10 Ways That the Birthers Are an Object Lesson in White Privilege

[MrScorpio]

April 29, 2011  |     

Alternet by Chaucey DeLaVega

 In an era of racism without racists, the Tea Party GOP Birther brigands provide one more lesson in the permanence of the social evil known as White privilege.

May you live in interesting times. What a timeless and wonderful curse that so perfectly describes politics in the Age of Obama.

With the election of America's first black president we collectively witnessed the ascendancy of a person whose life story embodies the American dream. Obama was not alone in the grand play that is American life. There were other players who competed for the spotlight.

During this same moment America witnessed the rise of Sarah Palin to fame and glory, a woman who rides White populism and racial resentment in much the same way that a witch rides a broom. As a second addition to the Tea Party GOP's Rogues Gallery there is a carnival barker named Donald Trump, a man who once lurked stage left but is now the GOP front runner as he perfectly embodies PT Barnum's famous observation that "there is a sucker born every minute," while shilling for the worst and most ugly nativist and xenophobic impulses of the White Conservative Soul.

Ultimately, the election of Barack Obama has provided a series of object lessons in the durability of the colorline in American life. Most pointedly, Obama's tenure has provided an opportunity for the worst aspects of White privilege to rear their ugly head. In doing so, the continuing significance of Whiteness is made ever more clear in a moment when the old bugaboo of White racism was thought to have been slain on November 4, 2008.

To point: Imagine if Sarah Palin, a person who wallows in mediocrity and wears failure as a virtue, were any race other than White. Would a black (or Latino or Asian or Hispanic) woman with Palin's credentials have gotten a tenth as far? Let's entertain another counter-factual: If the Tea Party and their supporters were a group of black or brown folk, who showed up with guns at events attended by the President, threatening nullification and secession, and engaging in treasonous talk, how many seconds would pass before they were locked up and taken out by the F.B.I. as threats to the security of the State? If the Tea Party were black they would have been disappeared to Gitmo or some other secret site faster than you can say Fox News.

The rest

http://www.alternet.org/news/150791/10_ways_that_the_birthers_are_an_object_lesson_in_white_privilege_/?page=1

[iemitsu]

1. thanks for posting this article.

it provides clear examples of common behaviors that privilege promotes.
the article is right on in its analysis.

[MrScorpio]

2. When I read it, I wished that I had wrote it myself nt

[iemitsu]

3. i am planning to read it to my students tomorrow.

we have been looking at how racism has been dealt with in post revolutionary cuba and comparing that too the US and other nations.

[crickets]

4. Excellent article. Sad but true, and powerfully presented. K&R

[Karenina]

5. . .

[malaise]

6. K & R

for truth

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrScorpio]

8. Hopefully, you bothered to read the entire essay before tuning in

Otherwise, your disregard of the points that the author explained could merely be judged as an example of disruptive behavior.

Do you have any cogent challenges to all of his points?

Or, are you just demonstrating that white privilege means never having to say that you're sorry or ever wrong?

[earthlight101]

11. i only read the headline, and that is really all that matters

the rich thank you for propagating their ideas

[MrScorpio]

13. So, you've proudly blundered into a conversation without even any understanding...

As to what the conversation is even about.

Isn't THAT precious?

And what, pray tell, gives you such an authoritative voice on the matter at hand?

We're all waiting for you to lend us your vastly superior skills of divination, along with the greatness of your moral certitude (Without even reading the article, mind you).

[earthlight101]

28. I understand perfectly well what the conversation is about

looks like a 2 minute hate directed at whites.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. I'm white and I don't feel ''hated'' by the article or the agreeing comments.

Do you imagine why?

[earthlight101]

35. so because you feel that way, every white person feels that way

there is a word for that...

[EOTE]

44. Nobody anywhere on this thread suggested anything remotely like that.

That's not only a strawman, it's a piss poor one at that. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Take a look at what you're dealing with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1038275#1046352

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solomon]

10. Being poor doesn't take away their privilege

Enjoy your stay

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

15. ahhh the old zero to 60 responce.

without actually reading the article.

as the above poster stated, "enjoy your stay".

[earthlight101]

16. lol

you wrote:
"without actually reading the article.
as the above poster stated, "enjoy your stay". "




so, another threat to have me banned.

And no rebuttal of my point at all.

Not surprised, really.

[Javaman]

17. Meh, I don't want you banned...

you will do that yourself.

[MrScorpio]

20. It was more of a prediction, based on the prior experience

You're hitting all of the bases, so far, of someone who's not around these parts for long

[earthlight101]

29. am i not into the groupthink enough?

hm?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. Ohhhh, another keyword. ''Groupthink''.

No, wait, let me guess, your deleted message above was "censorship".

[MrScorpio]

36. No, quite the contrary...

Your frame of speech and thinking fits quite well in a group of trolls.

It's not like we haven't noticed that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Mwahahahaaaa! Evil leftist groupthink white-hating censorship wins again!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=270981

[Blue_Tires]

9. thanks for this...

[MrScorpio]

14. My Pleasure nt

[MellowDem]

18. Not a very good article really....

It overstates the "permanance of the social evil of white privilege" and pretends that the birther worldview is somehow the reality in the US. It's filled with pessimism and a nice dose of "woe is me" victim mentality, but hot air otherwise. The amount of hyperbole just makes the whole article seem like a bunch of hot air rather than a serious look at the birthers compared to the rest of society, including, you know, other white people, etc. So many false and crappy hypotheticals are presented as true as well.

For example, as posted in the OP, the reason Palin has done so well is because she is a demagouge who operates on identity politics. This is not unique to the US, nor to race, especially not to whites, and that is the reason she got where she is. Black and Hispanic and Asian women of similar idiocy can and do rise to such positions using the same strategies in countries where they are a majority. Indeed, they rise to such levels of prominence even here, within the US. Just take a look at Michelle Malikin and Condoleeza Rice. And not to put too fine a point on it, but just look at Al Green in the South Carolina Senate run. Identity politics is still around in other words, and this article seems to say "hey, there are more white people than anyone else, so those who are militated by identity politics and bigotry can win!" Well, no duh. Seems to be the case in any country where you have a majority that tries to identify itself as a group in one way or another.

