Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

White Privilege, does it exist in the USA? The answer may not surprise you......

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    I read the link and it provides proof of what I have been saying.

    I recommend that you read the link after you read the thread up to the point of the link.
    Everybody who can actually read, can see in your link that both democrats and republicans were in charge during the period mentioned in the article when whites got an advantage in subsidized housing...

    Leave a comment:


  • Canuckster
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    Not sure what sort of lyrics he could have come up with but maybe the tune would be something along the lines of "I Aint Got No Home in the World No More". For whatever reason he never recorded "Old Man Trump".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z6OEqc0uS0

    Interesting and relevant to today's current events, author Joe Klein wrote this in 1981...

    On his visits to the migrant camps that autumn [1938], Woody found that one of the more popular songs was a bouncy, jolly Baptist hymn called "This World Is Not My Home," which had been made popular by the Carter Family....

    There was something about the song that bothered Woody. It was a mild annoyance at first, but it developed into a grating, pulsing anger as the weeks passed and he couldn't wipe either the tune or the idea from his mind. He was hearing the words in a different way than he'd ever heard them before. He was beginning to understand that the effect of this song was to tell the migrants to wait, and be meek, and be rewarded in the next life. It was telling them to accept the hovels and the hunger and the disease. It was telling them not to strike, and not to fight back. He was outraged by the idea that such an innocent-sounding song could be so insidious. An alternative set of words exploded out of him, and stood the song on its head....

    Not only was "I Ain't Got No Home" a clever parody of the fundamentalist sensibility and a fine song in its own right, it also represented a clear turning point in Woody's life. It was a rejection of the passive Eastern spiritualism that had fascinated hi, since Pampa (and also a rebuke to his old idols, the Carter Family). It was, in a way, a call to arms -- at the very least, an attack on inaction.

    Back in the '50s, Fred Trump was developing some pretty large parcels in the Gravesend and Coney Island sections of Brooklyn. If I recall correctly, Fred Trump got seriously busy in that neighborhood.

    That's what was going on three back then. The post-WW2 slum was not inevitable: it was constructed, brick by brick, by racists like Robert Moses. And apparently assisted by men like Fred Trump.
    Interesting additional comments but for some reason they only showed up when I wanted t quote you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by slick24 View Post
    I was told once that I scored highest on the programming test and scored highest in the interview for a job I was applying for, but they gave the job to a Indian woman because of her sex and race. There was no "white privilege" then.
    But these days you are guilty for even pointing that out. Strange times we live in.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick24
    replied
    I was told once that I scored highest on the programming test and scored highest in the interview for a job I was applying for, but they gave the job to a Indian woman because of her sex and race. There was no "white privilege" then.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    I keep forgetting...how rich did Obama become during his presidency? And how rich did the Clintons become? And how many million dollars per year do black athletes, movie and entertainment stars make? How much does Pelosi, Soros and Waters have?

    But's it's only bad if it's Trump?

    Come on, people...

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Canuckster View Post
    Speaking of public housing...

    I suppose that Old Man Trump knows just how much racial hate
    He stirred up in that bloodpot of human hearts
    When he drawed that color line
    Here at his Beach Haven family project

    Beach Haven ain't my home!
    No, I just can't pay this rent!
    My money's down the drain,
    And my soul is badly bent!
    Beach Haven is Trump’s Tower
    Where no black folks come to roam,
    No, no, Old Man Trump!
    Old Beach Haven ain't my home!

    Woody Guthrie, circa 1954, former tenant of Freddy's

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Trump
    Maybe he could have set this prose to music:

    United States v Fred C Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management Inc, Jun 1975

    Back in the '50s, Fred Trump was developing some pretty large parcels in the Gravesend and Coney Island sections of Brooklyn. If I recall correctly, Fred Trump got seriously busy in that neighborhood.

    It was almost inevitable that such a lovely, viable haimishe world should have attracted the attention of the city’s arch nemesis, Robert Moses. The Power Broker went to work on Coney in the late ’40s and ’50s much as he did in the Bronx, determined to convert its slightly dilapidated, much-cherished humanity into his same-old, same-old Corbusier master plan of towers surrounded by parks and cars.

