Real Talk about White Privilege

Originally posted by truthseeka
After what happened, I'm surprised she even responded to THIS post from you.

You mean after she got banned? Are you still blaming that on me? Of course you are. :shk: Just realize that I wasn't even IN on the discussion in which she was banned. But go ahead and blame it on me if you must.

You have brought this up for the second time in this thread. I have responded. But it's off topic.

I'm not Ceci, but I'm SURE working with you is the LAST thing she wants to do.

It would appear you are correct. Some people can't handle my strong personality, it's true.

Originally posted by truthseeka
After what happened, I'm surprised she even responded to THIS post from you.

It took a lot of restraint to answer. And it is very sad that it has to be this way. But when the higher-ups want to eliminate discord, there are are things that must be done.

Hey...

I'm not Ceci, but I'm SURE working with you is the LAST thing she wants to do.

To be honest, I will--in respect to the higher-ups--refrain from answering this comment. I have my own opinions on this matter, but I would like to just stay on topic.

But it has nothing to do with BH's strong personality. It does have to do with trying to bring out the best on ATS by staying true to the terms and conditions.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
But I will say that it has been very lax here about "discussing another's banning". But maybe this is an aspect of white privilege as well.

Truthseeka brought it up. BOTH times. Unless he's really white, that's hardly white privilege!

BH, you can think what you want.

Now, I will really stay on topic and make good on my promise to not ever address you in a long while.

Every post I submit to a thread that is indicating my desire to stay on topic, well, that is off topic. The top of the thread is "White Privilege". A post consisting of a statement, that is directed at ourselves, stating we are going to stay on topic from now on, is off topic in and of itself.

Considering "off topic" posts are the norm around here now, I have no second thoughts of saying this and then exiting stage right.

Social Issues was by far the greatest forum, in my opinion, on ATS for quite some time. We discussed sensitive subjects, and we did it with respect, decorum, and an open-mind. In the last few months, this forum has been dominated by a population of members, myself included, and frankly, we are ruining a great forum. My disputes with other members, other members disputing with me, and other members disputing with other members, are discussed more often in this forum, than the subject itself.

I've reached the point where I am forced to lurk on a forum that I posted in endlessly. A forum consisting of the same members fighting over the same issue for the last few months has been too much for me. I kid no one, as I have played a part in the demise of this thread as well. I just hope that other members can actually see what it is that we are doing here and try to adjust our behaviours.

The current state of the Social Issues forum is disappointing.



[edit on 13-3-2007 by chissler]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You mean after she got banned? Are you still blaming that on me? Of course you are. :shk: Just realize that I wasn't even IN on the discussion in which she was banned. But go ahead and blame it on me if you must.

This was a reference to her avoiding being involved in a similar situation that got her exiled by not responding to another's posts. Then again, this REALLY is about BH, as it always is.

It would appear you are correct.

Some people can't handle my strong personality, it's true.

Sure. I don't have a problem handling your linguistic gymnastics, though, which is CLEARLY more evident than your supposedly strong personality.

And now, with 2 requests to get back on topic, I will continue with the New Jersey Turnpike. And rightfully so (that we get back on topic).

Testimony by state police officials and members of the state attorney general's office has contradicted earlier claims by state officials -- particularly former Attorney General Peter Verniero -- who have testified that they had no knowledge of the practice until 1998.

Verniero, now a state Supreme Court justice who barely survived his confirmation hearing as the racial profiling controversy swirled around him, testified at those hearings that he did not know about the policy until after the April 1998 shooting of three black and Hispanic men by state troopers on the New Jersey Turnpike. With that incident, racial profiling exploded into a nation-wide civil rights issue.

But a line of state police officials told lawmakers Monday that they had been supplying racial profiling data to Verniero and his aides since 1996. On Tuesday, two deputy attorneys general testified that Verniero and other top state officials were so anxious about bad publicity that they discouraged aides from providing data that confirmed the extent of the problem.

Sgt. Thomas Gilbert, the state trooper assigned to collect racial profiling data beginning in that year, said he regularly delivered "explosive" reports on the practice to the attorney general's office. He also testified that he had attended two meetings with top state officials, including then Attorney General Verniero, to discuss the topic many months before the April 1998 shootings.

