@jjstraka34: I agree with you for the most part. I think it's fairly clear that, even though we've made great progress over the years, it's still considerably more difficult to be non-white than white in this country. If I could choose my race, I'd stay white.
But "white fragility" is just an insulting buzzword that serves no purpose but to denigrate people. It doesn't shed light on our society or offer any solutions to our problems. To a great extent, so is the concept of "white privilege." They only exist to stereotype white people as bad.
It's not as bad as being turned down for a job because of the color of my skin--that's not just grating; that's a huge monetary loss--but it is just as pointless. There's no advantage to it.
Yup. We can't just assume that somebody we don't like is doing something bad, simply because we don't trust them. We can't criticize someone based on a hypothetical.
Bear in mind Rule 5: keep things substantive, and focus on real events.
Err. How did I do that? All I said was I dont give Session's the benefit of the doubt. There's nothing in the rules of terms that could ever compel me to do so. I dont give him the benefit of the doubt because of things he has substantively done.
I didnt say he did deport the girl. I think he isnt above it.
@jjstraka34: I agree with you for the most part. I think it's fairly clear that, even though we've made great progress over the years, it's still considerably more difficult to be non-white than white in this country. If I could choose my race, I'd stay white.
But "white fragility" is just an insulting buzzword that serves no purpose but to denigrate people. It doesn't shed light on our society or offer any solutions to our problems. To a great extent, so is the concept of "white privilege." They only exist to stereotype white people as bad.
It's not as bad as being turned down for a job because of the color of my skin--that's not just grating; that's a huge monetary loss--but it is just as pointless. There's no advantage to it.
I can certainly be sympathetic to the argument that the term "white fragility" can seem demeaning, but I also think that what the term describes is an actual social phenomena (if posting this is deemed too offensive just let me know and we can delete it, but I don't think so). This is well worth a read in it's entirety:
Whether you agree with this or not, this isn't some fly by night opinion she put together here. It's worthy of serious consideration, especially given the history of this country. Mind you, this is the woman who literally COINED the phrase. So you can get it straight from the horse's mouth.
@jjstraka34 So, because other people groups have problems, white people can't talk about their own? That seems pretty racist in and of itself. You talk about us not having to worry about losing jobs because our names, "Sound too black." But this statement also ignores losing a job because the employer was pressured into hiring non-whites because of affirmitive action. Which does happen. I've seen hispanics get to flat out bypass documentaion for things like food pantries and WIC benefits. Everyone is racist towards everyone. And if we are going to COMPLETELY DISMISS PEOPLE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR, then you are flat out encouraging racism and segregation.
@jjstraka34 So, because other people groups have problems, white people can't talk about their own? That seems pretty racist in and of itself. You talk about us not having to worry about losing jobs because our names, "Sound too black." But this statement also ignores losing a job because the employer was pressured into hiring non-whites because of affirmitive action. Which does happen. I've seen hispanics get to flat out bypass documentaion for things like food pantries and WIC benefits. Everyone is racist towards everyone. And if we are going to COMPLETELY DISMISS PEOPLE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR, then you are flat out encouraging racism and segregation.
Well, they wouldn't have necessarily been pressured into hiring them, more like FORCED into hiring them because of federal laws. It's a policy that wouldn't have needed to exist to begin with if the problem with racism in this country hadn't have been so wide-open and systemic for over 200 years. The other option was a permanent state of minorities never getting an equal shot at getting hired (on a macro scale of course). No one is suggesting white people don't have problems. However, those who make the argument that it is worse way for minorities are making it because being African-American or Hispanic is an entire other layer ON TOP of the problems that come from everyday life simply by virtue of being a person of color in a country with, let's be frank here, an abominable history on race relations. A history we attempt to sweep under the rug at every opportunity.
I don't dispute that being white makes you less likely to suffer from certain problems, but the notion that it's universal and inherent is a stereotype.
This doesnt exactly make sense to me, and sounds like an oxymoron. How can being something be an advantage (less likely to suffer from certain problems) and not be universal since it's essentially also a constant.
