I cringe every time I hear liberals buying into the 'white guilt' meme

[Extend a Hand]

I cringe every time I hear liberals buying into the 'white guilt' meme.
A quick google search of 'white guilt' brings up boatloads of wingnut commentary on the topic.

The notion of 'white guilt' is a right-wing meme is that is dangerous for a number reasons:

1) the notion of 'white guilt' attempts to conflates a systemic problem (tyranny of the majority population over minority groups) and individual bigotry.
Education is the way to address bigotry. Legislation is the way to address systemic inequities related to race.

Right-wing nuts have been amazingly successful at assigning the purpose of and motivation for affirmative action laws as to 'fix past injustices'. NO! Affirmative action laws are needed to fix the CURRENT and ONGOING systemic denials of opportunities to minority populations.

When right wingers are allowed to assign the purpose of or motivation for affirmative action policies as somehow mitigating 'white guilt' they
impugn the motivation of fundamental fairness for white proponents of the polices, denigrate the achievements of black people who got a fair shake as a result of the policies, and they ignore the need work for fairness for all minority populations.

If you can write off a systemic problem as an individual failing there is no need for legislation to fix it. and there is nothing that the right-wingers at the Hoover Institute would like better than to destroy affirmative action laws.

2) Accepting or assigning 'white guilt' makes meaningful discussion of racism difficult.

Here are two examples of authors accepting 'white guilt' in otherwise great essays on the very different notion of 'white privilege':

"Like all white Americans, I was living with the fear that maybe I didn't really deserve my success, that maybe luck and privilege had more to do with it than brains and hard work."
http://www.dickshovel.com/priv.html

I am one of those people who believes that it's nearly impossible for white people to fully divest themselves of the racist attitudes that prop up white privilege.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x621077

Here is what I think to be a clear explanation of the how assigning or accepting a motive of 'white guilt' makes a meaningful discussion of race problematic:
White guilt threatens the credibility of everything whites say and do regarding race. Specifically it threatens them with what I have called ulteriorality—the suspicion that their racial stands come not from their announced motivations but from ulterior ones driven by guilt. We can say, for example, that the white liberal bends over backward because he is motivated by guilt even though he says he is motivated by true concern. Or we can say the anger of the “angry white male” is simply his way of denying guilt. We can use guilt to discredit every position whites take on racial matters. So it is not surprising to hear so many reflexive denials. When people like my friend or Styron do this, they are disclaiming ulterior motives. They want us to accept that they mean exactly what they say. But I, for one, rarely do accept this, at least not without a glimpse past their words to the matter of ulterior motive.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4510821.html

3) Nothing (absolutely, positively nothing) good can come of collective guilt. The assignment or acceptance of individual blame for a systemic problem is likely to lead to blame-shifting and resentment rather than a real solution.
Religions have used collective guilt to subjugate women (Eve and through her all women are responsible for the fall of humanity from grace).
Terrorists assign collective guilt to justify the killing of innocents.
Corporate law uses it to to avoid individual liability for criminal action.
Governments use it to justify sanctions against entire countries.

In contrast to the notion of 'white guilt', the notion of 'white privilege' acknowledges the advantages that the white majority population in the US currently enjoys at the expense of minority populations. It worries me when I see liberal writers conflating the two very different notions of 'white guilt' and 'white privilege'

Discuss?

edited to fix cut and paste mess

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Race is a myth. There is one race, the human race. We are all from Africa, originally.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Put it on a billboard

Black folks will still get pulled over for no reason beneath your trite slogans, and white folks still won't.

Race is a myth. But myths, strangely enough, actually, y'know...do stuff.

Like get people enslaved, and fucking killed.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Those are facts friend, not trite slogans. People get killed for wearing a blue

T-shirt or a red t-shirt shirt sometimes also.

Or for any number of stupid reasons.

If we don't recognize the myth for what it is, how will we end the violence?

[Madspirit]

9. Blacks

Blacks are killed in hate crimes twice more than all the other hate crimes combined. Go look that up yourself. It's in another of my threads with the link.
The racist apologists just keep on going and going...like that god damned Everready rabbit.

Lee

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Not quite true.

You will need to back this up with stats. In 2005, there were 6 murders, 1 White, 2 Blacks, 2 Hispanics, and 1 Other ethnicity/background.

In 2005, 38% of all hate crimes were committed against African-Americans, and a whopping 68%. The stats speak for themselves, but to say "Blacks are killed in hate crimes twice more than all the other hate crimes combined." is incorrect.

source

Are you using a different source? Or are you using a combination of several years?

[Madspirit]

20. FBI Crime Report...2003 n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Still doesn't match up.

In 2003, there were 14 murders defined as hate crimes. One was anti-white, 4 were anti-black, 6 were gay men, 1 was anti-hispanic, 1 was "Other Nationality" and one was anti-mental disability. These stats still do not match your assertion.

On edit: source (This is a .PDF.)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Did you leave out "of racially motivated attacks were against blacks"?

That's the only 68% I could construct from the data.

[Behind the Aegis]

69. Yes.

:blush:

I really need to proofread more!

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Excuse me, did you mean to imply that I'm a "racist apologist" because

I know that humans are all one race, the human race?

If that's what you meant to imply, then I have to assume that you believe you are fundamentally and completey different than anyone else in the world with a different skin pigmentation than yourself.

That's what all the racists I've ever heard or read about believe too.

So if that's what you meant to imply, I'd suggest you look in your mirror.

[BoneDaddy]

56. Black on black crime

dwarfs white on black crime. Look it up.

[John Q. Citizen]

63. Sure, and white on white crime dwarfs black on white crime. Look it up.

So your point in this regards is that most crimes are committed locally, and in most crimes the perp and the victim know each other?

