy them, and maybe the reason for Affirmative Action won't be necessary, faster than it would be if we just let those good ole boys continue to wreck havoc on our communities?

[fascisthunter]

13. Most White Liberals of Privilege Work to Change That Dynamic

that's the big difference.

[Karenina]

25. Or THINK (within their framework) that they do.

:evilgrin:

[fascisthunter]

38. Actually I Should Have Said: Most I Know

I really don't know what all do and don't do, and shouldn't pretend to know.

[Brewman_Jax]

28. Makes one wonder

as fast as this is diving...

[otherlander]

80. I read this thread a few days ago

but didn't really have anything to say... Now that it's back on the front page I'm reading it again in hopes that someone will have posted something that I actually know how to comment on. I bet a lot of people read this thread and wanted to reply but didn't know what to say.

[M0rpheus]

83. I would encourage others to engage...

It's ok not to know what to say.

Ask a question, make an intelligent comment. Take a stand, whatever side you're on.
Understand though, that it won't necessarily go unchallenged.

It's the dialog that's important.
Nothing happens if you aren't willing to talk about it...

[otherlander]

169. Okay

Are the "sides" people who think that white privilege exists vs. people who don't think it exists?
Because if those are the sides I'd be on the side that thinks it exists.

[Karenina]

173. The idea of "sides" makes me uncomfortable

because what we're challenging is the equivalent of the "Flat Earth Society." If you've gone through the whole thread you have seen the posts downthread explaining how that privilege manifests. Our task now is to find ways to break through the denial and address it appropriately.

IMHO our biggest enemies are binary thinking and the "zero-sum game." Thanks so much for your post!

[M0rpheus]

174. Acknowledging that there *is* an issue, is a start...

It's more complicated than "us vs. them"... with class, race, gender, and orientation all contributing.

"Side" was probably not the best word, but I have been verbally challenged as of late. It's been a long holiday season.
:nuke:

My point was don't be afraid to contribute to the conversation.
It's not an easy one to have but, it's worth having.

[Brewman_Jax]

85. No, it's not easy

and it isn't fun, but it is necessary to acknowledge the problem. Any problem cannot be solved until it is acknowledged.

[superduperfarleft]

29. Unfortuntately, I do not find that to be true.

I find that most white liberals are more than happy to continue the same systems of privilege, when it really comes down to it, that they claim to oppose.

[fascisthunter]

39. Not Me... (nt)

[Karenina]

87. I would dare conjecture

that you're NOT, in Herz und Seele, commited to understanding. ANYONE who proclaims that it's "ALL OK, we're amongst the righteous" is simply NOT willing to exit the comfort zone and/or NOT paying attention.

[Brewman_Jax]

17. Excellent article

and the after-article comments show why the author is correct. It's not only the sheet-wearing cross-burning racists that are cause of worry. :scared:

[Karenina]

24. Indeed, L_A!!!

I read through the easily accessible comments but only got through a few subthreads. :puke: Alex really hit a reflex and each and every one of them provided ample fodder for the points he made.

[Brewman_Jax]

26. An example

In Tim Wise's opening statement in the Michigan Affirmative Action Initiative debate, he noted that the plantiffs complained about the 85 black students that were admitted with lower grades and/or SAT scores, but had NOTHING to say about the 1400 white students were admitted with lower grades and/or SAT scores. The gods forbid that black people should get a break. Another case of sanitized history and willful ignorance. :(

[superduperfarleft]

31. I love Tim Wise.

Or as Dinesh D'Souza called him, "the Uncle Tom of the white race." :)

[Brewman_Jax]

33. He hits the nail on the head

In U of Michigan point system, he goes over the various extra points that white applicants get, like being from the Upper Peninsula, being in a top 10% high school, taking AP courses, having parents that are alumni, etc., that no one complained about. But they complained about the extra points that black people get for being black. According to www.census.gov, the 2005 estimated percentage of Michigan's black population is 14.3% which is concentrated in the Lower Peninsula. To borrow from Tim Wise again, snow ain't the only thing that's white in the Upper Peninsula.

[Karenina]

42. Another comment and response

Don't worry, I haven't offended anyone. None of the "progressives" here are race-baiters, right?

Posted by: timemachinist on Dec 23, 2007 9:36 AM

"The author strikes me as bitter, and, from the perspective of a white person like me, "unpleaseable". Many of her points are actually well-taken, but it seems clear that, as a white male, I'll never attain any degree of moral equality in terms of offering opinions on the topic of race that have a right, in her mind, to be considered seriously. Best to keep my head down. "Dialogue", in any event, seems both dangerous and pointless."

EXACTLY. Just whip me, I know I've been bad, I know everything I am and have was stolen and cheated from people who look different from me. Just because my marijuana culture has been criminalized and my career lost over totalitarian drug war, just because I work full-time in new field but can't pay for independent household even as a roommate --all that doesn't matter. By virtue of the color of my skin, I'm still "dominant" and "privileged" and "racist" and "guilty" and will not be redeemed even if "guilt" drives me to do the public lashing myself by proclaiming my White Guilt.

Race-baiters: go fuck yourselves. Don't worry, I haven't offended anyone. None of the "progressives" here are race-baiters, right?

This race-baiting White Guilt is sure to drive every ordinary person of any color out of the "left." It sure has done so for me. Identity politics STINKS. The stench drives me away.



Thine answer was yon, but thou hast missed it in thy haste.

Posted by: benzene on Dec 21, 2007 7:15 AM
Current rating: 4 <1 = poor; 5 = excellent>
The solution laid out was not simple. The author suggested that you:
1) examine your own life for instances of white privilege and acknowledge how they have helped you.
2) reflect on how these instances have given you differential success, or at least convenience.
3) examine white privilege in a greater societal context.
4) reflect on thatpower/privilege differential.
5) speak with others: form, forment, ratify, act.

Timemachinist subsequently posted 2 defensive rants COMPLETELY UNABLE to depersonalize or acknowledge Benzene's points. This is also the pattern of "discussion" here...

[G_j]

18. excellent article

thanks!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

19. Over 300 comments now

An example:

"The distribution of income and power in America is a much better scientific gauge than ancedotal stories and opinions people have on the subject. And, the facts are the facts. In the USA, 1% of the total population owns 1/3rd of the countries wealth. And, that population of the top 1% is 95% white. In the bottom 1/3rd of the USA population (in wealth) sits over 1/2 of the black population in America. In fact, blacks have been slipping more and more into the lower economic classes. Blacks also fill the prisons of the USA. Based on this, I don't think we can get away from concluding that institutional racism is still a factor in much of the USA. Now, many a white liberal won't like this fact. And, they will give you all kinds of stories of "people they know, etc., etc." Much of this is simply nice ancedotal story telling, in my opinion, but it is not scientific or based much on facts. Another liberal approach is to sort of join the Republican way of thinking which focuses on "blaming the victim." It's "the rap culture, etc." Now, this culture certainly exists, but it's a way of creating racial self-esteem by the downtrodden. Not an attempt to remain there. Finally, for blacks to succeed, like Obama, they are forced to renounce a racial identity issue anyhow, as many white liberals mistakingly believe it is the racial identity issue causing the poverty and deprivation. But, again, this is an argument that is disproven by the facts. As if it were really the "rap culture, black gangs, " etc., you would still see way more blacks in the upper classes than you see now. There poor representation points much more to them being excluded then them not wanting to be there. I think few also really appreciate how much American society is permeated by the "Horatio Alger" rags to riches myth anyway. And, this has increased under the Republicans. But, facts are facts, where you are born, in economic and social class, is where you are going to stay in America. The barriers are everywhere. And, for Blacks, that is at the bottom. "

[Brewman_Jax]

27. K&R

nt

[Rex]

36. Well, the best thing to be on this planet is a white male. At the moment.

White men have dominated the shit out of the planet. I can't say I'm surprised to read about this. This is nothing new, quite old information. White men trying to maintain control over the Earth, yup. Knew it. Their next logical step was to form into organizations to empower the racism and take more control over minorities. So much more control.

I have kin folk that are into the White Supremacy movement, scary people. They are paranoid and self destructive with their hate and intolerance. The hate has warped them over the years.

Sad and harmful IMO.