So, we have Verniero and others covering up the true extent of racial profiling. In effect, they were indirectly protecting the white privilege of not being harassed by police due to their race.

Sgt. Baker and retired State Police Capt. David Blaker also told the committee that although the data they had collected and presented to Verniero showed an unusually high number of minorities had been subjected to searches, Verniero vowed never to negotiate a consent decree with the Justice Department, which had intervened in 1996 as the practice of racial profiling scandal began to draw increasing notice.

Gilbert told the committee he began gathering racial profiling data in 1996, after a judge in Gloucester County found a pattern of racial profiling in traffic stops on the southern part of the New Jersey Turnpike. By the end of that year, he said, the data clearly showed racial disparities.

More of the same. The data shows the white privilege of not being stopped and searched due to race, officials cover up this data to protect this white privilege.

Although Verniero has claimed that he only learned racial profiling was "real, not imagined" after the 1998 shootings, Rover and Deputy Attorney John Fahy [uboth testified to the contrary. Fahy told the committee that as early as the Justice Department investigation in December 1996, Verniero realized racial profiling was a problem for New Jersey prosecutors. In January 1997, Fahy testified, a letter he wrote to the Justice Department for Verniero to sign was sent with the paragraph dealing with police searches deleted --without his knowledge, Fahy added.

Notice what happens here.

Deny that racial profiling is real, say people are imagining it.

When evidence is presented that confirms the reality of racial profiling, cover up said evidence.

When it is revealed that said evidence was covered up, pretend like you have no knowledge of said cover-up.

Finally admit that racial profiling occurs, but feign ignorance as to the true extent/influence of racial profiling.

Quite interesting that one could replace "racial profiling" with "white privilege" in these sentences and this would still be quite the fit...

I never suggested sweeping it under the rug and forgetting about it far from it but the blathering of idiots aside, in the long run there is only so much any society can be forced to do... look at Japan and China... there is still well earned bad blood between the two because of what went down in the 30's and Japan's reluctance (or refusal) to deal with its past hasn't helped matters.

But, the blathering of idiots aside... in the long run, any change has to be done heart to heart, soul to soul and while we may never rectify the sins of society we can raise better and more whole individuals as children. The past is the past, right or wrong, our children are our future.

Every Sunday I cook lunch for our local Baha'i' children's class. It is a great joy and I love it enough to mention it in my profile. We have white and black children from the US, we have a girl from Honduras and another from Mongolia, several from Iran and Iraq, a couple from Togo as well as mixed races and it is wonderful... despite language and color differences they study, learn and play together and they become our future.

I know the past is there and it is bad... I know it well. I do not nor have I nor will I discount it... we can only stand up to is and say this is wrong... but it is the children who will make the new world, hopefully free of ignorant, self absorbed idiots.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by grover]

Approximately half of blacks and Asians say they believe the police in Britain are racist, according to a survey commissioned by BBC News Online.

news.bbc.co.uk...
Specifically down at the bottom of the page are people that are involved in the justice system and see this much more than any of us individually.

PROBABLY the MOST NEEDED LINK TO THIS WHOLE THREAD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.geocities.com...]

Mr. Sharpton needs some more money .... Cause he's funny and a poet and didn't know it ... LOL

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Deus_Brandon]

White or any kind of privilege is self defined I am finding out. As I lean more and more into a new self-identification, bi-racial and not black, I find that life becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I am not saying that racism does not exist. I AM saying that once I decided I was bi-racial; i.e. not black, Life opened up for me. I started taking my cues from people who were successful in ways I wanted to be. Those people simply happened to be overwhelmingly white. Does that make me wrong or bad or somehow someone in denial? Heck no. It makes me a reasonable, responsible, striving person. I have discovered that I can claim that white privilege just fine. It is just a matter of believing I deserve only the good stuff that I deserve success, respect AND inclusion, then going out there in demanding it in a quiet, non-confrontive, very firm way. It works for me. I am living proof of it. I guess after watching my partner and her three white male sons, how they are raised and what they are taught to expect from the world, I decided, hey... I am going to put myself in a white male's shoes and see how the world responds. Amazingly, the fact that I am in a bi-racial female's body seems to not matter anymore. What does matter is what I expect and demand from people by what I project from the inside out.

