General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kali
(55,014 posts)
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,841 posts)It's really two sides of the same coin and "listen" is a lot more positive and inclusive than "shut the fuck up."
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)As I've tried to relay that sentiment more than once around here, my damn self.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,841 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It's partly to listen, but it's partly also that those who are used to being listened to need to be quiet more and allow those whose voices haven't been heard to have some of that space.
Response to gollygee (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)I think that I want to cry now.
Response to MrScorpio (Reply #67)
Name removed Message auto-removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)before making an earnest attempt to understand where the other person is coming from.
It usually takes the form of extreme defensiveness--"how dare you say all whites/men/heterosexuals/Christians are engaging in that kind of bad behavior!!"
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
brush
(53,791 posts)What an enlightened post.
This should be required reading here and elsewhere.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We need to put this up often.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)before my morning coffee.
Great Post!
Heidi
(58,237 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Heidi
(58,237 posts)We're UTC +1 (Switzerland) and my husband (DUer Call Me Wesley) can probably cover the evening shift. 
Mornin', sunshine! 
Anansi1171
(793 posts)...I will certainly try to kick this fine piece of of social wisdom up to the top!
Heidi
(58,237 posts) freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
Heidi
(58,237 posts)5:04 pm here, and I'm fixin' leather britches for supper tonight!
Good to see you!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)what exactly are you serving for supper tonight
is there a recipe ....
Heidi
(58,237 posts)We have 'em with thick bacon and new potatoes. YUM.
http://blueberriesandblessings.com/2013/08/03/leather-britches-green-beans-deep-south-saturdays/
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)it is a great meal, Enjoy!
A slow cooked meal that takes you back to your southern roots.
Add some cornbread or biscuits and you have a hearty, country meal.
Ingredients
2 - 3 c dried green beans
1 (32) oz box low sodium chicken broth
2-3 slices salt pork
3-4 medium potatoes, cubed
Instructions
place beans in a slow cooker
tuck salt pork slices throughout the beans
top with potatoes
pour chicken broth over all
cook on low for 7-8 hours
Heidi
(58,237 posts)CMW loves this meal. We're not havin' cornbread, though. I ran out of energy after preparing the beans, potatoes and "speck," and making brownies for dessert. :faint:
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)now then, what is :speck:
This thread is very educational ... 
Heidi
(58,237 posts)This is one of the kinds we like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrolean_Speck
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I must find some and try it. Thanks for the link, Heidi
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)I won't post that here though... 
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Mr Scorpio 
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Okay, there's some good point here, but there's also some things that need to be pointed out:
1. "Shut the fuck up"-I'm sure this was written with the best of intentions but what is one supposed to do when somebody goes off the rails and says something *really* screwy like "All white people are racist", or "only whites can be racist", for example? Should one, regardless of ethnicity, just sit there and say nothing? I wouldn't. I always try to be respectful of people's differing views but if someone does start talking screwy, I am going to say something. I am going to speak up. In this case, that does not, in any way, reinforce any "power dynamics", real or otherwise.
2. Reiterating my response to number 1. I full well recognize that others will have had different experiences, and do respect that.
Again, however, if someone goes into wacky fringe territory and says that all white people are to blame for racism, or all men are to blame for sexual or physical violence, should I really have to remain silent? Or could I say, "No, this is wrong, and here's why?". Just disagreeing with someone is *not* silencing them no matter who they are.
3. "Educate myself"-Okay, and this is good. But what is the "proper" education? Who are the "proper" educators? Fringe sources such as Gradient Lair or Flavia Dzodan? Or more mainstream figures like Gloria Steinem? Or something in between?
4. No real problems here. Also, "I will stand up with them whenever I can." is actually a pretty solid piece of advice.
5. This is alright, but how does one know for sure whether they have made a mistake or not? Sometimes the lines can be quite unclear in this regard, especially in the era of Tumblr. And unfortunately, the use of "privilege", especially that of "white privilege", to silence, is unfortunately, a bit more common than many would like to believe(this was true for me, once upon a time).
And to be fair, sometimes reflection and being able to find where you made mistakes isn't just the nice thing to do but essential in personal development. But there also may be a time or two on occasion, in which something was a mistake, wasn't really so much at all(the vice versa is also true).
And honestly, perhaps the biggest thing holding it back is the (literal) use of "privilege" itself. I myself have to deal with ADD and possibly a few other issues as well.....there are some People of Color who also share my struggles, but there are also some who are in a better position than I am; the latter group, technically, could be "privileged" themselves!
This is really not much more than my 2 cents, so take it or leave it as you may. But hopefully, it provokes some thought in people.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Whereas, it's important to at least attempt to under where the other person is coming from, even if you may find what's said provocative.
And to keep in mind, that if a person does maintain a power of privilege, that privilege in itself has intrinsic weight, that shouldn't be used as an advantage to tamp down a non-privileged person's POV, voice and experiences. "Shut the fuck up" is a completely INTERNAL control for the privileged person. It takes a lot of self-control and self-awareness to prevent oneself from privilege-splaining everything all the damn time.
Now from your own examples I see that you're having difficulty accepting a non-privileged person's reasoning when those subjects are brought up. The thing is that, whenever they are, that would be a perfect time to exercise personal control and take the time to listen and understand why someone stipulates those positions, especially if that person presents their argument in a reasoned, logical and rational manner. It's not really being respectful if you're classifying their positions as "screwy" right off the bat, am I right?
Privilege lends itself a certain permission to maintain conformation bias, whereas the privileged person's positions are set as only standard and all others are free to be easily dismissed. Remember that the disadvantaged person is always having the privileged position reinforced against them, whereas the opposite is never considered on an equal footing. The key to having privilege is that it never creates a necessity to understand positions not its own.
When the person puts a stop to all of that by exercising the internal control of "shutting the fuck up," it creates more opportunity to understand a much wider understanding of a subject. Not just that of the privileged person, which ALL sides, privileged and disadvantaged, are well aware of.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Whereas, it's important to at least attempt to under where the other person is coming from, even if you may find what's said provocative.
Okay, but provocative and being an asshole isn't the same thing. And that's the problem.
And to keep in mind, that if a person does maintain a power of privilege, that privilege in itself has intrinsic weight, that shouldn't be used as an advantage to tamp down a non-privileged person's POV, voice and experiences.
Okay, but again, here's the question: If said person is being an asshole, is it still mandatory to keep one's mouth shut or can one speak up then? "Privilege" should not prevent one from calling out jerkassery when needed.
"Shut the fuck up" is a completely INTERNAL control for the privileged person. It takes a lot of self-control and self-awareness to prevent oneself from privilege-splaining everything all the damn time.
Okay, and? This disproves my point *how*, exactly?
Now from your own examples I see that you're having difficulty accepting a non-privileged person's reasoning when those subjects are brought up.
Here's the problem: extreme positions like that are far from universal. Most people can talk about their personal experiences without engaging in Teabagger-esque blame games. But should we simply not say anything at all if someone is being a jerk?
The thing is that, whenever they are, that would be a perfect time to exercise personal control and take the time to listen and understand why someone stipulates those positions, especially if that person presents their argument in a reasoned, logical and rational manner.
I don't have a problem with reasoned, logical and rational positions. At all. But when one is presented with positions that are *not* any of these, such as "all white people are racist" or "all men are to blame for rape", is that still really something that should not be challenged if one happens to be "privileged"? That doesn't seem to be any sort of logical, or rational for that matter.
It's not really being respectful if you're classifying their positions as "screwy" right off the bat, am I right?
Some things just *are* that way, like climate denial, or creationism, etc.
Remember that the disadvantaged person is always having the privileged position reinforced against them, whereas the opposite is never considered on an equal footing. The key to having privilege is that it never creates a necessity to understand positions not its own.
Okay, but again, does that mean that if someone happens to say something that actually IS really fucked up, that someone who is "privileged" should merely keep shut their mouths shut or risk "silencing" the other person? It's only logical to conclude that understanding a position that one does not stand in, does not and should not at all equal allowing broadbrush attacks, stereotyping, etc. to go unchallenged, regardless of whether or not one is part of said group or not. For example, I may not be an LGBT, but if someone were to say "LGBTs cannot understand persecution" because of not being enslaved or whatever, then I would still speak up anyway. Because it would be the right thing to do.
And furthermore, what if some of those who are disadvantaged are also speaking out and challenging the speaker's assumptions, stereotypes, etc.? What does one do then, in your view?
When the person puts a stop to all of that by exercising the internal control of "shutting the fuck up," it creates more opportunity to understand a much wider understanding of a subject. Not just that of the privileged person, which ALL sides, privileged and disadvantaged, are well aware of.
Yes, but again, this answer does not take into account the dilemma I have explained. My point is, this was certainly well intentioned it seems, but could have gone into better detail, particularly on how to deal with important dilemmas such as this one.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)For one, it's pretty easy to dismiss someone who disagrees with you by merely classifying that person as an "asshole." And second, no one except yourself has posited an argument here that "all White people are racist", except for yourself as nothing more than a straw man argument to bolster your own position. You're arguing against yourself in order to eke out some kind of victory.
I would never say that. However, your other example that "only whites can be racist" is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. especially in this country, where Racism is the institutional application of prejudice, in order to determine what traits and capabilities are determined to be superior.
Only White people have that ability to establish that kind of racially superior norm in this country. That's not so say that other races can't be bigoted or prejudicial, but unless they call the shots, as White people have always done, non-White people have no power to establish an institutional system of racism in this America.
And you should know that ad hominem attacks, i.e., "screwy" and "asshole," aren't enough to render a valid argument on your part. That is simply a way of dismissing those with whom you disagree. Their positions may be completely wrong, but you're not winning a point with summary dismissals. You win points against their arguments with logic, reason and rationality. But always respect the person.
Your point about it being said that LGBTs can't understand persecution would only be used by a person with privilege. In your own capacity as another privileged person, you have an obligation to refute that. Of course, you open your mouth about it. However, you must always take into account, not only what is said, but who is saying it and whether or not that person retains either the position of privilege or disadvantage in the matter.
If you are going to be the person of privilege in any given situation, you must always be conscious of the fact that your very words at an inopportune time, against a person of disadvantage has the capacity of shutting down the communicative exchange.
Privileged people are used to defining situations… Even when they are completely wrong.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)For one, it's pretty easy to dismiss someone who disagrees with you by merely classifying that person as an "asshole." And second, no one except yourself has posited an argument here that "all White people are racist",
I was speaking more in general, hence the mention of Tumblr and YouTube and places like that. I would have mentioned this site if that kind of extremism was a problem here.
