It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Real or Myth: There's a system of "prejudice" against white Americans?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: thisguy27
a reply to: Tangerine

I feel sorry for myself? No I feel sorry for those that weren't able to drag themselves out of poverty and hand to mouth living, black or white.

Go out and experience life past your friggin computer screen and then come back and tell me that the system hasn't been designed to hurt white males while helping minorities. I grew up in an area where the median income is STILL 28k a year after taxes. There weren't any NAACP scholarships for me. I couldn't go and get free job training like a Native American or second generation immigrant. If it wasn't for me moving back to Canada, I'd still be a hoodlum. The only work around was minimum wage jobs that wouldn't have paid for rent if I worked 6 days a week for a month straight. Compare that to at least a grand a day slinging hash and weed.

College? Forget it, average tuition to any college that interested me or was anywhere near me was 20-30 grand a year plus books, food, and other expenses. There was maybe three scholarships that could've let me go to college and there was over a thousand people waiting for each scholarship.

You don't believe me about shelters, go to a domestic abuse shelter as a white male and ask to stay there because you're afraid of your wife beating you again. Go to a mental health clinic with the same exact problem as a white chick or minority and see how your treatment differs. Oh wait, there's that privilege again, seeing how you have no idea what life is like outside your carefully sheltered bubble

So tell me oh wise most definitely white one, how would you have gotten out of poverty without relying on your wealthy parents or free money?

And who do you think did the dying for the military before affirmative action, because last time I checked, there weren't too many minority military members at Tripoli, Haiti, the Boxer Rebellion or Mexico


I have been out in the real world. You do feel sorry for yourself. Except for a privileged few, most people have stories of being discriminated against because they're people of color, women, working class, poor, or whatever. How do you explain the fact that for every dollar a man in the US makes, a woman, on average, makes only 70 cents? It's been that way for a LONG time. However, most of the discrimination in this country is not based on race or gender, it's based on economic class. Poor people of any gender or color tend to stay poor generation after generation. Rich people of any gender or color tend to stay rich generation after generation. The super wealthy who own the politicians and pretty much everything else have successfully used a divide and conquer strategy to keep people "in their place". Instead of blaming the working person of another gender or color trying to get by, look up the ladder.




posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I think it's a little unfair to create a thread asking a question and to then redefine what you mean after you get answers. Furthermore, later posts highlight the very issue of the application of critical race theory.


Before you condemn the title of her article, try to understand WHY the author (who is African American) is saying reverse racism (i.e, prejudice against whites) is not real:


Prejudice against whites is very much real. There are a few theories about it but the major one is:

Power + privilege = racism.

Therefore POC (people of color) cannot be racist against white Americans, but they can be prejudiced against them. Some persons then build on this and say it's fair, justified, or even a duty to be prejudiced against your "oppressors". Therefore not only can black people not by racist, they can’t even be prejudiced. Apologies if this is just a typo, but even if it is … many persons apply racism in this way.

The redefining of terms achieves several things.
• It prevents ‘derailing’ in some legitimate conversations.
• It separates systemic racial discrimination from prejudiced individuals.

However, it also achieves some questionable things. In the middle of the thread, tothetenthpower has a little bit of gloating at white people who are losing their privilege. This completely silences particularly the working class who probably do have legitimate grievances in some capacity and it achieves it in the most ironic of ways: academic elitism (aka classism).

These persons may have inappropriately blamed race, but they’re talking about equality in particular which they lack. Yet we’re too busy redefining their language and words to let them have a voice.

Sure, the majority of white Americans are not discriminated against in any systemic way, but the stereotype of the well-off privileged white male encourages disdain and minimalizing of economically poor white people similar to the minimalizing of POC living in ghettos. ‘Oh they had white privilege, they played the game in easy mode and they’re still losers.’ So yes, white privilege starts to wear off once a white person falls below the line into ‘white trash’ zone.

I’m hoping I don’t have to explain why that’s destructive and why I don’t believe that white middle class well off people on web boards should be gloating about that (sorry for harshness sounding
). It always seems that the middle and upper class are the ones pleased about being progressive and giving up ‘privilege’ for the oppressed, but then it doesn’t cost them anything.

