Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just curious all of you who are against AA, are you also against poorer students being able to get cheaper loans, more grants, and certain scholarships than students from higher income families, regardless of any racial consideration? I ask because if you look at the totality of money being doled out, the vast majority is based on income situation as opposed to race, but when I see this issue about favoritism brought up, race seems to be what everybody keeps harping about, which does seem to point at something deeper.

Well as Netroots taught us, the Democrat party doesn't believe all lives matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Just curious all of you who are against AA, are you also against poorer students being able to get cheaper loans, more grants, and certain scholarships than students from higher income families, regardless of any racial consideration? I ask because if you look at the totality of money being doled out, the vast majority is based on income situation as opposed to race, but when I see this issue about favoritism brought up, race seems to be what everybody keeps harping about, which does seem to point at something deeper.

Good thing neither of those are related. On a personal level I was a poor student and didn't get any of that so your argument is what we call, worm poop.

People asking for sources and studies for methodologies:

https://www.aclu.org/files/field_document/discrimlend_final.pdf
or in plainspeak http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/23/black-americans-housing-crisis-sub-prime-loan

http://www.povertyactionlab.org/publication/are-emily-and-greg-more-employable-lakisha-and-jamal-field-experiment-labor-market-discr

http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=faculty_scholarship
plainspeak - http://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/discrimination-judicial-system-united-states

You should do some reading about why those sub-prime loans were given to so many people that couldn't afford them in the first place.

 cincydooley wrote:
You should do some reading about why those sub-prime loans were given to so many people that couldn't afford them in the first place.

Most of my reading time at the moment is being eaten by dissertation - I really should not have gotten into an off-topic argument on Dakka.
Could you give me the highlights please?

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
You should do some reading about why those sub-prime loans were given to so many people that couldn't afford them in the first place.

Most of my reading time at the moment is being eaten by dissertation - I really should not have gotten into an off-topic argument on Dakka.
Could you give me the highlights please?

He's not saying it was aliens, but, it was aliens.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
You should do some reading about why those sub-prime loans were given to so many people that couldn't afford them in the first place.

Most of my reading time at the moment is being eaten by dissertation - I really should not have gotten into an off-topic argument on Dakka.
Could you give me the highlights please?

In short, banks shouldn't be absolved of predatory lending practices that yielded many of these loans, but they were, effectively, encouraged and enabled to so by the federal government in large part through the Community Reinvestment Act and further enabling by Cuomo and the HUD via Fannie and Freddie.

This is a decent article by a pundit who initially disagree the CRA had anything to do with it: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

 cincydooley wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
You should do some reading about why those sub-prime loans were given to so many people that couldn't afford them in the first place.

Most of my reading time at the moment is being eaten by dissertation - I really should not have gotten into an off-topic argument on Dakka.
Could you give me the highlights please?

In short, banks shouldn't be absolved of predatory lending practices that yielded many of these loans, but they were, effectively, encouraged and enabled to so by the federal government in large part through the Community Reinvestment Act and further enabling by Cuomo and the HUD via Fannie and Freddie.

This is a decent article by a pundit who initially disagree the CRA had anything to do with it: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

That link leads to a 404 error for me - buisiness insider does not often like computers my side of the pond.

Is the thing you're getting at that the government encouraged predatory lending to black people insofar as they were poor, rather than banks specifically directing predatory loans towards black people?

Crystal-Maze wrote:

That link leads to a 404 error for me - buisiness insider does not often like computers my side of the pond.

Is the thing you're getting at that the government encouraged predatory lending to black people insofar as they were poor, rather than banks specifically directing predatory loans towards black people?

More or less.

Basically, people with sub-prime credit (typically less than 700), many of whom in the US are minorities, and many of whom, further, don't necessarily have the financial savvy to understand how an ARM works, which is the majority of the loan types they were being offered. Loan adjusts....people can no longer afford their loans. That's why you'll hear most pundits recommend Fixed Rate loans. Jumbo loans are a different beast altogether.

To further it, the HUD, through Fannie and Freddy, basically guaranteed the debt from lenders (they said they'd purchase like, $2T --yes, trillion-- in these types of loans) making the risk of the lending even less for the initial lender (because they were going to, in turn, be bought by Fannie or Freddy.)

 d-usa wrote:

Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.

Wrong.

Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well as Netroots taught us, the Democrat party doesn't believe all lives matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Just curious all of you who are against AA, are you also against poorer students being able to get cheaper loans, more grants, and certain scholarships than students from higher income families, regardless of any racial consideration? I ask because if you look at the totality of money being doled out, the vast majority is based on income situation as opposed to race, but when I see this issue about favoritism brought up, race seems to be what everybody keeps harping about, which does seem to point at something deeper.

Good thing neither of those are related. On a personal level I was a poor student and didn't get any of that so your argument is what we call, worm poop.

I don't believe I was really trying to advance an argument here. I am genuinely curious. I guess I could see where an argument could follow, but that really depends on the answer, doesn't it? And how does your one personal experience make any argument you see there worm droppings? Anecdotal evidence fallacy at its finest.

Its because favoring one race over another is wrong.

Lets say we have 100 scholarships available.

95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.

That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.

I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its because favoring one race over another is wrong.

Lets say we have 100 scholarships available.

95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.

That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.

I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.

I am not disagreeing with you here. My question takes race out of the equation for the moment. Let's say of those 100 students, only 95 can be applied for by low income family students. Students from higher income families can only apply for 95. Isn't that just as unequal and classist?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its because favoring one race over another is wrong.

Lets say we have 100 scholarships available.

95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.

That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.

I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.

I am not disagreeing with you here. My question takes race out of the equation for the moment. Let's say of those 100 students, only 95 can be applied for by low income family students. Students from higher income families can only apply for 95. Isn't that just as unequal and classist?

Sure, but class-ism is far less worse than racism. And this would actually be helping people who can't afford school.

Of course it still doesn't really help people who aren't poor enough to qualify for low income scholarships but also aren't rich enough to afford school without going into debt, like myself. But thats really another issue, and at least we aren't dealing with a racist policy.

 cincydooley wrote:

Crystal-Maze wrote:

That link leads to a 404 error for me - buisiness insider does not often like computers my side of the pond.

Is the thing you're getting at that the government encouraged predatory lending to black people insofar as they were poor, rather than banks specifically directing predatory loans towards black people?

More or less.

Basically, people with sub-prime credit (typically less than 700), many of whom in the US are minorities, and many of whom, further, don't necessarily have the financial savvy to understand how an ARM works, which is the majority of the loan types they were being offered. Loan adjusts....people can no longer afford their loans. That's why you'll hear most pundits recommend Fixed Rate loans. Jumbo loans are a different beast altogether.

To further it, the HUD, through Fannie and Freddy, basically guaranteed the debt from lenders (they said they'd purchase like, $2T --yes, trillion-- in these types of loans) making the risk of the lending even less for the initial lender (because they were going to, in turn, be bought by Fannie or Freddy.)

That may well be true in general.
But from the actual study I posted:
"A joint report from the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the US Department of the Treasury found that, as of
2000, “borrowers in black neighborhoods [were] five
times as likely to refinance in the subprime market
than borrowers in white neighborhoods,” even when
controlling for income."

"A joint report from the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the US Department of the Treasury found that, as of
2000, “borrowers in black neighborhoods [were] five
times as likely to refinance in the subprime market
than borrowers in white neighborhoods,” even when
controlling for income."

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well as Netroots taught us, the Democrat party doesn't believe all lives matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Just curious all of you who are against AA, are you also against poorer students being able to get cheaper loans, more grants, and certain scholarships than students from higher income families, regardless of any racial consideration? I ask because if you look at the totality of money being doled out, the vast majority is based on income situation as opposed to race, but when I see this issue about favoritism brought up, race seems to be what everybody keeps harping about, which does seem to point at something deeper.

Good thing neither of those are related. On a personal level I was a poor student and didn't get any of that so your argument is what we call, worm poop.

I don't believe I was really trying to advance an argument here. I am genuinely curious. I guess I could see where an argument could follow, but that really depends on the answer, doesn't it? And how does your one personal experience make any argument you see there worm droppings? Anecdotal evidence fallacy at its finest.

AA policies are completely unrelated to helping the poor. They are not designed to help class but "ethnicity." A wealthy African American student gets more benefit from AA policies than a poor Vietnamese immigrant.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its because favoring one race over another is wrong.

Lets say we have 100 scholarships available.

95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.

That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.

I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.

Kind of like its ok to have Black history month but it would be considered extremely racist to have a white history month. The argument that every month is white history month springs up often. But then again every month is also black history month, at least in the US. When you learn about the colonial period the new textbooks are sure to include that a black person was killed during the Boston Massacre and so on and so on. I thought the point of racism is to separate the races by giving them different categories, groupings and rules. Wouldn't specifically pointing out things black people have done, even if they are borderline useless to history....racist?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its because favoring one race over another is wrong.