Of course it depends on the crime. There is a lot of corporate crime that steals from poor and middle class people and statistics aren't readily available on the races of either the victim or the perp.

I'm not sure how much cocaine and heroin is imported into this counrty by black people though, in terms of the actual importation. Do you have a break down on that? I do know the crack epidemic was facilitated by the CIA looking the other way when their Contra Mercenaries and domestic supporters were bringing in planeloads, so how do you catagorize the crime? Barry Seal, generally acknowledged as the biggest drug runner ever in the history of the US, and a CIA asset was a white guy, so do you classify the resultant down stream crime as "white generated?"

[BoneDaddy]

76. I wasn't responding

to you. I was responding to Mad's comment. The point was that pointing out hate crime percentage against blacks as an indication of pervasive racism was ridiculous because overwhelming black victims are victimized much moreso by others in their own culture, which is what you pointed out. I agreed with your statement for the most part but struggle with the Barry Seal/CIA concept as being solely responsible for what ended up being a horrible drug situation in california. I agree that they bear a large part of it, but to say that the individuals involved in continuing the sale, distribution, the enforcement (the gang activity that sprung out of it) are not equally responsible is ridiculous.

If I sold two groups of gangs firearms and they shot one another, I believe I am would be responsible, but so are those who chose to use the guns. They are not absolved of their decisions.

[Extend a Hand]

13. well for a start

we can work to make sure that minority populations have equal protection under the laws and are afforded (by law) the opportunities required to have a real chance in a capitalist economy.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. I think your assumptions about opportunity and capitalism might be mutually

exclusive.

[Orrex]

4. Well, "race" is a myth like hair-color is a myth

And both are equally valid reasons for hatred/discrimination; ie., not valid at all. And, more particularly, each a description of physical appearance, and stereotypes and segregation based upon either are ridiculous. "Race" can, of course, be obliquely synonymous with "culture," but even that doesn't justify discrimination.


I once joked with a good friend that I wished we lived in a world where one day she could kill me or I could kill her without it getting all mixed up as a race issue.

[Extend a Hand]

6. but don't you think it's important

that there is a general understanding that members of a majority population have advantages that minority members don't have?

[John Q. Citizen]

16. The reverse also happens. For instance, look at the Shia in Iraq under the former Sunni

government.

Or the poor people under capitalism.

Race is a myth used to divide the human race from the human race.

There are some people who actually believe race exists. The white supremacists, for instance who live in mortal fear of "race" mixing. They don't even realize it's a little late. They don't know that their ancestors came from Africa, a long time ago.

Privilege based on skin pigmentation absolutly exists here in the USA, as well as in most of the Americas. Privledge also exists based on other markers as well, such as gender, wealth, religion, weight/height ratio, height, geographic location, linguistic variation within the same language group, and language. I bet there are more as well.

I saw a facinating documentary on so-called racial perceptions, including self perceptions that had a segment filmed in the Dominican Republic. They are interviewing a guy who, to me, i'd describe as black, and he's talking about how when he traveled to the US the woman at immigration/customs said something off hand about him being black. It wasn't a slur or a put down, but it shocked the guy because he didn't see himself as black. He saw himself as a lighter skin shade than many others from the DR, and was a little outraged that she couldn't tell the difference. In the Dominican Republic there are many different shades of what we would call "black," like 10 or 15, where in the US there is maybe two shades of "black," light skinned black and dark skinned black. We don't tend to make as many fine distictions as they do in the DR apparently.

[Extend a Hand]

23. you said...

Privilege based on skin pigmentation absolutly exists here in the USA, as well as in most of the Americas. Privledge also exists based on other markers as well, such as gender, wealth, religion, weight/height ratio, height, geographic location, linguistic variation within the same language group, and language. I bet there are more as well.

disability is another one that comes to mind. But with regard to public policy regarding protection of minorities rights and the legislation to level the playing field, what is your position?

Really I was hoping to open up a dialog on how some of the language that is used in this country to discuss issues regarding race(skin pigmentation if you prefer) actually discourages open discourse.

Do you think issues of privilege based on skin color should or should not be discussed? or are you trying to frame the discussion differently and how?

[John Q. Citizen]

29. Absolututely it should be discussed. And the starting point should be

educating people that within any species, especially far flung populations of any species there are minor variations that help insure the viability of the species, and that goes for humans as well as gourds, etc.

Secondly we need to discuss how these variations relate to privledge, or private law, and how these variations are manipulated by elites to divide us from ourselves.

My solution wouldn't be affirmative action, because it's a mythical premise and a mythical division. My solution would be socialized higher education, socialized health insurance, socialized day care.

That way, everyone could go to college who wanted to, no matter what their particular physical variation, religion, (or lack of) sexual orientation, (another variation related to privledge) or income/wealth status.

[Morgana LaFey]

80. Boy, those mythicals sure can

do some harm. AMAZING.

:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

88. Well, the courts kept stiking down affirmative action and the responce was

golly, what can we do? There was a backlash from some low pigment people who said i have better scores yet I can't get in, etc.

So let's quit messing around and educate all our people who want an education based on the fact that they are Americans, not on their skin pigment content.

I'm sure the large corporations and the wealthy would prefer to just increase dark pigmented people enrollment percentages a few points, but that doesn't solve the problem, really. It just dances around the edges of the problem. It divides us. It wastes resources on court cases that could be used to educate our people.

[brentspeak]

14. I don't know if we're all from Africa, but I agree that there is just the "human race"

I refuse to treat people differently -- better or worse -- based on their skin color. When dealing with people, I don't acknowledge "black" or "white" or "yellow", no matter what any part of society might otherwise demand of me.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. According to nearly unanimous consensus among anthropologists, the

human race started in Africa, and then spread out in successive waves of migration over thousands of generations to people the world. So according to the best science now known, all of our earliest ancestors came from Africa.

