"The Meaning of White"

[Hater Depot]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531296,00.html

How important is your racial identity to you? Researchers long thought it wasn't that crucial to whites. But a groundbreaking new study on whiteness and race relations by University of Minnesota sociologists shows that whites in the U.S. are far more conscious of being white--and the privileges it brings--than was believed.

The survey is packed with fascinating findings, some surprising (a stunning proportion of whites--77%--say their race has a distinct culture that should be preserved) and some less so (whites view their role in the social hierarchy more benignly than blacks and Hispanics do). Whites are more likely to say prejudice and discrimination put blacks at a disadvantage than to say those factors contribute to white advantage. And they are much less likely than nonwhites to attribute inequality to bias in the legal system.

What to make of all this? Though whites in the U.S. believe there remain advantages to being white, they don't necessarily link those advantages with blacks' disadvantages. This hinders racial reconciliation, says co-author Douglas Hartmann: "Whites have invented subtle ways to convince themselves that race isn't a problem in America." Blacks do see more racism in society than whites but, contrary to stereotype, seem disinclined to blame the system for their disadvantage. In fact, they are more likely to attribute it to individual causes like a lack of hard work--77% did so, compared with 62% of whites. "We think of U.S. minorities as less engaged in American individualism," Hartmann says, "but they are maybe more so."

[LaiSteve66]

surprise, surprise

[Makulita]

Okay, now this is the type of research results on basically mundane questions that I like. Y'know, something that'll actually move us up as a society.

[badwill]

White people are blind to their white privilege. They actually believed they are more deserving than any other race of people.

[Kaiten]

White people are blind to their white privilege. They actually believed they are more deserving than any other race of people.

I'm not trying to engage in a dialogue. I just want to register my views. The first sentence in the quote above is absolutely correct. Almost all White people, regardless of class or political views, are completely oblivious to the network or web of institutional relationships, arrangements and attitudes that is often referred to as White Privilege (WP). By way of an imperfect analogy, there are some species that simply do not have the ability to see in color. So those visually impaired creatures cannot conceive of the existence of colors. That does not mean that colors do not exist.

Maybe I'm parsing the words too closely, but it seems to me that the second sentence in the above quote is subtly inconsistent with the first sentence. IMO most White people do not believe they are more deserving than any other race of people. How can they be blind to the existence of WP, but at the same time believe they are entitled to the advantages of WP? On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of White people understand the disadvantages associated with being a person of color in America, but their perception of reality is that the playing field is level, not that they are the recipients of institutionalized advantages. Perhaps most White people are being logically inconsistent, but that is their perception.

[Ike]

I got an idea a while back. Here's my reasoning:

1. White privilege exists.
2. It is bad.
3. People who care should do something about it.
4. Not many people care or even know about it.
5. How can we make people aware of white privilege?

... MONEY and MEDIA

6. Recently, the Boston University College Republicans made a big splash in the news when they announced their white racial scholarship.

Someone should create a scholarship for college students where they have to read about white privilege and write an essay on how white privilege has affected them in their lives, whether for better or for worse.

Now the problem is how to get media attention...

[Kaiten]

I got an idea a while back. Here's my reasoning:

1. White privilege exists.
2. It is bad.
3. People who care should do something about it.
4. Not many people care or even know about it.
5. How can we make people aware of white privilege?

... MONEY and MEDIA

6. Recently, the Boston University College Republicans made a big splash in the news when they announced their white racial scholarship.

Someone should create a scholarship for college students where they have to read about white privilege and write an essay on how white privilege has affected them in their lives, whether for better or for worse.

Now the problem is how to get media attention...

Why do I feel like I'm stepping into a trap set for the unwary? I don't know. I guess the 5th point raised in the above quote is so interesting I feel compelled to state my views.

I don't know how people can be made aware of White Privilege (WP). I'm not completely sure what WP is. But ignorance has rarely deterred me from offering my views in the past. If nothing else maybe I'll learn something from other 44s.

