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: 27
12
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Here are some more excerpts to add to the discussion.

Sylvia R. Lazos Vargas wrote a very compelling piece on how there is a "narrative" that seems to work with white privilege in its stance to uphold a system in America. Her interpretation and study into how privilege affects the United States may also pinpoint why such a system stays in tact:


The Homogeneity Assumption:The White Ethnic Narrative as Cultural Ideology

Whiteness is a privilege that sociologist Ruth Frankenberg describes as a series of cultural practices that permit Whites to not be aware of the privileges and dominance into which they are born. Whites do not notice that their daily environments are generally made up almost entirely of other Whites; even in homogeneous environments, Whites believe themselves to be diverse. Whites' own ability to perceive the privileges attached to being White, and the consequent unprivileging of being non-White, is limited. White privilege means having entry to structures and institutions that mete out important economic opportunities; having access to neighborhoods, jobs, credit, and tax benefits that by and large are off limits or available in limited fashion to minorities; it means being presumed competent, intelligent, and hardworking; it means not being discriminated against daily be anyone ranging from a restaurant attendant to a car salesperson. Finally, it is the advantage of not having to think of yourself as different, not having to acknowledge the perquisites that you have gained because of your social racial identity. Being White means that the standards and norms peculiar to Whites and White Euro-ethnicity become the implicit standard by which all other members of our society are measured. Whites need not confront the dissonance between their egalitarian beliefs and what psychological studies have measured, unconscious harsh discriminatory treatment of minorities, because their rationalizations are not contested. This leaves a large racial reality gulf, which Whites become aware of only with the occasional socially impacting event.

[...]
The White immigrant success story constructs White ethnic identity as virtuous. First, this reconstruction of the White ethnic identity legitimizes the privileges that attach to White ethnicity. White ethnics individually succeeded through transformation, hard work, perseverance in the face of ethnic racism, and loyalty to a fair system. Second, by constructing a virtuous White ethnic identity, the White immigrant model reconstructs raced identities as nonvirtuous. Other groups who do not succeed fail because they are unwilling to work hard. This rationalization maintains the illusion of White innocence and the transparency of White privilege. This is a rationalization firmly anchored in the White ethnic narrative's construction of core American ideological values of individuality, merit, fairness, and exceptionality.


FYI.

--------------------------------------------

Truthseeka and everyone else, I will be back to answer your comments later.



[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]




posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

The Homogeneity Assumption:The White Ethnic Narrative as Cultural Ideology


Whiteness is a privilege that sociologist Ruth Frankenberg describes as a series of cultural practices that permit Whites to not be aware of the privileges and dominance into which they are born.

'Whiteness'?
For a start she completely ignores the existence of underpriveged whites.. seems the thing to do.

Whites do not notice that their daily environments are generally made up almost entirely of other Whites; even in homogeneous environments,

We don't? Thats probably because our enviroments are not almost entirely made up of whites.
I love how this person has no problem in speaking of what all us whites notice.. I guess she must be white. Regardless.. she's a racist because she's making assumptions about an entire group of people based on skin colour. Some objectivity would help her credibilty.. she clearly has an axe to grind.

Whites believe themselves to be diverse.

And what is the problem with this? I'm guessing it must be a problem as she wouldn't have put it on her paper if it wasn't a derogatory towards whites.
Hmm.. maybe what she means is that we are all the same.

The rest of it is just the same ol.. quite frankly it reads like it's a KKK 'educational' pamphlet.

What you did not know about whites.. a beginners guide to protect you from the evil dominant culture.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by riley]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
If you think you are getting a tough deal work twice as hard and show them what you are made of. I had to work twice as hard to become a State Trooper, you don't see me complaining.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you, especially since, from what I know of them, most of the people posting in this thread are either professionals of some sort, or in grad school and, I'm certain, have worked quite hard to get there.

More to your comment, though, why do people always think that, if you take the stance that ceci, truthseeka, and others have taken, you're poor? What an assumption!

