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 Talk about White Privilege

page: 17
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This is interesting...


A major factor in the riots recently in Los Angeles, and the earlier ones in the USA and Britain, has been the laws set up against the elementary civil liberty to be able to discriminate on the basis of race and sex; particularly so on race. If Rodney King had been white then there would have been no excuse for looting. (For many whites do suffer at the hands of the police; not only has the writer thus suffered but so have his close friends. That the police do abuse the public is typical of state monopolies. We all suffer abuse from state monopolies.) As things were, the rioters felt justified in rioting by tit-for-tat, because of the element of racialism that may have featured in King's beating. But the rights and wrongs of King's case could not so easily be held as an excuse for attacking the Koreans' shops (itself quite obviously racist) if we did not have black privilege. For we may note that in both the USA and Britain, the Asians from India and China have been far less corrupted by this privilege. And their shops are often burnt in riots.

~~~~~~~~

The riots were fun for the looters in the short run, and they have even paid off in terms of extra taxpayers' money in the long run. Mr. Bush has already promised extra taxpayers' money for Los Angeles. Thus the state forces us to reward rioting. Riots become a celebration of racist violence by the privileged blacks on the other underprivileged races, who are later taxed to add insult to the injury.

~~~~~~~

In my area of Birmingham, every week some eleven women, usually over 60, get beaten up and robbed (of what few pounds they have) by black youths. I got this statistic from the police after my own mother had been so robbed.

If the blacks really want equality, then the removal of their privilege will put them nearer to that end. As it is, they are answering mere discrimination with real violence, and they feel they are winning lots of respect. If this is so, it is a respect they do not deserve.

Libaterian Alliance

Semper




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Thanks TS, any and all compliments are greatly appreciated....

By the way, you have yet to be proven the end all in debates, in fact your racist attitude lends more doubt toward your credibility then even your claim of your "top 3%" intellect.

However, as I am not in the top 3% my assessment could be in error.

Semper



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Thanks TS, any and all compliments are greatly appreciated....

By the way, you have yet to be proven the end all in debates, in fact your racist attitude lends more doubt toward your credibility then even your claim of your "top 3%" intellect.

However, as I am not in the top 3% my assessment could be in error.

Semper


I'm not surprised that you're not, due to the fact that police departments turn people with high IQs away from the badge. (wonder why that is?)

And, I NEVER said I was the king of all debates. I said I pointed out lies in your source, which I did. I'll repost those shortly, but first, I'd like to thank you for re-posting this source. It allowed me to catch something I didn't notice before.

This is that your source calls black studies a pseudodiscipline. My bad black studies can't be a TRUE discipline, such as, say, Greek civilization.


Now for what I said I'd repost:


This sounds like something Juan Williams would say. People such as Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston, examples of people you learn about in black studies, STRESSED that black American history is NOT merely one series of oppressions after another.


The Harlem Renaissance was NOT about victimization.


Black Wall Street was NOT about victimization (until whites burned it to the ground, that is)
.

The first Reconstruction Period was NOT about victimization (until whites entrenched Jim Crow and segregation into American society, that is)
.


Yet, your source CLAIMS that black studies are ALL about victimization. As you can see here, I have provided HISTORICAL evidence that this is not the case.

As for me being racist, whatever; I'm NOT a member of an organization HISTORICALLY KNOWN to harbor and attract racists. Not to mention an organization that protects said racists with a blue wall of silence...



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Thanks for that contribution, Ceci.


No problem.
As I said, I am making good on my promise to discuss White Privilege.



I've actually seen your 2nd source before. In that context, I also saw some responses, from both whites and non-whites. I'll post those tomorrow (hey, I'll be hitting the clubs up soon
).


Actually, it has been part of a lecture and seminar that Dr. Sue has done in many capacities. A lot of people know about it because his study is rather enlightening when it comes to uncovering White privilege for what it is. I've known about it, though, and I thought it was highly pertinent to this issue because it specifically addresses how people from the dominant culture react to questions about "whiteness' and "white privilege".

I am looking forward to your next sources. Your sources are great and really do bring this issue finally to the surface. Thank you for posting them here for all of us to read. Keep up the wonderful work.



Indeed, most of the color-blind rhetoric comes from whites. It's not because non-whites don't want a color-blind society, though. It's because non-whites are CONSTANTLY reminded that they are not white. Quite ironic, don't you think?