It seems to me that the first step in dealing with WP would be for AAs to promote AA solidarity. I think the AA community is riven with division. It's anything but monolithic. There seem to be so many cultural, ethnic, identity and gender tensions. I think this may in part result from the widely varying experiences of different AA groups in coming to and fitting into American society. It's possible that some AAs aren't aware of, or don't care about, or even hope to benefit from, WP. It's also possible that some AAs are all too aware of WP, but are so hurt and demoralized that they've given up on the idea of trying to do anything about it. I think that some other AAs are so angry about WP that when they do try to talk about it they seem like overly zealous obsessives. Finally, there seem to be some AAs who appear to be fixated on only one of the many ways and aspects in which WP manifests itself, e.g., the emasculation of AAMs in American society.

So I think AA solidarity has to be promoted as the first order of business in order to get everyone on the same page in confronting WP. The question next posed is how to promote AA solidarity? I don't know. But in my next post on this thread I'll indicate my thoughts on this question.

[Ike]

Here's a great thread on White Privilege: http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6475

I don't believe that AA solidarity is a prerequisite for promoting awareness of white privilege, nor do I believe this is a problem that only affects AAs. White privilege affects all people of all races. In fact, I believe that educating people (including AAs) on white privilege can even lead to greater AA solidarity.

I know of a few liberal white people who were previously unaware of white privilege, but after reading about it now care a great deal. The irony is that it will take the help of white people to end white privilege, not just colored folks.

[Kaiten]

Here's a great thread on White Privilege: http://www.thefighting44s.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6475

I don't believe that AA solidarity is a prerequisite for promoting awareness of white privilege, nor do I believe this is a problem that only affects AAs. White privilege affects all people of all races. In fact, I believe that educating people (including AAs) on white privilege can even lead to greater AA solidarity.

I know of a few liberal white people who were previously unaware of white privilege, but after reading about it now care a great deal. The irony is that it will take the help of white people to end white privilege, not just colored folks.

Well, I've completed my homework assignment. Actually, I had previously read the articles by Wise, Jacques and McIntosh. But I reread them again. I thought Wise's article was both comprehensive and set the stage for further inquiry. Maybe that's why D set it up as the first article on the thread. I'm still thinking about the Jacques article, but question its complete applicability to America. I liked the McIntosh article because it was as practical as theoretical. I also followed the thread from D's post to a wonderland where f44 is racist to AAMs, D's ass has been colonized, and AAFs seek white bois. Huh? Oh, irreverence and humor...I get it.

In my last post I said I thought AA solidarity was the first order of business in coming to grips with White Privilege (WP). By that I was ascribing first importance to AA solidarity. However, I was not suggesting that AA solidarity was a prerequisite to other actions. Nor do I believe that the various actions designed to attack WP can only operate sequentially.

I have more thoughts on your last post and the articles you referred me to. But the hour is late and my next post will have to wait.

[Kaiten]

....I know of a few liberal white people who were previously unaware of white privilege, but after reading about it now care a great deal. The irony is that it will take the help of white people to end white privilege, not just colored folks.

The above post refers to "a few liberal white people." I don't think political, social, or economic ideology has anything to do with understanding or concern about White Privilege (WP). Most White liberals are as unwittingly racist as are most White conservatives, and benefit from WP to the same degree. The need for education and dialogue spans the political spectrum. If one believes White conservatives to be the most obdurate on the issues surrounding WP, then they are exactly the kind of White people to engage.

One of the most interesting ideas from McIntosh's knapsack article concerns the efficacy of individual acts. She states:

"Disapproving of the systems won't be enough to change them. I was
taught to think that racism could end if white individuals changed their
attitudes. But a white skin in the United States opens many doors for
whites whether or not we approve of the way dominance has been
conferred on us. Individual acts palliate, but cannot end, these
problems."

IMO she is suggesting that group dynamics are required to address WP. That ties in with my attributing importance to AA solidarity in dealing with this subject. Some concensus in the AA community is crucial in being able to begin a dialogue with White Americans.

