Debate Now White Privilege and an Institution of Racism

[danielpalos]

It used to be worse.

 

[Ravi]

You cannot have an honest discussion if it is always presented as a one sided problem. If you have a discussion about "white privilege," then you need to include discussion about issues within the black community. Otherwise, it's a sham.

That is a good point. White privilege is mostly the fault of black peeps

 

[BlackSand]

I don't see it as installing a sense of guilt. It is clear that privilege exists in our society, as well as on our campuses. However, that doesn't mean that pointing it out constitutes a personal attack on anyone.

Acknowledging your privilege doesn't invalidate the struggles you've had in your life or make you bigoted. It only recognizes that, in getting where you are today, you may have had advantages due to ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or income that others haven’t . There's not inherently anything wrong in being a part of a privileged group. You are not being demonized for being white, male, straight, wealthy or any other status that grants you privilege.

Once you recognize that privilege plays an important part in social advancement, then it becomes easier to look beneath privilege at the individual characteristics of the person.

Perhaps it is hard to understand how lucky you are being poor in a family that lacks the stability to support a higher education or live through the same disadvantages as any African American with the exception of skin color. You are just lucky enough to have someone tell you that white privilege is how you dug yourself out of the same hole.

Thanks ... That wasn't insulting at all.

.

 

[danielpalos]

You cannot have an honest discussion if it is always presented as a one sided problem. If you have a discussion about "white privilege," then you need to include discussion about issues within the black community. Otherwise, it's a sham.

That is a good point. White privilege is mostly the fault of black peeps

why do you believe that? it isn't like international banking wasn't already taken.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

White privilege is really majority privilege. It exist in predominantly Muslim, Catholic, Oriental, and African societies. Racial and religious, majorities always enjoy privileges that minorities don't.

Here's another example from earlier this year. Honestly, people, do you think this is a good thing?

GREENCASTLE, Ind. – Officials at DePauw University canceled classes Thursday for the first time in over 100 years to hold a campus-wide discussion on white privilege and social justice.

The day, dubbed “DePauw Dialogue,” was organized by students and faculty to discuss “microaggressions” against minorities at the university, as well as DePauw’s history of inclusiveness, from its first black graduate, Tucker Wilson, in 1888 to recognition as a diverse liberal arts school in the 1980s, according to The DePauw student newspaper.

Freshman Diamond McDonald said she helped to organize the day-long discussion because as a black woman she always feels like “the odd one out.”

“At first I didn’t want to do (anything) because I felt like it was going to be really intense,” McDonald told The DePauw. “But then I thought ‘How selfish of me not to do this for future generations.’”

The program was mandatory for students, who were penalized if they did not attend, according to the student newspaper. . . .
UPDATED University cancels all classes to hold campus-wide white privilege seminar - EAGnews.org​

University officials decide that although the program would be beneficial for all students making it mandatory would created a negative influence. The administration announced that it would not be mandatory.

I don't think programs like this do any harm as long students are not forced to attend. Whether they help people or not??

We've been pretty much on the same page so far, Flopper, but here I have to gently disagree. "White Privilege", at least in the context of this thread, is not about majority privilege at all. It is about perceptions people have of white people as opposed to perceptions people have of black people along with instilling guilt in the white people for the sins of their ancesters. It is about justifying and reinforcing perceptions of black people that it is the white man's fault that they are in the circumstances that they are in and that they can't be blamed for it.

Personally they aren't that far off track IMO but not as they think they are. White people pushing things like these white privilege conferences and courses, IMO, are very definitely hurting black people and are having the exact opposite effect that they claim they want to produce.

I really don't buy into the rhetoric that surrounds White Privileged. White Privilege is simply the advantages that most while people enjoy over most people of a minority. Judging from the overview after the DePauw conference and a similar meeting at a local college, I have not seen any attempt at these meetings to instilling guilt in white people or anything damaging to either race.

I see no harm in a black girl explaining why see feels reluctant to socialize with white students or a white fraternity member explaining why there are so few blacks in fraternities and what might be done about it or a Pakistani who wants students to support his request to add a Muslim prayer room beside the chapel. If students and faculty want to gather together to discuss racial problems they should be allow to do so but it should not be mandatory. Most students, white or black are not really interested in doing this. Claiming that any meeting of blacks and whites to discuss racial problems is somehow bad, I think is bit ridiculous.