No offense to tenth (is pretty nice person) and certainly none to the OP, I don’t know you that well. To stress, I’m going after the theory and its outcomes not the people who follow it because I think they mean well. In fact you have to mean well to endorse critical race theories of this nature.

The issue with white privilege and the combined race theory as constructs is they normalize a cultural hegemony that says POC are disadvantaged, white people are privileged, white people (only or mainly) are racist, and POC cannot be racist or even prejudiced. It’s also just replacing one essentialist gendered hierarchy with another, and it’s one that defends itself by presenting as a knight in shining armor; an ideology that pretends it’s the only answer and the only way of looking at things. It really isn’t and sometimes it clouds the real power issues at play. An obvious one being: middle and upper class academics creating constructs and enforcing language from positions of power that play the working class off against one another along racial lines. The worst part is we define the conflict as racial and then get upset when they talk about it in racial terms on both sides. The Elliot Rodgers event was a classic example of this type of discourse where we centered everything around race and gender power relations to the point that even voices of reason were tilting at windmills.

A unifying theory of race and power relations is just about as likely as a unifying theory of physics. These theories aren’t entirely without merit, but I’d argue that in many contexts these theories are overly general and just a new hegemony. We need a sustainable race / gender / power theory, one that can be dismantled when it’s not needed and doesn’t target, stigmatize, or silence the least powerful classes of people. We’re not there yet even if it does give you a warm fuzzy when you check your privilege.



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke
I think it's a little unfair to create a thread asking a question and to then redefine what you mean after you get answers.

My exact words regarding an article titled: Why Reverse Racism Doesn't Exist:

originally posted by: Petros312
I admit her [the author's] language is too overgeneralized (e.g., "when a white person starts..." as if in every case), but she's not saying all white people do this. If I look beyond her language just for a moment, I think what she means is that there are white people who have a perception of prejudice against whites because they are not aware of the privileges they've had until they start to loose them.
Who is "redefining" what "prejudice" means? I did not excuse her language; I tried to focus on her main idea without being distracted by her language.


originally posted by: Pinke
... POC (people of color) cannot be racist against white Americans, but they can be prejudiced against them.

This looks like a play with words to me. Racism is a type of prejudice, but all prejudice is not racism. You're addressing a specific type of prejudice known as racism, and it's a subset of prejudice. The topic is this: Are white people actually oppressed because of a SYSTEMIC form of prejudice the same way that African Americans are?


originally posted by: Pinke
Sure, the majority of white Americans are not discriminated against in any systemic way...

This is one of the main points of the article: "Why Reverse Racism Doesn't Exist," so I'm glad you agree.


originally posted by: Pinke
No offense to tenth (is pretty nice person) and certainly none to the OP, I don’t know you that well.

None taken, and thanks for voicing your opinion. I'm just not following what sounds like a disapproval of either 1) making the definition of "prejudice" explicit (I didn't invent this definition. It's the one used by social psychologists), and 2) the article, "Why Reverse Racism Doesn't Exist." You disagree with the notion that there is prejudice against the majority of white people but then you made the above statement, "POC (people of color) cannot be racist against white Americans but they can be prejudiced against them." I don't think anybody doubts there are some black people who are prejudice against white people. That wasn't being overlooked.

The following is a bit convoluted, at least for me:

originally posted by: Pinke
The issue with white privilege and the combined race theory as constructs is they normalize a cultural hegemony that says POC are disadvantaged, white people are privileged, white people (only or mainly) are racist, and POC cannot be racist or even prejudiced. It’s also just replacing one essentialist gendered hierarchy with another, and it’s one that defends itself by presenting as a knight in shining armor; an ideology that pretends it’s the only answer and the only way of looking at things. It really isn’t and sometimes it clouds the real power issues at play. An obvious one being: middle and upper class academics creating constructs and enforcing language from positions of power that play the working class off against one another along racial lines. The worst part is we define the conflict as racial and then get upset when they talk about it in racial terms on both sides. The Elliot Rodgers event was a classic example of this type of discourse where we centered everything around race and gender power relations to the point that even voices of reason were tilting at windmills.