Not to mention, Asian women and Asians in general actually do better than whites in the US. Hmmm, why can't they explain that? Why, Hispanics do quite a bit better than blacks as well. Is that because of Asian privilege? Hispanic privilege? Must be. I mean, if Asians can vote in a complete Asian dumbass representative in some corner of the country where Asians are a majority because they're partial to identity politics, isn't that the greatest privilege of all?

Whites who identify themselves by race and vote by race are no different from other identity politics in their reasoning. It's all tribalism and irrationality. It's just that in the US they have the most power because they are the majority. But to call it white privilege is pretty stupid. Unless it is a privelege to vote based on whatever identifier one chooses and shoot yourself in the foot on every other issue and vote against your own interests. And certainly quite a few other whites, indeed the majority are not birthers, don't engage in this wonderful privilege. I don't see how white privilege as defined here is doing anything other than hurting "whites".

Those with real privilege are the wealthy. They have far more privilege than the poor white suckers that vote for Palin or whatever.

And then again, Palin hasn't gotten very "far". She became governor, but she has also been roundly ridiculed and ostracized by many *gasp* white people! Oh, and many white people have believed that many birthers believe what they do based on racism and bigotry since the beginning, though it's nice to pretend otherwise and gin up the hate. And on and on etc. etc.

The whole article is just a load of fail, just a big giant dildo that pretends to say something deep, but really says nothing at all. Kinda like Palin. It certainly won't change the minds of white people that love their identity politics, and it will just divide the races even more, painting whitey in a false light and perpetuating conflict and identity politics.

[MrScorpio]

19. Thanks for your reply

Just to let you know that I took the time to re-read the article and approach this subsequent review from the perspective that you've relayed.

My conclusion about it now is the exact same as it was when I first read it, that it's quite pitch perfect as it discusses the how and why that such a complete failure of a person that Sarah Palin is can be deferred to as ANY kind of authority figure in the American social and political realm. As a matter of fact, that article was written in much the say way that I would have written one of my own rants, if I had taken the time to research and footnote all the supporting data.

The article also coincides which just about all of the other important work done to explain the effects and consequences of white privilege in our society, especially with that of the work of Tim Wise, the noted and celebrated author and anti-racism activist. A review of his work will confirm that Mr. DeVega was quite spot on in his assessment of the situation.

You're merely focusing on a singular, however relevant aspect of her "success", i.e., identity politics, to the exclusion of all the other points which were discussed in the essay. Without a complete and comprehensive consideration of all the other aspects, which you have so kindly dismissed as so much "pessimism" and "hot air", there's no surprise why you and I are disagreeing about the effectiveness of the essay to explain exactly why Sarah Palin "matters" in this country.

Your point about Asian success over Whites as a privileged class omits a glaring reason for this phenomena:

They tend to be economic immigrants coming from the middle and upper classes, with a higher degree of education and wealth. However, the subset of overseas immigrants (including Asians) that are refugees suffer extreme poverty, on average, because they are more representative of the general population of their originating countries. All non-whites in the United States are subject to racial discrimination in employment, and are denied white privilege. Even the Asians that arrive with or inherit economic and educational privileges suffer from racism in employment, as they need to have more education than a white person to receive the same pay. They also bump into the glass ceiling.

The United States is not a meritocracy. Racism, sexism, and inherited wealth are determinants of who is in power.

http://restructure.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/why-are-asians-successful-are-asians-smarter/

Thus, your point about Asian "success" is incomplete and moot. Again white privilege reigns supreme. I'm not even going to waste the time to refute your argument about the validity of Hispanic "success" against White privilege because that supposition is so ridiculously absurd. I can only gather that the point you were trying to make was that the advantages gleaned from the "success" which Asians and Hispanics have over African-Amercans somehow compensates them for the degree in which White privilege holds sway over all minorities. You're mixing apples with potatoes here, if I may be allowed to mix my own metaphors.

I concede your point that many whites do, in fact, hold Sarah Palin and the Teabaggerati, in utter contempt (as it should be). But, how do you explain WHY these detractors in the press and otherwise persist in deferring to her as some kind of authority? It's quite clear that the woman is uneducated, that she utterly lacks the intellectual capacity to function as a viable national leader, she's utterly corrupt and incompetent, not mention a whole laundry list of problems with her. Yet, any time she ever opens her mouth, she's not roundly discredited and disregarded as one would dismiss a broken cookie in a box of Oreos. In spite of her problems, she's continually held up in general as a (horrendously inappropriate) reference point.

The answer was explained quite clearly in the essay, if you had bothered to consider it:

3. Whiteness equals authority. Thus, any White person, at any time, can question the accomplishments of a person of color. The most mediocre of White people, the sum total of whose life has amounted to 1/100th of President Obama's successes (or that of other people of color) can feel legitimate in questioning how the latter came to find their "unnatural" position in the social hierarchy. Whiteness is an advantage in the marathon of life. Through this unearned head-start a psychic wage is paid, one that allows any White person, anywhere, to question how a black or brown person came to be ahead in life for such a thing can never happen in a "just" world. Whiteness allows white folks to not feel embarrassed or ashamed in asking such impolitic and rude questions.

That's just one reason. Mr. DeVega added quite a few others.

The way that you point out that White privilege is ONLY a matter of demographics is quite skewed, and the reason for this is that you disregard the historical background of why it's so pervasive today. It does not exist in a vacuum. Civil and social gains by minorities have not vanquished White privilege from our society. To help you understand this historical background, I'll refer to you the work of Mr. Tim Wise:

Please watch this entire video of one of his many speeches on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UJlNRODZHA It's very comprehensive and quite informative.

One last point.

I find your utter disdain and dismissiveness of the points relayed in the article somewhat disturbing. However, I can only think that your reply is just one glaring example of how the subject matter can be applied in any particular discussion and in any given situation.

