. There is not enough education in America to realize what's happening. — JerseyFlight

Nodding...

Without ever having invoked or used stats...

Weird sense of "cherry picking".
— creativesoul

Then what evidence did you have for asserting this:
it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do.
— creativesoul
if not some statistics? If you don't have anything to back it up, like statistics, then your whole argument doesn't have a leg to stand on does it? — Harry Hindu

Brilliant.

If I use stats, I'm cherry picking. If I do not use stats, my position is not well grounded.

That which has an effect/affect.

So you also know that implicit stereotypes are both a relevant vector of oppression; contributing to the hostility of public spaces, differences in how the oppressed group are treated; and they are fucking everywhere. So panvasive that internalised racism is a thing - like Christians the world over praying to the miracle of a milky white ethnically Palestinian Jesus.

So why not in me? Why not in you? — fdrake

This is a good question. There is no adequate, simple, universally true answer that comes to my mind aside from personal experience. Given the matter at hand is of pivotal importance, I'm not content with such a simply put answer despite it's being as true as it is.

Since you asked...

To put it very mildly, I've actually given racism and it's many manifestations a considerable amount of time and attention throughout my life. But don't get me wrong here, it's not like I had much of a choice in the matter. Racism incarnate was loud, front, and center in my life from very early on. Suffice it for me to say that I learned how to cope with a dyed-in-the-wool generational racist, misogynistic xenophobe who had a strong propensity for violence, a very short fuse, and had not been able to come to acceptable terms with much at all in his own life prior to becoming a part of mine. The sheer amount of physical and mental damage that that man has caused while walking the face of the earth is astounding, but his ability to continue doing so now seems to be coming to an end.


Why not me?

I like to think that there are all sorts of different things that happened during my life that somehow all accumulated into(influenced) who I am today. Which is to say, who I've become. .

I spent life from the age of four through the high school years living amongst domestic terrorists(white racists) while having numerous hidden friendships throughout that time. In addition to explicit and implicit racism being a regular everyday part of my personal life, I've a few ongoing(long-lived) public and private conversation(s) with others about the sort of white racism that dominated many different community cultures throughout my life.

Here's what I understand about a racist belief system. They include fallacious belief about "black people". One readily available example of racism incarnate, that reeks havoc in young and old alike, is the belief that black people are lazy. That belief supports yet another; that's why they are poor. They won't work. Those yet others; what are they complaining about? They've no reason to complain if they would just go to work they would not be so poor(systemic justification?). Why ought anyone too lazy to work get something free... Etc. An all too familiar bullshit line of reasoning for devaluing an entire group of people based upon the color of their skin.

I more recently listened to a deeply disturbing narrative directed at BLM. It struck direct discord within every single fiber of my moral being. The 'line of reasoning' briefly described in the preceding paragraph was the rationalization underpinning condoning and/or assent to the idea of shooting BLM protestors from the tree tops with rifles. The idea of murdering BLM protestors was rationalized with that bullshit reasoning! Such internalized racist belief are operative in the sense that they largely govern and/or directly influence an individual's behaviour, typically when and if they find themselves in such circumstances, an they've developed such patterns in thought. These are the lands of self-fulfilling prophecy.

We all know the actual real life recent example. We all know what's happened and/or is still happening. These belief systems are fueled and perpetuated by openly avowed racists from the bottom to the top.

Are we not people affected by the structures we live in? — fdrake

Indeed we are. Why not me?

I know better. I know and love far too many non whites.

...no one benefits from racism, that it is pernicious not only to the victims of it, but also to it’s self-proclaimed beneficiaries. — NOS4A2

Could you expand upon this?

I've only been directly personally involved and/or engaged in politics with those elected for doing so at the county level during a gubernatorial campaign several years back. I was not impressed at all. The candidate being supported was the challenger to a sitting nationally very well known Republican governor. The challenger was a well kept attractive nobody basically who did not have a finger on the pulse of any of the underlying problems effecting/affecting those he was being tasked to represent. I asked him a couple of questions after his speech of which he had no clue how to respond. Then I asked if there was going to be a primary challenger/contest. Of course, he took offense, and laughed it off.

The county vice president(chair?) of the party was intrigued and pleasantly surprised by my interactions throughout the event there. I left quite unimpressed with the overall event on several levels....

