Real Talk about White Privilege

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
I can find Correlations in just about eveyrthing in life ... When you start taking Correlation and using them as FACTS and basing your opinions on such things ... Then you are thinking how should I say ... So you COULD UNDERSTAND such a under educated person as myself ..."THE GLASS IS HALF EMPTY" in stead of verse visa ...

You do realize that correlations...ah, SCREW IT.

Why should I waste my time with some one who is PROUD to be ignorant?

[edit on 10-3-2007 by truthseeka]

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Some who is proud to be ignorant ... or SOMEONE who is proud to be ignorant ??

OH never mind .....

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
I can find Correlations in just about eveyrthing in life ... When you start taking Correlation and using them as FACTS and basing your opinions on such things ... Then you are thinking how should I say ... So you COULD UNDERSTAND such a under educated person as myself ..."THE GLASS IS HALF EMPTY" in stead of verse visa ...

You do realize that correlations...ah, SCREW IT.

Why should I waste my time with some who is PROUD to be ignorant?

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Deus_Brandon]

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

Likewise.

The Bill of Rights protects ALL people in the US.
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.

Thank you for suggesting, but I have checked out the Bill of Rights (as well as the entire Constitution). However, in noting this, you have yet revealed another "privilege" that you have: to automatically assume that a person of color is not aware of any historical or governmental documents.

It is appropriate to state that there is a failure here to put the creation of the Bill of Rights and what it represents into context. At the time it was created (my words, not Sharon Martinas'), the protection under the laws solely focused on rich, white male landowners as well as white males in general, to a lesser extent. Blacks were considered three-fifths of a human being. Women and other people of color were not considered at all. That means to me that when the Bill of Rights was created, it did not protect women and people of color from systemic abuse by the "majority" in power. In fact, the Bill of Rights constantly ignored the systemic abuse made by the dominant culture towards women and people of color historically and presently.

Consider this: if all people were protected, why was the violence and abuse of slavery overlooked? Why were lynchers not prosecuted for many years if "all of us were protected"? Why were the segregation laws enacted in America during Jim Crow, if "all people were protected"? Why were poll taxes instituted as well as the "White people's" primaries in the South? If "all people were protected", why did the South try to secede from the Union? Why did the Plantation owners get away with raping Black women without any prosecution?

To put this into the modern context, the present Administration willfully violated the 1st, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments of the Constitution when going forth on the War on Terror. The "No Knock" policy given to law enforcement (the ability to enter a premises unannounced) flies in the face of the 4th Amendment in terms of search and seizure, and violates the notion of "privacy". Tell me, are all people truly "protected" under the Bill of Rights? After all, if they were, then there wouldn't be any law suits against the Administration (i.e., Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (2004) for example).

Why did Muslims and Arabs (not to mention anyone of brown skin) have to be scrutinized and searched after 9/11? Why did the Japanese have to be interned in "Relocation Camps" during the Second World War?

Here is an example why we must be vigilant when it comes to violations that run afoul of the Bill of Rights, especially when it has to do with the Fourth Amendment. This is an example of how "not all are created equal in this society":

The Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. So-called "writs of assistance" gave royal officers broad discretion to conduct searches of the homes of private citizens, primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict British customs laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers.

Today, the Fourth Amendment has lost its preferred status among our cherished Bill of Rights Protections. In recent decades, growing concerns regarding crime and public safety in America have forced our Courts to balance the privacy rights contained in the Constitution with the ever-expanding needs of law-enforcement officers whose duty it is to investigate and arrest dangerous criminals. The Supreme Court's rulings in Fourth Amendment cases demonstrate the challenge involved in reconciling these competing ideals.

Ultimately, the Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures has been trimmed-down in recent years and tailored to suit the needs of modern law enforcement as we wage war against drugs and terrorism. For this reason, it is important for conscientious citizens to be familiar with the lawful parameters of police authority to conduct searches, as well as the legal doctrines by which that authority is limited.

