Real Talk about White Privilege

Originally posted by truthseeka
Oh, PLEASE!

This is clearly a shot at AA.

AA is not mentioned in my source. It's only a shot at AA in your mind.

There is no other way to describe your use of 3 slaves' sentiments to characterize ALL black slaves than PATHETIC.

I have heard many, many slaves speak in similar terms. I'm not going to go looking for it now, but in one of these threads is a link to old interviews with actual slaves, not their angry descendants. And many were quite thankful for their lives and how they were treated by "good whites". They were sweet people. They took way more responsibility for their lives and their families than many of their descendants today.

I can't BELIEVE you feel that our slave ancestors would have wanted us to live as they did, under the barbaric boot of slavery.

Who's twisting words now? I didn't say ANYTHING about how I feel. That's entirely your fabrication.

Oh, please. More garbage.

Hey, they're sources from the Internet, just like your sources... If you want to play "source wars", we can. My sources are just as valid as yours.

If you want to talk about personal experience, on the other hand, we can do that. But you've failed miserably at that, since you don't seem to think the rules you wish to impose on white people apply to you. Well, too bad.

PU-LEEEZE!!!

...I've already pointed out how AA is NOT equal to black privilege.

Just because you said it doesn't make it true, though. You are not the professor here...

This latest deflection of yours to avoid talking directly about white privilege is truly pathetic.

I have talked about white privilege. You can hardly accuse me of deflecting when I acknowlege WP. What more can I say about it? It's there. I'll ask you the same things I've asked of others in these threads.

What do you want?
What do you want?
What do you want?

Funny how you FINALLY decided to comment on my sources with this latest one; I see you have NOTHING to say about the laws establishing WP that I mentioned.

I laughed when I saw that! You're now whining about a law made in 1790??? Can you even imagine how long ago that was??? Are you also aware that racial restrictions in the Naturalization Act were ABOLISHED in the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952???

It makes as much sense for you to be complaining about the Naturalization Act of 1790 as it does for you to be complaining about slavery itself. It's over. There are residual effects, certainly, but let it go. Let's ALL try to get over it instead of insisting on picking and opening this wound.

No, you can't do that. Because the pain feels so good!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What do you want?
What do you want?
What do you want?

40 Acres and a mule would be nice.
(I'll take 20 and a horse I guess)

Although we know that will never happen.


[edit on 9-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

I was born in a very small town in Southern Illionois, 5000 people, one black family. Very Ignorant racist town, now I live in Los Angeles one big giant melting pot, but head down Crenshaw blvd to about 85 st. and see how it is just as ignorant and racist as the small town I was born in. I am required to pick up medical patients in that area. Numerous times I have been cat-called, flipped off and have even been escourted out of the area at gunpoint. My point is, White priveledge exists and so does Black Priveledge, it just depends on what part of the country you are in. I look at the blacks who cat-called me to be just as ignorant as the whites I grew up with. But I assure you, its a two sided coin. There are ignorant whites and blacks and in my opinion they can both keep complaining about and hating each other. Eventually they will go away, natural selection

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
40 Acres and a mule would be nice.
(I'll take 20 and a horse I guess)

I guess I should have been more specific...

What do you want from the people here on ATS?

I mean, the OP has put forth the notion of white privilege and the absense of black privilege. Some agree with that notion, some say that both privileges exist and some say that there is no such thing as white privilege.

It seems that the OP won't be happy until everyone (100%) agrees with him/her. That's unrealistic with ANY topic. So, that's not going to happen. Is that still the goal? To get 100% agreement?

If not, What is the goal here? What do you want (from ATSers)?

I AM TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT OH , THIS FILM DEPICTS THIS A CERTAIN WAY ... IT IS A FILM !!!!!!!!!! ... It is fake .. didn't your momma and daddy teach you that whenevever you were growing up ... Don't have bad dreams when you want Twightlight Zone. ONCE AGAIN this is one persons view or opinion whoever WROTE THE SCRIPT ... When did we forget that MOVIES are MOVIES ?!?!?! OH LORD ...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
AA is not mentioned in my source. It's only a shot at AA in your mind.