[MellowDem]

21. In response....

"They tend to be economic immigrants coming from the middle and upper classes, with a higher degree of education and wealth. However, the subset of overseas immigrants (including Asians) that are refugees suffer extreme poverty, on average, because they are more representative of the general population of their originating countries. All non-whites in the United States are subject to racial discrimination in employment, and are denied white privilege. Even the Asians that arrive with or inherit economic and educational privileges suffer from racism in employment, as they need to have more education than a white person to receive the same pay. They also bump into the glass ceiling."

So in other words, they are privileged, so privileged in fact, that somehow they overcome the Permanant Evil of White Privilege in all its power. I never attempted to give a reason for the "phenomena", though there are many, the point is, white privielge in this article is overstated.

"Thus, your point about Asian "success" is incomplete and moot. Again white privilege reigns supreme. I'm not even going to waste the time to refute your argument about the validity of Hispanic "success" against White privilege because that supposition is so ridiculously absurd. I can only gather that the point you were trying to make was that the advantages gleaned from the "success" which Asians and Hispanics have over African-Amercans somehow compensates them for the degree in which White privilege holds sway over all minorities. You're mixing apples with potatoes here, if I may be allowed to mix my own metaphors."

White privilege reigns supreme, except for many Asians somehow, whose own economic privilege overcomes it, yet this point is "incomplete and moot" right? And Hispanics are doing better than blacks because they are more privileged, that is the point. Hispanic privilege is why. Sure, it's not as good as White privilege, nor Asian privilege, but better than black privilege. Because if White Privilege reigns supreme, how is it that Asians and blacks and Hispanics are not all in equal squalor and poverty, indeed, shouldn't they be getting worse off every year under the yoke of that most Permanant of all Evils? But you see, being an educated immigrant is a privilege. Obviously a huge privilege. Or maybe white privilege ain't everything and things are much more complicated than the article makes it out to be.

"I concede your point that many whites do, in fact, hold Sarah Palin and the Teabaggerati, in utter contempt (as it should be). But, how do you explain WHY these detractors in the press and otherwise persist in deferring to her as some kind of authority? It's quite clear that the woman is uneducated, that she utterly lacks the intellectual capacity to function as a viable national leader, she's utterly corrupt and incompetent, not mention a whole laundry list of problems with her. Yet, any time she ever opens her mouth, she's not roundly discredited and disregarded as one would dismiss a broken cookie in a box of Oreos. In spite of her problems, she's continually held up in general as a (horrendously inappropriate) reference point."

So the answer is white privilege, right? I mean, there haven't been mouthbreathing assholes that have media coverage since forever after all, politics or otherwise. It can't be other factors, like the fact that the media is profit driven and likes to cover meaningless bullshit as long as it makes a buck. In many ways, a black version of Sarah Palin would be even more of a gold mine and get even more coverage, and my hypothetical has just as much proof behind it as the article being referenced here. I mean, I could point out that Palin is roundly discredited all the time, but because 30% or so of the population are ignorant, she can't be completely disregarded, because she does indeed have some political power. Personally, I don't think that power should be ignored, it should be seen and examined and fought and debated with to discredit it. I wish we didn't have to deal with people like Palin in politics, it is sad that she has made it this far, but white privilege is a rather funny thing to blame as for why she is where she is. There are plenty of unqualified politicians of all colors that get to where they are because of ignorant constituent populations. True, on a national level, a white person relying only on racial identity politics has more of a population to draw their political power from, but to define this as a "privilege" seems rather funny.

"Whiteness equals authority. Thus, any White person, at any time, can question the accomplishments of a person of color. The most mediocre of White people, the sum total of whose life has amounted to 1/100th of President Obama's successes (or that of other people of color) can feel legitimate in questioning how the latter came to find their "unnatural" position in the social hierarchy. Whiteness is an advantage in the marathon of life. Through this unearned head-start a psychic wage is paid, one that allows any White person, anywhere, to question how a black or brown person came to be ahead in life for such a thing can never happen in a "just" world. Whiteness allows white folks to not feel embarrassed or ashamed in asking such impolitic and rude questions."

This only applies to whites who are bigoted, that is, if they are questioning the accomplishments of another only based on their skin color. To say that because there are white bigots who do this, there is white privilege, makes absolutely no sense. Bigots everywhere can and will do this. Bigotry is not a privilege in any way. This quote makes no sense. A bigot won't feel embarrassed or ashamed regardless, if they really are a bigot, and certainly has little to do with whiteness or lack thereof. Just exchange the word white with the word bigot and the sentance actually makes sense. I would argue bigotry is more of a curse than a privilege and hasn't seem to have boosted whites anywhere fast, just the opposite really. Perhaps because there are lots of white bigots who are openly bigoted compared to other races, this is a privilege?

"I find your utter disdain and dismissiveness of the points relayed in the article somewhat disturbing. However, I can only think that your reply is just one glaring example of how the subject matter can be applied in any particular discussion and in any given situation."

This is an article, a rant really, on alternet, not some academic treatise, and I really don't see any reason to give such a source some sort of fealty. The whole article is opinion and poorly written, with statements that really make no sense as related to what the purported point of the article is, that birtherism is proof of white privilege, but all it does is point out how birthers are bigoted. It doesn't really define what white privilege is, and things it does point out as white privilege just seems to be any instance of white bigotry. It also makes a bunch of hypotheticals it answers itself to back up its own position. For example, if the Tea Party were black, then by golly they'd be in jail. No proof, just ranting opinion. Well, if whites were 12% of the population and blacks 75%, things would be different as well, yadda yadda yadda. I mean, it doesn't really analyzie anything objectively, it's just a bunch of opinion. Hell, I think that if the Tea Party were black, and that's all that was different, I'd be wondering why black people had become so conservative all of a sudden and the Republicans would be praising their lucky stars for black people's sudden political turnaround and using it to expand their base into minority populations. Just my opinion, but it is just a silly what if situation anyways.

