Waco1947 said:

---

"One reason why "white privilege" is not a helpful term is that it doesn't help white people recognize how discrimination has warped opportunities for black people and how discrimination in some important areas of our national life persist today. If you're like me and most white people I know, we don't feel particularly "privileged." We had to work hard for what we have. Nobody handed us the keys to the penthouse. We have to abide by the same rules that are supposed to apply for everyone. Calling us "privileged" can make us feel defensive and blind us to ways that many black people have systematically been deprived of some of the opportunities we take for granted. And that's even more true if we -- like the majority of white people -- bear no conscious or personal prejudice against persons of color. And yet that lack of conscious prejudice cannot give us a moral pass when it comes to being aware of ways that black people even now still face discrimination and don't always receive equal protection under the law promised in our Constitution." Bubbadog hits the nail on the head.
I would agree the 'white privilege' may not be a helpful but in the dealing the soft racism of whites here on 365 and society at large any term that might hint at racism by whites almost always gets hostility. Why? Because as bubbadog says "lack of conscious prejudice" is hidden from whites. It is why race is so hard to talk about.
Everybody speaks out against racism after Charlottesville but let a black player at the national anthem and the soft racism breaks out again.

---

This has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with wealth and class. Wealth privilege exists. Race privilege does not exist.

The only way to help black Americans is to enable them to help themselves. To increase their wealth and class through education, stabilize their nuclear family and bolster their education etc. That will require them to look inward as a culture and start demanding better from one another.

You can apply this concept to literally every liberal movement.

Ex. Feminism. Women don't make as much as men, not because they're women...but because they aren't encouraged to study STEM fields and take engineering jobs etc. Some jobs they also can't physically do the same type of physical labor.

So if women were to focus more on promoting or building a culture where STEM fields are common for women then we'd see the problem fix itself.

But the current movement I'm seeing from liberals is to attack whites. To want to disenfranchise whites. It's absolutely disgusting and racist.

You can solve many many problems with 'PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY'.

Waco1947 said:

---

"One reason why "white privilege" is not a helpful term is that it doesn't help white people recognize how discrimination has warped opportunities for black people and how discrimination in some important areas of our national life persist today. If you're like me and most white people I know, we don't feel particularly "privileged." We had to work hard for what we have. Nobody handed us the keys to the penthouse. We have to abide by the same rules that are supposed to apply for everyone. Calling us "privileged" can make us feel defensive and blind us to ways that many black people have systematically been deprived of some of the opportunities we take for granted. And that's even more true if we -- like the majority of white people -- bear no conscious or personal prejudice against persons of color. And yet that lack of conscious prejudice cannot give us a moral pass when it comes to being aware of ways that black people even now still face discrimination and don't always receive equal protection under the law promised in our Constitution." Bubbadog hits the nail on the head.
I would agree the 'white privilege' may not be a helpful but in the dealing the soft racism of whites here on 365 and society at large any term that might hint at racism by whites almost always gets hostility. Why? Because as bubbadog says "lack of conscious prejudice" is hidden from whites. It is why race is so hard to talk about.
Everybody speaks out against racism after Charlottesville but let a black player kneel at the national anthem and the soft racism breaks out again with shouts ingratitude, entitlement and disrespect rather than really, really hearing that the kneeling is to protest police brutality and social injustice.

---

You really are that big a hypocrite.

At least it's clear now.

BEAR RAMMAGE said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"One reason why "white privilege" is not a helpful term is that it doesn't help white people recognize how discrimination has warped opportunities for black people and how discrimination in some important areas of our national life persist today. If you're like me and most white people I know, we don't feel particularly "privileged." We had to work hard for what we have. Nobody handed us the keys to the penthouse. We have to abide by the same rules that are supposed to apply for everyone. Calling us "privileged" can make us feel defensive and blind us to ways that many black people have systematically been deprived of some of the opportunities we take for granted. And that's even more true if we -- like the majority of white people -- bear no conscious or personal prejudice against persons of color. And yet that lack of conscious prejudice cannot give us a moral pass when it comes to being aware of ways that black people even now still face discrimination and don't always receive equal protection under the law promised in our Constitution." Bubbadog hits the nail on the head.
I would agree the 'white privilege' may not be a helpful but in the dealing the soft racism of whites here on 365 and society at large any term that might hint at racism by whites almost always gets hostility. Why? Because as bubbadog says "lack of conscious prejudice" is hidden from whites. It is why race is so hard to talk about.
Everybody speaks out against racism after Charlottesville but let a black player at the national anthem and the soft racism breaks out again.