    Moses “improved” the boardwalk by tearing a new path for it right through a swath of businesses and the municipal bathhouse—thereby discouraging any and all potential investors. He planted the city’s aquarium out on the site of the old Dreamland Park, where no one wanted it and no one came to see it. He tore down the venerable working-class neighborhood in central Coney Island known as “the Gut,” and started a rampage through the neighborhoods and amusements on the west end of the island, courtesy of federal funds provided under the Title I urban renewal program.

    Perhaps the worst part of Moses’s depredations, as always, is that they were committed in the name of social progress and urban improvement. Determined to build a sort of Jones Beach with housing projects, he vehemently rejected the claim that Coney could go on much as it always had, insisting in 1958 that the area was “rotting inside and out in spite of nostalgic fables.”

    At first, he at least put up some decent, economically integrated public housing, but before long, the city was simply warehousing everything it could out in Coney: the sick, the old, the indigent; social-welfare services of every kind. Even after Moses was finally toppled, the city went on like some science-fiction, cyborg race programmed to destroy, using Title I funds to bulldoze block after block of perfectly good, affordable, occupied housing, annihilating the bustling shopping district along Mermaid Avenue—where, until the late 1960s, you could find a book, or a supermarket, or a pair of shoes.

    Private developers grabbed up the spoils of all this public blockbusting, especially Fred Trump, father of Donald, who filled in what had been the Gut with towers of his own. Trump also bought the still-profitable Steeplechase, the last of the great parks, for cheap (mostly because Marie Tilyou, granddaughter of the park’s founder, preferred to see it demolished, rather than entertain the black residents from many of Coney’s new projects).

    When Trump caught wind of a rumor that the grand old lady of Coney might be landmarked under the city’s new preservation laws, he moved fast. Hastily scheduling another demolition, he paused only long enough to hold a party inside the park the night before the wreckers were due. To make sure he drew some publicity, Trump invited six leggy showgirls and handed all his guests bricks—bricks they were invited to hurl through the legendary, painted glass trellis that housed most of Steeplechase.

    "Coney Island’s Grand Past and Grim Future," by Kevin Baker, The Village Voice, 25 May 2010
    That's what was going on three back then. The post-WW2 slum was not inevitable: it was constructed, brick by brick, by racists like Robert Moses. And apparently assisted by men like Fred Trump.
    Last edited by slick_miester; 10 Jul 20, 11:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • Canuckster
    replied
    Speaking of public housing...

    I suppose that Old Man Trump knows just how much racial hate
    He stirred up in that bloodpot of human hearts
    When he drawed that color line
    Here at his Beach Haven family project

    Beach Haven ain't my home!
    No, I just can't pay this rent!
    My money's down the drain,
    And my soul is badly bent!
    Beach Haven is Trump’s Tower
    Where no black folks come to roam,
    No, no, Old Man Trump!
    Old Beach Haven ain't my home!

    Woody Guthrie, circa 1954, former tenant of Freddy's

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Trump

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    You may not be aware of it, but Ike was a republican and he was the chief of the executive branch for two terms which included the administration of federal housing programs, and he also had a first mid-term with full control of the Congress. Read your link...
    Back then, public housing was not just a progressive issue. There was a real shortage of housing following WW2, and local, state, and Federal governments, sometimes in partnership with the private sector and sometimes not, put a lot of effort and money into building new housing stock, both within big cities, and in the expanding suburbs. On the Federal level the actual execution was left to local officials. That's how the public-private Stuyvesant Town started out as a segregated development.

    The building of Stuyvesant Town, a residential development in New York City, shows how both private decisions and public policy shaped the Jim Crow North. Made possible by the city’s use of eminent domain to clear the area, the reversion of public streets and land to private ownership and a 25-year tax abatement, Stuyvesant Town opened in 1947 completely racially segregated. (Moses, who had championed the project, had directly opposed inserting a provision into the city contract that would have opposed discrimination in tenant selection.) When black people sued, the New York Supreme Court protected segregation and sided with the developer’s claim that the development was private — despite all the public money used to make it possible — and therefore entitled to discriminate as it sees fit.

    "How New York City became the capital of the Jim Crow North," by Brian Purnell and Jeanne Theoharis, Washington Post, 23 Aug 2017
    And here's the case referred to in the above article: Dorsey v Stuyvesant Town Corp, 19 Jul 1949.