It pretends that the view of white straight birther men is somehow the status quo, and therefore white privilege, when it really isn't. It also throws a couple strawmen out at the beginning, the usual cliche stuff about how the world thinks that because Obama was elected, there is no more bigotry. Really? Who said that? Or now that we live in an "era of racism without racists" blah blah blah. The usual stuff to pretend that people believe we are post-racial and this article, in all its wisdom and solemnity, is here to set you straight damnit, and remind you of the giant, permanant evil that can never be overcome and easily explains all sorts of things about the world. I mean, the fact that they refer to it as permanant really sets the bar of how bleak the picture is. After all, perceptions of race do not change, ever (haha).

And finally, I've seen enough articles on "white privilege" to know by now what a bullshit concept it is. Oh, and I know all about Tim Wise, who says some smart things, but the whole "white privilege" schpiel he does is generally oversimplified and overstated. This is just a particularly bullshitty example. The concept of white privilege is basically this: majority ethnic/racial/whatever groups in any society have some advantages compared to the rest of society. Calling it "white privilege" for this particluar example in the US is a great way to obscure this and oversimplify this, not to mention derail the conversation. First, defining "white" is hard. Also defining "privilege". Also the fact that this privilege varies greatly across the "white" population. Also the fact that this privilege is nothing compared to many other kinds of privilege, and sort of distorts things. As I always say, I don't see too many volunteers going to some trailer park to lecture whites there on their privilege. And generally, such privilege is way overstated in said articles, or in this case, not even defined at all and just rambled out in a way that makes no sense. It's the new fad to sound smart and deep I guess. White privilege is also often confused with historical/ancestral/family privilege, economic privilege, etc. etc.

[MrScorpio]

22. You're given me a very interesting response...

And it was a lot to consider. I even slept on it after I shared it with a friend who's another DUer and both of us later came to the very same conclusion about what you're trying to say.

Basically, you don't think that any kind of White privilege exists in this country. And frankly, both of us think that your stance is a remarkable one indeed, given much of the treatment that President Obama gets from all of the Teabaggerati in general and the most prominent of them like, Palin and Trump, in particular. Because, his example - the centerpiece of the "rant" as you call it - is the most salient proof of White privilege's existence in this country.

And of course, that is your right to deny the existence of something that you don't believe in. The application of belief itself is a very powerful thing.

However, I find that, in order for you to foment that belief, you have to paraphrase statements out of context, dismiss points that don't coincide with your point of view, diminish the important work of celebrated individuals who have worked long and hard on the subject and script an apoplectic diatribe full of logical missteps which I lovingly call a "Wall of Words".

That's quite a dance on which I commend you, my friend.

But… I digress.

Although I doubt that I could ever change your mind, in spite of whatever independent assessments that I could provide (because you're sure to dismiss them out of hand), I'll leave you with two points that I hope you would kindly consider. One is an analogy and the other is an anecdote.

Please bear with me for a moment:

To me (and this is totally my own supposition, for which I accept all of the credit or blame), White privilege in this country is analogous to a Matrix for White people, much like The Matrix in the movie of the same name. Both White privilege and the movie borne Matrix function in quite a similar fashion and I think that a quote from the movie will further explain the point that I'm making:

Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

And much like that Matrix in the movie, the Matrix of White privilege surrounds you as a White person. It's there everywhere you go, it functions under the substrata of our society where you don't have to think about it. By your own admission, you don't even want to think about it and you do everything that you can do to deny that it even exists. People of color and Whites who are keenly open minded are aware of it. But again any White person in this country is never bound to confirm the very existence of White privilege and its consequences, because the key component of it is the fact that you never have to acknowledge something that is, by definition, the default condition.

I'm sure that I'm not getting through to you, because as you've demonstrated, all you have to do is reset to the default's natural order of things.

Now, if you remember in the movie that the protagonist, Neo, was given a choice to lift the veil of his Matrix from his own eyes or keep it there, by choosing between a red pill and a blue one. If I could offer you the same choice, I would… However, I have an inkling what about choice you'd now make. Of course, Neo chose the red pill, which facilitated a profound alteration of his entire worldview and thus, he went on to subsequent adventures in two movie sequels and a video game. A lot of fun was then to be had by all.

Now, please keep all of this in mind for a moment, while I lay out the anecdote. One that concerns that friend and DUer that I mentioned earlier.

She told me that I could share with you an event that she once had.

It was caucus day where she lives and, of course, she went to her local precinct to participate. Once she got there, she joined in on a conversation about the door to the polling place, which is usually closed and locked for elections. Someone in the crowd had mentioned how annoying it was to be let in to vote. Every election day because of a locked door it makes it harder to do one's civic duty… Quite inconvenient indeed, which is all she thought of it initially, nothing more than an inconvenience.

However, in that caucus room stood with her stood an African-American couple of considerable age. To them, that locked door represented something else in their own experience and it was much more than just the minor inconvenience to my friend. To them, that locked door stood as yet another reminder of the difficulty of what people of color have to endure in order to exercise their rights as American citizens. To that couple and to my friend a single locked door represented two distinctly different circumstances.

This isn't story about racial discrimination at voting locations, because after, a locked door doesn't really have to represent that… It's just a locked door.

However, based on one's own point of view, it should give you an insight as to the very nature of White privilege. My friend, a White woman, didn't even initially see the point of view of the African-American couple whose own experiences in this country may been one of outright discrimination in their lives. And the reason for that was quite simple, it wasn't necessary. Because, as a White person, she never has to consider the points of view of people of color, unless she wanted to be aware of them. For her to see those other points of view, she had to have an open mind and, of course, a considerable amount of sensitivity, empathy and self-awareness. A self-discovery which she aptly describes as an epiphany.

It made her realize that the point of view of White people is the general default position in this country, but yet, is not necessarily a universal one.