---

This has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with wealth and class. Wealth privilege exists. Race privilege does not exist.

The only way to help black Americans is to enable them to help themselves. To increase their wealth and class through education, stabilize their nuclear family and bolster their education etc. That will require them to look inward as a culture and start demanding better from one another.

You can apply this concept to literally every liberal movement.

Ex. Feminism. Women don't make as much as men, not because they're women...but because they aren't encouraged to study STEM fields and take engineering jobs etc. They also can't physically do the same type of physical labor.


But the current movement I'm seeing from liberals is to attack whites. To want to disenfranchise whites.

You can solve many many problems with 'PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY'.

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

Unfortunately, however, we live an country with a history and an a present dictated by that history. The best predictor of educational and economic achievement in the US is that of your parents. Just a generation or two ago, vast swaths of the educational and workplace landscapes were off limits to people of color.

I think that it is helpful to reframe this argument in terms of wealth generation and educational attainment, but I would not suggest that race has nothing to do with our present circumstances.

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

BEAR RAMMAGE said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"One reason why "white privilege" is not a helpful term is that it doesn't help white people recognize how discrimination has warped opportunities for black people and how discrimination in some important areas of our national life persist today. If you're like me and most white people I know, we don't feel particularly "privileged." We had to work hard for what we have. Nobody handed us the keys to the penthouse. We have to abide by the same rules that are supposed to apply for everyone. Calling us "privileged" can make us feel defensive and blind us to ways that many black people have systematically been deprived of some of the opportunities we take for granted. And that's even more true if we -- like the majority of white people -- bear no conscious or personal prejudice against persons of color. And yet that lack of conscious prejudice cannot give us a moral pass when it comes to being aware of ways that black people even now still face discrimination and don't always receive equal protection under the law promised in our Constitution." Bubbadog hits the nail on the head.
I would agree the 'white privilege' may not be a helpful but in the dealing the soft racism of whites here on 365 and society at large any term that might hint at racism by whites almost always gets hostility. Why? Because as bubbadog says "lack of conscious prejudice" is hidden from whites. It is why race is so hard to talk about.
Everybody speaks out against racism after Charlottesville but let a black player at the national anthem and the soft racism breaks out again.

---

This has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with wealth and class. Wealth privilege exists. Race privilege does not exist.

The only way to help black Americans is to enable them to help themselves. To increase their wealth and class through education, stabilize their nuclear family and bolster their education etc. That will require them to look inward as a culture and start demanding better from one another.

You can apply this concept to literally every liberal movement.

Ex. Feminism. Women don't make as much as men, not because they're women...but because they aren't encouraged to study STEM fields and take engineering jobs etc. They also can't physically do the same type of physical labor.


But the current movement I'm seeing from liberals is to attack whites. To want to disenfranchise whites.

You can solve many many problems with 'PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY'.

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

Unfortunately, however, we live an country with a history and an a present dictated by that history. The best predictor of educational and economic achievement in the US is that of your parents. Just a generation or two ago, vast swaths of the educational and workplace landscapes were off limits to people of color.

I think that it is helpful to reframe this argument in terms of wealth generation and educational attainment, but I would not suggest that race has nothing to do with our present circumstances.

---

I do understand how it conditioned into this in a systemic manner from a previous history of massive disenfranchisement. I also understand how that can breed a few generations of low economic achievement.

However, there have been multitudes of civil rights advantages, opportunities, welfare, charity, affirmative action...for the past 60 years, that the excuse no longer carries weight or makes for a good argument.

I would suggest culture has everything to do with our present circumstances.

"President Trump apparently slept on it overnight and woke up early on Sunday morning thinking: "Yes, I will fight a cultural war against black athletes."David Frum

Hysteria from Waco1947.

He got nothing.

This "white privilege" bs reminds me when obama said, "you didn't build that company, government did it for you!"

It's crap, total crap

I've risked going broke, being sued, death, injury, not eating, not sleeping, insanity, jail and it goes on and on starting and running companies for 40+ years! Obama and those saying friggin "white privilege" frankly ain't got a dam clue.

I've hired and fired probably every race including myself occasionally

It hasn't mattered what race I was or my ancestors all that mattered was production and waking before others and outworking them

You "white privilege" crusaders can kiss it and the horse you ride in on

Please crawl in the hole you came from and never return, ever never

Geez this weak crude gets sooooo old

Oldbear83 said:

---

Hysteria from Waco1947.