Lets say we have 100 scholarships available.

95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.

That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.

I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.

I am not disagreeing with you here. My question takes race out of the equation for the moment. Let's say of those 100 students, only 95 can be applied for by low income family students. Students from higher income families can only apply for 95. Isn't that just as unequal and classist?

Sure, but class-ism is far less worse than racism. And this would actually be helping people who can't afford school.

Of course it still doesn't really help people who aren't poor enough to qualify for low income scholarships but also aren't rich enough to afford school without going into debt, like myself. But thats really another issue, and at least we aren't dealing with a racist policy.

'White man in poverty thinks scholarships for the poor are less bad than scholarships for black people'.

Black people and poor people are both disadvantaged groups in American society, because it is structured against both groups. That is why both groups get scholarships.

You are assuming both get scholarships and at similar rates.

If you REALLY want to help you help poverty, not AA. That raises all boats and has a supernormative impact for minorities that are disproportionately poor.

If you really really want to help poverty, fix the schools for everyone. Thats equal funding, equal standards (not the tyranny of lowered expectations) the full gambit.

Crystal-Maze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its because favoring one race over another is wrong.

Lets say we have 100 scholarships available.

95 of them are available for poor people. 5 of them are specifically only available to black students.

That means a poor black student has 100 scholarships he can apply for, while a poor white student only has 95. Thats pretty damn unequal and clearly racist.

I guarantee that if there was 1 scholarship that was only available to white and asian students there were be rioting in the streets. Yet its perfectly ok to have a scholarship only available for a black student.

I am not disagreeing with you here. My question takes race out of the equation for the moment. Let's say of those 100 students, only 95 can be applied for by low income family students. Students from higher income families can only apply for 95. Isn't that just as unequal and classist?

Sure, but class-ism is far less worse than racism. And this would actually be helping people who can't afford school.

Of course it still doesn't really help people who aren't poor enough to qualify for low income scholarships but also aren't rich enough to afford school without going into debt, like myself. But thats really another issue, and at least we aren't dealing with a racist policy.

'White man in poverty thinks scholarships for the poor are less bad than scholarships for black people'.

Black people and poor people are both disadvantaged groups in American society, because it is structured against both groups. That is why both groups get scholarships.

So the upper class black kid is more deserving of a scholarship than a poor white kid? He could apply for many scholarships that the white kid could not.

Because every black only scholarship I've seen has never had an income qualifier.

And again, there would be rioting in the streets if there was a scholarship that said "whites only", even if it also had a income qualifier. Yet the reverse is perfectly ok.

You are basically saying racism is ok if its socially acceptable. Slavery and Apartheid were socially acceptable at the time.

Ok then I would be for getting rid of AA policies if we could have an application process that took the name off the application (and the sex as well) so there are no preferential treatments based on race or gender and just assigned based on needs. Do keep in mind that this method would still likely have a bias towards African Americans as a result because of economic demographics. Would you be fine with this?

Yes, because race would not be a factor anymore.

I am actually in favor of removing race from all forms and paperwork.

Thats why I always say "choose not to declare" on applications when it asks for race.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, because race would not be a factor anymore.

I am actually in favor of removing race from all forms and paperwork.

Thats why I always say "choose not to declare" on applications when it asks for race.

Well, then I'm satisfied. Now if we could just get everybody else to agree (and by everybody else, I mean the people who actually make up the rules)

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.

Wrong.

Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.

Yeah...

All 3 of my kids are adopted, and all three from overseas because of this.

In the 1993-94 timeframe my wife and I tried to adopt through the state of TX (we were both LTs assigned to Ft Hood). I VERY strongly believed in helping kids from the US because I knew there were a ton out there needing homes. Went through all the required classes at much personal pain (I was often going directly from the field and going directly back,my wife picking me up at a tank trail intersection in the training areas or from a live fire range and then dropping me back off). After over a year of either not having been offered a kid or having the abused kid given back to the abusing mother we were getting a bit miffed with the process. We VERY clearly stated we would accept black, hispanic, mixed race and would take sibling pairs (or even three). We were finally told we were not being offered kids because there were 'no blue eyed blond haired babies in the system' and 'we could not raise minority kids In Their Culture' (want to talk about White Privilege with me?) so regardless of our stability as a couple and financial ability to raise kids we were not suitable parents in their eyes (even though we flew through the home study process with flying colors and were certified as being good candidates. Another social worker pointed out they were funded by how many kids were in foster care, not how many were placed in permanent adoptive homes.