I guess I'd like an example. Like - a situation in which substituting being white for something else would be advantageous (in America).
@jjstraka34 So, because other people groups have problems, white people can't talk about their own? That seems pretty racist in and of itself. You talk about us not having to worry about losing jobs because our names, "Sound too black." But this statement also ignores losing a job because the employer was pressured into hiring non-whites because of affirmitive action. Which does happen. I've seen hispanics get to flat out bypass documentaion for things like food pantries and WIC benefits. Everyone is racist towards everyone. And if we are going to COMPLETELY DISMISS PEOPLE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR, then you are flat out encouraging racism and segregation.
Well, they wouldn't have necessarily been pressured into hiring them, more like FORCED into hiring them because of federal laws. It's a policy that wouldn't have needed to exist to begin with if the problem with racism in this country hadn't have been so wide-open and systemic for over 200 years.
But its still a problem. Government enforced racism is STILL racism. And making excuses for it, while railing against all the injustices "white people" ceaselessly rain down on people of color is a hypocritical argument. Racism is bad in ALL FORMS, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT TARGETS. Me being white doesn't make it right to discriminate against me, any more than discriminating gainst someone who is black, or tan, albino, or purple, or whatever color of the spectrum. Its ALL WRONG. Its a nig case of "One step forward, two steps back."
Let's avoid the use of all-caps, as it sounds like shouting in text. It's better to use italics or occasionally bold text to highlight important points.
I don't dispute that being white makes you less likely to suffer from certain problems, but the notion that it's universal and inherent is a stereotype.
This doesnt exactly make sense to me, and sounds like an oxymoron. How can being something be an advantage (less likely to suffer from certain problems) and not be universal since it's essentially also a constant.
I mean that being white makes things easier on average, on the aggregate level, rather than universally on the individual level. It's a probability thing rather than a constant.
It's possible for white skin to have a very large impact on your life (you get the job that was denied to a black person due to race), a small impact (people with racial biases only have small roles in your life), or an inverse impact (maybe you run into an anti-white person who treats you worse for it). The first two are more common, but the first one isn't universal.
Partly I object to the term because a lot of the discourse around white privilege specifically claims that all white benefit from a set of unearned privileges, and the implicit judgment is that white people don't deserve any economic success they might have--you only got where you were because you were white.
I forgot one thing: another reason I object to the term is that it re-phrases the issue of racism such that the problem is "white people are being treated well" instead of "minorities are being treated poorly." Both can be true, but the latter is the problem; not the former. And as far as PR purposes go, it's a lot easier to sell "end anti-black racism" to a white person than "end pro-white privilege."
@semiticgod "Let's avoid the use of all-caps, as it sounds like shouting in text. It's better to use italics or occasionally bold text to highlight important points."
But that means I have to type my phrase, then highlight it, then click the option. That is just too much of a first world problem for me to handle!
I mean that being white makes things easier on average, on the aggregate level, rather than universally on the individual level. It's a probability thing rather than a constant.
It's possible for white skin to have a very large impact on your life (you get the job that was denied to a black person due to race), a small impact (people with racial biases only have small roles in your life), or an inverse impact (maybe you run into an anti-white person who treats you worse for it). The first two are more common, but the first one isn't universal.
I agree it's important to talk about these things on the macro-scale. Anecdotal and micro-scale evidence tends to create issues with confirmation bias. Paradoxically, it's a problem to try to use probabilities to prove or disprove white privilege's effect on a micro scale, simply since it's not informative with respect to the situation as a whole. This also happens to be the conservative movement's main argument against white privilege. "Show me where in my life that I've ever received privilege because I'm white." Implicitly, they're trying to ask someone to prove that which I am incapable of proving. I cannot show where you've benefited from white. I can instead show you statistical evidence that PoC are disadvantaged when competing with white people in a variety of ways (Prison length, poverty level. Employment levels, etc)
To be honest - I dont even know the ways in which I've benefited from being white. I wasnt in the room with my boss when he decided to hire me and not someone else. I do know that I'm statistically advantaged, though.