He got nothing.

---

You're gaslighting and you know it.

Mods ignore my flag. Accidental.

Florda_mike said:

---

This "white privilege" bs reminds me when obama said, "you didn't build that company, government did it for you!"

It's crap, total crap

I've risked going broke, being sued, death, injury, not eating, not sleeping, insanity, jail and it goes on and on starting and running companies for 40+ years! Obama and those saying friggin "white privilege" frankly ain't got a dam clue.

I've hired and fired probably every race including myself occasionally

It hasn't mattered what race I was or my ancestors all that mattered was production and waking before others and outworking them

You "white privilege" crusaders can kiss it and the horse you ride in on

Please crawl in the hole you came from and never return, ever never

Geez this weak crude gets sooooo old

---

Really terrific rant but you simply made up your own definition of white privilege and attacked hell out of it. Now go back and re read my definition and respond.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Hysteria from Waco1947.

He got nothing.

---

You're gaslighting and you know it.

Mods ignore my flag. Accidental.

---

Now you're just being silly.

I have written at length and with observations that even you, albeit accidentally, praised.

For your part, you do nothing but repeat emotional claims without foundation. Claims which, as I noted, actually damage your cause, because they falsely impugn people of good heart and mind.

Waco1947 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

This "white privilege" bs reminds me when obama said, "you didn't build that company, government did it for you!"

It's crap, total crap

I've risked going broke, being sued, death, injury, not eating, not sleeping, insanity, jail and it goes on and on starting and running companies for 40+ years! Obama and those saying friggin "white privilege" frankly ain't got a dam clue.

I've hired and fired probably every race including myself occasionally

It hasn't mattered what race I was or my ancestors all that mattered was production and waking before others and outworking them

You "white privilege" crusaders can kiss it and the horse you ride in on

Please crawl in the hole you came from and never return, ever never

Geez this weak crude gets sooooo old

---

Really terrific rant but you simply made up your own definition of white privilege and attacked hell out of it. Now go back and re read my definition and respond.

---

I have no desire to learn YOUR definition of anything called "WHITE PRIVILEGE"

That name makes hairs on back my neck stand at attention

Idk how you could be 70 and still so affected by race? I'm sorry you are but lack compassion for your spreading of this racial poison you insist on

I think 47 has a sincere heart about all this stuff he espouses, but something is either reconciliatory or divisive when it comes to race. Spouting false agendas such as these do nothing but divide and alienate people from each other.

Forest Bueller said:

---

I think 47 has a sincere heart about all this stuff he espouses, but something is either reconciliatory or divisive when it comes to race. Spouting false agendas such as these do nothing but divide and alienate people from each other.

---

Completely agree. I think the matter is very close to Waco's heart, but he does not realize that such ranting drives away reasonable people who don't like to be falsely accused.

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

---

The bolded part is why the contention fails. The majority of white people see absolutely no advantage or privilege from the color of their skin. While I can agree that there are local incidents where racism remains institutional (looking at you, Vidor), it is completely false to apply the behavior to all locations, all people, all conditions as a convenient weapon to attack and demean whites.

There is no 'white privilege'.

Alright enough.

Ya'll are worried about racial tensions and we got Obama caught likely selling uranium to terrorists. We got the last administration and Hillary paying for a fake dossier to try and entrap Trump so they could spy on his campaign.

Wake up y'all.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

---

The bolded part is why the contention fails. The majority of white people see absolutely no advantage or privilege from the color of their skin. While I can agree that there are local incidents where racism remains institutional (looking at you, Vidor), it is completely false to apply the behavior to all locations, all people, all conditions as a convenient weapon to attack and demean whites.

There is no 'white privilege'.

---

Bump back one page and check out the post where I agree that "white privilege" is an imprecise term and probably distracts from the more important conversation about structural inequality. Ultimately, most people I know who use the term are themselves white and grateful for the opportunities that their accident of birth has afforded them. That you view this as a demeaning term highlights why it is probably not productive. It also shows that conservatives may be more sensitive to certain language and "political correctness" than they let on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/#52695a834cce

The link above is a great explanation of how these inequalities are perpetuated even in an ostensibly racially agnostic system. Its not just places like Vidor that make it tougher for blacks to crawl into the middle class than whites.

By all means, lets use a different term, as long as we're acknowledging and addressing the problems.