But a meeting of blacks and whites to discuss racial problems is not what "White Privilege courses" or White Privilege seminars" are. And it has nothing to do with advantages resulting from being a majority. And it has nothing to to with racial preferences or people naturally gravitating to people more like themselves.

Let's try again to define it:

What I believe McWhorter's definition is and what my definition is for "White Privilege classes/seminars" is a deliberate attempt to instill a sense of guilt and personal responsibility into white people--guilt and personal responsibility that racism exists and it is their fault. Guilt and personal responsibility that they bear the blame for bad things their ancesters did.

And conversely it reinforces their conclusion that black people are the way they are because of 'white privilege', and black people can be excused and do not have to take full responsibility for their own choices and actions.

And the cruel results of all that is in this paragraph taken from McWhorter's essay:

To be sure, there is, indeed, a distinct White Privilege. Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .

And that's just for those who aren't angry and defensive and resentful of white people in general and who don't use racism as their excuse for their choices and actions, all reinforced by "White Privilege" training.

I don't see it as installing a sense of guilt. It is clear that privilege exists in our society, as well as on our campuses. However, that doesn't mean that pointing it out constitutes a personal attack on anyone.

Acknowledging your privilege doesn't invalidate the struggles you've had in your life or make you bigoted. It only recognizes that, in getting where you are today, you may have had advantages due to ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or income that others haven’t . There's not inherently anything wrong in being a part of a privileged group. You are not being demonized for being white, male, straight, wealthy or any other status that grants you privilege.

Once you recognize that privilege plays an important part in social advancement, then it becomes easier to look beneath privilege at the individual characteristics of the person.

Have you read any of the posted links to the content of these White Privilege classes or seminars? I wouldn't have any problem either if they were only to discuss the dynamics as McWhorter illustrated in his paragraph. But as he and others are noting, these seminars and classes are in no way focused on such dynamics. They are all focused on making white people that live here and now responsible for all the racism that ever existed since this country was founded and responsible for the the situation of black people in America now.

I have explained all that as well as I can in this thread and really don't want to have to repeat it all again to explain what I mean.

Do you think he is in error? What specifically did he put in his essay that you think he got wrong?

 

[Foxfyre]

Expanding on my previous post, I am in no way saying that there is no racism now. I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal. I am not saying that there are no problems to be solved. But instead of looking at the problems themselves, and what has to happen to correct them, these White Privilege classes etc. are not dealing with solutions. They are dealing with blame. And they are pushing many of the same things that has created white privilege among people that in no way are to blame for it.

And until we can look at THAT, we are just spinning our wheels.

 

[danielpalos]

sure; the Person who has to resort to the most fallacies, is the most inferior.

 

[Pogo]

I don't see it as installing a sense of guilt. It is clear that privilege exists in our society, as well as on our campuses. However, that doesn't mean that pointing it out constitutes a personal attack on anyone.

Acknowledging your privilege doesn't invalidate the struggles you've had in your life or make you bigoted. It only recognizes that, in getting where you are today, you may have had advantages due to ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or income that others haven’t . There's not inherently anything wrong in being a part of a privileged group. You are not being demonized for being white, male, straight, wealthy or any other status that grants you privilege.

Once you recognize that privilege plays an important part in social advancement, then it becomes easier to look beneath privilege at the individual characteristics of the person.

Perhaps it is hard to understand how lucky you are being poor in a family that lacks the stability to support a higher education or live through the same disadvantages as any African American with the exception of skin color. You are just lucky enough to have someone tell you that white privilege is how you dug yourself out of the same hole.

Thanks ... That wasn't insulting at all.

"Insulting"?

Insulting to who?

 

[BlackSand]

"Insulting"?

Insulting to who?

I guess that is the point ... How could it possibly be insulting?

.

 

[BlackSand]

Expanding on my previous post, I am in no way saying that there is no racism now. I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal. I am not saying that there are no problems to be solved. But instead of looking at the problems themselves, and what has to happen to correct them, these White Privilege classes etc. are not dealing with solutions. They are dealing with blame. And they are pushing many of the same things that has created white privilege among people that in no way are to blame for it.

And until we can look at THAT, we are just spinning our wheels.

The difference in what all the white privilege people think is best described (in my opinion) in this part of your comment ...

"I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal."

They are saying that all black people got a raw deal because they are black.
Blacks weren't born with the privilege of being white.

.

 

[Alex.]