The above post also states that it will take the help of White people in addition to non-Whites to eliminate WP. I agree. However, that doesn't explain why White people would help eliminate WP. I believe the majority of White people are oblivious to WP. However, even if most White people were aware of the advantages accruing to them from WP, the question arises why they would voluntarily surrender those advantages. I have my reasons for believing that change is necessary, but I'm alone. I don't believe there are any historical examples of a dominant group of people voluntarily surrendering their dominance.

I'll continue this line of inquiry when I have more time.

[Kaiten]

Although my last post may sound unduely pessimistic there is the possibility that race relations may improve. Will White Privilege (WP) be reduced or eliminated? I have limited vision, but I see three possibilities, none of which is exclusive. First, White people may be persuaded that WP is a bad thing. Without getting into the mechanics of the massive educational process this would entail over the course of decades, some White people can be persuaded that WP is wrong because it is immoral. However, a larger percentage of the 200 million White people in America may be susceptible to the argument that WP is not sustainable in a rapidly evolving world, and for the America they love to avoid the second possibility WP must go.

The second possibility I see is that most White people will resist the elimination of WP. In that event racial, cultural and ethnic antagonisms will not be reduced, they will grow. Under those circumstances America would probably be Balkanized into separate tribes based on race, ideology, culture, etc. Such an America would be incalculably weaker, more socially brittle, less competitive, and materially poorer for all Americans and their children. In fact the political ties that bind Americans into a nation may fray and come apart.

The third possibility is often referred to as the browning of America. It's based on the assumption that only individuals can solve the racial problems that confront America. I'm referring to the predictions that future generations of Americans will be racially mixed to such an extent that WP simply fades away as a problem. This third possibility is too speculative for me to really address. Besides, I'm more inclined to believe that group dynamics are more important than individual action.

I have no idea which of the three possibilities is most likely to occur, or whether all three possibilities occur in one fashion or another. I also recognize that because of my limited vision there may be other possibilities that I simply don't recognize.

[Infectious]

Kaiten, the third will probably not happen because South America already provided the blueprint for that - and the result was just another stratification based on skin colour.

A large proportion of white people still date and marry whites.

[SamuraiJack]

White people like to acknowledge the transgressions of the past while at the same time, ignoring the transgressions that are taking place in the present, or the effects of past. They look to "even" the playing field by making the rules equal, while ignoring the "head start" they've received.

It's like a monopoly player that cheats and gets all the hotels, but then after getting them, decides for everyone to "play fair" and that "everyone is equal". Hell, they might even not collect $200 at GO to make it seem that they're the ones at the disadvantage.

[john cracker]

well thats where your wrong because i hate playing monopoly. are you saying that all white people like to play monopoly, thats racist.. what if i said all asians like to play monnopoly

i have to admit i do win a lot when i play monopoly with my dark skinned friends though. but the asians are just too good with money

[nekohead]

have to admit i do win a lot when i play monopoly with my dark skinned friends though. but the asians are just too good with money


So DARK skinned people are NOT good with money???????? :shock:
DAMN, I KNEW TIGER WOODS AND OPRAH WERE WHITE!!!!!!!!

[john cracker]

well they probably always get to be the bank and they steal when no one looks

[kalbi]

well thats where your wrong because i hate playing monopoly. are you saying that all white people like to play monopoly, thats racist.. what if i said all asians like to play monnopoly

i have to admit i do win a lot when i play monopoly with my dark skinned friends though. but the asians are just too good with money


hahahaha :lol: Hey, you're pretty hilarious... for a cracka. ;) Good shit.

[Kaiten]

well they probably always get to be the bank and they steal when no one looks

I've been thinking about whether I should say anything about the above quote. Before this gets out of hand let me request that this thread be kept open for serious comments. Facetious comments would be more appropriately posted elsewhere. Thanks for your courtesy and cooperation.