BEAR RAMMAGE said:

---

Alright enough.

Ya'll are worried about racial tensions and we got Obama caught likely selling uranium to terrorists. We got the last administration and Hillary paying for a fake dossier to try and entrap Trump so they could spy on his campaign.

Wake up y'all.

---

Time to start a new topic?

Let's see what cinqjinx ilk have to say?

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

---

The bolded part is why the contention fails. The majority of white people see absolutely no advantage or privilege from the color of their skin. While I can agree that there are local incidents where racism remains institutional (looking at you, Vidor), it is completely false to apply the behavior to all locations, all people, all conditions as a convenient weapon to attack and demean whites.

There is no 'white privilege'.

---

Bump back one page and check out the post where I agree that "white privilege" is an imprecise term and probably distracts from the more important conversation about structural inequality. Ultimately, most people I know who use the term are themselves white and grateful for the opportunities that their accident of birth has afforded them. That you view this as a demeaning term highlights why it is probably not productive. It also shows that conservatives may be more sensitive to certain language and "political correctness" than they let on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/#52695a834cce

The link above is a great explanation of how these inequalities are perpetuated even in an ostensibly racially agnostic system. Its not just places like Vidor that make it tougher for blacks to crawl into the middle class than whites.

By all means, lets use a different term, as long as we're acknowledging and addressing the problems.

---

What you keep trying to evade, is the fact that the problem is basically individual behavior, not institutional racism, at least in the United States. The phrase "white privilege" is commonly used to attack white people who are in the main guiltless of the charge, in order to coerce political advantage.

In plain language, bullying to intimidate political targets.

BEAR RAMMAGE said:

---

Alright enough.

Ya'll are worried about racial tensions and we got Obama caught likely selling uranium to terrorists. We got the last administration and Hillary paying for a fake dossier to try and entrap Trump so they could spy on his campaign.

Wake up y'all.

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

---

The bolded part is why the contention fails. The majority of white people see absolutely no advantage or privilege from the color of their skin. While I can agree that there are local incidents where racism remains institutional (looking at you, Vidor), it is completely false to apply the behavior to all locations, all people, all conditions as a convenient weapon to attack and demean whites.

There is no 'white privilege'.

---

Bump back one page and check out the post where I agree that "white privilege" is an imprecise term and probably distracts from the more important conversation about structural inequality. Ultimately, most people I know who use the term are themselves white and grateful for the opportunities that their accident of birth has afforded them. That you view this as a demeaning term highlights why it is probably not productive. It also shows that conservatives may be more sensitive to certain language and "political correctness" than they let on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/#52695a834cce

The link above is a great explanation of how these inequalities are perpetuated even in an ostensibly racially agnostic system. Its not just places like Vidor that make it tougher for blacks to crawl into the middle class than whites.

By all means, lets use a different term, as long as we're acknowledging and addressing the problems.

---

Why?

I say, get a tougher skin folks. Get over your pettiness. Whites calling browns names, browns calling blacks names, blacks calling whites names. It will happen into perpetuity.

The folks behind all this divisiveness are Race Baiters who are, or want to make money off your White/Black/Brown Man's Burden. Dont let them. Call them out every chance you get. Move past this with a thick hide.

There is no End Game to what they are doing. There is no end to "Let's Start a Conversation". You could give them everything you own, everything your neighbors own, they would not stop. The sooner Millennials start calling the Race Baiters out, the sooner we can move on as a country

This is a dog-eat-dog world. The survival of the fittest. The second we make the USA a PC Nation, we lose. Because the folks that dont buy into that PCness will take what our forefathers worked so hard to create

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

---

The bolded part is why the contention fails. The majority of white people see absolutely no advantage or privilege from the color of their skin. While I can agree that there are local incidents where racism remains institutional (looking at you, Vidor), it is completely false to apply the behavior to all locations, all people, all conditions as a convenient weapon to attack and demean whites.

There is no 'white privilege'.

---

Bump back one page and check out the post where I agree that "white privilege" is an imprecise term and probably distracts from the more important conversation about structural inequality. Ultimately, most people I know who use the term are themselves white and grateful for the opportunities that their accident of birth has afforded them. That you view this as a demeaning term highlights why it is probably not productive. It also shows that conservatives may be more sensitive to certain language and "political correctness" than they let on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/#52695a834cce

The link above is a great explanation of how these inequalities are perpetuated even in an ostensibly racially agnostic system. Its not just places like Vidor that make it tougher for blacks to crawl into the middle class than whites.