Expanding on my previous post, I am in no way saying that there is no racism now. I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal. I am not saying that there are no problems to be solved. But instead of looking at the problems themselves, and what has to happen to correct them, these White Privilege classes etc. are not dealing with solutions. They are dealing with blame. And they are pushing many of the same things that has created white privilege among people that in no way are to blame for it.

And until we can look at THAT, we are just spinning our wheels.

The difference in what all the white privilege people think is best described (in my opinion) in this part of your comment ...

"I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal."

They are saying that all black people got a raw deal because they are black.
Blacks weren't born with the privilege of being white.

.

Unless they were born with privilege to begin with. Race/privilege becomes less important depending on the socioeconomic class.

 

[Foxfyre]

Expanding on my previous post, I am in no way saying that there is no racism now. I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal. I am not saying that there are no problems to be solved. But instead of looking at the problems themselves, and what has to happen to correct them, these White Privilege classes etc. are not dealing with solutions. They are dealing with blame. And they are pushing many of the same things that has created white privilege among people that in no way are to blame for it.

And until we can look at THAT, we are just spinning our wheels.

The difference in what all the white privilege people think is best described (in my opinion) in this part of your comment ...

"I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal."

They are saying that all black people got a raw deal because they are black.
Blacks weren't born with the privilege of being white.
.

The truth is that black people aren't born with the privilege of being white people, but IMO the "White Privilege Classes" and seminars being pushed as necessary out there are actually pushing the very concepts that have created most of the white privilege that exists here and now. And they don't seem to be able to see that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Expanding on my previous post, I am in no way saying that there is no racism now. I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal. I am not saying that there are no problems to be solved. But instead of looking at the problems themselves, and what has to happen to correct them, these White Privilege classes etc. are not dealing with solutions. They are dealing with blame. And they are pushing many of the same things that has created white privilege among people that in no way are to blame for it.

And until we can look at THAT, we are just spinning our wheels.

The difference in what all the white privilege people think is best described (in my opinion) in this part of your comment ...

"I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal."

They are saying that all black people got a raw deal because they are black.
Blacks weren't born with the privilege of being white.

.

Unless they were born with privilege to begin with. Race/privilege becomes less important depending on the socioeconomic class.

I'm not sure about that Alex. It seems to me, the least successful among black people are seen by the 'white privilege' group as being products of insiduous racism and it is the white man's fault that they are among the least successful.

But when a black person succeeds in life and achieves socioeconomic prosperity, the same group will likely be the first to suggest that it was Affirmative Action and other government programs that made that possible. It is a cruel thing when a person is always under a cloud: did he/she get his/her job, promotion, position because he/she qualified for it and merited it? Or is he/she where he/she is as the token black or to meet some quota or whatever or because the standards were lowered so he/she could qualify?

 

[Alex.]

Expanding on my previous post, I am in no way saying that there is no racism now. I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal. I am not saying that there are no problems to be solved. But instead of looking at the problems themselves, and what has to happen to correct them, these White Privilege classes etc. are not dealing with solutions. They are dealing with blame. And they are pushing many of the same things that has created white privilege among people that in no way are to blame for it.

And until we can look at THAT, we are just spinning our wheels.

The difference in what all the white privilege people think is best described (in my opinion) in this part of your comment ...

"I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal."

They are saying that all black people got a raw deal because they are black.
Blacks weren't born with the privilege of being white.

.

Unless they were born with privilege to begin with. Race/privilege becomes less important depending on the socioeconomic class.

I'm not sure about that Alex. It seems to me, the least successful among black people are seen by the 'white privilege' group as being products of insiduous racism and it is the white man's fault that they are among the least successful.

But when a black person succeeds in life and achieves socioeconomic prosperity, the same group will likely be the first to suggest that it was Affirmative Action and other government programs that made that possible. It is a cruel thing when a person is always under a cloud: did he/she get his/her job, promotion, position because he/she qualified for it and merited it? Or is he/she where he/she is as the token black or to meet some quota or whatever or because the standards were lowered so he/she could qualify?

I think your statement may be an over generalization. Not all 'white privelege' folks would view it that way. A good example is sports where numbers and performance determine who is a super star.

 

[Pogo]

"Insulting"?

Insulting to who?

I guess that is the point ... How could it possibly be insulting?

Sorry, I misread. Thought you were employing sarcasm, my mistake.