[LowFrequency]

Although my last post may sound unduely pessimistic there is the possibility that race relations may improve. Will White Privilege (WP) be reduced or eliminated? I have limited vision, but I see three possibilities, none of which is exclusive. First, White people may be persuaded that WP is a bad thing. Without getting into the mechanics of the massive educational process this would entail over the course of decades, some White people can be persuaded that WP is wrong because it is immoral. However, a larger percentage of the 200 million White people in America may be susceptible to the argument that WP is not sustainable in a rapidly evolving world, and for the America they love to avoid the second possibility WP must go.



If you are offered something for free, no strings attached, would you take it?



The second possibility I see is that most White people will resist the elimination of WP. In that event racial, cultural and ethnic antagonisms will not be reduced, they will grow. Under those circumstances America would probably be Balkanized into separate tribes based on race, ideology, culture, etc. Such an America would be incalculably weaker, more socially brittle, less competitive, and materially poorer for all Americans and their children. In fact the political ties that bind Americans into a nation may fray and come apart.



That is happening right now. Racial segregation is a fact of american life. America will never be united if a disproportionate amount of power and wealth are in the hands of one racial group.

This america will be materially poorer only for the already poor. The rich will continue to get richer.



The third possibility is often referred to as the browning of America. It's based on the assumption that only individuals can solve the racial problems that confront America. I'm referring to the predictions that future generations of Americans will be racially mixed to such an extent that WP simply fades away as a problem. This third possibility is too speculative for me to really address. Besides, I'm more inclined to believe that group dynamics are more important than individual action.



Won't happen due to racial segregation.



I have no idea which of the three possibilities is most likely to occur, or whether all three possibilities occur in one fashion or another. I also recognize that because of my limited vision there may be other possibilities that I simply don't recognize.

Second possibility is already happening.

That said, the only way to eliminate WP, imo, is the rise of ethnic minorities into positions of power and wealth without relying on the charity of whites.

[Kaiten]

I wish I had more time to devote to LF's post in order to give the views stated the consideration to which they are entitled.

I agree that America will never be united if a disproportionate amount of power and wealth are in the hands of one racial group.

I generally disagree that a diminuition of American material wealth will only affect the poor, but leave the wealthy untouched. When the pie shrinks even the ranks of the wealthy are reduced. Besides, America is a middle class country in terms of the majority of its population. The hammer would fall most heavily on the middle class.

With respect to the third possibility mentioned in my earlier post I don't think anyone can really determine its validity due to a lack of statistical analysis. The situation seems to be a mixed bag with countervailing forces at work. There are centrifugal forces in play, e.g., patterns of separate housing and residence, and there are centripetal forces in action as well, e.g., the reduction in employment discrimination except at the highest levels. Some segregation is institutional, and some may be self imposed (possibly as a consequence of institutional factors). I just don't know how to evaluate the third possibility. As a result I'm not willing to venture any predictions on that score.

Yes, the second possibility is already happening. This is why I'm generally pessimistic on the long term future of race relations. However, I am aware that historical developments don't always follow a straight line trajectory.

I'm ambivalent about the conclusion "That said, the only way to eliminate WP, imo, is the rise of ethnic minorities into positions of power and wealth without relying on the charity of whites." I wouldn't call the voluntary reduction or elimination of WP an act of charity. I think it's in the self interest of White people to adjust to change because WP cannot be sustained in a future America. In a future America with a population of 500 million residents, half white and half nonwhite, self help by minorities will be a major component in the rise of AAs into positions of power and wealth, but an adjustment by WAs to the end of WP will be as important.
Otherwise, there will be no positions of power and wealth to which people can aspire. Indeed, there will be no America without adjustment by WAs. Just by way of example, I don't think Congressman Robert Honda of San Jose could have been elected to the House of Representatives without the help of White votes.

I'm sorry I don't have time right now to effectively address your post. I'm even more sorry that there are likely flaws in my logic. Please feel free to point out my mistakes. It's easier for me learn that way.

