Do you consider the phrase "White Male Privilege" to be Harassment?

a reply to: CryHavoc I won’t identify as a victim, but it’s intent is harassment. What else could the intent be?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Mahogany
a reply to: CryHavoc

You don't think it's privilege being in a town where historically the only people that could become land or home owners were white people?

What else is it?

I'm on the west coast and the city I live in was a sunset town up until the 60s and 70s. Black people, hispanics and the asians that built the town weren't allowed to buy any land or site-built homes. They were only allowed tent cities across the railroad tracks. Some parts of the city are still mostly white because only white people were ALLOWED to buy a home. No one else could.

You don't think that's privilege? That only white people could buy homes, and entire cities ended up completely white?

America Was FIRST Founded by Predominantly Anglo Saxon White Men British Subjects . What do you Expect then ? Strawman Much ?

Nearly 24% of the population in the 13 colonies in 1776 was black, 10% was German, and there were sizable numbers of Dutch and some French as well. And a lot of Spaniards in Florida. Then there were the native Americans... And Anglo Saxon women didn't help with the founding of the country? Really?

And no, don't expect a country that is predominantly of one ethnic group to necessarily make laws oppressing other groups, particularly given the Declaration of Independence of said country.

Also it is no straw-man argument to point out in a thread discussing whether there is such a thing as white privilege that historically, across most all of the country, there were racially-restrictive laws on property ownership and the right to vote. In fact, your making the argument for the person you responded to, by implying that in a country predominantly founded by white men, it should be of no surprise that the laws were slanted in their favor. That is the very definition of white privilege.

White European settlers killing off a great percentage of indigenous Americans, and stealing most of their land without legal consequences is also white privilege. As was overthrowing the sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii, made up primarily of people of Polynesian descent, first by European and American settlers with the help of some quislings, and later by the United States itself. At the time, the Kingdom of Hawaii was recognized by European powers and the United States.

There is such a thing as white privilege in this country, but to accuse every white male in the country as being responsible for it and continuing it is wrong, and just as bad as any other racial stereotyping.

white privilege as in big game hunter in the 1800's?

bwanna?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mahogany
a reply to: PorkChop96

You think tearing down statues of slavers is erasing history, but not allowing teaching of black history is not?

That's what you're going with?

If you are referring to the 1619 Project, you do know that even it's author admitted lots of it is not true and is largely an alternate history more suited to fiction than any actual hard historical examination? It has also been widely panned by serious black scholars of history. It's the 1619 project that is being prevented from being taught as the main history in schools.

I could argue a place for it in English curriculum, but it is not serious history and anyone who pays attention knows this by now.

I only know of three such criticisms of her narrative. That the founding of America should be considered 1619 instead of 1776, that one of the primary reasons for the American Revolution was for fear of Great Britain banning slavery at home and in its various colonies at that time, and that Nikole Hannah-Jones'

...characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.

I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.

If you know of any others, I'm interested in hearing about them and sources for the claims.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mahogany
a reply to: PorkChop96

You think tearing down statues of slavers is erasing history, but not allowing teaching of black history is not?

That's what you're going with?

If you are referring to the 1619 Project, you do know that even it's author admitted lots of it is not true and is largely an alternate history more suited to fiction than any actual hard historical examination? It has also been widely panned by serious black scholars of history. It's the 1619 project that is being prevented from being taught as the main history in schools.

I could argue a place for it in English curriculum, but it is not serious history and anyone who pays attention knows this by now.

I only know of three such criticisms of her narrative. That the founding of America should be considered 1619 instead of 1776, that one of the primary reasons for the American Revolution was for fear of Great Britain banning slavery at home and in its various colonies at that time, and that Nikole Hannah-Jones'

...characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.

I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.

If you know of any others, I'm interested in hearing about them and sources for the claims.

Fascinating article - many thanks for the link.

a reply to: Mahogany

I learned about slavery and the dark side of US History in school 50+ years ago.

I wasn't taught to be ashamed about it.

The schools are spending too much time on social issues. Is this because its easy material to teach? Much more easy than math, chemistry, grammer, 2nd languages, philosophy, engineering?

To answer the OP's question, not only is it harassment, the only people who use this type of language are, themselves, bigots.