[Karenina]

40. My dad was a shrink

At 7 I asked him if racism should be seen as mental illnes and written up in the DSM. He doubled over laughing. :freak: I was quite taken aback as it was a serious question. :shrug:

He was long gone before I understood what he found so hilarious.

[treestar]

41. Being a woman, I haven't been granted the "privileges"

to an equal degree at least.

Honestly, I don't get what advantage this is to the marginalized peoples. So we all acknowledge our advantages. Should the Rockefellers acknowledge the same to me? I doubt they would have a problem with that. Caroline Kennedy once got a job I could have actually used and she didn't need. But having her acknowledge that wouldn't get me a better job.

This approach goes nowhere to improve life for the marginalized peoples. Especially when you have whites who aren't doing that well, and there are a lot of them. Every racist in my family is one. How to expect these people, who are aware of the millionaire Oprah, etc., to think of themselves as exploiters of her?

This is allowing the old divide and conquer meme to work. Just what Big Business wants. Or if you will, just what the minority of white males who are powerful want. This is exactly how they want it - the black resenting the white, the less-than-successful white resenting the black, etc. This plays right into it.

[superduperfarleft]

45. For starters, male privilege is as real as white privilege.

But what is wrong if people of color want to discuss this?

For instance, would it be appropriate for me to go to the GLBT group here at DU and ask that we stop talking about civil rights for GLBT people, because we need to show a united front to the Right, Big Business, etc? Would it be appropriate for me to go into the Choice forum and ask all the ladies to stop talking about reproductive rights because we need to show a united front? Of course not.

Then why do so many liberals think it appropriate to tell people of color what discussions they can or cannot have? Because by referring to it as allowing "divide and conquer" to work, that's what you're doing.

For people of color the issues of white supremacy and white privilege are very real, they're not just some navel-gazing theoretical wankery. And it clearly illustrates the privilege that whites, both liberal and otherwise, have in our society that they can think this is not a discussion that is meaningful or urgent or necessary.

[M0rpheus]

49. That smacks of "go along, to get along"...

Which, as my Grandfather told me, "gets you nothin' but lost".

We'd all do much better if we tried to understand each other, rather than trying to sweep it under the rug.

The day that I don't have to educate my girls on bigotry, prejudice, racism and sexism pointed in their direction, is the day I'll shut up. I won't hold my breath for that day, but I will do what I can to help it come to pass.


I'm all for peace, but not at the expense of my self-respect, or my sanity.

[Karenina]

62. Refusal to engage is an easy tactic.

"I don't need to read the OP to comment" or "There they go again." There are several examples of that on this thread. To truly understand each other, we must ENGAGE. Your posts on this thread, MOrpheus, have been most heartening.

[M0rpheus]

63. Refusal to engage

Is the thing that frustrates me more than anything else, on this issue.

:rant:
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect intelligent conversation if you have to make a contribution.
The false arguments and feigned indignity at what I (I can only speak for myself) experience every day gets tiresome. The dismissiveness angers me.
I can almost see eyes glazing over :eyes: at the mere thought that "we're talking about this, again".

Maybe I'm just feeling a bit "uppity" about the whole thing today but damn, what do you have to do for someone to catch a clue?

No one is trying to corner the market on misery (I have more than enough). No one is whining and pointing fingers.
It's easy to admit that it's similar for GLBT, women, other people of color, and poor people. Personally, I can only identify with some of that, but at least I try to understand the issues of other people.

I read, I educate myself and, I try to make a small difference somewhere... to someone. But in the end, I'm still the guy in the suit failing to get a cab in the middle of downtown, in broad daylight.
It's discouraging, to say the least.

But "it's just human nature", and maybe if I just shut up about it, it'll spontaneously get better, all by itself.
You'll have to pardon me if I refuse to accept those small pearls of "wisdom". The conversation is not yours to guide but, if you listen, you might actually learn something.


I really wish this conversation could go a little bit more towards someone understanding. Sadly, it always ends up the same way here.
Damned windmills! :grr:






A note that should have come first in this post: Thanks for the encouragement, Karenina. It does mean something.

[Chovexani]

66. Preach, bruh.

You've spoken some powerful truth on this thread. I like the way you think.

You should come hang out in the AA group sometime. :hi:

[M0rpheus]

68. LOL!

I really didn't mean to pull out my dusty soapbox but, this is one of the few issues that drives me to post anything.
Usually, I'm pretty easy going but, this frustrates me to no end.
What's so hard about a bit of introspection?



I'm always over there in AA lurking about.
I'll make sure to speak the next time I drop by.
:hi:

[Karenina]

77. What's so hard about introspection

is that it requires work, commitment and immediately propels one out of the comfort zone. Many white liberals are in their own minds "anti-racist," however it is NOT a state of being. Sequestered in their bubbles where they may have friends, colleagues or aquaintances of colour is a "safe zone." To challenge that zone is to challenge their core-value of being "good people." The unconscious white supremacist "right of definition" kicks in and outrage and denial are the result. It can take HOURS to talk them down (if one has the patience). We ALL know the American axion that it is a MUCH BIGGER TABOO to call our racism than to behave or speak in a racist manner. THAT TOO is part of "white privilege."

[nealmhughes]

122. K.: you are engaging Kant right now, and I like that!

"is that it requires work, commitment and immediately propels one out of the comfort zone. Many white liberals are in their own minds "anti-racist," however it is NOT a state of being. Sequestered in their bubbles where they may have friends, colleagues or aquaintances of colour is a "safe zone."

This is an obvious reworking of Kant's "What is Enlightenment?" a most valuable 225 year old essay. Kant says that we are complacent due to laziness and fear of the unknown. Merely giving lip service to "anti-racism" is no more than reciting the Lord's Prayer in Latin but only knowing Icleandic.

I have been thinking about the dual image that Fredrickson explored in Black Image in the White Mind , namely, black men are docile contrasted with the black male as the alpha male gorilla lacivious and wild. The black female can be presented as either hard working and faithful, or else a manipulative sex kitten. What do we see on TV? Until the Cosby Show, and to a lesser degree, Julia, we had either Beulah as the faithful domestic, along with Florida and Florence as domestics on sit coms. Claire Huxtable was an attorney and married to a physician and had a brownstone in Brooklyn -- hardly an identity most Americans of any race or combo of the same can feel a sense of identification.

And male role models, they are few and far in between, either a bumbling fool, as George Jefferson, or else absent for one reason or another: hard work at minimal pay as Florida's husband James or simply not there at all.

Today's black families seem to be a bit more realistic, such as Raven or the cartoon family The Proud Family, but still a bit unrealistic in ever having to confront racism.

As an aside for your research, I think that a great primary source would be the black audience popular journals of the late 19th and early 20th century, particularly the advertisements and society pages for more imagry re: skin tone and its presentation, along with hair.

On a humorous note, I tan well. Very well. My hair is "wiry" bordering on kinky, but I am "Black Irish." One summer in NYC after spending most of the days at the beach in Westhampton, I and my best friend, a native of Puerto Rico living in NY of Galician ancestry were on the street. A man came up to both of us and asked Ruben for a cigarette in English and he said he did not smoke, so he asked me in Spanish, and I answered and gave him three or four!

A friend of mine saw a photo of Ruben, myself, and both our mothers on the beach. "Oh, I didn't know your mother had blonde hair," he exclaimed. Ruben and I laughed: "That's Neal's mother with the black hair, my mami has blonde hair, her ancestors are from Galicia. His are Irish!"

[Karenina]

132. Hey Neal!!! Wanna see a "unique baby?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2562027

I gotta run some errands. Be back later! :hi:

[Brewman_Jax]

52. As a white woman, you have

you may be marginalized in the workplace, but as Jane Elliott observed, you can opt out. You can attach yourself to a signifant white male, and you don't have to worry about this anymore. Most women of color don't get that option. To add, affirmative action has been the most benefit to--white women.

So what about Oprah. What about Bill Gates? There are factors more white people as rich or richer than Oprah. Exceptions don't prove anything.

[M0rpheus]

65. #7. How could I have white privilege? I'm poor /female /gay /Polish/disabled!