 

[Foxfyre]

Expanding on my previous post, I am in no way saying that there is no racism now. I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal. I am not saying that there are no problems to be solved. But instead of looking at the problems themselves, and what has to happen to correct them, these White Privilege classes etc. are not dealing with solutions. They are dealing with blame. And they are pushing many of the same things that has created white privilege among people that in no way are to blame for it.

And until we can look at THAT, we are just spinning our wheels.

The difference in what all the white privilege people think is best described (in my opinion) in this part of your comment ...

"I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal."

They are saying that all black people got a raw deal because they are black.
Blacks weren't born with the privilege of being white.

.

Unless they were born with privilege to begin with. Race/privilege becomes less important depending on the socioeconomic class.

I'm not sure about that Alex. It seems to me, the least successful among black people are seen by the 'white privilege' group as being products of insiduous racism and it is the white man's fault that they are among the least successful.

But when a black person succeeds in life and achieves socioeconomic prosperity, the same group will likely be the first to suggest that it was Affirmative Action and other government programs that made that possible. It is a cruel thing when a person is always under a cloud: did he/she get his/her job, promotion, position because he/she qualified for it and merited it? Or is he/she where he/she is as the token black or to meet some quota or whatever or because the standards were lowered so he/she could qualify?

I think your statement may be an over generalization. Not all 'white privelege' folks would view it that way. A good example is sports where numbers and performance determine who is a super star.

Yes, the professional sports world is one place that 'social engineering' hasn't entered into it once the segregation barriers were broken. But in commerce and industry we can't say that.

 

[Alex.]

Expanding on my previous post, I am in no way saying that there is no racism now. I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal. I am not saying that there are no problems to be solved. But instead of looking at the problems themselves, and what has to happen to correct them, these White Privilege classes etc. are not dealing with solutions. They are dealing with blame. And they are pushing many of the same things that has created white privilege among people that in no way are to blame for it.

And until we can look at THAT, we are just spinning our wheels.

The difference in what all the white privilege people think is best described (in my opinion) in this part of your comment ...

"I am not saying that some black people don't get a raw deal."

They are saying that all black people got a raw deal because they are black.
Blacks weren't born with the privilege of being white.

.

Unless they were born with privilege to begin with. Race/privilege becomes less important depending on the socioeconomic class.

I'm not sure about that Alex. It seems to me, the least successful among black people are seen by the 'white privilege' group as being products of insiduous racism and it is the white man's fault that they are among the least successful.

But when a black person succeeds in life and achieves socioeconomic prosperity, the same group will likely be the first to suggest that it was Affirmative Action and other government programs that made that possible. It is a cruel thing when a person is always under a cloud: did he/she get his/her job, promotion, position because he/she qualified for it and merited it? Or is he/she where he/she is as the token black or to meet some quota or whatever or because the standards were lowered so he/she could qualify?

I think your statement may be an over generalization. Not all 'white privelege' folks would view it that way. A good example is sports where numbers and performance determine who is a super star.

Yes, the professional sports world is one place that 'social engineering' hasn't entered into it once the segregation barriers were broken. But in commerce and industry we can't say that.

I believe that depends on whether you produce income or goods.

 

[BlackSand]

"Insulting"?

Insulting to who?

I guess that is the point ... How could it possibly be insulting?

Sorry, I misread. Thought you were employing sarcasm, my mistake.

Maybe you did ... Maybe you didn't ... Maybe I was sarcastic both times or neither.
That is the beauty of it ... You aren't me so you do know.

Of course we could have a day long discussion to investigate the possibility of whether or not I may have felt insulted and the fundamental reasons behind it.
But really ... Who cares anyway ... I am white and it doesn't really matter.

.

 

[Flopper]

White privilege is really majority privilege. It exist in predominantly Muslim, Catholic, Oriental, and African societies. Racial and religious, majorities always enjoy privileges that minorities don't.
University officials decide that although the program would be beneficial for all students making it mandatory would created a negative influence. The administration announced that it would not be mandatory.

I don't think programs like this do any harm as long students are not forced to attend. Whether they help people or not??

We've been pretty much on the same page so far, Flopper, but here I have to gently disagree. "White Privilege", at least in the context of this thread, is not about majority privilege at all. It is about perceptions people have of white people as opposed to perceptions people have of black people along with instilling guilt in the white people for the sins of their ancesters. It is about justifying and reinforcing perceptions of black people that it is the white man's fault that they are in the circumstances that they are in and that they can't be blamed for it.