The candidate got trounced five months later.

you're cherry-picking statistics — Harry Hindu

Without ever having invoked or used stats...

Weird sense of "cherry picking".

So why not in me? Why not in you? — fdrake

I am still wrapping my head around that and the post I pulled it from....

:up:

Curiously, the United States does have some history of violence directed against "race traitors". This is a type of harm whites only inflict upon whites. — Srap Tasmaner

This 'race traitor' notion underwrites some of the vigilante paramilitary motivations against peaceful white protestors. Earlier I briefly touched upon such belief practices. They are still in use.

Never mind, I agree that your definition of white privilege is necessary, as a premise for understanding systemic racism and for measuring it. — Judaka

Ok. Cool. Although, I think "understanding" fits better than "measuring".

What I am against is not your definition of white privilege but the way in which people use your definition, some of those ways you specifically condemned and you talked about using it in none of the ways I have criticised. — Judaka

There's still a tad of misunderstanding. I have not condemned any use like my own. I have objected to using "white privilege" as an attack directly upon, or as a means to belittle and/or berate all poor white people. I have argued against holding it against a white because they are white.

Bob is white. Bob is immune and/or exempt from liability of being non white in America. Bob is immune to being injured as result of not being white. Bob is oblivious to this immunity. What sense does it make for anyone to expect Bob to use knowledge that he has been spared these injuries to his own advantage if he is totally oblivious to and/or completely unaware of his immunity and/or exemption?

Here's how you can know whether or not a speaker is using the term like me...

Substitute all of that speaker's use(s) of "white privilege" with "immunity and/or exemption from the liability of being non white", and view the results. If what they wrote no longer makes much sense, then it's not an example of the way people use 'my' definition(scare-quotes intentional). To quite the contrary, it is a definition/criterion/notion/conception and/or idea of 'white privilege' that is incompatible to my own.

Looks like incoherence and/or self contradiction that can only be overcome by invoking some para-consistent logic, denying bivalence, or excluded middle?

I am not supporting that your version of white privilege is actually helpful... — Judaka

On page seven I offered an argument that now seems quite relevant.

Could you please revisit and directly address that argument in it's entirety upon your return?

2 and 3 would both be false if white people were regularly taken to be non-white — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed, but the exceptions are too few and far between to worry about.

...for you to say "A white person is privileged because he is not white" is nonsensical. — god must be atheist

Compare to...

The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not white

Not the same.

Bugger off.

Still won't work, because it becomes a nonsensical sentence — god must be atheist

Evidently we work from different criterions for what exactly counts as nonsense. That sentence is perfectly fine. If you think otherwise, then more power to you. You have that right, I suppose.

I want to see the end of racism just like someone arguing "white privilege" does. — Pro Hominem

:up:

I am not supporting that your version of white privilege is actually helpful. I am just saying that it's fair use. Not really trying to rebegin a debate but just to say that I think a lot of my criticism of your idea was invalid. — Judaka

I accept, appreciate, and value this. Now I do not 'feel' that it was all for naught. I'm glad I could help you to better understand what some people(like me) are getting at when they talk about white privilege.

The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not.
— creativesoul

This IS ambiguous. — god must be atheist

Mea culpa. Add "white" on the end. Interesting that you arrived at all these possible translations without ever hitting on that one! If you've been reading the thread, well...

Let's just say I don't like politics, and it has adverse effect on me when people try to infuse their language so as to elicit some effect from me. Maybe I'm weird. — ChatteringMonkey

Can't say that I blame you.

Weird like me. I used to abhor politics. I thought that all politicians lie and will say whatever they need to say to get elected. I used to flippantly dismiss any campaign promises, because they never seemed to be kept. I believed for a very long time that my vote did not matter. What that candidate campaigned on and/or said did not really matter. Etc. I do not believe much differently now.

Political speech is supposed to elicit a response. That is it's very purpose. Generally speaking, a citizen's response is supposed to be to vote for the candidate that the citizen thinks will do what needs to be done to improve the nation, including that particular person's life and/or livelihood. Since the advent of cable 'news' channels(early eighties?), there have been concerted attempts to change the way American society thinks about the societal problems America is faced with. Mainly, what those problems are. Social media has only multiplied this.

