Real Talk about White Privilege

Originally posted by shooterbrody
However, you in no way made any replies as to the newspaper article in question. Do you deny those numbers?

As you have made no replies to most of the sources (MUCH more credible than this one, I'd add) I've presented. I'll try to find where I saw the number I presented, though. I actually make an effort to respond to your sources every time, though...

You provided info about native americans not having schooling presented in their native tounge. I replied to that. (and there is someone here who in fact is a cherokee have you asked them about that stat?)

You provided info that whites don't define themselves. I defined white for you.
You provided into that blacks can't fully participate with the economy because they have to interact with whites. I provided links to full service black banks.
You provided info that If they so chose, a white person could live and die in this country without ever seeing a black person in real life ; 3 places were linked that were exclusivly black.
You provided info that Whites easily locate books, greeting cards, toys, and magazines prominently featuring members of their race and blacks can't. I gave you a link to an online store that caters exclusivly to blacks.
You provided info about job site discrimination; I gave you info about (however well intentioned) AA programs out of control.


I have responded to you many, many times in this thread in a respectfull manor and without personal attacks. For you to say

As you have made no replies to most of the sources (MUCH more credible than this one, I'd add) I've presented.

is ridiculous.
As far as you responding every time; I have asked you many, many times why you care so much what others think of you with no reply.

I have even attempted to bring humor to the thread to lighten the retoric..

Exclusive diffinitive PROOF of white privilege.

thatvideosite.com...
That is funny....you know that is funny.

After 29 pages I guess I just expected more from you than to dismiss my part in this discussion so easily. As to the credibility of that source, it was printed in a newspaper in a major metro area I have no doubt the paper has editors who get paid to make sure the paper can't get sued.
As to the website, the article is available at the papers website for a fee. Instead of paying that fee I found a place on the net it is available to read for free. I have never visited that site and after the quotes you posted I wouldn't go there even out of morbid curiosity. Poor judgement in finding a free place to read the article? Sure, but I would like to make it crystal clear I in no way wish to be associated with that spew of garbage from that site.


[edit on 15/3/2007 by shooterbrody]

When using Stats, let's try to use up to date Stats and let's check our sources.

Eg. I have seen states used by the following group.


en.wikipedia.org...

The group publishes the American Renaissance, a

white nationalist monthly magazine describing itself as

"America's leading premiere publication of

racial-realist thought."

www.nc-f.org

en.wikipedia.org...

Taylor insists that he is not a white supremacist,

whom he defines as one who wishes to rule over others.

If anything he claims to be a "yellow supremacist" as

in past articles he theorizes that in fact people of

Asian descent are the most advanced branch of the

species (in evolutionary terms), followed by the white

race and finally those of african descent[4

This link draws on information from 13 years ago.
www.ourcivilisation.com...


This is the more recent stat for crimes from the department of justice.

209.85.165.104...:z9lMcb1MoJ4J:www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
bjs/pub/pdf/cv05.pdf+Highlights+from+20+years+of+surveying+crime+
victims+:+the+National+Crime+Victimization+Survey&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd
=2&gl=ca

Characteristics of violent crime victims, 2005.

Males, blacks, and persons age 24 or younger continued to be victimized at higher rates than females, whites, and persons age 25 or older in 2005.

I don't have the 2006 Stats, but these have to be closer then a States from 13 years ago.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by Harassment101]

Welcome to the thread harassment,

Numbers can be twisted any way one chooses. Information from statistics and surveys can be manipulated also.

that is the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for the advice on stats tho.

I'd like to take a stab at this, if I can:

Originally posted by shooterbrody

You provided info about native americans not having schooling presented in their native tounge. I replied to that. (and there is someone here who in fact is a cherokee have you asked them about that stat?)

Well, James only said that "you come from where you come from", when asked about his heritage. He says that he doesn't see skin color. He doesn't see white privilege. And he doesn't want to be involved in Cherokee politics. If he doesn't "see" these things, why would an Native American langugage school interest him?

However, there are a few schools which exclusively cater to Native American languages. But, the main question, here, is are they as pervasive as English-only schools? No.

You provided info that whites don't define themselves. I defined white for you.

I know from my sources, they have discussed "whiteness" as being invisible. There were several members who posted that they "didn't see color" and that "skin color" wasn't that important. You yourself said that color wasn't that important.