It seems that the presentation of the existence of White privilege to White people renders to some them a sort of incalculable quandary. Responses range from denial, to anger and so on. As I'm sure that they feel that they believe that they're asked to account for something which isn't their responsibility. So, obviously, such reactions are all too natural. But then, again that doesn't have to be the case. My White friend chose a different path from your own. Which, of course, is a natural thing, as different people make different choices all the time.

From both of our readings of your convoluted replies, we both understand that this is the very quandary in which you're going though right now. And your responses tell us that you think that the admission of White privilege's existence is tantamount to laying some sort of guilt trip on you and, by definition, all other white people. Something that is not your responsibility, yet you're being asked to fix.

I am stating unequivocally, that this is NOT the case. No one, not even I, is asking you to fix this problem. Of course, as a individual White person, there's very little that you can do to mitigate the specter of White privilege in our society. Were you to change your mind and accept all of the evidence about White privilege's existence and consequences in our society, whether it be anecdotal or empirical, the only thing that you would be responsible for is your own chosen course of action, without regard to its size or efficacy. No one expects anything of you to mitigate this problem, that you're not willing to do on your own accord.

I humbly suggest that you choose between a metaphorical blue pill and a red one, per se. Consider it a kind of rite of passage in the partaking of whatever choice you make. If you remember, the red lifts The Matrix from ones eyes, while the blue reinforces the already existing state of consciousness as dictated by that Matrix. For you, the red will be your choice to reconsider another point of view, while the blue allows you to embrace your current set of beliefs, without any blame or guilt either way, of course. It's a simple choice, as I hope you would agree.

Let me leave you with this one last thought:

It takes quite a bit of willpower to engage the sufficient amount of sensitivity, empathy and self-awareness to overcome the Matrixy veil that White privilege so handily incorporates and I'm not sure that you have it in you to summon such a thing.

But then again… You could surprise me.

[MellowDem]

24. You misunderstand me...

"Basically, you don't think that any kind of White privilege exists in this country."

Oh, I definitely beleive "white privilege" exists, and said as much in my reply. I think the phrase is unfortunate, since it really doesn't encompass what is really being talked about and also leads to distractions when talking to others. As I said above, majority populations, do indeed have advantages over minority populations, wherever that may be. In the US especially, this is pronounced, since the US is the most diverse country for its size on the planet.

Most of the planet's countries are very homogenous compared to the US, racially especially. In other words, there is ethnic Japanese privilege in Japan, ethnic German privilege in Germany, ethnic Norwegian privilege in Norway, etc. etc. American is not an ethnicity, but the majority of Americans are from Europe, and we have invented a system that is similar to ethnicity in race, so ethnic Europeans, one could say, do indeed have the most ethnic/racially based privilege in the United States. But everyone derives privilege from everything in some ways. As Tim Wise put it, if you could take a pill that would turn someone who was white black or stay white, the logical person would choose to stay white. But it's also somewhat more complicated. If a person had to choose between being Asian, Hispanic, or black in our society, Asian would be the logical choice, because Asians in our society have more privilege. Same with Hispanics over blacks.

As has been pointed out, the reasons behind why some ethnicities have more privilege than others is fairly far reaching and complicated. The obvious ones for whites is that they are the majority, but there are other complicated factors as well. However, once one begins defining white privilege in terms of historical privilege, things get fuzzy. Tim Wise tries to simplify it a bit too much when he says ONLY because such and such ancestor had such and such opportunity did it lead to him being able to have this action today. The whole "but if" fallacy. The truth is, one can go back in history a long, long way with that kind of logic, and trying to determine just how big of an effect racial discrimination history has had on your current station is by no means an exact science, especially compared to many other historical factors.

I suppose this idea is what causes the author of the article to refer to it as a "permanant" evil. After all, once a historical injustice is committed, you will have their ancestors that profit from that injustice forever, hypothetically. But this seems rather silly, since this applies to every injustice ever committed, certainly not only racial injustice, and to only highlight racial injustice as THE factor is not only disingenuous, but pretends historical privilege is one dimensional and based only on a very American-centric ideal, and also oversimplifies such historical privilege. And as even Tim Wise points out, it is true that there is such a thing as American privilege, that is, the privilege of being born a US citizen. Really, there is a potential privilege for everything. But how such historical privilege applies to individuals is wide ranging and impossible to measure.

Whites in the US have a lot of historical privilege due to our history, though it varies quite a lot as to how much it has impacted each white individual. I definitely think all Americans should be aware of the history of the US to understand why we are where we are and the general advantages they do have.

But the idea of "white privilege" is often overstated and oversimplified. Historical privilege from racial discrimination is an important factor to consider, but by no means is it the only factor, or even the most powerful factor in many cases. As I pointed out, despite historical and present racial discrimination against Asians and the power of white privilege, Asians are as a whole economically more successful than whites in this country. That is because other privileges, like class, can and do override white privilege and historical privilege, or more to the point, there are other historical privileges at play here. Many Asian immigrants who come to the US are wealthy and educated. How do you think their families acquired such wealth and privilege back home? No doubt every one of them has benefitted from historical injustices, some of them ethnic.

You are quick to point out the complexity surrounding Asian's status, and how a portion of Asian immigrants live in poverty, as if this somehow discounts their historical overall privilege, which to me is fits my point exactly. I fully understand and agree with your assessment that it's not so simple, I just ask that you do the same with looking at white privilege, and for all I know, you do. But many don't from what I've seen.

This article says birtherism is an object lesson in white privilege, but it seems to be trying to point out white bigotry within the birther movement, while calling such bigotry white privilege. I'll try to address the list breifly:

1. White bigots have derided Obama as being unqualified due to his skin color.

- This is the bigoted worldview, not a privilege

2. President Obama's legitimacy will always be in doubt for white bigots.

- This is a bigoted view for sure, but not a privilege

3. White bigots can question Obama's accomplishments because of his skin color.

- This is what bigots do, not a privilege

4. White bigots can be taken seriously by other white bigots despite saying crazy shit.

- Yep, but this isn't a privilege

5. White bigots face no consequences for saying bigoted things from other white bigots.

- And also not a privilege

6. White bigots believe that to be American means being white.

- Another worldview, not a privilege

7. The Tea Party is racist but doesn't get labeled as such because they are white.

- I think the Tea Party is a little more complicated than the birther movement. I do think a significant portion are motivated by racism, as do many other white people, and many have said as much. I also think that people in the Tea Party generally view America as a perfect meritocracy, and aren't aware of their own white privilege, much less economic or historical or other privileges. For them everyone has an equal opportunity at life. But this is a worldview, not a privilege.