After wasting about 18 months we decided to go through an agency that got kids from another country. 5 weeks later we were on a plane to pick up two little boys who were biological brothers.

Yup.

My parents actually waited a long time for me.

The first 2 years was waiting for a baby, then it ended up dying in childbirth. Then they waited another 2 years for me.

My sister from China took a year and a half for the paperwork. My little brother from Vietnam took only 11 months. And my sister from Khazakstan took 2.5 years, but only because 9-11 happened halfway through the process(and the tragic part was she had already visited us as part of a program to have children be in an exchange home for 6 months to try and trigger adoptions, she was the only adoption of an older child. So she knew we were going to adopt her, but had to wait a full 18 months longer than she should have. during which time we had no contact.)

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.

Wrong.

Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.

You, we are talking about you, so unless "my sibglings are vietnamese" is the new "I have friends that are black" it really doesn't matter much. You were also a domestic adoption, so international adoption characteristics really aren't much use there ither.

But to get back to you, and of course it would be easier to make a case if we knew your age (or at least a decade that you were born), and possibly even the state. With identity concerns in mind it is also understandable if you don't want to provide info like that.

You are white (at least you seem to be based on your consistency in using the "I never had nothing given to me despite being white" arguments). So let's start from scratch:

1) Your mother is white and gave you up for adoption: Based on when you were born the chance that you were given up for adoption was between 8% and 3% if your parents were white, and 0.2 and 1% if your parents were black. Instead of adoption your mother could have chosen abortion, with abortion rates for black women being three times as high as that of white women.

2) You were a private domestic adoption: So lets look at private domestic adoption statistics.. In a private domestic adoption, like yours, the white children come out on top:



Being adopted by white parents also comes out on top, regardless of the race of the child:



Other research has suggested that just by being white, you had a much higher likelihood to be adopted:

Our results show that children’s probability of receiving an application is considerably
affected by their race. In particular, this probability dramatically decreases if
the child is, at least partially, African American.
Projecting the marginal effect linearly, the probability that a 100 percent African
American child (of unknown gender) receives an application is 1.8 percent in contrast
to a probability of 13.1 percent for a 0 percent African American child (a
chi-squared test indicates these differences are significant at any reasonable confidence
level).
23 Similarly, application probabilities decrease dramatically for both
African American girls and boys. In other words, PAPs in our sample exhibit a large
and negative preference against African American children. This suggests that the
overrepresentation of African Americans in the population of adopted children is
due to a sizable supply effect

This also varies depending on the state of course. (I would link directly to the tables used in the article, but the link automatically downloads the PDF of the table to your computer and I know many don't like automatic downloads).

Of course none of this means that you were destined to be a collection of cells on the bottom of a biohazard back at the abortion clinic if you weren't white, or that adoptive parents would have laughed at the prospect of adopting you if you weren't white, or that your live would have been completely different if you were white. Because none of that is how the concept of "white privilege" works. All it means is that the fact that you were white gave you a higher chance of ending up with the life you did.

If life was Settlers of Catan you simply had better starting spots because of your race. The game can still be won with bad starting spots of course, and it is highly affected by the random rolls of the dice, how well you play the game, and by how everybody you are playing with is playing. But your starting spots can help push the odds in your favor.

So when you ask "where is my privilege, how come I have never seen it", your adoption story could be the first thing that you never bothered to look at.

@CaptJake, as an adoptee myself, you did a good thing.

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.

Wrong.

Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.

Yeah...

All 3 of my kids are adopted, and all three from overseas because of this.

In the 1993-94 timeframe my wife and I tried to adopt through the state of TX (we were both LTs assigned to Ft Hood). I VERY strongly believed in helping kids from the US because I knew there were a ton out there needing homes. Went through all the required classes at much personal pain (I was often going directly from the field and going directly back,my wife picking me up at a tank trail intersection in the training areas or from a live fire range and then dropping me back off). After over a year of either not having been offered a kid or having the abused kid given back to the abusing mother we were getting a bit miffed with the process. We VERY clearly stated we would accept black, hispanic, mixed race and would take sibling pairs (or even three). We were finally told we were not being offered kids because there were 'no blue eyed blond haired babies in the system' and 'we could not raise minority kids In Their Culture' (want to talk about White Privilege with me?) so regardless of our stability as a couple and financial ability to raise kids we were not suitable parents in their eyes (even though we flew through the home study process with flying colors and were certified as being good candidates. Another social worker pointed out they were funded by how many kids were in foster care, not how many were placed in permanent adoptive homes.