Think about it for a minute, James. Why did you automatically assume that?


I didnt say anything about financial status. Where do I mention that at?

You know one of my fellow Troopers Darius Hall once said,"Life is not black and white, it is a spectrum of the various shades of gray."

[edit on 15-3-2007 by JamesMcMahn]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
... that the definition to privledge is ...

Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

FUNNY that is says that the right or immunity is granted ... then you have to go to granted.


Main Entry: 1grant
Pronunciation: \ˈgrant\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French granter, graanter, from Vulgar Latin *credentare, from Latin credent-, credens, present participle of credere to believe — more at creed
Date: 13th century
1 a: to consent to carry out for a person : allow fulfillment of b: to permit as a right, privilege, or favor
2: to bestow or transfer formally ; specifically : to give the possession or title of by a deed
3 a: to be willing to concede b: to assume to be true
— grant·able \ˈgran-tə-bəl\ adjective
— grant·er \-tər\ noun
— grant·or \ˈgran-tər, -ˌtȯr; gran-ˈtȯr\ noun
synonyms grant, concede, vouchsafe, accord, award mean to give as a favor or a right. grant implies giving to a claimant or petitioner something that could be withheld . concede implies yielding something reluctantly in response to a rightful or compelling claim . vouchsafe implies granting something as a courtesy or an act of gracious condescension . accord implies giving to another what is due or proper . award implies giving what is deserved or merited usually after a careful weighing of pertinent factors .

What's even funnier is the fact that it says ... DEF: for TAKE right beside this def.
Main Entry: 1take
Pronunciation: \ˈtāk\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): took \ˈtu̇k\; tak·en \ˈtā-kən\; tak·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English tacan, from Old Norse taka; akin to Middle Dutch taken to take
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1: to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control: as a: to seize or capture physically b: to get possession of (as fish or game) by killing or capturing c (1): to move against (as an opponent's piece in chess) and remove from play (2): to win in a card game d: to acquire by eminent domain
2: grasp, grip
3 a: to catch or attack through the effect of a sudden force or influence b: to catch or come upon in a particular situation or action c: to gain the approval or liking of : captivate, delight
4 a: to receive into one's body (as by swallowing, drinking, or inhaling) b: to put oneself into (as sun, air, or water) for pleasure or physical benefit c: to partake of : eat
5 a: to bring or receive into a relation or connection (2): follow (3): to accept or regard with the mind in a specified way c: to indulge in and enjoy d: to receive or accept as a return (as in payment, compensation, or reparation)



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Dues,

Thanks for the definitions, but I am afraid you will find that some do not care any more about REAL definitions then they do about TRUTH...

Read all the thread and it is glaringly obvious...

Semper



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Your welcome for the definitions ... and if you would re -read the thread you would realize that I have been involved inthis thread since the beginning. And the MORE IMPORTANT FACT that I just realized ... is that PRIVLEDGE cannot be given or taken away it must be EARNED!!!



Originally posted by semperfortis
Dues,

Thanks for the definitions, but I am afraid you will find that some do not care any more about REAL definitions then they do about TRUTH...

Read all the thread and it is glaringly obvious...

Semper



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
After a conversation with my husband (who is no dullard) I write the following:

All of these threads (race and now cop/race) boil down to the danger of generalizations. In this thread, we have many white people/dominant culture members who acknowledge white privilege. We have many who are genuinely compassionate, empathetic and understanding towards black people and what they deal with in this country today.

Yet these people are time and time again, lumped in with others of their skin color (and culture) who have no interest in understanding -- because it serves the agenda of making white people the bad guy. Yeah, you can say that's not your agenda, but your actions speak MUCH louder than your words.


Originally posted by riley

Whites believe themselves to be diverse.

And what is the problem with this?