But, since you might not be convinced, I will post a source here to help explain the neglect that the Bill of Rights has afforded to women and people of color:

A History of U.S. Racial Repression and Violence

Historically, racist violence, legal and extralegal, and whether State-sponsored or private, has been used to impose racial oppression and preserve white power and privilege. Racist violence has served five primary purposes:

1. To force people of color into indentured, slave, peonage, or low wage situations;
2. To steal land, minerals, and other resources;
3. To maintain social control and to repress rebellions;
4. To restrict or eliminate competition in employment, business, politics, and social life; and
5. To unite "whites" across ethnic/national, class, and gender lines.

Domination of people of color necessitated the incorporation and justification of racially motivated and differentiated violence in the society's law, custom, and popular culture. Federal, state, and municipal law sanctioned the slave trade, genocidal wars of conquest, slavery, and the brutalities inherent labor exploitation and racial oppression. Genocide and other forms of government sponsored or sanctioned violence have been inflicted upon Native Americans since the country's beginning. Latino/a people have been the victims of government sponsored or sanctioned violence since the U.S. unleashed a colonial war of aggression against the Mexicano people in the middle of the 19th century. Chinese (and later other Asian Americans) have been assaulted by government sponsored or sanctioned violence since the middle of the 19th century.

Moreover, all branches of government have engaged in violence against workers across color and gender lines or abdicated their equal protection responsibilities during labor disputes.

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

Yes, I have heard of the Family and Medical Leave Act. However, I am more intrigued with the fact that Ms. Martinas had noted that for women get the right to vote, they had to make deals with the Southern Segregationists. This was left untouched. Why?

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.

This still doesn't explain the end result: that white privilege continues to exist in labor practices and economics. Being thrown small kernels does not make a total dissolution of the system.

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

Neither. I'm trying to aid the OP in shining a light on "white privilege". I am also trying to discuss it in full without any denial that it exists.

-----------

Btw, thank you truthseeka for the defense.

And thank you, grover, for the lovely words and well wishes. I am trying to argue these points with a lot of restraint and cool-headedness. I think that we need to step back from personalizing it so that we can see what is at stake here.






[edit on 10-3-2007 by ceci2006]

This is why there's an edit function available here. You might say it helps "affluence" us to correct our posts.

And you would still compreehendededed what i am trin to speak to ya ... hahaha

Originally posted by truthseeka
This is why there's an edit function available here. You might say it helps "affluence" us to correct our posts.

And just like everyone else in this thread that is saying that Whites have privledges .. ..

Speaking of the "No Knock" Law ...

After giving full consideration to these submissions, and having reviewed the pertinent statutes and case law, we conclude that federal district court judges and magistrates may lawfully and constitutionally issue no-knock warrants - i.e., warrants authorizing officers to enter certain premises to execute a warrant without first knocking or otherwise announcing their presence where circumstances (such as a known risk of serious harm to the officers or the likelihood that evidence of crime will be destroyed) justify such an entry. It follows that federal law enforcement officers may lawfully apply for such warrants based on information showing such circumstances to be present. We further conclude that the issuance of a no-knock warrant by a neutral magistrate, while not conclusive on the issue, will generally reinforce the admissibility of evidence obtained through no-knock entries executed pursuant to such warrants under Leon's good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule (3) and by fortifying the objective reasonableness of the police conduct. Even when authorized by such a no-knock warrant, however, a no-knock entry might nonetheless violate the Fourth Amendment if the officers' have actual knowledge that the circumstances that justified the no-knock authorization no longer exist at the time the warrant is executed.

Ugh Oh ... The ignoramous that doesn't ever post good post made yet another GOOD POINT ... It's not like they can just run in your hosue for no reason .. They have to have what is called a WARRANT ... Now if you live in a neighborhood where drugs are sold and are not helpful with the indightment of these Drug Dealers than yes ... The police may have a reason ... But other than that .. nah .. nOt so much .... Is this undestandable .. I could jsut copy and paste what they say about it ... LOL

As someone proud of ignorance, I wouldn't expect you to know about the Patriot Act.

