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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Remember you pureblood nations, its those smelly Heinz 57 mutts that have the best genes!
We've Slavs, Germans, Indians, Mexicans, Mestizos, Yucatan Mayan, Japanese, Czech, CHinese, Vietnamese, Hmong, Congolese, Egyptian, Zulu, Ghanan, Ugandan, Malaysian, Spanish, Argentinian, Brazilian, Aztec, Incan, and pasty UK folk. and one surviving nenderthal.
America Hurr!

You left out Irish. I'll give you some time to go back and fix your error

 cincydooley wrote:
With all things equal, middle class white males actually have less avenues for college scholarships than middle class females or minorities....

So there's that....

And yet there is an enrollment gap between whites and minorities... Scholarships are almost as if someone is leveling the playing field for generations of systematic institutional hardship which has prevented minorities from having access to higher education?

Women do out enroll Men 57%to 43%, but women also have to systematically prove themselves at all levels of employment over men and often need to be overqualified to their male counterparts to compete for the same job.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Cue the conspiracy music.

So I'm confused: if you think that there is no such thing as white privilege, what do you think racism means in the US? Is it in your mind just a purely personal phenomenon of citizen X having a problem with citizen Y because of race? You don't think it is a systemic, historical form of oppression that anyone benefits from?

 trexmeyer wrote:
Where is the evidence of there being an actual system in place instead of any perceived white privilege being the lingering remnant of centuries of WASP male domination of American politics and economy.

You ask for evidence but then characterize current white dominance of American politics and the economy as a "lingering remnant of centuries" past?

nkelsch wrote:
Just because people adapt and overcome doesn't mean that it makes it less unfair or that it shouldn't be addressed. You seem to think because you chose to overcome and not complain that nothing should be done to address the institutional issues which will continue to put those barriers in front of future generations?

The first step to removing those barriers and addressing the situation is to admit the inequity exists, and those who have the advantage in the inequity change their behavior to not perpetuate the inequity or to combat it when they see it. Expecting the people who the system is designed to interfere with to simply 'figure it out' or 'rise above it' doesn't solve the problem.

How 'bout this.

Give me examples.

And you don't see 'Being passed over for a job explicitly because your hearing but you can't prove it because proving discrimination is expensive, hard to prove and costs money only available to those are already at the 'top' as 'negative' then I don't know what to tell you

Woah, woah there... project much?

Not once, did my default response is to sue. I'm a very practical person... I have to be. Otherwise, I'd go nutso.

Being Deaf is not negative,

Thanks!

the way society throws barriers in your way to make your life harder because you are not the 'default' is a negative. Sure you can overcome discrimination, you are forced to... doesn't mean it is ok or should be accepted. (or pretend it doesn't exist)

Jeebus... "society throws barriers" my way?

You make it sound like it's done on purpose.

nkelsch wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Can you honestly say that a while male born in a middle class environment somehow has a distinct advantage over a nonwhite male or female (of any ethnicity) in the same environment? I don't believe that for a second. I think you are reading signals in the noise that don't exist.

I am sure all the middle-class women and minorities who have the same experience and education but make less and have lower titles than their white male counterparts take great comfort in your statements which basically tell them that there is nothing 'institutional' preventing them from being treated equally.

Polonius wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Cue the conspiracy music. Where is the evidence of there being an actual system in place instead of any perceived white privilege being the lingering remnant of centuries of WASP male domination of American politics and economy. Can you honestly say that a while male born in a middle class environment somehow has a distinct advantage over a nonwhite male or female (of any ethnicity) in the same environment? I don't believe that for a second. I think you are reading signals in the noise that don't exist.

I'm actually not sure. I don't know if we really have generational studies that filter out class advantage. I'd wager that middle class black men still disproportionately go to prison, but I could be wrong there.

Still, getting into the middle class is far more likely for white (and asian) men then black or latino. I mean, "the lingering remnant of centuries of WASP male domination of American politics and economy" are still white privilege.

Don't confuse privilege with organized discrimination. It's usually relatively benign, incremental stuff. The size of an inheritance, the likelihood of being a legacy at a good college, having job opportunities because your family knows a business owner, that kind of thing.

