Real Talk about White Privilege

Here is quite an ugly example of white privilege. I'll talk about these sources tomorrow:

New Jersey's Victims of Racial Profiling Call for Justice and Closure 'Enough Already,' Say Advocate

See No Evil: New Jersey State Officials Sat on Racial Profiling Data for Years

New Jersey internal records document widespread racial profiling of black and Hispanic motorists

Well, that's it for now. I'm going to go play God of War...

[edit on 12-3-2007 by truthseeka]

If you think about it, whites are privileged and whites are discriminated against. But blacks are also privileged as well as discriminated against.
.
I witnessed this first hand back in the eighties when I had a very close black friend. I was working as a bartender at a local bowling alley. When I got off at 2:00 am I often drove friends home, especially if they'd had too much to drink. I remember feeling very angry at times because the cops always seemed to tail me whenever my black friend was in the car. Not so with the others. Part of this may have been because I'm a woman and I can't tell you how many times I heard n..... lover uttered under some white mans breath, when they saw the two of us together.

Now I'll show you the other side of the coin. My black friend, was given a scholarship grant exclusively earmarked for minorities to attend college. He breezed his way through the state board tests, qualifying him to work as a mental health councilor at Vacaville state prison. When he decided to buy a home, again he was given a special low interest loan, set aside for blacks and other minorities only. Later when he changed careers to work at Chevron, he was promoted to supervisor of his department in only two years! I remember him telling me how none of his co-workers liked him after that. Okay, obviously this guy was no slacker and was quite intelligent, nevertheless his seemingly easy ride to success didn't go unnoticed by my husband or myself.

Six months after we were married, my 20 year old husband lost all the fingers on his right hand due to a faulty saw at his work. For this, he was compensated a mere six thousand dollars after our blood sucking lawyer took his chunk. Being sent to wielding school was the only rehabilitation he was ever given. For many years he struggled without the use of his right hand fingers to keep up with the other workers. He was never given any slack for his handicap nor did he ask for it. After 10 years of hard work he was finally making a decent living to support our three children. But it wasn't too long after this that he was laid off and replaced by a Filipino with a work visa who would work for much less. Everyone at his work except the management, was let go to make room for the new cheap labor.

Although my husband never resented our good friends success, being usurped by non Americans from the work force was the beginning of what would become his hateful accent to racism. After that he never could get a good job again and I was forced to work nights so I could take care of my three small children during the day. Me working nights and my husband working days was the beginning of the end for us. We divorced in 1990 after 18 years of marriage.

So you see, discrimination and privilege does work both ways.

I just wanted to add on to my thoughts about this concept:


Getting passed over for a job does not make anyone else get privileges. A few programs to help people of color does not erase the constant white privilege that people from the dominant culture get.

But as long as people continue to dwell on the "small kernels" that are thrown to people of color to right the wrongs of institutional and individual racism, the point will be missed entirely what white privilege and whiteness means for all of us in America. In fact, a few programs to help people of color tend to throw up a smokescreen for people in the dominant culture to not reflect on how they benefit in society racially (and not class-wise).

The question has to be asked at the end of the day, is which race has the most power in American society when it comes to influencing better treatment and access for its own?


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

And Truthseeka, I look forward to your analysis. I checked out the links and they are rather telling when it comes to white privilege and what it stands for.



[edit on 12-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
I just wanted to add on to my thoughts about this concept:


Getting passed over for a job does not make anyone else get privileges. A few programs to help people of color does not erase the constant white privilege that people from the dominant culture get.

Document these cases of White privilege, please. And not with some abstract from some thesis. Real cases.

Originally posted by ceci2006
The question has to be asked is at the end of the day, which race has the most power in American society when it comes to influencing better treatment and access for its own?

The White race does, as it should, since it is the race which is still in the majority today.

But the truth of the matter is, they influence better treatment for all races, and have passed laws to make sure that the playing field is level. I wonder if that would be true if some other races were in the majority.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Document these cases of White privilege, please. And not with some abstract from some thesis. Real cases.

They have been documented, jsobecky. Truthseeka and myself have posted sources throughout this thread in which respondents have discussed how white privilege affected their lives. The majority of these sources have been from other white people. And they aren't abstracts. They are reports, speeches, reviews and articles.

The White race does, as it should, since it is the race which is still in the majority today.

Thank you for recognizing the "majority" in society.