Nuff said there.

Thanks for great info presented yet AGAIN, Ceci.

As you can see, I've been a bit sidetracked, but I'll post those comments from regular citizens asked about what whiteness is today.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Thanks for great info presented yet AGAIN, Ceci.

As you can see, I've been a bit sidetracked, but I'll post those comments from regular citizens asked about what whiteness is today.

You're very welcome, my friend.

I'm sorry that you had to be sidetracked, because it had nothing to do with the discussion of white privilege. It also presents a failure to absorb the materials that both you and myself have presented to solidify our cases. However, to discuss this topic with the aplomb it deserves, we must continue to persevere.

Again, I look forward to what information you present. It can only add to the depth that this topic has introduced.

Did you go to their houses? And of course, the sociologists are just flat out WRONG AGAIN with their terminology, i.e. the crossover effect (glad I'm not a sociologist

As a matter of fact, Truth, I had a very successful business partnership with a native american gentleman for 8 years. I spent alot of time at his home, his mothers home and homes of other native americans from different indian tribes. Only once did I ever hear them speak anything other than english; that was at a pow wow and the rituals were done in respective native tongue. Again if you would like to find other credible source material showing otherwise I would like to see it. The life experiences gained from these individuals lead me to believe native tongues are "dead" languages.

Thank you for suggesting, but I have checked out the Bill of Rights (as well as the entire Constitution). However, in noting this, you have yet revealed another "privilege" that you have: to automatically assume that a person of color is not aware of any historical or governmental documents

Until you posted that I didn't know or care what color you are. It must be very important to you as you decided to state it. I didn't assume anything. I was refering to the Bill of Rights as it stands today.

Yes, I have heard of the Family and Medical Leave Act. However, I am more intrigued with the fact that Ms. Martinas had noted that for women get the right to vote, they had to make deals with the Southern Segregationists. This was left untouched. Why?

I would love to see source material on these deals.

Originally posted by shooterbrody

Until you posted that I didn't know or care what color you are.

Right. If that was case, why didn't you reply in this fashion to the other white posters in this thread?

However, "not caring about color" is precisely the problem when examining the issues afforded to white privilege.

It must be very important to you as you decided to state it.

I didn't. I was discussing the notion of "white privilege".

I didn't assume anything.

I beg to differ.

I was refering to the Bill of Rights as it stands today.

So was I--through commentary and source material.

I would love to see source material on these deals.

You can research it and post it here. I would love to hear your take on this aspect.



[edit on 10-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Right. If that was case, why didn't you reply in this fashion to the other white posters in this thread?

What fashion did I reply in?

However, "not caring about color" is precisely the problem when examining the issues afforded to white privilege

Really so evaluating people on abilities and experience alone is a bad thing? I see color Ceci; I am just not hung up on it.

As to why the reference to reading the bill of rights....
usgovinfo.about.com...

D’oh! A recent survey conducted by McCormick Tribune Foundation showed that while 52 percent of Americans can name at least two characters of the Simpsons TV cartoon family, only 28 percent are able to name more than one of the five fundamental freedoms granted to them by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I did not write it in reference to black or white; I wrote it in reference to dumb americans in general. You however assumed I wrote it in terms of black and white.

So was I--through commentary and source material.

You brought the idea of back room deals in exchange for voting rights; you bring the source material.

While generally I tend to agree with Truthseeka and Ceci I have to say that seeka's stridency on the subject gets in the way of his argument. I think Ceci has made the case for the continued existence of white privilege much better than he does. Presents a cooler argument anyway.