I still do not like politics. The reason I've decided to become more active is because I just want the problems to be identified, and unfortunately America's partisan system has failed horribly as it is. That's another matter altogether and an entire subject matter in and of itself. Systemic racism is but one of those problems. Division of America is another, related issue, that is intentional and helps perpetuate the system's subsistence.

Understanding and/or becoming aware of white privilege requires knowing about enough of the situations that non whites deal with because they are not white. White privilege is the exemption from just these sorts of specific circumstances and/or situations. Those situations are only thought about when a non white individual tells their own story. Until then, the white individual cannot know about all of the injustices that they are themselves immune to.
— creativesoul

All your consideration is based on the racial premise of skin colour as the most fundamental socio-economic distinction and operator. — Number2018

To be clear:My publicly expressed considerations in this thread are not exhaustive of my overall consideration(s) regarding American racism and it's manifestation(s), which includes systemic racism and it's effects/affects, only but one of which, is white privilege. Nor does this thread reflect the breadth of considerations regarding redress.

With that in mind...

This thread is about privilege. It has evolved to be about a specific kind, aka white privilege. Given that my focus has been exclusively upon the exemption and/or immunity from being injured as a result of being non white that all white Americans share, regardless of individual particular circumstances, skin color is quite relevant. White privilege is a result of white racists authoring American public policy from birth of the nation itself through today(it could be easily argued). More specifically, white privilege is a consequence of systemic racism, and systemic racism is a consequence of white racist world-views and public policies based upon those world-views. The white racist world-views and/or belief systems are the origen.

These racist belief systems are perpetuated by oral/written tradition and/or language use and begin accumulating during language acquisition itself. These racist beliefs can 'run very deep', and often do. They transcend generations. The difficulty of driving a spade beneath such belief systems, so as to be able to turn them over and expose them to open air, varies according to the particular white individual and the real life personal exposure and/or interaction with members of the group being devalued by the community that that particular white individual is born into. However, I do not want to stray too far off topic here. I just wanted to say that there is much more to the story than what's been written here by the likes of me.

How can we know that non-white(s) deal with various situations exclusively because they are non-white, and white are exempted just because they are white? — Number2018

We can start by listening to those who deal with being non white on a daily basis, and then just giving it a little bit, just a little bit, more thought.

Do you know any white people who have ever been called "a chink"? "Hong Kong Fooey"? "Jap"? "Chineeder"? "Egg Foo Yung?" "Gook?" Etc. Do you know any white women who've been compared countless times to Yoko Ono solely because they were Asian and involved with a white man?

That's just a very short list right off the top of my head regarding negative, unbecoming, rude, unpleasant, and downright ignorant stereotypical racist language use that pervades America to this day, particularly regarding Asians. That ought suffice, but we could develop a much more exhaustive and/or inclusive list, if we need to.

Do we?

:brow:

One faces complex socio-economic situations, oversimplifies them, then transforms them into mere facts, and finally converts the descriptive truths into the ultimate prescriptive judgements. After all, the final truth has a binding ethical dimension. But who decides that we must accept this truth? — Number2018

We work from different linguistic frameworks. I would not put things that way. An example would help me to understand what you're saying.

Likely, one of the other dimensions is a political will and the intensive enforcement of this will. — Number2018

Agreed, hesitantly. The intensive enforcement part causes me pause. There are most certainly other considerations to American racial problems than the color of one's skin.

What if somebody disagrees with one of the stages of the operative process? For example, for a Marxist, the founding social dichotomy is not racial, but the working class and capitalists' opposition. — Number2018

Ah, I think I see what you're getting at now. I do not think that the color of one's skin(white and non white) is the founding social dichotomy. I also do not agree with the either/or characterization in popular American discourse regarding capitalism vs. socialism or communism. It's not nearly so simple as that.

After one becomes aware of the wrongdoing they can also become a willing and knowing accomplice of continued wrongdoing. However, at that time they are not yet willing accomplices to any wrongdoing, for let us not forget that they have just became aware of the wrongdoing. So, an otherwise unknowing white individual becomes aware of the residual effects/affects of racism that still pervade American society to this day.