But the truth of the matter is, they influence better treatment for all races, and have passed laws to make sure that the playing field is level. I wonder if that would be true if some other races were in the majority.

I beg to differ. It is only in minimal circumstances when a representative from the white race has gotten a conscience (for example, Lyndon B. Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its reluctant passage by the Congress), only then has better treatment has been proposed, if not forced by the law. But, usually, the calls for better treatment had to be ordered (by executive order, or otherwise) because the white community as a whole would never on their own develop a conscience about the treatment of all people. Whoever does ends up being subdued by the members of the white race because it painfully exposes historic, systemic and institutional acts of mistreatment of people of color due to racism.

Otherwise, history demonstrates that the white community (from their leaders on down) has not been entirely altruistic when it comes to advocating better treatment for everyone--opposed to themselves.

Think about this: the governor of Arkansas literally stood in front of Central High to bar the Central Nine from entering the doors of the school. He stood there along with the National Guard. Did it ever cross anyone's mind that the National Guard had to be called to integrate a school? Nevertheless, as the Central Nine walked toward the doors, white citizens spat on them, called them derogatory names, and tried to attack them.

Can anyone imagine what governor would stand outside of a school and join members of his race shouting racial epipthets while trying to bar access to other individuals? Is this an example of encouraging "better treatment for all"?

Unfortunately, representatives from the white community have rarely advocated for better treatment for all. Historically, they were more likely to violently oppose someone for sitting at a lunch counter, burn down an entire town of consisting of people of color due to its success, or have a picnic at a lynching like it was a stroll in the park.

However, even I can say that there has been some White people who have helped the cause of civil rights. However, even they were shouted down, intimidated and "subdued" by others of same race so that the status quo stays in tact. The majority of white voices has done a poor job of trying to advocate better treatment for all due to the fact that they looked out for their own best interests above others. And when they looked out for their best interests, white privilege stayed in tact with no one questioning otherwise.


This is especially the case if the white community makes it a practice to "not see color".


That's what I mean when it comes to facing things as they are, opposed to glossing over things to present an ideal image.


[edit on 12-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by ceci2006
The question has to be asked is at the end of the day, which race has the most power in American society when it comes to influencing better treatment and access for its own?

The White race does, as it should, since it is the race which is still in the majority today.

But the truth of the matter is, they influence better treatment for all races, and have passed laws to make sure that the playing field is level. I wonder if that would be true if some other races were in the majority.

What have you been smoking josbecky and why aren't you sharing? Your head is in the clouds.

I grew up under jim crow and I know damned good and well those laws which you refer were fought tooth and nail by members of both parties. It was not white compassion that got those laws passed it was political realities.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Getting passed over for a job does not make anyone else get privileges.

Unless it's a black person that is the one getting passed over, huh? Then all of a sudden it IS white privilege.

what white privilege and whiteness means for all of us in America.

I know what WP and whiteness means for me. I don't need anyone's assistance to know that. I hope you find out what it means for you.

The question has to be asked at the end of the day, is which race has the most power in American society when it comes to influencing better treatment and access for its own?

Right now, the white race definitely has more power than any other. The question is... Is the white race (as a monolithic group) only interested in "influencing better treatment and access for its own"?

And the answer is clearly No.

Protecting Minority Rights
By the mid-1950s, however, the U.S. Supreme Court had begun to subject laws that discriminate on the basis of a person's race, color, or national origin to strict judicial scrutiny, prohibiting virtually all forms of government-based racial discrimination.

Congress, too, began to outlaw public and private racial discrimination in voting, employment, public accommodations, housing, and federally funded programs. Later, the high Court subjected laws based on gender to heightened scrutiny also, while Congress not only banned sex discrimination in a variety of fields but also forbade unequal treatment based on disability.

Debates over expanding concepts of equality have formed some of the most painful, yet profound, episodes in U.S. history. Except perhaps in the most homogeneous societies, the fair treatment of minorities is one of a nation's most fundamental and vexing responsibilities.

We haven't been perfect, but white people have done a great deal to protect minorities legally, and still are. You're practically ignoring all the white people who had a hand in what has happened so far.

In my experience, white people (in general) don't think about their whiteness and having to get "better treatment and access for its own." Only the races in the minority (by numbers) think in those terms. And I think that is part of what jsobecky's saying. Fortunately, the white people are in power in this country, because we haven't been oppressed as a race and we don't feel the need as other races do, to secure benefits and better treatment and access for our own. If a minority (by numbers) race were in power, no doubt, all other races would suffer, because of their need to secure their part of the pie or whatever.