So yeah, I got some of that white privilege and it is real and it does work and basically, ANYONE can have it.

www.myshoes.com...

Name: leighkaren labay, [email protected]
Date: 10/2/99
I also feel that I am "cursed" with this issue. I say "cursed" because lots of times I think that it gets in the way of me having more Black friends. Because I am light,I think many African-Americans resent me for it, which of course, is only my perception most of the time(not always)and is not grounded in fact. So I can't separate reality from perception. Hence, a "curse." I feel ashamed sometimes, because I think that they're thinking this white priveledge thing and I feel like apologizing for it. This makes me mad because I shouldn't apologize at all for any aspect of who I am!
YET AGAIN !!!!

If anyone says whites have certain advantages that minorites don't, and it is because of the color of thier skin, inherently. That's something you can't change. That is racist to its core. She wants to say that minorities can never receive advantages (though they do) and white people always will, just because of their skin color.

Borders are fluid, nationality is fluid, locations are fluid. Advantages due to these are thus fluid. Skin color isn't, and to say that advantages result from one and not another is racist.

Lets see...

A. The Victim Culture espouses the negative impact of the so called dominant culture on their opportunities.

B. Some one from the Victim Culture's race (Though definitely not of the Victim Culture itself) rises above their meager beginnings and becomes powerful; all within the so called dominant culture.

C. The Victim Culture then proceeds to devaluate what that individual has accomplished. including calling them Uncle Tom's, Oreo's and sell out's.

D. Excepting of course the Sports, Entertainment and Music industry, UNTIL, they speak out on social issues; then they too become sell outs and Uncle Toms to the Victim Culture.

So the key to getting along in the Victim Culture is to complain as loudly as possible about what you can not do because of something that happened years ago and not to spend time improving yourself. After all , this would subtract from the time you could be complaining.

I get it now...

Semper

Black Men's Pay In Top Jobs Lags

Even when they enter highly paid, prestigious professions, black men typically earn less than their white colleagues, according to the most comprehensive study yet on occupations and wages.

The research, published Tuesday in the American Sociological Review, tracked more than 1 million workers and found that even as black men get into better occupations, they are paid as little as 72 cents for every $1 white men earn.

The high-income, high-prestige occupations included lawyers, physicians, dentists, securities and financial service sales reps and managers.

It's like I said time and time again in this thread, whites are paid more than blacks who work in the same jobs. AA does NOTHING to address this white privilege.

Of more than 470 occupations studied, black workers in securities and financial sales saw the greatest pay disparity. Black men working in that field earned 72 cents on the dollar compared with white men.

Black dentists and physicians earned 80 cents for every dollar earned by their white counterparts. Black lawyers earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by white lawyers.

In these professions, the researchers found the disparities even among workers with the same education and work experience.

Truly sad. This shows that there is a hidden disclaimer in the rhetoric that black men can do anything these days, now that the CRM is over. Even in positions such as these, attained through going through higher education, black men STILL end up getting shafted. In these professions, they make an average 20-30% LESS than white men.

But, to be fair, there is a ray of hope gleaned from this study...

However, the researchers found that in jobs with lower status--including upholsterers, cooks, cabbies and bus drivers--blacks earned virtually the same as their white co-workers. Wages in these jobs are typically based on production, and there is less room for race-based judgments, the authors said.

Well, at least black men in these professions now have wages comparable to white men.

"A popular misconception is that if there is upward mobility, there is no discrimination. This is a new form of racial discrimination," said Chris Tilly, a labor market economist at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. "In America, as you move higher and higher up the occupational level, you are in a whiter and whiter world. It's not surprising you would face more discrimination."

And there you have it. As black men move into the upper echelon of professions in the US, white privilege rears its ugly head again. In reality, we can see that white men are NOT so threatened by AA as many would have us believe. We see that black men (not ALL of whom can thank AA for their attainment of these jobs ) will, on average, be paid SUBSTANTIALLY less than the white men they compete for jobs with.

