Results 31 to 40 of 46
Thread: White privilege
-
09-21-2008 #31Originally Posted by yodajazz
-
09-21-2008 #32
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Posts
- 63
white priviledge
The rich man still has you by the balls because you still believe that bullshit about whites getting all the gravy.Its about class.Not race.My son went to a so called black college and was the number one student in the school.Imagine that ,1 percent whites, and he was the smartest kid in the school.He said the black kids hated him and even shot him while going to class because he screwed up the curve.Now when he applies for a job the employers look confused because he is white and went to a black school.Then they tell him he is not what they are looking for.One even said he was not diverse enough.He had two patents for the school when he apprenticed there and a perfect record. I wonder what they are telling him. If a black man had his resume he would have been chased by every major corporation, so you are as wrong as you can be. Its about inititive and not race.One day my son will overcome this because he has balls and guts. Unlike your, hand me something for free attitude.Affirmative action is just racism on a different group of people.Affirmative action for equality is like fucking for virginity.
-
09-21-2008 #33Originally Posted by celticgrafix
As to what that meant, varied from place to place during that century. I know the klan in some areas were more concerned about Italians than blacks, in other cases the Irish were targeted- it really depends on where you're talking about in a micro level.
On a macro level however, the institution had far more reaching ramifications nationally. People benefited in all types of ethnic backgrounds, locations, and classes from slavery in the United States. Many northern states were slave states at one point or another, New York was a slave state during the civil war if you fell into certain situations. Many of the northern states that were counted as free states allowed slavery provided the slave's age was below a limit, and when combined with the ban on the slave trade (which had come earlier), many northern families profited right to the end of slavery by operating "breeding" enterprises where slaves would be raised, used locally and- before they turned the age that would set them free, they would be boarded up and sent down south. This is where the phrase "sold down the river" comes from.
Then there were all the nonslave owning parties who benefited from exporting things such as cotton, having decades of access to goods (like cotton) that were being produced without any real labor cost. IMHO you'd be hard pressed to find any white American in pre-Civil War America that did not -somehow benefit from slavery, because of the way it impacted the whole country, from giving individuals the assets to start companies that then employed people, to giving people expendable income that could then be used for making purchases that would not otherwise have been made- the question becomes, how many families would have retained their assets from (even indirect) use of slavery after generations of going through history (there has been more than a few major economic crises since the 60s).
Yet even that argument is misleading because the difference in asset distribution translated into real differences in the quality of the education for each sequential generation. Even a former rich white family fallen into poverty in the 1893 panic would have had kids going to schools light years ahead of anything impoverished blacks (right out of slavery) would have had access to. And then those kids, with that better education would have had more earning potential even if the system was completely color blind in firing/hiring practices (and that surely was not the case). This difference in education and schooling acted as a feedback loop, keeping the poor poor, and the wealthy rich. Not only did this mean that some had higher earning potential, but some were (because of their education) less likely to be taken in scams, more apt to know how to use their money properly. The after effects of this are still being seen if inner city drop out rates are any accurate... and even with our current mortgage crisis we see that blacks from craptastically terrible inner city schools have been far more likely to get caught up by predatory lenders (you can google this one, I won't go into the specifics in this post).
One of my personal heroes is no longer really known in the world. During my great grandfather's time, there was a journalist who then became a muckraking author by the name of Gustavus Myers, and unknown person today- but he spent the better portion of his career researching, documenting, and writing about the history of wealth distribution in western society. Here he went back and, using government records and other such documents- would show how families got their wealth & power, and what happened to it generationally to-date (of his books). When he did this for Canada in the History of Canadian Wealth, he presents a picture of how colonialism pre-determined Canada's wealth distribution, how these noble families of tyrant-imposed monopolies exploited that portion of north america for generations, and how that money was then used. The book was so well documented, and so damning, that it was banned in Canada and had to be published across the boarder in Chicago... Canada didn't see a printing until the 1970s. He wrote about the United States as well, in fact he did so with far more frequency taking on everyone from Tammy Hall to the Puritans. These works were openly accepted and supported by academia then, and have held fairly well to today. But his last book, the one he spent more than twenty years on, he never truly finished (which when compared to his other books is fairly obvious), and when he realized he was towards the end, he took the rough version of it he had so far, went to his publisher- dumped it on their desk, and went home to die three months later. That was 1942 and the book was History of Bigotry in the United States [btw if you're Irish-Catholic, I suggest reading the piece]. This last book didn't get into the issue of economic distribution disparity caused by these practices, but if read with the rest that he had done to that time the reason for that is obvious- he had already proven those points. As to Myers himself, if it matters he was white.
