Question for Libs/Progressives

[ClosedCaption]

[sarcasm]
So there are no poor white people. I'm sure the people who are commonly called "white trash" will be so glad to hear it. Of course monied priviledge comes with being white. That's why all white families are able to pass on an inheritance, and no non-white families can.
[/sarcasm]

With the sarcasm out of my system: do you actually believe that whiteness bestows monied priviledge indescriminate of any other factor?

Here is how common you guys are. If you would've read above you would've seen LockeJaw doing the same "I dont understand" line of questioning. I've already responded but of course you only have the same dance moves just different people to do it.

Here's my quote. For a suggestion read this thread and try (if you can) to come from a different angle or at least be creative

Poor LockeJaw...White privilege doesnt mean every white person every will be rich. Maybe thats why you dont believe it exists...wait, no you DO believe it exists (contradicting your OP) but its not THAT much privilege because poor white people exist in the world.

Maaaan fuck, you are a funny dude

Common as in common sense?

The statement that "monied priviledge comes with being white," implies that whiteness automatically confers monied priviledge. The obvious counter arguement is to point out that not all white poeple have monied priviledge. It is a common sense arguement to an obviously overreaching statement. If someone makes the statement that all swans are white, when I find a black swan I can point to that swan and say that their statement is false. Not all swans are white.

Do you see the difference? Probably not. You used the word "all" with the swans example which would make sense. I didnt say "all" and maybe you see it there but trust me...it isnt. Thats why I didnt say anything that suggests that every white person should be rich because of ...whatever. You have to try harder than that buddy.

So, if you want to say that some white people have monied priviledge go ahead. You lose the causative association that way, but hey I won't use the common sense arguement against you.

I do and I have been saying that. You wont use the common sense argument on me and apparently you wont use spell check either


btw, Common as in unoriginal

 

[ClosedCaption]

You should revisit history.

In the city of Charleston, free blacks nearly monopolized the jobs of barbers, bricklayers, shoemakers, tailors and dressmakers. They prospered in their entrepreneurial jobs and were able to earn the capital needed to purchase slaves.

By the mid 1700’s to early 1800’s, most free blacks considered themselves more American than they did African, for almost all of them had been born on American soil, free or slave. They wanted to live the same life as whites, and they saw slaveholding as a way to become more equal with their white counterparts.

“In a society that vested the ownership of one many in another, slaves represented another form of property held by free blacks.” (Powers, 1994, 39) Early on in the colony of South Carolina, mulattoes were often trained as artisans and were able to earn the money to purchase slaves by working. They were commercial masters who aligned themselves with the white majority in order to preserve the system of slavery. (Koger, 1985, 30) As this practice progressed, the black slaveholders often had the same incentives as whites to own slaves.

In conclusion, there were many reasons why free blacks owned black slaves. There was a new class developing during the 1800’s made up of slaveowning blacks and free light-skinned blacks. Relationships between masters and slaves were not smooth. Black slaveowners in Charleston had the same economic desires as whites when it came to being prosperous and owning slaves.

Black Slave Owners in Charleston

And that has what to do with what I said? Anything? Nothing?

It goes to show that it wasn't only whites that were prosperous, there were also successful blacks that were wealthy in their own right.

Cool, now where did I say all blacks were poor and all whites were rich? No where right. So why are you talking to me?

Look up William Ellison, who was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (1). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (2).


1. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
2. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.

Great, again, this has nothing to do with anything I've said here at all. But thanks for the history lesson

 

[JakeStarkey]

deep down they accept the science

Idiot statement of the day, and it is not even 930AM here

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And that has what to do with what I said? Anything? Nothing?

It goes to show that it wasn't only whites that were prosperous, there were also successful blacks that were wealthy in their own right.

Cool, now where did I say all blacks were poor and all whites were rich? No where right. So why are you talking to me?

Look up William Ellison, who was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (1). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (2).


1. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
2. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.

Great, again, this has nothing to do with anything I've said here at all. But thanks for the history lesson

I never suggested you claimed ALL blacks or ALL whites were anything.

You stated:

"The monied privilege comes with being white. They are intertwined. ORRRRRrrrrrr monied privilege just so happen to miss black people by chance and not because of history."

Now deny the implications in the statement that monied privilege came from being white and blacks weren't afforded the chance.

 

[Mathbud1]

Here is how common you guys are. If you would've read above you would've seen LockeJaw doing the same "I dont understand" line of questioning. I've already responded but of course you only have the same dance moves just different people to do it.

Here's my quote. For a suggestion read this thread and try (if you can) to come from a different angle or at least be creative

Common as in common sense?

The statement that "monied priviledge comes with being white," implies that whiteness automatically confers monied priviledge. The obvious counter arguement is to point out that not all white poeple have monied priviledge. It is a common sense arguement to an obviously overreaching statement. If someone makes the statement that all swans are white, when I find a black swan I can point to that swan and say that their statement is false. Not all swans are white.

Do you see the difference? Probably not. You used the word "all" with the swans example which would make sense. I didnt say "all" and maybe you see it there but trust me...it isnt. Thats why I didnt say anything that suggests that every white person should be rich because of ...whatever. You have to try harder than that buddy.

So, if you want to say that some white people have monied priviledge go ahead. You lose the causative association that way, but hey I won't use the common sense arguement against you.

I do and I have been saying that. You wont use the common sense argument on me and apparently you wont use spell check either


btw, Common as in unoriginal

Won't is the common contraction of "will not." Wont on the other hand means "likely to do something." As in, "if you make a blanket statement, I am wont to use a common sense argument against you." Please do not critique people's spelling while making spelling errors yourself. It distracts from the conversation. Or was that your intention?

"monied privilege comes with being white" implies that all white people have monied privilege. It would be the same as saying "whiteness comes with being a swan." That statement implies again that all swans are white, and pointing out a black swan would be as effective in falsifying it.

You did not explicitly say that all white people have monied privilege. You did imply it. If you are not implying a causative relationship between whiteness and monied privilege, you are again just saying that "some white people are rich." So, the correlative is "some non-white people are rich." If that is all we are saying, then where does the white privilege come in?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look up William Ellison, who was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (1). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (2).
1. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
2. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.

Hasty generalization based on a drop of water in an ocean of evidence.

The above owners are the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

[natstew]

I agree with Thomas Sowell in that he feels culture has an effect on lower IQ scores of blacks. As far as liberals I feel a big reason why they always seem to favor blacks is white guilt and they feel whites are superior to blacks.

I have no quilt as I am part Native American Cherokee...Do you folks have a guilt complex over the Trail of Tears?

Does the Cherokee part of you get mad at the white part? Does the White part of you resent the Cherokee part? Are you at perpetual war with yourself, is that's what makes you so stupid?

BTW: The 'Trail Of Tears' was another Liberal Democrat brilliant progressive idea. Ole Andrew liberalized the Indians and progressed them right out to the Oklahoma Indian Territory.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It goes to show that it wasn't only whites that were prosperous, there were also successful blacks that were wealthy in their own right.

Cool, now where did I say all blacks were poor and all whites were rich? No where right. So why are you talking to me?

Look up William Ellison, who was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (1). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (2).


1. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
2. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.

Great, again, this has nothing to do with anything I've said here at all. But thanks for the history lesson

I never suggested you claimed ALL blacks or ALL whites were anything.

You stated:

"The monied privilege comes with being white. They are intertwined. ORRRRRrrrrrr monied privilege just so happen to miss black people by chance and not because of history."

Now deny the implications in the statement that monied privilege came from being white and blacks weren't afforded the chance.

