All things Racist...USA edition (2 Viewers)

[Farb]

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.

This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on the officer. This officer also chose to wear the body cam (apparently, LA doesn't require this yet). This exchange wasn't necessarily racist IMO until she started with the "mexican racist...you will never be white, like you want" garbage. That is when it turned racist IMO

All the murderer and other insults, I think are just a by product of CRT and ACAB rhetoric that is very common on the radical left and sadly is being brought to mainstream in this country.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is she is a teacher and the sense of entitlement she feels is mind blowing.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-teacher-berates-latino-la-221235341.html

 

[Paul]

That wasn't the question you asked. You move goalposts so often I'm not sure what stadium we are in anymore. It also makes it absolutely impossible to have a conversation with any kind of continuity of ideas.

That was a response to you asking the very elementary question if blacks were the majority in the country population-wise would they have privilege. The answer is no, they would also have to control the levers of power (fiscal and political). It's actually pretty simple and basic.

The powerful men are very few in number. The average men are numerous and have no power. The average British man is nothing like Prince Charles. Are you able to concede that?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

The powerful men are very few in number. The average men are numerous and have no power. The average British man is nothing like Prince Charles. Are you able to concede that?

It has absolutely zero to do with this discussion, but I’ll concede it. I’ll also concede tomatoes are juicy and mosquito bites suck if you’d like. Those facts have about as much relevance to what we are talking about as a discussion about average men and powerful men does.

 

[Paul]

It has absolutely zero to do with this discussion, but I’ll concede it. I’ll also concede tomatoes are juicy and mosquito bites suck too if you’d like. Those facts have about as much relevance to what we are talking about as a discussion about average men and powerful men does.

This is an important point,
You said:

If they control 86% of the wealth, 80% of hiring positions, 90% of Congress, etc. then yes.

The number of white men that have that kind of power are the minority and do not represent the average Joe Blow.

Describing the average man in terms of the power of a few is total BS. It sounds like a great talking point, but in reality it is just cheap sophistry.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I’d try and explain it once again, but even an intellectual masochist like me reaches a point where they’ve punished themselves enough. Eventually your arms are going to get tired hauling those goal posts around no matter how much daily practice you’re getting at it.

 

[Paul]

I’d try and explain it once again, but even an intellectual masochist like me reaches a point where they’ve punished themselves enough. Eventually your arms are going to get tired hauling those goal posts around no matter how much daily practice you’re getting at it.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... ”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

 

[Saint by the Bay]

There’s a difference between being unable to refute something and stepping away from a tedious waste of time.

Enjoy pretending you came up with something profound though, it’s kind’a cute.

 

[Paul]

There’s a difference between being unable to refute something and stepping away from a tedious waste of time.

Enjoy pretending you came up with something profound though, it’s kind’a cute.

Ok, mate. Case closed!

 

[V Chip]

Describing the average man in terms of the power of a few is total BS. It sounds like a great talking point, but in reality it is just cheap sophistry.

LOL.

The original post was

White privilege is like gravity.

It is a force that is so weak you barely notice, but it is so constant and pervasive that has a significant impact on everything.

(Which you agreed with, BTW.)

You asked the (odd, but whatever) question that if blacks became the majority, would there be black privilege? SBTB answered that question quite honestly, saying that no there wouldn't if white people still held the reins of power. Then you went off on a weird point about not judging the common man compared to those who actually hold the power (rich, business owners, political leaders, etc.). Where does that point even come from? Nobody is judging those people, or describing them in terms of those who hold the power. White privilege exists because of who holds the power. It's not a judgment thing at all, it's a fact. Privilege exists in other areas as well -- Christians in America have privilege. Men have privilege. In other countries/areas, the privilege is based on who holds the power -- not who is simply the majority. If in some distant future blacks (or PoC) become over 50% of the population but don't also hold the power (economic, political, social) there won't be any privilege gained. It would only be once they hold the power for long enough that society changes from who had privilege prior to who gains it after.

Nobody was talking about or even remotely referring to describing the "average (straw)man."

 

[Paul]

LOL.

The original post was



(Which you agreed with, BTW.)