8. Many white bigots that oppose Obama based on his skin color do not think of themselves as bigots.

- A lack of self-awareness isn't privilege

9. White bigots will ignore reality to fit their worldview.

- This is a worldview, and ignoring reality certainly isn't a privilege

10. Black and brown people who called birthers racists were silenced.

- Maybe on the right, but I didn't see them being silenced elsewhere, nor did I see anyone really disagreeing with them other than partisans on the right.

Practically the whole list are examples of whites being bigoted. The idea seems to be that white bigots are uniquely privileged, thanks to the fact that whites are a majority in society. I suppose black or Hispanic or Asian bigots would be treated differently, worse really, than these white bigots, and that is the white privilege at play here. That's the hypothesis at least. But, and this is just IMHO like the author here, but there are indeed black, Asian and Hispanic bigots out there, and they don't seem to be treated much differently. It's true, they don't have the same numbers or political power due to demographics and just being a minority in general, but to call it white privilege seems rather strange.

One could also make the argument that white bigots having significant political power and a large microphone due to their numbers isn't really much of a privilege at all, but a curse for whites in general. I suppose that would be a more complex look at it though.

White privilege is a very American-centric and racial-centric idea of the phenomenon of the majority/minority relationship in countries and advantages in general, historical or otherwise.

[MrScorpio]

25. Bravo, my friend. Bravo!

I must say, that in all my years on DU, I have never seen a more dazzling display of utter nonsense peddled in a post than the one you've posted. A skill that you've demonstrated in the art that can be creditably compared to the works of Roethke or Morgenstern, or yet even a Suess or Carroll.

What a marvelous work of art it is… A veritable masterpiece of rhetorical BS, so full of complete non-sequiturs, circular logic, half-assed reasoning, fallacious arguments and strawmanisms, that if you could frame and hang it, that it would be put on prominent display in a museum like the Louvre or the Prada. This utterly verbose, yet totally unconvincing argument that you've so carefully constructed will definitely put you in the annals of some BS Hall of Fame, to be sure.

I must say that the way that you can fill a page with words, and yet, not make one convincing point at all renders you into a class all your own. And the way that you take a turn of a phrase so that it means absolute nothing, such as, "Whites in the US have a lot of historical privilege due to our history…", has to indicate some sort of mad genius at work here. As a matter of fact, you referred to either "history" or "historical" an overwhelming NINETEEN times by either not citing where you get your information from or by getting it all completely wrong.

Impressive, my friend… Most impressive.

How are you able to do this? The statistical probability of such an effort can only be described in terms of googles, as mere common numbers can't suffice to conceptualize what you've accomplished.

The way that you can even misrepresent your own stated positions was dazzling indeed. I think that a slow clap by all is appropriate at this juncture.

Your ability to wield repetition, much like the way Errol Flynn could wield a foil, demonstrates your all too considerable skill in the art of rhetorical merrymaking. Your entire argument is based solely around your premise that things are the way they are merely because you say they are. You then recycle it ad infinitum so adeptly that it is quite the indication of how you clued us all in to your brand of mad ingenuity. It's akin to a sort of fractal geometry of words.

At first, I wasn't sure of your keen abilities… But now you've gone and spilled all of the beans.

I must say that I admire you… You are quite the piece of work.

In conclusion, let me say that despite your skills at filling pages with words merely for the sake of filling pages with words, I can not in all honesty treat anything you've written with any kind of serious regard. Entertaining and noteworthy, yes… But not the work of effective debate or thoughtful consideration.

I fully expect you to double-down in reply, as is your wont… But I must kindly predict that such an effort on your part will be all in vain.

[rustydog]

34. MrScorpio, bravo. you and your writing ...impressive

Thank you for your intelligent dialogue on DU.

[MrScorpio]

40. Wow, thanks, rustydog. I really appreciate that

You looking over what I wrote, I realize that the name of the second museum is actually The Prado.

Just to get that part straight

[MellowDem]

41. Bwhahaha!

Thanks for abdicating the debate with this post full of hilarious fail!

:rofl:

I thought you might actually want to have a nice discussion, you certainly pretend to at least, put on a good face. Then when you don't know how to respond to actual points you just do a full page's worth of ad hominem attacks. Well, that ain't a discussion, that means you got nothing. Where's all the hate flowing from all of a sudden? We had a good thing going, then you just got ANGRY.

Now, seriously, if you disagreed with my post, you could have laid out why, and actually referenced my post, and been civil. Instead, you just went into attack mode.

You are like the schoolyard bully. Puts up a big huff puff, then runs win the chips are down.

Your condescension in this post and dripping sarcasm are a testament to your own insecurities. This is classic projection. Your rather painful attempt to "look" correct by referencing as many names as possible and keeping a nice flow of elitism as you hatefully hop from one ad hominem to another throughout sadly just make your attempts all the more desperate and embarassing. And your reference at the end to hoping I don't respond is actually really what you fear, because you don't got shit going on here, it's all bravado. I don't mind calling out internet bullies. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.

:patriot:

[MrScorpio]

45. Ok… I have some questions for you.

How can you say that you believe that "White Privilege" exists and then write an entire page full of non-relavent and unsubstantiated references in a effort to redefine its meaning to the point of unrecognizability?

Why are the examples of the other countries that you've cited relevant to our own situation, when none of their situations have anything that even equates to our pronounced historical experiences with slavery, institution discrimination and civil rights struggles?

Why do you persist in personalizing the issue of White Privilege, when it's primarily a social, cultural and institutional phenomenon?