[john cracker]

well they probably always get to be the bank and they steal when no one looks

I've been thinking about whether I should say anything about the above quote. Before this gets out of hand let me request that this thread be kept open for serious comments. Facetious comments would be more appropriately posted elsewhere. Thanks for your courtesy and cooperation.

kaiten we got to stick together

dont tell me you like to play monopoly.. break the stereotype

[LowFrequency]

I'm ambivalent about the conclusion "That said, the only way to eliminate WP, imo, is the rise of ethnic minorities into positions of power and wealth without relying on the charity of whites." I wouldn't call the voluntary reduction or elimination of WP an act of charity. I think it's in the self interest of White people to adjust to change because WP cannot be sustained in a future America. In a future America with a population of 500 million residents, half white and half nonwhite, self help by minorities will be a major component in the rise of AAs into positions of power and wealth, but an adjustment by WAs to the end of WP will be as important.
Otherwise, there will be no positions of power and wealth to which people can aspire. Indeed, there will be no America without adjustment by WAs. Just by way of example, I don't think Congressman Robert Honda of San Jose could have been elected to the House of Representatives without the help of White votes.


I think you and I differ a little on the definition of white privilege. You seem to believe that seeing minorities in positions of wealth and power, automatically implies the presence of white charity. (A little WP thinking on your part, maybe?) What I'm saying is that their ability is so undeniable that they get there in spite of white privilege.

Congressman Mike Honda (not Robert Honda) got there because the asian population in San Jose something like thirty percent. I'm sure he got white votes, but for the most part, those white votes were not charity. On the other hand, do you doubt that many didn't vote for him simply because he is asian?

[LowFrequency]

I wouldn't call the voluntary reduction or elimination of WP an act of charity. I think it's in the self interest of White people to adjust to change because WP cannot be sustained in a future America. In a future America with a population of 500 million residents, half white and half nonwhite, self help by minorities will be a major component in the rise of AAs into positions of power and wealth, but an adjustment by WAs to the end of WP will be as important.


I agree that any white effort to eliminate white privilege will be in their own self interest.

[LowFrequency]

well they probably always get to be the bank and they steal when no one looks

I've been thinking about whether I should say anything about the above quote. Before this gets out of hand let me request that this thread be kept open for serious comments. Facetious comments would be more appropriately posted elsewhere. Thanks for your courtesy and cooperation.

kaiten we got to stick together

dont tell me you like to play monopoly.. break the stereotype

For some reason when I play with whites they have an unhealthy obsession with boardwalk and parkplace. Damn overprivileged people.

On the other hand, asians will lowball you to death with the oranges and railroads. :lol:

[Kaiten]

[....]kaiten we got to stick together....

No problem in us sticking together. Just follow my lead.

[Kaiten]

I think you and I differ a little on the definition of white privilege. You seem to believe that seeing minorities in positions of wealth and power, automatically implies the presence of white charity. (A little WP thinking on your part, maybe?) What I'm saying is that their ability is so undeniable that they get there in spite of white privilege.

Congressman Mike Honda (not Robert Honda) got there because the asian population in San Jose something like thirty percent. I'm sure he got white votes, but for the most part, those white votes were not charity. On the other hand, do you doubt that many didn't vote for him simply because he is asian?

Since I don't completely understand the concept of WP its probable that we do differ on its definition. On the rise of minorities and White charity I didn't express myself clearly. I don't think the rise is a matter of White charity. On WP on my part, it's like toilet paper sticking to the bottom of my shoe. I drag it along with me wherever I go.

On undeniable ability I agree. Mike Honda should change his name to Robert. On White support for Mike Honda...I don't know. Is the glass half empty or half full?

[Ike]

I think you and I differ a little on the definition of white privilege. You seem to believe that seeing minorities in positions of wealth and power, automatically implies the presence of white charity. (A little WP thinking on your part, maybe?) What I'm saying is that their ability is so undeniable that they get there in spite of white privilege.

Congressman Mike Honda (not Robert Honda) got there because the asian population in San Jose something like thirty percent. I'm sure he got white votes, but for the most part, those white votes were not charity. On the other hand, do you doubt that many didn't vote for him simply because he is asian?