By all means, lets use a different term, as long as we're acknowledging and addressing the problems.

---

What you keep trying to evade, is the fact that the problem is basically individual behavior, not institutional racism, at least in the United States. The phrase "white privilege" is commonly used to attack white people who are in the main guiltless of the charge, in order to coerce political advantage.

In plain language, bullying to intimidate political targets.

---

The institutional inequality vs. personal responsibility debate is at the heart of the conservative vs. liberal divide. Everyone can agree that if all citizens acted responisbly and generously, we would have few structural inequalities to worry about. Everyone also agrees that not everyone behaves in this manner and there is often disagreement as to what would constitute personal responsibility. That's not evading an issue, it is a fundamental disagreement over which rational adults can agree to disagree.

I think that I've done quite enough to show that I understand the problem with white privilege terminology. Why haven't you addressed any of the evidence that I have presented? I suspect that dealing with tangible examples would make this a more productive conversation.

Assassin said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

---

The bolded part is why the contention fails. The majority of white people see absolutely no advantage or privilege from the color of their skin. While I can agree that there are local incidents where racism remains institutional (looking at you, Vidor), it is completely false to apply the behavior to all locations, all people, all conditions as a convenient weapon to attack and demean whites.

There is no 'white privilege'.

---

Bump back one page and check out the post where I agree that "white privilege" is an imprecise term and probably distracts from the more important conversation about structural inequality. Ultimately, most people I know who use the term are themselves white and grateful for the opportunities that their accident of birth has afforded them. That you view this as a demeaning term highlights why it is probably not productive. It also shows that conservatives may be more sensitive to certain language and "political correctness" than they let on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/#52695a834cce

The link above is a great explanation of how these inequalities are perpetuated even in an ostensibly racially agnostic system. Its not just places like Vidor that make it tougher for blacks to crawl into the middle class than whites.

By all means, lets use a different term, as long as we're acknowledging and addressing the problems.

---

Why?

I say, get a tougher skin folks. Get over your pettiness. Whites calling browns names, browns calling blacks names, blacks calling whites names. It will happen into perpetuity.

The folks behind all this divisiveness are Race Baiters who are, or want to make money off your White/Black/Brown Man's Burden. Dont let them. Call them out every chance you get. Move past this with a thick hide.

There is no End Game to what they are doing. There is no end to "Let's Start a Conversation". You could give them everything you own, everything your neighbors own, they would not stop. The sooner Millennials start calling the Race Baiters out, the sooner we can move on as a country

This is a dog-eat-dog world. The survival of the fittest. The second we make the USA a PC Nation, we lose. Because the folks that dont buy into that PCness will take what our forefathers worked so hard to create

---

I can definitely get on board with growing a thicker skin and I think that it would benefit everyone in the political arena. It does seem - per several posts on this thread - that the term "white privilege" is deemed offensive by some, so I'm happy to substitute something else.

I'm also down with an end to race-baiting. That's obviously not productive for either side's argument.

The dog-eat-dog world is something that I think that most of civilization has tried to move away from. My friend's infant son born with cerebral palsy would not fare too well in such a world. I think that conservatives and liberals alike would like to see a kinder world for him.

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

The institutional inequality vs. personal responsibility debate is at the heart of the conservative vs. liberal divide. Everyone can agree that if all citizens acted responisbly and generously, we would have few structural inequalities to worry about. Everyone also agrees that not everyone behaves in this manner and there is often disagreement as to what would constitute personal responsibility. That's not evading an issue, it is a fundamental disagreement over which rational adults can agree to disagree.

I think that I've done quite enough to show that I understand the problem with white privilege terminology. Why haven't you addressed any of the evidence that I have presented? I suspect that dealing with tangible examples would make this a more productive conversation.

---

Yours have been very thoughtful posts. I think one of your insights that a lot of the people you're arguing with have missed is that structural inequalities in the past have contributed to inequalities today, even though the old structures themselves may have largely disappeared. For example, decades of housing and lending discrimination that were structural in nature (there's really no other way to label it) helped create a situation in which the household wealth of black families that own their own homes with both spouses employed is much lower than the household wealth of white homeowners who were allowed to buy in neighborhoods where the property values appreciated more. (And of course those property values were also adversely affected by the mass exodus of white homeowners who fled as soon as the first black families moved into their "nice" neighborhoods.