I agree with your last statement Pol. I vehemently disagree with Manchu's claim of it being systematic oppression.

manchu wrote: It's a system of oppressing some people for the benefit of others.

 Polonius wrote:
Yeah, i guess I meant that for most people, "racial awareness" is more about how not to get caught saying or doing something racist, not how to actually be tolerant or progressive.

Yes I agree with that. A lot of white people seem to think refraining from burning crosses on black folks' lawns or refraining from lynching them or maybe just having greater than or equal to one black friend(s) proves that they cannot possibly be racist/if they are racist otherwise then it is okay and justified racism.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I vehemently disagree with Manchu's claim of it being systematic oppression.

If racism is not a function of systematic oppression then why do the same patterns of racial inequality (black marginalization and white privilege) persist over time?

 Polonius wrote:
Don't confuse privilege with organized discrimination.

I'm not sure what you meant to teach trex by posting this but I am 99% certain that it requires clarification.

 Polonius wrote:

Don't confuse privilege with organized discrimination. It's usually relatively benign, incremental stuff. The size of an inheritance, the likelihood of being a legacy at a good college, having job opportunities because your family knows a business owner, that kind of thing.

Maybe that's where my confusion is...

But again, to me... those things you listed there explicitedly are all part of life.

 Manchu wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Cue the conspiracy music.

So I'm confused: if you think that there is no such thing as white privilege, what do you think racism means in the US? Is it in your mind just a purely personal phenomenon of citizen X having a problem with citizen Y because of race? You don't think it is a systemic, historical form of oppression that anyone benefits from?

 trexmeyer wrote:
Where is the evidence of there being an actual system in place instead of any perceived white privilege being the lingering remnant of centuries of WASP male domination of American politics and economy.

You ask for evidence but then characterize current white dominance of American politics and the economy as a "lingering remnant of centuries" past?

Whites are the majority of the population, they should dominate politics and the economy through sheer numbers alone. The issue is whether or not their representation among the economic and political elite is greater than their percentage of the general population. In politics they are without a doubt over represented by a significant margin. The only nonwhite group that comes close to being represented accurately are African-Americans (8.1% of Congress vs 13.6% of the general population).

 whembly wrote:
You make it sound like it's done on purpose.

Sometimes marginalization is intentional. But it does not stop being marginalization simply because it is unintentional. Part of not being in the "default population" is that you are factually excluded in some ways from a world that is intentionally designed for the default population.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Whites are the majority of the population, they should dominate politics and the economy through sheer numbers alone.

They do dominate politics and economy but not by sheer numbers. The racism we are talking about is seen in advantages and disadvantages disproportionately enjoyed/suffered by certain populations.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You make it sound like it's done on purpose.

Sometimes marginalization is intentional. But it does not stop being marginalization simply because it is unintentional. Part of not being in the "default population" is that you are factually excluded in some ways from a world that is intentionally designed for the default population.

Examples please?

 whembly wrote:
But again, to me... those things you listed there explicitedly are all part of life.

The question is not (or should not be), Is racism a part of life? -- the answer to that question is (or should be) self-evidently YES. The questions are, Why is it a part of life? and How can we make it less a part of life?

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But again, to me... those things you listed there explicitedly are all part of life.

The question is not (or should not be), Is racism a part of life? -- the answer to that question is (or should be) self-evidently YES. The questions are, Why is it a part of life? and How can we make it less a part of life?

True.

But, those things that Polonius listed isn't racism.

 whembly wrote:
Examples please?

How about that old chestnut we've been chewing over for so long, voter ID laws? And let's discuss it this time without even referencing race (since I know we totally disagree about that). Even taking proponents of voter ID laws at their word that these laws are designed to protect elections (rather than marginalize the poor), they are still designed for a default population (those who have state-issed ID) and not for others.

Getting a state-issued ID is difficult...how?

 whembly wrote:
But, those things that Polonius listed isn't racism.

They aren't overtly racist because, as Pol mentioned, there are extremely strong taboos around overt racism. But they are still connected to systemic racism. Black people do not just happen to be disproportionately poor, undereducated, and imprisoned. That's not just a law of nature. That's the result of a system established and propagated by those in power, who themselves don't just happen to be disproportionately white.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Getting a state-issued ID is difficult...how?