I would never say that. However, your other example that "only whites can be racist" is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. especially in this country, where Racism is the institutional application of prejudice, in order to determine what traits and capabilities are determined to be superior.
And this is the problem: *not all racism* is institutional, nor is it limited to just "white" people. For example, in Sierra Leone in the '90s you had groups who regularly targeted each other for destruction simply because of their culture, and this was in a situation in which no one group was truly dominant. This was also happening in the Congo in that same decade and is now apparently beginning to happen in the C.A.R. in this period.
Only White people have that ability to establish that kind of racially superior norm in this country. That's not so say that other races can't be bigoted or prejudicial, but unless they call the shots, as White people have always done, non-White people have no power to establish an institutional system of racism in this America.
Yes, but again, not all racism is institutional. POC can be racist, too(it's much rarer but it does happen). Look at Louis Farrakhan for example. Even the SPLC disagrees with the literalist definition and they're *the* primary experts on studying racists in this country.
And you should know that ad hominem attacks, i.e., "screwy" and "asshole," aren't enough to render a valid argument on your part. That is simply a way of dismissing those with whom you disagree. Their positions may be completely wrong, but you're not winning a point with summary dismissals. You win points against their arguments with logic, reason and rationality. But always respect the person.
Does that really matter, though? I guess it may not win any rhetorical points, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter, TBH. You have yet to convince me that challenging someone's wrongness is "silencing" them if they happen to be disadvantaged.
Your point about it being said that LGBTs can't understand persecution would only be used by a person with privilege.
Would it, though? James David Manning is a Person of Color and he just went on a tirade about how gay men are supposedly breaking up African-American families.
However, you must always take into account, not only what is said, but who is saying it and whether or not that person retains either the position of privilege or disadvantage in the matter.
I'm not so convinced of that, TBH.
If you are going to be the person of privilege in any given situation, you must always be conscious of the fact that your very words at an inopportune time, against a person of disadvantage has the capacity of shutting down the communicative exchange.
It really depends on the situation. But if the person speaking is being completely wrongheaded then I'm afraid it doesn't matter if calling them out on it may be "inopprotune" for them, regardless of how "privileged" or disadvantaged they may be. I wouldn't care if a white supremacist was made a fool of "Mein Kampf" or the Bell Curve were to be totally debunked in front of them. Neither would I care if James Manning were outright schooled if the middle of an anti-LGBT rant.
Privileged people are used to defining situations… Even when they are completely wrong.
Which isn't true in this case. It was a solid point, whether you may like it or not.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Because I've not sure that citing him works. Manning is clearly a straight male and uses homophobia as a way to abuse his privileged position as a straight male. His race is beside the point. As the OP writer indicated, privilege isn't absolute and can occupy some positions and not others.
Also, we're clearly talking about how privilege applies to where we live, here in America. Were we both to move to someplace like Sierra Leone, I'm sure that the context would change according to the conversation.
But you have me interested here, what is your viewpoint on the subject of reverse racism? Do you think it's a valid concept?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)You know why, though? Because, honestly, for there to be "reverse" racism, it would *absolutely* require that so-called "normal" racism be the absolute province of a *single* solitary group. But in reality, intrapersonal racism, at least, is *not* the exclusive province of any one single group. Never has been. And never will be.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Something that those who have been always in charge of any systematic and institutionalized application of racial standards, norms and so forth, OVER that of anyone else who does not belong to their particular group… And, yes, I am talking about American Whites.
Is that what you're saying?
And you're also saying that, because you believe that Blacks or other people of color can somehow exert some kind of racialized cultural advantage over Whites… Am I getting this straight?
If this is what you're saying, perhaps you can cite what institutions in this country place the status of POCs over that of Whites.
What makes a White person's race disadvantaged in this country?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)What I (*clearly*, mind you!) said was, yes, *institutional* racism does remain a problem in this country, nor did I deny that it in particular does not affect white people due to its nature. However, though, intrapersonal racism, while it does indeed tie into the former, is not the same thing: People of Color can be racist on a personal level as well(though again, it is quite a bit rarer than racism coming from "white" folks).
And furthermore, this:
"
Is that what you're saying?
And you're also saying that, because you believe that Blacks or other people of color can somehow exert some kind of racialized cultural advantage over Whites… Am I getting this straight?
If this is what you're saying, perhaps you can cite what institutions in this country place the status of POCs over that of Whites. "
Honestly shows that, once again, you missed the point I was making. There remains a real issue with remnants of institutional racism in this country. Very few people here will argue against that. However, though, this position of "only whites can be racist" is not only nonsensical & totally illogical, but can even come across as prejudiced(and even racist) in some contexts. Now, to be fair, I am *not* accusing you, yourself, of doing that, just so you understand. But it does happen. And on the occasion it does become hurtful, I will speak up; I'm sure that many others, regardless of their ethnicity, would do the same.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)But neither one of those qualify as racism, which is what I'm telling you is altogether different.
I'll make it simple for you. This is from Wiki:
Some definitions consider that any assumption that a person's behavior would be influenced by their racial categorization is inherently racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative, because stereotyping necessarily subordinates individual identity to group identity. In sociology and psychology,[4] a common view distinguishes prejudice from racism, holding that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon.[5][6] Other definitions only include consciously malignant forms of discrimination.[7] Among the questions about how to define racism are the question of whether to include forms of discrimination that are unintentional, such as making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes, whether to include symbolic or institutionalized forms of discrimination such as the circulation of ethnic stereotypes through the media, and whether to include the socio-political dynamics of social stratification that sometimes have a racial component. Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.[2][8] Some critics of the term argue that the term is applied differentially, with a focus on such prejudices by whites, and in ways that define mere observations of any possible differences between races as racism.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Now think about this, whom other than Whites in this country, have had the institutional and systematic power to create and enforce discrimination and create an entire host of racial stereotypes, through the ownership of media and the control of academia, government and so forth? When you're talking about the power to control, to create AND enforce systems and institutions which discriminate on the basis of race, the only thing that you're talking about here IS racism.
POCs, which do not control, define and enforce these systems and institutions and never have, cannot be defined as racist, because racism is the nothing else but control. Which is exactly why I've said that, although anyone can be bigoted or prejudiced, only whites have had the systematic and institutional power in this country to form their own bigotry and prejudices into racism because Whites were the only ones to have control.
Racism is control.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Now think about this, whom other than Whites in this country, have had the institutional and systematic power to create and enforce discrimination and create an entire host of racial stereotypes, through the ownership of media and the control of academia, government and so forth? When you're talking about the power to control, to create AND enforce systems and institutions which discriminate on the basis of race, the only thing that you're talking about here IS racism.
POCs, which do not control, define and enforce these systems and institutions and never have, cannot be defined as racist, because racism is the nothing else but control. Which is exactly why I've said that, although anyone can be bigoted or prejudiced, only whites have had the systematic and institutional power in this country to form their own bigotry and prejudices into racism because Whites were the only ones to have control.
Racism is control.
Yes, this is indeed ONE form racism can take; it can indeed assume the form of social control(indeed, look at Jim Crow and the awful & unconstitutional "anti-miscegenation" laws). But it is not the only one, never has been, and to be honest, it actually does a great disservice to those who have fought racism throughout the years (such as MLK, Bayard Rustin, Cesar Chavez) to limit what racism is in that particular manner. Racism is bad no matter what form it comes in, and we need not lessen the seriousness of personal racism by refusing to label it what it is, just because it may come from someone who may be disadvantaged(such as Louis Farraakhan, Kamau Kambon, etc.), when that *does* happen. It's just plain illogical.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)You say that POCs such as Farrakhan and Kambon (as bigoted and prejudiced as they are), can be racist. But, please, give me one example where their race gives them any kind of systematic and institutionalized privilege, which puts White people at a disadvantage in this country and subjects White people to being relegated to a racially inferior class.
Just what power gives Farrakhan and Kambon the ability to do that to White people? How do they enforce this power? What laws were written in America, which has subjected Whites to the whims of their bigotry?
I know that you're trying to redefine the meaning of what we're talking about here in order fit your particular views. But words have meanings all on own their own which will defy any of your attempts to change them. Racism isn't an amorphous term, which warps around your attempts to dodge the logic here. It has real meaning.
I don't see how you can bring up MLK, Rustin and Chavez, because their work was always to end the institutions and systems of racial prejudice and discrimination, which were ONLY imposed and enforced at the behest and insistence of the privileged White majority in this country. Their work was to end racism.
Response to MrScorpio (Reply #57)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)This hypothetical White person would somehow represent the vested interests of the entire White race?
Now we have a Black President, you're saying that all White people have to watch out now? Wooo, scary!
I have a feeling that you're not going to be with us for long.
Response to MrScorpio (Reply #60)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Why do you even care what we say?
Am I threatening your identity and self-worth right now?
Heck, if little old me can do that with just a few words, you must not feel too strongly about how you see yourself as a person. And I wasn't even talking about you. I don't even know who you are.
That's really sad.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Damn, I had a real humdinger for his last post that's going to go to waste.
Oh well.
Cirque du So-What
(25,947 posts)Trolls just can't resist it. BTW, I alerted on one of KingVlad's posts, and one of the jurors said, 'I wish I could alert on your alert.' 
gollygee
(22,336 posts)and one of the jurors said "He's allowed to say whatever he want to."
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)He was still here when I checked. He's no worse than some on DU...just more obvious.
Rookies...sheesh!!!
BTW, I'd love to read that last post...never mind, save it for some average joe out there
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)(I just wish the board wouldn't automatically delete all comments left by tombstoned users so we could all see their rantings up close).
BTW, I don't feel threatened by Obama at all. To the contrary, I think he's one of the best Presidents we've had since the end of WWII. And he's a darn likable guy to boot.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)"But, please, give me one example where their race gives them any kind of systematic and institutionalized privilege, which puts White people at a disadvantage in this country and subjects White people to being relegated to a racially inferior class.
Just what power gives Farrakhan and Kambon the ability to do that to White people? How do they enforce this power? What laws were written in America, which has subjected Whites to the whims of their bigotry?"
None, but it doesn't disprove my point about racism not being limited to structural problems. Long after
I know that you're trying to redefine the meaning of what we're talking about here in order fit your particular views.
No, and in fact, the view I have espoused here is the mainstream view that has been accepted by many people around the world, from all sorts of cultures.