With that being said, how could you have a definitive definition of whiteness if color isn't that important to you?

You provided into that blacks can't fully participate with the economy because they have to interact with whites. I provided links to full service black banks.
You provided info that If they so chose, a white person could live and die in this country without ever seeing a black person in real life ; 3 places were linked that were exclusivly black.

For the most part, it is true that blacks have to interact with whites in businesses. There are Black Business Bureaus in a lot of towns, but who owns the majority of the businesses in America? Who runs the major corporations in America? And of course, what if someone white purchases something from a black business?

For those who own Black businesses, white people are probably part of the clientele in the same way that black people are customers of white businesses.

As for white people living and dying in America without seeing any Black people, that is possibly true. There are many little towns and cities in America with no discernable Black population. And, if they live in a gated community, there are very few people of color there. In the South there are such little towns where there is a "white side" and a "black side" and never the twain do meet. And if you do, the whites there do not want you to intermingle with them. And they make it plain and clear they don't. Especially with the lynching tree that they still haven't cut down.

For the three places that were exclusively Black, that does not mean that white people don't venture there to do business. And what were the type of products that were sold and merchandised in these "all Black towns"? If they have any major corporations there, then, they are definitely dealing with white people. Especially if it had to do with gas.

Even in Rosewood (the Black city that was burned down by whites in Florida), they did business with white people--until the city was in ashes.

You provided info that Whites easily locate books, greeting cards, toys, and magazines prominently featuring members of their race and blacks can't. I gave you a link to an online store that caters exclusivly to blacks.

An on-line store?

They may have items that Black people would probably buy, but with the pervasive nature of the Internet, there are probably other customers from different races dealing with them too. They are not that exclusive--if it is on the Internet. The Internet alone makes such a business international in scope.

Otoh, if you think about the number of white businesses compared to those owned by people of color, there are probably more white businesses. And if they are in exclusive communities which specifically cater to upper class clientele and Old Money Whites, it is not a possibility.

What about country clubs? Country clubs are notorious for catering specifically towards one race. And if you know about them, most , if not all country clubs are all white.

As for the frequency of white-oriented materials: they are pervasively a part of the majority of businesses in America. If you looked at the packaging, ads, books and other paraphenalia, what race is most typically depicted? Is Fielding's Becky Sharp, Black? Is Zola's Nana, Black? Is Baum's Dorothy, Black?

You provided info about job site discrimination; I gave you info about (however well intentioned) AA programs out of control.

Yes, you posted material from Adversity.net. But, when you think about the statistics of how people of color are treated at the workplace compared to whites, who faces more discrimination?

As far as you responding every time; I have asked you many, many times why you care so much what others think of you with no reply.

Maybe the question might be posed to you regarding this issue is why are you here if you "don't see white privilege" and you think of it as a theory?

After 29 pages I guess I just expected more from you than to dismiss my part in this discussion so easily.

You have contributed interesting information to the thread. I know I have answered you. And so has truthseeka.

As to the credibility of that source, it was printed in a newspaper in a major metro area I have no doubt the paper has editors who get paid to make sure the paper can't get sued.

Now, I read the article. I think there are more appropriate sources.

As to the website, the article is available at the papers website for a fee. Instead of paying that fee I found a place on the net it is available to read for free. I have never visited that site and after the quotes you posted I wouldn't go there even out of morbid curiosity. Poor judgement in finding a free place to read the article? Sure, but I would like to make it crystal clear I in no way wish to be associated with that spew of garbage from that site.

If it was such a "spew of garbage" why did you decide to run with it and post it here? Why didn't you have the conscience to find a more appropriate source for everyone to read?




[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Welcome to the thread harassment,

Numbers can be twisted any way one chooses. Information from statistics and surveys can be manipulated also.

that is the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for the advice on stats tho.

Yes, but there was also testimony attached to the sources truthseeka posted. There were actual cases in which people of color were being disenfranchised by white privilege and institutional racism.

What was wrong with that?

[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
HarlemHottie, I hope you don't mind my using a post of yours from the "cop thread" to illustrate my point here.

No, I don't. What I do mind, however, is your total mischaracterization of my words.

I know you think it's different to group cops and group a race, but I don't.