What personal responsibility do they have? That ought be established by the amount of power they have to influence and/or effect change.
— creativesoul

Actually, you indirectly agree that here is a kind of ‘potential complicity.’ If one unintentionally takes part in systemic racism practices and/or benefit from them, to make it evident, and to make one aware of the wrongdoing or benefiting from “white privilege,” there is the program to develop the process of the enlightenment: the universal truth of systemic racism and white privilege should become widely available, it should become the integral part of the academic curriculum, sportive events, entertainment, the media narratives, etc. After such reinforcement, any dissent, disagreement, or the pretext of being unaware would become nonsensical and almost impossible. — Number2018

I'm hesitant to agree completely here, but I wholly support the idea of a well-informed American electorate. Unfortunately, that is quite simply not the case. I do think that that is by design as well as coincidental.

The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not. — ChatteringMonkey

What's unclear about that?

...

The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not.
— creativesoul

Don't you think this is very convoluted way of talking? — ChatteringMonkey

Not at all...

Why not just say that the problem is that non-whites are being discriminated and oppressed?

Talking about white privilege opens the door for otherwise unknowing and/or unaware(but perfectly capable) white people to much better understand the extent of the problems. It sheds light upon the otherwise unknown reality. It leads to empathy where there could be none prior. It demands attention considerably more than just saying that we have a racial discrimination problem...

... wouldn't ya say?

:brow:

Understanding and/or becoming aware of white privilege requires knowing about enough of the situations that non whites deal with because they are not white. White privilege is the exemption from just these sorts of specific circumstances and/or situations. Those situations are only thought about when a non white individual tells their own story. Until then, the white individual cannot know about all of the injustices that they are themselves immune to.

— creativesoul
All your consideration is based on the racial premise of skin colour as the most fundamental socio-economic distinction and operator. How can we know that non-white deal with various situations exclusively because they are non-white, and white are exempted just because they are white? — Number2018

I missed this. Would have rather spent my time on this than what I have today.

:smile:

That's a very good question. I appreciate the attention it took.

Unfortunately it deserves more attention than I can give it at the moment, but it will be first on the agenda upon my return. The rest of that post will be given it's just due as well.

:up:

I do not think that you can support the idea that all white people at all times are benefiting in any calculable way from the oppression of black people. — Pro Hominem

How many times does it need to be said before you understand?

The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not. That is always the case. Regardless of individual particular circumstances, if you are white, you are exempt.

I'm beginning to think that there may be a reading comprehension issue at hand.

You’re safe to use adjectives to describe human beings. But races are a taxonomy. So when we start to classify them as members in this taxonomy, we’ve employed the racialist worldview to aid in our judgement of human beings. Once we drop the racialist worldview from our thinking we should have no problem using better foundations — NOS4A2

You do realize that one can know the biological shortcomings of race as a purported biological category, yet still proceed to meaningfully categorize a group of individuals based upon skin color, and continue doing so without ever devaluing them based upon skin color...

Right?

You also realize that using those terms is not even necessary for devaluing someone based upon their skin color...

Right?

So...

Your suggested method would change nothing but the language being used. The racism would remain, and would be even harder to address than it already is. Those consequences do not surprise me. You would make such a suggestion... given the boot licking Trump apologist you are. That plan would work great to further perpetuate racism.

I have black loved ones, asian loved ones, and white loved ones, but according to that definition of "racist", I am racist.
— creativesoul

Not speaking about you personally at all, but it is entirely possible for those things to both be true of someone. — Pro Hominem

I didn't take that personally. Why would I? In fact, it is by virtue of knowing that I am not racist, in addition to knowing that there are many historical figures who are also not, that I can also know that your notion is sorely lacking in it's ability to be used to draw and maintain the actual distinction between those who devalue another based upon the color of their skin alone, and those who do not.

The irony of the earlier attempts to argue against white privilege based upon the purported grounds of being useless and/or counterproductive...

Why am I even continuing to bother?

The casual readers' sake.

Systemic racism is an observable fact. White privilege is an argumentative construct. One exists, the other is a tactic (I've explained many times why I think it's a bad tactic, but that won't stop any of you from continuing to use it). — Pro Hominem

Again...

For the umpteenth time, do yourself a favor and at least get it right to start with before you begin critiquing it. Perhaps then you'll be able to see for yourself that "white privilege" refers to the immunity and/or exemption from the liabilities of being non white in America.

White privilege(the immunity and/or exemption from the liabilities of being non white in America) existed in it's entirety prior to it's namesake, "white privilege". Either argumentative constructs exist in their entirety prior to the language they consist of(which is absurd), or white privilege is not an argumentative construct.