All that is really moot however because both sides miss the mark on this argument. It is not a matter of white (or black) or any other privilege... Societies, all societies function by dividing its populations up into smaller and smaller units of oppression and manipulation. Societies function of the divide and conquer principle. Even the top alpha male is manipulated into seeking, desiring, wanting and pursuing the goals that his status dictates, and is such controlled by and ultimately devoured by them.... in short even the Donald Trump's or george bushes are carrot and sticked to death. This is especially true in a consumer society but it was equally true of others as well.... for the Indians of the Pacific Northwest the pot latch required more and more outrageous acts of consumption, gift giving, sacrificing material goods to the fires and the like to maintain status. It really is no different in our society.

Is there white privilege? Of course there is, the black person has been on the bottom of this society since day one, only the Indian ranks lower. There has been slavery throughout human history but the great outrage of American slavery is that people did not become slaves because of debt or because they were captured during war, they were bred to be slaves. Think about that for a minute... they were bred to be slaves and were counted as livestock. For taxation purposes the constitution ranked slaves as 4/5 human. At every step of the way from the day the first black slave stepped onto shore at Jamestown to the 1960's the laws were set up to favor whites over blacks every step of the way. You simply do not eliminate such discrimination overnight. And it takes longer than a handful of decades as well. Just a look in American prisons and its overwhelmingly black male population and the legal systems continued practice of giving harsher sentences to blacks than to whites committing the same crime, shows that that bias still exists.

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, how would "white privilege" be abolished, since it is only a state of mind? Write up a draft law, ceec, and present it to us; don't worry, we won't hold you to spelling or grammar, since you're (did I get that right?) in the top 3%.

Becky, becky, becky...

You seem to be preoccupied with my intellect. Let it go. You have brought this up in the last few posts of yours I've seen (seriously). Are you upset because of this? TOO BAD.

Based on the quality of the MAJORITY of your posts I've seen, I have my own ideas about your motivation to harp on this...

Not preoccupied, ceec. More like unimpressed.

The fact is, ceec, I don't believe you. *If* you're in the top 3%, we're in big trouble.

It's just that so much of what you've been posting lately sounds so much like... others who tout their "private education".

Oh, btw...you didn't answer my question about white privilege.

Grover,

To answer your question....

I have been sitting here and thinking back. I can not remember a specific time when i witnessed such behavior. I can tell you, and you know me so you know this is true, I would have "corrected" that immediately. (It would not have been the first time I was ostracized) I have witness and corrected violence against blacks, inordinate violence now I am referencing, but the same goes for threats and violence against women. (That some on here seem to support or at least ignore)

I will tell you though that I do believe that it happens. I have met many prejudiced officers, both black and white. It is virtually impossible to be a cop and cease being human. Yet there are those of us that fight it.

Also to address your posting, I also believe that white privilege exists. I can not nor will I relate/post in this manner with the OP as he has expressed his personal style when he threatened a friend of mine with violence. But I will tell you this.

Even though white privilege exists, it is a societal factor based on many many historical circumstances. Black privilege is also in existence, I was once long ago a victim of that. I scored the highest score on the police entry exam that year; I was brought into the Captain office and explained that they needed to hire a black person to fill the quota. I was hired the following year so it never really impacted me. Yet it was something of a shock having come from the Marines and before that a dirt poor farm in WV, I struggled and worked long hours to get my first degree back then and I was of course disappointed. But that is the way it was back then.

It all worked out in the end and I have had a wonderful first career and am happily on my way with my second one.

I also agree with BH though that it is definitely a class issue at least as much as race. I would be an example of that. But the race privilege does exist, I have observed this and even written about it a long time ago on my blog...

Semper (Super Cop Po Po)

Grover, you won't find any arguments from me.

Ceci is HIGHLY intelligent (not to mention she has a stronger background in sociology than I do). So, if she makes the case for white privilege better than I do, GREAT!! It's just a shame she was on lock for most of this thread and couldn't help me out sooner...:shk:

Ceci, this one's for you. Here's the responses I promised. The person asking the questions was an Asian American (my pointing this out will become clear later):

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE WHITE?

42-year-old White businessman:

A: Frankly, I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Q: Aren’t you White?

A: Yes, but I’m from Italian heritage. I’m Italian, not White.