When you say. "After all, once a historical injustice is committed, you will have their ancestors that profit from that injustice forever", how can people profit from something in perpetuity when they're already dead?

Why do you persist in holding up Asians as some kind of example of a people who have overcome the disadvantages of White Privilege, when even they have to go twice as far, have a preexisting leg up and have greater financial social, educational and financial accomplishments to be considered close to the equal of Whites, and then, they still have to deal with a glass ceiling?

The point of the article about Birthers who question the validity of President Obama's citizenship, correct? Why do you think that a group of people, who are for the most part all-White, feel that they are entitled to do such a thing? You've cite bigotry as the reason, but aren't you, yourself, oversimplifying their motives. After all, most of them with tell you that they're not bigoted at all. Of course, they're not aware of their bigotry, as you've stated, but you've skirted around the issue of why they believe that they have a profound sense of entitlement. Why would you call this entitlement by White people something other than White Privilege?

You also persist in claiming that it's all a matter of demographics. But how can you explain the fact that White, middle aged males are completely outnumbered by all other gender and racial groups combined, yet still, make up the vast majority of White Privilege promoters and practitioners?

When you claim that White Privilege is actually demographic privilege. However, do you realize that you're confirming the fact that their Whiteness creates a default cultural and racial standard by which all other cultures and races judged, and thus makes Whites the sole arbiters of who can be admitted to the privileged class?

When you discount Tim Wise's assertion that wealth that was created by his ancestors, who were in positions of great advantage by dint of their Whiteness, how can you classify actual quantifiable wealth that's passed down from generation to generation as merely a "what if" example?

And last but not least, do you ever find and stick to a salient point whenever you're debating someone?

You tend to bounce around at lot.

And by the way, I'm not angry with you. It's just that your babbling isn't really conducive to a frank and honest discussion, when all your points keep jumping around like fleas in a flea circus.

[MellowDem]

46. Thank you...

How can you say that you believe that "White Privilege" exists and then write an entire page full of non-relavent and unsubstantiated references in a effort to redefine its meaning to the point of unrecognizability?

This is not my point (trying to redefine white privilege). In your first response, you said you didn't think I believed in white privilege, and actually listed a ton of stuff about white privilege I fully agree with you on. I was just pointing out that I understand it exists, but maybe your confusion comes from what I was saying about how I don't like the phrasing of it, and I then said why I don't like the phrasing because it seems to oversimplify the discussion of privileges and lead to distractions. I was trying to show how racial privileges or any other sort of privileges are very complicated things is all, and that sometimes "white privilege" is used to explain things that could be a combination of a lot of things, or not even really about white privilege, and the article was an example of that.

In terms of references, everything I said is my own opinion and should be taken as such. Internet discussions are fairly informal affairs, so I usually don't reference everything I say.

Why are the examples of the other countries that you've cited relevant to our own situation, when none of their situations have anything that even equates to our pronounced historical experiences with slavery, institution discrimination and civil rights struggles?

I don't think they are, and said as much later when I referred to the idea of "white privilege" as being more American-centric. I was trying to point out the complexity of privilege and all its many different types and how the US is somewhat unique in its lack of homogenity and this makes privileges more pronounced, whereas one rarely hears about "German privilege" much less "Japanese privilege" etc. etc. and that all of the different types that exist need to be understood to have a fuller understanding of privilege as a whole, because often enough white privilege is used to describe things that have all sorts of privileges behind them.

Why do you persist in personalizing the issue of White Privilege, when it's primarily a social, cultural and institutional phenomenon?

I am not sure where I personalized it?

When you say. "After all, once a historical injustice is committed, you will have their ancestors that profit from that injustice forever", how can people profit from something in perpetuity when they're already dead?

Well, the present-day ancestors aren't dead, and the living ancestors are profitting from some advantage or privilege gained at the expense of others centuries ago.

Why do you persist in holding up Asians as some kind of example of a people who have overcome the disadvantages of White Privilege, when even they have to go twice as far, have a preexisting leg up and have greater financial social, educational and financial accomplishments to be considered close to the equal of Whites, and then, they still have to deal with a glass ceiling?

As you say, they have a "pre-existing leg up" which is another way of saying they have privilege. I am trying to point out other racial privileges and privileges in general that exist and how this can make things complicated. I believe the point is to make everyone more aware of their privileges, but the focus on white privilege alone is not going to do this. I think approaching it from the idea that everyone has privileges is a good starting point. If you only say "white privilege" many whites will point to real instances of privilege where they indeed are not privileged. That's partly due to the phrasing and partly due to the approach to privilege as if it is isolated among a racial majority. I simply think starting from a broader perspective and then moving in on an individual's own characteristics makes people more open to reflecting about their own privileges, racial or otherwise.

The point of the article about Birthers who question the validity of President Obama's citizenship, correct? Why do you think that a group of people, who are for the most part all-White, feel that they are entitled to do such a thing? You've cite bigotry as the reason, but aren't you, yourself, oversimplifying their motives. After all, most of them with tell you that they're not bigoted at all. Of course, they're not aware of their bigotry, as you've stated, but you've skirted around the issue of why they believe that they have a profound sense of entitlement. Why would you call this entitlement by White people something other than White Privilege?

Well, from most of the article's points, if someone honestly feels that skin color means something when it comes to accomplishments, they are bigoted, whether they acknowledge it or not. I wasn't saying that the reason they are bigoted comes from nowhere, just that what was being stated in the article was a bigoted worldview, as if a bigoted worldview is an example of white privilege. Now, if a Tea Partier is not bigoted and honestly believe we live in a perfect meritocracy, then they should believe that Obama is qualified. I don't think bigotry can mainly or even mostly be blamed on white privilege, as there are bigots everywhere who are bigoted over everything. I think it is a poor example of white privilege to point out examples of white bigotry. I think it completely distorts the idea of white privilege. Really, only the non-bigots could be seen as being able to hold their worldview from mainly white privilege, and among birthers, that number seems pretty few, especially from what was being referenced in the article.