But words have meanings all on own their own which will defy any of your attempts to change them.
In fact, if anything at all, I'm afraid it is *you* who are doing the redefining here, MrScorpio. In fact, some of the fringe members of the SJ movement have even admitted to wanting to redefine racism as they, as individuals, see it: namely, this view that racism is exclusive to white people and that People of Color are somehow magically immune from racism simply because of status, or whatever. Completely. Illogical.
Racism isn't an amorphous term.....It has real meaning.
Never said or implied otherwise.
I don't see how you can bring up MLK, Rustin and Chavez, because their work was always to end the institutions and systems of racial prejudice and discrimination, which were ONLY imposed and enforced at the behest and insistence of the privileged White majority in this country.
Not all white people were involved in this, though. In fact, it was only a minority overall, at that(not quite a small minority, that may be true, especially not in the South). History is quite a bit more nuanced than you seem to realize, my friend.
Their work was to end racism.
Not just that of structural racism, but that of intrapersonal racism, either.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)It's not a difficult concept to understand.
They can be as bigoted and prejudiced as the day is long, but in America, there is absolutely no system of institutionalized racism against Whites to back them up.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Let's face it. I have provided enough facts and reasonable arguments here to have basically won the debate here.
They can be as bigoted and prejudiced as the day is long, but in America, there is absolutely no system of institutionalized racism against Whites to back them up.
And yet, that does not prevent them from being racist on an *intrapersonal* level. It may be true that not all prejudiced people are racist, but it does not magically exclude People of Color from engaging in racist behavior. Even the SPLC disagrees with you, and they are amongst the primary experts of fighting racism in this country:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/black-separatist
Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions — or even a separate nation — for black people in America. Most contemporary forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks — not Jews — are the Biblical "chosen people" of God.
Although the Southern Poverty Law Center recognizes that much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism, it believes racism must be exposed in all its forms. White groups espousing beliefs similar to black separatists would be considered clearly racist. The same criterion should be applied to all groups regardless of their color......
If a white group espoused similar beliefs with the colors reversed, few would have trouble describing it as racist and anti-Semitic. Although the racism of a group like the Nation may be relatively easy to understand, if we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.
And unfortunately, it would appear that explaining away racism that happens to be committed by Individuals of Color would also include the belief that they can't be racist in the first place.....even if that isn't the intention.
This "only whites are racist" weirdness is, quite frankly, just plain stupid, even if the intentions are actually good-hearted. It flies completely in the face of every conceivable fact there is and no amount of attempts at redefinition will ever change that. So why bother?
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)The terms have become muddled.
Simply, I'm saying that Racism is the system that uses race to determine who is advantaged and who is disadvantaged in this society. And it's no secret who belongs to these two groups.
America has no racist systems or institutions that put Whites at a disadvantage under the will of non-Whites. You, yourself, have stipulated to that. And unless a group's inherent bigotry and prejudices are codified into a structure of systems and institutions, as defined by the racial majority over the racial minority, it's the only thing that can defined as racism.
Plus, it's not really possible for disadvantaged groups to do away with the system that advantaged groups have placed over them, without the direct intervention of those who are advantaged. Only those individuals who take advantage of that system of racial stereotyping and privilege over all other groups can possibly be defined as "racist." Racism is nothing more than the applied system of institutionalized privilege as defined BY race and the willingness to take advantage of those privileges over those who do not belong to the privileged group. Which is basically the entire theme of the graphic in the OP. The writer has recognized that she is advantaged in some ways and not in others and the steps that she takes to deal with it.
Sexism is the same exact system of privilege, except it's defined by gender. Can you possibly say that women benefit from a system of sexist institutions in this society?
It's why it's also important for privileged groups to both recognize and work against the system that puts them into that status. That is simply why I'm saying that only Whites can be advantaged in this country.
Because the racist system was created and enforced by Whites and it exists only for their privileged benefit over that of non-Whites, that is why I'm saying that ONLY Whites can be racist in this country.
But they don't have to be.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)No, it is the people who have tried to "redefine" it that have caused the problem, MrScorpio. The theory that only whites could be racist only dates back to around the 1980s/early '90s. Social justice has its origins going well before that, predating white privilege, and even the Civil Rights movement!
You, yourself, have stipulated to that.
That is simply not true.
Only those individuals who take advantage of that system of racial stereotyping and privilege over all other groups can possibly be defined as "racist."
Not at all. It's so much more complex than that.
Racism is nothing more than the applied system of institutionalized privilege as defined BY race and the willingness to take advantage of those privileges over those who do not belong to the privileged group.
On the contrary. It has very little directly to do with "privilege"
though it can be conceded that economic factors do exacerbate & complicate the problem) and so much more with personal bigotry, fear, and outright hatred, whether applied on a macro-scale by crooked elites or on a personal level by a mobster in Kansas City, a neo-Nazi in Ohio, or a black separatist in Las Vegas. In fact, isn't it often claimed that "privilege" is so magically invisible that practically nobody can recognize it? With that, you just shot yourself in the foot with that one, pal: How could one be willing to take advantage of "white privilege" if they don't know about it? It's absurd, frankly. 
Can you possibly say that women benefit from a system of sexist institutions in this society?
No, but *individual* women can be sexist on a *personal* level.....in fact, radical feminists, such as Diana Boston for example, are about the only people who actually claim otherwise(e.g. that women cannot be sexist at all or that *all* sexism is institutional).
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)This whole debate started when you decided to disagree with the writing and concepts listed in the graphic I posted.
I think that the writer was well reasoned and logical and I have absolutely no objections to what she wrote. None. I think that the thing's perfectly reasoned and written.
You, however, do have objections with her work. You're also one of the few people who've chimed in on this thread with objections, aside from our trolly-troll friends. And most of the time, I've found your posts to be unfocused and too in-concise to understand what you're trying to get across. As a matter of fact, the only GOOD thing that I've recognized on your part is that you're extremely skilled at jacking this thread.
Bravo.
But that's neither here nor there.
You have this story and you're sticking to it. Although, I can respect that, I have to say that you really didn't win me over with whatever points you were trying to make. So, I just have to tell you that I don't have the patience to deal with this anymore.
Let's say we call a truce and leave it at that.
How about that?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But no one can "educate" a poster that is completely unwilling to be educated.
It was almost laugh worthy to read his attempts to define the term, "Racism" in such a way as to apply it to POC, only to expose (if he were honest) that his own definition doesn't work for him.
But, I'm certain, the exchange was not in vain ... it provided others struggling to understand the concept, a clear demonstration of how privilege operates.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)With all due respect, I'm afraid that's simply not true. With all realities of structural racism aside, it is still very much universally accepted, with the exception of a small portion, by both legitimate authorities(of all backgrounds) and people at large(of all backgrounds) that *personal* racism is not limited to any one particular group, and anyone can participate in it and anyone can be victimized by it.
I really don't know what else to say. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, I suppose.....
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 17, 2014, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)
what is universally accepted is there is/can be bigotry on both sides; but racism is bigotry expressed/operationalized through institutional/structural means.
ETA: Notice that the only people saying that POC can be racist are non-POC (including the SPLC); IOWs, people with a vested interest in saying "They do it too", but are completely unable to cite to a single instance where POC exert any systemic oppression over non-POC?
eridani
(51,907 posts)Japanese people living in this country can't be racist. But they sure can when living in Japan--just ask Koreans or Ainu about it.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Which why systematic and institutionalized mechanisms are required to create and enforce racism, wherever and for whomever they are created.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Intrapersonal racism can be done by any group towards any other; Black vs. Latino, Arab vs. Jewish, Chinese vs. Indian, etc.
This isn't rocket science. Even 8-year-olds get this! 
gollygee
(22,336 posts)told me that white people and people of color define racism differently. White people consider mean words people use toward each other to be racism, where people of color consider only systemic racism to be racism.
The question is whose definition is right. I really feel like the people most affected are the right people to determine that. This is one of those "listen" things the OP was talking about.
Response to gollygee (Reply #87)
Name removed Message auto-removed
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)TBH, I'm sure this woman meant well, and I wish her well, but not all People of Color agree with the belief that only systemic racism is *real* racism. In fact, it's not even a majority position at all. From what I've observed over the years, that would indicate, if anything, that PoC believe in and understand both systemic *and* intrapersonal racism.....which do often tie together but aren't quite the exact same thing.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Because you could benefit from some of the advice more than most here. Seriously.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)BTW, I don't claim to be a know-it-all(unlike a certain few), but this is what my personal experience truly tells me, that there are a fair number of People of Color that I have come across over the years who do not agree that *only* systemic racism is real racism, or that only white people can be racist on a personal level, for that matter.
For your benefit(pun intended), I'll even repost what I said on that, word for word:
From what I've observed over the years, that would indicate, if anything, that PoC believe in and understand both systemic *and* intrapersonal racism.....which do often tie together but aren't quite the exact same thing.
In fact, even the Southern Poverty Law Center disagrees with the theory that only whites are racist on a personal level:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/black-separatist
Black separatists typically oppose integration and racial intermarriage, and they want separate institutions — or even a separate nation — for black people in America. Most contemporary forms of black separatism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic, and a number of religious versions assert that blacks — not Jews — are the Biblical "chosen people" of God.
Although the Southern Poverty Law Center recognizes that much black racism in America is, at least in part, a response to centuries of white racism, it believes racism must be exposed in all its forms. White groups espousing beliefs similar to black separatists would be considered clearly racist. The same criterion should be applied to all groups regardless of their color......
If a white group espoused similar beliefs with the colors reversed, few would have trouble describing it as racist and anti-Semitic. Although the racism of a group like the Nation may be relatively easy to understand, if we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.
See? And this organization(which is also staffed by quite a few People of Color, by the way), is one of the premier organizations for studying, exposing and combatting racism in this country. They know their stuff.....you could learn a thing or two from them. I did.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Or even equal? It ain't not even remotely the same thing.
Why don't you bounce that off all these "people of color" you've been having deep discussions with, and see what they think. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be giving you the side eye for that bullshit.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I will say, however, that personal racism has very much been one of *the* primary supports of the remnants of structural racism in this country. No doubt about it.
I don't know anyone who wouldn't be giving you the side eye for that bullshit.
Well, it's kinda obvious that you've got a pretty small circle or friends and acquaintances, then.....nothing wrong with that in and of itself but it honestly sounds like that you really might want to open up a little bit. I did, and learned a lot.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)people clearly illustrates. If it's not a huge problem for white people- why try to bring it up?