Since I don't completely understand the concept of WP its probable that we do differ on its definition. On the rise of minorities and White charity I didn't express myself clearly. I don't think the rise is a matter of White charity. On WP on my part, it's like toilet paper sticking to the bottom of my shoe. I drag it along with me wherever I go.

On undeniable ability I agree. Mike Honda should change his name to Robert. On White support for Mike Honda...I don't know. Is the glass half empty or half full?

I don't get it. Why should he change his name to Robert?

[Kaiten]

^Just a lame attempt at humor.

[Kaiten]

So how could WP be reduced, eliminated or ended? This question could be the source of endless speculation. Since I'm not above speculation let me express some of my random thoughts. I think WP is pervasive; it permeates all aspects of the larger American society to one degree or another, and affects all economic classes of WAs. From what I can gather WP has economic, political, social, personal and a variety of other aspects.

I think it has to be attacked on an across the board basis. The public school system (K-12), the Courts, post secondary education, and the media are some of obvious the tools that must be made available for this purpose. Most 44s will recognize that these are not original ideas.

In order to effectively use these tools it will be necessary to raise significant amounts of tax exempt funds. The mechanics of fundraising is a whole other subject, but fundraising has well established patterns and practices.

I am aware of a number of AA organizations in the fields of law, politics, cyberspace and the media. I'm sure that there are many such organizations of which I am not aware. I don't know how effective these organizations have been. I suspect they may be strapped for resources.

Let's use the field of education as an example. I think it would be useful to set up a series of Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit foundations with each to pursue an attack on limited aspects of WP in K-12 and post secondary education, e.g., classroom curricula and textbooks which don't address AA experiences and contributions. I think it's important to focus on students training to be teachers, as well as teachers pursuing graduate work. Funding academic programs, scholarships, Chairs, etc. could be useful. Bringing political and economic pressure on textbook publishers would be part of the strategy. Litigation would also be part and parcel of the strategy, and would be utilized to maintain constant pressure.

Alliance and coalition building could be another useful tool. There are about 15 million AAs. Because of the size of this community I believe it is necessary to work with other minority groups on a wide array of issues in order to effectively attack WP. However, it would be important to keep in mind that all minorities are not affected by WP in the same ways. As a result it is likely that each group would have its own agenda.
Nevertheless, it should be possible for minorities to work together to the extent their agendas coincide.

These are things that AAs and non-AAs (including WAs) could work on together. However, there are things that only members of the AA community can do. e.g., beginning to recognize themselves as a community, rather than as a series of unrelated ethnic groups. WAs have done this. AA solidarity can only be brought to fruition by AAs themselves.

A core AA community must exist in order to carry on a dialogue with the WA community. If the AA community doesn't reach critical mass there will be no dialogue imo. The AA community seems so fragmented from my perspective. I could be wrong, but it seems that AAs are divided along ethnic, socio-economic, and gender lines, among others.

To me the craziest division in the AA community is along gender lines. Often, it seems to be all about IR relationships and marriages. This division has to be eliminated or we can give up hope on AA solidarity. My thinking on this subject has evolved over the last year or so. Is it impossible to develop a norm among AAs that in the current era every AA has a moral obligation to look only within the community for a significant other? My own marriage is not relevant to this question for a number of reasons I don't need to go into.

In any event, the foregoing post is nothing more than my rambling thoughts on attacking WP. If I were on sabbatical I could write more.

[Kaiten]

f44v.3 looks really good, smooth, professional. It's like a new carpet I'm afraid to walk on because I don't want to get it dirty. But since I've already left dirt on this thread I might as well continue to post on the subject of WP.

WP seems to be a phenomenon in much of the world. I think WP also seems to take different forms in different parts of the world. If this is true, I wonder what is unique about WP in America?

The dominance of one group over another group or groups can be caused by a variety of factors. The dominance of WAs over the indigenous peoples of America was achieved through conquest (militarily, culturally, economically and genetically) in the same way the Ottoman conquest of Anatolia gave them dominance over the Byzantine Christian residents.

