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

  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    That was then, and this is now, and there have always been the privileged, the powerful and the corrupt among us. We could talk about Maxine Waters, if you like. Or Colin Powell. Or Barack Obama. Or the Southern black plantation/slave owners. Yes, there were some.

    But for most white Americans, there is no privilege and never has been. Meanwhile, how should a white low income person feel about a "privileged" black athlete making millions per game who is so poorly educated that he can hardly speak intelligent English, and whose only skill is to play a kids game,and who demands a "black anthem" and disrespects the anthem and flag of America? Now THAT is "privilege".
    Those examples are a fractiion of a percentile, they aren't representative.

    'Never has been'?!?; My example showed that there was.... millions of whites getting subsidised, segregated housing that would only appreciate in value, a whole new property class.

    And there are plenty of white athletes who get paid astronomical salaries but somehow you never mention them........


    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    In order to qualify for an FHA or HOLC mortgage, in any era, one has/had to show a reliable source of income -- regardless of race or nationality. There's no extra step in that.

    Check out Ric Burns' New York: a Documentary Film. Later in the series, covering the era of The Great Depression, they cover the establishment of the Federal Home Owners Loan Corporation. In the text of the enabling act were provisions that authorized local lenders and insurers to draw up maps that essentially rated neighborhoods be relative value and desirability. An African-American academic, whose name eludes me currently, explained the program in great detail, and its subsequent side effects. Long story short, after the end of WW2 the US experienced a boom in residential construction, and the HOLC maps were used to "red-line" various ares as undesirable, due to excessive African-American populations. Thus, my hometown of Brooklyn NY went from being the most integrated county (Kings Co) in the US prior to WW2, to being the most segregated by the close of the 1970s. Similar patterns of development afflicted countless US cities, and the fallout is with us to this day.

    Add to the the impact of the post-WW2 Interstate Highway Act, and it was then possible to cut-off and isolate "colored" neighborhoods from the rest of their cities, and whole areas could be essentially designated slums and left to rot. Then there was "slum clearance" and Title I public housing: more destructive programs might be hard to find. None of these programs were, in my opinion, formulated with racism in mind, but since their implementation was left to local officials, they were free to draw the maps any way they pleased. For your edification, I heartily recommend Robert A Caro's The Power-Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. In my view it should be required reading in every civics class from coast-to-coast, and it would certainly go a long way towards explaining the kinds of public policies that were instrumental in establishing post-war "minority" slums.



    You're not trying to put me in the position where I have to explain the actions of others, are you? Besides, I haven't the slightest clue of your nationality.

    By the way, what is your nationality?
    That was then, and this is now, and there have always been the privileged, the powerful and the corrupt among us. We could talk about Maxine Waters, if you like. Or Colin Powell. Or Barack Obama. Or the Southern black plantation/slave owners. Yes, there were some.

    But for most white Americans, there is no privilege and never has been. Meanwhile, how should a white low income person feel about a "privileged" black athlete making millions per game who is so poorly educated that he can hardly speak intelligent English, and whose only skill is to play a kids game,and who demands a "black anthem" and disrespects the anthem and flag of America? Now THAT is "privilege".

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Jutland View Post
    Nothing you say is untrue but that doesn't matter to my point, if they have to go through the extra steps of f%%%%g up to get to the same place as somebody who was born screwed..............that is a privilege (and advantageous position).

    And my housing example is a nigh on indisputable indication of how it happens and what the result is.
    In order to qualify for an FHA or HOLC mortgage, in any era, one has/had to show a reliable source of income -- regardless of race or nationality. There's no extra step in that.

    Check out Ric Burns' New York: a Documentary Film. Later in the series, covering the era of The Great Depression, they cover the establishment of the Federal Home Owners Loan Corporation. In the text of the enabling act were provisions that authorized local lenders and insurers to draw up maps that essentially rated neighborhoods be relative value and desirability. An African-American academic, whose name eludes me currently, explained the program in great detail, and its subsequent side effects. Long story short, after the end of WW2 the US experienced a boom in residential construction, and the HOLC maps were used to "red-line" various ares as undesirable, due to excessive African-American populations. Thus, my hometown of Brooklyn NY went from being the most integrated county (Kings Co) in the US prior to WW2, to being the most segregated by the close of the 1970s. Similar patterns of development afflicted countless US cities, and the fallout is with us to this day.

    Add to the the impact of the post-WW2 Interstate Highway Act, and it was then possible to cut-off and isolate "colored" neighborhoods from the rest of their cities, and whole areas could be essentially designated slums and left to rot. Then there was "slum clearance" and Title I public housing: more destructive programs might be hard to find. None of these programs were, in my opinion, formulated with racism in mind, but since their implementation was left to local officials, they were free to draw the maps any way they pleased. For your edification, I heartily recommend Robert A Caro's The Power-Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. In my view it should be required reading in every civics class from coast-to-coast, and it would certainly go a long way towards explaining the kinds of public policies that were instrumental in establishing post-war "minority" slums.