Since it is largely irrelevant- it would appear you just want to pick nits disrupt a conversation that troubles you a bit.
I have a huge, and very diverse circle of friends, always have. I grew up in a melting pot, and love it. That's why I know when to STFU and take in other points of view without offense. It is a handy life skill- not imagining everything is about me me me.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)That isn't the impression I've gotten from you, sad to say. Neither am *I* making this all about *me*, per se. Rather, this is a problem with how these things are discussed, and, moreover, the flaws with certain theories. I am making this about how to best educate the public. And I am far from alone in this.
This really, truly, doesn't have anything to do with how widespread anti-Caucasian bigotry may be; in my personal experience, btw, it seems to be actually kinda rare, and I have no reason to believe otherwise at this juncture. With that said, however, again, the primary problem lies with the flaws with not just this piece, but the flaws with certain theories that have been espoused by a fraction(which I used to be a part of, btw, before I joined DU) of the SJ movement.
You say you have a huge circle of friends. Which may indeed be true.....but this exception doesn't really change the fact that "only whites can be racist" is a fringe extremist position that is not held by a majority of Social Justice advocates or People of Color in general(whether or not they consider themselves SJ advocates or not) for that matter. If you were willing to expand your horizons beyond your circle, you'd be able to see the truth, as I did.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Around race anyway:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024580633#post32
"White privilege", is subscribed to by only a very small minority of Democrats overall. Even the majority of DUers don't buy it. And in fact, it can be plausibly argued that the "White Privilege" defenders club here owes its very existence to the "Big Tent" you claim to hate so much.
Which was just plain untrue. You talk like you are in a position of authority about what some mysterious "most people" think. It's a Fox News talking point but not very convincing.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In fact, I hate to say this, but this whole shenanigan actually reminds me of actual Fox B.S. talking points, mainly about how most black people are supposedly angry at all white people, that they're all lazy and want to sit on their asses, and blame every little thing that happens to them on white people as a collective, etc.
Of course, none of this is actually true, but 'Baggers sure do believe it.
Here's my point: not only is "only white people can be racist" completely wrong and totally illogical, but also, it even gives ammo to Teabaggers and other far-right malcontents to use stuff like that and say, "See? All dem libruls is self-hatin' whate folks!". Just as they also use climate doomerism to claim that climate change is a hoa
which it isn't!). We may be able to see thru all that, but not everyone does.
Which part of the reason why we need to focus on improving our messaging. I realize it's not going to be easy, but if we want to strive for a better world, there's going to be times where we have to make necessary changes.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Why are you even typing that out when it hasn't happened here?
You say stuff like you're the decider of what is right and what is wrong. Your opinion is that it is "completely wrong and totally illogical." Your opinion is also that most people of color don't believe that racism is systemic and institutionalized and that individual bigotry is something different than racism. I have been told by a large number of people of color, including one who is an anti-racism trainer, and who has a doctorate in her field and works in her field, that this is the way people of color define racism. You told Mr. Scorpio here that it isn't the way most people of color define it, you told 1StrongBlackMan in another thread that it isn't the way most people of color define it. You've spent a pretty good amount of time contradicting people of color about what people of color think, and you've told me that you're a greater authority about this than a person of color who works in the anti-racism world and has a doctorate in that area. I really have no reason to accept you as an authority and I'm not likely to be swayed to your way of thinking, or what you think is the best way to "improve messaging" when it's built on an ill-founded sense of authority.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Why are you even typing that out when it hasn't happened here?
I didn't say that it did happen here, necessarily. Comprehension failure much?
Your opinion is also that most people of color don't believe that racism is systemic and institutionalized and that individual bigotry is something different than racism. I have been told by a large number of people of color, including one who is an anti-racism trainer, and who has a doctorate in her field and works in her field, that this is the way people of color define racism. You told Mr. Scorpio here that it isn't the way most people of color define it, you told 1StrongBlackMan in another thread that it isn't the way most people of color define it.
You need to really diversify your philosophical circle then. Because outside this small overall fringe of people(and it truly is one), this isn't what quite what I've been hearing.
and you've told me that you're a greater authority about this than a person of color who works in the anti-racism world and has a doctorate in that area.
That's not what I said or implied, and it's quite obvious. What I pointed out was the SPLC disagrees with the *belief* that only white people can be racist, and they are a rather diverse organization with people from many cultures being involved in their research, outreach, etc.
And honestly, I'll take their informed opinions and decades of research & understanding any day over some individual keyboard warrior who has clearly limited themselves to a specific mindset, and spoke as if the vast majority of People of Color completely agree with them and them alone.
I really have no reason to accept you as an authority and I'm not likely to be swayed to your way of thinking,
That's alright, really. I never claimed to be an authority myself, and I feel the same way about you as you do me anyhow.
or what you think is the best way to "improve messaging" when it's built on an ill-founded sense of authority.
What it's built on, is common sense. On practicality. And actually looking at the world around me and actually actively learning from as many different viewpoints as possible, and actually looking to real authorities on stuff like this, instead of too much reliance on personal feelings and only just my circle of friends.
I realize we may not agree on everything, but I would sincerely hope that you at least try to consider some of the points I've made instead of just brushing them off just because they come from a different viewpoint.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I have a diverse group of people I associate with in life. Again, you are trying to dismiss people who think otherwise by making assumptions and stating those assumptions as if they are facts.
What you take as common sense is what you're used to, not really common sense. I look to real authorities about stuff like this, and the SPLC is one source but not the only source to look to. I look beyond my circle of friends (which is not "fringe."
And you say you want people to not brush off your points when all you've done is brush off everyone else's points and be dismissive and condescending. You want consideration but you don't want to give any to anyone else. You've been dismissive and condescending to people of color in a thread about racism. I don't know why you expect anyone to be so respectful of you after that.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Again, you are trying to dismiss people who think otherwise by making assumptions and stating those assumptions as if they are facts.
They may be assumptions, but they are assumptions based on factual observations, and my willingness to actually expand my intellectual & philosophical horizons.
What you take as common sense is what you're used to, not really common sense.
I look to real authorities about stuff like this,
Given what I've heard from you here, and elsewhere, I'm not terribly convinced of that.
And you say you want people to not brush off your points when all you've done is brush off everyone else's points and be dismissive and condescending.
Dismissive only of stuff which is obviously non-factual.
You want consideration but you don't want to give any to anyone else.
Au contraire. If you actually took a truly wide look at all I've posted, I have been able to have actual conversations with people who may not see what I see. With that said, though, I have to admit that I don't suffer fools that easily these days, no matter their ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.
You've been dismissive and condescending to people of color in a thread about racism.
I recall a series of *actual condescending* comments made by BainsBane on another thread towards the TheKentuckian after he voiced his disagreement with her on another thread like this. BTW, if I recall correctly, T.K. is a Person of Color himself.....and he and I just happened to agree on that issue. So take what you will out of that.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Take a look around. You have some crow to eat, and apologies to make- to some African AMerican DUers for claiming YOU understand racism better than they. You exemplify the privilege outlined in this OP.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)No matter how close I may with the DU community, my opinion is very much a mainstream one.
You have some crow to eat, and apologies to make- to some African AMerican DUers for claiming YOU understand racism better than they.
Funny, B.B. never apologized to TheKentuckian after she *actually* wronged him, and I don't recall you or certain others having a problem with that.
Betty, this has nothing to do with ethnicity, TBH. Some individual people happen to have a more nuanced understanding than others. TheKentuckian and I just happen to fall into that group.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)to be arguing BS about perceives slights against white people having ANY significance in political discussions.
Your argument belongs right next to the reverse racism and "why can;t I use the N-word if blacks do?" nonsense. No t mainstream here.
Have no idea what you re saying about Kentuckian or who they are. And don't care either.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Which isn't quite a problem in of itself, but it's the conclusions that you've arrived at that are problematic, at best.
Your argument belongs right next to the reverse racism and "why can;t I use the N-word if blacks do?" nonsense
Well, see, here's the thing: I don't believe in "reverse racism" either. Because for reverse racism to exist, it would absolutely require that all of "normal" racism have been the exclusive province of a single, solitary group. Here's the problem, though: intrapersonal racism isn't. Never has been. So this fact not only destroys the Teabagger argument, but that of certain fringe extremists on the left, as well. Two birds with one stone.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)since you think you know better than every African American on DU. You'd think that would give you pause, but obviously not.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In fact, there's quite a few people out there, of all sorts, who came to the same conclusions I did regarding racism; i.e., that structural racism still exists and does not affect white people(at least we agree on this?), but that *intrapersonal* racism is not limited to any one specific group and can affect *anyone*; and, btw, this likely includes at least a few people who may still disagree with my opinions on the usefulness of "white privilege" as a term.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Because it's as plain as day that you're abusing your own level of privilege that the graphic writer was very clear in avoiding to do herself.
It's as if you refuse to get any pertinent information for use by yourself from either that graphic or any of the supplemental discussions with others in these threads. Your own degree of privilege, in your belief, affords you the authority to both ignore what you're doing and your persistence in doing it.
You're basically setting a completely wrong example.
The problem really isn't that you refuse learn anything, the problem is with your insistence to butt in against other posters who are quite understanding of the subject and your pestering of them that they're all wrong and you're right, without any convincing proof of your position whatsoever. The only real support that you've gotten has come mostly from trolls, who for some mysterious reason, aren't around here anymore.
The most salient fact is that you're the outlier here and you even refuse to acknowledge that as well.
So, if you're even cognizant in the least about the value of the graphic, you should sincerely apologize. If you're unable to do that, however, the graphic has some other advice for you that you would be well to follow.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
It's as if you refuse to get any pertinent information for use by yourself from either that graphic or any of the supplemental discussions with others in these threads.
Well, you thought wrong, I'm sad to say. I still do believe she did put some good information in there. But there could have been more. This is not at all an attack on the author, and in fact, I'm sure she had the noblest of intentions in mind, and I would have come to that conclusion regardless of her background.
The only real support that you've gotten has come mostly from trolls, who for some mysterious reason, aren't around here anymore.
Which isn't true, and you'd know this, too, if you weren't so unwilling to wake up and smell the roses, pal.
Your own degree of privilege, in your belief, affords you the authority to both ignore what you're doing and your persistence in doing it.
