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: 23
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
No. White people were never oppressed as a group in America. So, when they helped themselves, they helped themselves to the fat of the land, as opposed to helping themselves get from under the yoke of oppression. Big difference.




I have to totally disagree with you on that big time. Like I said before it is the nature of societies to divide and conquor... it is how the status quo is maintained.

Did you know Oliver Cromwell harvested and sold Irish into slavery to plantations in the Caribbean?

When the Irish first arrived in this country they were treated like animals and were drafted to die in mass in the Civil war by the north because that was all they were thought to be good for. The same sort of thing happened to the Poles and the Jews and the Italians, and just about anybody who was not white anglo-saxon protestant. even as late as 1960 his Irish Catholicism was used against Kennedy.

Prejudice against the other is a long and time honored tradition in this country. While the Irish and the Poles and the Italians were not enslaved by law, the mill and sweat shops of the turn of the 19th/20th century all but did nonetheless and in many cases, the workers had less rights than slaves. The women who died in the Arrow shirt fire were locked in.

Simple truth is that blacks are not the only ones who have been treated like crap by the system in this country, just the most egregious.




posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Ceci

There is a real chance that a black man will be our president in the next term. Is that not real progress?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   


As a result, the only thing to do is to "discount" white privilege and to convince people of color when they bring this up as "having a delusion". But the problem here is that people of color aren't the ones having the delusion. There needs to be more work on establishing "whiteness" as a color and having white people come to grips with what they represent in society as a result of historic, systemic and individual racism. It's a factor of this society despite the attempts to write this off. It even gets more inocuous when the "delusion" of "equality" continues to be responded to while there are present cases today of discrimination against people of color that have resulted in bodily injury, lack of social access, destroying their meeting places (i.e. the burning of Black churches), disenfranchisement, and depreciating actions in discounting their character.

Here is MY definition of white.
Fifty five delegates attended the constitutional convention. Of those Fifty five only twelve owned or managed slave operated plantations or large farms.(Bassett,Blair,Blount,Butler,Carroll,Jenifer,Mason,Charles Pinckney,Charles Cotesworth Pinckney,Rutledge,Spraight,and Washington)
I identify "whiteness" with the fourty three who did not own slaves.
In 1777 Vermont became the first state to outlaw slavery. By writing a constitution to outlaw slavery, Vermont allowed runaway slaves to stay in Vermont and allowed no one to own slaves in the state. In 1780 Pennsylvania passed a law phasing out slavery. In 1783 superior court in Massachusetts ruled that slavery violated the states constitution. In 1783 New Hampshire ended slavery by a court ruling and,Connecticut and Rhode Island passed gradual emancipation laws. New York outlawed slavery in 1799 and New Jersey rollowed in 1804.
I identify "whiteness" with the white ruling classes of these original colonies that had the intestinal fortitude to make slavery illegal.
Summer of 1964 750 middle and upper class volunteers from northern college campuses traveled to Mississippi to start "freedom schools". Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman were white civil rights workers who were killed by the kkk for their mission to MIssissippi. Rev. James Reeb a white minister from Boston was killed in Selma, Alabama. Viola Liuzzo from Detroit drove to Selma, Alabama with 2 black passengers in her car. While she drove she was shot in the face two times.
White American roles, contributions,and leadership can not be deleted, sanitized, or revised out of history.
This is what "white" is to me.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Wow, shooterbrody, thanks. It's RARE white people are told that it's OK to be proud of ourselves. And for a little second there, I actually felt proud to be white.

Lately on here, I hear so much about what I, as a white person, should be ashamed of, what I should feel guilty for and what my race has, since the beginning of time, done wrong. It's really nice to hear a different perspective.


Thank you.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
There needs to be more work on establishing "whiteness" as a color and having white people come to grips with what they represent in society as a result of historic, systemic and individual racism.


You know, I don't "represent" anything as a result of historic, systemic and individual racism. I don't have to "come to grips" with what my whiteness represents. That's just making me guilty by association and I refuse to let my color dictate anything of the sort.

I know you want me to feel that because I'm white I represent the oppression of blacks, but I DON'T. And I WON'T. Sorry. This is BS.

When you come to grips with your "blackness" and realize what you represent in society in terms of crime, irresponsible fatherhood and drug use, then talk to me. I would never ask you to do that, though. Because I know you are an individual and aren't responsible for those things.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

You have voted shooterbrody for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


No more really need be said..

Way to go!!!

