Giantrobo

-Yes you are wrong. Nothing new there. I don't believe ALL Whites want to enslave the Black Man. So yes...YOU made that up.

-I was the guy who pointed out July 4th 1776 has a very different meaning for me. I am FREE to do that doncha know. Freedom can go both ways, not just when it benefits White guys.

-You. In a typical "I'm a white guy and I know what you need and what you should do better than you do" fashion" were that guy.

DVD Polizei

Ok, I may have misspoken. You just believe MOST Whites want to enslave Blacks.

Giantrobo

White Privilege is well...It's kinda like GOD.

Not everyone believes in him. Not everyone actively seeks to benefit from him. But somehow he's still there doing his thing.

Giantrobo

Well, there is a history of this behavior.

A bad history doesn't only apply to Black Kids killed by cops or Neighborhood watchmen...

Supermallet

I would think that being an educator, you'd understand that it's necessary to analyze the factors that lead to a certain status quo, because if we don't, we make a lot of assumptions that the status quo is how things should be, how they've always been, and how they always should be.

To take one innocuous example, wholly divorced from the discussion of race: The phrase "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 in response to the Red Scare, as Congress wanted to differentiate us from Communists by stressing the nation's religiosity. Most people have no idea that "Under God" was not originally part of the pledge, nor the reasons for adding it, and thus they argue from a place of ignorance that it's always been there and therefore always should be (by the way, I am not trying to start a discussion about the Pledge nor am I commenting on whether or not the phrase should remain there, I am simply using it as an example because it's tidy).

I understand people having a negative response when they hear about white privilege. I had a negative response too. I remember saying, "But I'm not racist! How can I be benefiting at the expense of others?" But as I learned what the concept meant, and how it's a symptom of our institutional structures, it made a lot more sense. It's not about taking sides, it's about understanding the socioeconomic factors that come into play and how it affects different groups differently.

The impulse to say if we treat all groups the same, that's equality is completely sensible, if there were no factors outside of how we individually treat those groups. But there are outside factors and they have to be understood so they can be taken into account and allow us to properly treat the problem instead of making a blanket solution that doesn't actually help, even if the intentions are good.

I'll point you to the comments above about Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter. The latter is a true statement, but it does nothing to address the problems of the former. And that's because of these other factors.

AGuyNamedMike

Heck, I was born in the Sixties South™ and I'm damn_grateful for my white privilege, having seen what life could be like for my neighbors born without it.

creekdipper

Sigh.

Tell you what.

You keep discussing "white privilege" if that makes you feel better.

I'll just keep giving direct assistance to needy kids & families...regardless of race.

We'll give the families a choice...would they rather have someone helping them out directly, or would they rather hear another lecture on "white privilege?"

creekdipper

Personally, I'm glad for ANY privilege (including help from neighbors, teachers, clergy, relatives, strangers) that has allowed me to be in a position to help others both financially and in learning skills to improve their lives for themselves.

dave-o

You like to make a lot of assumptions about what people are not doing.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

creekdipper

No, dave, you are among those who like to make assumptions about what others think (based upon recent remarks in other threads). My meds are working just fine, btw.

I didn't hear anyone else talking about concrete actions...just a lot of hot air about "white privilege."

I even asked exactly what benefit people received from such hand-wringing...and got no response.

What else are we to assume if no one can identify any concrete benefits of sitting around feeling guilty about "privilege?"

I suggested specific actions that have immediate AND long-term benefits, ranging from the physical to the spiritual and emotional.

I've acknowledged several times that, as someone of European descent, I've benefited from a head start. Now...how many times do I have to say it, and what good does it do to repeat it?

I'd rather extend my privilege and share it with others. No, the two aren't mutually exclusive. But can we just wear a tee-shirt proclaiming our privilege so we can shut up about it and get on with the business of helping people?

Personally, I'm pretty sure that those in need would rather receive tangible benefits. If some feel that they need to guilt or shame people into action, go for it. But not everyone needs to hear that repeatedly in order to motivate them to help others.

hdnmickey

I imagine many people posting here do a lot of volunteering and provide assistance for people from all races and backgrounds. But real change only comes when there is help AND a unified belief that long term changes are needed. Seems there is often help from those that refuse to acknowledge that there is more to it that than acute short term needs. Typical (see Thanksgiving day volunteers), but only half the battle. Like I posted earlier, that can only come when both sides agree to work on the issue rather than go on about ALM or resort to violence.