What did the author Tom Robbins write, something like "There are two kinds of people in the world; one kind thinks there are two kinds of people in the world. The rest of us know better."

[orleans]

34. somehow i doubt majority of minorities in this country would agree with you

[John Q. Citizen]

35. I didn't say oppresion and privledge are a myth, I said that race is a myth.

Ask any anthropoligist or human geographer of any skin pigment if you don't believe me.

Race, just like any myth, is undoubtably embraced by any number of people. That doesn't make it real.

Culture and ethnicity do exist and there are many.

But there is but one race of humans, and that's the human race.

[Casper Alabaster]

86. Awww, Kumbayah!

Scientifically you're correct, but after that, in all the different disciplines of study and their potential for exploitation, well, here we are.

[John Q. Citizen]

89. Ever live on or near a Rez? There it comes down to hundreths off parts of

native blood (which is of course, ethnicity) to determine who is an enrolled member of the tribe and who isn't.

If you look at the Northern Plains tribes historically though, there was never a blood percentage requirement for membership in the tribe for thousands of years. That's all a brand new construct based on European models of membership in a society. Personally, I think the tribes bought a bunch of crap when they went to these false constructs instead of doing things the way they always did them, in terms of tribal membership.

[Erika]

2. I would say those with a white guilt complex have far less

to worry about than the reality of those Rutger gals being persecuted because of their race and sex. Things need to be kept in perspective. It seems these gals also are underprivileged when compared to whites? Maybe you would like to explain a real example?

[Extend a Hand]

5. I posted on this topic

as a result of some of the threads Imus' racist and sexist remarks to those girls that turned into nasty flame wars. I think its important to take a hard look at some of the possible reasons that racial issues are difficult to discuss.

[Casper Alabaster]

85. So right on. n/t.

n/t.

[Bicoastal]

8. Everyone needs to take an anthropology course in college...

If they did, they would learn that that skin color is not designated by any genetic coding. The visible differences between the so-called "races" only exist because of various evolutionary factors (exposure to sun, for example, at different latitudes) that took place no less than a few millenia ago, and exist outside of the genetic bounds of hair color and lactose-intolerance. Everything else is due to social constructs, and upon testing, many Caucasians have found that their DNA is more similar to a Watutsi tribesman in Rwanda than to a blue-eyed stockbroker in Berlin. And vice versa, with African Americans, Asians, Latinos, and so forth.

And of course, someone in the back of the room will raise their hand and say "But there must be SOME amount of genetic difference between black people and white people...." Which is exactly what happened in my class...

It's because of people like that we're in the mess we're in today.

[NormanYorkstein]

10. perhaps Biology and Genetics would be better

just maybe

[Bicoastal]

15. Perhaps...

...but modern Anthro courses almost always have a unit on the subject of race.

[Madspirit]

11. Absolutely True

Nary a genetic difference.

...but racism is based on the skin color and it is still mighty prevalent.
Lee

[FloridaJudy]

44. Genetics

I agree.

There is less genetic difference between an Inuit and a Watusi than there is between any two members of a troop of chimpanzees. Given that "race" is an artificial construct, it is still a sad fact that people are treated differently by others based on that construct.

[Extend a Hand]

12. Yes this is true and because things are a mess

it's important to engage in open discussions and be vigilant in protecting the rights of minority populations.

In this country, being white has advantages and not being white has disadvantages. Public policies and that recognize this have been under attack by republicans for the last six years. Since 9/11 civil liberties have been denied countless citizens, especially for muslims of middle eastern descent. Remember those Imams that were removed from their flight not long ago because other passengers were 'uncomfortable'?

on the topic of race an dna have you seen this?
http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/mixedtwins.asp

[Daedelus76]

19. I don't see how

... being white has any specific advantage, at least from my perspective. Maybe whites as a whole have some kind of collective advantage, but at the individual level this all breaks down. You cannot say any particular white is privileged over any particular black, or blacks in general.

When I walk into a Winn-Dixie to buy food, I don't get a "whites only discount". When I go to the bank, there is no line of credit I get for being white. When I apply for a job, the employer doesn't even seem to care anymore if I'm white, at least not enough to look past other shortcommings- plenty of blacks around here are employed after all in jobs whites could do. If white privilege were real and tangible, wouldn't I at least be able to notice it? Wouldn't all whites be living better than all blacks? If there really were an entrenched culture of racism, wouldn't whites be pulling out all the tricks to make sure even the poorest of their brothers was living better than the richest black?

[Madspirit]

22. Go drive through East Texas

You'll make it out alive. A black might not.

That is white skin privilege. I'm a Texan btw.

Go into GD and look at some of the articles posted in the past few days about race and the myth of reverse racism, etc.

Another racist or person in denial...ahhhhhhhhhhh

This is a progressive board. You know that, right?
Lee

[Colobo]

26. Sadly, that is true

I'll never drive to East Texas; don't wanna risk it.

[Daedelus76]

28. maybe true

... but here in Orlando I don't feel anything like that. There's not too much racial tension here between whites and blacks, other than the town I live in still has a "division street" and blacks mostly still live on the other side of town. I have several black neighbors. I don't really know them well at all, nor do I care to. But not because I hate them for being black, I just don't care to know them. I don't know my Scottish neighbor either, other than he's an asshole.

I have family in Oklahoma, in Tulsa, the scene of one of the worst race riots in US history. I have to admit there is a real feeling of racial tension there. Blacks and whites seem to get along, but only because the blacks seems to "stay in their place" on the other side of town. All the blacks I met in stores seemed to have a "beaten" demeanor. They were not happy people, they did not casually chat with whites like me, etc., they avoided eye contact. It was very -shocking. But it doesn't seem to reflect on the US in general, out on the coasts, where most people live.

