First, let's note that you didn't have anything specific to say about my claim re the Sambo poster. You attacked the concept of white privilege in general because you can't stand anything that makes "your" people look bad.
As I've said before, it's amazing how defensive you are about being white. You're not dumb enough to try to defend genocide, boarding schools, or mascots in this blog, but you deny or excuse most other charges of racism against whites. Especially charges against the Irish, Scots-Irish, or whoever it is you consider your ancestors.
Some specific problems with your response:
Whites are privileged now
If you disagree, show us some evidence to the contrary. For instance, evidence that minorities dominate significant institutions in our society. Hint: Sports and music don't count unless minorities are the owners, not merely the players.
But whatever you do, spare us your inability to deal with generalizations and start making an actual case. In other words, put up or shut up. If you can't support your case with facts and evidence, give up and admit you've lost another debate.
Whites have always been privileged
In large part we're talking about white Anglo-Saxons. You know, the whites who have dominated many institutions throughout America's history? The whites who have made up a majority of America's whites?
In recent years, other white people--Irish, Italian, Greek, Polish, Jewish, Armenian, et al.--have joined WASPs among the privileged. But blacks, Latinos, and other minorities are still on the outside looking in. To simplify it for you, white skins have power, brown skins don't.
But so what if the makeup of the white elite has changed somewhat over the years? What hasn't changed is that the elite are still white. Hence the phrase "white privilege" rather than "Anglo-Saxon privilege"...duh.
The concept dates to 1935, at least
More important, who cares who came up with the phrase? If you read the Wikipedia entry, you'd know the concept goes back at least to W. E. B. Du Bois and his 1935 book Black Reconstruction in America. It wouldn't surprise me if intellectuals have discussed and debated the concept since the Reconstruction Era.
In short, your third point is wrong and irrelevant to boot. No one cares where the term comes from if it accurately describes a problem. Which it does.
Affirmative action?
I don't get your point here. If I had to guess, I'd say you're going to tell us how your poor white relatives are losing jobs to people who don't deserve them. In other words, a typical racist rant that blames the "problems" of whites on minorities.
Did I guess right? If not, please fill us in. Clarify your unclear point so we know what you're talking about.
I trust you have better arguments than these about the so-called "cliche" or "myth" of white privilege. So far your arguments look pretty shallow to me. If you think you can do better, try disputing the 281,000 hits you get when you Google "white privilege." Good luck...you'll need it.
Blog titles
Finally, that you've criticized me for putting my name in the title of blog postings is a joke. Here's why your criticism is stupid:
First, it's my blog, so why would I need to put my name in the title to get attention? I get attention from every posting whether my name is in it or not.
Second, I've done it a couple dozen times, so it's nothing new. When you pick on any one posting, you're only revealing your ignorance of this blog's history.
Third, I'll put anyone's name in the title if it reflects what the posting is about. This posting is about how you bitch and moan every time I generalize about whites--even if my statements are generally true.
For more on the subject, see my posting on systemic racism.
Below: An example of white privilege in action. (Hint: This is a mock picture that depicts a valid point. See if you can figure it out so I don't have to spell it out for you.)
I generally have a problem with racial stereotypes, whether or not they are about whites or non-whites. Day by day, the "white privilege" stereotype/generalization crumbles due to exceptions.
ReplyDeleteRob asked: "For instance, evidence that minorities dominate significant institutions in our society. Hint: Sports and music don't count unless minorities are the owners, not merely the players."
How about the executive branch of the federal government of the United States? A very significant institution, after all, and minority-run since January 21. The racist part of the electorate who opposed Barack Obama due to his challenge to "white privilege" was tiny and insignificant, and did not matter.
Television? For years now, the richest TV star has been Oprah. She calls the shots in her influentual multi-media empire (would count as a "mogul"), and is a business owner, not a mere player. Oprah's actual acting career (as a player) is but an asterisk on her resume.
Rob asked "Whites in general are privileged. Even poor whites have advantages over minorities. Especially equally poor minorities.
If you disagree, show us some evidence to the contrary"
What sort of evidence? Would one minority-in-poverty who is better off than a white-in-poverty be enough?
About affirmative action, you said "If I had to guess, I'd say you're going to tell us how your poor white relatives are losing jobs to people who don't deserve them. In other words, a typical racist rant that blames the "problems" of whites on minorities."
Affirmative action, where it includs quotas, preferences, or goals, demands racial discrimination. If it is in place and working, white people DO lose jobs to people who do not deserve them. Since that part of affirmative action demands that skin color trump actual meaningful qualifications.
That type of affirmative action is blatantly racist. But I do not blame minorities for it, except for those who insist on it. It would not exist if not for whites making policy, anyway.
Fishing in New Orleans? Nice picture. But for all the good he did and the fact that he also bungled it big-time, you could have included the African-American mayor of New Orleans fishing in that photo instead. And that would have proved "black privilege", right?
I find it convenient that so many of affirmative action's white critics *always* forget that the single largest group of beneficiaries of affirmative action has always been white women.