That's because you're too busy trying to prove a point. Here's what I said, in semper's thread, about why I make the distinction.

Originally posted by chissler
How is it any different? Honestly though?

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Because it's a job and we pay them to do it. Therefore, we should have some say in how they do 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.

As I said in semper's thread,

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
...throughout the OP, he says "us," thereby aligning himself with the 'bad apples'. He has chosen to group himself with them; I didn't arbitrarily make the choice.

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 ...

Any group of people could be guilty of protecting group interests to the detriment of the larger society.

The difference between "cops" and "black people" (as groups) is that the police have the power of the state to legitimize their illegality, much like the Klan used to. And the state is always happy to help.

Is the difference clear to you now?

Originally posted by Harassment101
When using Stats, let's try to use up to date Stats and let's check our sources.

Harassment101, thank you very much for your work.

The main point about bringing up sources is to analyze them as part of a larger issue and do so in an informative manner. You have done that.


[edit on 15-3-2007 by ceci2006]

However, there are a few schools which exclusively cater to Native American languages. But, the main question, here, is are they as pervasive as English-only schools? No.

Truth put out info that said native americans were at a disadvantage because they had to take classes in english rather than their native spoken tongue. I disagreed with him based on life experience. It is a few pages back if you would like to read it. Since a person of native heritage is here I thought Truth could ask him about his tribes language, how much it was spoken,and if it held him back in school.

With that being said, how could you have a definitive definition of whiteness if color isn't that important to you?

I don't have the "definitave" definition of "whiteness". It was pointed out in the thread that whites don't define themselves by color. I did and posted a definition for you. Stereotypes don't stick if you define yourself.

For the most part, it is true that blacks have to interact with whites in businesses.

It was posted blacks "can't" I was pointing out they could.

In the South there are such little towns where there is a "white side" and a "black side" and never the twain do meet.

I lived in Tulsa,OK for a while. I know about the history there. Blacks still live for the most part on the north side of that town.
It was pointed out that blacks couldn't live in a place exclusivly for blacks which was untrue as shown by the links.

An on-line store?

Again it was posted blacks can't and I showed where they could no more no less.

As to

Is Baum's Dorothy, Black?

guess you haven't seen "the wiz".

who faces more discrimination?

Wow who faces more? Thought we were working towards none being acceptable.

Maybe the question might be posed to you regarding this issue is why are you here if you "don't see white privilege" and you think of it as a theory?

This goes back to posts pages back about self esteem issues I brought up. Truth still hasn't answered. Why would anyone care what someone who threw a racial slur thought about them?

If it was such a "spew of garbage" why did you decide to run with it and post it here? Why didn't you have the conscience to find a more appropriate source for everyone to read?

Guess you didn't read the part where I said the newspapers site charged a fee for the article. Pardon me for being cheap.

What was wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that, I was pointing out there are numbers on both sides. Generally the people posting the studies or stats have slanted opinions before starting the studies. There are black and white victims and numbers to back both arguements.

BTW C did you get to watch any of the tourney yet?
Poor coach K bwahahahahaha!!!!

Originally posted by shooterbrody

Truth put out info that said native americans were at a disadvantage because they had to take classes in english rather than their native spoken tongue. I disagreed with him based on life experience. It is a few pages back if you would like to read it. Since a person of native heritage is here I thought Truth could ask him about his tribes language, how much it was spoken,and if it held him back in school.

To be fair, truthseeka is right. Historically, English only schools dominated the reservations to the point that there were few Native Americans who could speak the language. As a result, there was an act passed about a decade and a half ago which established funding for reservations to make programs to teach about Native American languages. Part of that was to establish places that exclusively teach Native American languages. There are only a few compared to the English-only schools.

And I said that I asked James about his heritage and he gave me the answers I previously mentioned in the last post. But, let's ask him to see what he'll say. He might surprise us.

I don't have the "definitave" definition of "whiteness".
It was pointed out in the thread that whites don't define themselves by color. I did and posted a definition for you. Stereotypes don't stick if you define yourself.

Exactly. It is one definition, among many. But, if you think this is such, why was it the case that other members tried to define Truthseeka, HH and myself in this thread?

It was posted blacks "can't" I was pointing out they could.