Oh, you're micro instead of macro. Ok, there were some black people who were rich...there were some white people who were poor. I thought we covered that when I said I didnt use the word "all"

I speak in generalizations to move the convo forward, if I didn't I'd be talking about really small cases of exceptions like you're doing. Which goes to far into the weeds instead of the overall topic.

But thanks again tho

 

[Nutz]

I noticed something out of the blue recently reading some lib/prog posts here, wondering if anyone else noticed- That regardless whether Lib/progs in public dismiss the differences in race & IQ, claiming the various researchers are conservative racists & that is why they came to the conclusions they did..deep down they accept the science, as can be seen by their policies that favor minorities because they view us, particularly blacks..as somewhat mentally challenged. Me myself, I don't buy IQ tests as the end all and be all way to measure intelligence, but I do not dispute our communities shortcomings on these tests..I see it more as a nurture over nature thing for the most part.

Anyway, a Lot of lib/progs have been throwing the phrase "White Privilege" around lately. I'm curious, what exactly that privilege is in their minds? Is it simply being the majority group here or is it Whites have an higher IQ than blacks & mestizos on average? They throw it out there with practically no explanation most of the time. So what's the deal, lib/progs?

Good point, you are a stupid negro...why should I listen to you? That is what the studies say, right...or are you just a magic negro?

Yeah, yeah...because I don't buy into the junk science nonsense that claims all blacks are stupid, you will go to the old bag of tricks and call me a progressive/ liberal...you'll probably throw in an insult as well. Or, maybe you will accuse me of calling you an Uncle Tom (the end all argument when someone disagrees with a black by pseudo-conservative).

 

[ClosedCaption]

Common as in common sense?

The statement that "monied priviledge comes with being white," implies that whiteness automatically confers monied priviledge. The obvious counter arguement is to point out that not all white poeple have monied priviledge. It is a common sense arguement to an obviously overreaching statement. If someone makes the statement that all swans are white, when I find a black swan I can point to that swan and say that their statement is false. Not all swans are white.

Do you see the difference? Probably not. You used the word "all" with the swans example which would make sense. I didnt say "all" and maybe you see it there but trust me...it isnt. Thats why I didnt say anything that suggests that every white person should be rich because of ...whatever. You have to try harder than that buddy.

So, if you want to say that some white people have monied priviledge go ahead. You lose the causative association that way, but hey I won't use the common sense arguement against you.

I do and I have been saying that. You wont use the common sense argument on me and apparently you wont use spell check either


btw, Common as in unoriginal

Won't is the common contraction of "will not." Wont on the other hand means "likely to do something." As in, "if you make a blanket statement, I am wont to use a common sense argument against you." Please do not critique people's spelling while making spelling errors yourself. It distracts from the conversation. Or was that your intention?

"monied privilege comes with being white" implies that all white people have monied privilege. It would be the same as saying "whiteness comes with being a swan." That statement implies again that all swans are white, and pointing out a black swan would be as effective in falsifying it.

No matter how many times you repeat it you will not make it mine. Thats what you take from it and it seems no matter how many times I tell you I'm not talking about "all" you refuse to believe it because you only have one argument.

You did not explicitly say that all white people have monied privilege. You did imply it. If you are not implying a causative relationship between whiteness and monied privilege, you are again just saying that "some white people are rich." So, the correlative is "some non-white people are rich." If that is all we are saying, then where does the white privilege come in?

I cant with you dude. Find a new angle and try again. You keep going to the same bag of tricks and trying to make me the owner. Fail

 

[Mathbud1]

Do you see the difference? Probably not. You used the word "all" with the swans example which would make sense. I didnt say "all" and maybe you see it there but trust me...it isnt. Thats why I didnt say anything that suggests that every white person should be rich because of ...whatever. You have to try harder than that buddy.