In closing, I present the other side of white privilege:

Kenneth Jimerson, 44, is one of several Xerox sales representatives who claim in a lawsuit that the company gave the most profitable territories to whites.

"My most lucrative accounts were taken from me and given to white sales reps," Jimerson said. "Then they put me into territories where I can't make money. This affected my livelihood."...

A graduate of Purdue University with a bachelor's degree in management, Jimerson had 10 years of sales experience with IBM and Digital Equipment before joining Xerox. At Xerox, he said he performed well despite the poor areas he was assigned to, exceeding the company's expectations. However, he alleges that whenever he cultivated profitable accounts, they were reassigned to other white workers so that the commissions he earned went to them.

"I was told I would have these accounts for the next year so I nurtured them," he said. "I worked to set my goals for 2000, and then I was told they were no longer my accounts. Other whites ended up benefiting from my labor. When they were making $200,000 a year, I was lucky if I made $80,000."

Well, ah, dude, ah...there you have it. (Ludacris reference)

[edit on 13-3-2007 by truthseeka]

Truly sad. This shows that there is a hidden disclaimer in the rhetoric that black men can do anything these days, now that the CRM is over.

Wow....Just wow.
The CRM will never be over unless people like you choose for it to be. I can't speak for you, but I still have 1st ammendment rights. I still intend to use them.
Thanks for your help in the "fight" though.

Truthseeka, those are two excellent posts about the disparities in treatment regarding societal institutions and white privilege. There is so much to comment on, but I will try to do my best:

Originally quoted by truthseeka

Deny that racial profiling is real, say people are imagining it.

Or, they say that you are playing "the race card." It is still amazing to me that even though the statistics and testimony of these acts tell the tale, that people can still be accused of "not seeing it". But as I read about the issue of white privilege elsewhere, it has been said that in present times, there is still a movement afoot to dismiss the experiences and sources from people of color because no one from the dominant culture wants to face culpability. But then again, it might have to do with a lack of conscience as well.

When evidence is presented that confirms the reality of racial profiling, cover up said evidence.

White privilege allows for this to happen. And while racial profiling is covered up, you could ask any person of color and they would tell you how they've been unfairly targeted by the police for something--let alone being witnesses to others it has happened to. I figure with all of our knowledge that this happens, then there would be no way that the evidence would be silenced for long.

But because the dominant culture plays the "blame game" against any person of color when they relate their side of the issue, institutional wrong doing (in this case, the legal and penal system) continues to be ignored. And it is no mistake that there are certain phrases being introduced into common vernacular which tries to dispell our stories and experiences--especially when they prove that the behavior of social institutions isn't entirely above board.

When it is revealed that said evidence was covered up, pretend like you have no knowledge of said cover-up.

Distancing is quite common whether it has to do with racial profiling or white privilege. The first action that is taken when a person of color reveals his or her experiences to someone of the dominant culture is that the person from the dominant culture distances themselves linguistically as well as physically.

Their entire action seems to work two-fold: 1)First to convince one's self that it "doesn't truly happen"; 2) Secondly, to convince one's self that "no one they know experiences this" in their world view. This type of behavior is responsible for the problems with race-relations today. Without a portion of society willing to come to grips that this is happening (being far more likely to connect with "invisibility"), then it is far more easier to continue "the big lie".

But who does this serve? Clearly not the person who is wronged by racial profiling. Instead, white privilege keeps the system of institutional racism in check and rolling along.

Finally admit that racial profiling occurs, but feign ignorance as to the true extent/influence of racial profiling.

That is something you see all the time, especially when it has to do with a terrible occurrence to a person of color. It continues to amaze me that this is the modus operandi of how public institutions handle race in society. Since people of color intimately know when they are being had, then the words of the officials seem false from the getgo.