As it is, we do have many white people in power who are genuinely interested in making sure the minorites get better treatment and access. That's what all the equal opportunity laws are about.

If a minority race were in power, I'm not at all sure white people would have it as good as the minorities do today. (not saying it's perfect yet, but it's on its way). I'm not sure anyone would speak for white people. We are hated and resented for the color of our skin. My concern is that minorities are interested in influencing better treatment and access for their own, not for all. And in fact, if the minorities were in power, I'm quite sure white people would be punished by them, which is also not fair.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Thank you for recognizing the "majority" in society.

It's well-known that there are more whites in the US than other races. It's not a matter of recognition. It's a matter of being able to read numbers.


[edit on 12-3-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by grover


I grew up under jim crow and I know damned good and well those laws which you refer were fought tooth and nail by members of both parties. It was not white compassion that got those laws passed it was political realities.

My parents and relatives also lived under Jim Crow. They experienced the harsh treatment first hand while they lived there.

To be honest, I think that people have to face what you stated in order for a true discussion on race to start.

Other than that, I thank you very much for saying what needs to be said.



[edit on 12-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unless it's a black person that is the one getting passed over, huh? Then all of a sudden it IS white privilege.

What most of the white posters in here are ignoring, in terms of AA in the workforce, is that the minorities (excluding women for the moment) will, on average, be paid SUBSTANTIALLY less than whites working the same job. For women, the same is true as far as non-white women are concerned; women as a whole also have the detriment of being paid less than men. So clearly, non-white women experience double jeopardy, ANOTHER sociological term (which I'm sure is WRONG AGAIN).

I know what WP and whiteness means for me. I don't need anyone's assistance to know that. I hope you find out what it means for you.

Ceci's not white. I'm SURE she already knows what this means for her.

Fortunately, the white people are in power in this country, because we haven't been oppressed as a race and we don't feel the need as other races do, to secure benefits and better treatment and access for our own.

Fortunately for white people like you, of course.

If a minority (by numbers) race were in power, no doubt, all other races would suffer, because of their need to secure their part of the pie or whatever.

Speculation is all good. However, we have FACTS as to who has historically oppressed other races of people. To suggest this historically oppressive group is best in power is BEYOND me.:shk:

My concern is that minorities are interested in influencing better treatment and access for their own, not for all.

No spit! ALL minorities have been oppressed by whites in this country; why the hell would they want to help out EVERYONE when they can't help THEMSELVES? This is why the Black Panthers excluded whites from the party; the logic was that, before EVERYONE can work for the betterment of all, groups historically oppressed have to help their own FIRST.

And in fact, if the minorities were in power, I'm quite sure white people would be punished by them, which is also not fair.

As I see it, there's only one race of people who have had a notion of superiority to ALL others define their world view for the last 500 years...

Ceci,

You KILLED in that long post!! Keep knockin em out of the park.

I'd like to add another example of regular white Americans doing stuff to keep minorities in a lower position, like the integration example you gave: restrictive covenants. (before this one, I'll throw in the trend of schools CLOSING so they wouldn't have to integrate during the period you already mentioned)

You might already be familiar with this term, but anyways, it refers to white people in residential areas banding together against minorities. Property owners entered into agreements that they would NOT sell or rent property to minorities, in an effort to keep them out of the neighborhoods.

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by ceci2006
The question has to be asked is at the end of the day, which race has the most power in American society when it comes to influencing better treatment and access for its own?

The White race does, as it should, since it is the race which is still in the majority today.

But the truth of the matter is, they influence better treatment for all races, and have passed laws to make sure that the playing field is level. I wonder if that would be true if some other races were in the majority.

What have you been smoking josbecky and why aren't you sharing? Your head is in the clouds.

Excuse me, grover, but keep your childish insults to yourself. They do nothing to further discussion here.

Nobody else is resorting to those juvenile tactics, even though the heat has gone up on this topic.

If you can't respond as an adult, stay out of the discussion.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Thank you for recognizing the "majority" in society.

Ceci, it's the truth. The majority in any society determines the politics.

But the truth of the matter is, they influence better treatment for all races, and have passed laws to make sure that the playing field is level. I wonder if that would be true if some other races were in the majority.