After wasting about 18 months we decided to go through an agency that got kids from another country. 5 weeks later we were on a plane to pick up two little boys who were biological brothers.

Was Grey a domestic adoption or an international adoption? International adoptions are nice and well, but talking about them as a rebuttal to the fact that domestic adoptions favor white children makes as much sense as talking about buying a house when someone is talking about renting an apartment.

But hey, even considering how easy it is to adopt internationally, and how international adoptions from countries where whites are a minority have less white kids getting adopted - what a shocker, the largest group of adopted children is still white:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well as Netroots taught us, the Democrat party doesn't believe all lives matter.

I'm calling BS on that one.

 d-usa wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Based on what you have revealed yourself your privilege might have kicked in twice already: when your mother didn't decide to abort you and when your adoptive parents signed your papers. The exact impact your race might have played depends on when exactly you were born.

Wrong.

Domestic adoptions are much rarer than international ones. Thus you are actually less likely to be adopted if you are white. BTW, my 3 younger siblings are all foreign, specifically Vietnamese, Chinese, and Khazak.

You, we are talking about you, so unless "my sibglings are vietnamese" is the new "I have friends that are black" it really doesn't matter much. You were also a domestic adoption, so international adoption characteristics really aren't much use there ither.

But to get back to you, and of course it would be easier to make a case if we knew your age (or at least a decade that you were born), and possibly even the state. With identity concerns in mind it is also understandable if you don't want to provide info like that.

You are white (at least you seem to be based on your consistency in using the "I never had nothing given to me despite being white" arguments). So let's start from scratch:

1) Your mother is white and gave you up for adoption: Based on when you were born the chance that you were given up for adoption was between 8% and 3% if your parents were white, and 0.2 and 1% if your parents were black. Instead of adoption your mother could have chosen abortion, with abortion rates for black women being three times as high as that of white women.

2) You were a private domestic adoption: So lets look at private domestic adoption statistics.. In a private domestic adoption, like yours, the white children come out on top:



Being adopted by white parents also comes out on top, regardless of the race of the child:



Other research has suggested that just by being white, you had a much higher likelihood to be adopted:

Our results show that children’s probability of receiving an application is considerably
affected by their race. In particular, this probability dramatically decreases if
the child is, at least partially, African American.
Projecting the marginal effect linearly, the probability that a 100 percent African
American child (of unknown gender) receives an application is 1.8 percent in contrast
to a probability of 13.1 percent for a 0 percent African American child (a
chi-squared test indicates these differences are significant at any reasonable confidence
level).
23 Similarly, application probabilities decrease dramatically for both
African American girls and boys. In other words, PAPs in our sample exhibit a large
and negative preference against African American children. This suggests that the
overrepresentation of African Americans in the population of adopted children is
due to a sizable supply effect

This also varies depending on the state of course. (I would link directly to the tables used in the article, but the link automatically downloads the PDF of the table to your computer and I know many don't like automatic downloads).

Of course none of this means that you were destined to be a collection of cells on the bottom of a biohazard back at the abortion clinic if you weren't white, or that adoptive parents would have laughed at the prospect of adopting you if you weren't white, or that your live would have been completely different if you were white. Because none of that is how the concept of "white privilege" works. All it means is that the fact that you were white gave you a higher chance of ending up with the life you did.

If life was Settlers of Catan you simply had better starting spots because of your race. The game can still be won with bad starting spots of course, and it is highly affected by the random rolls of the dice, how well you play the game, and by how everybody you are playing with is playing. But your starting spots can help push the odds in your favor.

So when you ask "where is my privilege, how come I have never seen it", your adoption story could be the first thing that you never bothered to look at.

All of those graphs involve Hispanic origin or Hispanic adoptive parents.

And again, I say total BS on my being adopted as "proof" of white privilege. My siblings have the same life, and they aren't white. Unless we're going to talk about Asian privilege next, or that because my parents are white it somehow transfers to them.

And heck, even if White Privilege is real, its still no excuse for racist policies like AA. Its racism because of an accident of birth, just like racism against blacks, asians, etc...