I'll have to refer you to the Dakka search function. You can find that issue discussed extensively in many threads.

I would be eagerly interested in a hearty discussion made surrounding the concepts of bootstrapping and white privilege

I take you on Daedalus. First..
1. Is joining the US military consider boot strapping or self improvement?
2. Clarify "white" privilege vs entitlement?
3. Are we as a Nation becoming to dependent on government entitlements and hand outs?

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You make it sound like it's done on purpose.

Sometimes marginalization is intentional. But it does not stop being marginalization simply because it is unintentional. Part of not being in the "default population" is that you are factually excluded in some ways from a world that is intentionally designed for the default population.

Examples please?

Jobs saying 'must be able to lift 50lbs and have excellent verbal communication skills' to legally discriminate against handicapped people.

Companies hiring a handicapped person, but that employee now needs special technology to be able to do their work, and now the internal bureaucracy now means that employee is 'on the bench' possibly for weeks while they get TTY, special desks, high contrast monitors, special touchpads and so on for them to 'begin work'. Sends the signal they are not welcome or at least will always be at risk of 'well, you can't do the work so it isn't discrimination'.

Is it intentional? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is companies being cheap and bureaucratic and simply not being able or willing to 'adapt' to anything not the default.

Having worked at a company which explicitly works in the handicapped field and seeing the steps a company to take to do above the 'bare minimal' required by law so we can employ all levels of physical handicaps with almost no impact to productivity, it is night and day. We ran the clearing house for handicap equipment and accessibility needs.

The simple fact they need laws to prevent discrimination shows that it is an issue, and the laws help but don't go all the way. Things are 'better than they were' but are not 'as good as they could be'. The sad fact is some companies pay handicapped people less due to the 'costs' of making the company accessible for them or because they claim they can't do some of the required job duties. It happens every day. The employee may not realize it many times, sometimes they may and simply don't want to rock the boat because their experiences have shown accommodating jobs for thier disability are few and far between... but it doesn't mean discrimination is not happening and that there are not barriers, intentional or not.

Now apply race, where barriers are based upon ignorance and hate, not bottom lines and inconvenience... And increase the population impacted and combine that with generations after generations of marginalization. Are we to just 'ignore' that and tell people 'that's life?'

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, those things that Polonius listed isn't racism.

They aren't overtly racist because, as Pol mentioned, there are extremely strong taboos around overt racism. But they are still connected to systemic racism. Black people do not just happen to be disproportionately poor, undereducated, and imprisoned. That's not just a law of nature. That's the result of a system established and propagated by those in power, who themselves don't just happen to be disproportionately white.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Getting a state-issued ID is difficult...how?

I'll have to refer you to the Dakka search function. You can find that issue discussed extensively in many threads.

Like this thread where you result to nothing more than insults when proven wrong?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/563065.page

Jobs saying 'must be able to lift 50lbs and have excellent verbal communication skills' to legally discriminate against handicapped people.

Companies hiring a handicapped person, but that employee now needs special technology to be able to do their work, and now the internal bureaucracy now means that employee is 'on the bench' possibly for weeks while they get TTY, special desks, high contrast monitors, special touchpads and so on for them to 'begin work'. Sends the signal they are not welcome or at least will always be at risk of 'well, you can't do the work so it isn't discrimination'.

Is it intentional? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is companies being cheap and bureaucratic and simply not being able or willing to 'adapt' to anything not the default.

Better start screaming at your Senators and Rep's. The US Military hugely discriminates against Handicaps.

must be able to lift 50lbs and have excellent verbal communication skills'

Just curious. How many "correct" push ups can you do? Is "street talk/slang" consider excellent verbal communication skills?

 trexmeyer wrote:
Getting a state-issued ID is difficult...how?

Not the point. It's still a policy that disproportionately effects certain classes of people.

Not all obstacles or advantages are huge, but they are cumulative.

 Jihadin wrote:

I would be eagerly interested in a hearty discussion made surrounding the concepts of bootstrapping and white privilege

I take you on Daedalus. First..
1. Is joining the US military consider boot strapping or self improvement?