Fair enough. But, I still think that there are white businesses that do not deal with Blacks at all. And they have the guards at the door to prove it. And there is a covertness regarding keeping it the same way.

I lived in Tulsa,OK for a while. I know about the history there. Blacks still live for the most part on the north side of that town.
It was pointed out that blacks couldn't live in a place exclusivly for blacks which was untrue as shown by the links.

I also pointed out that Blacks also did live in places in which they have to deal with whites, even though there is that "Black part of town", or a "Black town". Even when that is the case, they dealt with whites who lived peripherally to them. That was especially true about the Rosewood case.

However, whites can live in places almost exclusively to them. And these neighborhoods and towns were created by "red-lining", "covenants", commissions and other pacts which had the full endorsement of the town and the government. And some of these places have not changed since the days of Segregation.

Again it was posted blacks can't and I showed where they could no more no less.

Fair enough.

guess you haven't seen "the wiz".

You're right. I didn't think about that when I was writing some examples. However, to be also fair, it was an adaptation of Baum's "The Wizard of Oz". Not the real McCoy.

However, for the most part the media does depict whites more frequently in ads, greeting cards and other paraphenalia more than any other race. Truthseeka's right in his example of looking at the television. That alone makes you realize how few people of color there are.

Wow who faces more? Thought we were working towards none being acceptable.

Yes, it is not acceptable for anyone. But, it is still a valid question to find out who faces more discrimination.

This goes back to posts pages back about self esteem issues I brought up. Truth still hasn't answered. Why would anyone care what someone who threw a racial slur thought about them?

To be honest, I think that as different races, people see and experience things differently. What might not be important or relevant to you, might be different for someone else. So, it has to do with having the empathy to listen to another's experiences and not write them off.

Guess you didn't read the part where I said the newspapers site charged a fee for the article. Pardon me for being cheap.

It's not so much about being cheap. It's about having the insight to pick credible and appropriate sources. Could you have found a similar source with what you wanted from a more reputable site? Did you think about who made the source? Did you think about how others might think about the source?

Nothing is wrong with that, I was pointing out there are numbers on both sides. Generally the people posting the studies or stats have slanted opinions before starting the studies. There are black and white victims and numbers to back both arguements.

That is very fair to note.

BTW C did you get to watch any of the tourney yet?
Poor coach K bwahahahahaha!!!!

Yes I did! Believe me, no tears are shed for him. It was great to see Duke be ousted by a number eleven seed (VCU)!!!!


[edit on 16-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Whoa, hold on shooter, we have some misunderstandings here.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
You provided info about native americans not having schooling presented in their native tounge. I replied to that. (and there is someone here who in fact is a cherokee have you asked them about that stat?)

I did NOT post a source for this. What I DID post was a sociological definition.

You provided info that whites don't define themselves. I defined white for you.

Ah, I recall that. While I don't agree with your definition, I give you props for doing this.

You provided into that blacks can't fully participate with the economy because they have to interact with whites. I provided links to full service black banks.

Duly noted.

You provided info that If they so chose, a white person could live and die in this country without ever seeing a black person in real life ; 3 places were linked that were exclusivly black.

And how does that refute this idea?

You provided info that Whites easily locate books, greeting cards, toys, and magazines prominently featuring members of their race and blacks can't. I gave you a link to an online store that caters exclusivly to blacks.

Key word: easily. As in going to your local supermarket.

You provided info about job site discrimination; I gave you info about (however well intentioned) AA programs out of control.

Duly noted.

I have responded to you many, many times in this thread in a respectfull manor and without personal attacks. For you to say

As you have made no replies to most of the sources (MUCH more credible than this one, I'd add) I've presented.

is ridiculous.

My bad for being so broad; you indeed have responded to my sources FAR more than most have on this thread. What I meant was your silence on the DWB, disparity between upper class job pay, and racial profiling sources I used. But, I give you props for what you did answer, and admit I was wrong to say you never answered anything. My fault for that. That is MUCH better than saying "that stuff ain't real cuz it's in a book. Dee dee dee!"

As far as you responding every time; I have asked you many, many times why you care so much what others think of you with no reply.

You're right. Here's the answer:

Ordinarily, I don't care what people think about me. But, when you're minding your own business and racist buckets of feces do racist crap to you (from calling you a n.igger to paying you less than equally qualified whites), you start to get tired of that spit. Especially when it happens to you for YEARS.