The real tension here in Orlando is between hispanics and the rest of the population. Spanish is widely spoken here, far more than in the rest of the US. People generally get along, though, but the Spanish/Not Spanish divide is large and it creates some tension because, of course, not everybody speaks Spanish. There is a real feeling among some that whites will eventually be a minority here, and Spanish will eventually be a big language. There are some places in the Orlando area where you will hear more Spanish than English. This has already happened in Miami, Florida.

BTW, I live with my parents. And I'm unemployed as I said. I'm always looking for a job, though. But it's tough.

[Solo_in_MD]

32. Not all progressives buy into the white privledge meme

Calling some one a racist for that is not appropriate

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Unaware of white privledge is a better description. A visit to a prison usually

increases awareness.

A visit to a few death rows across the country is an education. Some people can't asorb numbers on a page, but seeing it is believeing it.

Did you know that 33% of so-called black male adults are either in police custody, on probation or on parole?

Kind of adds factual weight to what you refer to as a meme.

Can you name any prominent progressive writers, scholars, or leaders who don't acknowledge white privledge?

[Daedelus76]

37. So/

So 33 percent of black males are in jail? How is this the result of white privilege? Are they in jail for jay walking and cutting the tags off mattresses? Big bad white people decide one day just to jail blacks for the hell of it? I call BS on that one.

I'm not denying there are social problems that hurt black people. But to attribute the cause to whites in general is wrong. Maybe that story would have credibility thirty years ago, but not today.

[Dora]

38. black man, white man - they commit a similar crime...

... and if you compare the sentence that each man receives, you will find that a disproportionate number of black men will receive a harsher sentence than the white man. The studies have been done, and the numbers are out there.

[Daedelus76]

46. OK, maybe that's true

How is that my fault? How can we just wave our magic wands and make it better? I vote mostly Democrat, after all, and that is not a magic panacea. I don't like seeing people rot away in jails, but when they do the crime, often a serious crime, what are we suppossed to do? I guess if you want to fault white people, fault them for not being saints and Mother Theresas that can deeply empathize with everybody and "feel their pain". On the other hand, I doubt most black people are so saintly, either.

Maybe Democrats and progressives should focus their energies on oppurtunities so that blacks and whites don't have to resort to crime to get ahead? Americans like talking about oppurtunities. They aren't big on guilt trips and scapegoating.

[Dora]

48. I didn't say it was your fault.

I pointed out an example of white privilege, which you claimed doesn't really exist, at least not when you compare a "particular" white man to a "particular" black man. I can compare all kinds of "particular" white & black men, and point out all kinds of privilege and oppression. It's when we speak in superlatives and generalizations that the privilege and oppression becomes obscured.

Stretch your mind a bit. Your white privelige has helped you tons. You don't have to feel guilty about it. In fact, I hope you wouldn't.

You do that - focus on opportunities. That's a great idea, and I encourage your path!

[John Q. Citizen]

49. I think the color of your mind and your heart is showing through here. What you are

saying is don't expect you to take a stand for justice.

I won't.

[Daedelus76]

51. more like

... I am tired of saber rattling. It's just unproductive to talk about a great big conspiracy against blacks. It's simply not true. And there are alot of white people that will tune your message out when you bring up code words like white privilege.

If you want to point out disparities in sentencing, that's one thing, and I'll probably agree with you, getting a black man in front of an all-white jury probably isn't so fair. But there have indeed been instances where a black jury has let the perpetrators of crime against a white man walk... Look up Reginald Denny- in fact the black jury said they were "sending a message" in their verdict- revenge for the Rodney King verdict. When people focus on "sending a message" instead of enforcing the law, justice is the first victim.

When you start creating set-asides for a group based on past history, there isn't going to be any real justice. I'm oppossed to affirmative action, as are some other Democrats, if it means a person gets a job for no other reason than their race, ethnicity, or a dozen other reasons. I wouldn't use it as a litmus test for a candidate, but generally I dislike the concept.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. No one here is talking about a conspiracy that I've seen. What they are

talking about is addressing injustice.

Nobody has a monopoly on either perpetrting injustice or in fighting injustice.

But until you can understand that injustice is occuring, you can't really do anything about it either.

As the OP points out in post #43, there is a difference between white guilt and white privledge.

[Daedelus76]

54. how would you eliminate white privelege

... without creating an injustice against whites? I just don't see how you can do it. That's why I think this debate is academic, not practical. The reality is that US society is indeed white dominated and sees things through a WASP lense, it's just a question of numbers and who is the majority. That's not going to change soon. And frankly to imply that it should change, also seems to imply there is something wrong with being white or WASP. There isn't.

Or are you trying to say that society should be more "inclusive"? How do you do that without disadvantaging particular whites in the process? Should we be like Iraq and just give people jobs because of their ethnicity or religion? That doesn't seem very fair to me. American law is suppossed to be about individual rights above things like creeds or race. That may be "unfair" to particular races or creeds in general, but I'd hope it would be very fair to individuals.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. Ah, there's the rub, isn't it? No one wants to give up their privledge, especially

a privledge most aren't even aware of.

We see the same dynamic in the civil rights struggle of gays, lesbiens bi and tg. The right wing frames their desire for legal equality as "special rights." Of course the "special rights they are accused of desiring are just the normal everyday run of the mill rights that straight people enjoy.

This debate is academic for you, because it's not your suffering we are talking about, at least not in the same sense. But suffer you do, because injustice always has blow-back. That blow back can be subtile or it can be in your face.

In terms of a solution the first thing is to acknowledge that people of color are at a societal disadvatage simply and purely because of their skin pigment. This is difficult for most light skinned people because often their first reaction is then to expeince guilt. No one likes to expeiecnce guilt so people don't like to think about and acknowledge this. Darker skin people realize they are at a disadvantage because they live it daily, and it doesn't make them feel guitly, but rather it makes them feel mad, or resigned, or scared. So our own psychology works against us in even seeing the problem.