    The funniest thing was that, apart from its location, Stuyvesant Town wasn't even all that attractive a place to live: like most Robert Moses projects, he cut corners, in that case the electrical system wasn't capable of supporting air conditioning until the 1990s.... But at least there was no Darkies living there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    You may not be aware of it, but Ike was a republican and he was the chief of the executive branch for two terms which included the administration of federal housing programs, and he also had a first mid-term with full control of the Congress. Read your link...
    I read the link and it provides proof of what I have been saying.

    I recommend that you read the link after you read the thread up to the point of the link.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    Here's a few other ways in which African-Americans may have been hobbled, either deliberately or inadvertently:
    • slave owners deliberately inculcated in their slaves a distaste for personal liberty and personal responsibility, in an attempt to cultivate a preference for bondage over freedom. This effort was detailed by Frederick Douglass in his Autobiography of a Slave. The end result was a combination of distrust and apathy, which was interpreted as sloth and "shiftlessness";
    • on average a slave could be expected to be sold or rented out at least once in his/her life, without regard to age or family situation, thus splitting up families and serving to estrange wives from husbands and children from parents;
    • during the Antebellum period and Jim Crow, it was made plain through various means -- from the legalistic Dred Scott case to the destruction of Rosewood FL, that blacks could not be viewed as human beings, and that there was no point in even trying to overcome their inferior condition, lest such attempts when successful prompt whites to view them as "uppity" and in turn lynch them.
    The above suffered by African-Americans over many successive generations, such that they ultimately leached into their "cultural DNA," so to speak.

    The social, economic, and political changes that followed WW2 proved to be a two-sided coin. For a couple of negative developments:
    • the mass marketing of the mechanical cotton picker ended the era of the sharecropper, thus rendering them economically redundant. In turn millions of Southern blacks migrated to the big cities of the North. There, rural people in the midst of modern American urban centers, like similar rural populations throughout the Industrial Revolution, found themselves cut off from previously known social support systems, but lacking relevant skills and knowledge they consequently suffered;
    • the growth of the post-WW2 welfare state incentivized the erosion of familial and community relations, leaving its recipients socially adrift -- those are challenges facing both blacks and whites who were/are in similar social and economic straits over the last seventy years.
    . . . .
    Just rereading that post, and a thought occurred to me: whether by design or merely incidental, those were all developments that served to weaken familial and community relationships. Naturally migration has a dislocating effect, as people move away from family and friends, from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Chattel slavery deliberately undermined family and community amongst the slaves. The violence of Jim Crow also had a chilling effect on what we all consider the most basic of human relationships, ie family and community. Then came the post-WW2 double whammy of expanded social welfare and the Sexual Revolution. The first rendered the nuclear family economically redundant; the second downright repugnant. Since notions of African-American family and community had been regularly attacked for the previous two centuries, they were even more susceptible to the deleterious modern changes in social mores than were their Caucasian neighbors, whom history showed suffered enough from those developments. Without strong families, black and white children alike are essentially shortchanged, and struggle to participate meaningfully in their communities come adulthood. Therefore we shouldn't be surprised that, in aggregate, African-Americans have had a harder time rebounding from the post-WW2 welfare state and the Sexual Revolution: they'd been weakened previously by two centuries of slavery, segregation, and outright terrorism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    As a pure WASP,blond and blue eyed I think there is such a thing a white privilege both in the US and the EU

    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronne
    I would make an effort to look at your evidence. I haven’t and yet you are demanding that I Must agree with you.
    You haven't read the article/evidence I linked?
    Last edited by Jutland; 10 Jul 20, 09:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Jutland View Post

    You are not debating the outcome, and I clearly defined the outcome in my first post and backed it up with evidence.

    White Privilege means an advantage for being white, in this case subsidised suburban properties could not be bought by black people regardless of their financial position, subsequent trends resulted in whites reaping a huge dividend in equity.

    And I have clearly acknowledged Democratic involvement (2 party state and all that), there is no gotcha there for you.

    You can clearly make the argument that was not an intentional outcome, but you can't deny the advantage gained.

    I didn’t respond to your post. (That should be interpreted as not responding to your claim)
    I didn’t comment on anything in your post. (That should be interpreted as not commenting on your claim)
    I commented on a fact presented by Nichols.
    (And Nichols point is still a fact)

    I’m really sorry, but before I would comment on your point, I would make an effort to look at your evidence. I haven’t and yet you are demanding that I Must agree with you.