Another liberal technique is to eschew a discussion of race in favor of one of "class." The implicit, and sometimes explicit, argument is that race (or "identity politics") holds the Left back from what actually oppresses people and furthermore assumes that constructions of class and race are separate, rather than dynamically intertwined. Historian Robin Kelley critiques such an either-class-or-race construction in Yo' Mama's Disfunktional!: Fighting the Culture Wars in Urban America:

The idea that race, gender and sexuality are particular whereas class is universal not only presumes that class struggle is some sort of race- and gender-neutral terrain but takes for granted that movements focused on race, gender or sexuality necessarily undermine class unity and, by definition, cannot be emancipatory for the whole.

Race determines how class (and gender) is experienced and vice versa. (Isn't that what this conversation about immigration and a "guest workers" program is about?) Furthermore, there is a failure to integrate racial analysis on the parts of mainstream feminist and gay rights organizations. A cursory look at mainstream gay and lesbian and feminist commentators reveals that while a gender analysis might be a part of their ethos, anti-racism is not. Arguing for primacy of dismantling one hierarchy over another, or simply leaving one out, is a limited and ultimately doomed strategy for liberation.


Ding!
I was reading through the article again, and this one just jumped out at me.
Kind of interesting... :evilgrin:

[Karenina]

70. Another MAJOR point !!!

Race determines how class (and gender) is experienced and vice versa.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

82. Well

Let me suggest that the dialogue between you and MOrpheus is a breathe of fresh air in a land of denial.

One thing that is often kept from the light of day is the simple aspect of material benefits. What is being asked of people of privilege here is not simply to acknowledge the privilege but to give it up. That privilege is based on very real subjugation and suffering. That "privilege" is in fact when looked at fully called injustice.

[Karenina]

89. "GIVE UP YOUR PRIVILEGE!!!"

Here is where people go NUTS. "WHAT THE FUCK are YOU talking about??? I've EARNED what I have by my OWN blood, sweat and tears!!! HOW dare you suggest I give it all away to some lazy, stinking, breeding-like-rabbits OTHER."

"Giving up" privilege is NOT the issue. AWARENESS IS THE ISSUE. How could I ever "give up" the privilege of my birth into a multi-racial-cultural-religious family? It informs my very being. Our "economic class" is what allows me to speak to some of the ignorant, unengaged posts on this thread. "RACE" does indeed affect how "class" is experienced.

In deepest empathy with my melanin-deprived brethren, I DO understand how they shy away from the issues. "WTF am I 'sposed to do about it? This WASN'T MY IDEA!!!"

We need to stop talking PAST EACH OTHER and discuss the ways in which we HAVE THE POWER to effect change. CHANGE as in the pocketbook. The moment WE THE PEOPLE refuse to fund the corporations who are engineering our collective demise, be we white-yellow-brown-red or fuckin' polka-dotted, we will get a taste of what it is to be in the driver's seat.

[redqueen]

158. Tell me this... how does one do as you and Alex propose...

and give up this privilege?

Please explain what is being requested here...

[Karenina]

161. That is exactly the point of the post you replied to.

And THAT is the BIG QUESTION. "What does "giving up privilege" mean in any tangible sense? Looking at the U.S. from across the Big Pond and interacting with many who were FORMERLY, staunchly PRO-American, allow me a bit of time to collect my thoughts on this...

A taste of my as yet incomplete train of thought:

In a fender bender, the guilty good ol' boy says to the "other" before the police arrive, "Who are THEY going to believe? ME or you?"

The U.S. accuses and says to its citizens and the world, WHO would DARE question OUR words over THEIRS?

[redqueen]

162. Aha... with that I can definitely agree.

It's shameful it's still around to be honest. We've had the internet for over a decade... there's no excuse for such insular small-mindedness. From citizens of this or any other country (this is not solely the territory of western or mostly White countries).

[flashl]

46. FYI: What is White Privilege?

The National White Privilege Conference

The annual White Privilege Conference (WPC), founded by Eddie Moore Jr., serves as a yearly opportunity to examine and explore difficult issues related to white privilege, white supremacy and oppression. WPC provides a forum for critical discussions about diversity, multicultural education and leadership, social justice, race/racism, sexual orientation, gender relations, religion and other systems of privilege/oppression. WPC is recognized as a challenging, empowering and educational experience. The workshops, keynotes and institutes not only inform participants, but engage and challenge them, while providing practical tips and strategies for combating inequality.

The conference participants and presenters include corporate and non-profit community members, students, educators, activists, musicians and artists. This conference is not about beating up on white folks. This conference is about critically examining the society in which we live and working to dismantle systems of power, prejudice, privilege and oppression.

Defining "White Privilege"

white privilege, a social relation
1. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities.
b. A special advantage or benefit of white persons; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, genetic endowments, social relations, etc.
2. A privileged position; the possession of an advantage white persons enjoy over non–white persons.
3. a. The special right or immunity attaching to white persons as a social relation; prerogative.
b. display of white privilege, a social expression of a white person or persons demanding to be treated as a member or members of the socially privileged class.
4. a. To invest white persons with a privilege or privileges; to grant to white persons a particular right or immunity; to benefit or favor specially white persons; to invest white persons with special honorable distinctions.
b. To avail oneself of a privilege owing to one as a white person.
5. To authorize or license of white person or persons what is forbidden or wrong for non–whites; to justify, excuse.
6. To give to white persons special freedom or immunity from some liability or burden to which non–white persons are subject; to exempt.

[zanne]

104. Talk to me like I'm six years old. Seriously.

I don't understand the "Defining White Privilege". I'm absolutely sincere and serious when I ask you to please give us some examples. I'm a little dense.

[Karenina]

112. Here's an excellent piece by Peggy McIntosh

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

More here:

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

[Brewman_Jax]

114. Here's an article

that may help--Whites Swim in Racial Preference by Tim Wise

From the article:
Ask a fish what water is and you'll get no answer. Even if fish were capable of speech, they would likely have no explanation for the element they swim in every minute of every day of their lives. Water simply is.

Fish take it for granted.

So too with this thing we hear so much about, "racial preference."

While many whites seem to think the notion originated with affirmative action programs, intended to expand opportunities for historically marginalized people of color, racial preference has actually had a long and very white history.

Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only unfree labor in the colonies that would become the U.S.

Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed virtually any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians and American Indians could not.

Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion laws, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny.

In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially restrictive housing policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930s to the '60s, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs.

In other words, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in the history of the cosmos. It has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.

[Karenina]

109. Zanne, this response is for you

but I attach it to the post above so I can refer to it while thinking about examples.

Driving While Non-white. If through a predominately white area it is assumed that you have NO BUSINESS THERE. If you're driving an expensive car in a Gucci suit it is ASSUMED that you STOLE IT.

If you live in a predominately white area and go jogging it is ASSUMED that you are suspect. (An aquaintance was thrown to the sidewalk IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE. It took him some effort to convince the LEO to simply let him put his key into the door.)

The difference in laws regarding crack (unleashed in communities by the CIA) and powdered cocaine.

The retreat to "At LEAST I'M WHITE!" when confronting an "other" of superior talent, intellect or ability.

White people "find", others "loot." See: Katrina/NOLA

Fraternity dweebs running amok are just "Kids" no matter what damage they cause. "Others" are criminal vandals who MUST be prosecuted to the FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. See: MD Terrapins

The assumption of INNOCENT until proven guilty.

Taking an errant child HOME and involving parents rather that tasering, handcuffing, fingerprinting etc. ad nauseum

Did you read about the case in NY, where a black man in a white community shot one of a gang of teenies threatening his son and home? Compare and contrast to Joe Horn who ran OUT OF HIS HOUSE and shot 2 men who were robbing HIS NEIGHBOR'S home. HE has YET to be charged.

The FBI has "no profile" for school shooters, who are predominately white.

The Jena 6

Diagnoses of neuro-atypical children...

Let me know if you see a pattern.

[nealmhughes]

131. DWB is a grave offense in Wonderbread Land. In fact, BWB (Being while Black) can be, too.

One small group of friends for example, former coworkers in Omaha. The examples:
1. My friend Carlos (African-American) buys a new Miata convertible and is coming home late one night from work. He gets pulled over once he gets into his neighborhood. Charge: not belonging in a new car or in the hood. It happens two more times in a few weeks. He finally sees a cop at a convenience store and asks him "Why did you guys quit pulling me over at night?" The answer: "We were told there was a black guy who was "OK" with a new Miata and lived in X neighborhood."