The problem is - if whites are thought of to be diverse, then they can't be grouped as one large, monolithic group, which, thinking with one mind and soul, has no empathy or conscience for anyone else but themselves. And clearly that is the purpose and agenda of some in this thread, to demonize white people as non-caring, slow-witted, closed-minded, self-important, selfish, arrogant and even biologically deficient sub-species, as illustrated by this amateur (deemed "socio-cultural") analysis:


Originally posted by ceci2006
...I began to wonder (...) why is there such a hard time in the dominant culture believing our experiences and sources about white privilege.

(mind you, this is from a socio-cultural perspective)

I think that it has to do with four things:

1)A stunning lack of empathy.

2)A lack of identification with people of color, their ideas, their thoughts and their lives.

3)No discernable conscience when concerning the historical past and the present society.

4)A predilection to rendering the uncomforable "invisible" under the mask of cool superiority.


These generalizations are slathered on the dominant culture as a way to explain away the reasons why some don't fall into 100% agreement with the entire pretext of white privilege put forth here. (That being that there is no "black privilege"; white people are unaware of their privilege; they are limited in the perception; they are not being discriminated against by anyone; they want to avoid talking about race, etc.)

Many here of the "dominant culture" (i.e. white people) DO acknowledge and are aware of white privilege, we DO have empathy for the suffering of those who endure racism (and other -isms), we DO feel compassion and we DO identify with people who are different than us. We may not know EXACTLY what EVERYTHING is like but we ARE thinking, feeling, sensitive, empathetic beings. Our whiteness does not preclude any of that, as the above analysis would have others believe.

But by the same token:

Some of us believe there is ALSO black privilege. We ARE discriminated against... sometimes for reasons other than race, but sometimes for race. We know what that feels like. We DO want to talk about race and we ARE diverse. These points disagree with the pretext of white privilege put forth in this thread. And for our disagreement, we are demonized.



Hmm.. maybe what she means is that we are all the same.


Of course that's what she means. That's what she says.

Your Group, not My Group

What I find interesting as I go through these threads is the ability for some of the participants to SO easily group "white people" when it's convenient - and the resistance to any attempt at a similar grouping of "black people". It's all very well and good to group the dominant culture (aka white people) as having no empathy, no conscience, no understanding and no diversity. But we ALL know that to group black people with the lowest common denominator of their race (the OJ Simpsons, the criminal element, the drug dealers, the gangs, the deadbeat dads) is incorrect at best, racist at worst. In fact, simply ask the question, "What do you want"? and be reproached with "We are not one monolithic group."

Duh...

Neither are we.


And, by the same token, neither are cops. Yet it's very easy for some here not only to group white people as a monolith, but to group cops as well - and to lay blame for the worst element of cops on them all, as if all are responsible for the actions of every other one. Seems it's ok to group together people as long as it's not YOUR group.

HarlemHottie, I hope you don't mind my using a post of yours from the "cop thread" to illustrate my point here. I know you think it's different to group cops and group a race, but I don't. I don't see the difference at all, and I want to illustrate that.


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Semper, I have a problem with cops. I don't call them pigs, but I do have a problem with them.
...
I have a problem with them shooting and killing unarmed, defenseless black men.

What say you, semper?

Am I a 'cop-hater'? Or am I simply reacting to their felonious actions?


Now, you certainly have every right to your opinion and I support your expression of it, but I strongly disagree with the implication that Semper is under any kind of obligation or responsibility regarding bad cops, any more than you are regarding gang-bangers.

There IS a bad element of cops (and I will GLADLY call them "pigs") but to apply the actions of the pigs to the cops as a whole, and hold all cops responsible for them is a generalization and a danger. There is also at least one bad element of black people (let's use "gang-bangers"). To apply the actions of the gang-bangers to black people as a whole, and hold all black people responsible for them is also a generalization and a danger, but I suspect that's much more clear and acceptable to some.

And you (and others) suggest that many cops "cover" for others. I agree. They are part of the bad element. But I also contend that many blacks "cover" for their own and lie, cheat, steal and kill to keep themselves and their friends (their group) out of trouble. And some cops do this for the SAME reasons.