I agree with your assessment that the term "white privilege" creates some barriers to understanding the issues. I have to work hard and play by the rules; my parents were middle-class, and my father was the first in his family to go to college. So I don't feel particularly privileged.

We were able to buy our first house six years after I graduated BU because my wife's parents were able to loan us $15,000 of their very hard-earned money for the down payment. Lots of young couples get into their homes that way, so I didn't feel terribly privileged by that. It wouldn't have occurred to me to think that a young black couple with our income at that time might not have been able to buy a home and start building net worth for themselves -- because their parents might not have had the money to loan them for the down-payment. And the reasons their parents might not have had the money might go back to some of those structural issues in housing and lending discrimination. Or they might relate to the fact that their black fathers served in the military but didn't go to college because they were excluded from the GI Bill, and the lack of a college degree might have limited their opportunities for higher paying jobs.

Does the resulting disparity mean that I was privileged as a white man? You could certainly say that. But it might be truer to say that millions of black people were disadvantaged by either direct discrimination or the lingering effects of structural discrimination.

In many ways, I think the bigger obstacle today is not racism by white people but obliviousness to what happened and still happens, and the way that obliviousness often turns into angry denial and rejection.

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

---

The bolded part is why the contention fails. The majority of white people see absolutely no advantage or privilege from the color of their skin. While I can agree that there are local incidents where racism remains institutional (looking at you, Vidor), it is completely false to apply the behavior to all locations, all people, all conditions as a convenient weapon to attack and demean whites.

There is no 'white privilege'.

---

Bump back one page and check out the post where I agree that "white privilege" is an imprecise term and probably distracts from the more important conversation about structural inequality. Ultimately, most people I know who use the term are themselves white and grateful for the opportunities that their accident of birth has afforded them. That you view this as a demeaning term highlights why it is probably not productive. It also shows that conservatives may be more sensitive to certain language and "political correctness" than they let on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/#52695a834cce

The link above is a great explanation of how these inequalities are perpetuated even in an ostensibly racially agnostic system. Its not just places like Vidor that make it tougher for blacks to crawl into the middle class than whites.

By all means, lets use a different term, as long as we're acknowledging and addressing the problems.

---

What you keep trying to evade, is the fact that the problem is basically individual behavior, not institutional racism, at least in the United States. The phrase "white privilege" is commonly used to attack white people who are in the main guiltless of the charge, in order to coerce political advantage.

In plain language, bullying to intimidate political targets.

---

The institutional inequality vs. personal responsibility debate is at the heart of the conservative vs. liberal divide. Everyone can agree that if all citizens acted responisbly and generously, we would have few structural inequalities to worry about. Everyone also agrees that not everyone behaves in this manner and there is often disagreement as to what would constitute personal responsibility. That's not evading an issue, it is a fundamental disagreement over which rational adults can agree to disagree.

I think that I've done quite enough to show that I understand the problem with white privilege terminology. Why haven't you addressed any of the evidence that I have presented? I suspect that dealing with tangible examples would make this a more productive conversation.

---

(responding to the bolded part). Because what you call evidence, is only your opinion. The problem is not how to phrase the notion, it's that the notion is built on false assumptions, and has no value in advancing the discussion.

Don't you think, as an example, that Dr. King understood what was happening? His dedication to non-violence and focus on individual character was directly drawn from his recognition that all moral decisions are individual, that whether racist behavior was displayed by officials or simply at the personal level, the decision is always made by the individual.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I agree with the basic premise that black people, women, etc. are not oppressed because they are not white men but because they do not enjoy the power and wealth that many (though obviously not all) white men do.

---

The bolded part is why the contention fails. The majority of white people see absolutely no advantage or privilege from the color of their skin. While I can agree that there are local incidents where racism remains institutional (looking at you, Vidor), it is completely false to apply the behavior to all locations, all people, all conditions as a convenient weapon to attack and demean whites.

There is no 'white privilege'.

---

Bump back one page and check out the post where I agree that "white privilege" is an imprecise term and probably distracts from the more important conversation about structural inequality. Ultimately, most people I know who use the term are themselves white and grateful for the opportunities that their accident of birth has afforded them. That you view this as a demeaning term highlights why it is probably not productive. It also shows that conservatives may be more sensitive to certain language and "political correctness" than they let on.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/#52695a834cce

The link above is a great explanation of how these inequalities are perpetuated even in an ostensibly racially agnostic system. Its not just places like Vidor that make it tougher for blacks to crawl into the middle class than whites.