2. My friend Carlos' two sons and two step-children stay with me for three days while his wife and he are in Memphis for his grandmother's funeral. The stepkids: lily white. The biological kids: African-American. I send them down the street one Saturday after cartoons with a $20 roll of quarters to play video games. Kids come back after half an hour, the one girl crying. "What's wrong, Y?, I ask. "The guy at the arcade accused A and B of stealing my quarters when I had them and they were taking them to play a new game, but C (the other white kid) was doing the same thing, and he just thought he was my brother but not A or B!"

3. I buy a microwave oven from a co-worker who comes to my house to drop it off. I see him circle the block a few times and even once start to park. He doesn't ever actually stop or park. He calls a few minutes later and asks if I can go outside to the front door to get the microwave, as "A gang of Black kids are lurking outside!" I rush out to see the novelty of a "gang" in the first place, and of what "lurking" consists. I see three schoolboys in their blazers, khaki pants and book bags waiting on the bench for the bus. They are Catholic school boys!

4. My comadre's daughter has a child. She calls with the great news, and about the second thing out of her mouth after gender is "And she has good hair, just like her mama!"

5. I order a meal to go at a local restaurant and see a former guy I knew at another restaurant bussing the tables, a friend and cowoker there of my son. "Now, you be sure and not spit in our glasses, now" I laughingly jest. "I'm gonna spit in them special for you, sir," he replies. My co-diners horrified about my "racism" and his "calm" at my "insult." He returns with the glasses of water and sits down and we have a long talk about his school work and why he left the former restaurant at which he worked. He goes back to work, and my co-diners reply, "Oh, you know a black teenager?" "Why yes", I reply, "he is one of my son's best friends and I have become very good friends with his mother and father," I calmly reply. They appear shocked. I laugh and decide to visit his parents after the meal.

It is obvious that race and class are so intertwined in US culture that one cannot imagine a Jewish truck driver or a Black intellectual except as being rather like a dog walking on its hind legs. Yet, I am sure that Israel is full of Jewish truck drivers and I once worked daily with mostly black intellectuals at a HBCU. In the newspapers and on TV we are not presented with any alternative images. People are cardboard cutouts. Individuals are presented as representing their race/class/gender. Hence we have the cookie cutter world where one defining external characteristic defines the entire person as "other" to such a degree that the "other" is either an object of pity or else to be feared or else to be so far removed from our own collective experience that we cannot imagine them as individuals. How odd.

[Karenina]

176. I've heard it said that the most segregated place in America

is church on Sunday!

Did you check that link to the "unique baby?"

My 2nd was whiter than his dad when he was born. I had him in a snugli at the supermarket and the woman behind me in line said, "OH, what a beautiful child. Are you babysitting?" I replied, "Thank you. No." She ran to the next aisle and asked for the manager, who (Gott sei dank) was standing in front of the checkout lines at that moment. I watched her as she demanded he call the police as "THAT BLACK WOMAN HAS STOLEN A WHITE BABY!!!" :rofl: He was the LAST person to see me pregnant in public (I often shopped in the wee hours) and told her to mind her own business. She got LOUD, he told her to "FUCK OFF!" seemed to sense I was about to become unglued and came over to coo at my little bundle of joy. You will certainly understand my responses to that thread.

[JuniperLea]

178. Church on Sunday...

I was so lucky to be raised in a very integrated church, to sing in a integrated choir. It was the early 70's and I had a hunger for "we are one in the spirit". Imagine my dismay when I spoke with my dear aunt recently, who had introduced me to that church... and the pain in my heart when this woman I loved like a mother made racial comments at a family reunion about my cousin who married a black man. I felt like crying, but instead, I broke into song... Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight... I hugged her and said, Jesus never taught us to hate. Please don't start now. I wondered why it was that she started attending that little Assembly of God so many years earlier. Was she trying to be progressive somehow? I don't know. I don't know what made her think I would be accepting of that kind of talk anyway. My daughter had a huge crush on my son's band mate... a handsome young man who had a black father (Righteous blues man! Good gosh almighty!) and a white mother. When my daughter heard her great aunt say this thing, I saw her shoulders slump, and I saw her pick them back up when I sang my little song. We talked about it later, and she was so sad. We decided to forgive, not forget, and to set the record straight whenever we could, in docile tones and kindness. Bullying anyone for any reason doesn't work. Pointing the finger and belittling people for their beliefs, valid or not, is counter-productive.

[Karenina]

182. You've said it all!!!

And you've given your daughter a fabulous "arsenal" of peace and reconciliation. What we commit by upholding social constructs such as "race" and "white privilege" is psychic violence. Your daughter was assaulted by those words. You've given her the power to set the record straight. :hug:

[Blue_Tires]

47. ttt

[undercutter2006]

53. meh

It always seemed to me that there are far too many attributes in play here for things to be so black and white. You are discriminated against how much money you have, how well do you comply with the conventional beauty standard, how well do you talk, and so on, so you can be black and female but at the same time priviledged over most white men. I don't think most wealthy african americans feel that poor whites are priviledged over them, or care about it.

And yes, blacks can be racist towards whites in any stand-alone environment where blacks hold the power (a white kid in a black neighborhood school will be discriminated against daily, and the white priviledge will be of little help, lol), just like any group in power tends to do.

[MedleyMisty]

54. Did you read the article and if you did, did you understand it?

Just wondering.

[undercutter2006]

55. of course not

what's it about?

[Karenina]

56. Exhibit A.

[Brewman_Jax]

59. Not another one

Ever notice how having one's rights, choices, and opportunties limited throughout one's life solely based on skin color is somehow equivalent to getting beaten up at the playground way back in elementary school? I don't get it. :shrug:

[Karenina]

60. Just like the other one!

:silly:

[bryant69]

58. I think it's amusing that the author aserts this isn't about encouraging white guilt

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Chovexani]

107. Acknowledging privilege is not the same thing as being guilty

I think it's amusing that you would "asert" it to be. All the author is saying is "hey, white folks, maybe it's time you guys admitted that the system is kind of stacked in your favor. Let's work together to fix this instead of ignoring it, or pretending you're not part of the problem".

[EstimatedProphet]

160. I absolutely agree

After I had a chance to read the article, it was clear that the focus was not "let's get whitey" at all, but on whites recognizing that there is a substantial amount of racism around that they don't see, because it works in their favor. We white people need to recognize that, if we are going to move to a society which is truly just.

[Solly Mack]

64. Excellent. Thanks!

[AspenRose]

69. Bookmarked.

eom

[JustAnotherGen]

71. Thank you so much

For posting this.

My mother (who is white) calls it "Lily White Liberalism". Though her marriage to my father had nothing to do with 'Politics' - she opened her eyes in the late 70's when she tried to buy me a doll that looked anything like me. LOL! It's as simple as the dolls a bi-racial or black or asian or 'brown' little girl had available to her prior to the late 70's.

I'm not being trite or trying to oversimplify - or be nit-picky. But it's a fact. The only people that seem to have this General Knowledge are either other women who are not white, or white women/men who intermarried with someone of another race and had a little girl that they've tried to buy a doll for 20 some-odd years ago.

At the same time, I do wish the author (who I understand is an intern at Alternet) would expand on this to explain how minorities have bought into this perception. And why it's not the end of the world when one DOESN'T buy into it. As well, how the class differentiations amongst minorities can sometimes drive their rejection of the mold. I've had the poorest of poor, least educated black women comment, "Why don't you straighten your hair. You have good hair. You should get to the beauty shop and get that hair done."

Yep - you're right, I do have the <shameful expression> 'Good Hair'. And I'd like to keep it that way. And yours could be too if you stopped burning your scalp and revel in your hair's natural texture and chemistry. And you could also (because that comment also comes with raised eyebrow that I'm a 'sell out') spend less money on getting your hair done every Saturday and more on books.