Semper



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody

Here is MY definition of white.
Fifty five delegates attended the constitutional convention. Of those Fifty five only twelve owned or managed slave operated plantations or large farms.(Bassett,Blair,Blount,Butler,Carroll,Jenifer,Mason,Charles Pinckney,Charles Cotesworth Pinckney,Rutledge,Spraight,and Washington)
I identify "whiteness" with the fourty three who did not own slaves.
In 1777 Vermont became the first state to outlaw slavery. By writing a constitution to outlaw slavery, Vermont allowed runaway slaves to stay in Vermont and allowed no one to own slaves in the state. In 1780 Pennsylvania passed a law phasing out slavery. In 1783 superior court in Massachusetts ruled that slavery violated the states constitution. In 1783 New Hampshire ended slavery by a court ruling and,Connecticut and Rhode Island passed gradual emancipation laws. New York outlawed slavery in 1799 and New Jersey rollowed in 1804.
I identify "whiteness" with the white ruling classes of these original colonies that had the intestinal fortitude to make slavery illegal.
Summer of 1964 750 middle and upper class volunteers from northern college campuses traveled to Mississippi to start "freedom schools". Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman were white civil rights workers who were killed by the kkk for their mission to MIssissippi. Rev. James Reeb a white minister from Boston was killed in Selma, Alabama. Viola Liuzzo from Detroit drove to Selma, Alabama with 2 black passengers in her car. While she drove she was shot in the face two times.
White American roles, contributions,and leadership can not be deleted, sanitized, or revised out of history.
This is what "white" is to me.


Fine. It is nice, wonderful and remarkable to recognize the white people who did aid the civil rights and abolition movements. And I agree that they cannot be written out or sanitized out of history. Their actions should not be dismissed, because on an individual level they made a contribution.

But revision is something that historians constantly do. It adds to the fabric of historical study. If things stayed the same, we would not be able to find out the other sides of what is "traditionally written by the victors".

And, in the end, these individuals--no matter how selfless they were--still benefitted from "white privilege", by social access in American society. Their acts do not erase this fact one bit.

Furthermore, what should be stressed is the over-emphasis on individuality here:


White people are fond of pointing out that as individuals they have never practiced discrimination, or that their ancestors never owned slaves. White people tend to cast the question of race in terms of guilt in part because of the American ideology of individualism, by which I mean our tendency to want to believe that individuals determine their own destinies and responsibilities. In this sense it is un-American to insist that white Americans benefit every day from their whiteness, whether or not they intend to do so. But that is the reality. Guilt, then, has nothing to do with whiteness in this sense of benefitting from structural racism and built-in privileges.


What needs to be focused upon is what America has done "systemically" for the white community "as a whole" and as a "color". Responsibility must be taken for the "unearned benefits that one gets" for having white skin. Lastly, one must take responsibility in comprehending and working with that realization--especially when it affects other groups than white people in society.

Unfortunately, that means that "white people" (whether they see their color or no) will have to be grouped (as people of color have been grouped by others in the past) in order to find out collectively how they have benefitted from their status in society--especially when their own "skin color" has been in power and in the majority.

There is an entire vocabulary built up in the disciplines of the humanities that refers to white people and their actions systemically in society. That means a lot of people who are studying these aspects "see" whiteness as a "color" and aren't afraid of it. They take "whiteness" and its privileges "as it is". And they deal with this objectively through taking the emotionality out of it.

There still isn't a demonstration of coming to grips with whiteness as it is (especially when it has to acknowledge a skin color). And, it is not truly dealing with the "color" as it is--as being a part of one's life. Furthermore, it still isn't taking responsibility for the "color" of one's skin and the privileges attributed to it. The delusion is still there. White skin cannot be erased just like Black skin cannot. Furthermore, just because someone wills it, "white skin" cannot disappear.


In fact, instead of dealing with "white privilege" head on, you are trying to deflect the topic through "equating the experience" and not dissecting the issue of the collective nature of "unearned privileges" throughout history. That goes beyond the selfless actions of some members of the white community to help others. Even though what they did was selfless, their actions still did not prevent "white privilege" from permeating in society and continuing the unearned benefits for the dominant culture.

But, I suppose that this will earn you some praise. And that's what I expect. So be it. But the problem of white privilege will still be there in the morning.


Whiteness is something you unwittingly own from the cradle to the grave. One has to face facts, here and stop treating your skin color as if it doesn't exist or that it "appears" on certain individuals at will. One can't make it appear for some people while naming that one's skin color disappears for others.