If we see no problem, then how could we come up with a solution? I mean, let them eat cake, right?

So, again the first thing to do is acknowledge the problem, and to acknowledge that it is a problem that effects everyone in a negative way. That's pretty easy to do for light skinned people when the black panthers are reminding you, but the problem of seeing the down side of bigotry for light skinned people is often more difficult.

Once we all (or mostly all) realize there is a problem, we need to realize that "race" is a myth, a social construct, that we are all people and we are all tired of getting screwed by a myth, whether directly or indirectly.

Then we make the decision as a society to feed our people, house our people, educate our people, and heal our people, no matter their skin pigment.

[Daedelus76]

64. big difference

If gays and lesbians can get married, it doesn't directly affect my own life. But if a black person wants to have preferential treatment in hiring as a remedy for past injustices, it does indeed affect my own life, since there are a finite number of jobs. There aren't a finite number of marriages or families, but there are a finite number of jobs, for practical purposes. So there is a big difference. I think we've reach the legal limits of what kind of justice can be doled out by the government by legislation on the racial question. There really is nothing more that can be done, other than to enforce existing laws.

Unfair sentencing can be addressed by the courts, judicial oversight, and the appeals process. It doesn't require a radical change to our society to address this issue. We don't need special courts based on race.

[John Q. Citizen]

71. But we all need a job. We all need justice. We all need everything any other human needs.

You make the assumption that people of color (in general) want preferential treatment.

Yet you also make the assumption that light skinned people (in general) don't want preferential treatment.

I think your first assumption is in error, and your second assumption is correct.

See, the vast majority of all people all want the same thing.

Why and how do you expect the courts to address these issues? We have structual inquities built into our system. How many poor people do you think get an appeal? Poor people barely get two minutes with a public defender about two minutes before their original case comes up in court, as a rule. They get no appeal unless they have resources to pay for an appeal. Think about it.

[Daedelus76]

74. then make public defenders better

I don't see how that is a racial issue. I suppose it could be, but it's something that would benefit everybody who can't afford a public defender.

I guess you only think white people are rich and privileged, though? There are some parts of this country where white people are just as poor or poorer than any inner city black ghetto.

[John Q. Citizen]

47. Yes they are. It's not always done as a conscience conspiracy. It's done

by unconscious bigotry and fear as well. It's also done consciously sometimes.

You can look through cases and sentencing, and in identical cases in the same jurisdictions blacks get longer sentences for the same crimes than whites.

You may be living where there is no communications such as TV, or radio, I don't know, but are you telling me you have never heard of "driving while black?"

I assume you are a light skin human, because your response is "So?" So a dark skinned person gets a longer sentence because of the color of their skin, that's what's so. Or maybe you believe that the shade of skin determines luck?

You apparently believe that 30 years ago it was different, then miraculously the psychology of bigotry just changed over night? How and why? Please explain the mechanism for this radical transformation you believe occurred.

You can call BS all you want until you are blue in the face, but tell that to the 70,000 black voters purposely disenfranchised in Florida 2000. Tell it to the people trying to walk out of New Orleans who the sheriffs from the next town over shot at and forced back into the flood waters. Tell it to the guy in New York who answered his cell phone and the cops unloaded bullets into him.

Tell it to a person of color and they will laugh in your face at the ignorance of some ignorant white kid without a clue.

Now go back to fantasy land and pretend it's just all bullshit. Or wake up.

[Daedelus76]

52. maybe it's true

maybe some of what you said is true. Maybe there are alot of things unfair for blacks in America. But alot of the "evidence" people like you are quoting is ambiguous.

Could "driving while black" possibly result from the fact that maybe, just maybe, police see a disproportionate number of stolen cars driven by black men (for whatever reason), rather than crass prejudice as you ascribe? Could it have nothing to do with the fact that whenever an office walks up to a car, they are taking their life in their own hands? They don't have room to give anybody the benefit of the doubt, to hope against all hope the guy inside the car with the blaring rap music and darkened windows is not a gangbanger, even though his sensitivity course has told him otherwise? Can you forgive him for maybe being a little aprehensive, less than cordial, about being around a black man in that situation, a situation where he might not come home alive to his family and all those other good things? That's just one example.

So much of this stuff is debated by academics, and lived by real people. And the reality of academics breaks down in the reality of the everyday person. Because there are so many other factors involved other than "gee, I think I'll screw over this black guy because I hate blacks and I need to enforce white privilege". We aren't all psychics, we can't read the intentions of other people and know what's on their mind. Sometimes stereotypes is indeed all we have . Blame us for being human, not klansmen.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. I think you are missing my point. This isn't about blame, it's not about

making you feel guilty.

My point is that in our society, if you are lucky enough to be born with lighter skin, you are also lucky enough to be entirely unconscious of the day in and day out grinding down effects of bigoty.

In fact, as you point out, there is no conspiracy. If there was, you would be aware of it and white privledge wouldn't be so unfathomable to you.

[Daedelus76]

59. OK, so I'll agree that "white privilege" exists

But it sounds like something immutable. It will only change when white people aren't the majority (in which case, probably Hispanics will have what, "Hispanic privilege"? White people are always going to see the world as whites, TV ads are always going to feature predominantly whites... what's the point? How does this translate into any concrete action?

[John Q. Citizen]

68. It doesn't have to be immutible, I went through a simular process as you many

years ago.

At first I denied "white privlidge" and said hey, why are you blaming me, it's not my fault I was born white. And then I started to realize that bigotry also impacted innocent me negatively, even if I wasn't the source of the bigotry and even if the impact on me was more subtle than the impact on darker skinned people. So I decided to fight it as best I could, not out of guilt, but out of awareness, out of enlightened self interest, out of a desire for peace and justice.