Now I'm flat out rambling! :rofl: But I don't think 'non-White' people will really be able to 'get' that article until the author gets really in-depth into how minority communities have turned it's principles against themselves. Everything from talking white (how it's bad to speak proper English) to . . . (I don't have other examples as I'm not so arrogant to speak for an Asian, Asian Indian, Arabic, Persian, Hispanic, Latino, etc. etc person).

[Laughing Mirror]

84. Superb achievement by Alex Jung

Thanks for posting this.

I'm fortuante this got kicked up, otherwise I might have missed it. Nobody here should.

[Karenina]

86. Thanks for saying that!

We MUST find a way to engage on these issues. Racism in the pustule that poisons us all and benefits the elites who could give a flying rat's ass about ANY of us.

[Evoman]

91. Good article.

I frequently get upset when I discuss race on these boards. I hate being dismissed as just another angry latino when I bring shit up. I get just as frustrated when women's issues are ignored because "not all men do that stuff". I'm sorry, but just as we males really need to get introspective on women issues and admit our complicity and advantage, so must white people. These things NEED to be discussed and putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "I'm not like that. I'm not like that. We can be prejudiced against too" won't fucking do.

[Karenina]

92. Thanks for speaking up. Evoman!

I share your frustration. From my view at the bottom of of the totem pole, the gender issues are primary. They feed the race issues which feed the class issues. HOW do we even BEGIN to unravel this shit if we can't DICUSS it in a civil manner?

The dismissive attitude is the WORST. There is a post on this thread that says, 'NO, I didn't read the OP. What was it about?' I experience such posts as a slap in the face to ALL OF US who really CARE and are searching for some way to engage.

[Karenina]

93. Sunday kick!

:kick:

[M0rpheus]

106. I can't really get my thoughts together lately...

I've got a lot on my mind, but I am enjoying the heck out of this thread.
So, back up to the top!
I'll be reading.
:popcorn:

[Karenina]

111. Naaa, Duuu! Frohes Neues!!

Hang in with us here! We ALL need to fasten our seatbelts. It's looking like a bumpy ride all around! :silly:

[Karenina]

102. WHY did you dye your hair BLONDE???

Do people react differently to you? Can you describe it?

Just a few questions to encourage more to participate in the discussion. :hi:

[Brewman_Jax]

105. I didn't

oh, you didn't mean me. :P

An interesting minor incident. At my favorite watering hole a few nights ago, I was told by a SWG (standard white guy) that I could be 10 different nationalities. All the way from black through Hispanic to Mediterranean/Middle Eastern, but I don't remember any of the European countries included (it was kinda late). He almost sounded thrilled, but I guess after a few pints, anything can be thrilling. I wonder if that means that I can't be included in the above? Are those reserved for WASP types? Hmm, it does make one wonder... :think:

[Chovexani]

108. That reminds me of an incident at the library

Once when I was in high school, I was at the library in midtown Manhattan when an older Egyptian gentleman stopped me at the computer and started speaking rapidly to me in Arabic. He stopped when he saw the blank look on my face and apologized. He said he thought I was Egyptian, and that I look like I could have been a cousin. Something about the shape of my eyes, and my nose. Granted it could have just been a pervy old man hitting on me, but I thought it was interesting.

I think it's the weird ass mix of genes I have.

[Karenina]

168. Have you noticed how studiously my question

"Why did you dye your hair blonde?" has been avoided? :evilgrin:

[Karenina]

110. The "trendy" thing amongst Turkish boys in my 'hood

is an elaborately cut blonde-tipped hairstyle. I'll see if I can find a link.

What is "European?" ;-) :rofl:

[Romulox]

113. Upper middle class Asian Americans also have privilege

I find some (by no means all) dialogue about race and gender are designed to deflect attention from issues of class. This is especially effective as Americans are taught at a young age to respect class distinctions without question.

[redqueen]

115. Even if they're not designed for that purpose, that's how they're frequently used.

Pisses me right off.

[Karenina]

116. Riddle me this:

What do you call a cardiologist in Georgia?

[redqueen]

117. A cardiologist?

:shrug:

[Karenina]

119. A cardiologist.

(Think outside the box and how "class" is experienced).

[superduperfarleft]

130. It's a joke I heard many variations of growing up.

Hint: The answer starts with an "n."

[Karenina]

133. Just another...

Wonder if the punchline has provoked howls of laughter! ;-)

[superduperfarleft]

134. It's popularity is evident in the number of variations I heard.

I really like how you brought it up, though, as a comeback to people's attempt to derail a conversation of race with issue of class.

Keeping this kicked...

[redqueen]

136. I feel terribly ignorant...

but I still don't get it!

PM me please?

[superduperfarleft]

137. As far as the "joke" goes, I think it's self-explanatory.

I wasn't trying to be snide with you, I just thought that bringing this joke up whenever someone tries to pull the "class card" was brilliant, because the idea of it is that no matter what the economic status of a person of color, they will always be a "n----."

The fact that this is what passes for humor in our society proves that economic security, or issues of class, can never alone remedy the issues of white supremacy and privilege, and the idea that a discussion about race is nothing more than a distraction is wholly offensive to the people of color who have to live this discussion every day of their lives.

(Never mind the fact that white people trying to dictate the terms of what is and isn't acceptable in a discussion about race REEKS of white privilege in itself.)

[redqueen]

139. The joke was fucked from the start because a key word was left out.

If "black" was put in front of cardiologist, it would have made a a lick of sense a long time ago... as it is, though...

Anyway back to the subject... I'm Hispanic and I'm not trying to dictate shit. All I'm saying is that class issues are much more important IMO and this fucking crybaby bullshit of "ooh those white people living in poverty just don't get it - they better accept they have it better than us poverty stricken minorities!" or "ooh those poor black people don't get it - they get more help than us poverty stricken whites!" is not only crybaby bullshit but it is also NOT fucking constructive. It is divisive and quite obviously (to me) simply the effects of the oh so effective manipulation by the ruling classes (and is used in all countries no matter what "race" is in the ruling class) and it makes me fucking sick to see it so staunchly defended here.

[superduperfarleft]

141. You're right, I missed a key word.

I apologize, I could've made myself clearer. Of course this means I may have missed Kareina's point, but still, I thought it made mine well. In a discussion like this, bringing up class issues is the real diversion.

In response to the rest of your post....the OP was about white privilege, not class. (and even if it was, as Kariena pointed out earlier, how class is experienced is determined by race and gender) By trying to stifle the conversation by writing it off as "divisive" is quite clearly an attempt to dictate the terms of the discussion.

It's not a matter of "fucking crybaby bullshit" to point out that there are certain privileges that poor whites enjoy which poor minorities don't, and personalizing the issue and dismissing other people's legitimate concerns in the way that you did is one thing I fucking loathe about these kinds of conversations. I'm not sure how you felt that added to the discussion.

[redqueen]

143. You assumed I was white.

That pissed me off.

Mea fucking goddamned culpa.

[superduperfarleft]

145. You're right, I did.

I apologize.

My other points still stand.

[redqueen]

148. Thanks & sorry for losing my temper.

We can just agree to disagree about the rest.

[Karenina]

146. In your first sentence you make the point and miss it.

Did you read Alex's whole piece? He does well in describing how the issues are INEXTRICABLY bound together. The working class will never find its solidarity until it sees CLEARLY how effective the construct of race is in dividing it and confusing the REAL AGENDA.

[redqueen]

152. I don't agree with Alex's editorial. At all.

If what you and he believe is true, then the working class will never find its solidarity. Because it will take much more to get past those issues of "lighter skin" = "better than you" than to get past "richer than you" = "better than you".

Alex mentions how awful it is that lighter skin is regarded as better... but he somehow fails to notice that this phenomenon also occurs in African countries made up of mostly Black people just as it does in Hispanic countries. So the whole light skin issue IMO goes back so far culturally that to look at it from a strictly American point of view means you lose a lot of perspective. Sure it's meaningful and useful in dealing with race issues *in this country* but the point I'm trying to make here is that the issue is so deep... that to accept this theory that we have to solve that problem before we can address class issues is to declare the class war as over, because IMO if that's the case the ruling class has every battle won, forever.