I have even attempted to bring humor to the thread to lighten the retoric..

Exclusive diffinitive PROOF of white privilege.

thatvideosite.com...
That is funny....you know that is funny.

Hey, my computer sucks. I can't really watch videos on my PC. I'll check it out on another computer.

After 29 pages I guess I just expected more from you than to dismiss my part in this discussion so easily.

Like I said, my fault for that. You CLEARLY have brought more to the table than others in this thread. It's just that I thought you had abandoned this thread lately, but your latest comment showed me you've still been here. So, I was a bit annoyed that you cherry-picked things to respond to, though I've been posting source after source recently. But, like I said, you've actually responded with more than a "dee dee dee!"

I hope that cleared things up a bit.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
HarlemHottie, I hope you don't mind my using a post of yours from the "cop thread" to illustrate my point here.

No, I don't. What I do mind, however, is your total mischaracterization of my words.

Hey, Hottie...

I'm sure you've figured out by now that this is standard operating procedure for BH. You just have to expect linguistic gymnastics whenever she responds to one of your posts.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
No, I don't. What I do mind, however, is your total mischaracterization of my words.

I quoted your own words, I did not "mischaracterize" them, whatever that means. I did not, in any way, mess with or change or misrepresent what you yourself said.

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
Because it's a job and we pay them to do it. Therefore, we should have some say in how they do it.

And I totally agree with you on that.

The difference between "cops" and "black people" (as groups) is that the police have the power of the state to legitimize their illegality, much like the Klan used to.

Is the difference clear to you now?

That difference has always been clear to me.

What is NOT clear however, is how that difference justifies judging the whole based on the actions of a few.

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally posted by shooterbrody

Truth put out info that said native americans were at a disadvantage because they had to take classes in english rather than their native spoken tongue. I disagreed with him based on life experience. It is a few pages back if you would like to read it. Since a person of native heritage is here I thought Truth could ask him about his tribes language, how much it was spoken,and if it held him back in school.

And I said that I asked James about his heritage and he gave me the answers I previously mentioned in the last post. But, let's ask him to see what he'll say. He might surprise us.
[edit on 16-3-2007 by ceci2006]

As soon as I was conceived my parents moved from Arizona and went to Danville, VA where we had some family, before that my mother and father legally changed their last names to "McMahn" in an attempt to fit in. I had no problems in school other than usual stuff. If I ever needed to I could learn the language from my mother or grandmother. I just don't see a need to.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by JamesMcMahn]

Truth posted

Before I discuss the black community, consider the Native American community, the invisible minority. There's a special term for dropping out of school at it pertains to them: kickout, or pushout. This refers to their tendency to leave the school system because it does not address their special needs.

The primary need here is education in their own language/customs. When they are instructed in their native tongues, their educational performance is comparable to that of white students. However, when they have to go through school in English, their performance in schools plummets. This is called the crossover effect.

I posted

How many native americans frequently communicate in their native tongue? I have spent a decent amount of time around native americans and NEVER heard them speak anything but english. If you have sources to cite use of native languages I would be happy to check them out but IMOHO that is wrong.

Truth posted

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

I posted

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

Truth later responded

I did NOT post a source for this. What I DID post was a sociological definition.

I related my life experiences, but I guess they were trumped by the sociologists; so I asked James(who is native) about his experiences.

I've lived in the southwest (all over Arizona and New Mexico) for about 23 years. I've been aquainted with many Native Americans and been friends with a few. I have never, in 20 years, heard them speak a native language. They were all very well-spoken in English, some better than I.

Of course, that's just personal experience, not something written in a book, so...

Just info.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn

As soon as I was conceived my parents moved from Arizona and went to Danville, VA where we had some family, before that my mother and father legally changed their last names to "McMahn" in an attempt to fit in. I had no problems in school other than usual stuff. If I ever needed to I could learn the language from my mother or grandmother. I just don't see a need to.

Thanks, James for answering our question. I appreciate it. However, to be frank, your answer brings up an issue in regards to "white privilege" and those who choose to assimilate. It has to be known that there are people of color who have chosen to supercede their own heritage to accept the dominant culture's heritage (i.e. "American culture"). Therefore, your answers pretty much indicate that in order to be "accepted" into the larger culture belonging to the majority, then one's heritage might still be there, but takes a back seat to the larger culture.