My view that intrapersonal racism can be done by any individual towards any other, regardless of their ethnicity doesn't have fucking *shit* to do with "privilege". Alright? For fuck's sake, dude, I hate to be harsh, but get a clue already. Your view that People of Color cannot be racist at all, period, not only flies in the face of all sense and logic, but is not even shared by a large majority of social activists in general, even by many people who do believe in literal white privilege. If you'd bother to look outside your philosophical bubble, as I learned to do, you'd be able to see that, even if you may not necessarily change your particular opinion. It's this insistence that virtually everyone agrees with this fringe theory of PoC being unable to be racist at all(even though all available proof says otherwise), that does bother me a bit(although, to be honest, it's also partly because I used to believe that too.).
The most salient fact is that you're the outlier here and you even refuse to acknowledge that as well.
Reality says otherwise. Even a majority of social justice people in general don't believe in literal(though this isn't necessarily true as a philosophical point-of-view type of thing, however, to be fair) "white privilege". And the vast majority certainly do not believe in the quite frankly extremist position that People of Color are totally immune from being racist.
BTW, I do apologize if I may have been overly harsh. Perhaps I had been to an extent. It does bother me that you blew this way out of proportion, however. That's for sure.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)That although anyone can be bigoted, intolerant and prejudiced, regardless of race. Only those who could and would exploit for their own benefit and insist on preserving a race based system of institutionalized privilege should be classified AS racist.
We still retain that system of institutionalized privilege in this country, somewhat, in spite of a lot of effort by anti-racists of all stripes to do away with it.
But let me apply the same example to another type of privilege to counter your insistence that "interpersonal racism" by POCs somehow equates to my definition of institutional and systemic racism.
I give you the fact that several states have enacted marriage equality for gays and lesbians in this country, in comparison to other states that have not. Now in those states that have not as of yet enacted marriage equality, those states retain an institutionalized system of sexual orientation privilege that favors straights over gays and lesbians. Am I right? Basically, those states are, for the sake of an example of why I'm making up this word, are "Sexual-Orientationalcist." A state that has enacted gay and lesbian marriage equality, on the other hand can't be classified in such an manner, simply because the institutions THERE favor ALL, regardless of orientation.
Both marriage and non-marriage states retain a fair amount of homophobic bigots inside of them, but which ones are those that have bigots who are able to exploit the power for their own benefit and insist on preserving a sexual orientation based system of institutionalized privilege and discrimination?
See how that works?
The bigots in marriage equality states are still bigoted, but they retain no institutional power to inflict their bigotry onto others. They have no power to preserve and inflict a system of "Sexual-Orientationalcism" on gays and lesbians. Interpersonal bigotry, as cited by you as an equally pressing problem, just doesn't have that same bang for your buck without it being backed up. It's just ugly bigotry, which would be ugly either way.
The exact same exercise can be applied to ableism, sexism, ageism and so forth. As long that those problems any system and institutionalized persist in this country, we'll have ableists, sexists and ageists, along with racists.
I should point out that I most sincerely believe that Whites can and have been victims of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination by POCs in America, those POCs do not have to power to exploit for their own benefit, any kind of institutionalized system, based on race, i.e., Racism. The only ones in this country who do ARE Whites.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And when everyone else here explains there are important distinctions between the two- you balk at this. But we are using clearer, more precise language than you. You don't get to redefine these terms as they are currently used.
You keep hinting at person bigotry being important to the discussion here about the systemic racism in our society- as it relates to privilege. How is important to the topic at hand again?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And when everyone else here explains there are important distinctions between the two.....
Not that I ever denied there was(only that the distinctions that exist aren't quite the ones you're lookin' for); after all, it IS true that not all bigots are necessarily racist.....
You don't get to redefine these terms as they are currently used.
I was trying to make that same point myself!
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)This discussion group's majority opinion is that you are wrong. You must change your opinion if you want to be considered a member of the group in good standing.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Interesting, but not ""kind of rare *outside of* progressive circles.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a POC saying hurtfully bigoted things affects him; whereas, systemic/institutionalized bigotry (i.e., Racism) does not?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)people here. His own experiences with racism are more valid than yours, even though he actually has none. Nice, huh?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have with some "liberals/progressives" ... their apparent need to make everything about them, even those things that only tangentially touch their lives. And when they do so, they work really hard to have their opinion, informed by vicarious interaction ("I know a Black person who ..." or a falsely equivalent experience ("I, too, was unfairly followed around in a store because of my long hair, numerous piercings and tattoos and my 'I shoplift for a living' tee-shirt" hold equal, if not more, weight with the lived experience of POC.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)others, putting themselves in an "advisory" position as if every thought that comes of the top of their heads is manna from heaven.
They can't imagine anyone else has actually considered and discarded the ideas they spew out thoughtlessly.
And their brilliant ideas? Usually you can sum them up as:
A) "Don't make me uncomfortable with the status quo or remind me I might benefit from it." and
2) "I suffer from a (often inconsequential) related problem, let's talk about how my life isn't perfect instead."
You'd think they'd take a minute before they post such moronic self centered bullshit, but that is what the OP is all about. How easy it is to feel exactly THAT entitled.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was booted from a coalition of Civil Rights Group because I pointed out that the leadership was making decision about Black folks without any input from, but a few, Black folks ... and reluctantly, at that.
Same, same here ... "white is right! Next topic ... and right about that, too!"
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)how many "liberal" guys just assumed the leadership position was unquestionably theirs, thoughtlessly shot down the input of all women in the room, and spent waay too much time in a power struggle with the second bossiest guy in the room- instead of working to achieve actual goals.
They would literally pay no mind to the women unless they had a thankless task too menial to ask of a guy, or were trying to rally some support in their power struggle with another dude. They were perfectly happy to get nothing done, as long as they were busy scrambling to be top dog.
It never occurred to them that they were ignoring 3/4 of their fellow activists, people who had much more experience with and input from the community, and wasting so much talent and opportunity. I broke off and made what contributions I could sort of independently, registered hundreds of voters and raised more money than those fools. What I did directly contributed to our big win and improved my community greatly. What our leader did- give interviews and then set himself up a BS semi - related but these days irrelevant non-profit he is still profiting off of 20 years later. So much for common interests, LOL.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is after generations of dominating whatever conversation they cared/dared to enter, they now are meeting folks that plainly tell them we recognize, but refuse to play, your "me first" game.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's too bad I was not lucky enough to be born with black skin and got saddled with a Y chromosome. Then my problems would be blamed on those racist/sexist goddam white males.
Weirdness.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I guess he missed the Chris Rock Routine?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)our society, politically and culturally is stuck is a concerted effort to hold on to some of that power and control. People need to face they are clinging to habits nd ways that just do not work anymore. Diversity demands collaborative thinking, and not this top down bullshit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)top down B.S., with the goal being (in this case) to get POC of color to join in their fight to replace the white guy on top ... with themselves; after which, we wait and they act all brand new.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and valued input from many sources. And that was the exception. But yeah, here at DU too many want credit just for for not being mouth breathing Tea baggers. They have a ways to go.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)if he moved to Japan?
eridani
(51,907 posts)shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)If he went back to the US, when would he become a racist again? Is it when his airplane hits US territorial waters or when it touches down on the tarmac?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)I know people sometime say that but it sounds weird since the word is an adjective and not a noun. A person can contribute to a racist structure, and a person can be a bigot and say racist things that contribute to racism in this country, but a person isn't "a racist."
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Blimey!
gollygee
(22,336 posts)And a person who says and does sexist things isn't "a sexist" because that also is not a noun.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Some people do use it as a noun, so it will show up in dictionaries to reflect usage, but that doesn't make it grammatically correct. People use nouns as verbs as well, and that is also not grammatically correct. I worked for 8 years as a newspaper reporter and I've sinced worked as an editor. It would not pass by any editor's desk.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)And all this time I thought the people at Oxford had a reasonable grasp of the English language.
Presumably if racist and sexist can't be nouns, then Marxist or Buddhist can't be either. What should those people call themselves?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Goddamn, man, this "re-definition" craziness is honestly starting to go into borderline Orwell territory. "Racist" isn't a noun? Is this supposed to be pseudo-left Newspeak or whatever? As a genuine liberal, I gotta SMH at that.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)"Sexist" is. And as I said, dictionaries simply reflect usage.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)politically they might not be. But your argument was that it was ungrammatical to use "racist" as a noun.
eridani
(51,907 posts)In America, those structures would give Duke a racist advantage. In Japan they would not.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And in fact, it can be plausibly argued that personal racism actually is one of the key building blocks.....if not *the* key one, of institutional racism. But the truth is, although they often tie together, they are not totally one and the same; although David Duke would be a minority in Japan, his personal views towards all of those who are "non-white" would still make him a racist even if it does not necessarily fit into the structural framework.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Re-read this piece, as your objections to it seem to stem from your apparent need to be heard and dictate the terms/language of the discussion. This is best demonstrated by your "hearing" what you want (maybe, need) to hear in order to justify your rejection of the wisdom of the piece.
Specifically, no one has said ALL white people are racist, though all white people CAN act in racist ways ..nor, has anyone said that ALL men are to blame for sexual or physical violence, though all men CAN commit sexual or physical violence against women. Secondly, the statement "only whites can be racist" is a correct statement. While everyone can be BIGOTTED or act with racial animus; Racism (as all "ISM"s) is the exercise of structural power dynamic.
Regarding point #3 ... LISTEN to everyone (the more uncomfortable it makes you, probably the better); and/but do not dismiss anyone. They are communicating THEIR life's experience to you.
Regarding Point 5 ... You will know you've made a mistake when the person you are interacting with tells you, you have made a mistake either verbally or by disengaging with you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
"education is a right, not a privilege"
synonyms: advantage, benefit;
I don't see anything about wealth there do you?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 15, 2014, 10:56 AM - Edit history (1)
who is able-bodied and whose weight and height are within the boundaries of what is considered socially acceptable, is clearly a very self-aware, earnest, well-meaning person who is in no way annoying or patronizing. I especially like her "Can we talk about that?" dressing-down technique.
Heidi
(58,237 posts) 
Baitball Blogger
(46,737 posts)This mimics my sentiments!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)talk less, listen more, educate onself, help those who need it, and learn from one's mistakes
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)At long last, not only can I hate myself, but I can understand why!
Thanks, MrScorpio!
Heidi
(58,237 posts)No sanctimony, either. If that's the way you perceived the OP, the problem may be one of perception.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Can we talk about that?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)though I guess I can't blame you for thinking that; there really are some people like that.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Many people who enjoy martyring themselves for fun often infer self-hatred from where none exists...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)That is a new word for me. What does it mean?
