Real Talk about White Privilege

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
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 ...

And notice how you are BITING off of me.

I mean, damn, the LEAST you could have done was change the TITLE (don't worry, you're not the first poster to bite off of me like this ).

Were you to use your reading skills, you would see that I have used a NUMBER of sources in this thread.

But, I guess I can give you props for keeping your asinine comments in check...no, keeping them from coming out on this board. This is quite a step up from telling black people to "go the f.uck back to africa."

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
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.

Curious. Is this something that you object to? My "friend" from Africa told me that if a person has ANY black ancestry, that he considers them black. "They are black, even if their skin is white." He doesn't care what they look like.

Is this a point of contention? That's the reason I consider Obama black. Because of what I was told by black people.

Phoenix, do you call yourself black? What would you like to be "considered" in conversations such as these? (forgive my akwardness)

Originally posted by ceci2006
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.

I don't recall any of us saying we don't see color. And if we're to group white people together and hold the whole as responsible, why is it out of the question (and wrong) to group black people and hold them responsible for their actions as a race?

That means a lot of people who are studying these aspects "see" whiteness as a "color" and aren't afraid of it.

Again, I don't see anyone here who is afraid of their skin color. Could you point out an example of how you determine that someone is "afraid of their skin color"?

There still isn't a demonstration of coming to grips with whiteness as it is (especially when it has to acknowledge a skin color).

What does that mean? What does "coming to grips" look like? We all acknowledge our skin color and many of us acknowledge white privilege. What more would indicate that we've "come to grips" with being white?

White skin cannot be erased just like Black skin cannot. Furthermore, just because someone wills it, "white skin" cannot disappear.

No one is suggesting that white skin disappear. Where does anyone indicate they want their white skin to disappear?

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.

That's because one person cannot control another's actions, regardless of skin color. Else why don't you prevent black people from being criminals, joining gangs, killing people, beating women, abandoning their children, etc... You're calling on "white people" as a collective to take some sort of action. Why can't we expect the same from you?

Because it doesn't work that way.

But the problem of white privilege will still be there in the morning.

And so will the problems of the black race. I'm not trying to deflect, I'm saying that what you're asking is impossible and I'm trying to show you how. And the proof of what I'm saying is already out there. Because there are many white people who agree 100% with you and even THEY cannot control the race. Like it or not, we are all individuals and act with many minds and hearts, just like you.

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.

WTF??? Who is implying what you say here? That's ridiculous! No one is treating their skin color as if it doesn't exist. NO ONE IS DOING THIS.

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.

I suggest that YOU have placed a value on it much more than I have. I only wish you valued your own race as much.

Originally posted by ceci2006
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.

So... even when a black person makes it as far as Obama has in this society, you give the credit, not to him, but instead, "blame" white people for using him to asuage some kind of guilt for racism. I'm sure he'd love to know that you respect him and support him so fully...

Originally posted by grover
I have to say some of the more conservative and right wing posters on this thread do have a valid point ... 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.

That was SO well-said! If there WERE something to be done about the past, I would do it! I would WANT to do it. But it's spilled milk. You simply CANNOT get it back in the glass. And "crying over spilled milk" is an exercise in futility and keeps everyone locked in the inequities of the past. I want to "pour a new glass of milk". But that's apparently not good enough.

(And grover, you know I'm not conservative nor right-wing, right?)

If there were something to DO about white privilege, I would. I acknowledge it. I don't think it's right for any race to have unearned privileges based on skin color. But I do realize what's right in front of my face. We are in a period of transition. Things are getting better, but we simply cannot control the speed of such changes beyond a certain amount. We're doing our best. And I know it's not good enough.

Originally posted by ceci2006
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?

There's always going to be somebody moving against "what's right". That's part of life. And the answer to your question is that we have to work together. When people like you and I (who both want the same thing - true equality) are working against each other, it stalls progress.