    Originally posted by Jutland View Post
    That is why none of the usual suspects have tackled it head on, instead they have mentioned my nationality, party politics, the tiny unrepresentative minority of black success stories in the US, other countries, putting words in my mouth etc etc etc.......

    But not the action or the outcome of the action.

    Victory lap imminent
    You're not trying to put me in the position where I have to explain the actions of others, are you? Besides, I haven't the slightest clue of your nationality.

    By the way, what is your nationality?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    Maybe, maybe not. If they burn their support systems -- families, friends -- then they're just as down and out as a black guy in similar straits. The only obvious advantage that the Caucasian loser enjoys is that he usually has to actually do something in order to get on law enforcement's radar. The black guy, on the other hand, is always on their radar, 'cause he's a black guy.
    Nothing you say is untrue but that doesn't matter to my point, if they have to go through the extra steps of f%%%%g up to get to the same place as somebody who was born screwed..............that is a privilege (and advantageous position).

    And my housing example is a nigh on indisputable indication of how it happens and what the result is.

    That is why none of the usual suspects have tackled it head on, instead they have mentioned my nationality, party politics, the tiny unrepresentative minority of black success stories in the US, other countries, putting words in my mouth etc etc etc.......

    But not the action or the outcome of the action.

    Victory lap imminent

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Jutland View Post

    But materially they are WAY more likely to be better off.
    Maybe, maybe not. If they burn their support systems -- families, friends -- then they're just as down and out as a black guy in similar straits. The only obvious advantage that the Caucasian loser enjoys is that he usually has to actually do something in order to get on law enforcement's radar. The black guy, on the other hand, is always on their radar, 'cause he's a black guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • E.D. Morel
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    Was there White privilege in the 1930s when the housing program was brought in - no doubt there was. And there was White privilege straight into the 1960s, differing in degree from one part of the country to the next, of course. Since the Civil Rights Act and associated legislation, however, it has been on the decline. An argument can also be made that there has been "fossilized" privilege in the form of inherited wealth, with Whites generally inheriting greater wealth than Black Americans. But I think it can be generally asserted that this has also declined over time, thanks in part to the fact that real estate values have not held constant in various parts of the country and have even declined precipitously in some places when compared against the average. The overall historical trend is toward equalisation - for negative reasons in the former industrial states, as numerous black and white workers have both lost almost everything thanks in a large degree to trade policies, and for positive reasons in other parts of the country as a result of equal opportunity legislation, education grants, and other affirmative action policies. So, if there is White privilege today it is something that is in pronounced decline, and for many White Americans, does not exist at all.
    Given that America has such low levels of social mobility is it not true to say that the fossilized privilege you talk about is still casting a long shadow on the present and more proactive government policy is required to remediate that historical legacy. Justice delayed is justice denied.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Jutland View Post

    So no refute to my point then.


    Not sure what your "point" was, other than to imply that "white privilege" was just a USA thing, in which case I may shown otherwise.

    Racial/ethnic "privilege" tends to be something basic to human nature and pops out in nearly all cultures/countries.

    Hop over to Japan and not be "Japanese" and experience "Japanese Privilege".

    Go to India and experience "Indian Privilege" ...
    ... or go to China and experience "Chinese Privilege" ...

    Come to think of it, based on my experiences, both India and China have so many ethnics and cultural/language/cuisine/etc. differences that each 'Nation' has it's own multiple variations on regional/ethnic "privilege" = local bias factors.

    Sort of like what a Connecticut (White)Yankee might experience when going to a Southern Alabama town where everyone(White) there has connections going back generations, but "the Yankee" might as well have purple skin and green hair when it comes to "acceptance" by the locals.

    Which is what is really in consideration here. Hence my example of the "Scottish* Privilege" factor (* 'Home of the Vikings ).

    Years ago I worked with a large group of co-workers from SE Asia. My fellow "white privilege", Liberal co-workers referred to them all as "rice eaters". Myself, having a bit of background with their region, knew they were more varied than that. While they would work side-by-side on the production floor, come break and lunch time they separated into local groups. Laotian at one table, Cambodian at another, Viets, at their own varied ones. I got to know them and discussed their regional/cultural backgrounds to point of being accepted in their company, such as a rare invite to join in celebrating the Asian New Year with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Interesting.
    Is that your response to everything?
    By repeating the same generalization over and over does that somehow make it true?

    Are you agreeing that democrats were openly racist?
    That democrats used the power of government to enforce their racism?


    Are you admitting that generalizations are generally inaccurate?


    So nothing of substance to refute my point then?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Jutland View Post

    So you agree that white privilege in the USA exists.

    Check,
    Interesting.
    Is that your response to everything?
    By repeating the same generalization over and over does that somehow make it true?

    Are you agreeing that democrats were openly racist?
    That democrats used the power of government to enforce their racism?


    Are you admitting that generalizations are generally inaccurate?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.
    Democrat Governor Wallace 1963
    So you agree that white privilege in the USA exists.

    Check,

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    A party, the democrats, fundamentally based on finding ways to segregate.
    and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.
    Democrat Governor Wallace 1963

    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Not just an issue in the USA; but likely anywhere that "white race" is majority/dominate;
    ...