Partly I object to the term because a lot of the discourse around white privilege specifically claims that all white benefit from a set of unearned privileges, and the implicit judgment is that white people don't deserve any economic success they might have--you only got where you were because you were white.
I forgot one thing: another reason I object to the term is that it re-phrases the issue of racism such that the problem is "white people are being treated well" instead of "minorities are being treated poorly." Both can be true, but the latter is the problem; not the former. And as far as PR purposes go, it's a lot easier to sell "end anti-black racism" to a white person than "end pro-white privilege."
I feel we cannot afford to be so sensitive on the topic of racial injustice that we feel compelled to re frame a conversation even if it's uncomfortable. I dont think people view it (in a general sense) as "ending white privilege". - but how can we have an honest conversation about the disparity in social and economic terms without recognizing both sides of the issue.
PoC are disadvantaged to a degree in society. Those advantages are necessarily zero-sum in a lot of cases. That means someone's getting an advantage.
(There's an additional irony in that a common argument against the left is "Dont play the victim card!". Yet when that approach is tried - Framing a conversation not about being a victim of racial injustice, but instead appealing to those that injustice benefits - suddenly we're going too far).
@jjstraka34 So, because other people groups have problems, white people can't talk about their own? That seems pretty racist in and of itself. You talk about us not having to worry about losing jobs because our names, "Sound too black." But this statement also ignores losing a job because the employer was pressured into hiring non-whites because of affirmitive action. Which does happen. I've seen hispanics get to flat out bypass documentaion for things like food pantries and WIC benefits. Everyone is racist towards everyone. And if we are going to COMPLETELY DISMISS PEOPLE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR, then you are flat out encouraging racism and segregation.
Well, they wouldn't have necessarily been pressured into hiring them, more like FORCED into hiring them because of federal laws. It's a policy that wouldn't have needed to exist to begin with if the problem with racism in this country hadn't have been so wide-open and systemic for over 200 years.
But its still a problem. Government enforced racism is STILL racism. And making excuses for it, while railing against all the injustices "white people" ceaselessly rain down on people of color is a hypocritical argument. Racism is bad in ALL FORMS, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT TARGETS. Me being white doesn't make it right to discriminate against me, any more than discriminating gainst someone who is black, or tan, albino, or purple, or whatever color of the spectrum. Its ALL WRONG. Its a nig case of "One step forward, two steps back."
So what's your solution to the problem of bias in hiring if affirmative action is off the table and "wait around another 150 years to see if the situation magically corrects itself" is unacceptable?
Yes, affirmative action is inherently unfair, but how else do you correct 500 years of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and lynching in less than a century without actual corrective measures? You can't leave the rudder hard-a-port for centuries, then set the rudder amidships and expect to be on course, you have to tack back to get there.
@jjstraka34 So, because other people groups have problems, white people can't talk about their own? That seems pretty racist in and of itself. You talk about us not having to worry about losing jobs because our names, "Sound too black." But this statement also ignores losing a job because the employer was pressured into hiring non-whites because of affirmitive action. Which does happen. I've seen hispanics get to flat out bypass documentaion for things like food pantries and WIC benefits. Everyone is racist towards everyone. And if we are going to COMPLETELY DISMISS PEOPLE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR, then you are flat out encouraging racism and segregation.
Well, they wouldn't have necessarily been pressured into hiring them, more like FORCED into hiring them because of federal laws. It's a policy that wouldn't have needed to exist to begin with if the problem with racism in this country hadn't have been so wide-open and systemic for over 200 years.
But its still a problem. Government enforced racism is STILL racism. And making excuses for it, while railing against all the injustices "white people" ceaselessly rain down on people of color is a hypocritical argument. Racism is bad in ALL FORMS, REGARDLESS OF WHO IT TARGETS. Me being white doesn't make it right to discriminate against me, any more than discriminating gainst someone who is black, or tan, albino, or purple, or whatever color of the spectrum. Its ALL WRONG. Its a nig case of "One step forward, two steps back."