Let me say that again for the people in the back, and note the irony.

If you believe in this ideology and use this type of language like "white male privilege," you are, factually, a bigot. That's not my opinion. You meet the textbook definition of bigotry and discrimination. Your brain works the same way as neo-Nazis and KKK members. You draw conclusions about people based on groupthink and stereotypes from their skin color and gender.

Let go of your bigotry.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

If you know of any others, I'm interested in hearing about them and sources for the claims.

first the the Pulitzer Prize she received was in the Commentary category not History category, in other words her opinion,
opinions should not be taught as facts.

Nikole Hannah-Jones was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary for The 1619 Project, The New York Times Magazine's groundbreaking exploration of the legacy of Black Americans starting with the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in 1619.
Nikole Hannah-Jones Wins Pulitzer Prize for 1619 Project

second when sh@@ hit the fan over it, she started deleting tweets defending it and said she was just using it as a metaphor
and the Times scrubbed it's promotion description.

It's a provocative claim, and it came under serious criticism, along with other aspects of the project. But the project's lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is now asserting that she never made it and that anyone who believes otherwise was fooled by bad-faith right-wing critics.

"One thing in which the right has been tremendously successful is getting media to frame stories in their language and through their lens," wrote Hannah-Jones in a subsequently deleted tweet. "The #1619Project does not argue that 1619 is our true founding. We know this nation marks its founding at 1776." She made a similar statement on CNN as well.

But as The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf exhaustively demonstrated in a series of tweets, this is simply not true. The 1619 Project was absolutely promoted—by the Times, and by Hannah-Jones herself—as an effort to recast 1619 as the year of the country's founding. On the newspaper's website, a special interactive version of the project was introduced in the following manner (emphasis mine):

The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

Both conservative critics and progressive fans of the 1619 Project described it this way, because that's how the Times itself described it. The original description no longer appears at nytimes.com.
At some point, it was edited to read:

The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

This may be a more accurate description of the project, and it's certainly a less controversial claim. But it's plainly different from the original, which means this is an unacknowledged edit—a major transgression of basic norms of journalism (albeit one that happens in major newspapers with some frequency).

A Review of the 1619 Project Curriculum

here's just one article that addresses what you asked for. there are many more, all one has to do is search for it.
this quote about California, who joined the U.S. as a free state.

Chinese laborers—who were basically purchased wholesale from labor companies in China—were assigned the most perilous tasks in building the transcontinental railroad, and nobody knows exactly how many died, because nobody bothered to write it down. “On average,” writes Iris Chang in The Chinese in America: A Narrative History, “three laborers perished for every two miles of track laid. … Twenty thousand pounds of their bones [were] shipped [back] to China.”

The Asian American story is distinctive but not unique. Many other minority groups have faced mistreatment, including the indigenous population, who, centuries before the Chinese arrived, were enslaved by the conquistadores or employed in ways tantamount to enslavement. But none of this was mentioned in the 1619 Project articles, and when pressed on the question, Hannah-Jones responded in a (now-deleted) tweet that “most Asian Americans arrived in this country after the end of legal segregation and discrimination, thanks to the Black resistance struggle”—which apparently means their history can be ignored.

then a little further down, which points out that the U.S. wasn't the that founded slavery in the or the world for that matter. or that black were the only people to used as slaves or faced bigotry.

More generally, it ignored the fact that the racial conflicts that have plagued American history are far from unique to the United States; on the contrary, every square inch of the planet, from Rwanda to Nanking, from Poland to Colombia, has known such bigotry. Slavery, too, is ubiquitous in mankind’s past; it may, in fact, be the oldest human institution after the family. What was unique about America was that its founding marked the very first time that a nation was expressly founded on principles incompatible with slavery. Little wonder that the world’s first anti-slavery society was established in Philadelphia in 1775. And little wonder that—for all its awful shortfalls—America has served as a refuge for the oppressed, from the Huguenots to the Hmong.

The 1619 Project: An Autopsy

no opinions should not be taught as facts or history, maybe in a philosophy or other humanities class but not in fact based courses.

Depending of the meaning you give the term it can refer to discrimination.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

That she received a Pulitzer for Commentary rather than History doesn't in and of itself mean what she has written is wrong.