Let me see if I can decipher this:

The mainstream culture perpetuates these notions:

1. minorities are disadvantaged (that's not true?)
2. the white majority is privileged (in terms of opportunity?)
3. only white people are racist (I do not see evidence that this concept is widespread)
4. African Americans cannot be prejudiced (converse of the above statement, again I've never heard this)

(still trying to paraphrase) The above notions place African Americans HIGHER in power and social status than White people, and this is praised by some people and considered the only answer. It's manifested by academics creating new words and definitions and then making students comply, which leads to ingroup arguing among white people, even to the point of absurdity.

Is that right?

I hope you're not suggesting that alteration or addition of certain words within contemporary American culture also supports the notion that white people are being oppressed, are you?


originally posted by: Pinke
We need a sustainable race / gender / power theory, one that can be dismantled when it’s not needed and doesn’t target, stigmatize, or silence the least powerful classes of people.

A sustainable "theory" for what? Don't you mean our concepts of prejudice need to be defined and the issue dealt with in such a manner that it doesn't lead to inequality among ANY specific group?-- as if the current approach is doing nothing but degrading the cultural environment? Because if that's what you do mean you're leaving out one essential element that needs to stop for prejudice to stop in general: denial.

There's a distraction coming from people who think there's now a big problem with a systemic form of prejudice against white people, which is supposedly the result of trying to fix racial prejudice. It's being called a "distraction" for all the reasons the author mentioned in her article, "Why Reverse Racism Doesn't Exist." Prejudice against white people has never existed as the systemic form that has been present from day one for the slaves that were dropped off in colonial USA, and if there's any evidence of a "reversal" of prejudice coming from hegemonic sources, it's nothing like the oppression African Americans have faced. Is that too empathic to say today given the "hegemony" you believe is oppressing white people? --as if by my saying this I'm encouraging "white guilt" or something?


edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:05:21 -0500201421312 by Petros312 because: Formatting



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The other interesting thing I wanted to address from your post was this:


originally posted by: Pinke

Power + privilege = racism.


That looks so elegant, doesn't it? However, unless I seriously misunderstand (quite possible), this vague "formula" for understanding the creation of prejudice in the form of racism suggests that whoever is in power within any given society, they are most likely the source of prejudice in the form of racism. Only when power and privilege is leveled between all ethnic groups will racism be put to an end.

I hope you don't mean: Give people (minority groups like African Americans) power and privilege and it will cause racism (against whites).


edit on -05:00America/Chicago31Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:25:08 -0500201408312 by Petros312 because: Formatting



posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312
Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to sustain this conversation. Frankly the self satisfied smugness is searing my eye balls, and the tone alone tells me we're not going to get anywhere except staggering through a lot of word twisting. I'm not in the mood to play 'who can get a lynch mob to attack the other first' on a web board.

You mostly seem to be rail roading me towards convenient conclusions to attempt to make fun of me. You don't seem to be aware of some of the many problems identified with the theory you're interacting with, or possibly even the core elements of that theory to begin with; the fact that you state that no one doubts that POC can be prejudice is evidence of this - there is academic level doubt. Mostly though, you're attempting to play oppression Olympics and equate the idea of a theory / contextual lens being problematic with myself in particular being racist. Please backhand your social privilege for me.

That vague formula quoted is central to many of the terms you're using. It's the concept that racism can't exist without power and privilege with which to amplify (or systemise) the prejudice. It's why persons believe that people of color can't be racist and some even believe they can't be prejudice. To use your own terminology, 'I hope you're not suggesting' you didn't read my post in full, and are intending to frame me as a racist instead of defending the actual theory? I'm pointing out that the theory your using has problems - not power in itself when handed to the disadvantaged. To suggest I'm implying the second is just an over intellectualised insult. The fact of the matter is the focus on 'institutionalized systemic prejudice' is the fruits of this theory in the first place and you're holding an apple.

Essentially what I'm saying is for the working classes, racial hatred = racial hatred. You have to live in one hell of an ivory tower to escape that. And erecting some score board in your tower and swinging your pocket watch in wide circles muttering, 'well racism only exists for people I say it does' or 'its not real racism because they don't have the fire power to back it up' is a harsh over simplification of people's lives you personally never have to live. And just because you personally believe your theory only applies to systematic prejudice doesn't mean that's how its applied, perceived, or used by others. i.e one may end up encouraging classist and racist attitudes inadvertently regardless of who is winning the Olympics which raises the question ... what are we actually interested in? And is over simplifying / trying to come up with an over arching theory of it actually productive or damaging?

