Re: White privilege
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:29 pm
Now that's funny . .Mr. Perfect wrote:Someone tell Ibs . .
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1804
Now that's funny . .Mr. Perfect wrote:Someone tell Ibs . .
*posts "my logic is ironclad" for 8 pages*Marcus wrote:Now that's funny . .
Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Marcus.Marcus wrote:Now that's funny . .Mr. Perfect wrote:Someone tell Ibs . .
monster_gardener wrote:Marcus wrote:Mr. Perfect wrote:Someone tell Ibs . .
Now that's funny . .
Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Marcus.
Seconded![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Not sure you have a future as a comedian. Quote more Rushdoony.Marcus wrote:And you're very welcome, mg . . impossible to pick up a turd by the clean end . .
Thank You Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.Ibrahim wrote:Not sure you have a future as a comedian. Quote more Rushdoony.Marcus wrote:And you're very welcome, mg . . impossible to pick up a turd by the clean end . .
Enki wrote:Parodite, it is incredibly complex. White people hire their friends for the good jobs. They get expensive salaries at non-profits that serve the hood. More people of color go to prison.
Bingo!Ibrahim wrote:. . what . .is actually causing these discrepancies. . . rac.... uh, I mean culture.
Which is, de facto, racism. I don't say that as an insult, but simply point out that it is the dictionary definition.Marcus wrote:Bingo!Ibrahim wrote:. . what . .is actually causing these discrepancies. . . rac.... uh, I mean culture.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Liberal Democrats, what can you do about them.Ibrahim wrote: The extremely biased prosecution and sentencing of African Americans and Latinos for relatively minor crimes is one of the most egregious examples, but the denial of basic services to mostly minority neighbourhoods is also undeniable.
And plummeting under Obama and the Democrats. Not sure what you do.Then there are all the statistical metrics like life expectancy, average income, average level of education attained.
Liberal Democrats run the show in the black community, and have for 50 years now. Start there.It all comes down to what you think is actually causing these discrepancies. Institutional bias and failed policies, or rac.... uh, I mean culture.
I see Ibs no mention of Islam or religion.Ibrahim wrote:Which is, de facto, racism. I don't say that as an insult, but simply point out that it is the dictionary definition.Marcus wrote:Bingo!Ibrahim wrote:. . what . .is actually causing these discrepancies. . . rac.... uh, I mean culture.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Yes, probably it is complex. Most likely racism and white privilege not being the only factor at work, and not everywhere playing out with same intensity and consequence. Impoverished and neglected neighborhoods naturally produce more crime, where skin color is merely a correlation and obviously not causation. Blacks started off in a disadvantaged position and it seems to me that neglecting the poor is more a consequence of the American socio-economic philosophy where you are alone from the gutter up chasing the American dream. In "socialist" Europe the philosophy is that the community invests in the poor not only with a decent social net, but also in neighborhood improvement, social housing etc. because the alternative is high crime rates and social unrest which are also very costly in terms of money and detrimental to the political health of the community as a whole.Enki wrote:Parodite, it is incredibly complex. White people hire their friends for the good jobs. They get expensive salaries at non-profits that serve the hood. More people of color go to prison.
Parodite, not only is the reality infinitely complex in itself, but when the data taker forces the reality into his models and preconceived ideas, it gets even more muddled.Parodite wrote:Yes, probably it is complex. Most likely racism and white privilege not being the only factor at work, and not everywhere playing out with same intensity and consequence. Impoverished and neglected neighborhoods naturally produce more crime, where skin color is merely a correlation and obviously not causation. Blacks started off in a disadvantaged position and it seems to me that neglecting the poor is more a consequence of the American socio-economic philosophy where you are alone from the gutter up chasing the American dream. In "socialist" Europe the philosophy is that the community invests in the poor not only with a decent social net, but also in neighborhood improvement, social housing etc. because the alternative is high crime rates and social unrest which are also very costly in terms of money and detrimental to the political health of the community as a whole.Enki wrote:Parodite, it is incredibly complex. White people hire their friends for the good jobs. They get expensive salaries at non-profits that serve the hood. More people of color go to prison.
Found this site: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/
Loads of data
The idea of race as a social construction was meant to register the fact that even if we don't any longer believe in race as a biological entity, we still treat people as if they belonged to races. Indeed, we routinely--both officially (the government does it) and unofficially (we all do it)--organize the world racially. Susie Phipps's mother would have a lot more choices filling out her birth certificate today, from WHITE and BLACK to AMERICAN INDIAN to FILIPINO to OTHER ASIAN (SPECIFY) to just plain OTHER. And she would be allowed to check as many boxes as she wanted. When you're born American, you're also born black or white or Guamanian or Chamorro.12 But we shouldn't think that just because we keep on treating people as if they belonged to races, they somehow do, or that our treating people as if they belonged to races is its own justification. Treating race as a social fact amounts to nothing more than acknowledging that we were mistaken to think of it as a biological fact and then insisting that we ought to keep making the mistake. Maybe instead we ought to stop making the mistake.