Very. I started to see a pattern in the "White History Month" thread and began to research where it starts. Studies point to the "separate but equal" ruling as well as a corruption of Civil Rights rhetoric. However, the right, libertarian and neo-conservatives have manipulated Dr. King's message and provided their own spin on how "color blind" rhetoric is supposed to be played. I'll post some sources later pin-pointing these issues because this plays into white privilege and how it is perceived in many circles.

However, it's no secret that people of color can cut through this rhetoric when they know their reality is far different than such an utopian vision.



You are quite right about the reactions to people going against the "norm." But, that just goes with the territory. You can see that this did NOT stop me from going agaisnt the "norm" in this thread, no matter how much flak I encountered. In fact, this flak actually PUSHED me to keep bringing this phenomenon to light.


I am glad you did.
It shows strength and fortitude in the face of adversity. The issue is, however, that you should have never had to do this in the first place. You should have been respected and treated with civility.


And, you are quite right about the correlation between skin color gradient and privilege. The brown paper bag test and Jack and Jill are prime examples of colorism within the black community. Sadly, this displays an attempt by some blacks to assimilate to white society. Langston Hughes details this in his autobiography. You can also see this in this kid's rhyme:

"If you're White, you're all right, if you're Brown, stick around, if you're Black, get back."


Yeah, I remember the nursery rhyme. And, yes, it is a problem within the Black community when it comes to the color bar. When society and the media endorses the "lighter the better" rule, people of color (and blacks too) deal with this constantly because that would mean they would have to "pass" in order to make it into society. And "passing" had a privilege as well. If you were considered good enough to be "white", you had jobs and access that a lot of your darker skinned brothers and sisters did not--especially during the Jim Crow era when Blacks were barred access in many capacities.

However of late, I heard an interesting theory about this in terms of white privilege: the Colonial Powers had paid white soldiers, settlers and men in other capacities to sleep with women of color in order for them to have lighter skinned children. The lighter skinned children (as adults) were used as the "middle men", a buffer between whites and people of color. And the lighter skinned ones who worked with the colonial system (and the subsequent slavery system) were not only praised, but rewarded for their "loyalty" and "assimilation" into the system.

I don't know how accurate this is, or whether I repeated what I heard correctly. But it is interesting, nevertheless and would explain the color bar in many post-colonial countries. And it would shed light on slavery in this country as well (i.e., the House Slave and the Field Slave, etc.) I wonder if anyone has any information on this aspect of colonialism.


As for assimilation, this is preached to practically ALL non-whites in America. For American Indians, the Dawes Act and the Employment Assistance Program are examples. For Asian Americans, the practice of getting ethnic plastic surgery (to reduce the epicanthic eyelids of Asians, in an effort to make them appear less Asian) is an example. For Black Americans, selecting non-ethnic (i.e., white) names for their children is an example.


Tell me about it.


Everything is built around the "melting pot" theory and "assimilation". I believe this is also part of white privilege. If one group believes that they are superior to other groups in society, then it would be deemed "right and natural" for all subsequent groups to want to be lighter and better in looks, beliefs and deed. It is fascinating how assimilation has caused a lot of identity issues for all sides of society as a result.

I guess, it is harder to accept people on difference because it would "shine a light" on those social norms and dismantle the goodies that "privilege hath wrought".

Call this a side effect from "white man's burden".



Everyone's supposed to submit to Anglo-conformity...


It's sad. It plays a big part into why people of color have to know about white privilege from the cradle to the grave. I don't think it ever crosses the minds of the dominant culture how hard we are forced to submit to their ideals. And it is also a privilege to not think about this matter on a daily basis, let alone face intimidation to assimilate because the dominant culture deems this "normal" and "right".




[edit on 10-3-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
And again your words are contradictory to your previous postings and exuded attitude.

YOU stated you have adopted a habit of intimidation..


I'm starting to roll with the punches, now. I jump at whites who show fear in their eyes. You should see them fall all over themselves when I do this. I move towards whites who start going the other way, as well as those who move away in the elevator or move to count their money. Funny, they never say anything when I do this, they just move around.


YOU threatened to "Bitch Slap" a female poster on here..

YOU have resorted to name calling and other juvenile tactics, all while lauding your own intellect..


So what. I will call cops pigs whenever I feel like it.
~~~~~
Though the penelopes are not the subject of this thread, I'll talk a little about them. They deserve no respect.
~~~~~
Damn. You are a LIAR!
~~~~~~~
t least your boorish, abrasive voice is easy to hear in here
~~~~~~~
(Not including the racist tart comment and your derogatory comments towards BH)

So let's get this straight...