Explicitly mentioned, no.
Implied, yes.

I have heard many, many slaves speak in similar terms.

You KNOW what's coming now...

Tell me, if ALL these slaves were happy being slaves, how does that explain:

The Fugitive Slave Law
The Abolitionist Movement
The Underground Railroad
A big part of the Civil War
The term "drapetomania"
All those slave revolts (New York revolt of 1712, Stono Rebellion of 1739, Fort Blount Revolt of 1816, and the raid of Harper's Ferry in 1859, to name a few)

And many were quite thankful for their lives and how they were treated by "good whites".

Thankful for their lives?:shk: Thankful for what?

Working, no, LITERALLY slaving (back-breaking work) from "can't see to couldn't see" without being paid SPIT?
Being fed the scraps from white people? (chitlins is a prime example of this)
Not owning their own children? (under the slave codes)
Not being able to marry who they wanted? (under the slave codes)
Being prevented from attaining education? (under the slave codes)
Being subjected to torture, beatings, and even death without penalty to white perpetrators?(under the slave codes)

The slave codes went deeper than this, but you get the idea.

They took way more responsibility for their lives and their families than many of their descendants today.

They were OWNED! What part of that allows you to be responsible for your own life? Their families were NOT theirs; they were the PROPERTY of the slavers. You really are living in a fantasy world.:shk:

Hey, they're sources from the Internet, just like your sources... If you want to play "source wars", we can. My sources are just as valid as yours.

Sure. Which is why it took me TWO SECONDS to tear apart the lie that black studies are all about victimhood.

The only thing your source was good for is feeding into your fetish of victimization.

Just because you said it doesn't make it true, though. You are not the professor here...

Didn't say I was. But, COMMON SENSE will tell you that if Latinos, Asians, other ethnic groups, and women (INCLUDING white women) benefit from AA, this equation is a LIE (unless ALL of these groups are now black ). But, I can see you have a penchant for doing this.

And, what happened to "I don't need no stinkin sources?" You said this to Ceci when she kept posting evidence to back up her points.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's clear to me that many black of people today are more angry at and hate white people much more than their actual slave ancestors.

TRASH!

So, you're saying that people who were RULED by other people in ALL aspects had all kinds of warm, fuzzy feelings towards these people? Yet, their descendants, who were NOT ruled in the same way, hate the same people's GUTS?

You're saying that the slaves liked, possibly LOVED their masters? You're saying they were not mad about being stripped of their culture and living in inhuman conditions under the yoke of slavery?

You need help, if this is the case. I'm serious. I'm not being condescending or rude, this is real talk. You REALLY need a reality check.:shk:

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What do you want?
What do you want?
What do you want?

40 Acres and a mule would be nice.
(I'll take 20 and a horse I guess)

Although we know that will never happen.


[edit on 9-3-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

That was great, phoenix! The half and half part was the best part.

And of course, Beezlebub will come up from the icy depths of hell riding a flying pig and take over the earth before that ever happens. Similar odds are on the US making a public apology for slavery.

And after all that crap you vomited up, you still haven't answered my simple question...

It's not that hard of a question.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What do you want from the people here on ATS?
....
It seems that the OP won't be happy until everyone (100%) agrees with him/her. That's unrealistic with ANY topic. So, that's not going to happen. Is that still the goal? To get 100% agreement?

If not, What is the goal here? What do you want (from ATSers)?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And after all that crap you vomited up, you still haven't answered my simple question...

It's not that hard of a question.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What do you want from the people here on ATS?
....
It seems that the OP won't be happy until everyone (100%) agrees with him/her. That's unrealistic with ANY topic. So, that's not going to happen. Is that still the goal? To get 100% agreement?