[Daedelus76]

73. but

... why should I care as a white person? It's not my place to care about stuff that doesn't matter to me... at all. If blacks want to fight injustices they percieve but I cannot, they can fight for it themselves. I just don't see how bigotry against blacks could possibly harm me. If anything, if I focus on black problems, it takes away from spending time on my own real problems.

All Martin Luther King asked for was a color blind society where blacks could assimilate into the mainstream and live with the same rights as everybody else. I don't recall him getting up and demanding reparations or affirmative action. I think the broad goals of the civil rights movement have been accomplished. White people listened to King, we changed our laws so it's illegal to discriminate against blacks, to disenfranchise them, and so on. Now it's just a question of enforcement.

Ever see the movie Malcom X (yes, I have seen it). White idealistic student walks up to Malcom X, asks him what she can do to help, because she believes in him so much out of here little bleeding heart. Malcom just says "nothing" and walks away. Some fights aren't our fights. Self-determination and self-identity are strictly up to the black community. They don't need me as a white person to help them empower themselves. Indeed, it would be kind of stupid for white people to help define blacks, wouldn't it? If blacks don't like "white privilege", they can find their own identity, and indeed they have done so. The people who create the stories are what matters. If you don't like the stories, what do you do? Gag the story tellers, shoot them, force them to tell your stories- maybe get a government mandated 1-hour of storytelling per day? How about telling your own stories? Why does black progerss have to depend on white people? It shouldn't.

[John Q. Citizen]

75. Tom Robbins wrote, "There are two kinds of people in this world; Some think

are are two kinds of people. The rest of us know better.

[index555]

82. your last line nakes no sense

If they did not acknowledge "white privilege" they would immediately be denounced and ridiculed for being racist , no matter how progressive their views were on any and everything else.

[Casper Alabaster]

87. And the inevitable corollary is that,

well, you know.

[sandnsea]

27. Born On Second Base

You don't have to go through the government for a minority loan because the local bank has red-lined your address. You don't have to wonder whether you should change your name because studies show "black names" don't get called back. You don't know that black unemployment is 3 times that of whites because the jobs are in white communities. If we eliminated black people from welfare eligibility, nobody would complain about welfare again because we all know white people aren't the lazy ones.

You don't notice it because the benefits of being white are simply a part of your life, like the studies that show those with good looks make more money than ugly people. The good looking people wouldn't notice a difference unless they got a big gash across their face or something.

[TahitiNut]

62. "Fish will be the last to discover water." (Einstein)

:shrug:

[fortyfeetunder]

83. Let's consider your statements differently

When I walk into a Winn-Dixie to buy food, I don't get a "whites only discount".

but do you ever feel like when you go to a retail establishment and feel like you are being followed?

When I go to the bank, there is no line of credit I get for being white.

Statistics show that people of color are more often turned down for conventional banking services and loans, and often fall prey to the subprime and predatory lending markets

When I apply for a job, the employer doesn't even seem to care anymore if I'm white, at least not enough to look past other shortcommings- plenty of blacks around here are employed after all in jobs whites could do.

Not sure what your gender is but a recent study proved that in some urban areas, given all factors the same, a person named "Brad" or "Mary" stood a better chance in job hunting than a person named "LeRoy or LaKisha"?

If white privilege were real and tangible, wouldn't I at least be able to notice it?
Chances are, no, because your experiences feel normal to you and chances are you don't have to second guess the intentions of others. Many people of color are not so fortunate


Wouldn't all whites be living better than all blacks? If there really were an entrenched culture of racism, wouldn't whites be pulling out all the tricks to make sure even the poorest of their brothers was living better than the richest black?

Realize legalized discrimination against people of color throughout American society did not get banished until 30-40 years ago -- after over 200 years of legalized discrimination. Balancing 200 years of legalized discrimination vs 30-40 years when it was banished, doesn't sound like the whide dominated US government really wanted to give that power right away, eh?

I suggest you read Peggy McIntosh's White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack to get her perspective.

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

[Colobo]

21. "White guilt" is unnecessary

Just be a good person and reject racism and you should be fine. If there is anything that I value from Latin American racial relations is that we, Latin American blacks, don't hold Latin American whites accountable for things their ancestors did. If anything, we hold those who are racist or help perpetuate racism accountable for doing so now.

I don't see in every white person and in every person a potential enemy, someone I shouldn't trust or anything; I see a potential friend, a human like me.

[Solo_in_MD]

31. Most people don't buy into either

Right-wing nuts have been amazingly successful at assigning the purpose of and motivation for affirmative action laws as to 'fix past injustices'. NO! Affirmative action laws are needed to fix the CURRENT and ONGOING systemic denials of opportunities to minority populations.


You have two problems with that approach:
- The cult of the individual. This is the dominant theme in American culture and legal remedies. We historically view everything through, to and about the individual. It makes proving impacts very hard.

- Lack of proof of current systematic and intentional denial of opportunity. Statistics are not enough. You have to show actualy racism by individuals to make this stick. However, no one in power admits to it, and there is lots of PC cover. Same goes with white privilege.

[Casper Alabaster]

33. Shouldn't people aware of their unearned privilege

feel guilty about it?
The white race is the majority in the U.S.; the non-racists can de facto afford to ignore their privilege and see everyone as individuals, where minority groups must seek safety in numbers to gain equal treatment under the law.
Is it possible to legislate away white privilege to assuage the burden of so-called white guilt?

[VelmaD]

41. you nailed it

a lot of people who won the birth lottery don't want to admit that it gave them that un-earned advantage. Sometime I just want to shake some of my friends...it's like, dude, you were born white, male and straight...you won, you hit the trifecta...could you please maybe check your ego for a second and let those of us who weren't born on third talk about and work on our problems.