Further from this I'm not sure how much feminist literature you've read. Either not much and you're ignorant, or enough and you're being insincere. I wasn't saying minorities are not disadvantaged any more than I would say men are not physically stronger than women. It's what you discussed in your initial post, language is important. Language makes things appear monolithic or normative. It's why you have some feminist theorists who believe that the way we critique gender / sex actually encourages essentialist damaging ideas about gender. In this context, some of our theory constructs make whiteness a 'monolith' of language and disadvantaged minorities (particularly POC) an eternal present thus encouraging hegemony and overly rigid frameworks. Before you say 'oh I see, calling out racism causes more racism lol' ... this is not the suggestion unless Judith Butler joined the patriarchy after I read her books. (She didn't) I don't have the word count to discuss it in full nor will I attempt to with someone that wants to believe I'm a bigot.

The feminist literature part is actually the crux of the discussion. Have I over estimated your reading in this area? For example, if you're using feminist terms (which you are) then power + privilege + prejudice = racism is a really common facet of that discussion and it's certainly not a 'vague' theory - it's actually central to what you're talking about!!! The people you've been quoting use it also, so I'm not really sure how you've managed to over look it whilst maintaining the exterior of the tired assailed justice warrior being asked questions by the troublesome peasantry. (Sorry if I stained your booties milord).

I'm glad you're investigating this issue, its important! More people should do it, however I'm about to use a classic feminist cop out. I'm not going to fill in gaps in people's reading and understanding in front of a hostile self righteous audience who is going to end every discussion point with, 'I hope you're not stepping on my yu-gi-oh trap card ...' A theory being problematic does not automatically mean someone is suggesting whites are being oppressed en masse; the 'black and whiting' of the issue can suggest an intolerance for other contextual lenses and view points however.

I'll never know for certain but your argumentation appears to be more of a strategy than a discussion so I won't be returning to the thread. You're welcome to U2U me for whatever reason, but I don't play zero sum public debates at ATS these days.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I will try to reign in my temper regarding this subject.

Am I oppressed the same way Black People were in say the 1960's? No
Are Black people today oppressed the same way there were in the 60's? Most definitely NOT
Have I been attacked simply because I was white? Yes, twice, both times by groups of Mexicans, because where I come from, White people are the minority. I would say prejudices go every way, you just do not hear about it for what it is when white people are attacked. That is what pisses people off the most, the double standards that occur when say crimes are committed. Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown come to mind. Both times, it was automatically assumed that just because a White person shot them they were victims of hate crimes. Do you really think that white people in this country today would even risk doing something racially motivated given reactions to white on black crime? That is more ignorant than Michael Brown's supporters jumping on the hate crime train before his body was taken from the street. When similar cases, such as that Black Cop in Utah that shot that white kid in the back. Were both shootings tragic? yes, but you didn't hear about the kid in Utah did you? Of course not, it does not motivate people the same way a black kid getting killed does. What about the Black man in new york that shot a white kid who was in his neighborhood and never faced charges even though he committed several crimes:

He was not defending himself/others from direct lethal threat (him bringing a pistol to a potential fist fight)
He was not defending his property (which in NY is hard to justify anyway)
He was outside his home with a pistol not in a locked container w/ out a carry permit of any sort (he went into his house and came out with the gun in hand instead of calling the cops)

Do I personally think this man was justified in shooting the kid? Yeah, probably, the kid was high on drugs and if he was going after the man, I think the man has every right to defend himself, but the State of NY does not think so and should have legally charged him, but they didn't.

There was a website a while ago, that showed all the stories of justifiable homicides in Florida, it even had pictures, an overwhelming majority of the pictures I saw were of black people who shot other black people in self defense and it was all justified. I cannot seem to find the website anymore.

What about the case of the White Family in Baltimore that was attacked by a Black Mob organized by the black bus driver because of an argument she got into with the White Wife? I even made a thread about it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the sort of double standard that people are pissed off about.

Anyway, is there a 'system' of 'predjudice' against White People? I think there is an unspoken system of prejudices against White People. I could go on but I would end up writing a novel and I have already went off topic several times. There is my 2 cents. I will respond as the thread develops.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Pinke

Bravo. Well said.