Even though you profess to be in the top 3% of the intellect, you find it necessary to ...

1. Threaten violence against women
2. Resort to insults

With that established as factual by your own quotes, you expect the rest of us to simply accept your evaluation of a source to be false....

hmmmmmmm

Semper



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   
So what, semper?

You mad because I'm smarter than you?


In case you didn't know, I am only a HUMAN BEING. Just because I'm smart doesn't mean I don't make mistakes. Unlike the jackboots, I am NOT a god among men, no, civilians.


I don't care what you, or any other poster thinks; after living through these type of actions from some whites for MOST of my life, I'll do what I like. You got that?

As for the bitch slap comment, I SAID that this comment was from anger and rescinded it. I don't care if you want to harp on it, go ahead. No sweat off my back.

And, I will call ANYONE who is racist to me out as such. They deserve worse, but that's as far as I'll go (I wouldn't get away with using violence against people because I felt like it, like y'all used to back in the day
).

And, my shredding of your source has NOTHING to do with my personal flaws. It has EVERYTHING to do with your source posting flat out LIES about black studies. I see you had NOTHING to say about that, Super Cop.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Sure I did,

I clearly said that you have no idea what your talking about, your uninformed and clearly at a disadvantage to the posters you have been debating with...

I just recently jumped in because the drama was slowing down and you had not looked as foolish as usual in awhile..

Your contention the source is erroneous, is laughable at best and uninformed at the least.

I have a list I made of all of your inconsistencies that you so conveniently dismiss if you would like me to refresh your memory. Took some work to pull them off all the racist comments you have made.

Also, every wife beater, child abuser and woman beater in the world, claims it was "All just in anger."

EVERYONE I ever arrested said that...

What are you implying? That if the exchange had been in person, you would have struck her and then passed it off as something done "In Anger?"

Does that make such a despicable threat and act OK in your mind?

Semper (Super Cop) (aka POPO)



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Sure I did,

I clearly said that you have no idea what your talking about, your uninformed and clearly at a disadvantage to the posters you have been debating with...


Riiight.
(this coming from a guy who uses "your" instead of "you're"
)

I, who have used a number of sources to back my arguments, am at a disadvantage against people who have done the following through most of the thread:

Implied I was too dumb to have been the OP
Shifted the talk to Australia
Shifted the talk to AA
Shifted the talk to "black privilege" (you are implicated in this)
Ignored my evidence, for the most part.

If you say so.




I just recently jumped in because the drama was slowing down and you had not looked as foolish as usual in awhile..


We can't all be as rational as you, Mr. Officer.



Your contention the source is erroneous, is laughable at best and uninformed at the least.


Of course it is.

So, for the THIRD TIME, I ask you:

Does your source establish black studies as a pseudodiscipline?
Does your source establish victimization as the core of black studies?
Is the Harlem Renaissance an example of victimization?
Is Black Wall Street an example of victimization?
Is the first Reconstruction Era an example of victimization?

Your avoidance of these questions show YOU are uninformed at best, and ignorant at the least. (Not to mention you said NOTHING yourself about your source
)



[edit on 10-3-2007 by truthseeka]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
When delving into this issue further, I uncovered some interesting texts.

This first source comes from Sharon Martinas, who had started her search to understand white privilege. She uncovered some pretty interesting historical and social trends:



The Strategy of the Slave Owners

The CWS Workshop defines white privilege this way:

"U.S. institutions and culture give preferential treatment to people whose ancestors came from Europe over peoples whose ancestors are from the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Arab world; and exempt European Americans -- white people -- from the forms of racial and national oppression inflicted upon peoples from the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Arab world.
[...]
Non-ruling class white people are both oppressed and privileged. They are oppressed most significantly on the basis of class, gender and sexuality, and also on the basis of religion, culture, ethnicity, age, physical abilities and politics. At the same time, they are privileged in relation to peoples of color.

[...]
The construction of institutional white privilege, which I call "The Strategy of the Slave Owners," was a brilliant piece of politics. Created over 300 years ago, it still works beautifully today. It divides the oppressed, whether the oppression is based on class, gender or sexual orientation, so we can't get it together. Virtually all politically progressive movements led by white activists after 1676 have recreated, consciously or unconsciously, the structures of white privilege.