So what's your solution to the problem of bias in hiring if affirmative action is off the table and "wait around another 150 years to see if the situation magically corrects itself" is unacceptable?
Yes, affirmative action is inherently unfair, but how else do you correct 500 years of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and lynching in less than a century without actual corrective measures? You can't leave the rudder hard-a-port for centuries, then set the rudder amidships and expect to be on course, you have to tack back to get there.
I always use this argument: This country was founded in 1776 (there was slavery long before that but for the sake of this experiment we'll start there). African-Americans didn't even have nominally equal rights in this country until 1965. Most people's parents were in elementary school when it was still the societal norm to discriminate openly and enthusiastically against black people. So, just to make it a nice round number, we had 200 years of hardcore, systematic oppression on nearly every level. It's only been 50 years where that hasn't been the case (at least on paper). It seems to me a country that spent two centuries engaging in these kind of practices should have to spend at least an equal amount of time trying to rectify them. But here we are, only at the 25% mark of even this conservative estimate of how long it might take to even things out, and people have already had enough. Sorry, but this country has some sins to wash away, and it never seems particularly interested in doing so without being dragged there kicking and screaming.
Of course, in actuality, fixing a problem actually usually takes far longer than creating it in the first place, and that is likely the case here as well. But I doubt we'll ever know because the conversation can't ever really take place. Even bringing up these historical points of reference is going to be viewed as attacking people for "the sins of their fathers". And maybe that would have some validity if after the Civil War we had followed through on what Sherman ordered after the Confederacy surrendered, or Reconstruction hadn't been abandoned, or the entirety of 1865 to 1965 hadn't happened. But it did. Or if one political party wasn't STILL actively trying to make sure as few black people are able to vote as possible because the view them having franchise as a threat to their hold on power. It never goes away, it just keeps morphing into a different version more people will accept. Since there was no capability for the vast majority of black families to earn money for 200 years, almost all of them were far poorer than most white families. Poverty breeds crime. Which is then a perfect excuse to lock people up (at higher rates for the same offenses as mentioned before) as well as permanently take away their right to vote. We'll also implement voter ID laws that make it so a 90-year old African-American widow who hasn't driven a car since 1995 and has been voting in the same church since the Carter Administration shows up on election day and all of sudden is told she can't vote anymore because she lacks proper identification.
Partly I object to the term because a lot of the discourse around white privilege specifically claims that all white benefit from a set of unearned privileges, and the implicit judgment is that white people don't deserve any economic success they might have--you only got where you were because you were white.
I'm not going to say that attitude doesn't exist, because I remember arguing with a lady on a BBS who truly believed that all whites had a Bush/Kennedy level of access and privilege, but to say everyone who recognizes white privilege believes that is like saying that all Republicans are racist or all Democrats are socialists.
Since there was no capability for the vast majority of black families to earn money for 200 years, almost all of them were far poorer than most white families. Poverty breeds crime.
It's even worse than that. Most of the generational wealth of the white middle class comes from home ownership. This was boosted by policies set in place during the Eisenhower administration that were explicitly and openly racist. The redlining that followed crashed property values in black neighborhoods while boosting property values in white neighborhoods. Since school funding comes from property taxes, everything else follows.
Since there was no capability for the vast majority of black families to earn money for 200 years, almost all of them were far poorer than most white families. Poverty breeds crime.
It's even worse than that. Most of the generational wealth of the white middle class comes from home ownership. This was boosted by policies set in place during the Eisenhower administration that were explicitly and openly racist. The redlining that followed crashed property values in black neighborhoods while boosting property values in white neighborhoods. Since school funding comes from property taxes, everything else follows.