As for the founding year of the country, in some ways it makes sense to acknowledge the colonial beginnings of the US, which did begin in the first quarter of the 17th century. Her pointing to the specific date of 1619 is because that is when the first black slaves came to the colonies, and the importance of slaves in the development of the colonies and then the early Republic. She clearly has never stated that the US was founded as a sovereign nation, per se, in 1619, but that the date marks the roots of the economic and social system that brought about the developing United States. To not look at American history in the context of its colonial past, and begin everything at 1776 is to ignore the crucial development of Colonial America, which lead to the creation of the United States.

As for not bringing up the bigotry and oppression of other groups, including even the Irish, that was not her purpose. She expressly said it was about better understanding the legacy of black Americans in the creation of the colonies and then the sovereign country itself. She never said it was about acknowledging the social ills that many immigrant groups endured. As for Asian immigrant-laborers, they started coming over in 1854 -- 235 years after African slaves started being imported. And although work and living conditions for Asian migrants were also bad, it wasn't as extreme a situation as slavery. As far as I know, Asian families weren't separated, their children sold off, as was done to African slaves and their descendants. Nor as far as I know, were lynchings of Asian migrants anywhere as common as that of black Americans, and this lynching continued into the 1930's, and even later to a lesser degree. Nikole Hannah-Jones never claimed that the 1619 project was intended to make better known the legacy and experience of all ethnic groups, so the fact that she didn't discuss these other groups does not mean she lied or mischaracterized matters in her narrative.

Don't understand what bringing in the history of racism, bigotry and slavery in other countries has to do with that in the US. The idea of the 1619 project was to make better understood the legacy of black Americans and their experience in the earlier centuries of this country and it's "pre-founding". That other countries have or had problems is neither here nor there. This argument just seems like an attempt at making an excuse for slavery and racism in America. And in no way was it a lie on Nikole Hannah-Jones' part in not addressing this issue.

You want to frame everything she has written on the subject as opinion, whereas a lot of it is history.

In my prior post I brought up three matters on which Nikole Hannah-Jones has been criticized for her narrative in the 1619 project, and rightly so it appears. You repeated one of those, the date she considers the founding of the US. The other points you bring up don't fall in the category of lies or mischaracterizations, but rather omissions. And as she explicitly made clear, she is addressing the legacy and experience of black Americans, rather than all migrants, and given the long and particularly nature of the history of black Americans in this country, that seems a legitimate thing to do.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Mahogany

I learned about slavery and the dark side of US History in school 50+ years ago.

I wasn't taught to be ashamed about it.

The schools are spending too much time on social issues. Is this because its easy material to teach? Much more easy than math, chemistry, grammer, 2nd languages, philosophy, engineering?

May I add, schools are spending so much time on social issues + indoctrinating kids with various pseudo-philosophies.

originally posted by: face23785
To answer the OP's question, not only is it harassment, the only people who use this type of language are, themselves, bigots.

Let me say that again for the people in the back, and note the irony.

If you believe in this ideology and use this type of language like "white male privilege," you are, factually, a bigot. That's not my opinion. You meet the textbook definition of bigotry and discrimination. Your brain works the same way as neo-Nazis and KKK members. You draw conclusions about people based on groupthink and stereotypes from their skin color and gender.

Let go of your bigotry.

The term 'bigotry' is only reserved for an extremely small group of people who are getting offended when you state facts.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Im not very familiar with the 1619 Project. Just read a summary. What is controversial? I don't see a problem with looking at a particular time in US History, the arrival of the first black slaves into the colonies. Its very much a part of history.

But why is it controversy?

originally posted by: CryHavoc
My name is Kelly. I'm a White Male. I grew up outside a little town filled with White People. Yes, I was given a hard time about my name.

I recently figured out that there is no such thing as White Privilege in a town of only White People. It doesn't exist there.

The People who have been crappy to me the most in life are White Trash.

So whoever says that I've had White Privilege my whole life is lying out their backside.

So at what point should I consider being told I have "White Male Privilege" to be a form of Harassment?

Every time?

Do you consider being told you have "White Male Privilege" a form of Harassment?

And what should we do about People pretending that we have it?

If you want others to get a taste of their own medicine then... YEEEAAAH!!!!