But apparently no one wants to stop making it. Often we continue to talk about races as if we knew what they were.Even more often, when race begins to seem to us a little crude, we redescribe it as culture, taking remarks like "black people are good at basketball because they can jump higher" and turning them into remarks like "basketball plays an important role in black culture." Thus we don't hear much in the United States about multiracialism (as opposed to, say, in Singapore where it's an official policy and is heavily promoted on occasions like Racial Harmony Day), but we hear a great deal about multiculturalism. And if we don't yet, like Canada, have our very own Multiculturalism Day, we do have an increasing number of Diversity Days, sponsored by individual schools and organizations, where people celebrate their different cultures. When I give a lecture on race to a group of people today--especially a group of younger people--they may not be entirely comfortable talking about their racial identities, but they've already had a lot of practice talking about their cultural identities and about the importance both of cultural memory (don't forget the Holocaust) and of heritage (don't forget the Middle Passage). They're not likely to say, for example, that they're proud of their race, but they are very proud of their culture and they think other people should be proud of their cultures too.
To some extent, then, culture is now being used as a virtual synonym for racial identity (the multi in multiculturalism has nothing to do with some people liking Mozart and other people liking the Strokes), and to some extent it's also being used as a replacement for racial identity....
...Even those (the vast majority) who are critical of racism and who do not believe in the biology of racial identity have continued to insist that race is a central and even desirable factor in American life. Thus in what is certainly the most influential academic text on the social construction of race (Racial Formation in the United States), Michael Omi and Howard Winant write that there are two "temptations" to be avoided in thinking about race. The first is the temptation to think of it as something "fixed, concrete and objective," that is, a physical fact. The second is the temptation to think of it as a "mere illusion," which "an ideal social order would eliminate." "Race," they say, "will always be at the center of the American experience," and it's a good thing too because "without a racial identity, one is in danger of having no identity." 18 What we've seen in this chapter are some of the ways in which people have gone about trying to make sure that Omi and Winant's prediction comes true and to guarantee that even if people can't belong to concrete and objective races, they can still have (social or cultural) racial identities. And what we've also begun to see is how our commitment to diversity is deeply tied to keeping race alive, partly becausediversity is itself understood as racial and partly because (as subsequent chapters will make clear) our commitment to diversity even with nonracialized groups (above all cultures) depends on treating them as if they were races--different but equal, worthy of our respect.
Excellent post NapLajoieonSteroids!NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:From the excerpt of This book
The idea of race as a social construction was meant to register the fact that even if we don't any longer believe in race as a biological entity, we still treat people as if they belonged to races. Indeed, we routinely--both officially (the government does it) and unofficially (we all do it)--organize the world racially. Susie Phipps's mother would have a lot more choices filling out her birth certificate today, from WHITE and BLACK to AMERICAN INDIAN to FILIPINO to OTHER ASIAN (SPECIFY) to just plain OTHER. And she would be allowed to check as many boxes as she wanted. When you're born American, you're also born black or white or Guamanian or Chamorro.12 But we shouldn't think that just because we keep on treating people as if they belonged to races, they somehow do, or that our treating people as if they belonged to races is its own justification. Treating race as a social fact amounts to nothing more than acknowledging that we were mistaken to think of it as a biological fact and then insisting that we ought to keep making the mistake. Maybe instead we ought to stop making the mistake.
But apparently no one wants to stop making it. Often we continue to talk about races as if we knew what they were.Even more often, when race begins to seem to us a little crude, we redescribe it as culture, taking remarks like "black people are good at basketball because they can jump higher" and turning them into remarks like "basketball plays an important role in black culture." Thus we don't hear much in the United States about multiracialism (as opposed to, say, in Singapore where it's an official policy and is heavily promoted on occasions like Racial Harmony Day), but we hear a great deal about multiculturalism. And if we don't yet, like Canada, have our very own Multiculturalism Day, we do have an increasing number of Diversity Days, sponsored by individual schools and organizations, where people celebrate their different cultures. When I give a lecture on race to a group of people today--especially a group of younger people--they may not be entirely comfortable talking about their racial identities, but they've already had a lot of practice talking about their cultural identities and about the importance both of cultural memory (don't forget the Holocaust) and of heritage (don't forget the Middle Passage). They're not likely to say, for example, that they're proud of their race, but they are very proud of their culture and they think other people should be proud of their cultures too.