I beg to differ. It is only in minimal circumstances when a representative from the white race has gotten a conscience (for example, Lyndon B. Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its reluctant passage by the Congress), only then has better treatment has been proposed, if not forced by the law. But, usually, the calls for better treatment had to be ordered (by executive order, or otherwise) because the white community as a whole would never on their own develop a conscience about the treatment of all people. Whoever does ends up being subdued by the members of the white race because it painfully exposes historic, systemic and institutional acts of mistreatment of people of color due to racism.

Well, the executive has been white also.

If whites were really against leveling the playing field, do you think the laws would have been passed?

Otherwise, history demonstrates that the white community (from their leaders on down) has not been entirely altruistic when it comes to advocating better treatment for everyone--opposed to themselves.

Once again, Ceci, that is the norm throughout history. No race or culture willingly gives up power. But I think the US has made greater strides than any other civilization to date.

Think about this: the governor of Arkansas literally stood in front of Central High to bar the Central Nine from entering the doors of the school. He stood there along with the National Guard. Did it ever cross anyone's mind that the National Guard had to be called to integrate a school? Nevertheless, as the Central Nine walked toward the doors, white citizens spat on them, called them derogatory names, and tried to attack them.

Can anyone imagine what governor would stand outside of a school and join members of his race shouting racial epipthets while trying to bar access to other individuals? Is this an example of encouraging "better treatment for all"?

That was years ago. You cannot deny that great strides have been taken since then. Old laws have been abolished, and none of them exist today, to my knowledge.

That has got to be viewed as progress.

But you will never change people's minds or attitudes, no matter how many laws are passed. Racism will always exist. That is where I think you are tilting at windmills.

Originally posted by truthseeka

You KILLED in that long post!! Keep knockin em out of the park.

Thanks. I will try to do so we can stay on topic.

I'd like to add another example of regular white Americans doing stuff to keep minorities in a lower position, like the integration example you gave: restrictive covenants. (before this one, I'll throw in the trend of schools CLOSING so they wouldn't have to integrate during the period you already mentioned)

That is especially the truth. These covenants didn't end just because Civil Rights came. They continue--even up to the current docket of the Supreme Court. People are still having a problem with integrating schools--not to mention diversifying neighborhoods.

You might already be familiar with this term, but anyways, it refers to white people in residential areas banding together against minorities. Property owners entered into agreements that they would NOT sell or rent property to minorities, in an effort to keep them out of the neighborhoods.

Of course, I am. I'd also throw in "redlining", which is practically the same thing--except it is used as a way to keep certain neighborhoods "white" while forcing people of color to live in other neighborhoods. It has been a practice as the day has been long. Here too, this is where white privilege has worked out to benefit only the race of the dominant culture.

Btw, thank you for defending me back there. I appreciate it.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Ceci, it's the truth. The majority in any society determines the politics.

Well then, why all the drama about discussing white privilege as it is--opposed to using efforts to divert its discussion?

Well, the executive has been white also.

Of course, they are. And it didn't occur this way in a vaccuum.

If whites were really against leveling the playing field, do you think the laws would have been passed?

To be honest, I'd have to side with grover on this one. Political realities passed the laws. There was not an attack of conscience in any stretch of the imagination. And even then, the laws were passed reluctantly. And twenty years after they were passed (in the Reagan era), talk began about "reverse racism" and "dismantling multiculturalism". This discussion gave neo-cons their platform about race. And as a result, they ran with it because out of Mr. Rove's playbook, it was easier to pander to the lowest common denominator in terms of race--appealing to the racist attitudes of white people while playing up to the "color-blind" rhetoric.

In fact, the Southern Strategy has been built around this factor.

So, to make a long story short, I have to break down the answer of your question into two responses:

1)Whites reacted against a "level playing field" for all because their benefits in society were put into jeopardy. What to do? Gerrymander the "rhetoric" of equality and use it against people of color by manipulating Rev. Dr. King's message. The result? "Color-blind rhetoric". If one does not "see race", then they don't have to deal with the realities in society. And if one does not "deal" with the realities in society, the knapsack stays open to receive more goodies of being white in America. And then, under the delusion that everything is "all right now", anyone that brings up wrongs against systemic racism is nuliified because they are going against the "content of one's character"--a small kernel from Dr. King's message woefully misappropriated to suit political rhetoric.


2)People had to have their arms twisted to get those laws passed or else they wouldn't. It is amazing to me that there is still persons in society who think that this was easily done. It wasn't. And even when the laws were passed, the same segregation (especially in Southern towns) still exists. And to its most pernicious demonstration in today's society, the "gated community" is the latest trend to keep anyone different out.