The only quibble I'd have is that the definition of racism is classically the belief that one's race is inherently superior. In that sense, anyone can be racist against any other race. Power does not factor in. Adding power to the equation is part of the redefining of words which is so odious and being done to shift the goalposts of the conversation to make sure that one side can always keep claiming the moral high ground.

If we take the classical definition of racism, then there are plenty of racists to go around.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

There is a system of prejudice against white people and it was done by not only minorities but by other white people.

Minorities hear that a certain politician will get them jobs and better homes. They vote for that politician. That politician then introduces things that help the minorities while taking away from white people, like affirmative action or any of the thousand other things that are supposed to "help"

Why is it that there's a quota to be made in the first place? Why is it that a certain amount of x people have to work at a given place? Surely there must be rich people that aren't white out there?

There is and will continue to be a prejudice against minorities and against working class people regardless of race. I explained why there was so much racism in past times. Humans fear the unknown. Back when being a different skin color meant possible cannibalism or raiders, this served to keep us alive. It still hasn't gone away because you can't force evolution. So when a bunch of people showed up that were unknown, we feared them. We mistrusted them. The rich white people in charge of everything said that they were subhuman, they were 2/3's of a person, and so on and so forth. So of course the poor working class listened to them, just like they've done for the past 1000 years.

There is racism in other races. If you don't think so, you haven't experienced it first hand. I have. Where I used to live, I was a minority. And more white people were on government assistance than any other race. Do you think anyone, white, black, brown or purple, from there has made a life for themselves? NO. They are either in student debt, in a low wage job, or can't get into skilled labor because wait for it, Affirmative Action means that if not enough minorities get hired, no one gets hired! And minorities won't apply for those jobs because they don't have the skills needed because they couldn't afford to get those skills. That is the sad reality of today's society.
Am I saying that white people are being oppressed? Not at all. Am I saying that minorities aren't being oppressed? Not at all.

Poor people are being oppressed! And being oppressed for the same reason as we've always been. Because there isn't enough pie to go around and rich people can afford more hired guns than we can.

And @Tangerine you didn't explain how you would have gotten out of poverty by your own bootstraps in an area where people were working full time jobs and were still below the poverty line. Or what it is exactly that makes you an expert on what it's like to be discriminated against because of your skin color. Just because I was white didn't mean jack # when The Man wasn't around. I got beat up, stabbed, shot at, and nearly run over because I wasn't the right color.

And women make less money because for the longest time, they did less work. Waaah the truth sucks



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Myth...



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: Petros312
Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to sustain this conversation. Frankly the self satisfied smugness is searing my eye balls, and the tone alone tells me we're not going to get anywhere except staggering through a lot of word twisting. I'm not in the mood to play 'who can get a lynch mob to attack the other first' on a web board.

You mostly seem to be rail roading me towards convenient conclusions to attempt to make fun of me. You don't seem to be aware of some of the many problems identified with the theory you're interacting with, or possibly even the core elements of that theory to begin with; the fact that you state that no one doubts that POC can be prejudice is evidence of this - there is academic level doubt. Mostly though, you're attempting to play oppression Olympics and equate the idea of a theory / contextual lens being problematic with myself in particular being racist. Please backhand your social privilege for me.

That vague formula quoted is central to many of the terms you're using. It's the concept that racism can't exist without power and privilege with which to amplify (or systemise) the prejudice. It's why persons believe that people of color can't be racist and some even believe they can't be prejudice. To use your own terminology, 'I hope you're not suggesting' you didn't read my post in full, and are intending to frame me as a racist instead of defending the actual theory? I'm pointing out that the theory your using has problems - not power in itself when handed to the disadvantaged. To suggest I'm implying the second is just an over intellectualised insult. The fact of the matter is the focus on 'institutionalized systemic prejudice' is the fruits of this theory in the first place and you're holding an apple.

Essentially what I'm saying is for the working classes, racial hatred = racial hatred. You have to live in one hell of an ivory tower to escape that. And erecting some score board in your tower and swinging your pocket watch in wide circles muttering, 'well racism only exists for people I say it does' or 'its not real racism because they don't have the fire power to back it up' is a harsh over simplification of people's lives you personally never have to live. And just because you personally believe your theory only applies to systematic prejudice doesn't mean that's how its applied, perceived, or used by others. i.e one may end up encouraging classist and racist attitudes inadvertently regardless of who is winning the Olympics which raises the question ... what are we actually interested in? And is over simplifying / trying to come up with an over arching theory of it actually productive or damaging?