You asked the (odd, but whatever) question that if blacks became the majority, would there be black privilege? SBTB answered that question quite honestly, saying that no there wouldn't if white people still held the reins of power. Then you went off on a weird point about not judging the common man compared to those who actually hold the power (rich, business owners, political leaders, etc.). Where does that point even come from? Nobody is judging those people, or describing them in terms of those who hold the power. White privilege exists because of who holds the power. It's not a judgment thing at all, it's a fact. Privilege exists in other areas as well -- Christians in America have privilege. Men have privilege. In other countries/areas, the privilege is based on who holds the power -- not who is simply the majority. If in some distant future blacks (or PoC) become over 50% of the population but don't also hold the power (economic, political, social) there won't be any privilege gained. It would only be once they hold the power for long enough that society changes from who had privilege prior to who gains it after.

Nobody was talking about or even remotely referring to describing the "average (straw)man."

I agree with the concept of privilege. However, your version is simplistic and black and white with no nuance. Oprah one of the richest women in the world has said that the most poor disenfranchised white man in the world has more privilege than she does. It seems to me that Oprah thinks privilege is about having white skin and her enormous wealth cannot overcome that. I am ambivalent about her position.

Privilege is being born into a great family. The reason East Asians and the children of immigrants from India earn more than whites is a solid home with two parents. That privilege is not necessarily white. However, many in the world see the Nordic look as the point of standard of reference.

You could say that among whites there is such a thing as being a highborn or a lowborn. Most lowborn have very little privilege.

 

[V Chip]

I agree with the concept of privilege. However, your version is simplistic and black and white with no nuance.

Nah it's not simplistic, you're just trying to overcomplicate things.

Privilege exists on many levels, obviously. Just as there is "white privilege" there is "wealth privilege" or "stable family privilege" and so on and so forth. This discussion was about white privilege. You're the one bringing in all these other types of privilege.

Being white enables one with privileges that PoC do not receive in our society -- I'd say almost all of Western society. Now where many get confused is thinking the "privilege" of "white privilege" means "privileged" as in always gets advantages no matter what, or being powerful or influential. It doesn't mean those things. It just means that all else being equal, a white person would get the benefit of the doubt far more often than a PoC. It doesn't mean that all white people will always get the benefit of the doubt, or have the power over all PoC as you're trying to imply. People can and do overcome this privilege, just as some dirt poor people overcome a wealth privilege to become successful in their own right. But the idea that being white doesn't give one an advantage in our society is as ridiculous as the idea that being born into a wealthy family doesn't give one an advantage in our society. The advantages are different for those two types of privileges but they are real.

Oprah one of the richest women in the world has said that the most poor disenfranchised white man in the world has more privilege than she does. It seems to me that Oprah thinks privilege is about having white skin and her enormous wealth cannot overcome that. I am ambivalent about her position.

I don't think Oprah Winfrey said what you claim. I cannot find it or anything like it so I think you have misrepresented her position. Feel free to provide the quote for me so I can comment on her exact words.

Privilege is being born into a great family. The reason East Asians and the children of immigrants from India earn more than whites is a solid home with two parents. That privilege is not necessarily white. However, many in the world see the Nordic look as the point of standard of reference.

No, that's a different kind of privilege. A white person being born into a great family will have privilege/advantages over a PoC born into a great family. A PoC being born into a great family will have privilege/advantages over a white person born into a dysfunctional family (but there will still be privilege/advantages that white person gets in many situations based on their skin color alone).

It's weird though hearing you assign privilege to East Asians or Indians as a group over whites (and others) for their family privilege when you just disagreed with others for doing a similar thing for whites over PoC for racial privilege.

You could say that among whites there is such a thing as being a highborn or a lowborn. Most lowborn have very little privilege.

That can be said without the race modifier you used -- it's superfluous.

Among people, there is such a thing as being a highborn or lowborn. Most lowborn have little privilege/advantages.

 

[Paul]

Nah it's not simplistic, you're just trying to overcomplicate things.

Privilege exists on many levels, obviously. Just as there is "white privilege" there is "wealth privilege" or "stable family privilege" and so on and so forth. This discussion was about white privilege. You're the one bringing in all these other types of privilege.

