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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I work in an office that's roughly 40% black. The thing is, the staff is mostly black, half of the leads are black, but of 15 judges, 14 lawyers, and five managers, only one person is black. Of course, the contract janitors are all black. Now, I know the immediate reason: not a lot of black people in Cleveland go to law school. But why is that true? Why does a federal office with no overt racism that I've encountered have a TO that resembles the 1950s?

Same at my firm. Two black people work in my office. One is a secretary and the other is a secretary recently promoted to paralegal. Nine attorneys work in my office and we're all white and all but one is male.

One of my mentors, how retired a few years back, told me that he started in the office in the early 80s, and he was the last black male attorney they hired. Oh, and there were none when we started. And it's not like he was a token hire: he was former JAG and the most knowledgable guy by common consensus in the office. He wasn't even mad about it. Just a fact, I guess.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I still haven't gotten an answer to my question, which is that if there isn't white privilege, are we just going say that white people are smarter and harder working than black people?

Whaaaaaaa... of course not.

Then why is there such a disparity in income, wealth, and so on? Is it a massive coincidence? Lizard people?

Then Most Holy Emprah of Terra still slumbers...

I don't know... but, I wouldn't put it on the laps of "White Privilege".

*sigh*
I'm not flat out rejecting that there's racism (it's different now). I'm rejecting to the premise that just because I'm a human who happens to have white skin, I'm somehow benefitting some inherent privilege right now.

have an advantage doesn't mean you always enjoy it. I'm quite smart and educated. I've been unemployed, underemployed, and "questionably" employed. Does that make my degree and skill non-existent?

It's the same with any advantage, including a racial one. Yes, white people get pulled over. But It's a small, cumulative effect over time that leads to white people generally having more advantages over their lifespan.

The whole concept of "White Privilge" just screams "Anti-White".

This message brought to you by the same people that think raising taxes on the rich is because of hatred and jeaousy of the rich.

Yup.

I don't hate white people. I have a lot of white friends, you know.

Me too.

I think it's because we live in this world were we all adopt the fiction that hard work and diligence will get you ahead.

Fiction? Seriously?

Now, most of the time it does, but sometimes it don't.

Right... that's life. You're not guarantee'ed anything in life... except taxes... and death.

So, for a lot of white people, hearing they had some sort of advantage is immediately translated into "you were given what you have." Now, since that's what we hate about the poor, we can't accept that we were given something. Even if it was a good family life, a decent educaiton, money to start a business or go to school, or the benefit of the doubt from a cop.

Huh? That's not what I hear... but, then again, I'm mostly deaf.

Most successful people know that their personal success comes from hard work, but also from a good foundation they had little to do with

True dat.

Now, the odds of getting that foundation go up if you're white. they just do.

O.o I simply disagree with ya there buddy.

It has nothing to do with hating white people, or trying to tear them down, or any of that nonsense. It's about getting white people to realize they are not beyond race. Most white people assume they aren't really white, they're "normal." Race is something that happens to other people. Guess what? It happens to white people too.

I'm white... but, I ain't normal. o.O

We can't we all just say that we're AMERICAN and just get along.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Now, the odds of getting that foundation go up if you're white. they just do.

I simply disagree with ya there buddy.

On what basis?

 Polonius wrote:
I still haven't gotten an answer to my question, which is that if there isn't white privilege, are we just going say that white people are smarter and harder working than black people?

@ Alf: yes, your advantage is that things would be even worse if you weren't white. Things that are likely to happen to white kids (two parents, stable housing, decent schools) are unlikley for black kids.

And white kids don't have to deal with the peer pressure of a black street culture that often ridicules academic success. Now, nobody thinks the nerds are cool in white communities, but being academically oriented isn't seen as "selling out." And the first person that wants to dismiss negative peer pressure as a consideration needs to get a clue.

Now put up the statistics for hispanics vs. blacks.
Third generation hispanics vs. 3rd generation black (of course define which hispanics)
Asians vs. blacks (that itself is racists as there are so many subgroups)
This is too easy a statisical advantage. If it were "white power" then all groups would be equally disadvantaged at all times.

@Manchu

That's a little ridiculous. Asians miss out on advantages that whites and even blacks get and yet generally perform better in our society as a whole than either outside the 1%. That screams that the "white privledge" isn't neccessarily the issue in the case of the black demographics.

@Polonius

I meant in conversations of black being under privledged/persecuted by society because they are a minority. I realize just based on basic demographics that asians are a model minority (in the US).

 Hulksmash wrote:
So hispanics by the two examples provided are just as poor as african americans and get incarcerated less (even more so once you only include actual citizens) and asians aren't worth mentioning.