To assume that these disparities no longer exist, that slavery's ramifications are no longer being felt, or that it is impossible for those arriving after the war to have benefited from this relationship, is at best questionable. But if one thing is clear, it is that affirmative action simply won't fix it, not any more or less than using a bandaid to repair a dam.
This isn't 1866, but if these problems do not exist, than one has a hard time explaining away the fact that 55 percent of African Americans, compared to 17 percent of whites, were steered to risky subprime mortgages when they were qualified for a traditional mortgage with a lower interest rate- an observation made by the Federal Reserve themselves. This isn't a debate about hand out reparations, but one about intentional, calculated maneuvers to exploit people for profit knowing the ramifications... and if the housing situation hadn't have turned into a crisis, no one would be talking about it, creating the false illusion of progress, tolerance and equality.
And maybe its easier to withdraw from life
With all of its misery and wretched lies
If we're dead when tomorrow's gone
The Big Machine will just move on
Still we cling afraid we'll fall
Clinging like the memory which haunts us all
-
09-21-2008 #34Originally Posted by tsafficianado
Most people do not have enough time to research this issues themselves, so they get misinformation from people with an agenda. I see the public as being lied to, and media not questioning them in many cases. Like when they tried to say that Iraq was threat to the US.
But as far as racism, most Blacks would say that in the South, it was more open, but still about as bad in the North, where people were more undercover about it. They say that it worse to have someone smile in your face, and then stab you in the back. By the way, the National Headquarters for the Klan was in Indiana, not in the south.
So I say that a lot of our differences are based on outright propaganda, or in advertising they call it product positioning, not reality. Reality is the party that claims to be for smaller government, created a whole new Federal Dept of Homeland Security. Or they eliminate some jobs, but then contract the same services out to private contractors and it does not save money.
Thanks again for sharing your history. I think that a lot of things could be worked just by people sharing information, and thus moving closer to a truth which has more of everyone's views.
P.S. I hope can see that this forum posts to not recognize paragraph indentions. You have to skip a line for people to see that it is a new parargraph. You can go back and edit it anytime you want to, however.
I took the liberty of putting paragraph breaks where it looked like you had intended to put.
-
09-21-2008 #35Originally Posted by chefmike
As I have said in previous posts, I plan on voting for Obama, but that does not mean I am going to drink the kool aid of either party. In reality we are given two choices, and neither is very different from the other.
I can understand why blacks are upset with whites; I also understand why many whites resent the racial politics. Obama made one of the greatest speeches I have ever heard on this subject, and that is a prime reason why I will vote for him. However, this thread (and the OP's original post) is nothing but divisive, ignorant, and misleading.
-
09-21-2008 #36Originally Posted by celticgrafix
I thinks that’s called hypocrisy.
-
09-21-2008 #37
Re: white priviledge
Originally Posted by edward almond
I empathize with the position of your son, however, I would also have to say historically the reverse is true a hundred times over. It’s like a race where Whites were given a head start. But then they change the rules and say they will no longer hold Blacks back, but the Whites already have a head start. So the race does not really become fair until some of the injustice from the past is corrected. So I say that affirmative action is just correcting for past injustice.
In my case, my mother was a good high school student. Some of her friends enrolled in college, and my mother wanted to go also. But at the time my grandmother, looked around and saw many Blacks with college degrees who, were not working college level type of jobs, and said that it wasn’t worth, going through all the effort and not be hired anyway. She obviously was wrong, but my point is that many Blacks were discouraged from even attempting to get more education. And even today there is a problem with Black youth, understanding the relevance of education, as they don’t see themselves or their community in the lessons of history.