Further from this I'm not sure how much feminist literature you've read. Either not much and you're ignorant, or enough and you're being insincere. I wasn't saying minorities are not disadvantaged any more than I would say men are not physically stronger than women. It's what you discussed in your initial post, language is important. Language makes things appear monolithic or normative. It's why you have some feminist theorists who believe that the way we critique gender / sex actually encourages essentialist damaging ideas about gender. In this context, some of our theory constructs make whiteness a 'monolith' of language and disadvantaged minorities (particularly POC) an eternal present thus encouraging hegemony and overly rigid frameworks. Before you say 'oh I see, calling out racism causes more racism lol' ... this is not the suggestion unless Judith Butler joined the patriarchy after I read her books. (She didn't) I don't have the word count to discuss it in full nor will I attempt to with someone that wants to believe I'm a bigot.

The feminist literature part is actually the crux of the discussion. Have I over estimated your reading in this area? For example, if you're using feminist terms (which you are) then power + privilege + prejudice = racism is a really common facet of that discussion and it's certainly not a 'vague' theory - it's actually central to what you're talking about!!! The people you've been quoting use it also, so I'm not really sure how you've managed to over look it whilst maintaining the exterior of the tired assailed justice warrior being asked questions by the troublesome peasantry. (Sorry if I stained your booties milord).

I'm glad you're investigating this issue, its important! More people should do it, however I'm about to use a classic feminist cop out. I'm not going to fill in gaps in people's reading and understanding in front of a hostile self righteous audience who is going to end every discussion point with, 'I hope you're not stepping on my yu-gi-oh trap card ...' A theory being problematic does not automatically mean someone is suggesting whites are being oppressed en masse; the 'black and whiting' of the issue can suggest an intolerance for other contextual lenses and view points however.

I'll never know for certain but your argumentation appears to be more of a strategy than a discussion so I won't be returning to the thread. You're welcome to U2U me for whatever reason, but I don't play zero sum public debates at ATS these days.


Well said.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
You know, the the title of this thread is actually a running gag, amongst everybody else... The definition of entitled is actually a white american guy... And Homer Simpson....



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: thisguy27
a reply to: chuck258


And @Tangerine you didn't explain how you would have gotten out of poverty by your own bootstraps in an area where people were working full time jobs and were still below the poverty line. Or what it is exactly that makes you an expert on what it's like to be discriminated against because of your skin color. Just because I was white didn't mean jack # when The Man wasn't around. I got beat up, stabbed, shot at, and nearly run over because I wasn't the right color.

And women make less money because for the longest time, they did less work. Waaah the truth sucks


You completely misunderstood my post. I suggest that you reread it. I simply pointed out that the most common dividing line in this country is economic class. Across generations, poor people of any color tend to stay poor and wealthy people of any color tend to stay wealthy. It boggles the mind to realize that you somehow twisted that into me saying exactly the opposite. I never claimed to be an expert on discrimination based on skin color but I am fully aware that there is discrimination against whites (just as their is against people of color). I've experienced it myself.

Your contention that women do less work than men is ludicrous, but thanks for the laugh. I needed it.

You do, indeed, feel sorry for yourself. Poor you. Not.

Has it occurred to you that you haven't done well because you're a jerk and no one likes jerks? Just raising the possibility.
edit on 3-11-2014 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
There is no white prejudice in America. I'm white and have a few decades under my belt. Never been discriminated, or had an issue based on race. It just doesn't happen.

What I've found is this:

White people that complain about prejudice or discrimination or reverse racism or any of that usually have other issues. They are generally underachievers, many are addicted to nicotine or other drugs and drink heavily. They are lazy and uneducated and have a victim mentality. They complain about everything, yet do nothing to further or improve their lives. They don't try to learn new skills, read business books, get more education etc. They generally make me sick. Isn't it time we stop being victims and improve our lives and move on?