So, equating the grouping of "cops" to the grouping of "black people" is not so different after all...

Referring to your post, if I substitute a few words, we have:

"I have a problem with black people, I don't call them "gang-bangers" but I do have a problem with them.
...
I have a problem with them shooting and killing unarmed, defenseless white men.

What say you, HarlemHottie?

Am I a 'black-hater'? Or am I simply reacting to their felonious actions?"


I don't have a problem with people grouping the "bad cops" together, but to hold the larger group (some of whom are putting their lives on the line every day in order to saving others' lives!!) as responsible for the entire group is no better than the worst racism.

Sorry to cross threads, but as we all know, these subjects have a lot to do with each other. I'm sick of the double standards.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Here are some more pieces to add to the discussion.

This is a very interesting piece discussing white privilege beyond class lines by Kendall Clark:


Justice Entails Ending White Privilege

Poor and working class whites object to the idea of white privilege, pointing out that not every white person is wealthy or powerful. But other benefits accrue to white people, including one which W.E.B. DuBois called the "psychological wages of whiteness". Membership in the privileged group, even for whites on the bottom economic rung, confers a social status and recognition which is denied to all but the most powerful members of oppressed groups.

Even today, as Glen Loury suggests in his recent book, The Anatomy of Racial Inequality, African Americans suffer from a racial social stigma unknown to even the poorest white Americans, who share in many of the privileges of being white, no matter their economic disadvantage.

And so the other pattern of racially-dispensed benefit and harm is political. Slavery and Jim Crow were accompanied and supported by a political ideology which stigmatized African Americans and other non-whites by suggesting that only white people were fully human and that white people are the norm by which others are to be judged. These assaults on the dignity and self-respect of African Americans cause long-lived, public, even generational harms which are not easily or quickly overcome.
[...]

We white people have and enjoy these privileges unjustly, as a result of an unjust and still largely unaddressed history. The promise of American democracy will remain unfulfilled until the legacy of American racism is addressed and overcome.



Tim Wise also has his two cents to say about white privilege and class:


What's the matter with White Folks?
A simple glance at the history of this country makes it all too clear that whites, in particular, have been willing to overlook their class interests for the sake of racial privilege. Working-class whites did this in the South when elites convinced them to fight for a slave system that undercut their own economic well-being; they did it again during the emergence of the labor movement when, fearing the racial solidarity in wages that unionism would bring, they fought to keep their unions all-white.

In other words, white supremacy has long offered whites an alternative identity, apart from their class status, around which to rally. As UCLA law professor Cheryl Harris puts it, whiteness is a form a property every bit as valuable to those who possess it as the material goods they might receive by voting for more progressive candidates. This is not false consciousness, in other words, but alternative consciousness: the prioritizing of non-fiscal interests by people who have been offered alternative benefits by a system of racial inequity.

So if whites—even those whose economic status is vulnerable—come to view progressive government policies or candidates as threats to their hegemonic status and control (whether through immigration, affirmative action, welfare and social service programs, or even a foreign policy that is insufficiently belligerent to non-white terrorists), it ought not surprise us that such folks might ignore their true class interests and vote instead for what they view as their other interests, including those that are in effect conceived in racial terms.


This is also a very good and brief explaination about how white privilege transcends class:


White Privilege Revisited. Part One of Two.

White privilege is defined as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which whites are "meant" to remain oblivious. I say again, "meant to remain oblivious." White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack, invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear and blank checks. Please, read this paragraph again.


Why does this affect all whites? You may be reading this saying, "I don't get anything special. I was born and raised in the ghetto. I was the only white in my school. My family is poor. What do I get?" I say again that where you come from is not the issue. Your financial status is not the point. Who you are and aren't friends with doesn't matter. No matter your material wealth of experiences, your race carries the knapsack. Please read that paragraph again.