When it is all said and done, the white skin is still visible and has an importance in society--for good and for ill. And having white skin means that the invisible knapsack remains open for all those benefits to continue pouring in without stoppage. The only thing that the statement above demonstrates is the distancing that one does when it comes to dealing with how white people have inserted themselves historically and systemically. No matter what position a white person has presented themselves within society and history, they still own white skin and they have placed a value on it.


[edit on 13-3-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Ceci

There is a real chance that a black man will be our president in the next term. Is that not real progress?


Yes, in a way. But in the end--from what I read on this board--with some thinking that he might be the "Anti-Christ" and others too focused on his vices (for example, you have put up several threads on this accord), this is as good as putting a carrot in front of a donkey and holding it out of the poor thing's reach.

He is an example of the dominant culture's trend to "exoticize" the personage and to only be fascinated with him because he is "clean" and "articulate" (not my words, but the words of his political rivals
).

He won't be elected. But he's a fine example to dismiss acts of racism on a systemic level--especially when it lets the dominant culture off the hook historically and presently about white privilege.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
And yet, President Bush can be compared with a Reptilian, Terrorist and Moron and that is perfectly acceptable..

Books can be written for the first time in history on how to assassinate the President.

Joy and jubilation when the Vice President was subject to an attempt on his life.

They are compared to the Anti Christ and Hitler, on here on numerous threads and in the drive by media...

HUGE double standard here...

So your so called Dominant Culture must sit back and take it, all the while we are not allowed to criticize the Victim Culture's prime candidate for fear of retaliation...

Interesting that Obama gets a pass when all other Politicians are subject to ridicule and intense scrutiny...

Again, the Victim Culture wins...

Semper



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover

I have to totally disagree with you on that big time. Like I said before it is the nature of societies to divide and conquor... it is how the status quo is maintained.


I agree with you on this point, grover. However, I would have to surmise that both you and Truthseeka are both right on this accord.

White people, historically and systemically as a whole, have never been oppressed in the ways that people of color have. When they have been subjugated, they have done so under another ethnicity of whites.

That is far different than, for example, Black people. Black people, for example, not only had to deal with being subjugated by their own ethnicities (i.e. different tribes), they also had to deal with the invasion of another race in their own countries and tribal centers; they also had to be imported to another land in which they were oppressed by another race.

Whites have had the experiences of their own race selling them out and subjugating them in different capacities; but there are very rare examples historically and systemically of white people ever being subjugated by another race.



When the Irish first arrived in this country they were treated like animals and were drafted to die in mass in the Civil war by the north because that was all they were thought to be good for. The same sort of thing happened to the Poles and the Jews and the Italians, and just about anybody who was not white anglo-saxon protestant. even as late as 1960 his Irish Catholicism was used against Kennedy.


Fair enough. But even with that being said, the Irish, Polish, Jewish and Italians were given a chance to become WASP's in society. They, in effect, were able to transition in American society to be as "white" as as they wanted. They were still able to ascend the social ladder, to systemically and individually find success, and to even become respected members of society. They did not have to deal with the "glass ceiling" which so confronts people of color. And they didn't have their color be "held against them" in the way of social ascension.

Even more so, to become "white" is to cast off the past history of one's ethnic identity and become part of the larger culture of privilege that exists. And that means, in the perception of the dominant culture, equating "whiteness" with "invisibility".

And still, an Irish family, became part of the rareified air belonging to the executive branch--with their religion in tact.

That is far different from Black people who had to lose their identity, their religion and even their family as they were sold, enslaved, subjugated and rendered subhuman by the majority. It is even the case when laws were made against them to render them "separate but equal" from others in society to the point that they could not use the same facilities as the Polish, Jewish, Italians and the Irish. The Polish, Jewish, Italians, Irish (and the Germans, Swedish, French, Russians, Scottish, Danish, Spanish, Portuguese and the English as well) were not subjected to the same laws as Black people. They didn't have to live under the yoke of Jim Crow in the same manner.


]Prejudice against the other is a long and time honored tradition in this country. While the Irish and the Poles and the Italians were not enslaved by law, the mill and sweat shops of the turn of the 19th/20th century all but did nonetheless and in many cases, the workers had less rights than slaves. The women who died in the Arrow shirt fire were locked in.