If not, What is the goal here? What do you want (from ATSers)?

I don't blame you for calling it crap. I would too if it shot down most of what I had said.

I made this thread to shine light on the reality of white privilege. The reactions from most of the white posters was an unexpected bonus. In fact, a lot of these responses are PRICELESS!

There's your answer.

So, it sounds like you don't want anything from us. You're just shining your light.

That's not the impression I get. But that's good. That you don't want anything.

After closely following this thread day by day, I have a few things to say after reading the responses:

1)White privilege is different than Affirmative Action. It was not started by the government in order to "right a wrong". White privilege is a systematic approach of indoctrination, ideology and social engineering in the form of social dominance in which one group was taught to think, act and feel superior to other groups. In that way, the group that benefits from white privilege probably view their behaviors as a social norm. As a result, anyone calling into question this aspect is probably seen as transgressors to an all-encompassing system that has benefitted others for centuries.

2)White privilege is not about class. I see that people are trying to deflect the topic by discussing issues of class. White privilege consists of "unearned" entitledments that extend beyond class. This is an aspect that specifically works toward race. It allows for better housing, easier access in society, better social treatment and continued validation of one group's superiority above all others in history, politics, economics and other disciplines in society. It is an aspect which permeates everywhere instead of being in limited scope.

Imho, AA is very limited in scope--if you think about it. It does not affect anything in a macro-level. It is solely responsible for social access to those who were shut out of the system before by systemic laws created and supported by the government. Even with AA there, our workplaces, schools, neighborhoods and other social institutions still do not reflect a multicultural America. We still get an overwhelming emphasis on the endeavors of white people in all disciplines in schools. We also see a majority of white people in the media. And for the most part, white people are found in the upper eschelon of society. They head the think tanks. They are the majority in the Supreme Court. They comprise of most of the leaders in society. In fact, they are more heavily represented than any other race in society. After all, why acknowledge a good thing when you've been getting benefits under the table? And why dismantle it when you've received better treatment than others in society?

3)Discussing white privilege is not asking of a group of color's demands nor describing their personal attributes. White privilege, as a concept, does not cover that scope. It is mainly discussing how a certain group of people have benefitted historically under a system which validates their person and group in America. truthseeka has done an excellent job in terms of bringing up sources and refuting points to this accord. He has pointed out studies as well as research into the aspects of white privilege and how it affects all of us.

I hope that he continues to do so with tact , character and restraint. I will do the same in trying to discuss the issue on its face here.


4)Here is a definition from Texas A & M defining "white privilege" (sorry Truthseeka , I know that they are your rivals ). Maybe with a definition, we can stay on topic here and discuss white privilege as it is:

Dictionary

White privilege: The concrete benefits of access to resources and social rewards and the power to shape the norms and values of society which Whites receive, unconsciously or consciously, by virtue of their skin color in a racist society. Examples include the ability to be unaware of race, the ability to live and work among people of the same racial group as their own, the security of not being pulled over by the police for being a suspicious person, the expectation that they speak for themselves and not their entire race, the ability to have a job hire or promotion attributed to their skills and background and not affirmative action.

That is all I have to say at the moment. I'll be back with sources helping the OP very soon.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thank Duzey and truthseeka for defending me when I could not do so before. Their graciousness and character throughout this thread speaks volumes for kindness, strength and reason. I appreciate their efforts from the bottom of my heart.



[edit on 9-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Well, I shouldnt of put it that way. But you are right. Employers will probably set such a resume to the side.

It is a really #ty deal though. I mean, sometime you dont feel like you have a home here in the USA and you cant really go back to africa either. I have seen the way they treat black americans over there, its like they blame them for their ancestors being captured and brought over here. Or maybe they are envious, hell I dont know. But I think that blacks use names like this to try to preserve some shred of their culture.

No, I'm GLAD you put it that way.