Being white enables one with privileges that PoC do not receive in our society -- I'd say almost all of Western society. Now where many get confused is thinking the "privilege" of "white privilege" means "privileged" as in always gets advantages no matter what, or being powerful or influential. It doesn't mean those things. It just means that all else being equal, a white person would get the benefit of the doubt far more often than a PoC. It doesn't mean that all white people will always get the benefit of the doubt, or have the power over all PoC as you're trying to imply. People can and do overcome this privilege, just as some dirt poor people overcome a wealth privilege to become successful in their own right. But the idea that being white doesn't give one an advantage in our society is as ridiculous as the idea that being born into a wealthy family doesn't give one an advantage in our society. The advantages are different for those two types of privileges but they are real.


I don't think Oprah Winfrey said what you claim. I cannot find it or anything like it so I think you have misrepresented her position. Feel free to provide the quote for me so I can comment on her exact words.


No, that's a different kind of privilege. A white person being born into a great family will have privilege/advantages over a PoC born into a great family. A PoC being born into a great family will have privilege/advantages over a white person born into a dysfunctional family (but there will still be privilege/advantages that white person gets in many situations based on their skin color alone).

It's weird though hearing you assign privilege to East Asians or Indians as a group over whites (and others) for their family privilege when you just disagreed with others for doing a similar thing for whites over PoC for racial privilege.

That can be said without the race modifier you used -- it's superfluous.

Among people, there is such a thing as being a highborn or lowborn. Most lowborn have little privilege/advantages.

It sounds like we have no disagreement.
I agree in that privilege is related European ancestry. In other words European is the standard of reference. I can agree with that, but i think it is a sad state of events.

In the context of America a nation that has a European majority culture it is not surprising that white gets preference. We could also describe privilege as in group preference. As recent as 1920 the USA was nearly 90% white. The percentage is now down to 65% and will continue to go down. Many assume the privilege will be less when the percentage of European is lower. However, it seems the European look may continue to be the standard of reference even if their numbers continue to go down.

You ask for a reference regarding Oprah. Here it is:

 

[MT15]

Oh, geez, Paul. You used the New York Post as a reference? The same media outlet who just commanded a reporter to file a false story on VP Harris, knowing it was false? Maybe not the best source for any story about a woman of color, eh?

Be that as it may, though, what Oprah said shouldn’t be controversial at all. She is basically saying that in the US, all other attributes being equal, being white gives one an advantage. This is just basic fact, and cannot really be disputed at this point.

Here is what I am curious about. All these people being outraged by Oprah’s point, are they unable to understand the difference between an individual and an entire population? Are they simply unable to grasp the concept that we can discuss the effects of race on a group, without getting bogged down in looking at individuals, or do they pretend they cannot see the difference so that they won’t have to discuss the truth?

 

[Paul]

Oh, geez, Paul. You used the New York Post as a reference? The same media outlet who just commanded a reporter to file a false story on VP Harris, knowing it was false? Maybe not the best source for any story about a woman of color, eh?

I did not pay attention to whom posted the video. However, in the video Oprah states that she does not have the privilege of a poor white person.

Be that as it may, though, what Oprah said shouldn’t be controversial at all. She is basically saying that in the US, all other attributes being equal, being white gives one an advantage. This is just basic fact, and cannot really be disputed at this point.

Yes, I agree. In life some people get more advantage than others. Chris Cuomo went to Yale because his last name is Cuomo. The daughter of Obama went to Harvard.

Here is what I am curious about. All these people being outraged by Oprah’s point, are they unable to understand the difference between an individual and an entire population? Are they simply unable to grasp the concept that we can discuss the effects of race on a group, without getting bogged down in looking at individuals, or do they pretend they cannot see the difference so that they won’t have to discuss the truth?

That is an excellent point. There is a big difference about describing a group versus describing an individual. The major flaw in most societies is that people are judged according to group membership rather than as individual. If we neglected the group and judged every person as an individual racism could be eliminated. However, we are trending towards the concept of group identity and people are now judged according to group membership. This is problematic because the individual is then saddled with the stereotypes of the group. This mistake is common in both sides of the spectrum. The essential definition of racism is to judge a person according to group membership. Sadly many on the left use the term "white straight male" as a negative. That in itself is bigotry.

 

[MT15]

Paul, if you are talking about the privilege that is associated with race in the US, Oprah is correct. She will never be viewed as white, she will never get the benefit of being white in the US. It has nothing to do with what she as an individual accomplished in her life.

If you deny her statement you are denying there is any disadvantage in the US to being a POC.