That is also correct and it is terrible that they had to experience this in the growing pains of the Industrial Era within American society. And it is horrible that white people were treated badly by their own because no one should be subjected to prejudice. But there is even something we must look at here as well:

But the operative term is not being enslaved by law here. The prejudice that you speak of is ethnocentrism. That is different from racism, I think. Furthermore, the Jewish, Polish, Russians, Italians and Irish were subjected to religious discrimination as well as political discrimination.

And to think, even despite this (and the attempts on both England and America to try and "make peace" in the early days with the Nazi regime so that there wouldn't be any war [that is after the "Great War"]), America pulled itself together to fight the Third Reich (even though the reasons are very complicated to say the least) on moral grounds because Jewish people were being killed in the concentration camps. That says a lot, when America won't even lift a finger today to stop the genocide in Darfur (same circumstances of ethno-and-religious discrimination, different continent) in the same way.

In fact, Black soldiers, like my relatives, fought valiantly overseas for America. And they were patriots for doing so. However, there were still questions why they should fight for Uncle Sam when the same genocide and systemic restrictions to preserve white privilege stayed in tact at home. In fact, where was the calvary to fight for them as their own relatives were being violently harassed and killed all over the country while the same sorts of propaganda was being used in the media to desensitize white audiences in terms of their humanity?


Legally, Blacks were enslaved by law and by deed. In order to keep white privilege in tact in the era of Jim Crow, Blacks were bitten by dogs, paid poll taxes, arrested, hosed down by police, hung from trees, had their genitals cut off and burned out of their homes. Not to mention, to suffer the final indignity of their attackers being let free by all white juries who "didn't see anything wrong" and considered that "nothing happened".


Simple truth is that blacks are not the only ones who have been treated like crap by the system in this country, just the most egregious.


You're right. But, it is most egregious for definite reasons. And it is simply far more than being treated badly by society. Black people's lives were at stake because maintaining white privilege was far more important than their person. That is a very sad commentary on American history, in a racial sense.

All I can say is thank you for having the courage to confront both sides of history, good and bad, head on.




[edit on 13-3-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Ya know while I agree with all that Ceci I cannot help but feel that while we must acknowledge the past injustices and do our very best to correct them... while it is important that ALL peoples in this country remember their hertiage... it is our tie to the past and what has made us who we are.... it is also important to put all that behind us as well, and to get on with things.

I have to say some of the more conservative and right wing posters on this thread do have a valid point (something you will rarely hear them say about us liberals by the way
) we cannot continue dwelling on past injustices... we need to do our best to deal with the injustices here now and to try and prevent future ones... to dwell too much on the past is to become imprisoned by it.

My late wife was born and bred in Brooklyn and was Chinese/Portugese/English/Dutch and Black... her ex-husband was Chinese and Black so her children looked essentially like black Chinese, mutts very attractive mutts. Her family hailed from Georgetown Gianna and were among its founding families... they could trace their roots back over 400 years to Dutch pirates... they weren't slaves, they were of the class to own (and did own) slaves.... all of which is moot to who the are here in America but the two things I always taught my step kids was that prejudice, any form of prejudice was wrong, whether it was the kids in school picking on them because they were black and chinese or whether it was because someone was gay or what not... prejudice is wrong and it is in our power to insure its continuince by saying nothing, or we can stand up to it and object. The other thing that I did my best to instill in them was to be proud of their heritage. I used to tell them that they could trace their family back over 400 years (and god knows how far back on the Chinese side) and that a lot of people in this country had couldn't tell you where their grandparents came from... it was something to be proud of.

The point of this little dissertation is that yes there has been a great deal of injustice done to the blacks in America (and others) and yes there is still white privilege and that it too is wrong... we claim to be a society of merit but we cannot be true to that ideal until the injustices of the past (and present) are addressed and dwelt with... at the same time we must move forward and put the past behind us as well.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
True, grover. But, how can we put the past behind us when there are pernicious attempts to render it "invisible" without coming to grips with the depth that it has affected us still today?

It's not so much about letting the past go; it is dealing with the past and making peace with it by implementing a resolution so that society becomes better for our next generation. And things will not change until these issues are adequately dealt with no-holds barred without casting them aside and "forgetting". Even more so, they cannot be rendered "invisible" or "nullified".

This has nothing to do with guilt or pride. This is dealing with the issue of unearned benefits in society that continues to reap awards for a portion of society. It is also the actions that a certain portion of society took in their arrogance to silently lord over others through denial, superiority and subjugation without having to acknowledge how their ways have punctunated the past and present for others not in their racial group.