ReplyDeleteDmarks made a good point, yes since January of this year, minorities have been incorporated into high government positions since the swearing in of our "First Black President". You can say that these racist white supremacists are stuck in another time frame long before most of us were born(I'm only 30 years old). Their denial to see everything has changed since then, is almost like an infection that stops them from seeing the truth. They are the worst denyers in the world. For some odd reason, they just don't want to know.
ReplyDeleteGENO--
Yes, policies to boost the unqualified to higher positions than actual merit would otherwise allow have been crafted on a gender basis as well.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points dmarks.
ReplyDelete"Especially charges against the Irish, Scots-Irish, or whoever it is you consider your ancestors."
Actually I argued with you about your ludicrous generalization that the Scots-Irish/Ulster-Scots/Presbyterian Irish started killing Indians as soon as they got over here, you mentioned Jackson but ignored John Ross. Also I wouldn't say I'm overly defensive about my fellow hibernians since I condemned Irish school absuse.
"Even poor whites have advantages over minorities."
What advantages? Poor whites are stereotyped as 'rednecks'; a sectarian ethnic slur used to bash presbyterians (their ministers wore red collars) during the penal laws which was cultural genocide and oppression. Oh yeah and thanks to replying to something I posted MONTHS ago.
"Not all whites, bright boy, but whites in general."
So the Jews, Irish, Scottish, Armenians, Italians, Polish, Greeks, Serbs (as part of 'whites in general') have had an easy time? Also I wouldn't call white homosexuals priviledged; since they have to put up with being mocked (ie one of thos witless snl skits), stereotyped, dehumanized and have to deal with hate crimes. Therefore a straight black man has htero priviledge.
"In large part we're talking about white Anglo-Saxons. You know, the whites who have dominated many institutions throughout America's history? The whites who have made up a majority of America's whites?"
Yep and the whites who didn't treat non-WASPs very well.
"In recent years, other white people--Irish, Italian, Greek, Polish, Jewish, Armenian, et al.--have joined WASPs among the privileged."
So have non-Whites.
" What hasn't changed is that the elite are still white."
So condeelza rice is white? Interesting. ;)
"Hence the phrase "white privilege" rather than "Anglo-Saxon privilege."
Which doesn't really work since the power is no longer is strictly white hands and that not all whites are priviledged, class priviledge does exist, rather than white priviledge we have upper class priviledge and so on.
"So you're probably wrong about the origin of the phrase."
You're right I am but you on the other hand have made idiotic claims that Hitler was a Christian or influeced by Christianity and you've posted moronic crap like this:
" Why didn't anyone declare "war" on terrorism back when the murderers were white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Perhaps because the 9/11 massacre was much worse...or perhaps because we have a racist, xenophobic cowboy mentality. Perhaps because a home-grown killer is "a boy gone wrong" while a foreign killer is "evil incarnate."
Apparently you aren't familiar with the fact that we've been attacked by non-White terrorists before; the terrorist group FALN for example or the first attack on the world trad center by Ramzi Yousef; but you like to use the word 'racist' as much as possible and condemn America as much as possible which shows your anti-American prejudice. Also I love how while you've criticized the US and Israel you haven't critiqued Saudi Arabia, Cuba or Iran.
"If I had to guess, I'd say you're going to tell us how your poor white relatives are losing jobs to people who don't deserve them."
ReplyDeleteNope.
"In other words, a typical racist rant that blames the "problems" of whites on minorities."
Ah so if I complain about it I'm a 'racist' (a word that's used a little too much), hilarious. Thanks for providing us with another example of how you like to label anything you don't like 'racist'; anyone who disagrees with you is an evil cross burner in your eyes or a dastardly conservative.
"So far your arguments look pretty shallow to me."
Say the guy who labelled me racist for criticizing affirmative action.
"If you think you can do better, try disputing the 281,000 hits you get when you Google "white privilege." Good luck...you'll need it."
That's a very stupid argument, just because 281,000 people believe something doesn't make it true, if 281,000 Muslims believe that the victims of Hamas terror attacks got what they deserved are they also right? Or if 281,000 people back in the 19th century believed that Indians should be wiped out are they right?
"When you pick on any one posting, you're only revealing your ignorance of this blog's history."
Ah yes shame on me for not knowing the history of the site that houses your ignorant little ramblings!
"This posting is about how you bitch and moan every time I generalize about whites--even if my statements are generally true."
The word 'bitch' is somewhat sexist; actually it's very sexist, there's no reason to use it, it's like using the word 'niggardly' etc. Ff you're going to try to hold people up to such high standards start with yourself.
"even if my statements are generally true."
They're not, your site shows a remarkable amount of ignorance, you're ignorant about Islam (one of the links you posted justified wife beating) which you seem to think is 'racist' (you claimed that many who are critical of Islam actually just hate arabs which is idiotic) to critique and the links on your page against Islam are full of pro-Muslim lies. You're also ignorant about the true nature of N. Ireland sectarianism, the list goes on and on, you are no erudite filled with insight and wisdom, you're simply an ignorant sad little man with with a poorly designed website.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI think that both dmarks and Stephen have made very valid points.