Bingo. But we never, ever discuss these nuances. In many ways, when Trump says "Make America Great Again", the image he is conjuring is of 1950s Eisenhower America, when most returning vets from World War 2 were able to get a college education, a nice home with a garage, and a car to put in it. These were government programs designed to cash in on the victory. And it worked. And it worked in part because black veterans were left out of the loop entirely. Even African-Americans who put their lives on the line in the greatest conflict in human history were screwed yet again when they came back. And that was really the last straw. It cemented a permanent underclass, and we have basically only taken cursory measures to rectify it. And even those are criticized. As I've said before, you can trace the history of complaints in this country about government welfare programs to the exact time people realized that some of them were going to people with dark skin. Even the article recently posted by our esteemed moderator found that people only object to government assistance that goes to other people, and that certainly carries over into thoughts about "people who aren't like you".
Even the article recently posted by our esteemed moderator found that
Bear in mind that my role as a moderator is only to enforce the Site Rules. I have no special authority to define what is true or false--being a moderator on a politics thread doesn't mean I'm an expert on any given political subject.
Partly I object to the term because a lot of the discourse around white privilege specifically claims that all white benefit from a set of unearned privileges, and the implicit judgment is that white people don't deserve any economic success they might have--you only got where you were because you were white.
I'm not going to say that attitude doesn't exist, because I remember arguing with a lady on a BBS who truly believed that all whites had a Bush/Kennedy level of access and privilege, but to say everyone who recognizes white privilege believes that is like saying that all Republicans are racist or all Democrats are socialists.
Fair enough. I'll grant that the proponents of the white privilege idea don't all share the same ideas about it, and I'll clarify that I only intend to criticize the more extreme variants of the theory.
So what is the plan for this kid exactly in the minds of immigration officials?? That she should fend for herself on the streets of Peru??
That is not 'attempting to deport'. Nobody has threatened this girl with deportation. The parents' are in jeopardy of having an 'illegal immigrant' living with them but nobody is bashing down their door. The girl isn't even illegal yet. Much ado about nothing. Again...
It is not "much ado about nothing". And, despite your claim in another post, something most definitely has happened. The daughter of two U.S. citizens has been denied the right to live with her parents in their home country. The parents haven't even been given an explanation why their daughter has been denied legal status. This is unconscionable.
So what is the plan for this kid exactly in the minds of immigration officials?? That she should fend for herself on the streets of Peru??
That is not 'attempting to deport'. Nobody has threatened this girl with deportation. The parents' are in jeopardy of having an 'illegal immigrant' living with them but nobody is bashing down their door. The girl isn't even illegal yet. Much ado about nothing. Again...
It is not "much ado about nothing". And, despite your claim in another post, something most definitely has happened. The daughter of two U.S. citizens has been denied the right to live with her parents in their home country. The parents haven't even been given an explanation why their daughter has been denied legal status. This is unconscionable.
@AstroBryGuy I think the point being made was that the immigration process had not yet been finally concluded. However, I agree with you that what has happened so far doesn't seem acceptable. According to this story the parents adopted the child in 2017 and made an immigration application. After more than a year they got a tourist visa to travel and came back to the US. The immigration application has been denied, but they don't yet know why and they are concerned about what happens when the tourist visa expires shortly. Staying on after a visa expires is not a criminal offense (unlike the illegal crossing of borders), but given what's been happening in the last year I would say their fear that their daughter may be deported is entirely understandable. Although the appeals process has not been completed, it is conceivable that the government could deport the child pending the completion of that appeal - so it's not surprising that they've gone public as a way of putting pressure on the authorities.
paper ballots anyone? seriously. My last provincial ballot was paper, that was scanned. Easier to audit, Use your voice and say this is unacceptable.
That story is picked up from Breitbart and Infowars, so care is needed in assessing its reliability . In this case the apparent discrepancy is not due to problems with the voting, but incorrect reporting of the number of voters in the precinct - see this more recent story from McClatchy. However, the main point of your comment (that there are major problems with the voting system in Georgia and there's a need for a more transparent system) is certainly the case ...
That is not 'attempting to deport'. Nobody has threatened this girl with deportation. The parents' are in jeopardy of having an 'illegal immigrant' living with them but nobody is bashing down their door. The girl isn't even illegal yet. Much ado about nothing. Again...
Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Why would we *ever* give the benefit of the doubt to an administration that willfully separated children from their parents entering the country - even when those parents were sometimes simply seeking asylum?
Sorry. That ship has sailed. I dont doubt for a moment that Jeff Sessions would have any issue deporting a 4 year old back to Peru. He lost all moral credibility at the border this year.
You may have your doubts about Sessions but I'm sorry, until somebody tries to actually deport this girl NOTHING HAS HAPPENED!
Sessions personally no, not. But I do disagree with the "nothing has happened" in all capitals. Living under a threat to the integrity of your family of this magnitude is terrible all by itself, even if the threat is never realized. Do you really think that since the day they received the first note, that this family was a happy and untroubled one?
People who are told that there is a chance of 10% of them having cancer and needing more tests, do rarely shrug and say that they do not have confirmed cancer yet.
Honestly, what do you want the media to do? Ignore the story until maybe the child is actually deported, when public scrutiny is likely to decrease the chance of that happening?
That is not 'attempting to deport'. Nobody has threatened this girl with deportation. The parents' are in jeopardy of having an 'illegal immigrant' living with them but nobody is bashing down their door. The girl isn't even illegal yet. Much ado about nothing. Again...
Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Why would we *ever* give the benefit of the doubt to an administration that willfully separated children from their parents entering the country - even when those parents were sometimes simply seeking asylum?
Sorry. That ship has sailed. I dont doubt for a moment that Jeff Sessions would have any issue deporting a 4 year old back to Peru. He lost all moral credibility at the border this year.
You may have your doubts about Sessions but I'm sorry, until somebody tries to actually deport this girl NOTHING HAS HAPPENED!
Sessions personally no, not. But I do disagree with the "nothing has happened" in all capitals. Living under a threat to the integrity of your family of this magnitude is terrible all by itself, even if the threat is never realized. Do you really think that since the day they received the first note, that this family was a happy and untroubled one?
People who are told that there is a chance of 10% of them having cancer and needing more tests, do rarely shrug and say that they do not have confirmed cancer yet.
Honestly, what do you want the media to do? Ignore the story until maybe the child is actually deported, when public scrutiny is likely to decrease the chance of that happening?
All I'm really saying is that this is not a story until something happens. There are all kinds of reasons thus girl may have fallen between the cracks (including incompetence or laziness) but foisting thus up as some Trump conspiracy is worthless until an actual deportation is ordered. In all likelihood this won't and wouldn't have happened due to the details of this case.
@BillyYank "So what's your solution to the problem of bias in hiring if affirmative action is off the table and "wait around another 150 years to see if the situation magically corrects itself" is unacceptable?"
Take race out the process entirely. When applications are turned in, have a program assign a number to each application and name. Redact the names on the copy that is sent to the hiring manager (The matching numbers are to be able to re-match the application with the name.). The applications would also be dated. With no racial identifyers, applicants would be chosen purely on professional merits. In the event of two or more equally qualified candidates, the first turned in application gets selected. In the event of multiple equal applicants at the same time (I'd say within the same day), either flip a coin or draws numbers from a hat. Racism cannot occur, because race is no longer a consideration.