The dominance of WAs over BAs was achieved through slavery, force and the imposition of subsequent legal and other disabilities. Historically, the dominance of WAs over Latino Americans was the result of military conquest, dispossession, and subsequent legal and other disabilities. The dominance of WAs over AAs was accomplished through force, the threat of force, and a variety of legal, cultural and other disabilities.

The dominance of WAs over other racial groups in America seems to have evolved over time. Imo WP continues to evolve. WA dominance has been and remains institutionalized, but what some have referred to as "petty racism/prejudice" at the individual level is not present to the same degree as it was forty or fifty years ago. If that is true, why is that the case?

I believe the continued existence of WP is in many ways a result of sheer numbers. At present I think there are 2 WAs for every non-WA. The numbers will change over time. I read somewhere that America's population is projected to increase to 500 million by the end of the century, half white and half nonwhite. I wonder how WP will evolve if this projection is true? WP still exists in California, but Whites are not the majority any longer.

Back to the original question. What makes WP unique in America? It's not simply the existence of dominance. To the best of my knowledge throughout history every group that has had an opportunity to seize dominance over another group or groups has done so. I'm sure there are aspects of WP in America that must be unique; however, the only thing that I can see unique about WP in America is that from the perspective of those currently alive, it exists here and now, and its effects are being felt. Since I'm not infallible I welcome the correction of my errors.

[Dialectic]

Just a brief comment, white privilege is actually worldwide. Being a white minority in Asia, for example, does not have nearly the same implications as being an Asian minority here.

It's a function of power, and of the results of colonization (which depended on power). It can't be "eliminated" until power distributes more equally among the various races.

[Vetrean]

As a note, I'm probably not bringing anything very new to the playing field; in the end, I'm just stating my views.

Awareness is undeniably the most important part of eliminating WP; I think you'll all agree to that. But it's not a matter of getting people to KNOW about it, it's a matter of getting people to CARE. It's just like global warming and such. Pretty much everyone in the modern world knows about it, but they don't necessarily care. You have to show beyond a doubt that it's a big, important issue. And it is.

The second thing is that for minorities to equal whites in power, it's not a white VS non-white situation. It's a group VS group vs group vs white situation. Unless, of course, you can get all the non-white groups to unite against the whites. But I really do not see it happening. If a single collective minority can't be united, how can several minorities be united? Of course, I might be misjudging the situation, as I think the fracturing of the AA presence might be unique as opposed to blacks and hispanics and such, but still.

I think it might not be a matter of amassing enough power to oppose it(because face it, minority groups won't be able to do so if the white population is aware of WP and wants to hold onto it), but rather forcing the white population to recognize that it's wrong and it needs to be destroyed.

I don't think having it in school curriculums is good(or even possible) either, not yet anyway. It's a matter of getting the general public to realize that it's wrong...and really, the youth don't have that. It's the adults who think that today's society is equal that have to be made aware, and it can't be a weak attempt; something that shatters the conception that today's society is equal.

I really haven't looked over this post myself much, so there's probably contradictory logic and much self-repetition and nothing new at all, so my apologies.

[Millerboy]

I think this article is great. It shows that Whites have a racial consciousness--something that every race and ethnicity should have.

[LowFrequency]

As a note, I'm probably not bringing anything very new to the playing field; in the end, I'm just stating my views.

Awareness is undeniably the most important part of eliminating WP; I think you'll all agree to that. But it's not a matter of getting people to KNOW about it, it's a matter of getting people to CARE. It's just like global warming and such. Pretty much everyone in the modern world knows about it, but they don't necessarily care. You have to show beyond a doubt that it's a big, important issue. And it is.



Whites do know about it. And they care. A great deal. About keeping their white privilege.


