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

  • #61
    I'd rather not be flying in an airplane designed and built by the engineer and mechanic that got there via affirmative action to fill a racial or ethnic quota. I'd rather fly in one built and designed by persons knowledgeable and skilled to the task. Good intentions rarely equal good results.

    The rest of you can ride in the quotas designed aircraft. The crashes are what some would call Darwin's Theory applied.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
    Present Current Events are the Future's History

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
      I'd rather not be flying in an airplane designed and built by the engineer and mechanic that got there via affirmative action to fill a racial or ethnic quota. I'd rather fly in one built and designed by persons knowledgeable and skilled to the task. Good intentions rarely equal good results.

      The rest of you can ride in the quotas designed aircraft. The crashes are what some would call Darwin's Theory applied.
      I don't think there is necessarily a problem in granting access to educational and training programs based on affirmative action; the problem is if they grade assignments and hand out degrees based on affirmative action.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
        Two GI's, in unifor, walk into a bar in Dallas. One get,s served one doesn't. Want to guess the reason? I was one of the two.
        That is not 'white privilege'. It is not a privilege to be served in a bar, it is the normal expectation. What you are describing is anti black discrimination. White Privilege does not exist in America or anywhere else.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • #64
          'While Priveledge" is a racist term. The objective of those who use it is to encourage resentment towards white people and promote division in society.

          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
            Two GI's, in unifor, walk into a bar in Dallas. One get,s served one doesn't. Want to guess the reason? I was one of the two.
            I wouldn't have served yer either...
            'orrible little man!


            The long toll of the brave
            Is not lost in darkness
            Over the fruitful earth
            And athwart the seas
            Hath passed the light of noble deeds
            Unquenchable forever.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
              That is what, I presume, affirmative action was and is all about. Numerous corporations and public sector institutions now actively give a preference to minorities without government prodding and there are special grants and programs for minority students in various educational establishments. Historical imbalances take time to re-balance. It could be done quicker, however, placing a hiring freeze on white workers or a moratorium on allowing white students into universities and colleges, but I cannot imagine this being considered acceptable on any level.
              Yes that's it and I agree with your follow-on points but real affirmative action is funding early school and pre-school education and having structures in place to get kids on the right path when their parents are unable or unwilling to get them on that path. That's when the intervention is needed as by high school or college age it's too late.
              That's good for society in general and much cheaper than maintaining such a massive prison and law enforcement infrastructure.
              "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
              validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
              "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                That is not 'white privilege'. It is not a privilege to be served in a bar, it is the normal expectation. What you are describing is anti black discrimination. White Privilege does not exist in America or anywhere else.
                I think the point is that not being subject to bad stuff that happens to other people, even if it shouldn't happen, is a form of privilege. I do agree that it's a divisive term; not being subject to racism or sexism or other forms of bigotry should be seen as the norm, not a privilege.
                "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                Comment


                • #68
                  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.
                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    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.


                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          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
                          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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.
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              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.
                              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                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.
                                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X