Here are some sources that explore this.

This is from Terra Simms, writing a piece for the Univeristy of Louisville:

Voting: a white privilege

The process by which a minority group adopts the customs and attitudes of the dominant group is called assimilation. One form of oppression is the internalization of and identification with the messages sent by those in power - assimilating into the dominant culture. The abundance of media outlets distributing the dominant group's ideology - newspapers, magazines, films, music and even the educational system - only accelerates this process.

[...]

Different cultures have resisted assimilation, instead implementing their own literature, music, art and demonstrations to create social change.

[...]

Grassroots activism allows communities to stand on their own principles rather than assimilating others'.

The opportunities that others have created for the next generation should be acknowledged.

[...]
Exercise the rights available to you, but assimilating the dominant culture's mores only facilitates the loss of your own.

John A. Powell writes his findings on assimilations for the Poverty and Race Research Action Council:

"Is Racial Integration Essential to Achieving Quality Education for Low-Income Minority Students, In the Short Term? In the Long Term?"


Assimilation is problematic because it is a product of racial hierarchy. Although there have been many distinct versions of assimilation and segregation, both of these concepts have been framed primarily by the dominant white society and operate under the implicit assumption that there is something wrong with the racial "other." The less extreme assimilationist would fix the racial other by acculturating him or her to the dominant culture. The more extreme assimilationist position is that the racial other must intermarry into the dominant race and cease to be. In either scenario, the voice of the minority is either ignored or eliminated.

[...]

As Peggy Mc-Intosh points out in her article, "White Privilege: Male Privilege," her schooling as a white attending an all-white school led to strained interactions in the workplace as an adult. Once she entered an integrated work space, she realized she wouldn't be able to get along if she asked her non-white co-workers to adapt to her world view. One thing is clear to me: that racial neutrality or "color blindness" is more likely to work toward maintaining the status quo than destabilizing it.

When dealing with assimilation, there is the phenomenon of "race passing":

Middle-Class Poverty:Race- and Class-Passing Within White America

“Race-passing” in traditional American parlance refers to someone’s attempt to shift the public perception of her or his racial identity. In “Whiteness as Property” Cheryl L. Harris tells the story of her African American grandmother, who had “fair skin, straight hair, and aquiline features” and presented herself as a white woman in order to get a job as a sales clerk in a major Chicago retail store. This act of passing had a certain “economic logic,” Harris writes, for being white automatically ensured higher economic returns in the short term, as well as greater economic, political and social security in the long run. Becoming white meant gaining access to a whole set of public and private privileges that guaranteed basic subsistence needs and, therefore, survival. Becoming white increased the possibility of controlling critical aspects of one’s life rather than being the object of another’s domination.

But Harris’s grandmother paid a high price for the “privilege” of being thought of as white: she lost the sense of a core self (that is, one’s sense of personal history, coherence, and integrity) as a result of having to listen without protest to her white co-workers’ and customers’ remarks against black Americans. Harris says that by remaining silent in the face of these remarks, her grandmother risked “self-annihilation” to ensure her economic survival. In short, the price of whiteness for Harris’s grandmother was “complicit[y] in her own oppression.”

Two main themes in this story of Harris’s grandmother—her public desire for a better socioeconomic position and the price she had to pay for it in personal integrity—have parallels in the lives of many middle-class whites. Let’s first take class inequality and the resulting desire to move up in class. As Schor writes in The Overspent American, the “classless-society and end-of-ideology literature of twenty-five years ago turns out to have been wishful thinking.” To make it today into one of the few slots open at the top, one must look, act, speak, and dress according to the standards of the upper-middle-class. Taste, Schor notes, “has economic ramifications. You can blow a job interview by exhibiting improper table manners at lunch, wearing the wrong outfit, or using language inappropriate to the station to which you are aspiring. Cultural capital can be used by those on the higher rungs of the ladder to devalue those below.”

Although people can choose to "not see" white privilege, it is still there and it affects all of us right down to how we choose to view and value our own cultures in light of the dominant culture in America.