See, this trend goes along with non-whites being expected to comform to white society in America. God damn, you can't even name your kid a non-white ethnic name if you want them to have a decent chance at success in America. JUST like your house won't make you as much money if you sell it with non-white ethnic decor in it.

But, this indeed speaks to white privilege. A person with a white-sounding name is assumed to be smart and a good potential employee. A person with a non-white sounding name is assumed to be stupid, lazy, and not worth being employed.

Funny...on the 1st page, you spoke of WP as if it were a fantasy. Now, you acknowledge WP, at least in this context...

Well, I didnt quite get the drift of what your saying. But in this aspect, your correct.

CECIIIIIII!!!!

Good to see you're back. And, thanks for that additional info on WP.

2nd, these are 3 instances where it is ALLEGED that they have been discriminated against. It has not been determined by the courts yet if this is true.

www.adversity.net...

Meanwhile, Adversity.Net has been informed that the school district reached a financial settlement with the parents of Jessica Haak, who then dropped their lawsuit and moved from the area.

Alleged usually leads to settlements doesn't it truth.
www.adversity.net...

One year later, Julia McLaughlin was admitted to Boston Latin by order of US District Court Judge W. Arthur Garrity, Jr. It seems that Boston Latin's admission policy was racist and therefore unconstitutional.

Alledged eh?
www.adversity.net...

Benton Harbor Area Schools reached a settlement with Ms. Atkins in October, 2001. The parties are prohibited from discussing the specific terms of the settlement.

Truth again Alledged lawsuits usually end in settlements dont't they.

3rd, if true, these are examples of MINORITIES being discriminated against.

Did you miss the part where it said they were white; or are you saying your alleged "white privilege" only extends to white males?

4th, these are THREE examples, even if true. In the studies I cited (which you conveniently ignored), the sample sizes used were WAY bigger than 3. Accordingly, the principles of statistics can be applied to establish evidence of a pattern of discrimination.

So are you saying it is ok to discriminate in limited numbers?

5th, within this minority (women), white women make a LOT more money, on average, than black and Latino women. This is FACT , btw. As jobs are a main area where AA is used, this provides evidence that white women have benefitted quite a bit from AA

Sandy Atkins didn't Truth even while being more qualified for the same job; the only thing she had going against her was she was white.


And

The concrete benefits of access to resources and social rewards and the power to shape the norms and values of society which Whites receive, unconsciously or consciously, by virtue of their skin color in a racist society.

So to believe in this "white privilege" theory you have to believe we all live in a racist society. Sorry I don't believe we all live in a racist society.

Originally posted by truthseeka
CECIIIIIII!!!!

Good to see you're back.

And, thanks for that additional info on WP.

You're very welcome, Truthseeka. And thanks for the well wishes. I am very glad to be back after a long absence.


And to make good on my promise, I have a few sources that might help clarify white privilege:

This is a very succinct explaination about white privilege and how it works from California State University, Dominguez Hills:

Could Privilege Explain Why We have So Much Difficulty Explaining the Prevalence of Cheating?
I think you may not be quite clear on the concept of white privilege. Privilege is the process by which we assume that our perspective is "right," the only way to see the picture, or, at least, the best way. In the process of assuming that we are "right", we assume that our factual perception of the context is "right." But contexts depend upon social construction, so that some of our underlying factual assumptions will not coincide with the context others are experiencing. In privileging our own subjectivity, we fail to consider the validity claims of those who do not meet our underlying factual assumptions.

So privilege really isn't about playing the game well; it's about refusing to listen in good faith to those whose experiences make them different from us, causing our underlying assumptions not to apply to them.

This is from a Power-Point presentation from Dr. Derald Wing Sue. In his studies concerning White privilege, he took his research on the street, asking white Americans how they felt about their color. He wrote up the findings:

What Does It Mean to Be White?