By all means, lets use a different term, as long as we're acknowledging and addressing the problems.

---

What you keep trying to evade, is the fact that the problem is basically individual behavior, not institutional racism, at least in the United States. The phrase "white privilege" is commonly used to attack white people who are in the main guiltless of the charge, in order to coerce political advantage.

In plain language, bullying to intimidate political targets.

---

The institutional inequality vs. personal responsibility debate is at the heart of the conservative vs. liberal divide. Everyone can agree that if all citizens acted responisbly and generously, we would have few structural inequalities to worry about. Everyone also agrees that not everyone behaves in this manner and there is often disagreement as to what would constitute personal responsibility. That's not evading an issue, it is a fundamental disagreement over which rational adults can agree to disagree.

I think that I've done quite enough to show that I understand the problem with white privilege terminology. Why haven't you addressed any of the evidence that I have presented? I suspect that dealing with tangible examples would make this a more productive conversation.

---

(responding to the bolded part). Because what you call evidence, is only your opinion. The problem is not how to phrase the notion, it's that the notion is built on false assumptions, and has no value in advancing the discussion.

Don't you think, as an example, that Dr. King understood what was happening? His dedication to non-violence and focus on individual character was directly drawn from his recognition that all moral decisions are individual, that whether racist behavior was displayed by officials or simply at the personal level, the decision is always made by the individual.

---

I posted a link to a Forbes article. Not my opinion.

I'm so pleased that you brought up Dr. King. He did indeed speak eloquently and directly to hearts and souls and I think that this is why his message is so timeless. That said, no reading of his Letter From Birmingham Jail https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html could characterize his mission as primarily a crusade for personal responsibility.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.".

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I posted a link to a Forbes article. Not my opinion.

I'm so pleased that you brought up Dr. King. He did indeed speak eloquently and directly to hearts and souls and I think that this is why his message is so timeless. That said, no reading of his Letter From Birmingham Jail (https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) could characterize his mission as primarily a crusade for personal responsibility.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.".

---

Taking a quote out of context is hardly support for your claim.

And congratulations on successfully posting a link. Doing so implies that that is, in fact, your opinion.

bubbadog said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

The institutional inequality vs. personal responsibility debate is at the heart of the conservative vs. liberal divide. Everyone can agree that if all citizens acted responisbly and generously, we would have few structural inequalities to worry about. Everyone also agrees that not everyone behaves in this manner and there is often disagreement as to what would constitute personal responsibility. That's not evading an issue, it is a fundamental disagreement over which rational adults can agree to disagree.

I think that I've done quite enough to show that I understand the problem with white privilege terminology. Why haven't you addressed any of the evidence that I have presented? I suspect that dealing with tangible examples would make this a more productive conversation.

---

Yours have been very thoughtful posts. I think one of your insights that a lot of the people you're arguing with have missed is that structural inequalities in the past have contributed to inequalities today, even though the old structures themselves may have largely disappeared. For example, decades of housing and lending discrimination that were structural in nature (there's really no other way to label it) helped create a situation in which the household wealth of black families that own their own homes with both spouses employed is much lower than the household wealth of white homeowners who were allowed to buy in neighborhoods where the property values appreciated more. (And of course those property values were also adversely affected by the mass exodus of white homeowners who fled as soon as the first black families moved into their "nice" neighborhoods.

I agree with your assessment that the term "white privilege" creates some barriers to understanding the issues. I have to work hard and play by the rules; my parents were middle-class, and my father was the first in his family to go to college. So I don't feel particularly privileged.

We were able to buy our first house six years after I graduated BU because my wife's parents were able to loan us $15,000 of their very hard-earned money for the down payment. Lots of young couples get into their homes that way, so I didn't feel terribly privileged by that. It wouldn't have occurred to me to think that a young black couple with our income at that time might not have been able to buy a home and start building net worth for themselves -- because their parents might not have had the money to loan them for the down-payment. And the reasons their parents might not have had the money might go back to some of those structural issues in housing and lending discrimination. Or they might relate to the fact that their black fathers served in the military but didn't go to college because they were excluded from the GI Bill, and the lack of a college degree might have limited their opportunities for higher paying jobs.

Does the resulting disparity mean that I was privileged as a white man? You could certainly say that. But it might be truer to say that millions of black people were disadvantaged by either direct discrimination or the lingering effects of structural discrimination.

In many ways, I think the bigger obstacle today is not racism by white people but obliviousness to what happened and still happens, and the way that obliviousness often turns into angry denial and rejection.

