Originally posted by shooterbrody
You said it was.
After thinking about it, you're correct. I did say that an opinion can be afforded to white privilege. And I meant it, especially when some
language is used in order to "dismiss" or "minimalize" the experiences of people of color in this area. However, I'd like to clarify that when
this is being done, I truly think that some whites don't use their conscience and opt for oblviousness when dealing with issues of race. This also
relates to not taking everything into context. If they did, you wouldn't have some of the patronising answers that one gets on race-relations
discussions and threads.
After all, it is a privilege for white persons to not think about their color or their race all the time because their heritage, upbringing and race
is validated constantly in society. Subsequently, they have the luxury to not "see" race.
The perception of who?
White people in general?
Not all white people, of course. But, this is what I mostly see in discussions. For example, some white posters on this thread (and some of my other
threads) knowingly say derogatory things and not feel any sense of conscience saying them. And it continues throughout the entire thread especially
when the words of some whites fall into a script: ("I don't see color", "Color doesn't matter to me much", "You're screaming and crying about
race", "This is all about reparations again", "You hate white people", "Go back to Africa.") These are especially indicative of not only my
threads about race. I've seen this on truthseeka's thread as well as the ones about reparations. These lines by white posters on the topic of race
usually say the same things without any deviation.
That's why I think that it must be a privilege for some whites not to truly think about the repercussions of one's words and how they affect others.
It allows them be rude without any sense of conscience. And some other whites can read these phrases and silently do nothing about them. Again,
it's the "Good German" syndrome at work here.
In my perception, this is usually a sign that some are not ready to discuss race. And, instead of letting others engage in discussing race, some
members have to be snide, pernicious and uncouth in their statements.
Because the "privilege" is in full effect, some white posters feel almost entitled to say these things without ever thinking about how their words
might affect others. So, yes, I think that some white people cannot handle being in a race-related discussion without attacking the messenger,
attacking the message or throwing the subject so it won't be talked about. However, this is not the behavior of all whites. There are white people
who can discuss issues of race with insight and restraint. I am glad to have a discussion with understanding white people who do not deviate from the
topic and face the issue head-on without a sense of fear.
So, I take all of these things into account in studying the language and actions used in race-related talks. It's all data to me.
Broadbrush statements about minorities are "white privilege";what would one call these broad brush statements about white people?
Observations of the behaviors of white people during race-related discussions.
It is the issue. Is this a "do not speak until spoken to" converstaion?
With out opinions there would be no discussion about "white privilege".
That is if some white people can bring themselves to discuss the issue without trying to use tactics to avoid it.
Why are white people singled out as to having to "think" about what they say?
Because in threads about race, it is usually some white posters who can't contain themselves when it comes to derogatory comments and behavior. And
honestly, if someone has to say, "Go back to Africa", they aren't usually thinking about the feelings of non-white people.
It means to me that they are unable to identify with non-white people. Language and action demonstrates this aspect.
Shouldn't everyone think about what they say?
You would hope so. But, white people especially--because of their privilege--treat their language differently because their behavior--due to
color--is given a pass. I'm sorry that this is a controversial statement, but in a lot of cases there have even been white politicians and
celebrities that have said the most heinous things ("Get over slavery", "Welfare Queen", "tar baby", etc.) and get reassuring comments in the
press for saying it. They are celebrated and validated in popular culture for not having a conscience about what they say. It's called political
No ,C, it is not what I think , it is what is written in the constitution. It is specifically a first amendment right.
So what about shouting, "Fire!" in a crowded building? Is that also a First Amendment right?
Freedom of speech, and the right to peaceably assemble, which imho is what we are all doing here.
I'd also say that non-white people are redressing grievances as well. But hardly, this thread was peaceable due to the lack of conscience some white
posters had in venting their frustration and rage in order to not speak about white privilege.
Being able to voice your opinion has everything to do with freedom. Wasn't that what the CRM ,at least in part, was all about?
In parts. But the Civil Rights Movement was also about equal access to all social systems as well as the call for America to treat non-white people
and women as full citizens in the country. Not to mention, treating non-white people as civilized human beings instead of the derogatory stereotypes
which fueled the Jim Crow era.
Being able to equally voice your opinion? No one has to agree with ones opinion, but all are entitled to it no matter how wrong it may
In your perspective, you are right. But this still points to the "myth of meritocracy". You seem to think that we have an equal society now. We
don't. And white privilege is one of the aspects of society which demonstrates the glaring disparities in the system--especially when it has to do
Well as Americans you should understand freedom of speech. No type of "talk" should ever be discouraged. You have only to look to the current
administration to see what happens when people don't talk.
You're right. But, when does "talk" become abusive? And with the freedom of speech comes with responsibility. Or else, people could shout,
"Fire" in a crowded building and cause bodily harm and injury to others.
Fairness would be defined as to personal opinion would it not?
No. You're thinking of the "myth of meritocracy" again. People can earn all the merits in the world. This is especially the case when it comes
down to having the merit of having one's opinion taken seriously. But that doesn't stop the descrepancy in treatment afforded to speech. And it
doesn't account for the sense of respect and responsbility afforded to it.
Why would you assume the color of someone on the other side of the screen?
Because people don't leave their perceptions and attitudes about race at the door when they get on the internet. This thread alone should teach you
Why would you assume I believe anything anyone posts on ats, let alone the "white people"?
Statistically (by the Pew research and media studies), most Internet users are white people. In fact, some studies discuss the "digital divide".
Have you read some of the posts here? Ufo's,chupacabra,bigfoot,...shall I go on?
I have. But still that doesn't erase the fact that most Internet users are white.
Is there anything fundamentally different or more credible about the "social issues" section of abovepolitics than any other section of
Well, social issues deal with society. And people ought to pay it a lot more respect, along with racial issues. But somehow, sources don't get
treated very well when it comes to race-related discussions here.
Don't get me wrong I really like ats,but it is still just a internet forum. If you are really looking for credibilty and true objective
discussion, I think there are other places much better than internet forums.
You're right. However, people ought to have enough common sense to treat this topic like any other: like an intellectual discussion. Instead,
people use this topic as a way to vent their frustrations instead of studying the aspects of race with the same rigor as they would anything else.
BTW who you got in the tourney this weekend?
Georgetown and UCLA.
I don't like Florida (or Billy Donovan) and Ohio St (I'm a big Michigan fan).
[edit on 30-3-2007 by ceci2006]