When you're stuck in the past and insist that we (whites) think and feel a certain way about being white before we can move on, it bogs proceedings. We will never 100% be convinced to think the same way as you do about whiteness. That's just a fact. And if you continue to put those of us who DO care on the "other side" because we don't agree with you 100%, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

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.

Tell me how that gets done. How specifically do we "deal with the issue of unearned benefits"? What do we do? How do we "correct" the past? Give me some concrete examples instead of a conjectural idea of how we need to think and feel.

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

Fine. That's what it's NOT. Tell me what it IS, please. You have said a lot about what we shouldn't do, what we should stop doing. Please elaborate on what you think we should do. And please... "Coming to grips" and "face facts" and other phrases don't tell me anything. I still feel like you want something, but I cannot, for the life of me, determine what it is.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
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.

Curious. Is this something that you object to? My "friend" from Africa told me that if a person has ANY black ancestry, that he considers them black. "They are black, even if their skin is white." He doesn't care what they look like.

Is this a point of contention? That's the reason I consider Obama black. Because of what I was told by black people.

Phoenix, do you call yourself black? What would you like to be "considered" in conversations such as these? (forgive my akwardness)

And I have a friend (notice the lack of quotation marks ) whose dad is from Africa and mom is from Europe. HE identifies himself as white. So much for the African authority, huh?

Your contention, of course, ignores that a person of mixed heritage SHOULD be able to identify with whatever half they want, NOT identify themselves as the one drop rule does (which, even if you have a "drop" of black blood, makes you black), or as other people see them as.

Me never say ALL BLACK people to go back to Africa I am just saying that if it is so bad over here it is because of your paranoia of the 'White People' being around you. And a good way to get away from that was to go back to AFRICA. Yet, I might have said if you don't like it here ... GO BACK TO AFRICA. Hell , go anywhere ... ... But I liked you attacking the thread telling me that I was a "Copy Cat" I just wanted to show you that there is no argument who really has the PRIVLEDGES here in AMERICA. If this is not obvious ... then ... Just go to the thread that I have made where there are RULES and Regulations that are set up by our government ... Maybe you can throw your 2 cents in there ... Like the other guy about his friends and him getting in line first at the Chicken STOP ... F'in RACISTS ...

Originally posted by truthseeka
And notice how you are BITING off of me.

I mean, damn, the LEAST you could have done was change the TITLE (don't worry, you're not the first poster to bite off of me like this

).

Were you to use your reading skills, you would see that I have used a NUMBER of sources in this thread.

But, I guess I can give you props for keeping your asinine comments in check...no, keeping them from coming out on this board. This is quite a step up from telling black people to "go the f.uck back to africa."

Originally posted by truthseeka
Note to her highness BH:

Aw... thanks, sugar.

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.

Well, see, here's the deal. I read that we need to "face up to" this and "come to grips with" that and "stop doing" the other (that I'm not doing in the first place...)

But NONE of that tells me anything solid or concrete. If there were something that you wanted (and could communicate it) I would at least not be confused about this guilt thing. But over and over I read that we need to acknowledge and understand white privilege (which I do) but not feel guilty about it (which I don't)... Then what?

There seems to be this niggling desire for us (white people) to do something that we're not already doing. And I'm asking what is it???

Upon further thought, I have ANOTHER perspective from Africa.

Langston Hughes noted that the Africans he encountered in Africa did NOT consider him black. This is because Hughes is well known to have quite a mixed heritage. Even so, he was "blacker" than Barack Obama, i.e. BOTH his parents were black, phenotypically speaking.

Originally posted by truthseeka
And I have a friend (notice the lack of quotation marks

)

Yeah, well, you probably didn't sleep with him for two years... I could have said ex-boyfriend, but I felt that was TMI.

HE identifies himself as white. So much for the African authority, huh?

I said nothing about an African authority. I was asking phoenix, out of curiosity and you're making ALL SORTS of incorrect assumptions (why am I surprised?) about why I asked.

And I'm sorry, but you can't speak for a person of mixed race any more than I can. I'm obviously aware of the one drop rule, which is what my African LOVER explained to me.