In social movements led by people of color, white allies have historically supported demands of people of color for a short while, then gone back to their own issues. When whites break the coalitional power of the people, the *only* guarantor that racial reforms will be implemented and *maintained,* all progressive movements end up suffering the backlash. Here are a few examples:

* From 1789 to 1791, non-ruling class whites organized to include the Bill of Rights as the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution. But these amendments did nothing to protect the rights of African or indigenous peoples in the new nation-state. Nor has the Bill of Rights protected white activists who defy the state or corporate power. And only the rich have freedom of the press.

* In 1920, white women got the vote after 100 years of struggle. But they got it by promising Southern segregationists that they would use the vote to support white supremacy. Today, a divided women's movement still lacks the power to enact mandatory maternity leave for all working parents, despite the fact that women are more than 50% of all voters.

* In 1935, militant workers won the legal right to be represented by unions. But, in order to get the National Labor Relations Act passed by Congress, they agreed to a compromise. The Act would exclude agricultural and domestic workers from its protections. Since these workers were mostly African American, Chicano, and Chinese, the new labor law essentially legalized unions for white male workers only. Today, an historically divided work force has not even been able to obtain a minimum wage above the poverty level.

* In 1973, abortion finally became legal in the U.S. But white middle class women, the main beneficiaries of Roe v. Wade, did not wield their organizing power to oppose the Hyde Amendment (which restricted abortions for women on welfare) or the sterilization of Puerto Rican and other poor women of color. So when the Right rolled back abortion rights in the 1980's, there was no powerful multi-racial feminist movement to stop it. Today, 80% of U.S. counties are without abortion services.

* White environmentalists seldom challenge environmental pollution of communities of color or Indian reservations, even though most toxic dumping is done in these communities. Since toxics and cancer go hand in glove, is it any wonder that cancer is still a leading killer -- of white people as well as people of color?

The legacy of 'the strategy of the slave owners' demonstrates that when oppressed whites protest against their own oppression, while refusing to simultaneously challenge racial oppression and white privilege, they can win short term victories (a union, legislative reform, a constitutional amendment, etc.) But when they organize in this way, they themselves become oppressors of people of color. Their silence is consent to racial oppression and white privilege.

And they sacrifice the possibilities for building coalitions with activists of color which could challenge the power of the descendants of the slave owners -- the capitalist power which oppresses all of us today.


Callan Sullivan writes a very thought-provoking piece about white privilege. He describes how he was able to discover it through his wife's eyes. He also writes of how his views changed during an internship when white privilege intersected with the police:


Racism and the blinders of white privilege

So did my work in Portland last summer with Oregon Action (OA), a non-profit group working against racism and other injustices. During my internship there, OA sponsored meetings where hundreds of black citizens described racial profiling and harassment by police - rough handling, rude and aggressive questioning, being stopped merely for driving a nice car and generally being treated like criminals without reason, while simply trying to go about their business. (Statistics show African Americans in Portland are stopped for "appearing suspicious" more often than whites. See www.oregonaction.org/pdf/racialprofiling06.pdf). A white man testified that police only stop him when he's with black friends - such as the night a cop pulled him over, looked at his black female friend in the car, and immediately asked, "OK, what's it for buddy, sex or drugs?"

Let's not forget police shootings of unarmed African Americans, including James Perez in Portland in 2004, and Sean Bell last year in New York City. Before dismissing such cases as race-neutral accidents, consider this: a 2002 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology study showed non-black volunteers pictures of black or white men, some of whom (from each race) had guns, and some of whom held innocuous objects like cell phones. "In each case," writes author Cordelia Fine, "volunteers had to decide whether to shoot" (if the man was armed), or not (if the man had an innocuous item). White faces with guns "had an inappropriately soothing effect" on volunteers, while unarmed black men were far more likely to be shot than unarmed whites. The "threatening black man" stereotype can literally be deadly.


What is very interesting about Sullivan's article is that he also talks about how white privilege affects national policy--especially when it has to do with economics, race and "blame of the poor":


Racism also lingers in debates about minorities' poverty and its possible remedies. Conservatives often claim that "cultural defects" explain minorities' higher poverty rates (above 20 percent for blacks and Hispanics, and only 8 percent for whites) while forgetting that minorities largely inherit poverty from past disenfranchisement (exacerbated by current racism). Whites exploited black labor during slavery and segregation - effectively stealing billions of dollars of black productivity - and bequeathed their ill-gotten wealth to their present-day descendents. Exploited minorities, meanwhile, bequeathed poverty to their descendents. Once discrimination puts large portions of certain minorities in poor areas, poverty can perpetuate itself even when legal discrimination ends.