I've heard described as either. Personally, I'd consider it probably closer to self-improvement, but that's because everyone I know has gone into the military because they couldn't find any other stable jobs. Most of the people I know who have gone in have either done it right out of high school, or during the financial crisis. With most of those people, there was no real "sense of duty" they had, and they didn't even pursue the GI Bill or look into college afterward.

Interesting that you bring the military into this. I don't know the intimate specifics of how the whole "pays for college" thing works, but you'd think that there would be more disadvantaged minorities taking that route to improve their situation.

2. Clarify "white" privilege vs entitlement?

Well, "white" privilege from this thread appears to be basically any benefits that white people enjoy from their white heritage. I'm sure someone will happily correct me if that's wrong. I really don't like the word entitlement. I feel like it's been hijacked to have a negative connotation it shouldn't. All men are genuinely entitled to certain things. These things we generally call rights. Entitlement is a good thing. On the other hand, some people feel entitled to things, often wrongly. Generally when people sling around entitlement as a pejorative, it appears to be for the latter.

As there are arguably real effects to white privilege, I'd say there are certain amounts of overlap in places, but I don't think they're the same thing. I guess you could say that someone who enjoys white privilege who adamantly denies there is no problem might be entitled because he things so. I would suggest that he's naive instead, because odds are it's more accurate and feels less accusatory. Something along a general unawareness of the world vs. the notion of the fat cat villain protesting even as he enriches himself from the sweat of the less fortunate. There's implying that you're deliberately benefiting, and then there's being unaware of an implicit advantage manufactured by a social construct.

3. Are we as a Nation becoming to dependent on government entitlements and hand outs?

That question has spurred threads upon threads of debate. I'd suggest that we're not so long as anyone is desperate enough to do things like commit crimes specifically to be housed and fed in a climate controlled facility, but that oversimplifies things and is somehow still likely to spawn a 30 page graph copypasta fight.

nkelsch wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
With all things equal, middle class white males actually have less avenues for college scholarships than middle class females or minorities....

So there's that....

And yet there is an enrollment gap between whites and minorities... Scholarships are almost as if someone is leveling the playing field for generations of systematic institutional hardship which has prevented minorities from having access to higher education?

Women do out enroll Men 57%to 43%, but women also have to systematically prove themselves at all levels of employment over men and often need to be overqualified to their male counterparts to compete for the same job.

Blaming institutional hardship is irresponsible. Blame the a culture that places less emphasis on the importance of education.

We don't see those same enrollment gaps with Asian and Indian students because the culture places a heavy emphasis on education.

So please, don't reduce it to "institutional hardship" and remove any personal accountability.

Culture is part of the 'institution.' When people are talking about Insititutional Racism, they're not just talking about organizations and business. They're talking about society and the mechanisms that make it up which have institutionalized racism. Culture and society are the institution being discussed.

That onus is on the black community. Not a single other institution.

 cincydooley wrote:
That onus is on the black community. Not a single other institution.

A community does not exist within a vacuum.

I've heard described as either. Personally, I'd consider it probably closer to self-improvement, but that's because everyone I know has gone into the military because they couldn't find any other stable jobs. Most of the people I know who have gone in have either done it right out of high school, or during the financial crisis. With most of those people, there was no real "sense of duty" they had, and they didn't even pursue the GI Bill or look into college afterward.

Interesting that you bring the military into this. I don't know the intimate specifics of how the whole "pays for college" thing works, but you'd think that there would be more disadvantaged minorities taking that route to improve their situation.

There's a few on here that called it "Boot Strapping". Granted I will admit its the best way to get out of a bad situation, job security (contract), steady pay on the 1st and the 15th, and additional perks like Airborne, Pathfinder, Warrant class, and free training and the POST 9/11 GI Bill cannot be beat. All funded by tax payer's. That's where the "Boot strapping" comes in. Yet we trade a bit of our civilian rights for how many years we signed up for.

I did it because there literally was no jobs in my area to make it worth my wild. Let's look at the minorities in this country. How are they influence and what their perception is. Why go into a life of regimentation while I can go "Gangsta" or play's the system to their advantage. Why get paid and have taxes on it compare to getting paid under the table.