Do you really not see this point? If we cannot even talk about the basic fact that there are many things in the US that are easier for white people (all other attributes being equal), then we cannot do any work on getting to a more even footing in this country for everybody. If we constantly look at individuals and use a single individual to refute the common experience of POC as a group, then we cannot grapple with any problems caused by these differences in treatment.

That the words “people are now judged by their membership in a group” could be typed by you tells me that you are not grounded in reality here. (Emphasis mine). People have always been judged as members of a group, and every individual is a member of many groups. Talking about this frankly doesn’t cause problems, if anything denial of this reality causes problems.

 

[Paul]

Paul, if you are talking about the privilege that is associated with race in the US, Oprah is correct. She will never be viewed as white, she will never get the benefit of being white in the US. It has nothing to do with what she as an individual accomplished in her life.

If you deny her statement you are denying there is any disadvantage in the US to being a POC.

Do you really not see this point? If we cannot even talk about the basic fact that there are many things in the US that are easier for white people (all other attributes being equal), then we cannot do any work on getting to a more even footing in this country for everybody. If we constantly look at individuals and use a single individual to refute the common experience of POC as a group, then we cannot grapple with any problems caused by these differences in treatment.

That the words “people are now judged by their membership in a group” could be typed by you tells me that you are not grounded in reality here. (Emphasis mine). People have always been judged as members of a group, and every individual is a member of many groups. Talking about this frankly doesn’t cause problems, if anything denial of this reality causes problems.

You keep posting as if I was denying the concept of privilege. I have said said more than once that privilege is real. It is real because the European look the the standard of reference. It is as simple as that.

I am well aware that people are judged according to group membership. And today in 2021 many people want to be judged according to group membership. I see the latter as a major flaw towards eliminating racism.

Racism is a system to earn status or to lose status according to group membership. Germany was the center of physics at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century. A German with little intellect may see himself (or herself) as superior because of what Germany accomplished at that time. It is a quest for high self esteem that is not based on individual effort. Racism is also a system to ascribe a lower status to a person according to group membership. If most members of group X are very poor then it is acceptable to assume an individual member of that group is also poor and and of low status.

Group ID politics bypasses the capacity to judge people as individuals in a vacuum. Group ID memberships indirectly assumes all groups are monoliths and this is the very definition of racism. A smart person is smart regardless of the number of not so smart people that belong to the same group. A mediocre person is mediocre regardless regardless of the number of geniuses who share his group.

 

[MT15]

Okay, I’m not sure why you answer the way you do. It’s just a bunch of stuff that doesn’t address my post.

By that I mean, is it your position that we as the American public shouldn’t talk about there being any further progress needed on race in the US? It seems as if that is what you are saying in a roundabout way. Just don’t talk about what happened in the past, or what is still happening today, that is the product of racial bias? People should just be happy we’ve come this far without acknowledging that there is still work that needs to be done?

Nobody assumes a group is a monolith except for the most hardened racists, so that whole paragraph is just beside the point. The paragraph defining racism also seems to me to be beside the point. Honestly, it comes off as you trying to teach me. Are you used to teaching, by some chance?

 

[V Chip]

You ask for a reference regarding Oprah. Here it is:

Yeah, that is in no way what she said, and that video misrepresents what she actually said and is quite honestly deliberately misleading. You should go to the source:

Oprah and Emmanuel Acho Talk White Privilege On Her New Apple TV + Show

"The Oprah Conversation" premieres Thursday at 7 p.m. EST on Apple TV +

www.oprahdaily.com

Nowhere in there does she say anything like "the most poor disenfranchised white man in the world has more privilege than she does." That is so out of right field (pun intended) that it's obvious that someone is deliberately changing her comments to rile up their intended audience (and it is working, obviously). She simply states (and Emmanuel Acho clarifies) that being white allows for someone to have less barriers or less difficulties in many situations.

"I got a lot of backlash when I brought up white privilege because some people were like 'Wait a second, I'm a poor white person. Your parents were doctors, how can you say I'm privileged?' White privilege isn't saying your life hasn't been hard. White privilege is just saying your skin color, it hasn't attributed to the difficulty of your life."

 

[wardorican]

Could you explain Reaganomics? What do you mean by that? Are you talking about capitalism?

No. Google it.

I already said it is supply side economics. You can go see what that means, specifically. Nuance is a good thing. Calling it just capitalism is just boorish.