I do and I have been saying that. You wont use the common sense argument on me and apparently you wont use spell check either


btw, Common as in unoriginal

Won't is the common contraction of "will not." Wont on the other hand means "likely to do something." As in, "if you make a blanket statement, I am wont to use a common sense argument against you." Please do not critique people's spelling while making spelling errors yourself. It distracts from the conversation. Or was that your intention?

"monied privilege comes with being white" implies that all white people have monied privilege. It would be the same as saying "whiteness comes with being a swan." That statement implies again that all swans are white, and pointing out a black swan would be as effective in falsifying it.

No matter how many times you repeat it you will not make it mine. Thats what you take from it and it seems no matter how many times I tell you I'm not talking about "all" you refuse to believe it because you only have one argument.

You did not explicitly say that all white people have monied privilege. You did imply it. If you are not implying a causative relationship between whiteness and monied privilege, you are again just saying that "some white people are rich." So, the correlative is "some non-white people are rich." If that is all we are saying, then where does the white privilege come in?

I cant with you dude. Find a new angle and try again. You keep going to the same bag of tricks and trying to make me the owner. Fail

I'm sorry, I thought a conversation meant one person making a statement and the other person responding to that statement. I'm sorry I was so far off base there.

I'll try to contain myself to responding to what you thought instead of what you said.

So if monied privilege does NOT come with being white, where does the white privilege come in?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[ClosedCaption]

Won't is the common contraction of "will not." Wont on the other hand means "likely to do something." As in, "if you make a blanket statement, I am wont to use a common sense argument against you." Please do not critique people's spelling while making spelling errors yourself. It distracts from the conversation. Or was that your intention?

"monied privilege comes with being white" implies that all white people have monied privilege. It would be the same as saying "whiteness comes with being a swan." That statement implies again that all swans are white, and pointing out a black swan would be as effective in falsifying it.

No matter how many times you repeat it you will not make it mine. Thats what you take from it and it seems no matter how many times I tell you I'm not talking about "all" you refuse to believe it because you only have one argument.

You did not explicitly say that all white people have monied privilege. You did imply it. If you are not implying a causative relationship between whiteness and monied privilege, you are again just saying that "some white people are rich." So, the correlative is "some non-white people are rich." If that is all we are saying, then where does the white privilege come in?

I cant with you dude. Find a new angle and try again. You keep going to the same bag of tricks and trying to make me the owner. Fail

I'm sorry, I thought a conversation meant one person making a statement and the other person responding to that statement. I'm sorry I was so far off base there.

I'll try to contain myself to responding to what you thought instead of what you said.

So if monied privilege does NOT come with being white, where does the white privilege come in?

Who is the majority controlling class in this country and does being the majority have any benefit at all?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Look up William Ellison, who was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (1). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (2).
1. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
2. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.

Hasty generalization based on a drop of water in an ocean of evidence.

The above owners are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Is that the best you can do?

Face the facts retard, black slave owners owned black slaves. Black slave owners were people of stature and wealth. Now I know you being the racist you are hates the fact that blacks can be successful.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Look up William Ellison, who was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (1). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (2).
1. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
2. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.

Hasty generalization based on a drop of water in an ocean of evidence.

The above owners are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Is that the best you can do?

Face the facts retard, black slave owners owned black slaves. Black slave owners were people of stature and wealth. Now I know you being the racist you are hates the fact that blacks can be successful.

Who said they didnt own slaves and there were no successful blacks besides you?

 

[Mathbud1]

No matter how many times you repeat it you will not make it mine. Thats what you take from it and it seems no matter how many times I tell you I'm not talking about "all" you refuse to believe it because you only have one argument.



I cant with you dude. Find a new angle and try again. You keep going to the same bag of tricks and trying to make me the owner. Fail

I'm sorry, I thought a conversation meant one person making a statement and the other person responding to that statement. I'm sorry I was so far off base there.

I'll try to contain myself to responding to what you thought instead of what you said.

So if monied privilege does NOT come with being white, where does the white privilege come in?

Who is the majority controlling class in this country and does being the majority have any benefit at all?