The level of attachment to that privilege can be staggering...even here on DU. There are some issues we absolutely cannot talk about without having to stroke certain posters' egos along the way...because it's always about them.

[Casper Alabaster]

84. I'm a total noob here,

but I read some guy rip into a 54 year old disabled black lady last night, to shreds, 'cuz she didn't know every esoteric writing of the late Kurt Vonnegut.
I doubt that either that poster or Imus is keepin her down though...
Hey, VelmaD!B-)

[Extend a Hand]

43. No! why should you feel guilty

About something you did not ask for just because you are born in the marjority population?

from above...
In contrast to the notion of 'white guilt', the notion of 'white privilege' acknowledges the advantages that the white majority population in the US currently enjoys at the expense of minority populations.

The point I was making is 'white privilege' is different than 'white guilt'.
And that it *IS* important to recognize that privilege.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. I certainly don't feel guilty for being born. I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in

original sin.

That said, i do believe in justice and i believe we have to fight for justice, not just turn our heads.
Part of my feelings are purely selfish. There can be no peace without justice and I like peace. I would prefer for me and my family live in peace with others.

That doesn't just happen, it happens because people work to make it so.

[Dutch]

66. Except most white people aren't privileged

Most white people get are getting screwed over by a small, mostly (but not entirely) white elite, as are most non-white people.

[TahitiNut]

67. I don't see it as a matter of "unearned privilege" for many .. but a denial of basic freedoms to

... some. I think we have to be particularly careful to use language more responsibly. Just because the vast majority of whites enjoy a freedom to exercise their human rights in a manner that's unburdened of the disadvantages of the embedded prejudices and the generational economic disadvantages that racially taxed their parents and grandparents and great grandparents ... imposing burdens that limited their ability to pass on the fruits of their labors to the next generation.

What might be inappropriately seen as "unearned privilege" only exists in comparison to the "unfairly denied freedoms" others experience. I think this is important because it's not only necessary for communication but for the implied remedies. We cannot imply that a rational remedy is the removal of alleged "unearned privilege" but MUST assure that the common freedom to exercise human rights is established. (Part of a remedy should probably include the conferral of a carefully mete out kind of 'privilege'... since that's the wampum of the state's power in society.)

Now ... that's NOT to say that SOME don't enjoy "unearned privilege" ... but that's not the common experience. That's reserved for the Cheney/Bush 'base' ... the Bill Frists and Strom Thrumonds and Trent Lotts and those who have benefited from the labors of others over many generations ... winners of a corrupt sperm lottery. Just as the appalling corruption of "royalty" is to create this generational cascade of advantage from the fruits of pillaging and enslavement of other human beings, we have an "American aristocracy" that's predominantly white and privileged ... due solely to the generational benefits of "ownership" --- where "ownership" includes all manner of enrichment from the labors and suffering of others.

So, I'd not infer that 'white' means 'privilege' even if 'privilege' tends to mean 'white.' It's wrong and invites impasse in communication.

[loyalsister]

79. delving into privilege

I once had a conversation about how "lucky" my friends are to get the best <disabled> parking spots that really turned ugly. I can't imagine to what depths of hell this topic would have gone.
It is something people are clutching for dear life.

[Neshanic]

39. You really need to come to the PC side. I resisted, but now am very happy.

It's just easier!

After you confess your guilt, then you start anew...and everyone is guilty, until they own up to all the items that touch their life that are the old ways of what was considered comedy, art, speech, pictures.

Happy thoughts...

[MedleyMisty]

42. I am so tired of closet racism

Someone's been posting a comic lately in religious threads of a Christian thwacking a gay dude on the head with some object, and when the gay dude asks the Christian to stop, the Christian says, "But that's anti-Christian bigotry!"

Apparently expecting people to recognize racism and to stop perpetuating it is anti-white racism, and asking people to at least stop and consider their prejudice is somehow being prejudiced against them. Maybe Orwell should have added another phrase. Subjugation is Equality.

As far as "white guilt" - I'm white. I have to say that I don't feel guilty, because I've never personally discriminated against anyone. I have thought and said subtly racist things before, but at least I am conscious of that and strive to understand it. At the same time, though, I understand that white people as a whole are guilty of causing a lot of suffering and pain to other people throughout history and in the present, and I have no problem acknowledging that and trying to do what tiny bit I can to make amends and to try to make the world a better place.

When I was in high school, I was all idealistic and thought that other people thought the same way I did, so I wrote an article in journalism class about how we'd made progress on prejudice. My teacher said I was on crack. Hanging out here the last few days on a supposedly liberal board has finally taught me why she said that. No doubt I would have realized the truth a long time ago if I'd been born with different skin pigments.

[Neecy]

45. just a quick thought re: collective guilt

Nothing (absolutely, positively nothing) good can come of collective guilt

Explain, then, how Germany - which started two massive wars in the last century - is now essentially pacifist? Would you also prefer that Germans not accept "collective guilt" for the holocaust? This has been a hotly debated issue in Germany and amongst my German relatives for many years and I believe that in this case, the notion of collective guilt certainly has had a positive impact.

[Solo_in_MD]

55. It turns out in both Germany and Japan the Gen X and Gen Y types are rejecting historical guilt

[BoneDaddy]

58. I think

that German people who had nothing to do with Nazism or their only offense was to be born in Germany after the war to a German family not feel any guilt for what their grandparents and maybe their parents did.

The war ended in 1945. Someone who was a child during that period and anyone after shouldn't feel any guilt. They did not do it. Should they acknowledge what their nation did and not justify it? Of course, but to say they should feel guilty, that is ridiculous.

As white people today should not feel any guilt about being born to a white family.