    Why does racism exist in Scotland?

    For many hundreds of years, white British society has enjoyed a position of economic, social, and political power over non-white people in Britain and across the world through empire and colonialism and their after-effects. Although people in Scotland often know little about this history, the social attitudes that developed over this time are still present in our society. This is known as ‘white ideology’, or sometimes as ‘white supremacy’. The advantages that this still brings to white majority ethnic Scottish people are known as ‘white privilege’.

    White ideology, however, doesn’t only affect white majority ethnic groups. Whiteness is not just about skin colour. Non-white groups can also be influenced by white ideology, reflecting it in their own attitudes and behaviours in order to benefit from some of the power it brings or reduce the risk of being discriminated against. This would include, for instance, people being afraid to talk about racism for fear of offending their white friends. Those who speak out are often judged to have gone against the ‘normal’ (i.e. white ideological) view that racism is uncommon and mostly about personal prejudice. Disrupting that view makes people who subscribe to it uncomfortable. Black and minority ethnic people therefore often put their white friends’ feelings of sensitivity about race above their own need to address the racism they face.

    At the most basic level, racism still exists in Scotland because white majority ethnic Scottish people are viewed as ‘normal’ in comparison to ‘other’ ‘diverse’ communities. Someone doesn’t have to feel hostile towards people from a minority ethnic group in order to have racist attitudes or to act in a racist way. The fact that Black and minority ethnic people are constantly treated as being different, even if several generations of their family have been born in Scotland, means that they face racism to some degree throughout their lives.
    ....
    https://www.crer.scot/racism-in-scotland

    White privilege: what should we do? | Law Society of Scotland

    Opinion: Fostering counter-narratives | General Teaching ...
    ... existence of white privilege in British education systems. In fact, the Scottish government report Teaching in a Diverse Scotland clearly documents the systemic ...

    So no refute to my point then.



    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    That's a two-edged sword though. Outside their families and closest friends, a black guy whose considered an under-achiever doesn't much surprise anyone, 'cause so little was expected of him any way -- but a white guy whose considered an under-achiever is a downright loser. He's no doubt dumber than the black under-achiever 'cause it's presumed that he started with more advantages. He's a double loser, maybe even a triple loser, depending on how many counts of disappointment you think he's guilty of.
    But materially they are WAY more likely to be better off.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Jutland View Post
    The answer is off course yes.

    A whole new class of proper owners, a new way of living, backed by Gov. funds, social engineering undoubtedly, a chance to have and build equity.

    And yet once again ONLY if your skin is the right colour........

    For shame on all of us, not blame, shame.
    Not just an issue in the USA; but likely anywhere that "white race" is majority/dominate;
    ...

    Why does racism exist in Scotland?

    For many hundreds of years, white British society has enjoyed a position of economic, social, and political power over non-white people in Britain and across the world through empire and colonialism and their after-effects. Although people in Scotland often know little about this history, the social attitudes that developed over this time are still present in our society. This is known as ‘white ideology’, or sometimes as ‘white supremacy’. The advantages that this still brings to white majority ethnic Scottish people are known as ‘white privilege’.

    White ideology, however, doesn’t only affect white majority ethnic groups. Whiteness is not just about skin colour. Non-white groups can also be influenced by white ideology, reflecting it in their own attitudes and behaviours in order to benefit from some of the power it brings or reduce the risk of being discriminated against. This would include, for instance, people being afraid to talk about racism for fear of offending their white friends. Those who speak out are often judged to have gone against the ‘normal’ (i.e. white ideological) view that racism is uncommon and mostly about personal prejudice. Disrupting that view makes people who subscribe to it uncomfortable. Black and minority ethnic people therefore often put their white friends’ feelings of sensitivity about race above their own need to address the racism they face.

    At the most basic level, racism still exists in Scotland because white majority ethnic Scottish people are viewed as ‘normal’ in comparison to ‘other’ ‘diverse’ communities. Someone doesn’t have to feel hostile towards people from a minority ethnic group in order to have racist attitudes or to act in a racist way. The fact that Black and minority ethnic people are constantly treated as being different, even if several generations of their family have been born in Scotland, means that they face racism to some degree throughout their lives.
    ....
    https://www.crer.scot/racism-in-scotland

    White privilege: what should we do? | Law Society of Scotland

    Opinion: Fostering counter-narratives | General Teaching ...
    ... existence of white privilege in British education systems. In fact, the Scottish government report Teaching in a Diverse Scotland clearly documents the systemic ...


    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

    All whites have privilege, some just have additional social class privileges thrown on-top of that.

    If you were to compare a poor white to a poor black, the poor white would have privileges not afforded to the black.
    That's a two-edged sword though. Outside their families and closest friends, a black guy whose considered an under-achiever doesn't much surprise anyone, 'cause so little was expected of him any way -- but a white guy whose considered an under-achiever is a downright loser. He's no doubt dumber than the black under-achiever 'cause it's presumed that he started with more advantages. He's a double loser, maybe even a triple loser, depending on how many counts of disappointment you think he's guilty of.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X