[Karenina]

154. I do AGREE with you, RQ!!!

Do check out the correlation between WORLDWIDE "colourism" and WHO'S GOT THE DOUGH!!! WHO GETS THE PERKS? WHY IS BLONDE HAIR DYE SO POPULAR IN EVERY CULTURE??? It's not about "solving" it, for me it's more a question of AWARENESS. America is NOT the center of the universe, certainly not mine and I'm sure, being Asian, Alex is acquainted with what differences are permissible in that society, historically and in contemporary culture. For example, visible traces of European, African OR other ASIAN blood are no-nos in Japan.

It is my belief that it IS USEFUL and informative to examine the roots of our collective social stratification that we ALL may examine our assumptions more closely.

The cultural underpinnings of "richer than you" = "better than you" are just as deep. This has a particular resonance where social mobility is assumed to be mutable, supported by the myth of meritocracy.

[redqueen]

156. Sure... it's useful to be aware...

but you lose me when you link "colourism" and "who's got the dough". They just are not directly linked. They are intertwined, but not directly linked. It is not only blondes and lighter-skinned people who get the perks. IMO believing they are is falling into a trap. That's just my opinion.

[Karenina]

140. The words Cardiologist & Black

unconsciously registered as mutually exclusive. It's the same thing that happened to Leah EVEN THOUGH I mentioned that Jane was my cousin TWICE before she asked how we knew each other. It happens to me REGULARLY. I'm about to go on stage, horn in hand, reed in mouth and will be asked what I'm going to SING. :freak: (I admit to going off one night on a woman who was the 5th to fart in my direction. "YOU ARE THE FIFTH PERSON TO ASK ME THAT!!! ARE YOUR (pl.) ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE COLOUR OF MY FACE SO FOSSILIZED THAT YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE WHAT I HAVE IN MY HAND???":grr:

These brain farts are in NO WAY malicious and for those who cut them, it would go a long way in the direction of understanding and reconciliation to admit, "My assumptions temporarily blinded me. Forgive me." That is why in a post upthread I made a case for an expansion of more neutral terms. The usual response is defensiveness or as the woman in my anecdote said, "What a hypersensitive BITCH."

[redqueen]

142. The word "Black" wasn't in the riddle. (nt)

[Karenina]

153. And THAT IS THE POINT!!!

Anything non-white must be so qualified. As SuperDuperfl pointed out this joke has been around a L-O-N-G time and has many incarnations. I've NEVER in my many years of telling it had any member of an "other" group fail to get it, and I suspect you would have immediately had it been told to you, say by a Hispanic doctor.

ONLY ONCE did I not have to explain. I told it in Deutsch and was met with Hä? Jürgen said, "Dummköpfe, der ARTZT ist ein Farbiger!!!" :rofl:

[redqueen]

157. If the joke involves the punchline of "n..." then yeah,

you kind of have to point out that detail.

:wtf:

[Brewman_Jax]

120. Equating that to white privilege

is deflecting the issue. Lower-class Asians are hardly in the same boat as their upper-class counterparts.

[Romulox]

123. I'm not seeing the disagreement--class matters. A lot.

It's clearly racist and quite illegal to deny a child enrollment in a school based on the color of her father's skin; it's perfectly legal and never questioned to deny a child enrollment in that same school based on the size of her father's bank account. Class matters a great deal, and while it is unseemly to compare injustices, I think it's clear that class trumps races in many (by no means all) circumstances.

I think this line of inquiry makes so many uncomfortable because it is difficult to find a coherent philosophy that justifies class based discrimination while condemning race based discrimination. What is clear is that some forms of discrimination are so ingrained in our culture to almost be invisible. Class based discrimination, along with race based discrimination, certainly belongs in that category!

[Brewman_Jax]

124. Class matters, just race matters more

example is in the lawsuit against the University of Michigan admissions. I'll borrow from my above posts, the plaintiff complains about the 85 black students that were admitted with lesser grades and/or SAT scores ahead of her, but says nothing about the 1400 white students with lesser grades and/or SAT scores admitted ahead of her. Not to mention the extra admissions points the white applicants got for being from the Upper Peninsula, taking AP classes, top 10% high schools, being legacies, etc. If U. of Michigan follows the trend, 5-8% of the undergraduate class of most major state universities is black, so to say that class trumps in many cases is just not accurate.

You are correct in that is clear is that some forms of discrimination are so ingrained in our culture to almost be invisible. That's the point of highlighting white privilege. Adding economic class makes race easier to avoid.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

125. It's who you know -- classs -- moreso than race.

Just because you are a white male or white female does not mean you will be upper class and making lots of money. However, the people who are overwhelmingly upperclass will be white.

Correlation but not causation-- skin color by ITSELF does NOT mean you will be making enough money to be classified as upper class or upper middle class.

[Karenina]

127. See post #70.

If one IS upper class or upper middle class AND non-white, the experience of racial discrimination never loses its sting.

Ask Oprah. :silly:

[Brewman_Jax]

171. Your point?

so race still has nothing to do with it? Why do job applicants with "black" sounding names get 50% fewer callbacks than job applicants with "non-black" sounding names, even if the qualifications are equal?

[Karenina]

184. Why do people (mostly women) react with fear

clutching their purses, grabbing their pearls when a black man, dressed similarly to ALL the suits who have business in the high-rise office building, gets onto the elevator? :shrug:

Here's a FUNNY ONE. A friend, banker-type, was waiting in front of his 5-star hotel for a cab. Now, the man is an extremely fine dresser, quite status conscious and "pressed," as we say, from head to toe. Rolex, Vuitton, the works. He can afford it.

A clueless white guy approaches him, pressing his keys into my friend's hand with a "Don't you dare scratch it." A cab pulls up, boyfriend HEAVES the keys as far as he can, gets in the cab and drives off! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Even as we, who heard his recounting, were laughing so loud, hard and long we couldn't breathe, it was apparent that he was still LIVID.

[Romulox]

126. None of these is a racial characteristic: Legacy admissions, living in the UP, taking AP classes...

Most of these have to do with class; none of them are directly related to race. Many of these characteristics are correlated to race to the extent that different economic outcomes are correlated to race. Dividing working class people along racial lines is a key tool used to perpetuate poverty and limit working people's ability to stand up to tptb.

In other words, class based discrimination works in the service of racism and those who benefit from racism, not against it. In particular the ruling class strongly desires a working class divided along racial and ethnic lines.

It's funny you should mention UM. As a working class white guy who attended UM prior to the Gratz lawsuit, I feel I have a great deal of perspective on the UM admissions policy, but I don't want to derail this thread. I will simply say that since so many of the "perks" of being white you mentioned are actually class based characteristics, UM could recapture many minority applicants by granting greater preference based on economic need/class (economic based affirmative action remains perfectly legal in Michigan.) The University has largely resisted doing so, imo, due to the disruption this would cause in the social-structure (not to mention fundraising efforts,) of the school. As many observed at the time, UM's policy was focused on cosmetic not cultural diversity.

[superduperfarleft]

129. What about day-to-day comparisons?

Let's stop talking about things like economic security or access to education for a minute and talk about a very generalized quality-of-life. What about the fact that if a poor white and a rich white enter a store, neither one are likely to be followed or assumed to be stealing? What about the fact that a poor white and rich white can drive daily without having to regularly encounter (or teach their children about) police harassment? Do you think a poor white and a person of color (on average, in general, etc.) would have the same negative reaction towards encounters with the police? What about the fact that a poor white and a rich white could be denied for a bank loan and don't have to wonder if it was because of the color of their skin?

Of course class matters, you are 100% correect in that. But what the OP suggests that even a poor white has certain privileges of his or her race that a person of color would not have, regardless of said POC's economic status. Until we address racial privilege, attempts to remedy the class war in this country will ultimately end up benefiting white people far more than minorities.

[redqueen]

144. Poor whites are too assumed to be potential shoplifters.

Have you lived in a poor area?

[superduperfarleft]

149. Yes I have.

But this isn't about me personally, and it's not about the single thing you picked from my post. What about the rest of it? What about when people say "racial profiling," they aren't talking about arresting white people for being potential serial killers of school shooters? They're talking about pulling Arabs out of airport lines and black people out of BMWs for the crime of driving through a wealthy neighborhood.