By now, you should have read six times that whites are meant to be obvious to the invisible knapsack. You don't see it, you didn't ask for it, you don't consciously use it, but it's there. An example. You guessed it. History. When we go to history class and learn about the framers and the pioneers and the great soldiers who built this country, we see illustrations of great white men on their horses, eyes to the heavens. Great Godly patriots. What a great esteem booster. "Wow, George Washington looks just like my grandfather."



FYI--an added perspective about the effects of white privilege, especially when it transcends class. A move beyond generalization.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Thanks for clarifying the issue on white privilege and lower-class whites, Ceci. Yet, the class deflections will continue, while the evidence we present is conveniently ignored.


But hey, when you can't say anything against the evidence, that in and of itself is saying a lot...



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Now for more evidence that will be ignored...


Driving While Black


The issue of racial profiling by police briefly grabbed the attention of the press when New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman recently fired the head of the state police after he accused blacks and hispanics of being more likely to be drug dealers and therefore deserving of heightened police scrutiny. Whitman earned glowing coverage for her swift action.

In fact, Whitman has sedulously ignored the problem for most of her term, insisting that racial profiling is not a practice of the state police. Even after two New Jersey state troopers fired eleven shots into a van carrying four black men on their way to a basketball clinic last winter Whitman clung to her contention that the action was not racially motivated. In 1995 a New Jersey state judge threw out charges against fifteen black drivers who, the judge said, had been pulled over without cause. During the trial it emerged that on a 26-mile long stretch on the southern part of the New Jersey Turnpike minorities accounted for 46 percent of the drivers stopped, even though they were only 15 percent of the speeders.


This goes back to those other sources I mentioned on the turnpike issue. Same old racist New Jersey police. At least some of the victims got justice for receiving the short end of the white privilege stick.

Now, this is for the tired "bad apple" argument.


Whitman also kept her mouth shut in early February when Emblez Longoria, a New Jersey state trooper, filed suit against his department claiming that he was being pressured to make illegal stops of black and hispanic drivers in order to fulfill his arrest quotas. Longoria, who is hispanic, alleges that he was denied promotions and harassed by his superiors when he refused to pull over drivers using racial profiling. Ultimately, Whitman's hand was forced by the racist remarks of Col. Carl Williams, the head of the New Jersey state police. Responding to a report showing that 75 percent of all motorists arrested on the New Jersey Turnpike in the first two months of 1997 were minorities, Williams told the Newark Star-Ledger that coc aine and marijuana traffickers were most likely to be either black or hispanic.


"Bad apples," huh? We see a state trooper have the nuts to come forward and admit that his superiors were ordering the racial profiling. From his words, we see that officers who racially profile do get promotions and do not get harassed. Funny how this is similar to the Iraq prison abuse scandal. The people doing the torturing were, you guessed it, "bad apples;" never mind that there were torture memos STRAIGHT from the White House.



But racial profiling is neither new nor isolated to the Garden State. ...To be a black driver in America is to invite police scrutiny, as thousands are daily singled out for groundless pull-overs, "pretext" stops, and subjected to intrusive, warrantless searches and abusive treatment by police.


And again, we see white privilege in action. The other, uglier side of WP, of course.


The problem is not merely one of racist cops, but of a policing system that encourages and promotes racial typing. In Amherst, Massachusetts, the police department held seminars for its officers on "perpetrator profiles". The officers were told that "interracial couples" were more likely to be engaged in drug dealing than white couples.

In San Diego, the police are ever vigilant to pull over black people driving expensive cars. In October of 1997, a black man named Shawn Lee and his girlfriend were stopped by the California Highway Patrol on Interstate 15. Lee, a member of the San Diego Chargers football team, and his girlfriend were handcuffed and held by police for more than an hour. The patrolman said that they were detained because Lee was driving a car that fit a description of one that had been reported as stolen that night. This story was false. Lee was driving a new Jeep Grand Cherokee. The stolen vehicle was a Honda.