[edit on 16-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
However, to be frank, your answer brings up an issue in regards to "white privilege" and those who choose to assimilate.

Yes, it's a choice. A person can choose to assimilate or not. Their choice.

It has to be known that there are people of color who have chosen to supercede their own heritage to accept the dominant culture's heritage (i.e. "American culture").

And there are those who have chosen to reject the dominant culture's heritage and live and celebrate a heritage of their own choosing.

Therefore, your answers pretty much indicate that in order to be "accepted" into the larger culture belonging to the majority, then one's heritage might still be there, but takes a back seat to the larger culture.

Only if one chooses to adopt the heritage of the dominant culture. Believe it or not, some people who move here or aren't part of "American culture" actually WANT to accept the American culture as their own. They don't "assimilate", they adopt a new culture for themselves. Not everyone thinks of American culture as a nasty, ugly, grotesque way of life. Some are actually attracted to it.

And fortunately, everyone has a choice to celebrate it or to celebrate any culture or heritage of their choice.

Now, if someone does wish to reject American culture, it's easy to do. Just throw away your TV, toss your telephone, start hunting for your food and making your own clothes, get "off the grid" and start pooping in the woods.

American Culture

How to tell if you're American

Not long ago, one of those earnest-freshman puppydogs on the Net declared that there was "no such thing as American culture." Right. Fish have also been known to doubt the existence of water.

The following is a first crack at an ostensive definition of 'American culture'-- things shared by the vast majority (let's say 90%) of native-born Americans. Many of these won't sound 'cultural' at all to Americans; they'll sound like just descriptions of the way things are. But each one of them would be contested in one or more non-American cultures.

If you're American...

* You believe deep down in the First Amendment, guaranteed by the government and perhaps by God.
.
.
.

More at the link...

I'm proud of American Culture. It's nothing to be ashamed of and it's not forced on anyone who doesn't choose to participate. If you don't like it, just don't do it. It's not a requirement. And it's not some big, bad, ugly, white thing trying to wipe out all other cultures.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally posted by JamesMcMahn

As soon as I was conceived my parents moved from Arizona and went to Danville, VA where we had some family, before that my mother and father legally changed their last names to "McMahn" in an attempt to fit in. I had no problems in school other than usual stuff. If I ever needed to I could learn the language from my mother or grandmother. I just don't see a need to.

Thanks, James for answering our question. I appreciate it. However, to be frank, your answer brings up an issue in regards to "white privilege" and those who choose to assimilate. It has to be known that there are people of color who have chosen to supercede their own heritage to accept the dominant culture's heritage (i.e. "American culture"). Therefore, your answers pretty much indicate that in order to be "accepted" into the larger culture belonging to the majority, then one's heritage might still be there, but takes a back seat to the larger culture.

Oh no I was always a bit of an outcast because of my fascination with Japan. I never really cared for american culture.

You did? You know, that was so cool. I have a fascination for Japanese culture as well. I took the language, learned about the culture and worked that into my activities about diversity when dealing with cross-cultural programs. I've learned a lot over the years and have made a lot of friends as a result of it.

It's great to have that kind of freedom on the micro-level of society. But then again, what we're dealing with here is the macro-level--in which the institutions affect us more than we care to know. And we can do what we can to either participate or challenge the system, but in the end it always comes down to those who blindly support it without questioning it.

And as a result of their choice, they endorse a system that rigidly holds standards which caters to one group of people. Not everyone understands this, or "sees it". But, it happens. There are people--no matter how much they are derided by this--affected by it. And I truly think that it has to do with conscience and empathy.

And assimilation and "passing", as I stated in my last post, has a lot to do with it. If assimilating didn't matter (just like skin color and white privilege "doesn't matter"), no one would need to change their lives or their names in order to get along in the larger culture. It goes beyond whether we have a fondness for the culture or not. Sometimes, reality forces people outside of the primary group in a society to do so in order to survive.

That's a sad fact, but it is very true. This isn't so much about fighting about skin color. This has to do with access and treatment as well--even on their own terms without it being forced on them.

It's funny how many people who "don't see" skin color are trying to argue against white privilege. Yet, they continue to validate at the same time the system in which "they don't see" and try to persuade others who "do see" skin color to do the same.




[edit on 17-3-2007 by ceci2006]