Well, "white" privilege from this thread appears to be basically any benefits that white people enjoy from their white heritage. I'm sure someone will happily correct me if that's wrong. I really don't like the word entitlement. I feel like it's been hijacked to have a negative connotation it shouldn't. All men are genuinely entitled to certain things. These things we generally call rights. Entitlement is a good thing. On the other hand, some people feel entitled to things, often wrongly. Generally when people sling around entitlement as a pejorative, it appears to be for the latter.

As there are arguably real effects to white privilege, I'd say there are certain amounts of overlap in places, but I don't think they're the same thing. I guess you could say that someone who enjoys white privilege who adamantly denies there is no problem might be entitled because he things so. I would suggest that he's naive instead, because odds are it's more accurate and feels less accusatory. Something along a general unawareness of the world vs. the notion of the fat cat villain protesting even as he enriches himself from the sweat of the less fortunate. There's implying that you're deliberately benefiting, and then there's being unaware of an implicit advantage manufactured by a social construct.

That "White Privilege" irks me like the "N-word" (title). Its outdated and a throwback to...say...1950ish till I say late 80ish..90ish on I going to say this probably apply's to everyone now. those that think they are "privilege". Like the world owes them something for nothing. Example be the 15-20 dollar an hour burger flipper. The entitlements are being abused left and right, up and down, and 12 ways to Sunday. We're like on the same sheet of music. I just think they really really need to update the policy and verify it all....dang I loss my frame of mind on this..

That question has spurred threads upon threads of debate. I'd suggest that we're not so long as anyone is desperate enough to do things like commit crimes specifically to be housed and fed in a climate controlled facility, but that oversimplifies things and is somehow still likely to spawn a 30 page graph copypasta fight.

What's the breaking point? You have, what, under half the Nation paying the other half entitlements and getting taxed more (figure of speech). If MIT can come up with a theory of Warp drive then why get some of their caliber to overhaul the system lol. The problem is the fear of "Change"...Xanax kicked in quicker then I thought

 LordofHats wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
That onus is on the black community. Not a single other institution.

A community does not exist within a vacuum.

It doesn't, but it is still responsible for itself. The outside can influence, sure, but the choices are made within. The person or community.

 LordofHats wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
That onus is on the black community. Not a single other institution.

A community does not exist within a vacuum.

The question to ask is thus: why has that community evolved in that way?

In the end, "white privilege" is an answer to a simple question: if races are inherently equal in inherent ability, why are they so different in achievement?

There's some thought that a lot of the aspects of poor culture (which overlaps heavily with black culture) are not as self destructive as they appear.

If they were self destructive they'd have been weeded out ages ago and behavior would stop. The behaviors of people in underprivileged environments are the result of surviving in that environment, with the catch-22 of leaving one unprepared to actually get out of it.

This is why Ain't No Making it should be required reading in any sociology class. Acting like the poor can just fix their own problems isn't realistic and completely ignores the reality of being poor. They don't have the time or the money to fix their situation and society ignores their situation.

choices are made within. The person or community.

Choices are limited by environment. Someone who has to work 70 hours to provide for themselves and their family has remarkably few choices. A child surrounded by gang violence and who sees how hard the adults in their lives work for little payout and has no educational support is left with a very slim chance to succeed. "Just stop being poor and underprivileged" is not a choice. It's the crying of the privileged who want to ignore that underprivileged can't just snap their fingers and hard work their problems away.

 LordofHats wrote:
If they were self destructive they'd have been weeded out ages ago and behavior would stop. The behaviors of people in underprivileged environments are the result of surviving in that environment, with the catch-22 of leaving one unprepared to actually get out of it.

This is why Ain't No Making it should be required reading in any sociology class. Acting like the poor can just fix their own problems isn't realistic and completely ignores the reality of being poor. They don't have the time or the money to fix their situation and society ignores their situation.

choices are made within. The person or community.

Choices are limited by environment. Someone who has to work 70 hours to provide for themselves and their family has remarkably few choices. A child surrounded by gang violence and who sees how hard the adults in their lives work for little payout and has no educational support is left with a very slim chance to succeed. "Just stop being poor and underprivileged" is not a choice. It's the crying of the privileged who want to ignore that underprivileged can't just snap their fingers and hard work their problems away.

Didn't you just say it wasn't a closed environment Hats? In that vacuum, the self destructive environment would succeed. But it's not a vaccuum.