Awaiting Phoenix's response.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But NONE of that tells me anything solid or concrete. If there were something that you wanted (and could communicate it) I would at least not be confused about this guilt thing. But over and over I read that we need to acknowledge and understand white privilege (which I do) but not feel guilty about it (which I don't)... Then what?

There seems to be this niggling desire for us (white people) to do something that we're not already doing. And I'm asking what is it???

Were you to have read my responses to your "what do you want" questions, you would see I already asked that. But, here it is AGAIN :

I'm exposing white privilege in this thread.

And, were you to get off your high horse , you would see that NO ONE is "axing" you to feel guilty.

Tell you what...send a letter to Dr. Jensen and ask him what you, BH (representative of ALL white people ) must do. I'm sure he will be able to help you better than I will.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yeah, well, you probably didn't sleep with him for two years...

I could have said ex-boyfriend, but I felt that was TMI.

Ah, I see...

IMO, ex-boyfriend wouldn't have been too much info. Haven't decided on slept together for 2 years, though...I guess that could have been left out.

And I'm sorry, but you can't speak for a person of mixed race any more than I can.

I didn't say I could. What I DID say was why can't a mixed person PICK whichever side they want, assuming that they want to pick a side in the first place. THIS is the problem I have with people saying Obama could be the first black president; they've made his racial identity for him. Which IS a direct example of the one drop rule.

Originally posted by truthseeka

I didn't say I could. What I DID say was why can't a mixed person PICK whichever side they want, assuming that they want to pick a side in the first place. THIS is the problem I have with people saying Obama could be the first black president; they've made his racial identity for him. Which IS a direct example of the one drop rule.

If a person "PICKS A SIDE" then what are they doing ? Becomins a rasists whether they know it or not ....


Do people have to "KNOW" they are racists to be one ??

Three Psychological Approaches to Minority-Majority Conflict
(a) 'Realistic' Group Conflict Theory

This theory was first formulated by Muzafer Sherif (1966 & Sherif et. al., 1988), a pioneer in the study of intergroup relations. The theory suggests that hostility between two groups results from real or perceived conflicting goals which generate intergroup competition. When groups are engaged in reciprocally competitive and frustrating activities of a zero-sum nature, each group will develop negative stereotypes about, and enmity toward, the other group (the out-group). This hypothesis was validated by the first stage of the famous Robbers' Cave experiment (Sherif et. al. 1988) involving boys in a summer camp: When boys were split into two groups engaging in competitive activities with conflicting goals, that is, goals that can be achieved only at the expense of the other group (for instance, the two groups had to compete with each other in a tournament of games like football, tug-of-war, etc.) intergroup hostility emerged very quickly and almost automatically. Similar experiments confirmed intergroup competition as a crucial source of out-group hostilities not only in children, but also in adolescents and adults (Tzeng & Jackson, 1994).


Majority Vs. Minority

Originally posted by truthseeka
What I DID say was why can't a mixed person PICK whichever side they want, assuming that they want to pick a side in the first place.

Uh... That's why I asked phoenix (not you) how HE felt about it. As I said to him in another discussion on a similar topic:

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Since I have two races, does that mean that I have free range within those two?

You tell me. I would say yes, but I don't get to make your rules.

So, yeah, truthseeka, I asked instead of assuming anything. Seems the height of your horse rivals my own!

THIS is the problem I have with people saying Obama could be the first black president; they've made his racial identity for him.

No. "They" have not made his racial identity for him. He has. He calls himself a black man (with a funny name). HE says who he is.

Book Excerpt

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by truthseeka

I didn't say I could. What I DID say was why can't a mixed person PICK whichever side they want, assuming that they want to pick a side in the first place. THIS is the problem I have with people saying Obama could be the first black president; they've made his racial identity for him. Which IS a direct example of the one drop rule.

After reading the latest comments, I have to agree with you on this accord. People of mixed-race should be able to identify with whomever they feel comfortable with. This depends on a personal and individual issue about their idenity that they must figure out and be comfortable with.