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing


You probably grew up and were raised in a Lily white neighborhood too. I think if you grow up in such an environment you no room to talk. I have never grown up in a neighborhood that was majority white, in elementary and middle school, I was completely surrounded by Hispanics, and High School, completely surrounded by blacks. I was jumped twice by Mexicans because I'm white and that made me stick out and be a target. My brother got jumped by a random group of black kids for literally no reason, I saw the surveillance footage, he was simply walking by a group of black kids in the hall way and once he passed them they stopped and looked at him and then chased him. He ran away and they caught him and stomped on his chest. ZERO provocation. So unless you live in a true middle class / "higher" lower class neighborhood with such diversity, you have no room to talk.


If I'm approached and interact with a Hispanic or Black person as an equal there is zero predjudice.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

Today is Affirmative Action on steroids against us from the so called President and down. We remain quiet while we clean our guns! lol. Enough said.



posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258
a reply to: amazing


You probably grew up and were raised in a Lily white neighborhood too. I think if you grow up in such an environment you no room to talk. I have never grown up in a neighborhood that was majority white, in elementary and middle school, I was completely surrounded by Hispanics, and High School, completely surrounded by blacks. I was jumped twice by Mexicans because I'm white and that made me stick out and be a target. My brother got jumped by a random group of black kids for literally no reason, I saw the surveillance footage, he was simply walking by a group of black kids in the hall way and once he passed them they stopped and looked at him and then chased him. He ran away and they caught him and stomped on his chest. ZERO provocation. So unless you live in a true middle class / "higher" lower class neighborhood with such diversity, you have no room to talk.


If I'm approached and interact with a Hispanic or Black person as an equal there is zero predjudice.


I feel for you and what happened. However that's not really "White prejudice". We know that human nature is to like people who are like ourselves and fear people who are different. That's an ancient, ingrained defense mechanism. There are neighborhoods that I don't walk in alone, even now. Having said that, I'm also not going to hang out with the Aryan Brotherhood or try hang out where they hang out. I don't fit in.

In the work world. I've worked in Majority black departments. No prejudice against me at all. Same in my business dealings in some areas. I went to a party the other day...I was the only white guy there. I was also the only guy who spoke english. I got some hard looks but ate just as much as everyone else and received no prejudice or negative actions, words or anything. I never once felt like a victim.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: Petros312
Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to sustain this conversation. Frankly the self satisfied smugness is searing my eye balls, and the tone alone tells me...You mostly seem to be rail roading me towards convenient conclusions to attempt to make fun of me.

Actually, I posted with a good degree of sincerity trying to understand what exactly it is you wrote. You took this to be an attack? -- and for my own ego sake? Looks like you've had some bad experiences coloring your hasty interpretation of my words. Understandable given what I've seen on ATS.


originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: Petros312
You don't seem to be aware of some of the many problems identified with the theory you're interacting with, or possibly even the core elements of that theory to begin with; the fact that you state that no one doubts that POC can be prejudice is evidence of this - there is academic level doubt. Mostly though, you're attempting to play oppression Olympics and equate the idea of a theory / contextual lens being problematic with myself in particular being racist. Please backhand your social privilege for me.

That vague formula quoted [power + privilege = racism] is central to many of the terms you're using. It's the concept that racism can't exist without power and privilege with which to amplify (or systemise) the prejudice. It's why persons believe that people of color can't be racist and some even believe they can't be prejudice. To use your own terminology, 'I hope you're not suggesting' you didn't read my post in full, and are intending to frame me as a racist instead of defending the actual theory?

Above, I couldn't read your posts without deciphering because of what looks like a good deal of argumentum ad verecundiam commonly manifested by someone saying in one way or another unless you've got a BA and MA in social theory and done a dissertation in feminist literature you're nobody to be saying that systemic prejudice against white majority (reverse racism) doesn't exist. It's a level of intellectualization in which you are saying that racism and prejudice are two mutually exclusive things (i.e., you disagree with me IF someone is racist he or she is also prejudiced). It's not MY play with words. And to suggest that I'm calling you a BIGOT? I didn't say that YOU were in denial of how white people are not actual victims of prejudice. To say that white privilege doesn't exist and to turn the problem into how there's some systemic form of racism against white people is often a sign of denial in general.