What about when people wonder aloud whether or not "this country will elect a black man" when talking about Obama? If it's even an issue, how does this not prove that politics is essentially a white man's club? Isn't that a perfect example of privilege? What about the fact that it is considered acceptable or even beneficial to infer that Obama was a drug dealer, or that Oprah only supports him because he's black? I don't see Hillary or Edwards or Kucinich having to answer for their endorsements in that way.

[redqueen]

151. I'm not saying racism isn't an issue.

I'm saying class is a more important issue, for me. Which is why I find the editorial linked in the OP so bothersome.

[Brewman_Jax]

170. Just because it doesn't actually say "race" doesn't mean that race is not involved

To borrow from Tim Wise, snow ain't the only thing white in the UP.

Though what you say is accurate, you still continue to dance around race. Again, class makes it easier not to deal with. No one had a fit about all of the white students accepted, just the black ones. How does class answer that?

[Romulox]

172. The UP is the poorest area of the state; it is not a "privilege" to live there

I think this is a tangental issue at best.

[Brewman_Jax]

177. You proved the point of the article

nt

[OzarkDem]

118. WHY ARE YOU POSTING IN ALL CAPS?

and why are you attempting to keep a divisive dialogue going on DU?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

121. It seems

that for some reason this OP bothered you.

Rather than attack the messenger you would do well to discuss the content of the article if you had a specifc point to make.

Do you think people should be marching lockstep on this issue or any other for that matter?

Is unity a good thing if it means everyone has their heads in the sand?

Alot of people, ALOT OF PEOPLE, do not want racism to be discussed. They want us to think that that concept is a quaint relic of the 60's and that we should sweep it under the rug. Well in fact those who have made a concerted campaign to keep racism and white privilege off the radar have done us all a great disservice.

Which part or parts of the article do you take issue with?

[superduperfarleft]

128. "Divisive." Uh-huh.

Whenever white people get in the middle of a discussion about race that (imagine the horrors!!!) is actually started and subsequently guided by people of color, they get all uncomfortable and start pulling out the "divisive" card or the "class" card. By downplaying the concerns of the OP and other people of color who find this issue worth discussing, you do nothing but provide a perfect example of what the OP is talking about.

I think this is a great article, and I admire K for trying to keep this discussion going, all the while not being surprised that it sinks like a stone on a daily basis.

[M0rpheus]

147. Divisive?

:wtf:

This is probably the most civil discourse on this topic I have seen on, DU in recent history.

The topic is valid and deserves discussion.
If it bothers you so, why not just ignore it?
Or better yet, add something constructive to the conversation.

[rAVES]

135. "America would never elect a black person to the highest office"

"Not me who thinks this you understand.. just yanno... America in general! my hands are nice and clean because I um.. have a black friend and say nice things."

I want to vomit every time I read this sludge on DU, you either fight this fucking shit, or you roll over and let it be.

(possibly kinda unrelated, but I've been bottling it)

[Karenina]

159. rAVES, YOUR POST segues nicely into Alex's 2nd point.

(I cut and pasted his first point in its entirety on my post #98.)

2. I'm not racist, but ...

Nobody is racist anymore. Liberals are often scared of calling other white people racist. Even Frank Rich of the New York Times defended the Republican candidates' snubbing of a debate at a historically black university as not racist but, rather, as "out of touch" (then again, Rich admitted he was a frequent guest on Don Imus' radio show).

But perhaps instead of using "Am I racist?" as our cultural litmus test, a more provocative question would be: "Am I anti-racist?" as in, do my actions overturn racial hierarchy? Such a question is far more complex because an affirmative answer affects every area of life -- what your job is, what bars you go to, the neighborhood you live in, where you send your kids to school, and with whom you surround yourself. The personal is as crucial (if not more so) than the political. Developing an anti-racist consciousness means recognizing the individual privileges we have and the larger context in which they exist. Such an assessment can be as uncomplicated as paying attention to (1) who is at the table and (2) who takes up the most space at said table.

Too often, "not racist" is equated with not conservative and not Southern; by thinking in binaries, liberals excuse themselves from criticism by pointing to the greater evil. Rush Limbaugh is really just an overly medicated red herring to the privileges of white liberals. The liberal establishment -- everyone from the Democratic Party to Daily Kos -- fails the anti-racism test by merely paying lip service to racial oppression while maintaining a predominantly white constituency. They remain complicit with the belief that white men know better and therefore should talk louder and much more often.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We can watch the drama unfold with Obama in the "lead role" of the White/Black nation's Black/White hope right on this very site in GDP. His and Hillary's candidacies bring MANY festering issues front and center.

It is NOT inherently "racist," just as it is NOT necessarily "misogynistic" to oppose, even vehemently, either. Where they are relevant to THIS ENTIRELY SEPARATE discussion is in closely examining the negative "hot buttons" used to portray them both.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

138. It's not white privilege; it's not-white disadvantage.

Whites in America are, on average, not noticeably better off than they would be in a society without a notion of race.

Non-whites in America are, on average, noticeably worse off than they would be in a society without a notion of race.

This is because America is very largely white; exploiting a small number of people doesn't provide a large number of people with much benefit per capita.

As such, "white privilege" is a misnomer; the issue is the disadvantages suffered by non-whites.

[Marie26]

150. That's a great article

If people began facing & acknowledging their own white privilege, rather than simply decrying racism in its most extreme forms, IMO this country would really begin to make progess in racial relations.

[redqueen]

155. Why I don't agree with this editorial.

The issue of "lighter skin" = "better" is not an American one, and not a class-based one. It is something that is worldwide and not so easily solved as the issue of "richer" = "better".

His assertion that groups like the Democratic Party and sites Daily Kos are "maintaining a predominantly white constituency" bothers me. Is he saying that this is somehow intentional? What is he trying to say there?

I didn't see the Alterman segment he linked, in which Alterman apparently attempted to tell Alex how to talk about race, so maybe he did really say something that outrageous. Without a transcript it's hard to say. I'm not about to go kneejerking after Alex's comments on Alterman's comments without a quote to base the outrageyness on, though, that's for sure.

And I'm nearly offended that he's insulting entire groups of white people for being so insensitive as to eat Arab foods or wear Black hairstyles. Who is he to decide whether they've done enough for the cause to be good enough to deserve to listen to Tupac? I'm not saying there aren't deserving mindless consumerist targets for his criticisms, but he seems to act as if any non-minority doing these things is somehow doing something wrong and IMO that's kinda fucked up. And then he goes on to blame the US for Deepak Chopra? Seriously?

And I get the backlash against the "I am African" ad campaign... but what gives with his assertion that this kind of campaign somehow prevents anyone of color from speaking about it?

See, this is why I didn't want to respond in detail to this... it's pissing me off the more I pick it apart.

And then he goes on to pick on the mini trend of people calling Clinton the first "black president"... yeah, I get it... but really? This is a big issue for him?

His anecdote about a clueless jerk who insulted him and his friends adds nothing... nor does his picking apart the use of marriage / sex as a criterion of acceptance of race. It's just rambling IMO.




And now here we come to the bonanza. Number 7 - class vs. race, which is the only reason I bothered to post in this thread, and after which I'm giving up on pointing out my many problems with his editorial.

First of all, his delusion that because anyone wishes to discuss class rather than race issues this somehow implies that addressing race issues "hold the Left back" is just madness. The ONLY time when discussing race gets in the way is when it literally becomes an obstruction to progress. And the only time I can think of that that happens (right this minute, I may be forgetting something) is when class is discussed... because you run into the "no, poor whites have it better" / "no, poor minorities have it better" squabbling.

He seems to think that because class and race are intertwined, that you can't address one without the other, but we can and we must, for the reason that I started this post with... the issue of "lighter skin" = "better" seems to me to be a far more deeply-ingrained thinking pattern and as such I don't think it can be solved anywhere nearly as easily as the "richer" = "better" problem.

Believing that class is universal is not taking for granted that race gender or sexuality somehow undermine class unity... it's just addressing the wider issue IMO. They're not mutually exclusive. You can still address race issues and address class issues separately. I'm also bothered by his assertion that separating the issues somehow conveys the message that movements focused on those things "cannot be emancipatory for the whole". I'm not even sure what he's trying to say there...