More holes are poked in the "bad apple" explanation here. Also, we see a pro athlete, CLEARLY a member of the upper class, STILL subjected to the ugly side of white privilege. On trumped up charges to boot.:shk:


A similar kind of racial typing is evident up the coast in supposedly liberal Santa Monica. In the fall of 1996, two police cars tailed Darryl Hicks and George Washington, two black men, as they pulled into the parking garage of their hotel. The police cruisers turned on their lights and at gun-point ordered the men out of their cars. The men were handcuffed and placed in separate police cars. Washington and Hicks' car was searched. The police claimed the men were being detained because they fit the description of suspects wanted in a string of nineteen armed robberies. The officers also said one of the men appeared to be "nervous". Washington and Hicks later sued the police officers for false arrest and civil rights violations. In ruling for the two men, the court determined that the armed robberies had not occurred in Santa Monica and that neither of the men fit the descriptions of the robbers.


And again, we see white privilege in action. These men had guns pulled on them, were cuffed, then searched on trumped up charges, no, make that LIES. Not only had the crimes not even occurred in the CITY, but they did NOT fit the descriptions of the robbers.



In Carmel, Indiana, an affluent suburb of Indianapolis, a state trooper pulled over a black man named David Smith. The trooper was unaware that Smith was a sergeant in the Carmel city police department and the sedan he was driving was actually an unmarked police car. Smith was ordered out of his car and, according to Smith, the trooper appeared to be "shocked and surprised" when he saw that Smith was wearing his police uniform. The trooper said he had pulled Smith over because he had three antennas on the back of his car.


So, we see another example of white privilege, as it pertains to the laws. Black cops are often STILL unable to escape the ugly side of white privilege FROM THEIR OWN who ARE white! Amazing.


As is so often the case, the pretext for the profiling is the drug war, itself a ill-disguised form of state-sponsored racism. Nowhere has this kind of racial typing in the name of drug interdiction been used as aggressively as in Maryland, where since at least 1988 it has been the policy of the state troopers to pull over, detain and search drivers for drugs and guns, using a race-based "drug courier profile". According to the testimony of a Maryland State Trooper, those race profiles explicitly targeted: "1) young, black males wearing expensive jewelry; 2) driving expensive cars, usually sports cars; 3) carrying beepers; and 4) in possession of telephone numbers."

In 1990, the state police set up a drug task force called "Special Traffic Interdiction Force", or STIF. STIF targeted drivers along Interstate 95 in northeastern Maryland. The unit was composed of six white troopers. Over the course of six years, the STIF unit, using the drug courier profile, pulled over and searched black drivers four times as often as they did whites. One of the troopers, Bernard M. Donovan, searched only black drivers.


Again, more refutation of the "bad apple" argument. We see Maryland singled out black males to be stopped on suspicion of drugs. Moreoever, the STIF unit reinforced white privilege by pulling over and searching whites at a QUARTER the rate for blacks. We even see that one of the troopers gave whites the ULTIMATE privilege from the law; he WOULD NOT pull over a white driver.:shk:


The Criminal Intelligence Report came to light through a lawsuit filed in 1993 by Robert Wilkins. Wilkins, a Harvard Law School graduate, was a public defender in Washington, DC. In May of 1992 he was returning to DC from a family funeral in Ohio in a rented Cadillac. He was accompanied by his aunt, uncle and a 29-year old cousin. Wilkins was pulled over by a trooper in western Maryland for speeding. He and his family were ordered out of the car and forced to stand in driving rain for more than an hour as the state trooper brought in drug-sniffing dogs to search the car. No drugs were found. Wilkins and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit and, in 1995, won a substantial settlement from the Maryland State Police. As part of the Wilkins settlement, the state police agreed to compile a database of all stops of drivers on Maryland highways in which police ask to perform searches or in which a search is done by a drug-sniffing dog.