So, this was not done altruistically, nor was it done with a "sense of compassion". They were legislated to do so.

Once again, Ceci, that is the norm throughout history. No race or culture willingly gives up power.

Frankly, that is the most truthful statement made to this date. I think that if others realize this, the efforts at denial would stop in its tracks.

But I think the US has made greater strides than any other civilization to date.

I doubt it. There are other places on this Earth in which they are just as progressive--until white privilege rears its ugly head and tries to destroy what little progress has been made.

That was years ago. You cannot deny that great strides have been taken since then. Old laws have been abolished, and none of them exist today, to my knowledge.

There are still the "unwritten rules" and "unearned benefits" that still rear their ugly head. And their repercussions are still being felt today. That is why I think that what you've stated reflects the "PollyAnna effect" discussed in sociological and psychological circles. There is a habit on putting the best slant on everything--especially when others can see otherwise (that's another thing that is done in according to America's conflicts in the Middle East, btw).

And I don't think we've taken such great strides. If we did, we wouldn't have anyone complaining about "whining" or "screaming" about race, not to mention an entire industry built up by Right Wing radio pundits to willfully punish anyone who speaks about race as being victims. Yet, they embrace victimhood when they talk about how diversity has caused them to suffer under the yoke of four decades (opposed to people of color suffering for centuries ).

That has got to be viewed as progress.

I would be the last to deny that progress has been made. But, unfortunately, we are in a period in which it is regressing instead of making things better. I think that it has to do with the present Administration and September 11, 2001. Since then, especially, nationalism, religion and authoritarism has made it justifiable for white privilege to silently benefit at the hands of other cultures and races in American society. Or else, you wouldn't have all these law suits about racial profiling--not to mention a regressive stance against diversity.

But you will never change people's minds or attitudes, no matter how many laws are passed. Racism will always exist. That is where I think you are tilting at windmills.

I don't think I am tilting at windmills here. However, I think that if people can open their minds enough to realize the problems that continue to exist in terms of race-relations today, honest discussion about race and white privilege would be dealt with objectively for all. But unfortunately, the privileges received are too good. And some people don't want to let them go.

As a result, the only thing to do is to "discount" white privilege and to convince people of color when they bring this up as "having a delusion". But the problem here is that people of color aren't the ones having the delusion. There needs to be more work on establishing "whiteness" as a color and having white people come to grips with what they represent in society as a result of historic, systemic and individual racism. It's a factor of this society despite the attempts to write this off. It even gets more inocuous when the "delusion" of "equality" continues to be responded to while there are present cases today of discrimination against people of color that have resulted in bodily injury, lack of social access, destroying their meeting places (i.e. the burning of Black churches), disenfranchisement, and depreciating actions in discounting their character.



[edit on 12-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Now for the turnpike:

"It's time for the state to be accountable," said Dr. Elmo Randolph, a dentist who drives a luxury car and has been stopped by police approximately 100 times without ever receiving a ticket. Dr. Randolph was subjected to searches of his car and interrogations about his profession and how and where he bought his car on numerous occasions.

"They have admitted to this discrimination for years now, but the victims have not been compensated and the practice has not subsided. I am still afraid to drive on the Turnpike," said Randolph.

We see a number of examples of white privilege here. One is that you can drive a luxury car and no one will assume you stole it. Tied in with this is that police, whose opinion as to how you obtain your car matters MOST, will not pull you over again and again and again and again because you are driving a throwed whip.

Related to this, of course, is the privilege to not have said luxury car REPEATEDLY searched. And, the last white privilege is not being afraid to drive in certain areas because police will harass you for no other reason than your skin tone.

Maher, an Egyptian American woman of color who had just finished law school, and her co-worker Felix Morka, a Nigerian national who at the time headed the International Human Rights Law Group's work on Africa, were driving along the New Jersey Turnpike in January 1996, when they were pulled over to the side of the highway by the New Jersey State Police.

Well. We have 2 successful black people being pulled over by the cops. Surely, their elevated class will afford them protection from the other side of white privilege, as it has been argued here. NOT!!!

During the traffic stop one of the officers began to strangle Morka and slam him repeatedly against his steering wheel. The other officer assaulted Maher by holding a gun to her head, twisting her arm behind her back, and throwing her against the car.

Weeeell. We have the boys in blue maliciously using excessive force against the man and woman in black.