I believe that the minimalization of the issue not only saves face for the public officials of the said institution; but it also perpetuates the "big lie" about racism and race-relations. In the view of some in the dominant culture, this pertains to being "invisible" in America. In fact, the media helps in the publicization of the "big lie" because they know who their target audience is. So when "racial profiling" happens, it is almost always watered down in the press so that "suburbia" is not offended. But only enough is let out to reconfirm the fears and stereotypes that the dominant culture attributes to people of color and crime.

Quite interesting that one could replace "racial profiling" with "white privilege" in these sentences and this would still be quite the fit...

As I mentioned before, the patterns are very consistent because it is predicated under the notion of "invisibility". That's one aspect of it that makes it highly interesting. When they treat these happenings under the cloak of "nothingness", it takes the power away from those who were racially profiled. Since a lot of work is done to deny and discount the experience on an institutional level, it would seem that the power relations behind such pronouncements of "covering up" works to keep up the perpetual lie by the dominant culture that "racism doesn't exist".

As a result, any claims of "racial profiling" filtering down from the institutional level to the community would appear to "not have happened". It sort of makes "denial" more palatable instead of dealing with the issue as it is. What is worse, is that the work involved in "covering up" these acts of racism only seems to convey what the pundits, politicians and the believers in the dominant culture would want all along: to believe that society is not racist and that these acts are out of the norm. The sad truth of it is that the statistics show that they are not the case.

It would seem that the people and institutions working to "render" the wrongdoing by the law "invisible" would want this to happen because they wouldn't have to address disparities in treatment between the races. It also works neatly under the perception of "colorblindness" as well.

And there you have it. As black men move into the upper echelon of professions in the US, white privilege rears its ugly head again. In reality, we can see that white men are NOT so threatened by AA as many would have us believe. We see that black men (not ALL of whom can thank AA for their attainment of these jobs ) will, on average, be paid SUBSTANTIALLY less than the white men they compete for jobs with.

Here too, the statistics and testimony dismantles the belief that "minorities have this free pass in society" (being one of the catch phrases often told in talks like these). They show that disparities also occur in the workplace. I am glad that you were able to display this because it clearly depicts the discrepancies that could be easily dismissed as "being not there". The great thing about testimony and numbers is that they reveal what cannot be rendered "invisible". One cannot hide the fact that there is a difference in salaries between white and black men. Furthermore, you cannot even try to dispell the fact that white men had received more business (or clientele) than black males.

There seems to be a bitter irony when it comes to issues like the workplace and racial profiling. It gets tiring when it is repeated over and over to "find some real racism" when such acts are so blatant in front of one's face it cannot be missed.

Thank you very much for bringing this up. It is about time.

In closing, I'd like to leave a little comment for you. Although it is from a series of articles about Hurricane Katrina, I think it has a lot of relevance here:

Ruminations on Hurricane Katrina: What’s Race Got to Do with It?

....the standard of behavior that Whites in power display toward Blacks is different than the standard of behavior that Whites employ toward Whites. When Whites use power to make major decisions that significantly impact Black lives, they are often patronizing, arrogant, and indifferent of our feelings.

It speaks volumes about how social institutions by virtue of white privilege have treated people of color in America.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by ceci2006]

No need to thank me, Ceci. Just doing what I said I would here.

You raised too many good points in your post, and unfortunately, I'll have to speak on just a couple.

Originally posted by ceci2006
There seems to be a bitter irony when it comes to issues like the workplace and racial profiling. It gets tiring when it is repeated over and over to "find some real racism" when such acts are so blatant in front of one's face it cannot be missed.

Hey, Ceci...didn't you know?

Things like studies don't pertain to real life. They're just real on paper. It's not like people used real life in ANY way to conduct studies like this.

Ruminations on Hurricane Katrina: What’s Race Got to Do with It?

....the standard of behavior that Whites in power display toward Blacks is different than the standard of behavior that Whites employ toward Whites. When Whites use power to make major decisions that significantly impact Black lives, they are often patronizing, arrogant, and indifferent of our feelings.

It speaks volumes about how social institutions by virtue of white privilege have treated people of color in America.

But, that's what you do to LOOTERS, as opposed to FINDERS.