Supermallet

That's presumptuous. First, you don't know what I do or don't do outside of these forums, and second, since when does talking mean a person never takes action? Where in any of my posts did I say "Don't bother helping people, a good lecture on white privilege will suffice"?

You asked for an explanation as to why the discussion of white privilege was necessary. I gave you an explanation, free of condescension, snark, or any kind of piling on. The result was that you dismissed everything I had to say, and held yourself up as superior for not even bothering to discuss it.

AGuyNamedMike

It's usually the case.

See:
elected officials
TV pundits
fucking bloggers

Of course, you're walking the walk while talking the talk, which is great!

But there's just so much talk without the walk going on that any talk comes across as so much noise anymore.

That's my personal take, I don't pretend to speak for anyone else.

J. Farley

Fill the Mall.

cungar

creekdipper

Now, now, Mallet. Wouldn't want to display a persecution complex.

When I posted earlier about "all lives matter," I got piled on pretty hard by those who implied that "white people's opinions" aren't needed for this issue...despite the fact that plenty of "white people" seem to be commenting.

I wasn't commenting upon your acts of charity or lack thereof. You could be the most philanthropic person alive, and I'd still have posted my remarks. I was just getting tired of hearing about all this talk with little mention of direct action. And I asked what the direct benefit of discussing "white privilege" was to minorities.

I told you what my solutions would be. The remarks weren't directed toward you personally since there were pages of discussion about "white privilege." You just happened to be representative of all those talking about the topic. I don't have any problem with people discussing the subject from an academic standpoint, but exactly what are you proposing to do to change "white privilege?"

If you want to read my preferred line of action as "holding myself up as superior," so be it. Personally, I do think that direct action is a superior choice to endless talking about a problem without suggesting remedies, which is what I was getting from the conversation. I wasn't the only one who thought this was a lot of hand-wringing (the term "collective guilt" was used).

I'm affording you an honest explanation to clear up my intentions...not to apologize for something never meant. If it takes this wall of text to explain, I'll do so out of respect for past discussions and because I think other posters deserve a response.

If the earlier post came off as snarky or dismissive, it wasn't meant as a personal insult toward you. It was an expression of being tired of too much talk and too little action.

creekdipper

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to identify the two "sides."

Nick Danger

Real Americans and troublemakers?

Early this morning I checked the comments under the news story in the Dallas Observer. Every single commenter believed that dead white cops is the natural outcome of allowing BLM demonstrations. I got creeped out.

creekdipper

I'm sure that mickey has a clear explanation of who makes up each "side."

story

Puke.

DVD Polizei

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/politi...ton-joe-biden/

So, here we go again. And believe it or not, I'm not picking on Hillary per se.

What EXACTLY can be done to increase procedures for use of force? Because in the Baton Rouge shooting, the person had a gun. So, are we going to make rules that say you can only shoot a person ONCE if they have a gun and then back off?

And in the case of Minnesota, what more could be done there? It seems as if that cop was extremely on edge, and in his mind, thought the person was going for a gun. How does implementing new guidelines prevent a cop from thinking a person is going for a weapon?

See, this is what I don't get when people protest these kinds of shootings. You cannot legislate THOUGHT.

Sean O'Hara

Relax, he's just following Jesus' commandment to make judgmental assumptions about other people while bragging about his own good works. It's right there in Matthew 12, uh ... no, maybe Luke ... Mark ... John ... huh, I coulda sworn I saw it in there somewhere.

Sean O'Hara

How about saying cops can't shoot someone if they don't have a gun in their actual hand, and prosecuting any cop who violates that rule for murder, with the law crafted in such a way as to make it extremely difficult for a jury to let the cop off because they think he just made a little boo-boo.

Artman

"No deal!"

Sorraffy

yeah I don't think that's going to happen. You're putting a lot of faith in the other guy not immediately firing upon the police before they have a chance to reach for their weapon.

Ex: Cop pulls a guy over (by this law he's not allowed to have his weapon drawn yet) gets to the car and before he has a chance to see that the driver already has he weapon out, he's shot.