---

Solid take, my man.

I don't think that you should ever apologize for having in-laws that worked hard and love you and your wife. If the term "white privilege" implies that, lets throw it out.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I posted a link to a Forbes article. Not my opinion.

I'm so pleased that you brought up Dr. King. He did indeed speak eloquently and directly to hearts and souls and I think that this is why his message is so timeless. That said, no reading of his Letter From Birmingham Jail (https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) could characterize his mission as primarily a crusade for personal responsibility.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.".

---

Taking a quote out of context is hardly support for your claim.

And congratulations on successfully posting a link. Doing so implies that that is, in fact, your opinion.

---

Read the links, brother.

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Why?

I say, get a tougher skin folks. Get over your pettiness. Whites calling browns names, browns calling blacks names, blacks calling whites names. It will happen into perpetuity.

The folks behind all this divisiveness are Race Baiters who are, or want to make money off your White/Black/Brown Man's Burden. Dont let them. Call them out every chance you get. Move past this with a thick hide.

There is no End Game to what they are doing. There is no end to "Let's Start a Conversation". You could give them everything you own, everything your neighbors own, they would not stop. The sooner Millennials start calling the Race Baiters out, the sooner we can move on as a country

This is a dog-eat-dog world. The survival of the fittest. The second we make the USA a PC Nation, we lose. Because the folks that dont buy into that PCness will take what our forefathers worked so hard to create

---

I can definitely get on board with growing a thicker skin and I think that it would benefit everyone in the political arena. It does seem - per several posts on this thread - that the term "white privilege" is deemed offensive by some, so I'm happy to substitute something else.

I'm also down with an end to race-baiting. That's obviously not productive for either side's argument.

The dog-eat-dog world is something that I think that most of civilization has tried to move away from. My friend's infant son born with cerebral palsy would not fare too well in such a world. I think that conservatives and liberals alike would like to see a kinder world for him.

---

We are in a temporary bubble as the most civilized society the world has ever known. However you can see the edges crumbling, led by the Race Baiters - plus foreign investors like Soros who will profit immensely from our partial demise. Democracy has taken us to this level, unfortunately that foreign influence has sliced our underbelly and our guts are falling out.

One day there will be a book written, The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. The Fall began post-WWII with Baby Boomers and its leniency - and will most likely end with the anarchy that terrorist groups like ANTIFA, ISIS, neo-Nazis and BLM bring.

We should be building bridges, highways and infrastructure instead of fighting lawsuits by the ACLU. We should be funding schools and tech colleges instead of spending tens of millions to fight George Soros

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I posted a link to a Forbes article. Not my opinion.

I'm so pleased that you brought up Dr. King. He did indeed speak eloquently and directly to hearts and souls and I think that this is why his message is so timeless. That said, no reading of his Letter From Birmingham Jail (https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) could characterize his mission as primarily a crusade for personal responsibility.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.".

---

Taking a quote out of context is hardly support for your claim.

And congratulations on successfully posting a link. Doing so implies that that is, in fact, your opinion.

---

Read the links, brother.

---

Pick a better battle.

There is no "white privilege". The phrase is bigoted and racist.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FrankFallonCalling said:

---

I posted a link to a Forbes article. Not my opinion.

I'm so pleased that you brought up Dr. King. He did indeed speak eloquently and directly to hearts and souls and I think that this is why his message is so timeless. That said, no reading of his Letter From Birmingham Jail (https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html) could characterize his mission as primarily a crusade for personal responsibility.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.".

---

Taking a quote out of context is hardly support for your claim.

And congratulations on successfully posting a link. Doing so implies that that is, in fact, your opinion.

---

Read the links, brother.

---

Pick a better battle.

There is no "white privilege". The phrase is bigoted and racist.

---

I think that we've established that there are problems with the term.

Are you not even going to offer a rebuttal to the housing or Letter From Birmingham texts?

No we are in a world of gaslighting liars. Up is not down.

Waco1947 said:

---

No we are in a world of gaslighting liars. Up is not down.

---

Just curious, do you think you are making a point?

Waco1947 said:

---

No we are in a world of gaslighting liars. Up is not down.

---

Well, it seems Waco1947 has finally become disillusioned with Hillary (see bolded above).

Assassin said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

No we are in a world of gaslighting liars. Up is not down.

---

Just curious, do you think you are making a point?

---

Yeah your president DT is a gaslighting liar.