WHITE REACTIONS TO WHITENESS

* White people:

* (1) often find the question perplexing,

* (2) would rather not think about their whiteness,

* (3) are uncomfortable or react negatively to being labeled “White”,

* (4) deny its importance in affecting their lives, and

* (5) seem to believe that they are unjustifiably accused of being bigoted by virtue of being White.


Whiteness and Color Blindness

* The pretense by White Americans that they do not see color is motivated by the need to appear free of bias and prejudice, fears that what they say or do may appear racist or as an attempt to cover up hidden biases.

* To be color blind not only denies the central importance of racial differences in the psychological experience of minorities (racism and discrimination), but also allows the White person to deny how his or her whiteness intrudes upon the person of color.

Jennifer Simpson writes about her search into white privilege after an African-American friend highlighted the issue in a class. She wrote an article about this process. She has constantly worked to define what white privilege is:

Race privilege refers to a range of advantages people receive because of skin color. In the U.S. it often works according to a "ranking" of persons from darker skin (less privilege) to lighter skin (more privilege). Race privilege also supports race-based stereotypes (for example, the idea that most Asian Americans were not born in the United States). White people routinely benefit from race privilege.

A friend's frustration with racism marks my white privilege: "You know, I went into that same bookstore yesterday, and I noticed right away I was followed. He started immediately after I got in the door. Following me—up and down the stairs, back and forth through the aisles. All I wanted was a book! Why can't I do some shopping without being followed?" I immediately realize this is the first time I have even slightly felt the absence of an employee following me. "You know," my African American friend continues, "it doesn't matter where we are, how we're dressed, what we're doing—you white folks assume we're thieves. I am tired."

[...]

Race privilege: a range of unearned advantages people receive because of skin color. To understand my own privilege, I have had to realize that I am always "raced." The fact that (white) employees do not follow my (white) body at a local bookstore is an example of race privilege. Although I am often quick to assume that race is a factor only in the presence of people of African, Asian, Latin, or Native American descent, race can be an issue among groups of white people (for example when I am not followed by white employees at a bookstore). Racial issues are present regardless of the race of the people in that situation. As a white person, I am concerned first of all with white peoples' participation in race matters.

Historically and currently in the United States, whiteness has been considered the norm. It needs no explanation or defense. In contrast to my Latin American friend (who rarely finds Latin American authors on reading lists), I have never had to search the syllabus for white authors. I am not slotted into categories such as "model minority" (a common stereotype applied to Asian Americans), or "thief" (as my African American friend was). As a person committed to anti-racism, I want to unlearn ways of living that perpetuate my white privilege and leave no space for the well-being and wholeness of people of African, Asian, Latin, and Native American descent.

These three sources bring up pertinent issues how white privilege plays into the mindset of Americans. What is especially interesting to note is that the reactions to "white privilege" that Dr. Sue brought up is pretty similar to the responses made in the thread. When one has undergone what has been thought of as "the norm" all their lives and someone different confronts those on the advantages experienced because of "the norm", it is not surprising that the responses are angry, ridiculing and oblivious.

It has been noted within the readings that people of color have to learn about white privilege from an early age--from the choices of toys we play with, to how others treat us in the world. People of color are made to know of these differences and have to work with them because if we don't, we don't have access in American society. Often in society, people of color have to watch what they say or how they act because of the stereotypes deemed by the dominant culture as being "right". People of color also have to make life choices based on what the "dominant culture" deems "normal". We are often forced repeatedly to "accept" what assimilationists have to say because the dominant culture adopts this rhetoric as "normal" (i.e. Alphonso Jackson and others telling the Black community to "stop complaining"). It is a privilege for the dominant culture to tell another group of persons to "stop complaining". After all, no one tells the "dominant culture" what to do in their lives, let alone how they are supposed to perceive society.

Another important note to make is that people of color are often treated badly for bringing up the issue of white privilege because the "invisible" is brought forth into "hyper-visibility". It is a luxury to note that American society is not racist because one's culture has been constantly validated and brought forth as being normal within social institutions. It is also a luxury to "tell people of color" how they are supposed to perceive racism, because "color-blindness" also plays into privilege. Whiteness has never been dehumanized in its context. It has always been celebrated.