Opposed to dealing with this aspect in a collective sense--in which the one drop rule is yet another aspect of white privilege. It allows those from the dominant culture to determine "who is white" and "who isn't". It also reflects power relations systemically. And it again, demonstrates how "white skin" is valued above all others and that it is set at a premium--especially when it is used to allow some to become WASP's while others cannot.

The other thing I discovered is that continual personalization that reappears especially when it has to do with identity issues. That is why I emphasize discussing issues like this without any emotion. Without any emotion, people are able to look at both sides objectively.

And dispassionately, I can see that neither you and myself are not writing this to "hold anyone hostage" with our ideas and sources. We are not telling people that they ought to feel guilty because of what we are examining. And furthermore, there is much more mileage in this topic when people are able to take a step back and work with the sources instead of inferring that we "meant anything" with our words.

I said, just like you did, that we wanted to "shine a light on white privilege". Nothing more.

Like I said before, it is very hard for some to disengage from the personalization and work with the topic as it is. That means having the courage to stop and read the sources while refraining from taking it personally--not to mention arguing with civil restraint.

But maybe this is an aspect of white privilege as well. White privilege allows some to not really examine the sources and think about them thoughtfully. And perhaps, it also allows that one from the dominant culture should not feel the need to be courteous without any conscious attempt to consider another's words and sources objectively.



[edit on 13-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
And perhaps, it also allows that one from the dominant culture should not feel the need to be courteous--instead of being patronizing at will without any conscious attempt to consider one's words and sources objectively.

But some are better at this than others.

I read your "spew" comment before you edited it out, probably realizing how that indicates that you're "personalizing" all this while preaching that we shouldn't personalize it! But I did catch your last comment before you edited it out. Way to not personalize it!

And you really have no room to preach about being courteous.

And I see you're totally ignoring all my comments and questions. That's fine. Way to work together with someone who is genuinely concerned and caring about the issues.

To be honest, BH, this is the last post in a while that I will address to you. I have made it clear to the people up stairs that the only way to avoid any disruption is to avoid you and your posts. In essence, I am trying to keep the peace here and my promise to them on this accord.

So, that is why I am not addressing your posts. And I will try to stay on topic.

And I will continue to work with truthseeka and others on this issue. It has nothing to do with whether you geniunely care or not.


[edit on 13-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006

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]

Yes, I've knocked the guy in other threads, because I think he is part of the looney liberal left-wing fringe, and I think that they will destroy this country.

His candidacy and popularity are another matter. It's a matter of whether the glass is half full or half empty.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I have made it clear to the people up stairs that the only way to avoid any disruption is to avoid you and your posts. In essence, I am trying to keep the peace here and keeping my promise to them on this accord.

Oh. OK. I can respect that. Thanks for explaining.

It's too bad you have determined that you need to avoid me, but if that's what you have to do to keep your cool, I will respect it. I have made no such promise to anyone, so I will still direct comments and questions to you as I see fit, knowing that you won't answer but perhaps someone else can shed light.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I see you're totally ignoring all my comments and questions. That's fine.

After what happened, I'm surprised she even responded to THIS post from you.

Way to work together with someone who is genuinely concerned and caring about the issues.

Hey...

I'm not Ceci, but I'm SURE working with you is the LAST thing she wants to do.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Yes, I've knocked the guy in other threads, because I think he is part of the looney liberal left-wing fringe, and I think that they will destroy this country.

You are free to think of him that way in an ideological sense. But, to be fair, you asked about Mr. Obama's viability racially--opposed to his other traits. I gave my opinion here and I would think that this is fair that you ought to consider how his image would appear systemically--especially when it has to do with white privilege.

His candidacy and popularity are another matter. It's a matter of whether the glass is half full or half empty.

That's fine and well. But, in accordance to the issues in this thread, it is also fair game to analyze his presence in terms of white privilege--especially when perceptions come into play.


[edit on 13-3-2007 by ceci2006]