Respectfully, it is quite more complicated that sweeping it under the rug and going on.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Though you are absolutely right about the exploitation of the Irish, Poles, and such, they were segments of white people in America, NOT white Americans as a whole.

Blacks brought to America (such as the Yorubas, the Gas, and the Ibos) were ALL oppressed as a whole. Native Americans (such as the Sioux, the Cherokee, and the Navajo) were ALL oppressed as a whole.

I don't mean to minimize what happened to the European groups you mentioned (which, strangely enough, reveals the stratification of Europeans within white supremacy), though. It seems America has quite the history of oppression.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Ceci

There is a real chance that a black man will be our president in the next term. Is that not real progress?


Barack Obama is HALF-black. Why does he HAVE to be classified based on this half? Why can't he be white? One drop rule aside, of course.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Lately on here, I hear so much about what I, as a white person, should be ashamed of, what I should feel guilty for and what my race has, since the beginning of time, done wrong.


Note to her highness BH:

Had you read Dr. Jensen's second article that I posted, you would see that HE does not feel guilty about being white, even though he's exposing white privilege. In fact, he says there's NO reason to feel guilty about being white.

But, poor, POOOR BH; the "coloreds" just want her to feel SOOO bad about being white.




posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Why does he HAVE to be classified based on this half? Why can't he be white? One drop rule aside, of course.


Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, have you ever heard of the 1/100th rule?

That explains perfectly why people consider Obama, and others like myself black.

Edit to add
I didn't notice the last statement about the one drop rule, nice way to CYA.


The one drop rule is the only explanation though.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I thought it was quaint you post a post that says "Real Talk about White Privledge" and you get people coming outta the woodwork to tell you yes White's are Privledged because of this or because of that ... HEY TRUTH ... You want TRUTH ... I posted a Thread about "Real Talk about Minorities Privledges" and this is how a Thread should look ...

Also, notice the resources that show how a thread should look if you have something to stand on beside for personal beliefs. And as long as you are going on Personal Beliefs then noone is going to change your mind as that is what you believe !!!

Side point how can the Majority and the Minority BOTH have PRIVLEDGES !?!??!

And if that is even possible one HAS to out WIEGH the other one.

Watch out, YET, another posts from Brandon that will get bashed because he doesn't feel like playing the name calling game ... of and I quote "YOU POSTS ARE BOORISH AT BEST" or "well this is what someone did to me so I am on here to CRY about it" or my personal best "back in the day their was SEGREGATION" ...

WELL NO S#!^ SHERLOCK !!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Deus_Brandon]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Shooter, you seem to be confused.

You seem to think that white privilege means all white people are bad. That is not what it means. I think that's why you posted that info (which was great info, btw
). I am well aware of much of it in the latter part of your post. But, those great contributions by white people STILL do not erase the reality of white privilege.

Tell me, if we had a time machine, and used it to bring ALL the white people you mentioned into present-day America, would THEY benefit from white privilege?



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Here is you a link to my other thread so you can go bash it there as well ... or any of you other people that have the PERSONAL ISSUES with society ... I am sure you can go post some of your personal opinions ... Let me state that again ... GO STATE YOUR " OPINIONS over there .... somewhat like you are doing here ....

www.abovepolitics.com...

"Real Talk about Minorities Privledges" ... THE REALEST TALK



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
TRUTH , You seem to be the one who is confused ... You are saying it is WHITE PRIVLEDGE ... yet you use the word "BAD" ... It is WHITE PRILEDGE ... or "WHITE PEOPLE that are BAD" or it isn't NOW which is it .. You created the THREAD ... WHICH IS IT ? How about you go take a look at a real PRIVLEDGED PEOPLE ... as ALL OF THEM ARE PRIVLEDGED (CALLED MINORITIES !!!!) and not just a PORTION of them that thier grandfathers owned stock in GE or APPLE , or Maybe was related to Bejamin Franklin himself. and as far as good ole' BEN goes 2 generations later his Granddaughter Married a mixed race man ... Hmmmmmmmmmmm INTERESTING ....


Originally posted by truthseeka
Shooter, you seem to be confused.

You seem to think that white privilege meansall white people are bad. That is not what it means. I think that's why you posted that info (which was great info, btw
). I am well aware of much of it in the latter part of your post. But, those great contributions by white people STILL do not erase the reality of white privilege.

Tell me, if we had a time machine, and used it to bring ALL the white people you mentioned into present-day America, would THEY benefit from white privilege?


[edit on 13-3-2007 by Deus_Brandon]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join