The second thing is that for minorities to equal whites in power, it's not a white VS non-white situation. It's a group VS group vs group vs white situation. Unless, of course, you can get all the non-white groups to unite against the whites. But I really do not see it happening. If a single collective minority can't be united, how can several minorities be united? Of course, I might be misjudging the situation, as I think the fracturing of the AA presence might be unique as opposed to blacks and hispanics and such, but still.



The problem is that even if all the minorities in the United States unite, whites will still have disproportionate weallth and power.

I do not think minorities necessarily have to unite. If minorities ever get their act together, they will naturally integrate themselves into the social fabric (and in doing so, dislodge whites from positions of power) so that the fabric is not all or mostly white.

That is, minorities working separately, but within their own cultural framework, can still eliminate WP.


I think it might not be a matter of amassing enough power to oppose it(because face it, minority groups won't be able to do so if the white population is aware of WP and wants to hold onto it), but rather forcing the white population to recognize that it's wrong and it needs to be destroyed.



As long as it will benefit them, they will hold on to it, IMO. The only way to eliminate it is not to show them that it is wrong morally, but that WP actually has negative societal impact, and thus will adversely affect THEIR way of life.

[Televangelist]

I think this article is great. It shows that Whites have a racial consciousness--something that every race and ethnicity should have.

If we're going to talk about ideals, and bring out the word "should", the ideal world is one where nobody has or needs such a consciousness, based on little more than the geographical accidents of our birth, rather than one where everyone has one.

[Millerboy]

If we're going to talk about ideals, and bring out the word "should", the ideal world is one where nobody has or needs such a consciousness, based on little more than the geographical accidents of our birth, rather than one where everyone has one.

No, I disagree. I believe any form of peoplehood or consciousness is morally identical, whether it be religious, cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual (ie. gender identification), political, social, economic, or anything.

We will never just form one big blob of "brown skin" mass because that just destroys any diversity, and even if it is the case in Latin America, people are still divided on the issue of "skin color", culture (as in the mestizos vs. pure Indians), perceived "race," religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, and more. It shows that no matter how hard you try to erase boundaries, they will always be there in some form.

Skin color is the hottest issue in Latin America today. The lighter your skin is, the higher on the socioeconomic ladder you are. Also, the more money you make, your "race" can change in Brazil. If you're saying that we all should adopt "one culture" and form a "one world government" then that's wrong, I don't believe in the New World Order. lol.

[Televangelist]

We will never just form one big blob of "brown skin" mass because that just destroys any diversity,

You've never been more wrong in your life. True diversity comes from things which may sometimes correlate with skin color in our imperfect world today, but are in no way bound to it - diversity of experience, diversity of thought, diversity of ideology, diversity of interests, diversity of tastes.

Diversity in its best sense is about what people choose for themselves, not whatever they happen to be stuck with due to their birth.

We've all been born into a world where the color of our skin affects us in myriad ways - that's the unfortunate reality, but we can work towards a world where that isn't the case.

[Millerboy]

You've never been more wrong in your life. True diversity comes from things which may sometimes correlate with skin color in our imperfect world today, but are in no way bound to it - diversity of experience, diversity of thought, diversity of ideology, diversity of interests, diversity of tastes.

Diversity in its best sense is about what people choose for themselves, not whatever they happen to be stuck with due to their birth.

We've all been born into a world where the color of our skin affects us in myriad ways - that's the unfortunate reality, but we can work towards a world where that isn't the case.

This doesn't mean we should eliminate racial diversity. That's absurd. We don't want to work towards a world where "race" is extinct, but we do have to work towards a world where all races can coexist peacefully, together or separately, if they wish. Your belief is the moral equivalent of saying that because some people are born female and male, it gives a certain gender the advantage in certain tasks, so we should work to try to eliminate "gender" itself.

Just replace gender with ethnicity, height, skin color, race, skull shape and it would be the same argument. You can't change your ethnicity or gender just like you can't change your race. But that doesn't mean we have to eliminate those characteristics. Your reasoning is faulty and immoral. This exact logic is what led to the Holocaust because of purity of "race" except this time it's the reverse, purity of the "human species."