Personally they aren't that far off track IMO but not as they think they are. White people pushing things like these white privilege conferences and courses, IMO, are very definitely hurting black people and are having the exact opposite effect that they claim they want to produce.

I really don't buy into the rhetoric that surrounds White Privileged. White Privilege is simply the advantages that most while people enjoy over most people of a minority. Judging from the overview after the DePauw conference and a similar meeting at a local college, I have not seen any attempt at these meetings to instilling guilt in white people or anything damaging to either race.

I see no harm in a black girl explaining why see feels reluctant to socialize with white students or a white fraternity member explaining why there are so few blacks in fraternities and what might be done about it or a Pakistani who wants students to support his request to add a Muslim prayer room beside the chapel. If students and faculty want to gather together to discuss racial problems they should be allow to do so but it should not be mandatory. Most students, white or black are not really interested in doing this. Claiming that any meeting of blacks and whites to discuss racial problems is somehow bad, I think is bit ridiculous.

But a meeting of blacks and whites to discuss racial problems is not what "White Privilege courses" or White Privilege seminars" are. And it has nothing to do with advantages resulting from being a majority. And it has nothing to to with racial preferences or people naturally gravitating to people more like themselves.

Let's try again to define it:

What I believe McWhorter's definition is and what my definition is for "White Privilege classes/seminars" is a deliberate attempt to instill a sense of guilt and personal responsibility into white people--guilt and personal responsibility that racism exists and it is their fault. Guilt and personal responsibility that they bear the blame for bad things their ancesters did.

And conversely it reinforces their conclusion that black people are the way they are because of 'white privilege', and black people can be excused and do not have to take full responsibility for their own choices and actions.

And the cruel results of all that is in this paragraph taken from McWhorter's essay:

To be sure, there is, indeed, a distinct White Privilege. Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .

And that's just for those who aren't angry and defensive and resentful of white people in general and who don't use racism as their excuse for their choices and actions, all reinforced by "White Privilege" training.

I don't see it as installing a sense of guilt. It is clear that privilege exists in our society, as well as on our campuses. However, that doesn't mean that pointing it out constitutes a personal attack on anyone.

Acknowledging your privilege doesn't invalidate the struggles you've had in your life or make you bigoted. It only recognizes that, in getting where you are today, you may have had advantages due to ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or income that others haven’t . There's not inherently anything wrong in being a part of a privileged group. You are not being demonized for being white, male, straight, wealthy or any other status that grants you privilege.

Once you recognize that privilege plays an important part in social advancement, then it becomes easier to look beneath privilege at the individual characteristics of the person.

Have you read any of the posted links to the content of these White Privilege classes or seminars? I wouldn't have any problem either if they were only to discuss the dynamics as McWhorter illustrated in his paragraph. But as he and others are noting, these seminars and classes are in no way focused on such dynamics. They are all focused on making white people that live here and now responsible for all the racism that ever existed since this country was founded and responsible for the the situation of black people in America now.

I have explained all that as well as I can in this thread and really don't want to have to repeat it all again to explain what I mean.

Do you think he is in error? What specifically did he put in his essay that you think he got wrong?

Is the author in error? He is not in error when he questions what the goals are and what's to be gained by these courses or seminars. Unless one considers awareness of privilege as the goal, there are none. Sociology classes and seminars such as these rarely suggest any action and goals are allusive.

When the author attempts to provide the goals of these courses and seminars, I think he's just grabbing at straws. This is clearly the case, when he says, "The White Privilege 101 course seems almost designed to turn black people’s minds from what political activism actually entails." Just because they are not promoting political activism, doesn't mean their goal is to discourage it. Apparently he has a problem with the goals as stated in at least one of these seminars; that is to simply create awareness of the privileges due to race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Liberals see White Privilege as a diversion from real political activism and conservative see it as a crutch that blacks will use as an excuse for failure. Unfortunately neither side sees it for what it is, just another theory as to why blacks are not progressing social as fast as many believe they should.



.

 

[WelfareQueen]

You cannot have an honest discussion if it is always presented as a one sided problem. If you have a discussion about "white privilege," then you need to include discussion about issues within the black community. Otherwise, it's a sham.

That is a good point. White privilege is mostly the fault of black peeps

Luv the sarcasm.