    I haven’t made an argument despite your false claim that I have.
    I have commented that;
    1) Humans are tribal.
    2) Stupidity is more likely the problem than malice.
    3) and segregation was a Democratic Party policy
    All of these are objectively true assertions.

    Your demand that I offer an opinion is curious and confusing. You are simply demanding that I agree with you and have lied that my earlier posts accepted your point. (I haven’t) You aren’t interested in hearing opposing points of view, otherwise you wouldn’t be demanding that I agree. or lying that I have agreed.

    I will offer some real world experience with “white privilege”.
    The average black law school graduate is in far higher demand than the average white law school graduate. My mid sized law firm was routinely priced out of the market for such candidates because they big law firms would offer twice the money.
    The people in question would not have been offered jobs at my midsized firm (120 lawyers) if they had been white because their grades or work weren’t good enough. But we made the offers because we needed more black attorneys.
    Usually the top law firms only hire people in the top 1% of their class. Those who fall outside of that 1% usually will not succeed at those firms.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Perhaps it would do you well to read what I actually said (I provided a quote from democratic governor George Wallace in response to Nichols comment that segregation was a democratic policy)
    Given that I made no comment about white privilege it is odd that you are demanding that I must agree it exists and take on arguments I haven’t made. That is why I said you were trolling.

    You haven’t defined white privilege, nor have you proven it.
    The examples you gave are of policies endorsed and applied by the Democratic Party.
    I cannot determine that a poorly thought out policy was racist in intent just because the outcome was so bad. I would prefer to rely on the evidence that led to the housing policies to determine a racist intent, Not your assumptions.
    I can happily report that it is hypocritical for dems to blame others for alleged racist governmental policies in areas completely under control of the dem party.

    I am not blessed with the ability to read the minds of the drafters of the policies. I do recognize that when dealing with a poorly thought out governmental policy the cause is more likely stupidity than malice. Or racism.
    In Chicago (owned and controlled by dems) they eventually realized that the “projects” were leading to the opposite result of what was intended and they were torn down.
    You are not debating the outcome, and I clearly defined the outcome in my first post and backed it up with evidence.

    White Privilege means an advantage for being white, in this case subsidised suburban properties could not be bought by black people regardless of their financial position, subsequent trends resulted in whites reaping a huge dividend in equity.

    And I have clearly acknowledged Democratic involvement (2 party state and all that), there is no gotcha there for you.

    You can clearly make the argument that was not an intentional outcome, but you can't deny the advantage gained.


    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Jutland View Post

    As I said to Nichols, yes the Democrats were clearly involved due to the time span of activity.

    I clearly defined the the advatage gained by white Americans over African Americans due to racist housing policies over a prolonged period.

    Your failure to address that point, to address the evidence I presented is indicative that you don't contest the action or the outcome of the policy.

    I'm not trolling; here is the definition of trolling.



    Saying a horrible racist thing happened in the past and saying that its effects are still visible today is not trolling.
    Presenting evidence and asking people to stay on the topic and the evidence is not trolling.
    Nobody is forcing you to post on this thread, and nobody is forcing you to post inane non-relevant posts.

    Address my point or don't, I will not respond to anymore of your posts until they DIRECTLY address the issue I raised.

    Good day.
    Perhaps it would do you well to read what I actually said (I provided a quote from democratic governor George Wallace in response to Nichols comment that segregation was a democratic policy)
    Given that I made no comment about white privilege it is odd that you are demanding that I must agree it exists and take on arguments I haven’t made. That is why I said you were trolling.

    You haven’t defined white privilege, nor have you proven it.
    The examples you gave are of policies endorsed and applied by the Democratic Party.
    I cannot determine that a poorly thought out policy was racist in intent just because the outcome was so bad. I would prefer to rely on the evidence that led to the housing policies to determine a racist intent, Not your assumptions.
    I can happily report that it is hypocritical for dems to blame others for alleged racist governmental policies in areas completely under control of the dem party.

    I am not blessed with the ability to read the minds of the drafters of the policies. I do recognize that when dealing with a poorly thought out governmental policy the cause is more likely stupidity than malice. Or racism.
    In Chicago (owned and controlled by dems) they eventually realized that the “projects” were leading to the opposite result of what was intended and they were torn down.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X