[Neecy]

65. I said nothing about post-war Germans

However, those who were alive during the war -did- take on a notion of collective guilt for the crimes committed in their names. I believe this shaped the attitudes of subsequent generations and helped make Germany much more pacifist in nature. I don't know any Germans - and I know many, both in my family and among friends I've made there - who are particularly proud of their recent history and want to see a pattern of militarism or anti-Semitism return. This may not be considered 'collective guilt' but it's certainly an acknowledgement of past collective behavior.

It's a complex subject, to be sure.

[BoneDaddy]

77. YOu said

would you prefer that Germany not accept "collective guilt" for the Holocaust. Why should they? The vast majority of people who participated in it are not alive today. In the decades following the war, I think you may have a very clear issue of Germans accepting guilt for it as they were alive and did nothing, but to say that people who were not part of it should accept collective guilt is crazy.

Your grandfather tortured someone. Should you feel personal guilt? no. Sadness, compassion and pain that a member of your family did something horrific, but guilt?

[Extend a Hand]

78. I wouldn't attribute the positive things happening in Germany to 'collective guilt'

It was over 30 years after the end of the war before there was a broad public discussion of the Holocaust in Germany. In Germany, public discussion of the Holocaust and the rise of Hitler and acknowledgment of the terrible atrocities brought about a change in attitude.

I think maybe 'collective grief' is a better description than 'collective guilt'. Do your German relatives really feel 'guilty' over the atrocities of WWII or do they feel sadness or grief?

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=128beae722b7b197c08548c8d6965d68

The resurgence of parties like the NPD -- which won 12 legislative seats in the eastern state of Saxony last fall, and keeps making offensive noises about a "German Holocaust" at the end of World War II -- can be explained, in part, by this shameful silence. The extreme German right stands for national pride in a nation that has very little (still, after two generations).

Most Germans will tell you they mistrust patriotism; they grew up with the idea that Americans rescued them from Hitler, and any contrary opinion still has a ring of disobedience, bitterness, ingratitude.

"The majority of Germans today know, or so at least it is to be hoped," writes Sebald, "that we actually provoked the annihilation of the cities in which we once lived. Scarcely anyone can now doubt that Air Marshall Göring would have wiped out London if his technical resources had allowed him to do so."

And that's exactly the problem. Hitler had tried to erase a people; he would have gone on to erase London and Moscow and New York. And yet the towering moral shame still shadowing German pride is not enough to erase a collective, unspeakable grief.

http://english.people.com.cn/200505/08/eng20050508_184006.html

Germany has gained international respect and trust for its heart-felt apology, contrition and billions of reparations to victims of the Nazis 60 years after World War II ended.

However, Germans felt differently in the first decade following the end of the war. Most people saw their land occupied and viewed this as a major defeat.

When then West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was asked in early 1955 if there should be an official event marking the 10th anniversary of the liberation from the Nazis, he answered: "You don't celebrate your defeats."

In 1949 and 1954, the Bundestag adopted amnesty laws and some Nazi leaders were released. The vast majority of Nazi judges, scientists and bureaucrats simply stayed in office.

Then came the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial in 1963, which for the first time drew wide public attention and aroused people's interest in the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed in Europe.

In April 1965, then West German President Heinrich Luebke attended the 20th anniversary of the liberation of the Bergen- Belsen concentration camp. His speech broke silence in the German society about the Nazi crimes.

"In the 1960s and 1970s, there was remarkably little public discussion of the Holocaust. There was some scholarly work done on it, which I don't think was extensively read," British professor Sir Ian Kershaw told the German radio Deutche Welle.

The rebellious post-war teenagers kept asking their parents: What is the Holocaust? What did you do in the war? Are you a Nazi party member?

In December 1970, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt went to Warsaw, Poland, and sent an unmistakable image out to the world when he fell to his knees before the monument at the site of the Jewish ghetto.

Then came the TV series of Holocaust in 1979. "The impact of it was to stir up interest more widely in Germany in the fate of the Jews under Nazi rule," said Kershaw.

"It's only in the 1980s that this starts to make real headway in public consciousness," he added.

A turning point is the historic speech delivered by then West German President Richard von Weizsaecker at the Bundestag on May 8,1985.

He declared the day the "Deutsche Reich" submitted to an unconditional capitulation a "Tag der Befreiung," or a "day of liberation" for Germans.

"Anyone who closes his eyes to the past is blind to the present. Whoever refuses to remember the inhumanity is prone to new risks of infection," he affirmed.

In an interview with Xinhua, Eberhard Sandschneider, director of the Research Institute of the German Council on Foreign Relations, said that the debate is necessary for Germany to recognize the dark side of its history.

"There was a huge public debate in Germany going on for years, partly still going on today. It was very emotional, very difficult, but a necessary process for understanding one's own past and finding a new position for Germany in a unified Europe," he said.

In the mind-field or race relations and past atrocities I really think that we have to have open discussion and healing to have good public policy. That's why I wanted to point out the distinction between 'white guilt' and 'white privilege'. Right wingers are so good at framing public policy discussions, and I think the white guilt frame is successfully hurting our ability to have meaningful discussions.

[Sabriel]

60. I don't feel guilty for being white...

I feel guilty when I don't try to work against my white privilege when possible.

There's no way I can stop being white, but I can stop being ignorant and oblivious, and I can help a lot of other people see how their white privilege impacts both them and others.

Here are just a few of the ways I benefit from being white (thanks, Peggy McIntosh!):

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. I cringe every time I hear the term "white guilt"

Because it's just a racist republican soundbite used to dismiss institutionalized racism.

[gollygee]

81. yup

I hate that phrase, "color blind", and "I have friends who are . . . , therefore . . ." Oh and, "I'm not racist, but . . ."

[John Q. Citizen]

72. Recommended. Please do so people, we are actually talking about the

so-called "race" issue here and some of the posts are very good.