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)Cisgender and cissexual (often abbreviated to simply cis) describe related types of gender identity where an individual's experience of their own gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth.[1] Sociologists Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook define cisgender as a label for "individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity" as a complement to transgender.[2]
There are a number of derivatives of the terms in use, including cis male for "male assigned male at birth", cis female for "female assigned female at birth", analogically cis man and cis woman, as well as cissexism and cissexual assumption. In addition, certain scholars have begun to use the term cisnormativity, akin to the queer studies' heteronormativity.[3][4] A related adjective is gender-normative; Eli R. Green has written that "'cisgendered' is used [instead of the more popular 'gender normative'] to refer to people who do not identify with a gender diverse experience, without enforcing existence of a 'normative' gender expression".[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Versus someone else who identifies themselves as Transgender, or so on.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts) JJChambers
(1,115 posts)Is a term created to replace "normal" in the gender definition vocabulary? I can see how referring to cisgenders as normal would be hurtful to transgenders, as it implies trans are abnormal and inferior.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)That also applies to anyone calling straight folks like myself, "normal," to the exclusion of LGBT people.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)Hopefully it's use will increase in frequency.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)I'd say being a straight man is a huge privilege example too; yes INDEED
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)that when I was searching for my missing cat with a flashlight at 03:00 AM in the bushes outside the patios of buildings at my apartment complex, such a task is much easier as a white female
Response to Skittles (Reply #59)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Dude, you're funny.
Do you do Bar Mitzvahs?
No, scratch that. I've go a feeling that you wouldn't want to be caught dead being 1100 miles near one.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)why do I always miss the juicy stuff? 
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)Response to Skittles (Reply #59)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to MrScorpio (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Silent3
(15,234 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)I WILL KICK YOUR PRIVILEGED ASS
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts) 
Nikia
(11,411 posts)Thanks for posting this.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Even a deaf, blind, quadriplegic person has privilege. At least he/she isn't dead.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)actually matter to the majority of people with a great deal less opportunity due to racism or sexism? It probably serves only as a balm to those who imagine they should feel guilty.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Interesting opinion... will certainly give it all the consideration it's actually worth.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And how does that actually matter to the many many people with a great deal less opportunity- who are living *their entire lives* at greater risk for poverty, incarceration and ill health due to systemic racism?
I'm really curious! As far as I can see, it serves only as a balm to those with privilege.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)thin privilege (or at least non-fat privilege), not-quite-white privilege (beige privilege?), straight privilege, cis privilege, sexual privilege (a term used by asexuals, apparently), choristo privilege (term used by "genderqueer" people) and ablebodied privilege. I am also quite handsome so I have beauty privilege (I get treated better than ugly people). Plus 5 or 6 others that I can't quite remember but which nevertheless must impact profoundly on my life, somehow.
That gives me an overall privilege score of.... 42 with +2 damage against the undead. Beat that bitches.
phil89
(1,043 posts)Not much substance.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
Good morning, Capt. Obvious!
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)That image has been cracking me up.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)This thread is full of win from some smart and observant DUers!
Gollygee nails it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024665590#post131
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)It's the same fight that's been happening forever though.
Sometimes I can't tell if I just stepped out of a time machine.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)I grew up in Oklahoma and I think it's reasonable to expect DU to be a more progressive community than (for example) Muskogee. And that's why I'm kickin' the heck out of this thread.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)"it's not an insult, it is a fact"
thank goodness, if you wait a little bit, the insults will come.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)But the fact that you feel insulted is interesting.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Having privilege is not an insult.
People in a privileged group claiming they don't have privilege is laughable, thus the joke.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 18, 2014, 10:37 AM - Edit history (1)
are the ones WHO DON'T GET IT, from where I sit.
Having privilege is, of course, not an insult.
However, living an un-privileged life, and being told, more than likely by somebody who a) has a better job than you, b) lives in a nicer house than you c) drives a nicer car than youd) has a spouse or significant other when you don't, e) has children and/or grandchildren when you don't, f) and so on, , that YOU have privilege,
Well THAT, certainly IS an insult.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)"Privilege refers to the uneven distribution of power within a society"
White people occupy a more powerful position in society. That is, society as a whole. Any individual white person may or may not have actual "power," but by virtue of the the fact that they're not ALSO discriminated against for their skin color gives them an advantage, regardless of all the other disadvantages that individual may have, or what their economic situation may be.
Your own personal situation isn't even part of the concept. So, nobody is insulting you.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)first you said it was NOT about individual people
then you said it was.
"gives them an advantage"
"Them"
Those are the individuals who supposedly have these "advantages".
So yes, I am being told I have advantages, and yes, I do find that insulting (and also wrong on so many levels). And then I am told that I am playing the game of life on the easiest possible setting, and I find that to be insulting too. And then I am told the first thing I need to do is shut the fuck up, and also to learn from others (which is nice, of course, but am I always going to school? Always sitting at the feet of the master and crying out 'teach me, oh enlightened ones'.)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)And you do have the advantage of being white. Whatever disadvantages you have, you will always have that one advantage that non-white people can never have, regardless of their own advantages or disadvantages.
And yes, we can ALL learn from people in different situations than our own. Is it the notion that people of color might have something to teach you that has you so upset? Actually, consider that last question rhetorical. I won't be kicking this thread again.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I will always have that advantage of being white.
And THAT and 75 cents will get me a cup of coffee.
For some reason, I do not think that Oprah, Michelle Obama, Hallie Berry, or Serena Williams are all that heartbroken about never being able to have all the advantages that I get from being a white male.
Nor do most of the other 3 million plus black people who have over $250,000 in net worth.
And no, the problem is NOT that a person of color might have something to teach me. It's this paradigm that makes me a second class citizen. Because you forgot the asterisk in your statement.
And yes, we can ALL* learn from people in different situations than our own.
* Except for straight white males, nobody can learn anything from them and they just need to shut the fuck up (except when they are meekly asking questions from their betters).
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You may have a chip on your shoulder. Just an observation. That may be the key to your employment problems. You just seem so angry.
White males have had the advantage since the founding of this nation. They have had the vote. Their voices were not silenced just because they were white. The natural advantage is going away, but it still exists. Just because stuff sucks for you, doesnt mean you dont have privileges over women and minorities. It doesnt make you evil. It just is.
You never hear the news people howling about white on white crime even though white on white crime is more prevalent than black on black crime. You are welcome for us taking all the heat on that one. It enables you to walk around and not be jacked up against a wall by the popo's.
You complain about others; a black man who got a job that YOU say you were more qualified for. He may have had qualifications that you dont know about and a positive attitude. Being friendly helps when interviewing for a job. You also said there was a woman who you were more qualified than who got the job you wanted. Very mean how you spoke of her. She may have been a better option for them company at the time. You dont know what they were thinking.
And you put in several resumes a year. Wow. And they never call you back. Several resumes. I put out about 50 before i started getting call backs. Why would you think that several resumes was enough?
Everytime somebody brings up privilege, we always have that one white guy who just has to bring up Serena Williams, Beyonce, or oprah. Too funnyz! Like if there are some black people with money, privilege doesnt exist anymore. That game has been being played for decades.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(maybe this one ... I'm just too lazy to look it up) ...
Something to the effect: Addressing racism just has to wait until there are no more poor white folks.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I mean did you read that?? He didnt get the job. Those wimen and that negro stole HIS job.
Too funny!!!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)he's been more special than that ...
"if there is a war on women, they are winning {or something like that}" ... (No that wasn't rand paul) ... because his sister and his brothers' wives are doing better than he and his brothers!
That was really special!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The misandry is spreading. It is infecting some men with the inability to look in the mirror and take the initiative to improve their own lives. Because women are keeping them down by having good jobs. Amazing! Im picturing him in a shack somewhere with a PHD on the wall, putting out three resumes a year, and getting shafted by the wimmens and blacks. Every time. Like charlie brown and the football. That damn Lucy!!
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)actually I did NOT say anything like that.
Somebody asked me "imagine how much worse your life would be if you were black or a woman", or did not have your education.
Well, it seems to me that the women and black people who get the jobs I apply for are doing at least as well as I am - even better. And there is my education - NOT getting a job for me.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You said that. You seem like your own worst enemy.
Women making money and Blacks making money is not evidence of the absence of you own privilege as a white male, my good man. You have no clue how hard it may have been for them to get to your level and surpass you. And they have to be nice to people to get there.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)duh, it's kind of all about ALL white males
of which I happen to be the example I know best.
And yes, Beyonce is brought up. And what is your answer to the 3 million black people with over $250,000 in net worth.
Do I, or do I not, have more privilege than them?
If not, then what is the value of white privilege?
If so, then how so?
I did not say I was more qualified than Chester. I said I had more education, which is certainly true. And since he later got fired, I think it was pretty clear that I was a better worker.
And it was mean how I spoke about what woman? The librarian? Well, I happened to be sitting in the library when a customer came in and asked about "A Wrinkle in Time" and this lady had no clue. Where I, myself, had owned a bookstore for several years and knew and read a variety of authors, including Ms. Madeleine L'Engle.
And it sure is nice, even though this concept of "privilege" is supposedly "a fact, not an insult". How people who try to convince me that I have privilege always come back to one very basic insult. A very typical conservative one - YOUR problems are YOUR fault.
It's too bad I was not lucky enough to be born with black skin and got saddled with a Y chromosome. Then my problems would be blamed on those racist/sexist goddam white males.
And actually yes it does mean that. Having, in general, a life that sucks means pretty straightforward that you do NOT have privileges.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You have a chip on your shoulder the size of mount everest. It is your attitude not your aptitude thats standing in your own way. You just proved it. I rest my case your honor.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)That is too perfect.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Do I have depression
or does my life just suck?
"Sometimes I am sad"
Yeah, for some reason going from one shit job to another where you are usually treated like shit, can do that to a person.
But it's a great privilege to have a shitty job.
In this economy anyway.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)as I wrote before, about the following statement
"It's tougher being black than white" seems false to me in the same way that "W is greater than B" seems false to me IF I can easily find examples where B is greater than W. And not just one or two examples - multiple millions of them.
So going back to black and white. Would you, and most DUers agree that "It's tougher being poor than being rich"?
So now I pull out the census of wealth for 2011 where I find that a whopping 3.2 million black households have more than $250,000 in wealth. And I also find that there are 16.9 million white non hispanic households with less than $5,000 in wealth.