Let's assume EVERYTHING about this so-called anti-white reverse racism is true, just for a hypothetical. Let's assume that many white people are sick of having to hear about how bad they are. That is essentially the extent of it. They have to HEAR about something. Because no matter what happens, their skin color isn't going to cause them to get pulled over for no reason by a cop a dozen times a year. It's not going to cause them to lose out on an apartment or follow-up interview for a job because their name sounds too black. It isn't going to cause them to be sentenced to 20% longer criminal sentences for committing the EXACT same crime as someone of the majority racial demographic. It isn't going to cause their kids to get punished more in school for committing the EXACT same infractions as someone of the majority demographic. All of which ABSOLUTELY takes place everyday in this country and is backed up by statistical evidence:
Being white isn't going to cause people to call the cops on you for such everyday mundane activities as being a child selling lemonade without a "license", legally having a BBQ in a public park, falling asleep in a commons area at a college dorm room, checking on a house you are selling as a real estate agent, or not even being able to spend 5 minutes waiting for a friend in a Starbucks before a veritable SWAT team is called in to haul you off to jail. These are only about 5 examples of the DOZENS I have read about just in the last 3 or 4 months:
So when people talk about "white fragility", they are doing so because simply having to listen or hear about how our society or even individual actions a person may take are racist is absolutely NOTHING compared to the never-ending avalanche of bullshit African-Americans and other minorities in this country have to endure on a daily basis just to EXIST. It surrounds them like a choking gas cloud, and can't possibly be understood in any real way without having to live through it on a daily basis. We are talking about one group basically having their feelings hurt with words and the other side not being allowed to exist as full members of society without having to wade through a swamp full of bullshit to get to the same place everyone else does just by walking out the door.
If we are going to talk about the tangible effects of racism being directed against you, on the side of African-Americans we have 150 years of slavery, broken promises on Reconstruction, another 100 years of de-facto slavery in many parts of the country and 100% 2nd class citizenship, and NO opportunity to create generational wealth for the vast majority of the history of this country. And on the white side we have.......someone being harsh to them on the internet or possibly losing their ability to broadcast on Youtube.
I'm not sure why you think it is a competition. All I ask is for racist attacks against people like me to be taken as seriously as they would be for anyone else. Asking for that doesn't mean that nobody else has problems, or that they aren't serious ones. This isn't mutually exclusive.
@jjstraka34 Whites are discriminated, affirmative action in white majority and white minority countries, the unique countries who have race based citizenship are Africans, Israel can do ancestry testing on his immigrants but if Germany tries to do the same and only accept German descendants, they will be called racist, facists, etc. Zimbabwe expelled the white farmers and now live with foreign help from white majority countries.
About slavery, why not talk about ARAB slave trade? Why not talk about those who ENDED slavery? Why not about Irish slavery?
--------------------------
An example of "we need to put diversity at any cost"
dialog 1 : "no blacks" dialog 2 : "they are my sisters"
Now Marina Ruy Barbosa needs affirmative action on her family too??
Take race out the process entirely. When applications are turned in, have a program assign a number to each application and name. Redact the names on the copy that is sent to the hiring manager (The matching numbers are to be able to re-match the application with the name.). The applications would also be dated. With no racial identifyers, applicants would be chosen purely on professional merits. In the event of two or more equally qualified candidates, the first turned in application gets selected. In the event of multiple equal applicants at the same time (I'd say within the same day), either flip a coin or draws numbers from a hat. Racism cannot occur, because race is no longer a consideration.
An interesting idea, but in addition to the problems chimaera mentioned, it goes out the window once the interview process begins. Interviews will always be a critical part of the hiring process.
Comments
But "white fragility" is just an insulting buzzword that serves no purpose but to denigrate people. It doesn't shed light on our society or offer any solutions to our problems. To a great extent, so is the concept of "white privilege." They only exist to stereotype white people as bad.
It's not as bad as being turned down for a job because of the color of my skin--that's not just grating; that's a huge monetary loss--but it is just as pointless. There's no advantage to it.
I didnt say he did deport the girl. I think he isnt above it.
https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116
Whether you agree with this or not, this isn't some fly by night opinion she put together here. It's worthy of serious consideration, especially given the history of this country. Mind you, this is the woman who literally COINED the phrase. So you can get it straight from the horse's mouth.
I guess I'd like an example. Like - a situation in which substituting being white for something else would be advantageous (in America).
It's possible for white skin to have a very large impact on your life (you get the job that was denied to a black person due to race), a small impact (people with racial biases only have small roles in your life), or an inverse impact (maybe you run into an anti-white person who treats you worse for it). The first two are more common, but the first one isn't universal.
Partly I object to the term because a lot of the discourse around white privilege specifically claims that all white benefit from a set of unearned privileges, and the implicit judgment is that white people don't deserve any economic success they might have--you only got where you were because you were white.