For example, schools in poor areas receive less property-tax revenue, and thus have less money per student, than those in rich areas - meaning poor children are often less educated (testing 50-75 percent lower in reading and math, according to the U.S. Department of Education), and have fewer opportunities for college or good jobs than more affluent children. So much for "equal opportunity." Poverty thus creates cultural alienation (for people of all colors) - not vice versa. Furthermore, author Stephen Shalom documents numerous studies showing that white people get jobs and rent apartments more easily and are routinely quoted lower prices on used cars than similarly qualified African Americans. Conservatives condemn affirmative action for minorities as "racist," while ignoring all these long-standing patterns of unofficial "affirmative action" for whites.


These new sources can also add to the debate about white privilege. They also note the systemic, if not historical and social use of white privilege and how it affects every sector in society. With this being said, it does not even compare to the small kernels thrown to people of color in terms of advantage.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Tuth,

If I don't answer your (you're???) questions, as they are irrelevant as to your character, are you going to threaten me as well? Or do you only threaten women?

As to my verbiage, remember I am not the one that proclaims myself to be in the top 3% of all intellects...

It is your own words that have defined you, your words that negate a serious poster accepting you as credible.

Your (you're) questions are to satisfy your own need to further placate your desire for ridicule and threatening behavior towards women.

I don't care about your concerns for the questions you asked. I will answer posters that have no propensity for threatening women, or insulting behavior.

Semper (Super Cop, Po Po)



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Here we go again....



From 1789 to 1791, non-ruling class whites organized to include the Bill of Rights as the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution. But these amendments did nothing to protect the rights of African or indigenous peoples in the new nation-state. Nor has the Bill of Rights protected white activists who defy the state or corporate power. And only the rich have freedom of the press.

The Bill of Rights protects ALL people in the US.
www.law.cornell.edu...
It is a good read you should check it out sometime.
These days anyone with a computer has the ability to reach many people; so your statement as to only the rich have freedom of the press is wrong.




In 1920, white women got the vote after 100 years of struggle. But they got it by promising Southern segregationists that they would use the vote to support white supremacy. Today, a divided women's movement still lacks the power to enact mandatory maternity leave for all working parents, despite the fact that women are more than 50% of all voters.

Guess you have never heard of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
www.dol.gov...




In 1935, militant workers won the legal right to be represented by unions. But, in order to get the National Labor Relations Act passed by Congress, they agreed to a compromise. The Act would exclude agricultural and domestic workers from its protections. Since these workers were mostly African American, Chicano, and Chinese, the new labor law essentially legalized unions for white male workers only. Today, an historically divided work force has not even been able to obtain a minimum wage above the poverty level.

depts.washington.edu...
In 1933 some of these men formed the first Filipino-led union ever organized in the United States: the Cannery Workers’ and Farm Labors’ Union Local 18257. Based in Seattle, it was organized by "Alaskeros" who worked in the Alaska salmon canneries each summer and in the harvest fields of Washington, Oregon, and California in the other seasons.


Ceci are you projecting this as a class struggle or a race struggle or both?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
That's your FOURTH cop out, semp. (pun intended
)

This, after YOU were the one who said I had no idea what I'm talking about. Here's my 4th query, and, when you duck them again for the 5th time, do try to provide a different excuse?



Originally posted by truthseeka
Does your source establish black studies as a pseudodiscipline?
Does your source establish victimization as the core of black studies?
Is the Harlem Renaissance an example of victimization?
Is Black Wall Street an example of victimization?
Is the first Reconstruction Era an example of victimization?


Of course, the real reason you won't answer is because these questions jab holes into your source. So, the next time you find the first thing that says "black privilege" and post it,
be prepared to defend your source. Hell, the FIRST thing you should do is add your own commentary, along with the source.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Here we go again....

The Bill of Rights protects ALL people in the US.
www.law.cornell.edu...
It is a good read you should check it out sometime.
These days anyone with a computer has the ability to reach many people; so your statement as to only the rich have freedom of the press is wrong.


Those are not Ceci's words; those are from her source. And, the source is NOT talking about the Bill of Rights as it is today. Had you checked out the Naturalization Act of 1790 (notice the PERFECT correlation of dates in this case), you would have seen that whites were the only citizens of the US, ironically at a time when American Indians lived on MORE of the land today called the US.



Guess you have never heard of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
www.dol.gov...