Interesting. I'd be more inclined to believe in a universal white priviledge if solid studies were done correlating wealth/race/incarceration rates/and geographical locations but including all races and similar crimes for incarceration. Not primarily focusing on blacka nd white. As it stands this argument seems more about blacks being under privledged than whites being over priviledged.

Amazing how asian americans almost never get dragged into their conversations as well. Can't have a minority that is pretty solidly middle class and doesn't have high incarceration rates mucking up the rankings I suppose.

It depends on the subsegment as well. Some Asian nationalities have done very well. Others not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Being aware of white privilege only nurtures existing segregation to the extent that white people also claim to deserve the privilege or otherwise act to preserve it. But just saying, this is a racist society and I benefit from that racism -- that isn't creating or widening segregation. That's the first step, as a white person, on the road to opposing segregation.

I work in an office that's roughly 40% black. The thing is, the staff is mostly black, half of the leads are black, but of 15 judges, 14 lawyers, and five managers, only one person is black. Of course, the contract janitors are all black. Now, I know the immediate reason: not a lot of black people in Cleveland go to law school. But why is that true? Why does a federal office with no overt racism that I've encountered have a TO that resembles the 1950s?

You only recruit from Ivy League schools?

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Now, the odds of getting that foundation go up if you're white. they just do.

I simply disagree with ya there buddy.

On what basis?

Racism.

Now, here me out.

the argument is, "there can't be white privilege, I had to work hard for what I have." Thus, implying that all it takes to succeed is hard work. thus, those that don't succeed didn't work hard. Thus, black people are lazy.

Denying white privilege is a way to reinforce the ideas 1) that the system is fair, and 2) other races are inherently inferior.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I work in an office that's roughly 40% black. The thing is, the staff is mostly black, half of the leads are black, but of 15 judges, 14 lawyers, and five managers, only one person is black. Of course, the contract janitors are all black. Now, I know the immediate reason: not a lot of black people in Cleveland go to law school. But why is that true? Why does a federal office with no overt racism that I've encountered have a TO that resembles the 1950s?

Same at my firm. Two black people work in my office. One is a secretary and the other is a secretary recently promoted to paralegal. Nine attorneys work in my office and we're all white and all but one is male.

Where do you recruit from? Where you recruit from defines who you hire.

Why would white advantage result in all other races being equally affected?

The most racist nation states have always had strict heirarchies with differing rules applying to different races. Under apartheid Gandhi, an Indian, could practice law when a black or mixed race person could not. But he couldn't hold office.

And the asian experience has changed dramatically. 120 years ago the most liberal supreme court justice casually mentioned how "mongolians" could never fully assimilate into society.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I work in an office that's roughly 40% black. The thing is, the staff is mostly black, half of the leads are black, but of 15 judges, 14 lawyers, and five managers, only one person is black. Of course, the contract janitors are all black. Now, I know the immediate reason: not a lot of black people in Cleveland go to law school. But why is that true? Why does a federal office with no overt racism that I've encountered have a TO that resembles the 1950s?

Same at my firm. Two black people work in my office. One is a secretary and the other is a secretary recently promoted to paralegal. Nine attorneys work in my office and we're all white and all but one is male.

maybe you should hire people from TSU.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I work in an office that's roughly 40% black. The thing is, the staff is mostly black, half of the leads are black, but of 15 judges, 14 lawyers, and five managers, only one person is black. Of course, the contract janitors are all black. Now, I know the immediate reason: not a lot of black people in Cleveland go to law school. But why is that true? Why does a federal office with no overt racism that I've encountered have a TO that resembles the 1950s?

Same at my firm. Two black people work in my office. One is a secretary and the other is a secretary recently promoted to paralegal. Nine attorneys work in my office and we're all white and all but one is male.

I work in technology. Financial technology, specifically. Of my immediate group, two people are Chinese women, one is a black women, one is a black guy, one is a white woman, six are white guys, one is a Columbian who just got his green card about a month ago, and I'm a white guy.

The two Chinese women, the black guy, one of the white guys, and the white woman are all promoted to a higher level (better paid) than the others, with myself being the effectively the highest level technical person on the floor.

My anecdotes do not match well with your anecdotes. Yes, I suppose there are more white guys than any other single race. Is that unreasonable? Given that St. Louis population demographics of 2011 show St. Louis as being 76% white, I would say, assuming equal capability throughout race, it is not unreasonable.

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's a little ridiculous. Asians miss out on advantages that whites and even blacks get and yet generally perform better in our society as a whole than either outside the 1%. That screams that the "white privledge" isn't neccessarily the issue in the case of the black demographics.