True or false? The statement "It is tougher being black than white" means that those 3.2 million blacks have it tougher than those 16.9 million whites. That somehow W (with less than $5,000 in wealth) is greater than B (with more than $250,000 in wealth).
If false, then how?
One might object and say "I am only comparing blacks and whites with the SAME income/wealth when I make that statement about race. So don't compare yourself to Tiger Woods or Oprah, look at the guy down the street. Look at the fact that 48% of black households have less than $5,000 in wealth compared to only 20.5% of WNH households. Right THERE is your white privilege (dammit)!"
Okay, let me try a crude analogy. Imagine that 20.5% of white people are living 50 feet underground, in a big hole where other people dump their excrement. (being poor means life deals you a LOT of crap) and that 48% of black people are down in this hole too. (By the way that means that the population of the hole is STILL 70% WHITE). Then you are asking that person in the hole to just IGNORE, to pay no attention to, all those people NOT living in the hole. Just look around and bask in the fact that you are lord of the hole. What a privilege THAT is.
Bring in the numbers again. You are then asking these white people who are poor to just ignore the 73 million people (60% of the US population) who are substantially better off than they are to show that "white privilege" exists. Yep, they are privileged if you ignore 60% of the country and just look at their fellow poor people. Or maybe look at all the rich white guys in Congress and corporate board rooms (like their whiteness trickles down to other white people).
I don't see how a statement can be true, if proving it requires you to ignore 60% of the data.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)if you were not well educated, white and male.
or it might not.
My female boss has much less education than I do. A GED to my MA.
And so did the woman who beat me out for the finance job I applied for.
And the woman who beat me out for the library job I applied for, and yet didn't know Madeleine L'Engle from the man in the moon.
Oh, and the same black guy, named Chester, who beat me out for THREE straight jobs that I applied for.
I applied FOUR times for a real job at Kraft Foods, where I worked as a temp for almost three years. At one point there was some twenty year old kid, also a temp, who got hired. Then he got fired when his background check showed that he had lied about having his GED.
He could have told them he was working on his GED and probably still gotten the job over me, Mr. Dude with a Master's degree. But it's cool. I got my revenge, sent in through a Northfield and served cold. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/12
When I applied for my current janitor's job, I left my MA off of the application because I was afraid they would use that as an excuse to NOT hire me.
Of course, they didn't hire me anyway. They didn't even interview me. They hired some other guy, who listened to a bunch of crap from my boss, threw the keys at him and walked off.
I had the privilege of taking crap from that boss for about nine years before the abusive psycho finally retired.
I probably applied for two or three jobs a year during those nine years. I know that is not a lot, but it is hard for me to get motivated when I am 0 for 20 in job success. I read in the paper that they fired the Main Street Manager, and that SHE had a) no degree, and b) no business experience. Both of which I have. So I applied for that job - and did not even get an interview.
But it is not like little old me has had it THAT bad. After all, 4,045 men had the privilege of being killed on the job in 2012, 3,002 of them were WNH, and heck, 86 of them were under 19 years old. They never even got to live, really.http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t04.htm
Men were 92% of all workplace fatalities. And another 702,000 men were privileged enough to be injured at work badly enough to miss a median of 10 days of work.
Somebody should visit them in the hospital to remind them that they are playing the game of life on the easiest possible setting. Maybe Hallmark could make a card. "Happy privilege day".
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Bring it on.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)To even include how one would manage their own class privilege, if they were conscious of it, of course.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)In what ways would you manage it?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)time I've brought it up.
As to your question, I "manage it" by making sure I advocate broadly for all Americans, even (and especially!) those who don't share my exact social-class background.
It may be imperfect, but if I don't do it, few else here will.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)You must have a lot to say about the subject, right?
I'm fascinated to read more of your thoughts about it.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)And by no means does it seem like you're engaging in a passive-aggressive challenge.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)But it seemed to me that you were letting on that the graphic was missing an important discussion on the subject of class privilege. By the way, I'm still interested in knowing about ways that a class privilege discussion would supplement the writer's text.
Obviously, you're passionate about it, I just figured that you'd take this opportunity to expand awareness.
Were you implying that the writer intentionally neglected to highlight whatever class privilege she retains, in order to protect it from scrutiny?
Perhaps class privilege is too taboo a subject in most settings and, if so, how would you suggest we rectify that?
Maybe DU itself has a big problem with dealing with class privilege. It seems that the subject about several other forms of privilege can get touchy around here.
You're the only person who has brought up class in this thread. All I wanted was an elaboration.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)than they believe you as a black guy ought to have, Mr. S. Maybe that's why class is more important to them than race. Race has always gotten some folks through, but it's just not enough anymore to deliver what they feel entitled to. That's how it seems to me, anyway.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)classes will necessarily disproportionately benefit people of color, because of the uneven way that inequality is distributed through US populations. So advocating for poor people IS advocating for people of color. Period.
Race and class are not two competing, and therefore contradictory, theories.
This doesn't make ANY sense, you know.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)"You're the only person who has brought up class in this thread. All I wanted was an elaboration. "
You didn't respond in any meaningful way to my *previous* elaboration, so pardon me for being skeptical.
Bringing up class on a thread about PRIVILEGE is extremely appropriate. I'm sorry you resent it.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Maybe the two problems are so interlinked that you can't deal with one without concurrently dealing with the other.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)And that class was completely left out of the discussion. Again.
Why is it a problem to bring this up?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)we hear that talking about racism distracts from the real problem, which is classism, or that the 1% loves it when we talk about race because it stops us from paying attention to class, or something else along those lines.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)This thread is about PRIVILEGE overall, not just racism.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)You can't talk about privilege without talking about racism. They're closely related concepts.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Every discussion of racism need not include a discussion of class, but discussions of privilege are at the same time discussions of racism because they are flip sides of the same coin.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)I do not agree that the issues of class and race are (or could be) unrelated. That aside, this is a discussion of "privilege" overall, which must include acknowledgement of class based privilege.
These are not concepts in opposition to one another, and it is a poor fit to try to make them seem like they are.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)though privilege that comes about due discrimination due to race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., seems like a separate (not bigger but different) issue. I think those kinds of discrimination can be discussed without discussing class without it being an oversight. Every problem doesn't have to be discussed in every thread, and every thread about privilege doesn't have to include a discussion about class, just as every thread about class doesn't have to include a discussion of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)You can't just acknowledge it and then say, "let's not include this in the conversation."
I think it is not at all obvious that a discussion of class-based privilege somehow stands in opposition to a discussion of race based, or gender based privileges.
They are all part of a self-reinforcing system. One folds into the next. It is appropriate to discuss this on a thread about privilege. And yet the topic seems to be frequently disappeared...
gollygee
(22,336 posts)to dismiss the OP, it would have been better received.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Heidi
(58,237 posts)is privilege rooted in the subjugation of historically (and in most cases, currently) marginalized populations.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We keep having to explain that People of Color (and women) have interests beyond those of white males. While our interests intersect at the income inequity issue, they diverge after that.
As I have said before: our helping accomplish their ends, still leaves us wanting. And history gives us plenty of reason to believe that once we help them accomplish their ends, they will jettison us ... as the status quo, with respect to race/gender/sexual orientation relationships, hasn't changed ... we just have a different white guy to deal with.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Has been attempted by MrScorpio and a certain few others. That is *NOT* cool no matter who does it or why.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That is NOT cool no matter who YOU are.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)does not domination make. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise, but that's not how it was; I issued a disagreement with the OP, and he chose to try to control the narrative. It didn't have to be that way, but that's how it developed.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I just decided to look at it recently and your comments are unbelievable in the level of condesention you show towards the black members of DU and those who support us. There are only a few of us left here and you seem to have a problem with many of us. You are the main reason i did not post in this thread sooner, i was afraid you would attempt to engage me and give me a disgust of you. I wish you would reconsider always having to speak. I hope you will in the future attempt to listen to what the oppressed are saying instead of dismissing their experiences and attempting to be the definer of terms.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #159)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Nor is my LONE VOICE "dominating" anything.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its not exclusive of those same issues...
Romulox
(25,960 posts)conflict between these two ideas?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Get it?
I am not falling for this...."no such thing as White Male Privilege" malarkey...and you are not that clever.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and, to explain why that is met with suspicion:
People of Color (and women and GLBTQs) have interests beyond those of straight white males. While our interests intersect at the income inequity issue, they diverge after that.
As I have said before, regarding classism over racism: our helping accomplish their ends, still leaves us wanting. And history gives us plenty of reason to believe that once we help you accomplish your ends, you will jettison us ... as the status quo, with respect to race/gender/sexual orientation relationships, hasn't changed ... we just have a different white guy to deal with.
Heidi
(58,237 posts) hfojvt
(37,573 posts)is all about white people and how blessed they are
and how they need to shut the fuck up.
You think that is NOT divisive?
You think that is gonna get a whole bunch of working class whites to say "well, hell, sign me the fuck up"
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They started it, now we have to hear them tell us it's not that bad for us as we're making it out to be.
It seem like you think it is worse to hear black people talking about racism, than it is for us to actually be victims of it. Poor you. Black people want you to shut up and let them talk for once.
About something that affects them in a harmful way, but doesn't harm you in any way.
They want you to listen to THEM.
And not do ALL the talking.
You will be ok.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In all honesty, if you want my view, it just wouldn't be fair that *any* one group should be allowed to dominate anything(though, to be fair, I'm sure most of ALL backgrounds would agree). Let's allow this to remain a democratic process where all can chip in their experiences, and be allowed to (respectfully) debate our differences in opinion. That way, we all learn something.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And thinks that interpersonal racism (bigotry) is a real big problem. I see that you forgot to read the part in the graphic that indicates that you may need to spend some time listening and less time trying to dominate the conversation about someting that you benefit from in favor of people who live it on a day to day basis. I bet you tell women what its really like to be pregnant too. Since you kniw best about everything and all.
To be honest, i read your silly views all over this particular thread, and no i do not want your view. It is your turn to listen to the views of others for a while. It is your turn to listen. Not dominate the convo. Listen.
But you have taken it upon your priveleged self to define the terms we need to use and to do much of the talking.
You are the exact person that graphic is talikng to.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Never implied that I knew more about racism than black folks as a whole. That would just be stupid(and wrong). With that said, though, it does seem I get it more than some individuals, though.
It is your turn to listen. Not dominate the convo. Listen.