White motorists make up 78 per cent of Maryland highway traffic, while black drivers account for about 17 per cent and other minorities about 5 percent in the state. When the Wilkins data were submitted to the court in late 1998, they showed that between January 1, 1995 and December 15, 1997, more than 70 per cent of the people who were stopped and searched on Interstate 95 were black and about 77 per cent were minorities. Only about 23 per cent were white. The data also revealed that the vast majority of drivers who were stopped and searched and not found to be carrying any drugs were also black, more than 67 percent. The ACLU has used such data to bring a class action suit against the Maryland state police.


Lot of stuff here. Once again, we see that class has no bearing on the ugly side of white privilege for blacks. This is at least the 3rd example I have provided of similar accounts in this thread

[edit on 15-3-2007 by truthseeka]

[edit on 15-3-2007 by truthseeka

[edit on 15-3-2007 by truthseeka]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Continuons...


Clearly, the Wilkins litigation did nothing alter the racist practices of the Maryland troopers as evidenced by the testimony of State Trooper Michael Lewis in a recent criminal case. Lewis told the court that he pulled over Robert Ware in large measure because he was a young, black man. Lewis admitted that he factored in the race of drivers on a daily basis as part of his drug interdiction work. In late 1998, the Maryland State Police assigned Lewis to a post as an instructor, training other troopers in how to identify potential drug couriers on the state's highways.


Still more evidence against the "bad apple" argument. We see a trooper, who admittedly racially profiles, was assigned to TEACH other troopers to racially profile.:shk:



One of the plaintiffs in the ACLU suit is Nelson Walker, a native of Liberia and a student at the University of North Carolina. In April of 1995 Walker was stopped on Interstate 95, purportedly for failure to have his seatbelt buckled. The trooper who pulled him over insinuated that his 1990 Infiniti was too nice a car for Walker to be driving and ordered Walker and his passenger out of the car. Drug-detecting dogs were called for and then the car was searched for over an hour and a half. Walker and his friend, Mecca Agunabo I, were made to stand in the rain for nearly two hours while the car was searched.

When Agunabo said he needed to get out of the rain because he had just recently recovered from a bout with pneumonia, the trooper threatened to arrest him. In a search for drugs, the troopers rummaged through the men's luggage and other personal belongings. Then the troopers largely dismantled Walker's car, tearing out a door panel, the back seat and part of the sunroof. No drugs were found. One of the troopers went to his cruiser and returned with a screwdriver, which he handed to Walker saying, "Here, you're going to need this."


I'd be tired of saying this over and over, if it weren't for the denials of WP. But, here we see another example of white privilege. Actually, this isn't another example, it's more of a reinforcing of the white privilege that you can drive an expensive car without being harassed by police, who think you can't afford such a car.


Once again, innocent people are made to stand in the rain by racist cops.
In this case, one of the guys had recovered from pneumonia, so he DEFINITELY didn't need to be in the rain for over 90 minutes. Yet, when he said this, the racist cop threatened to arrest him. Talk about abusing authority.


This guy has his car torn apart, and guess what, NO DRUGS WERE FOUND! I guess this is a secondary white privilege, that you won't have racist cops tear apart your expensive whip when you've done NOTHING to warrant this destruction of your property.

Then, the arrogant, racist bucket of feces has the nerve to JOKE about racially profiling the man and tearing up his car. The worst thing about this case is that these type of things happen ALL OVER the country to black drivers.

But hey, this STILL isn't white privilege in action. Hell, I ALREADY know some one (singular) is going to say this is all fake lies.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Hey Truthseeka, you have once again presented a lot of food for thought here. I will take the time to go through your post and comment on it.

But, I wanted to respond to your comment about deflection.

There is a well known saying that "ignorance breeds contempt".

The contempt for what we've presented is there, is it not, my friend?


[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
The contempt for what we've presented is there, is it not, my friend?

[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]


Aye. But, I guess it goes with the territory. It's like the arguments I get from people against evolution. Whereas I present my views along with evidence, all they do is fall back on the same old tactics people with their views use against evolution. With scant, shabby evidence of their own, I might add.