You're talking about "performance" ... I'm guessing you mean dollars. What I said to you is, dollars aren't the only way we measure privilege. It's just one of the more obvious ways (for whites) because even if you have never experienced and have trouble imagining what it is like to be treated unfairly because of your race, it is easy to imagine having less dollars. Now, if you want to talk about Asians, you're going to have to think beyond dollars.

 daedalus wrote:
My anecdotes do not match well with your anecdotes.

Consult your company's policies and procedures to begin finding out why. To learn more, consider the differences between the educational backgrounds involved.

 daedalus wrote:

The two Chinese women, the black guy, one of the white guys, and the white woman are all promoted to a higher level (better paid) than the others, with myself being the effectively the highest level technical person on the floor.

My anecdotes do not match well with your anecdotes. Yes, I suppose there are more white guys than any other single race. Is that unreasonable? Given that St. Louis population demographics of 2011 show St. Louis as being 76% white, I would say, assuming equal capability throughout race, it is not unreasonable.

I'm going to say what most people are too polite to say: it's possible that the people promoted were promoted on merit. Which is, I'm sure, the same way our offices were staffed.

the question becomes, why does the talent pool look the way it does?

 Polonius wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

The two Chinese women, the black guy, one of the white guys, and the white woman are all promoted to a higher level (better paid) than the others, with myself being the effectively the highest level technical person on the floor.

My anecdotes do not match well with your anecdotes. Yes, I suppose there are more white guys than any other single race. Is that unreasonable? Given that St. Louis population demographics of 2011 show St. Louis as being 76% white, I would say, assuming equal capability throughout race, it is not unreasonable.

I'm going to say what most people are too polite to say: it's possible that the people promoted were promoted on merit. Which is, I'm sure, the same way our offices were staffed.

the question becomes, why does the talent pool look the way it does?

My office is full of dern fereners, like half of them. Dern fereners, taking our JOBS!*


*Frazzled works for an evil dern ferener bank. Hurray!

@Manchu

Not just dollars. Also looking at incarceration rates. Which were two of the primary issues mentioned in this thread. Which is why I pointed them out.

I'm sure the demographics are out their for education which puts them on par if not higher on a percentage basis than white america.

 Polonius wrote:

I'm going to say what most people are too polite to say: it's possible that the people promoted were promoted on merit. Which is, I'm sure, the same way our offices were staffed.

the question becomes, why does the talent pool look the way it does?

I'd say the vast majority of those who have been promoted belong exactly where they do. There is only one person I do not feel deserves her position.

Amusingly, I probably would not have hired 4 of the white men that work in the group, and have lodged several complaints about them with their manager.

 Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Now, the odds of getting that foundation go up if you're white. they just do.

I simply disagree with ya there buddy.

On what basis?

Racism.

Now, here me out.

the argument is, "there can't be white privilege, I had to work hard for what I have." Thus, implying that all it takes to succeed is hard work. thus, those that don't succeed didn't work hard. Thus, black people are lazy.

Denying white privilege is a way to reinforce the ideas 1) that the system is fair, and 2) other races are inherently inferior.

Seriously... no.

Why is it A or B?

Because if we wanna be too simplistic here..

I wear hearing aids because I'm profoundly deaf.

I was disadvantaged because, the "hearing" people thought I was dumb, and thus treated differently.

Therefore, there's a "Hearing Privilege" in our society. (do you know how difficult it is sometimes to get subtitles on the media?).

See where I'm coming from? That's why I think all of this is ridiculous.

Furthermore, doing these sorts of exercise exacerbate the problem in that, we're attempting to determine root cause analysis (why are they poor) to some overall efforts against the poor due to systemic racism and/or inherent advantages due to "white privilege".

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I'd rattle off a bunch of scolarships, but they are local ones you'd never have heard of.

I have Google.

 Grey Templar wrote:

If there was a scholarship that had "You must be white" as a qualifier, there would be riots in the streets.

What scholarship requires the applicant to be of a particular ethnicity?

We have a few programs of scholarships for Native students up here. I've heard that they are ridiculously generous because few bothers to take them up. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028564/1100100028566

 Hulksmash wrote:
Not just dollars.

Sure, sure ... and what about the example I gave you?

whembly wrote:But, I also reject this privileged premise because it presume that everyone should have an equal chance. It's a poor, simplistic attempt to explain away why there's these discrepencies between classes, races, genders, whatever...

Please explain this to me without ultimately referencing the White Man's Burden. I bet you can't.

 whembly wrote:
I wear hearing aids because I'm profoundly deaf.

I was disadvantaged because, the "hearing" people thought I was dumb, and thus treated differently.