Then he mentions that "a cursory look" at mainstream gay lesbian and feminist commentators has taught him that "while a gender analysis might be a part of their ethos, anti-racism is not"... so every fucking movement no matter the subject MUST find people of each color to act as commentators, or that means they don't care about anti-racism? What the fuck?

Anyway... that's why I disagree very strongly with that piece, and with the argument that race issues are of a higher priority than class issues. They are separate issues, and linking them this way seems to me to be falling into the trap the ruling classes have used for millennia in every country in the world throughout history.

Isn't it time we stopped falling for it?

[Karenina]

163. One question.

How would you propose to convince less-than-embracing-of-the-other disenfranchised whites to VOTE for anything in their own interest when they STAUNCHLY, TRADITIONALLY and CONSISTENTLY have opposed such measures because they a) fear anyone nonwhite benefitting and b) identify with the ruling class?

[redqueen]

165. Depends on the individuals.

For some it might be religious rhetoric... for some it might be some other pet issue. But fundamentally it only requires education. However as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...

[kwassa]

164. I disagree with you

The issue of "lighter skin" = "better" is not an American one, and not a class-based one. It is something that is worldwide and not so easily solved as the issue of "richer" = "better".

It is an American one, though not uniquely an American issue, that makes it not one bit less powerful as an issue. Even within the black community historically, light skin meant higher relative class.

They ARE intertwined, when we discuss the issue of race in THIS country. Other countries have different racial dynamics.

I disagree very strongly with that piece, and with the argument that race issues are of a higher priority than class issues. They are separate issues, and linking them this way seems to me to be falling into the trap the ruling classes have used for millennia in every country in the world throughout history.

I think that both race and class are important issues to discuss, both separately and together. There are times they are conjoined, and times they are not. Presuming that they are not is a mistake, however.

[Karenina]

166. I found Alex's "Misunderstanding" #7

although succint, quite expansive in nailing that issue. How did you feel about the article, Kwassa?

[kwassa]

167. This article brings up most of the salient points

I'm sorry to be so late reading this thread, but I was gone for the holidays. One of the best I've read in awhile.

this is one thing with white liberals that drives me nuts.

At the beginning of Obama's candidacy for president, Joe Klein of Time observed that white people were "out of control" at a rally for Obama, while the black folks were decidedly reserved. Chris Matthews gushed that, with Obama, there was "no history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery. All the bad stuff in our history ain't there with this guy."

This is no different than Bill O'Reilly going to the black restaurant in New York and being shocked that everyone was so well behaved! Y'all need to get out more!

The New York Times has also had a recent orgy of articles calling Obama "post-racial," "post-feminist" and "post-polarization." White liberals have gleefully projected their fantasies (delusions?) of a post-race society on a man who looks black but doesn't "act" black. But what about those who do?

Yes, what about those that do????

It all comes down to socialization. While many white liberals mean the best, they actually have very little contact with people of other races, particularly black Americans, and thereby absorb the same inaccurate media images that we are all subjected to as being factual and accurate.

Most journalists do a very poor job of covering race, tending to go for the "spokesman" approach, the single source that saves them time and is looking to be the mouthpiece and very unelected spokesman. Ergo, Sharpton, and Jackson, and bad reporting.

[Karenina]

175. Xultar puts a fine point on it in her thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2586801

With all the exuberance surrounding Obama's success in Iowa, MANY fresh-faced, idealistic, sincere supporters will now get to taste a bit of the American reality, so long obfuscated by her myths.

[JuniperLea]

179. That's a great thread!

So is this. Thanks for keeping it going. The fact that it makes some people uncomfortable is a sign that these discussions need to continue, imho.

I've been accused of being a racist here on DU more than once, and I attribute this to a misunderstanding of something I may have said poorly. But when you try to pull yourself out of a hole like that, you can come off sounding all "some of my best friends are black!" It can be a slippery slope, no question.

Thanks for keeping this going. I've learned a lot from this thread.

[Karenina]

180. Thanks for posting Juniperx!

[JuniperLea]

181. Read this... tell me what you think...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2522501&mesg_id=2595247

[Karenina]

185. Penultimate

:kick:

[M0rpheus]

187. Sunday afternoon, I need something more to read.

:kick:

[treestar]

188. What are these people going to whine about when Obama is elected?

When the POTUS is black, they'll have nothing to do.

I promise you when the POTUS is black, I'll feel less guilty. And younger than me too, for the first time in my life.

I honestly think most white people would vote for a black president and feel good about it - hell, now these whiners must then deal with smug whites saying, "you can't say I'm a racist, I voted for Obama."

Save it for the Klan. The rest of us want to eliminate these issues. Blacks have to live with whites - they can't cocoon themselves off, and most of them don't want to. Quit with this and start accepting whites as equals rather than letting them think themselves superior by inferring that they have so much power over you and that they are so much better off. It's time to stand up and fight back rather than just being a victim. There's room for it now. There must be some comfort in saying all whites are privileged and racist, but while there may be an advantage to being born into the middle class, not every white person is. The blue collar white person is turned off by all this because they don't think they are "privileged." We need these people to vote for Obama, not sit home out of resentment because they refuse to acknowledge their "privileges." How are you going to get them to vote for him when you're claiming that by color is his skin he is "disadvantaged" or "unpriviledged." Most of the voters out there need to think the President is strong, not a victim.

[M0rpheus]

192. Well, there you go...

treestar has spoken...

"Save it for the Klan"
As one of "these" people I find this particular comment disgustingly, dismissive and insensitive of you.
Your choice of words is stunning. As if the Klan was the only thing I had to worry about.

"Quit with this and start accepting whites as equals rather than letting them think themselves superior by inferring that they have so much power over you and that they are so much better off. It's time to stand up and fight back rather than just being a victim."

This conversation is being had because we do want to be treated as equals. It's not a matter of "us" thinking that "they" are better. We want "them" to understand "us", or at least to make the attempt. Maybe actually telling people what we see might lead to that understanding. "save it for the Klan" and "quit whining" do nothing of the sort. Your "orders" are part of the problem.

Doesn't standing up and fighting back require what's happening here? Standing up and acknowledging the issue, and trying to fix it? And your basically telling us to STFU does exactly what again?

I really have just about had it with people trying to dictate how this conversation should go.
You don't have that right. Your assumption that your orders are necessary (as if we have no clue what we're talking about), or warranted (as if we need your permission), is incorrect.
Stop trying to give orders and listen for a change.


"There must be some comfort in saying all whites are privileged and racist, but while there may be an advantage to being born into the middle class, not every white person is."

And here I am, black born into the middle class. And yet, somehow I still experience the same things spoken of here. No comfort in that. But hey, if those assumptions make you feel better, then read no further. This thread is not for you.

Way up in the thread there are conversations about class and it's relation to this issue. Check em out, then come back and say something that actually adds to the conversation. Oh and read the article too, that might help as well.




M0rpheus - :banghead: Maybe if I hit my head against this wall a few more times, the world will be a better place.

[M0rpheus]

193. Sunday night,

:kick:

I've been not lurking for weeks on this topic.
Give me more to think about.
:popcorn:

[Karenina]

194. It's SO DIFFICULT to get thoughtful, sensitive people

to engage on this issue. I am grateful to Orwellian_Ghost for posting the article and delighted by the DUers who have contributed to the discussion. I'm disappointed that too few were willing to weigh-in that we might address some fundamentals like "colourism" but console myself that perhaps many read Alex's whole piece and have been given some food for thought.

Thanks so much, MOrpheus, for your help in keeping this kicked! :hug:

[M0rpheus]

195. Damned near impossible.

I keep this kicked because, as I have said before, it's a conversation worth having.
And it is especially needed here, where you'd think someone would understand.
Where posters like the one above, believe we're just one black president away from making it all go away.
That there will be nothing else for us to whine about, without giving on thought to why.


If I kick this thing maybe, someone will read it, for the first time and think.

I've seen so much on DU that proves the point, it makes me want to scream.
I'm not sure how you, who are in these trenches every thread, do it.
The least I can do is bounce it back up to the top with a kick or 2.

:bounce:

[Karenina]

196. Final kick

for 1 more read!!!