Pretty much the same thing applies here.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Everyone is making a fuss about "white privilege" that I really don't see. I have one question for you what are you doing about it if you feel a problem is there then do something about it otherwise, drop it. When I diagreed with the "no pursuit policy in the DPD I keep pestering them until they revoked that policy. Do something about it.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
Everyone is making a fuss about "white privilege" that I really don't see. I have one question for you what are you doing about it if you feel a problem is there then do something about it otherwise, drop it. When I diagreed with the "no pursuit policy in the DPD I keep pestering them until they revoked that policy. Do something about it.


We are doing something about it. We're shining a light on it and analyzing its repercussions on society in this thread. For people who are willing to get involved in politics and care about society, we can do no less to bring "hyper-visibility" to this issue.




[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
We are doing something about it. We're shining a light on it and analyzing its repercussions on society in this thread. For people who are willing to get involved in politics and care about society, we can do no less.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]


Ah, that's nothing, Ceci. We should just SHUT UP about white privilege. That WOULD be best...




posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
Everyone is making a fuss about "white privilege" that I really don't see. I have one question for you what are you doing about it if you feel a problem is there then do something about it otherwise, drop it. When I diagreed with the "no pursuit policy in the DPD I keep pestering them until they revoked that policy. Do something about it.


We are doing something about it. We're shining a light on it and analyzing its repercussions on society. For people who are willing to get involved in politics and care about society, we can do no less.


In all my years of law enforcement I never saw this problem I can honestly say. Most of the people I pulled over were Mexican. I really have a hard time beleive this is a wide spread problem. I have seen the above situtations happen to all people of all races, both genders, and of all socioeconomic statuses. There are a lot of officers that will go overboard on the searches, most of the time if you complain to the city council, or similar governing body they will recoup the damages.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn
In all my years of law enforcement I never saw this problem I can honestly say. Most of the people I pulled over were Mexican. I really have a hard time beleive this is a wide spread problem.


Funny, I don't have a hard time believing you actually feel that this is not a widespread problem.


I have seen the above situtations happen to all people of all races, both genders, and of all socioeconomic statuses. There are a lot of officers that will go overboard on the searches, most of the time if you complain to the city council, or similar governing body they will recoup the damages.


I see you didn't read my sources (not that I'm surprised, though). If you did, you would have seen that measures taken to eliminate racial profiling FAILED; the practice still occurs. Not to mention that high ranking political officials are known to cover up this problem.

And of course, as long as police departments TEACH officers to do this, NO laws will fix this problem.



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ah, that's nothing, Ceci. We should just SHUT UP about white privilege. That WOULD be best...



Originally posted by ceci2006
We are doing something about it. We're shining a light on it and analyzing its repercussions on society in this thread. For people who are willing to get involved in politics and care about society, we can do no less to bring "hyper-visibility" to this issue.



You are doing no such thing. I am sorry, but it has been known for a while now that white privelege exists, and yet, here you find yourself some 60 odd years after the CRM trying to convince a global audience that white privelege exists in the US.

Are you seriously trying to raise the awareness of people caught in the brilliant dawn of another dark age, to convince them that of all their problems, race is the one they need to be worrying about?

Take a look outside the window for a second, race relations are the last thing that we need to worry about right now, sorry.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

You are doing no such thing. I am sorry, but it has been known for a while now that white privelege exists, and yet, here you find yourself some 60 odd years after the CRM trying to convince a global audience that white privelege exists in the US.


Okay. I'm doing no such thing. You're right.


Do you think that you are the next MLK or something, are you trying to raise the awareness of people caught in the brilliant dawn of another dark age that of all their problems, race is the one they need to be worrying about?


No. I am not. Frankly, I don't see why discussing race-relations on this board equates to that.


Take a look outside the window for a second, race relations are the last thing that we need to worry about right now.


You have a right to your opinion. But as long as it happens, it is a timely subject to pursue nevertheless.

However, March Madness has started. Bobby Knight is about to go down.


Update: Texas Tech has lost.



[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join