Therefore, there's a "Hearing Privilege" in our society.

Yeah, actually there is such a thing.

The fact that you find this example, which is an actual phenomenon, to be ridiculous is ... I don't know, it's staggering.

Wait now you're saying hearing is a privilege? Ok, you've just defined "privilege" into meaninglessness.

Is there is racism? You betcha your ass there is. But its not just "whites" against "blacks." Thats a lazy philosophy.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I wear hearing aids because I'm profoundly deaf.

I was disadvantaged because, the "hearing" people thought I was dumb, and thus treated differently.

Therefore, there's a "Hearing Privilege" in our society.

Yeah, actually there is such a thing.

The fact that you find this example, which is an actual phenomenon, to be ridiculous is ... I don't know, it's staggering.

Really... why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait now you're saying hearing is a privilege.

Now I'm all confused...

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait now you're saying hearing is a privilege.

I really wish I could tell when you are being serious and when you are just substituting thread derailment for the arguments that you either cannot or will not make. Because I am really tired of always assuming that you are acting in good faith without any evidence that you are actually doing so. But to continue the trend ...

No, I am not saying hearing is a privilege. I am saying that being able to hear is a privileged status.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:But, I also reject this privileged premise because it presume that everyone should have an equal chance. It's a poor, simplistic attempt to explain away why there's these discrepencies between classes, races, genders, whatever...

Please explain this to me without ultimately referencing the White Man's Burden. I bet you can't.

eh... isn't that a poem?

 whembly wrote:
Really... why?

Because it is massively disappointing? I mean, you can obviously reason out how this privilege exists. But at the same time you either cannot comprehend that it does or you are ideologically committed to its nonexistence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
eh... isn't that a poem?

This:

 Manchu wrote:
I really wish I could tell when you are being serious and when you are just substituting thread derailment for the arguments that you either cannot or will not make. Because I am really tired of always assuming that you are acting in good faith without any evidence that you are actually doing so.

Also applies to you, whembly.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait now you're saying hearing is a privilege.

I really wish I could tell when you are being serious and when you are just substituting thread derailment for the arguments that you either cannot or will not make. Because I am really tired of always assuming that you are acting in good faith without any evidence that you are actually doing so. But to continue the trend ...

No, I am not saying hearing is a privilege. I am saying that being able to hear is a privileged status.

And in this case, what I'm saying is that these sorts of mental jujitsu doesn't help the cause.

Just realize that I'm fething deaf and I don't need/deserve any special treatment. I understand that I'll have difficulties compared to others who can hear, but I'll adapt and overcome.

See?

Kovnik Obama wrote:We have a few programs of scholarships for Native students up here. I've heard that they are ridiculously generous because few bothers to take them up. Few qualify for them due to the abysmal graduation levels. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028564/1100100028566

Fixed that for you. Not gonna start a whole new thread about those grad levels; the reasons for the phenomenon are myriad.

whembly wrote:
I wear hearing aids because I'm profoundly deaf.

I was disadvantaged because, the "hearing" people thought I was dumb, and thus treated differently.

Therefore, there's a "Hearing Privilege" in our society. (do you know how difficult it is sometimes to get subtitles on the media?).

See where I'm coming from? That's why I think all of this is ridiculous.

Seriously, I think my jaw just dropped like an old Real Ghostbusters toy from the '80s.

How can you be attempting to use this example as satire and not be aware that this is an actual thing?

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait now you're saying hearing is a privilege.

I really wish I could tell when you are being serious and when you are just substituting thread derailment for the arguments that you either cannot or will not make. Because I am really tired of always assuming that you are acting in good faith without any evidence that you are actually doing so. But to continue the trend ...

No, I am not saying hearing is a privilege. I am saying that being able to hear is a privileged status.

Being able to hear is a privileged status? Thats er..normal for humans. You're making defineitly using any any advantage one person has over another as privileged, I guess to be addressed.
How about eyesight? How about height? Width? length of people's left pinky. What about those people with six fingers? Are they disadvantaged or privileged?
On the positive under the Manchu doctrine I can now allege discrimination. Excellent! I deserve half your stuff Manchu because you're more privileged than me. Plus you can probably type. A further privilege! I should get 3/4 of your stuff.

Can you pack that up? My birthday's coming up and I need a new pair of everything, pronto!

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
eh... isn't that a poem?

This:

 Manchu wrote:
I really wish I could tell when you are being serious and when you are just substituting thread derailment for the arguments that you either cannot or will not make. Because I am really tired of always assuming that you are acting in good faith without any evidence that you are actually doing so.

Also applies to you, whembly.

Sorry buddy... I meant no offence.