But anyway, I have to believe that your son’s talent will ultimately lead to his success.
And I do agree with your first sentence that the rich have us by the balls. And get to make the rules whose real priority is to help them stay rich. They have us all waving American flags, made by cheap labor in China.
-
09-21-2008 #38
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- New York
- Posts
- 279
Originally Posted by celticgrafix
White denial is a big problem!!! It's like the alcoholic who says he doesn't have a drinking problem. He never cures his addiction, because he refuses to face it. Some whites (too few unfortunately) like the writer featured in the initial post, have come to realize this. I think that's why many whites have this pathological need to call black people "racist", like it somehow equals the paying field. It just a B.S mind game many whites delude themselves with, to assuage their history of oppressing blacks globally. Some whites understand and embrace the truth and they make the world a better place for it, but most will continue to embrace racial animous and justify it by labeling blacks "complainers", "unpatriotic" or "reverse racist". Anyone who has really researched the topic of white supremacy and skin privilege will tell you this pathology is needed for that social construct to exist and thrive, along with co-conspirators of color who are complicit, due to their need for white validation or social/financial elevation in this society. The movie "The Matrix" is very analogous to the White Supremacy social construct and how so few are really living in the real truth. You go to Latin America, the blacks are treated like shyt, but they deny it there too. The only blacks you see on Latin television are athletes or musicians. However, I'm sure a white guy like Celticgrafix would say that's bullshyt. Most people who can't deconstruct anything they disagree intellectually, will just call it bullshyt or nonsense to save face with themselves.
-
09-21-2008 #39Originally Posted by DarkThanos
There is, beyond a doubt, plenty of blame to go around. Most of the slaves didn't become slaves until they were captured by competing black tribes in Africa, sent to the coasts, and sold to white or arab slavers (depending which coast we're talking about). The statistic that I remember from history class many years back was that 2/3 of the Africans that were sent into Slavery on the west coast were male going to agricultural work in the New World, whereas those leaving the East Coast were 2/3 female and destined for sex work in areas such as the middle east.
it's hilarious how people always equate slavery to "black"...5% of the transatlantic slave trade came into the U.S., the majority of it went to South and Central America, especially Brazil..
With south and central America, a lot of the wealth from the practice went straight back to Europe, which when combined with the stereotype of everything south of Texas being some big third-world dump, causes people to think that slavery SOB didn't create financial empires, and did not create wealth distribution differences because "everyone down there is equally poor"
My Brazil history knowledge is not flawless, but going by my poor understanding of that country's history, wasn't it under the rule of European royalty & nobility until the 1860s? Poxieto was the second president of Brazil I believe, and his disagreement with Admiral Mello weren't until the early to mid 1890s. If it matters, Mello was black... and it is fairly easy to use that to tell which side of that debate that the United States gunboats sided with. I hope our Brazilian posters can chime in on that chapter of Brazilian history, I know it isn't taught up here.
.there were huge numbers of Irish slaves in the U.S., the British basically tried to wipe them out (by killing and enslaving) in the 1600s...
Sure other groups were enslaved at various times by various countries. Spanish and Portuguese tried enslaving the natives initially (it didn't work well, which is why they started going to Africa for a slave labor force).
The colony of Georgia was started as a slave state using imprisoned debtors. In the history books they'll say these were free people who chose to go to the New World instead of rotting in British prisons but, it isn't much of a "freedom" if your choice is to rot in a British prison of the era or going to the New World to work. There are obvious differences between this practice and african slavery in what would be the United States however, and iirc when these debtors were the labor force, African slavery was frowned upon in that colony.
I am slightly confused as to what you're talking about in this area (what would be the United States) with the comment talking about the Irish in the 1600s. Could you elaborate?
And maybe its easier to withdraw from life
With all of its misery and wretched lies
If we're dead when tomorrow's gone
The Big Machine will just move on
Still we cling afraid we'll fall
Clinging like the memory which haunts us all
-
09-25-2008 #40Originally Posted by celticgrafix