Is the Tea Party an example of white privilege? I think in some ways it is. Also class privilege to a big degree as well. I think pointing out the Tea Party membership's privileges from being white would have been more on point, but birthers are a sub-set that is mostly driven, if not practically entirely, by bigotry. And what was pointed out were bigoted worldviews for the most part, as if they are examples of white privilege.

Also, many Tea Partiers are not very privileged at all, and indeed, that is something that needs to be explored to understand them. I think that trying to say that birthers are an example of white privilege, much less the Tea Party, is an oversimplification. There is a lot at work in such movements: racial privilege, class privilege, age privilege, historical privilege, bigotry (racial, religious, ethnic), xenophobia, etc. etc. I think the racial privilege aspect should be explored, even on its own. But to say that one group can be an example of only one type of privilege is hard to do without getting into other privileges as well.

The only other thing it could be trying to point out then was that white bigots like birthers specifically, due to their white privilege, have it better than bigots from other racial groups, which I pointed out in my original response. The article did try to make such a comparison with a hypothetical black Tea Party. Regardless, the article didn't make much sense. A sense of entitlement that comes from white privilege is not the same as bigotry, and certainly isn't required to be a bigot. I think exploring the link between bigotry and privilege would be interesting, but the article's main pont was fuzzy, to say the least.

You also persist in claiming that it's all a matter of demographics. But how can you explain the fact that White, middle aged males are completely outnumbered by all other gender and racial groups combined, yet still, make up the vast majority of White Privilege promoters and practitioners?

Taking into account those three factors (race, sex, and age), white middle-aged males are probably second in terms of demographics, right behind white middle-aged females. And since white privilege looks at race regardless of age or gender, it's no stretch to say that a big chunk of white privilege comes from demographics. I didn't say it is all that matters. I do think historical discrimination against others by whites for example has a big impact as well, not to mention present day discrimination. And of course that discrimination was partly due to demographics. But just how much of an impact each of these has is hard to measure obviously, especially for each individual. When I refer to individual whites, I am not trying to personalize it as much as point out that understanding one's own privileges comes down to the individual level, and to say that one white person's privilege will be different from another is to try to avoid the confusion and frustration that comes from trying to tell an individual what their privileges are only from knowing their race or sex or whatever, and that many people are turned off by such a method.

When you claim that White Privilege is actually demographic privilege. However, do you realize that you're confirming the fact that their Whiteness creates a default cultural and racial standard by which all other cultures and races judged, and thus makes Whites the sole arbiters of who can be admitted to the privileged class?

Yes, I realize I am doing so, after all, big majorities usually are the ones with the power to define the culture around them. I do think that this process is somewhat complicated obviously, since at the local level you do have majority-minority etc., but definitely at the national level, whites have the most cultural and social power, at least for now. I do think demographics are a big part of it though, and this can be seen by changing demographics in localities and in the nation as a whole. I think white's cultural power is not as dominant as it used to be and is fading, and other minority cultures are gaining more power, especially Hispanics, and that is mostly due to demographics. This is all kinda weird as well, since it assumes a "white" culture that is all-encompassing, and conflates culture with race, (same with "Hispanic" culture and "black" culture), but the point still stands that European-American cultures dominate at the national level.

When you discount Tim Wise's assertion that wealth that was created by his ancestors, who were in positions of great advantage by dint of their Whiteness, how can you classify actual quantifiable wealth that's passed down from generation to generation as merely a "what if" example?

Because it discounts all of the other factors and privileges and seems to oversimplify the idea of white privilege. I think it is enough to say that because one's ancestors were white, it is a big reason you are where you are today, but to try to say that a certain specific action you took in your life was only made possible due to one historical factor and privilege going back several generations is a stretch and an oversimplification. I understand the point he was making though. Certainly one could say that class privilege, ethnic privilege, gender privilege, etc. etc. all had impacts as well, and really, Tim Wise would have to keep going farther back if he wanted to know about all of the privileges that led to that single action, but it is an impossible task to say the least.

The point is that not everything we have is from our own works, and I think he makes that point very well.

And last but not least, do you ever find and stick to a salient point whenever you're debating someone?

I try to, but to tell you the truth, it is really hard in this format to do so (an online discussion forum) without a quote box, where I have to copy and paste each point. Usually, I read the response and then just begin typing, and probably go a little astray in the process, but that seems to be what most do on internet discussion boards. Also, a subject like this is potentially very broad, and the fact that I sometimes spend several days between responses doesn't help me to remember exactly what the main point was.

It's a lot easier to respond point by point like this.

And seriously, thank you for the civil response.

[kick-ass-bob]

42. I wish I could 'rec' this post.

I am never disappointed when I read what you write, whether I agree or not. (In this instance, I do).

:)

[apocalypsehow]

23. And all you get in reply is further anecdotes and "feelings" of this or that - no actual hard data,

evidence, or scholarly refutations of any kind.

Excellent reply, and spot-on.

[deaniac21]

31. They are the right wing answer to truthers.

[rustydog]

32. Chris Rock said it best:

“Shit, there ain’t a White Man in this room that would change places with me.

None of you! That’s right!

None of you would change places with me………… and I’M RICH!

That’s how good it is to be White.

There’s a White-one-leg bus boy in here right now that won’t change places with my Black ass.

He’s goin’, “Nah man, I don’t wanna switch, I wanna ride this White thing out and see where it takes me.”

[JoePhilly]

38. +100

[fortyfeetunder]

39. +1 brazillion

I can see why people would be in denial with the posted article, though I think Chris Rock broke it down for the masses!

[ieoeja]

43. I expected the trend of women copying the first lady's hairstyle not to take place.

Simply because hair is an area where African-American and Euro-American are physically disparate. What I expected was that this election just wouldn't see much of an impact on hairstyle among white women.

Boy, was I wrong. Everywhere I look I see Sarah Palin hair, including among the TV infotainers.

This really bugs me.