However, for white privilege to be discussed, it must come out from the shadows and brought forth into the light. Here, I agree with Truthseeka on this point. There's nothing wrong with this. It deserves to be seen. As long as it stays invisible, it continues as a corruptive influence on all of us.


[edit on 9-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Thanks for that contribution, Ceci.

I've actually seen your 2nd source before. In that context, I also saw some responses, from both whites and non-whites. I'll post those tomorrow (hey, I'll be hitting the clubs up soon ).

Indeed, most of the color-blind rhetoric comes from whites. It's not because non-whites don't want a color-blind society, though. It's because non-whites are CONSTANTLY reminded that they are not white. Quite ironic, don't you think?

You are quite right about the reactions to people going against the "norm." But, that just goes with the territory. You can see that this did NOT stop me from going agaisnt the "norm" in this thread, no matter how much flak I encountered. In fact, this flak actually PUSHED me to keep bringing this phenomenon to light.

And, you are quite right about the correlation between skin color gradient and privilege. The brown paper bag test and Jack and Jill are prime examples of colorism within the black community. Sadly, this displays an attempt by some blacks to assimilate to white society. Langston Hughes details this in his autobiography. You can also see this in this kid's rhyme:

"If you're White, you're all right, if you're Brown, stick around, if you're Black, get back."

As for assimilation, this is preached to practically ALL non-whites in America. For American Indians, the Dawes Act and the Employment Assistance Program are examples. For Asian Americans, the practice of getting ethnic plastic surgery (to reduce the epicanthic eyelids of Asians, in an effort to make them appear less Asian) is an example. For Black Americans, selecting non-ethnic (i.e., white) names for their children is an example.

Everyone's supposed to submit to Anglo-conformity...

Well now...

Black Privilege?

One doesn’t have to be a superhero to take on responsibility. One doesn’t have to swing through skyscrapers to assume the mantle of civic duty. One simply has to be a man or a woman. But political correctness discourages manhood and womanhood amongst blacks and women, for it romanticizes victimhood. It idealizes the victim. It renders otherwise legitimate disciplines such as Black studies and Women’s studies mere Victim studies.

Every legitimate discipline, as a body of knowledge, is dialectical, for each discipline is a series of studies of opposing ideologies. Each discipline (possibly excepting mathematics) tracks the historical movements of the theses and antitheses pertinent to its field of inquiry. Even the natural sciences, as Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” reveals, are essentially historical narratives of competing paradigms and paradigm shifts. Twentieth-century physics, for example, comes down to the debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr as to whether or not God plays dice. Anyway, Black studies, as a discipline, bears witness unto the great dialogues of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois, Kwame Nkrumah and Franz Fanon, amongst others. At bottom, Black studies is the dialectic of the militant ideology of Marcus Garvey vs. the bourgeois ideology of DuBois.

But black studies, as a pseudodiscipline, isn’t interested in dialogue. It’s about the monologue of the victim. No dialectics here. It’s the black bourgeois monolith of victimology. Hence, this pseudodiscipline neutralizes the Garveyite passion for self-reliance and equity. It neutralizes black agency. It encourages the DuBoisian passions of resentment and envy. It entrenches black victimhood. DuBois is its God. Rev. Dr. King is its patron saint. “Somebodiness” is its holy grail.

Victimology and identity politics (read “victim politics”) are the theory and practice of the black bourgeoisie, respectively. The house Negro thereof sees only from the perspective of the victim. Thus, he is the extreme of self-righteousness, which is OK, for, as we all know, the victim is always right. But is he really a victim? Um, no. Come to my neighborhood in Anacostia, Southeast D.C. — I’ll show you some victims. Come hop on the number 109 for a 20-minute bus ride into Chester — I’ll show you some victims. Victims aren’t privy to $38,000-a-year college educations. Blacks here are just as privileged as their white counterparts. Perhaps William Julius Wilson could give them some much-needed perspective, if he wrote a companion to his “Truly Disadvantaged” and called it “The Truly Underprivileged.”