The term is absolutely considered bigotry, discrimination, harassment, and whitemalephobia.

Well technically its misandry and racism because its someone being put down bades on skin color and gender.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

There is such a thing as white privilege in this country, but to accuse every white male in the country as being responsible for it and continuing it is wrong, and just as bad as any other racial stereotyping.

You appear to have fallen for the ATS version of "white male privilege" instead of what it actually is. The term comes from P McIntosh (1989) and the original paper can be found here

Here's the basics:
The author's statement where she defines "white male privilege" I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.

I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods that fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.
I can swear, or dress in second-hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race.
If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.
I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s magazines featuring people of my race.
I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of race.
I can choose public accommodations without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.
I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.
If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.
I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more less match my skin.

So it's more about how the culture is set up and not an indictment of anything in particular. The idea of her essay was that if we know and understand these points and see how they affect others, that we can make sure they have the same kind of expectations that an Average White Guy has.

Some of it (like bandages and makeup) have been addressed... and the world didn't fall apart.



ATS seems to conflate it with Men's Rights Activism and similar philosophies. It's not what they think it is. And yes, I'm aware of my own privilege thanks to this. It's not a burden or rime, but it is something for sociesty to work on.

a reply to: Byrd

Kinda like getting a job above a more qualified person because of diversity requirements?

originally posted by: ITSALIVE
a reply to: CryHavoc I won’t identify as a victim, but it’s intent is harassment. What else could the intent be?

I think you are right. Its up there with all the other so called slurs fired off by weak people to make others feel as marginalized as they have allowed themselves to feel.

Deep down, life isnt easy for anyone. Those who cant understand this are shallow thinkers wanting to bring others down to their level, fuelled in part by universities and think tanks falsely believing they can raise the oppressed by oppressing others. I kind of wrote off a university educated niece when she used the term white cis male privilege to shut down my son. Yes, we live in a mostly white community and by being a white male, other white men have taken a chance in hiring my son and mentoring him but they did so because he is a huge go getter and they see an asset in this. They arent wasting money paying someone whose on their phone all day or slacking off. So, must be white privilege.

There was a time in the past where a white male could do well for himself, have opportunity and respect simply for being a white male but he still had to have the right mind, body, upbringing, education, plus timing and luck. Calling it privilege is a too generous as many white males also got and get overlooked.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Byrd

Kinda like getting a job above a more qualified person because of diversity requirements?

Yes. Minorities and women have always had this problem. I've even been in workplaces where men quit (and threatened to quit) because a woman was made assistant department director (not department director, though she was far more qualified than the guy who was made director.

They put the incompetent in as director so that the department wouldn't be left understaffed by people quitting who didn't want a woman as a boss. They preferred the incompetent dude who cost us quite a bit of money with his bad decisions.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Im not very familiar with the 1619 Project. Just read a summary. What is controversial? I don't see a problem with looking at a particular time in US History, the arrival of the first black slaves into the colonies. Its very much a part of history.

But why is it controversy?

I think it mainly has to do with a portion of predominantly white Americans not wanting to acknowledge their country's legacy of slavery or give black people their due in the founding and building of this country, and acknowledging that their ancestors were coming here and laying down the country's foundations just about as long ago as anyone else's ancestors besides native Americans'.

There's a portion of Americans -- again the same group mentioned earlier -- who like to think and claim that it was all done by white, English-speaking persons -- nay, men, according to one poster here -- and hence the country should belong to them, and it should only be they who have a say in how it is run.

These people perhaps also see this as evidence supporting reparations for the descendants of slaves, which they are against. To be honest, I'm not for monetary reparations either, but do think some level of continued affirmative action still makes sense and is just.

I agree with you that most of the 1619 project shouldn't be controversial, but there are a few aspects of it that seem to be rightly criticized, but these are secondary issues, and I addressed them previously. As for the matter of the date for the founding of the country. I think the critics here are being overly literal in their definition of founding. Yes, the country was officially founded in 1776, but its beginnings, as you say was during colonial times. If you look up the United Kingdom's founding, the date is 1707, but I think one could argue that it goes back a wee bit father than that, and that most subjects of said kingdom would agree -- however, I am not speaking for them, to be sure.