Q: Well, then, what does it mean to be Italian?

A: Pasta, good food, love of wine (obviously agitated). This is getting ridiculous!

26-year-old White female college student:

A: Is this a trick question?…I’ve never thought about it…Well, I know that lots of Black people see us as being prejudiced and all that stuff. I wish people would just forget about race differences and see one another as human beings. People are people and we should all be proud to be Americans.

Note the "color-blind" rhetoric. Now, this one is my FAVORITE. You'll see why:

65-year-old retired White male construction worker:

A: That is a stupid question!

Q: Why?

A: Look…what are you, Oriental? (the reason I pointed out this out earlier

) You people are always blaming us for stereotyping and here you are doing the same to us.

Q: When you say “us” whom are you referring to?

A: I’m referring to Americans who aren’t colored. We are all different from one another. I’m Irish but there are Germans, Italians, and those Jews. I get angry at the colored people for always blaming us…when my grandparents came over to this country, they worked 24 hours a day to provide a good living for their kids. My wife and I raised 5 kids and I worked every day of my life to provide for them.

No one game me nothing! I get angry at the Black people for always whining…they just have to get off their butts and work rather than going on welfare. At least you people [referring to Asian Americans] work hard. The Black ones could learn from your people.

You should have heard us rolling when the professor read this response aloud.

34-year-old White female stockbroker

A: I don't know (laughing) I never thought about it.

Q: Are you White?

A: I suppose so (seems very amused).

Q: Why haven't you thought about it?

A: Because it's not important to me.

Q: Why not?

A: It doesn't enter into my mind because it doesn't affect my life. Besides, we are all individuals; color isn't important.

Now, Ceci, how many non-whites (who are not mistaken for whites due to light skin) do YOU think agree that their skin color doesn't affect their lives?

Those were the responses from whites. Here are the responses from non-whites. Now, I think this next guy may even have US schooled (read on and see why):

21-year-old Chinese American male college student (Ethnic Studies major)

A: My cultural heritage class was just discussing this question last week.

Q: What was your conclusion?

A: Well, it has to do with White privilege. I read an article by a professor at Wellesley [Peggy McIntosh]. It made a lot of sense to me. Being White in this society automatically guarantees you better treatment and unearned benefits and privileges than minorities. Having white skin means you have the freedom to choose the neighborhood you live in. You won't be discriminated against. When you enter a store, security guards won't assume you will steal something. You can flag down a cab without the thought they won't pick you up because you're a minority. You can study in school and be assured your group will be portrayed positively. You don't have to deal with race or think about it.

Q: Are White folks aware of their privilege.

A: Hell no! They're oblivious to it.

Notice that the last sentence in the paragraph is verified by the stock broker and the college student (not to mention it's a DUH to you and me). This is ESPECIALLY true about his last comment.

Continuing:

29-year-old Latina Administrative Assistant

A: I'm not White, I'm Latina!

Q: Are you upset with me?

A: No...it's just that I'm light, so people always think I'm White. It's only when I speak that they realize I'm Hispanic.

Q: Well, what does it mean to be White?

A: Do you really want to know?...Okay, it means you're always right. It means you never have to explain yourself or apologize...You know that movie "Love is Never Having to say You're Sorry?" Well, being White is never having to say you're sorry. It means you think you're better than us.

39-year-old Black male Salesman

A: Is this a school exercise or something? Never expected someone to ask me that question in the middle of the city. Do you want the politically correct answer or what I really think?

Q: Can you tell me what you really think?

A: You won't quit, will you (laughing)? If you're White, you're right. If you're Black, step back.

Q: What does that mean?

A: White folks are always thinking they know all the answers. A Black man's words are worth less than a White man's. When White customers come into our dealership and see me standing next to the cars, I become invisible to them. Actually, they may see me as a well-dressed janitor (laughs), or actively avoid me. They will search out a White salesman. Or, when I explain something to a customer, they always check out the information with my White colleagues. They don't trust me.