Aside from complicity, how would you describe the following thing MLK highlights:

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.


For me there's a distinction between complicity - what I think MLK diagnoses as the system justifying behaviour of the "white moderate" in a different vocabulary - and collaboration, like the FBI's actions against black civil rights movements in COINTELPRO + within Garvey's movement. Complicity's "The wrong life cannot be lived rightly" vs collaboration's being an agent that works to promote or sustain the unjust conditions of life. — fdrake

Sorry it took a while. I wanted to reply earlier, but it slipped my mind...

I would readily agree that complicity and collaboration are certainly different. The difference is perhaps in the amount/degree of knowing and deliberate participation, and as you've duly noted, working for the goal of further promoting or sustaining the unjust conditions(wrongdoing). There are currently actors, it seems pretty clear to me, that are intentionally and deliberately misleading the public about much of it. These people are collaborators.

My earlier objection to the complicity charge revolved around unjustly charging whites who are not even aware of the extent of injury that has resulted from systemic racism.

I do think... with a fair amount of conviction... that once one becomes aware of the facts when blacks are not treated equally under the law, they can no longer be thought of as innocent. However, I would urge that the expectation placed upon each individual regarding what they ought do, would be commensurate with their ability to effect/affect change. A public official is held to a much higher standard than a poor rural white person living in the rust belt.

Both ought do what they can when they can.

I've demonstrated your shortcomings... — Pro Hominem

Prior to proper(valid) critique comes understanding that which is being critiqued. Thus far, you have not even managed to get the basics of my position correct. You've been furiously arguing with your own imagination...

...and yes, there are shortcomings.

You'll have to do better than that.

You have defined racists as "white people who discriminate against colored people." — Pro Hominem

No. I have not.

As I said... refusal to pay careful attention to what has been written.

They are perfectly adequate, you just don't like the outcomes. I define racism as using the concept of race to define, categorize, or judge people... — Pro Hominem

It's not about me. It's about the reductio ad absurdum that your criterion inevitably leads to.

If we grant your definition/conception/criterion/notion of racist, then it only follows that everyone who has ever used "black", "white", "asian", and/or "multi-racial" was/is racist.

I've already answered that question as well... again, on page seven(I think). Perhaps eight...

So, it seems that we've reached a point were we can all clearly see what some of the underlying problems are here with the objections to white privilege...

Notions of "racism" and "white privilege" and "systemic racism" that are utterly inadequate for discriminating between racists and non racists(the irony), just plain wrong and/or ignorant by sheer will alone(refusal to carefully consider what's been actually written), and conflating systemic racism with one of it's many bi-products(white privilege).

My argument was given back on page seven, I think. I've given several since. I do not believe you. Use my words, and I'll gladly respond in kind.

I don't like using the word black... — Pro Hominem

This is so common... Funny thing...

All my black friends, family members and loved ones throughout my entire life have called themselves "black". "African American" is used by those who feel strongly about keeping their roots in mind, particularly in the late 80's and since. Even then, none of them have ever had any problem with being black or called "black" or categorized as "black", aside from being subject to injury by white racists. That's certainly a problem with being black, not being called "black".

Black pride. Black power. Black Lives Matter.

Racist = personally defines or categorizes people by the color of their skin, according to a made up concept called "race"... — Pro Hominem

Every language user who has ever used the terms "black", "white", "asian", or "multi-racial" is racist according to that criterion for what counts as being racist.
— creativesoul

You are intentionally ignoring the nuances here — Pro Hominem

I simply showed the inherent inadequacy of the notion you're working from, as it was stated... verbatim...

Y says X is bad
some people are X
Y is bad — Pro Hominem

Accounting malpractices won't do.

I have black loved ones, asian loved ones, and white loved ones, but according to that definition of "racist", I am racist.

:brow:

Racist = personally defines or categorizes people by the color of their skin, according to a made up concept called "race"... — Pro Hominem

Every language user who has ever used the terms "black", "white", "asian", or "multi-racial" is racist according to that criterion for what counts as being racist.

Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin.
— creativesoul

I am tentatively agreeing with this. I think it's correct, but it's very broad so reserving the right to re-examine. This is me agreeing with you.

You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color.
— creativesoul

To finish this syllogism, "therefore you cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing on skin color." I would argue this is false — Pro Hominem

Well. Do it.