I mostly have trouble with the way you are using an unexplained formula that somehow proves the white majority are now oppressed as the victims of systemic prejudice. If you had filled in the blanks with discrete evidence pertaining to the "power" and "privilege" that causes this systemic "racism" of white Americans perhaps I wouldn't have called the formula "vague." And I repeat: There are members of African American and other minority groups who are prejudiced against white people. It's not what's being disputed.



originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: Petros312
Further from this I'm not sure how much feminist literature you've read. Either not much and you're ignorant, or enough and you're being insincere...The feminist literature part is actually the crux of the discussion.

Actually no, though you have managed to derail the crux of the discussion if by discussion you mean THE TOPIC, which is whether a systemic form of prejudice against white people actually exists. And in my case I guess I can't win because there's supposedly only two possibilities: 1) I've read little feminist literature and thus I am automatically ignorant, or 2) I've read "enough" feminist literature but I'm ignoring it. Is there not a third possibility?--like perhaps what I said above?


This is off topic, but since I'm being accused of ignorance, calling someone a bigot, etc., what I've learned on ATS in a short time is that many people argue here as if they are like many of today's lawyers: It's far more important to win an argument than it is to get to the truth in an honest way. When someone enters the argument to act like many of today's lawyers the discussion must be so carefully deciphered that you will only end up with a headache.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
What I've found is this:

White people that complain about prejudice or discrimination or reverse racism or any of that usually have other issues. They are generally underachievers, many are addicted to nicotine or other drugs and drink heavily. They are lazy and uneducated and have a victim mentality. They complain about everything, yet do nothing to further or improve their lives. They don't try to learn new skills, read business books, get more education etc.


Indeed. A distinct possibility.

...but of course, I have to concede that such psychological perspectives on the matter could never compete with the precision contained in a formula like [power + privilege = racism] . I suspect you're ignorant of feminist literature on the matter, or perhaps you have read the literature but you're being insincere.

(BTW I am NOT "making fun" of someone. I'm illustrating a point. And yes it is a bit smug.)


edit on -06:00America/Chicago30Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:45:55 -0600201455312 by Petros312 because: Clarification



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Dear Wealthy, Christian, Able-Bodied, Heterosexual, White Man,

I hear you had a really bad day. I'm not going to take that away from you, we all had bad days. Heck, maybe you've had a string of bad days, maybe a good portion of your life has been bad days. I can relate.

However, before you started blaming your bad days on racism, let me ask you a couple of questions, please?

1. Would your day be worse if you were constantly being targeted by police because of the color of your skin?
2. Would your day be worse if you were constantly having to legally defend your sexual orientation?
3. Would your day be worse if you didn't have full use of your body or mental facilities?
4. Would your day be worse if you were constantly having to following laws based on the religions of others?
5. Would your day be worse if you were constantly fighting for equal treatment under the law based on your gender?
6. Would your day be worse if you were constantly trying to make ends meet?

If you answered yes, then you have a privilege. It isn't your fault that you have a privilege, but it doesn't make the privilege go away. I'm not even asking you to do anything about your privilege other than respect the struggle that others have.

Thanks for reading.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentShillington
Dear Wealthy, Christian, Able-Bodied, Heterosexual, White Man,

I hear you had a really bad day. I'm not going to take that away from you, we all had bad days. Heck, maybe you've had a string of bad days, maybe a good portion of your life has been bad days. I can relate.

However, before you started blaming your bad days on racism, let me ask you a couple of questions, please?

1. Would your day be worse if you were constantly being targeted by police because of the color of your skin?
2. Would your day be worse if you were constantly having to legally defend your sexual orientation?
3. Would your day be worse if you didn't have full use of your body or mental facilities?
4. Would your day be worse if you were constantly having to following laws based on the religions of others?
5. Would your day be worse if you were constantly fighting for equal treatment under the law based on your gender?
6. Would your day be worse if you were constantly trying to make ends meet?

If you answered yes, then you have a privilege. It isn't your fault that you have a privilege, but it doesn't make the privilege go away. I'm not even asking you to do anything about your privilege other than respect the struggle that others have.


Excellent. You're illustrating what I mean above when I say it's easy to overlook that the privilege of white people is sometimes manifested by the ABSENCE of something. www.abovetopsecret.com... Privilege does not simply mean "opportunity."




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join