Ok, then. These people, of elevated class, should have no problems filing a complaint about this egregious abuse by the laws. Surely, a law school graduate will be able to get these perpetrators prosecuted and punished by the law. NOT!!!

Although Maher and Morka tried to file a formal complaint, they were met with resistance by New Jersey police, the lawsuit states. At first they were denied the proper forms to file a complaint, and later the police failed to complete an investigation of their complaint.

Wow, who woulda thought...

The federal case involves Thomas White, a decorated Korean War Veteran and retired corrections officer; John McKenzie, also a retired corrections officer; Frederick Hamiel, a newspaper-advertising executive; and Tyrone Hamilton, a juvenile corrections officer. All of the plaintiffs, who are men of color, were stopped in separate incidents on the New Jersey Turnpike between 1997 and 1999.

Notice how these men, 3 of whom were/are INVOLVED in law enforcement, still were victims of the racist New Jersey police. Even being a part of the system doesn't grant you the privilege that whites enjoy, which is not being harassed by racist police.

In December 1999, New Jersey entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice, in which they agreed to remedy the problem of racial profiling in the state. It is now two years later, the practice still continues and this administration is still resisting making amends to those the state has victimized.

Once again, we see a policy created to create equality for people STILL NOT PREVENT inequalities and injustices from being perpetrated against people in the "wrong" demographic.:shk:




[edit on 12-3-2007 by truthseeka]

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My concern is that minorities are interested in influencing better treatment and access for their own, not for all.

why the hell would they want to help out EVERYONE when they can't help THEMSELVES?

At least you acknowledge where your interests lie. Not in helping everyone, but in helping yourself. That's exactly the point I was making. I'm glad to see we can agree on something.

Originally posted by grover
It was not white compassion that got those laws passed it was political realities.

Can you explain that, grover (or anyone)? Pardon my ignorance but I'm not sure what you mean by "political realities" getting laws passed. Weren't the actual people who voted to pass those laws mostly white people?

Does it matter if they did it out of compassion or not? Perhaps they did it because it was the right thing to do?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
At least you acknowledge where your interests lie. Not in helping everyone, but in helping yourself. That's exactly the point I was making. I'm glad to see we can agree on something.

And I'm glad you're still up to your Wile E. Coyote word manipulation.

First you took THEY and made that into ME (Truthseeka). Then, you took the quote out of context. Which was that groups must help themselves FIRST before they can even be ABLE to help everyone else.

What you're saying is akin to being mad at Native Americans not fighting for everyone because they're fighting for their own communities.:shk:

Does it matter if they did it out of compassion or not? Perhaps they did it because it was the right thing to do?

I dunno...consider the Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln is hailed as the man who freed all the slaves. This is what you learn in school. What you DON'T learn is that he only did it out of the interests of white America. You ALSO don't learn that he was a subscriber to white supremacy, and that he thought black people were inferior to whites.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Which was that groups must help themselves FIRST before they can even be ABLE to help everyone else.

Well, then I'm not sure I understand your beef with white people. They're helping themselves first and then helping everyone else. Aren't they? How would it be any different if another race were in our position?

What you DON'T learn is that he only did it out of the interests of white America. You ALSO don't learn that he was a subscriber to white supremacy, and that he thought black people were inferior to whites.

Do you really care what his interests were? Do you really care that he subscribed to white supremacy? Does that really matter as long as the slaves were in fact freed? Would the result have been any different had he been a bleeding heart liberal? (No offense to any BHLs out there. )

I mean, it sounds like you're not only saying what you want, you're saying that it doesn't count unless the people who give it to you do so in what you determine is the right state of mind and for the right motive. Is that true?

It sounds like you're saying, "Yeah, they passed the laws, but they didn't really want to enough. So it's no good."

I admit, I could be misreading you here, but help me out.

Gotta love these linguistic gymnastics.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, then I'm not sure I understand your beef with white people.

That's because there is none. There's a beef with white privilege.

They're helping themselves first and then helping everyone else. Aren't they?

No. White people were never oppressed as a group in America. So, when they helped themselves, they helped themselves to the fat of the land, as opposed to helping themselves get from under the yoke of oppression. Big difference.

Do you really care what his interests were? Do you really care that he subscribed to white supremacy? Does that really matter as long as the slaves were in fact freed? Would the result have been any different had he been a bleeding heart liberal? (No offense to any BHLs out there.

)

I offered an example to buttress grover's position, as he stated it earlier. That is all.