I'm sorry, are we talking about class or skin color? What benefit do you see in belonging to a majority of some kind? Does that benefit apply on the micro as well as macro level? If non-whites are the majority in a given area do they now have the privilege or advantage in that area? If women outnumber men, do they have the privilege and advantage?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Cool, now where did I say all blacks were poor and all whites were rich? No where right. So why are you talking to me?



Great, again, this has nothing to do with anything I've said here at all. But thanks for the history lesson

I never suggested you claimed ALL blacks or ALL whites were anything.

You stated:

"The monied privilege comes with being white. They are intertwined. ORRRRRrrrrrr monied privilege just so happen to miss black people by chance and not because of history."

Now deny the implications in the statement that monied privilege came from being white and blacks weren't afforded the chance.

Oh, you're micro instead of macro. Ok, there were some black people who were rich...there were some white people who were poor. I thought we covered that when I said I didnt use the word "all"

I speak in generalizations to move the convo forward, if I didn't I'd be talking about really small cases of exceptions like you're doing. Which goes to far into the weeds instead of the overall topic.

But thanks again tho

If you did use specific cases it would be so insignificant that you wouldn't have an argument to make.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm sorry, I thought a conversation meant one person making a statement and the other person responding to that statement. I'm sorry I was so far off base there.

I'll try to contain myself to responding to what you thought instead of what you said.

So if monied privilege does NOT come with being white, where does the white privilege come in?

Who is the majority controlling class in this country and does being the majority have any benefit at all?

I'm sorry, are we talking about class or skin color? What benefit do you see in belonging to a majority of some kind? Does that benefit apply on the micro as well as macro level? If non-whites are the majority in a given area do they now have the privilege or advantage in that area? If women outnumber men, do they have the privilege and advantage?

Oh I dont know, have you ever heard strength in numbers? Or you're saying there no strength in numbers?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Look up William Ellison, who was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (1). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (2).
1. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
2. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.

Hasty generalization based on a drop of water in an ocean of evidence.

The above owners are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Is that the best you can do?

Face the facts retard, black slave owners owned black slaves. Black slave owners were people of stature and wealth. Now I know you being the racist you are hates the fact that blacks can be successful.

Who said they didnt own slaves and there were no successful blacks besides you?

Do you and flakey often speak for each other?

I respond to you, he responds back, I respond to him, you respond back.

Are you his sock or is he yours?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Won't is the common contraction of "will not." Wont on the other hand means "likely to do something." As in, "if you make a blanket statement, I am wont to use a common sense argument against you." Please do not critique people's spelling while making spelling errors yourself. It distracts from the conversation. Or was that your intention?

"monied privilege comes with being white" implies that all white people have monied privilege. It would be the same as saying "whiteness comes with being a swan." That statement implies again that all swans are white, and pointing out a black swan would be as effective in falsifying it.

No matter how many times you repeat it you will not make it mine. Thats what you take from it and it seems no matter how many times I tell you I'm not talking about "all" you refuse to believe it because you only have one argument.

You did not explicitly say that all white people have monied privilege. You did imply it. If you are not implying a causative relationship between whiteness and monied privilege, you are again just saying that "some white people are rich." So, the correlative is "some non-white people are rich." If that is all we are saying, then where does the white privilege come in?

I cant with you dude. Find a new angle and try again. You keep going to the same bag of tricks and trying to make me the owner. Fail

I'm sorry, I thought a conversation meant one person making a statement and the other person responding to that statement. I'm sorry I was so far off base there.

I'll try to contain myself to responding to what you thought instead of what you said.

So if monied privilege does NOT come with being white, where does the white privilege come in?

mathbuddy, you are not following the conversation. You have predicated a concept that does not fit "all."

You have been told that.

You need to respond to where the conversation is at that point: "all".

You can't use it. Why? Because it is not true. Any one of any political persuation will tell you that.