Hell, Ceci, I even read an article from the Wall Street Journal where they just didn't give a damn about admitting that the "new" New Orleans is going to be white. And, it's a shame that a similar disaster in Baton Rouge decades ago played out in a similar way.

As Hughes tells in his autobiography, white refugees from the area flooded by the Mississippi River were treated QUITE differently (read, better) than black refugees. I don't have the exact passage right now, but it talked about how the whites were transported in steamers, while the blacks were transported in flatboats open to the weather, among other disparities. I'll post the excerpt when I find it.

Hey, Truthseeka, your post started me thinking. I began to wonder (as I went about my day) why is there such a hard time in the dominant culture believing our experiences and sources about white privilege. Although the final analysis is long from being concluded, I think that I might have some clues to help explain this.

(mind you, this is from a socio-cultural perspective)

I think that it has to do with four things:

1)A stunning lack of empathy.

2)A lack of identification with people of color, their ideas, their thoughts and their lives.

3)No discernable conscience when concerning the historical past and the present society.

4)A predilection to rendering the uncomforable "invisible" under the mask of cool superiority.

These four things can start to pinpoint why white privilege is so successful. When one has been in a privileged group in which they receive validation and entitledments without stoppage, there isn't any reason to feel anything else about those outside the group. In a discussion that I had with another member here, she had proposed that part of this reason for the anger is that "people are trying to fight for what they have" and to "prevent others from having the 'fat of the land' that has benefitted them" (I'm paraphrasing here).

With this being said, when there is something that contradicts the manner of thinking in which superiority has rendered "invisible" and that "color is not seen", there is a guided attempt to dismiss the message and disparage the messenger.

In essence, the time invested in propping up white privilege has influenced the actions, thoughts and values of the dominant culture so much so that anyone who questions it is rendered--shall we say--a "transgressor". In the case of United States values, the person of color who confronts the system is seen as "anti-American". However, the shield of protection that renders "white privilege" seemingly invinicible was ruptured when Hurricane Katrina came to the fore. With the images of poor Black survivors at the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention center suffering in front of the camera, white privilege was now presented with "hypervisibility". It was only punctuated when Kanye West said his famous phrase that "George Bush didn't care about Black people".

He was only saying the obvious here in exposing what white privilege had taught its beneficiaries to deny and lie about over the years. And now, it was brought to the surface in which the dominant culture could not lie or hide anymore.

With that being said, I have a source for you that starts to investigate this notion of "lack of conscience" when it comes to white privilege:

White Racism and Empathy (or the Lack Thereof)

A group of three teenagers on Long Island, decided that it would be funny to taunt their two Black classmates by tying the hands of a Black doll and putting a noose around its neck. The students laughed so hard; it caught their teacher’s attention and the ended up being charged with a crime. The students apparently saw nothing wrong with what they did, and they admitted to the crime. What disturbs me most about this story is the complete lack of empathy and compassion that racism created in these young people.

Much of the racism in America today manifests itself in a lack of empathy. I am by no means trying to dismiss structural racism. I agree that our political, economic, and educational systems are structure in a way that recreates racism.

[...]

The lack of empathy that many Whites display is both a sociological and a psychological problem. It is the indifference to human suffering that allows ordinary people to engage in extraordinary acts of violence. It is the lack of empathy that allows people to sit by and blame people for their suffering. Each semester I show lynching photos like the one above, so my students understand the shear brutality of racism. One of the most disturbing aspects of these photos is how much glee and pride are evident in the faces of the White lynch mobs.

[...]

Those of us who want to challenge racism need engage with this problem, and we need to find ways to make people, primarily White folks, more empathetic. Feagin and Vera believe that Whites can develop empathetic orientations through “approximating experiences.” Approximating experiences help Whites grasp what it is like to be the victim of racial discrimination. Citing a study by Tiffany Hogan and Julie Netzger, they say that approximating experiences most often come from three sources: relying on stories that people of color tell about their experiences, relying on general humanistic values, and relying on aspects of their own oppression.

Some food for thought for you to put the issues into this thread into perspective, my friend.

I look forward to your new sources.

I will also take the time a little later to answer your comments.



[edit on 14-3-2007 by ceci2006]