The 20th century was the Age of DuBois. His Talented Tenth, having usurped Washington’s and Garvey’s leadership, had a century to lead the masses of blacks to self-reliance. They failed. But they themselves succeeded by becoming “somebodies,” i.e., Nigger Jims of white liberal Huckleberry Finns, even if they do segregate themselves to the “safe havens” with virtual “no whites allowed” signs that masquerade as black cultural centers. The Talented Tenth are supremely talented at exploiting white guilt, which manifests in the crumbs they feed off as parasites at the master’s table. They are supremely talented at exaggerating white oppression and black victimhood so as to conceal the symbiosis between white guilt and black tokenism. The house Negro ain’t Robin Hood. He steals from the rich under the cloak of victimhood, but he don’t give back to the poor.

The Garveyite “New Negro” understands his responsibility to lead the masses of blacks beyond victimhood. He beholds the Statue of Liberty in New York, but more important is his statue of responsibility in Alabama — the bronze monument of Booker T. Washington lifting the veil of ignorance from the Negro. Lady Liberty nicely complements that colossus of manly self-reliance. If only the Talented Tenth and the black feminists would get over their jealousy and penis envy of Washingtonian self-reliance and Garveyite virtue
-by Taru Taylor

Link

Semper

More...

Black Privilege – the sense of entitlement to anger, attitude and violence – is quietly blanketed in denial and ignorance.
The entitlement implied by, and impregnated in, the new Black Privilege is not about Rolls Royces and bling-bling. We have raised a generation of young people who feel entitled to a rage that is not theirs to own, because it is rage one or two generations removed. It’s rage anchored and authored by media.
Reading about the Black Panthers, seeing a racially charged movie, or hearing about racism from a rap album, some young people feel entitled to strap on weaponry and look for someone to strike. And the person most likely to suffer their theatrical rage will be a real live black person.
Their lack of esteem dictates that you will most likely be the victim of their untethered rage. You talk about the Middle East with young people strapping bombs onto themselves and running into a bus. Young African Americans are strapping the bomb to themselves, and then assembling their closest friends and family members.
The entitlement to anger, attitude and violence is often preceded by the entitlement to placing blame. No matter what happens, first look for someone to blame. Young people are quick to make excuses.

~~~~~~~

Fail in school, blame the teacher. Get in trouble with the police, “they singled me out because I’m black.” Get fired at work, “their requirements [like being on time, dressed for business] are unfair to blacks.” Can’t find a job, “the employers are prejudiced.”

~~~~~~~

Preaching civil rights without preaching civil responsibilities is irresponsible. The debt owed by The White Man – the entire white race – pales by comparison. The greatest debt owed in the aftermath of slavery is the debt we owe ourselves. And that does not excuse them. It’s just saying that ultimately the responsibility is ours.
Years ago, some of us apparently thought that the thug initiative was cute as entertainment or a curiosity. But now, as it creeps closer and closer to the center of black consciousness, the worry has set in. Must we always be late to the party in order to fancy ourselves as having “arrived?” If the pain is ours, so too must be the relief for that pain.

~~~~~~~

We’ve got to do something, because if we don’t resolve the issues of Black Privilege, we won’t have to worry about White Privilege. We won’t have to worry about The White Man at all. He will have moved on to something more challenging than a race of people who are self imploding.
And in the end, when the Epilogue is written, we will not have been betrayed by the thug culture, or its anger, attitude and violence; we will have been betrayed by our own silence.

Link

Semper

You're SO late, semper.

BH ALREADY used that source, and I ALREADY showed the lies in this source. And, you said NOTHING yourself about the source, to boot. You just posted it.

Great job, semper...