To some extent, then, culture is now being used as a virtual synonym for racial identity (the multi in multiculturalism has nothing to do with some people liking Mozart and other people liking the Strokes), and to some extent it's also being used as a replacement for racial identity....
...Even those (the vast majority) who are critical of racism and who do not believe in the biology of racial identity have continued to insist that race is a central and even desirable factor in American life. Thus in what is certainly the most influential academic text on the social construction of race (Racial Formation in the United States), Michael Omi and Howard Winant write that there are two "temptations" to be avoided in thinking about race. The first is the temptation to think of it as something "fixed, concrete and objective," that is, a physical fact. The second is the temptation to think of it as a "mere illusion," which "an ideal social order would eliminate." "Race," they say, "will always be at the center of the American experience," and it's a good thing too because "without a racial identity, one is in danger of having no identity." 18 (If you do not look at yourself as an individual, but rather identify yourself via group identity, it will be difficult or impossible for you to consider others on their individual merits or flaws apart from their group identity - SM) What we've seen in this chapter are some of the ways in which people have gone about trying to make sure that Omi and Winant's prediction comes true and to guarantee that even if people can't belong to concrete and objective races, they can still have (social or cultural) racial identities. And what we've also begun to see is how our commitment to diversity is deeply tied to keeping race alive, partly becausediversity is itself understood as racial and partly because (as subsequent chapters will make clear) our commitment to diversity even with nonracialized groups (above all cultures) depends on treating them as if they were races (how about as individuals? - SM) --different but equal, worthy of our respect.
Parodite wrote:SM, agree with your observation. Caution is advised before stereotyping assumed stereotyping as stereotyping.
Thought this quote of as funny as it is makes senseSimple Minded wrote:If I knew your group identity ( or maybe you are just an autonomous keyboard), I could use your post as a datapoint that proves you people are smarter than those other people....
~U.G. KrishnamurtiWe are using the neurons, our identity, to constantly maintain our identity. Whether you are awake, asleep, or dreaming, this process is carried on. But, it is wearing you out.That is why I say the tragedy that is facing mankind is not AIDS or cancer, but Alzthiemer's disease.
Parodite wrote:Thought this quote of as funny as it is makes senseSimple Minded wrote:If I knew your group identity ( or maybe you are just an autonomous keyboard), I could use your post as a datapoint that proves you people are smarter than those other people....:
~U.G. KrishnamurtiWe are using the neurons, our identity, to constantly maintain our identity. Whether you are awake, asleep, or dreaming, this process is carried on. But, it is wearing you out.That is why I say the tragedy that is facing mankind is not AIDS or cancer, but Alzthiemer's disease.
Where does this all end...Simple Minded wrote:Wow! Epiphany: Lennon preached against group identity....... Lennin was in favor of it.......
What are the odds......
.
When Mahatma Gandhi was studying law at the University College of London, a white professor, whose last name was Peters, disliked him intensely and always displayed prejudice and animosity towards him.. Also, because Gandhi never lowered his head when addressing him as he expected, there were always "arguments" and confrontations.
One day, Mr. Peters was having lunch at the dining room of the University, and Gandhi came along with his tray and sat next to the professor. The professor said, "Mr Gandhi, you do not understand. A pig and a bird do not sit together to eat."
Gandhi looked at him as a parent would a rude child and calmly replied, "You do not worry professor. I'll fly away," and he went and sat at another table. Mr. Peters, reddened with rage, decided to take revenge on the next test paper, but Gandhi responded brilliantly to all questions.
Mr. Peters, unhappy and frustrated, asked him the following question. "Mr Gandhi, if you were walking down the street and found a package, and within was a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money, which one would you take?" Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, "The one with the money, of course."
Mr. Peters , smiling sarcastically said, "I, in your place, would have taken the wisdom, don't you think?"
Gandhi shrugged indifferently and responded, "Each one takes what he doesn't have."
Mr. Peters, by this time was fit to be tied. So great was his anger that he wrote on Gandhi's exam sheet the word "durian" and gave it to Gandhi. Gandhi took the exam sheet and sat down at his desk, trying very hard to remain calm while he contemplated his next move.
A few minutes later, Gandhi got up, went to the professor and said to him in a dignified but sarcastically polite tone, "Mr. Peters, you signed the sheet, but you did not give me the grade."
.
Alex,manolo wrote:Folks,
I went on holiday to Spain with a West Indian friend. Coming back on the plane he said "I will be searched in customs; I always am." We landed, and he was taken to be searched.
I was passed through straight through the gate, which was my "white privilege." Not just words.
Alex.