I'm afraid I'm not the one who needs that advice, my friend. Listening does not = agreeing with everything the other person says. Even a 7 year old would understand that.
But you have taken it upon.....to define the terms we need to use and to do much of the talking.
I'm sorry, but I strongly suggest that you look elsewhere.....or perhaps, in the proverbial mirror, even. Because it is this small group of radicals who has been absolutely demanding that everyone else use *their* particular definitions of things and to think like they do(instead of merely offering their opinions).....and yet they accuse others of acting as they do!
All I ask is that certain people on here try to be more considerate. I do believe this person did a fairly decent job but that she also could have expended on this a little better. I can see, however, that some people have a serious problem with those who happen to disagree with them on anything pretty much(whereas my only issue was being brushed off, etc.).
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You really should talk less and listen more. Period.
You hijacked Mr.Scorpio's thread and made it all about you, what you think, how you define things, and not many are agreeing with you. It's time to consider that maybe you don't know what you are talking about. That does happen to even the best of us sometimes.
You want to decide what the writer should have written. Too bad. Not your decision. But that bothers you so much you just have to give your 15 cents. Then 15 more. We're probably at about seven bucks worth of your fifteen centses. But you just cant stop, can you. Cause you know know about privilege and racism that everybody else and just have shine a light on what was missed. Because the two percent that wasnt mentioned is the most important thing right?
Please just stop. Its insulting to those of us that are acutally oppressed in this society for you to continually play the victim because people aren't agrreing with you or letting you have the last word. Or they say thing that you dont like. Do realize, that you having to hear things you dont like is nothing compared to the struggles that people who dont have your privilege have to deal with.
You worry about hearing things you dont like, we worry about getting shot by some lunatic for being the wrong color.
So please dont get all aunt pittypat on us when you hear something you dont agree with. It is exhausting.
Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)When you write "It is exhausting"... I totally agree, FWIW. Exhausting, exasperating, incredible. Unbelievable.
I desperately want to believe it's some sort of performance art, meant to show what obstinant, pig-headed privilege looks like. But I just don't know anymore.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I really do. But i know it is not, and that is maddening. I feel like i have been reading sketch comedy this whole time. But like, not funny sketch comedy.
Everytime a conversation starts about privelege someone must spend the whole time arguing semantics or anything to not have to deal with the issue.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)He will survive this i hope, and be a better person for it too. He let me have the last word too! Nice of him.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Okay, if it was possible to smooch a post, I'd be smooching this one!!! 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He just wants to be heard!! I think he thinks that Mr.Scorpio is oppressing him somehow by not letting him decide things. Funny!!
Number23
(24,544 posts)
Some people truly have no idea when to quit. Jumps into EVERY SINGLE THREAD about racism/white privilege and takes it upon himself to lecture everyone as if he has any fucking idea. It would be hilarious if it wasn't really, REALLY pathetic.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We need to just all shut up and let him finish. And then when he gets done, we can have the rest of the real conversation. I was laughing until he started patting himself on the back about having won the argument. WTF? Sometimes i think we are in the TEA party. We just don't know it yet.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)You want to decide what the writer should have written. Too bad. Not your decision.
Not that I was trying to decide anyway, ya know.....
Please just stop. Its insulting to those of us that are acutally oppressed in this society for you to continually play the victim because people aren't agrreing with you or letting you have the last word. Or they say thing that you dont like.
I don't believe that I have been victimized by anything, necessarily, to be honest(nor did I imply that I was). TBH, I don't like being talked down to or basically told that my opinion is irrelevant because of "privilege", or whatever, that much is true. But I wouldn't go so far as to claim victimization here, either.
Do realize, that you having to hear things you dont like is nothing compared to the struggles that people who dont have your privilege have to deal with. You worry about hearing things you dont like, we worry about getting shot by some lunatic for being the wrong color.
Well, I won't argue with that, TBH, given that it *is* true.
So please dont get all aunt pittypat on us when you hear something you dont agree with. It is exhausting.
I'd like to offer that same advice to certain others out there. And that's all I gotta say.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That's the point i am trying to make.
You do not like being talked down to. But you do it to others and thats okay, just not to you. Do i need to provide examples of you talking down to or dismissing the points of views of others and especially DU members of color? You have done this on this thread. Yet, you complain about being talked down to.
Privilege. That is what that is. And you are oblivious. Shall i sing a round of we shall overcome for you? Or shall you attempt to listen to others on this issue for a while?
Response to bravenak (Reply #201)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The mistake you're making is that you assume we haven't already STFU to stop and listen to black people speak before.
I've been to diversity awareness courses...I've been to "tolerance training".....I've sat through seminars on "white privilege"....and you know what? It was all bullshit. It's boring. I've heard it all before, so I'm not going to sit quietly and listen to people spread the same lies for the hundreth time, yet again.
Whites didn't start racism, and they're not the ones perpetuating it. Blacks are more racist than whites are, so it's about time they were the ones who shut up and listened for once.
Whites DID start the racism honey, by killing or subjecting anyone who did not look like them to their rule and oppressive violence in this great land of ours. You need to stop sitting through seminars and pick up a damn history book, my lady. Blacks have always had to sit down and shut up in america, at time under the threat of death. Not so much for white people. Your ignorance of history is astounding and i fear that you are quite lacking in critical thinking skills. I am pretty sure you will be gone before i post this, but in case you are not. Please just go back to your cave with your fellow troglodytes. I would appreciate it.
Behind the Aegis
(53,961 posts)And will be again and again, as long as he continues to spread this poisonous racism.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)So nasty. So long!
Behind the Aegis
(53,961 posts)It is just sad it had to be used here.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They do this for fun. I too find it sad.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)instead of always wanting to talk about white males
and how great their lives are in America.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)That would make me sad too.
Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #169)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
eta the removed post:
173. Grow up
Grow up.
This is 2014 -- black-on-white racism is BY FAR the most common, and it's due to an atmosphere of hostility created by people like you, that sends black males the message that it's ok to use violence against whites. That they deserve it. That it's payback for slavery. And, as a lifelong democrat, I hate to say it, but it's definitely become worse since Obama was first elected.
Racist, cowardly black thugs are preying on vulnerable white people. Attacking them in flash mobs - killing them, putting them in comas. Invading their homes. Again, raping them, torturing them, killing them. Does the media cover this? Never. These crimes are censored, because they don't fit the narrative.
My own grandmother was attacked in her own home last year by three teenage black males. She survived, fortunately, but only just. She lost several teeth in a vicious racist attack, and broke several bones. She lost sight in one eye. She's had to be moved into a care home for her own safety.
And you, you despicable excuse of a human being, have the nerve to belittle her and our experiences because we're white. You diminish the value of white life, and pretend that black racism isn't the real problem. You think this is a joking matter, and that you can post flippant images mocking the victims, just because they're white.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)either.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)are black.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Seems legit. ROFL
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)BTW, nobody is really arguing against the fact that People of Color do have to face more disadvantages than white folks do overall. Not at all. But certain approaches to these issues haven't proven to be helpful, even if they may preach to the "choir" as it were(no pun intended).
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 18, 2014, 10:02 PM - Edit history (1)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
tblue37
(65,408 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Cheers to MIRT!
[URL=http://s116.photobucket.com/albums/o39/cyberswede/misc/?action=view¤t=4b6e79925eca4440ca193d4a731ead66.jpg][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)--Michael Kimmel, Angry White Men
I've just started reading this book, after seeing it mentioned recently on DU. I'm hoping it will help me better understand the angry white men in my life.
And they are out there.
That's not an accusation against all men, or all white men. But it's a reality, one I think needs to be addressed, not stubbornly shouted down.
Anyway, I suppose all this is a way to K&R the thread and the infographic you shared. It seems fairly straightforward to me, and relatively nonjudgemental. Yet somehow contentious, even on DU.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)It seems that quite a few of the other posters had glossed right over that sentence in the graphic.
Thanks for the kick.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And THIS is why the "it's not race, it's class" crew have never had a leg to stand on.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)many refuse to acknowledge it.
Too many miss the good old days where they actually did not have to compete with women or POC.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the "it's not race, it's class" crew doesn't care about racial and/or gender inequality/inequity because it doesn't affect them ... they are merely attempting to recruit POC to join their fight to replace the white guy at the top with themselves.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)' Just give me a boost to the top and i'll pull you up' then ' Sorry man i got to help all these other people first, then we'll work on the racism way later when there no more poor whites, now go away, and shut up.'
Romulox
(25,960 posts)--Michael Kimmel, Angry White Men
All of this can be true while class based privilege is the most overriding, all-encompassing privilege that exists in America. The two things were never in opposition to one another.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But we/POC are saying to you:
People of Color (and women) have interests beyond those of white males. While our interests intersect at the income inequity issue, they diverge after that.
As I have said before: our helping you accomplish your ends, still leaves us wanting. And history gives us plenty of reason to believe that once we help you accomplish your ends, you will jettison us ... as the status quo, with respect to race/gender/sexual orientation relationships, hasn't changed ... we just have a different white guy to deal with.
Zenlitened
(9,488 posts)Class is the most overriding, all-encompassing privilege that exists for white men in America
Honestly, I don't think anyone is denying that class is an important axis of privilege. It is. But it has deep, deep roots in matters of gender and particularly race in this country, matters affecting the lives people lived not only in the past but are living to this very day.
And while I think DU might someday benefit from a discussion around intersectionality -- how all aspects of a person's identity affect how we can move through the world -- that time does not seem to be now. To say the least.
For now, though, I (a middle-class-and-falling white woman, for the record) think it's fair to say that there's plenty of room and reason -- plenty! -- for POC to examine privilege in terms of race without constantly being told, "You're Doing It Wrong."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
IOW, Please stop telling me that in order for you to support my struggle ... a struggle that you acknowledge, as real ... I have to frame it in a way that ... BTW, requires nothing of you, including the relatively mild discomfort of self-reflection.
Number23
(24,544 posts)The desperate need to change every discussion of racism to one of class is a tactic that never seems to be adopted by those with even the faintest knowledge of history. Most educated people know that the discussions of class and race have many intersections but also many areas from which they diverge.
To be honest, whenever I hear someone make that argument, it's apparent to me that acknowledging this country's shameful history against poc is not something they think is important. Which makes my interest in their perspective or opinion basically nil.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)It is more important to you. This might be about point-of-view.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)Thank you! Number 2 (listen) is one I do a lot. It's really the easiest one to do!
Hekate
(90,714 posts) 