Which is not what it could/should be to help women in the workforce. The French woman in my lab has told me how weak maternity leave is in the US when compared to France.

From wikipedia...

The leave guaranteed by the act is unpaid, and is available to those working for employers with 50 or more employees within a 75 mile radius. In addition, an employee must have worked for the company at least 12 months and 1,250 hours in those 12 months. The benefits provided by the Act are not as generous as policies in some other countries, such as Sweden. Swedish parental leave provides 480 days (16 months) of paid leave (80% or more of wage) with similar return benefits to its American counterpart. The Swedish act includes stimulating national gender equality as an explicit goal.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

I am not the one that proclaims myself to be in the top 3% of all intellects...

Semper (Super Cop, Po Po)


AND Trust me he isn't.


I am glad Ceci is back she is intelligent and cool headed (I bet she's pretty as can be too
) something this thread is in sore need of. (intelligence, cool heads and beauty)

Semper... honesty do you really believe that complaining about your position in life etc. constitutes a "black privilege"? Come on now I know you well enough by now to know that you are smarter than that. As far as I have ever seen the only black privilege (and this is speaking as a white man who married into a black family and has a lot of friends who are darker than me) ever gets you is a free ticket to jail.

Honestly now... Semper... honestly now how many times have you, or have you seen the police with 2 suspects, one white and one black, and they either let the white slide or give more of a hassle to the black. Be honest now.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
So what, semper?

You mad because I'm smarter than you?


Ohmigod! You are a legend in your own mind!



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
AND Trust me he isn't.


Come on, grover, I'm being real.

I wouldn't be able to join Mensa (much less the Pars society
), but I'd be able to join the International High IQ Society.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Truth I am not understanding your arguement. You alledge "white privilege" today based on the way the country was founded? The country was founded by white males. Do you alledge "black privilege" in the Congo or "hebrew" privilege in Isreal. I don't think anyone would argue that people were treated differently then. Do you deny laws have been enacted to make all American citizens equal? Sure in real world experiences different people are treated differently. Fat people are treated differently than skinny people,attractive people are treated differently than ugly people. Are you going to alledge "skinny privilege" or "beautiful privilege"?

[edit on 10/3/2007 by shooterbrody]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by semperfortis
Sure I did,

I clearly said that you have no idea what your talking about, your uninformed and clearly at a disadvantage to the posters you have been debating with...


Riiight.
(this coming from a guy who uses "your" instead of "you're"
)

So you've learned how to use SpellCheck. It must be a 3% thing. Want me to go back through all your previous posts and nitpick your spelling and grammatical errors?

And, nobody is believing that 3% thing, ceec. Prove it to us. Show us test results.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   


Which is not what it could/should be to help women in the workforce. The French woman in my lab has told me how weak maternity leave is in the US when compared to France.

Is this discussion about the U.S. or about the whole world?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Truth I am not understanding your arguement. You alledge "white privilege" today based on the way the country was founded? The country was founded by white males. Do you alledge "black privilege" in the Congo or "hebrew" privilege in Isreal. I don't think anyone would argue that people were treated differently then. Do you deny laws have been enacted to make all American citizens equal? Sure in real world experiences different people are treated differently. Fat people are treated differently than skinny people,attractive people are treated differently than ugly people. Are you going to alledge "skinny privilege" or "beautiful privilege"?

[edit on 10/3/2007 by shooterbrody]


Of course I'm not denying such laws have been created. However, these laws (besides when they're broken) do LITTLE to counter the historical privileges whites in America have received.

Corporations that benefitted from slavery passed down the wealth they accumulated over time. Whites are most highly represented in said corporations today. White families pass down wealth accumulated at times (the majority of US history) when non-whites were PREVENTED from accumulating wealth concurrently.

Yet today, the most popular excuse for the lower socioeconomic status of non-whites and poverty in non-whites is that these groups have a culture of poverty (a la Oscar Lewis). The privileges whites have had for centuries is conveniently ignored, chalked up to the "hard working" white culture.

Prime examples of laws created to help non-whites that have been broken:

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Over 1.5 million black voters were disenfranchised in the 2000 elections. CLEAR violation of this law.
Edit: I forgot to mention that Bush, who CLEARLY benefitted from said disenfranchisement, has said he doesn't know what the Voting Rights Act of 65 is.


EEO law - one of the studies I cited showed that EEO employers were just as likely to discrimate against blacks than non-EEO employers.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by truthseeka]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join