When I mention this to our manager, who is White, he tells me I'm oversensitive and being paranoid. That's what being White means. It means having the power or authority to tell me what's really happening even though I know it's not. Being White means you can fool yourself into believing you're not prejudiced, when you are. That's what it means to be White.

Though the retiree was my favorite responder, you can see the salesman clearly is the best personal experience example. Ceci, you know what's strange; the things he described have happened to me in this thread!!

My RL experiences were chalked up to my paranoia and/or over-sensitivity. In fact, posters in this thread told me what REALLY happened in my RL experiences, even though I was there and they were not. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised.:shk:

Well, Ceci, I gave you what I told you I would.









[edit on 10-3-2007 by truthseeka]

[edit on 10-3-2007 by truthseeka]

But was that really "black privilege" semper? Rather was that more an attempt to achieve some racial balance within the department? Wasn't that officer also well qualified? It seems to me that the word privilege implies... something more, an entitlement that a person does not necessarily deserve.

Ya know Semper... and this is meant as both a compliment and a critique... your posts are always more intelligent and interesting when you stop and think about them as opposed to reacting (and posting) like a restless leg syndrome conservative.

There are enough of those on here. I always enjoy reading your posts when you stop and chew on them for awhile, even when we disagree.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by grover]

Hey, truthseeka,

Thanks for the compliments, my friend. That was very kind of you to say what you did.

I just popped in to read the replies of everyone so far. And, I will answer your posts a little later. I just got finished watching the Oregon Ducks do a number on the USC Trojans (which was nearly as enjoyable as watching the 'Horns trounce the Trojans in football in the Rose Bowl a year ago. [Thanks, Vince Young!!!!!] )

It's March Madness time, so, I've got to pay attention to today's Basketball games. I've also got to watch whether the Bruins are selected for number one seed in the West.

(I also understand the 'Horns are going to be in the Big Dance as well. Congratulations and good luck! )

I do have to say though, what you've posted indicates some tendencies that have happened in this thread. Some of the key phrases that often is repeated here is the "I'm not as focused on color" and "I see everyone as human beings". That indicates pretty much what both Dr. Sue and Ms. Martinas was trying to say in their texts. Because of the lack of focus on "color" demonstrates another one of those privileges, it puts into context the reasons why "class" is the most immediate concept to grasp in discussions of race as well as the fallacy that people of color "identify" too much about color.

It tells me that when these phrases are oft repeated, there seems to be a failure to recognize that people of color have to "focus on race", because the dominant culture makes it apparent to them all the time that their livelihoods depend on aspects of "white privilege".

When a group has been validated through their skin color, there is a privilege to render it "invisible" because they have received the best of treatement and access due to it. There is also the privilege of putting down others who don't share the said skin color without being cognizant of depreciating the experiences and actions of people of color. It is no wonder why the questions posted would get those responses. Some of the respondents from the dominant culture, have never had to think about "color issues" before because they didn't have to.

However, more about that later.

And grover, I would like to respond to your earlier post as well because you make some good points. It will come a little later after I get through "Selection Sunday" Thanks for the compliments.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Ya know I was sitting here in Roanoke Va watching the riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict and I remember telling a friend that while I cannot condone them, I understand. if I were a poor black or any other minority, that verdict would merely confirm what I already know, and I would probably be rioting too. You add to that, the whole OJ thing and it simply highlighted the reality that if you are poor and black (and many other minorites as well) you are fair game to be pounded into the pavement and treated like a dog BUT even if you're black and got money, well then all bets are off.

In all reality that is the discriminator, money. Race is second, but money is the biggie, especially in this society.

Originally posted by grover
In all reality that is the discriminator, money. Race is second, but money is the biggie, especially in this society.

Oohh, watch it grover. You'll lose all your friends if you say that!

I happen to agree with you 100% but I get a lot of flack for suggesting that race isn't just the be all and end all deciding factor of the have and have-nots in this country.

You'll get accused of all sorts of nasty things if you insist that class plays a part.