ReplyDeleteI come here because I learn things that I have not heard before and explore them further. I do find a lot of good information here and it is worth my reading. I have respect for what you do and try to be open minded. But we do not always agree.
I have felt uncomfortable at times because of your strong feelings about whites and yes, the Irish to whom I belong. I feel a bias against me and my own here. I do not think that you can successfully combat bias with bias.
Hopefully one day everyone will be a lovely cream color and then we won't have anyone to blame anymore.
We'll have to judge on individual merit and stop generalizing.
Stephen: "idiotic claims that Hitler was a Christian or influeced by Christianity"
ReplyDeleteI would not call those so idiotic. Hitler's antisemitism and racism in general grew in a German "cultural soil" made fertile by the ideology of the Lutheran and Catholic churches of the area. Churches which way too often cooperated with Hitler.
As to Hitler's own religion, let's listen to what he has to say himself:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922
-----------
It's a twisted and terrible version of Christianity, but unfortunately not so alien to what was going on in Germany, and acceptible Christianity in Europe.
As an aside, this speech is close to what modern-day dictator Hugo Chavez has preached about how Jews are responsible for all the evil of the past two thousands of years, and how they plunder the poor peoples of the world.
And back to the subject, isn't a discussion of a race "in general" really just giving in to stereotypes?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI also like TROP's take on it:
ReplyDeletethereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Hitler.htm
Also the term 'white privilege' fails when it comes to world affairs; American Black and Indians have had to pretty good compared to (White people) in Kosovo and Northern Ireland (I'd rant about AIM's support for Sein Fein/IRA but this isn't place for that) for example.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing I forgot to mention:
ReplyDelete"But blacks, Latinos, and other minorities are still on the outside looking in. To simplify it for you, white skins have power, brown skins don't."
Really? So I guess these people (straight from almighty wikipedia) are all in my imagination?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:African_American_politicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian-American_politicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arab_American_politicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mexican_American_politicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_politicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Filipino_American_politicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Asian_American_politicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_Hawaiian_politicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jamaican_American_politicians
So I'm afraid you're wrong Rob, but hey why let facts get in the way of your ignorant statements?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOh for gawd's sake anyway just look through this and see just how many non-Whites hold political positions:
ReplyDeleteen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_politicians_by_ethnic_or_national_origin
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteStephen, thanks for the links... will explore.
ReplyDeleteRob, we may not agree all the time, but thank you for the forum. I learn much here.
The fact that Stephen would think that a list of non-white politicians proves the non-existence of white privilege tells you all you need to know.
ReplyDeleteThanks Rob -- clearly you hit a nerve.
"The fact that Stephen would think that a list of non-white politicians proves the non-existence of white privilege tells you all you need to know."
ReplyDeleteYou miss my point, Rob said that non-whites don't have any power; the sheer amount of non-Caucasian politicos proves that wrong. Also the whole white privilege myth reminds me of the 'Jews rule the world' crap.
"Also the whole white privilege myth reminds me of the 'Jews rule the world' crap."
ReplyDeleteWhy do some find it so necessary to cling to racial stereotypes?
I've given up wondering about that currently I'm trying to figure out why I'm middle class (at best) if white privilege exists. I mean sure I'm not a WASP but I'm still White, why hasn't the supreme honky potenate given me a mansion and carriage pulled by scantily clad Black women? *Clicks sarcasm off.*
ReplyDelete"why hasn't the supreme honky potenate given me a mansion and carriage pulled by scantily clad Black women?"
ReplyDeleteThat sounds almost like a very strange version of Cinderella!
By the way here is another hole torn in the tattered sheet of paper that is the remaining manifesto on "White Privilege".
Ananda: Thanks! Glad you like the comments.
ReplyDeleteYou miss my point, Rob said that non-whites don't have any power;He said no such thing. You are just unbelievably obtuse.
ReplyDelete"He said no such thing. You are just unbelievably obtuse."
ReplyDeleteWow your comprehension isn't exactly the greatest, here's the 'no power' quote I was referring to:
"To simplify it for you, white skins have power, brown skins don't."
But carry on with delusion that you're clever; it's highly amusing. ;)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteForget Oprah. Angelina Jolie pulled ahead of her in the money arena.
ReplyDeleteRob's statement, that white people have the power, is perfectly correct as a general statement.
ReplyDeleteYou are deliberately interpreting it as an absolute statement.
Nobody is fooled by your attempt at point-scoring... you're as thick as a plank.
Most change comes from the cumulative actions of many people, not the isolated actions of a few. Barack Obama has yet to do much to end the widespread inequalities between whites and minorities, for instance.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, AW has correctly identified the problem with Stephen's latest misunderstanding of generalizations. White skins have power and brown skins don't, in general.
For a more detailed response, see Exercising Power: Individuals vs. Groups.