I forgot one thing: another reason I object to the term is that it re-phrases the issue of racism such that the problem is "white people are being treated well" instead of "minorities are being treated poorly." Both can be true, but the latter is the problem; not the former. And as far as PR purposes go, it's a lot easier to sell "end anti-black racism" to a white person than "end pro-white privilege."
But that means I have to type my phrase, then highlight it, then click the option. That is just too much of a first world problem for me to handle!
To be honest - I dont even know the ways in which I've benefited from being white. I wasnt in the room with my boss when he decided to hire me and not someone else. I do know that I'm statistically advantaged, though.
I feel we cannot afford to be so sensitive on the topic of racial injustice that we feel compelled to re frame a conversation even if it's uncomfortable. I dont think people view it (in a general sense) as "ending white privilege". - but how can we have an honest conversation about the disparity in social and economic terms without recognizing both sides of the issue.
PoC are disadvantaged to a degree in society. Those advantages are necessarily zero-sum in a lot of cases. That means someone's getting an advantage.
(There's an additional irony in that a common argument against the left is "Dont play the victim card!". Yet when that approach is tried - Framing a conversation not about being a victim of racial injustice, but instead appealing to those that injustice benefits - suddenly we're going too far).
Yes, affirmative action is inherently unfair, but how else do you correct 500 years of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining and lynching in less than a century without actual corrective measures? You can't leave the rudder hard-a-port for centuries, then set the rudder amidships and expect to be on course, you have to tack back to get there.
Of course, in actuality, fixing a problem actually usually takes far longer than creating it in the first place, and that is likely the case here as well. But I doubt we'll ever know because the conversation can't ever really take place. Even bringing up these historical points of reference is going to be viewed as attacking people for "the sins of their fathers". And maybe that would have some validity if after the Civil War we had followed through on what Sherman ordered after the Confederacy surrendered, or Reconstruction hadn't been abandoned, or the entirety of 1865 to 1965 hadn't happened. But it did. Or if one political party wasn't STILL actively trying to make sure as few black people are able to vote as possible because the view them having franchise as a threat to their hold on power. It never goes away, it just keeps morphing into a different version more people will accept. Since there was no capability for the vast majority of black families to earn money for 200 years, almost all of them were far poorer than most white families. Poverty breeds crime. Which is then a perfect excuse to lock people up (at higher rates for the same offenses as mentioned before) as well as permanently take away their right to vote. We'll also implement voter ID laws that make it so a 90-year old African-American widow who hasn't driven a car since 1995 and has been voting in the same church since the Carter Administration shows up on election day and all of sudden is told she can't vote anymore because she lacks proper identification.
paper ballots anyone? seriously. My last provincial ballot was paper, that was scanned. Easier to audit, Use your voice and say this is unacceptable.
People who are told that there is a chance of 10% of them having cancer and needing more tests, do rarely shrug and say that they do not have confirmed cancer yet.
Honestly, what do you want the media to do? Ignore the story until maybe the child is actually deported, when public scrutiny is likely to decrease the chance of that happening?
Source: https://xkcd.com/2030/
Take race out the process entirely. When applications are turned in, have a program assign a number to each application and name. Redact the names on the copy that is sent to the hiring manager (The matching numbers are to be able to re-match the application with the name.). The applications would also be dated. With no racial identifyers, applicants would be chosen purely on professional merits. In the event of two or more equally qualified candidates, the first turned in application gets selected. In the event of multiple equal applicants at the same time (I'd say within the same day), either flip a coin or draws numbers from a hat. Racism cannot occur, because race is no longer a consideration.
About slavery, why not talk about ARAB slave trade? Why not talk about those who ENDED slavery? Why not about Irish slavery?
--------------------------
An example of "we need to put diversity at any cost"
dialog 1 : "no blacks"
dialog 2 : "they are my sisters"
Now Marina Ruy Barbosa needs affirmative action on her family too??