Latest Tim Wise Blog

[GreenEarthAl]

Tim Wise is a Z Mag contributor and Blogger about racial issues in the USA.


This is Your Nation on White Privilege

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

[100% ILL]

We need a change http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN4KxZ9fTYs&feature=relatede.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMyPB1wbvQg&feature=related

Now that's different



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xV-HMmNZO8&feature=related

I'm not going to argue ethnopolitics, but shouldn't the Presidential hopeful at least pledge allegiance to the nations flag?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMo0WlSvrIY&feature=related

[NoFenders]

I wonder if he's a Democrat. :D

ACtaully, knowing that he is. All he's doing is creating more racial tension. When I'm sure he likes to think of himself as some hero on racial issues. People like this are in it for one thing only. Themselves.











:cool:

[DroppinScience]

I wonder if he's a Democrat. :D

ACtaully, knowing that he is. All he's doing is creating more racial tension. When I'm sure he likes to think of himself as some hero on racial issues. People like this are in it for one thing only. Themselves.


In other words, if you address the obvious, you're only creating more racial tension?

[NoFenders]

In other words, if you address the obvious, you're only creating more racial tension?

I don't find most of those things he mentions to be obvious. I find them to be a sterotype. A sterotyoe that would be better left alone, unless oif course you'd like to keep racial matters around. If this man makes money at these thoughts, I'd say he does. And if you buy into these thoughts. You're no better than the KKK.






:cool:

[DroppinScience]

I don't find most of those things he mentions to be obvious. I find them to be a sterotype. A sterotyoe that would be better left alone, unless oif course you'd like to keep racial matters around. If this man makes money at these thoughts, I'd say he does. And if you buy into these thoughts. You're no better than the KKK.






:cool:

You're a silly, silly kid. If you speak out against racial injustice or poverty or anything else, you're no better than the KKK? News to me. So just pretend there are no problems and maybe, just maybe, it'll go away. If you want to put your head in the sand, that's great. Doesn't work for me.

[Bob]

I don't find most of those things he mentions to be obvious. I find them to be a sterotype. A sterotyoe that would be better left alone, unless oif course you'd like to keep racial matters around. If this man makes money at these thoughts, I'd say he does. And if you buy into these thoughts. You're no better than the KKK.






:cool:

wow!

[travesty]

That Tim Wise guy is a sounds like a real fucking retard. Ask Hillary how she is liking her "white privilege" right now. Taking pieces of one persons life and comparing them to stereotypes of minorities just to try and make the point that the person is not qualified for the vice presidency is just idiotic. That article is not insightful, it's just more stupid character attacks. I think the lefties have found someone to hate as much as Bush, and she hasn't even been elected yet.

Besides we are talking about the VICE PRESIDENCY everyone. That fucking imbecile Al Gore was the Vice President for eight years so it's not like you have to be THAT qualified, or smart. If Dems don't start campaigning against McCain instead of Palin, they are sunk, and the bilge is flooding as we speak.

[yeahwho]

Tim Wise is but one segment of a much larger and more cohesive America that has questions about Sarah Palin and even more pointedly, John McCain. It would be nice to categorize everyone who is a democrat a "lefty" but that is not going to work. As far as I can tell the republican party has 0, nada, nothing to run on except copy what works for Barack on one hand, then lie about his ideas they "copy" with the other hand.

Why is it the obvious attack by Barack Obama is being ignored, how is it the US of A is in the very worst financial mess in recorded history and all of a sudden John McCain misunderstands "Lipstick on a Pig"?

He actually thinks Barack Obama is attacking poor little Sarah Palin, I like quite a few million others have some seriousness to our lives, when will John McCain get over petty character attacks?

And why hasn't McCain responded to the real statement, that the policies he promotes are the same as the policies that President Bush has been promoting?

[yeahwho]

I don't find most of those things he mentions to be obvious. I find them to be a sterotype. A sterotyoe that would be better left alone, unless oif course you'd like to keep racial matters around. If this man makes money at these thoughts, I'd say he does. And if you buy into these thoughts. You're no better than the KKK.






:cool:

Who is Tim Wise? Do you know anything about him? I think he's pushing buttons because he's not that far off bubble, if the same situation was happening to one of Barack Obama's daughters with a black hip hop street hoops kid from Chicago, this election would be over. Stereotype (http://a.abcnews.com/images/Nightline/nm_rnc_1_080903_ssh.jpg)? No better than the KKK (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/popup?id=5712140&contentIndex=1&page=36&start=false)?

[travesty]

As far as I can tell the republican party has 0, nada, nothing to run on except copy what works for Barack on one hand, then lie about his ideas they "copy" with the other hand.

Well, I've got news for you, if that is all the Republicans have then WTF are the Dems doing that make this a close race? I swear the Democratic party just can not figure out how to run a presidential campaign. The fact that this race is even within margins of statistical error is mind boggling after 8 years of Bouche.

Why is it the obvious attack by Barack Obama is being ignored, how is it the US of A is in the very worst financial mess in recorded history and all of a sudden John McCain misunderstands "Lipstick on a Pig"?

He didn't get the e-mail explaining the real intent of the statement.:D

He actually thinks Barack Obama is attacking poor little Sarah Palin, I like quite a few million others have some seriousness to our lives, when will John McCain get over petty character attacks?

When he's elected, it's working.

And why hasn't McCain responded to the real statement, that the policies he promotes are the same as the policies that President Bush has been promoting?

He doesn't have to. The sheep are already lined up for the slaughter.

[yeahwho]

Well, I've got news for you, if that is all the Republicans have then WTF are the Dems doing that make this a close race? I swear the Democratic party just can not figure out how to run a presidential campaign. The fact that this race is even within margins of statistical error is mind boggling after 8 years of Bouche.


Agree, 100%... with a caveat that a campaign strategy Obama's handlers used in the nomination race was the underdog strategy, the illusion of indecision bolsters the base on both sides, proof positive of some of these idiotic threads on here.


He didn't get the e-mail explaining the real intent of the statement.:D

Good one. I genuinely smiled. :)



When he's elected, it's working.

The cream rises to the top, what goes up must come down, she is under intense scrutiny for all the wrong things. The republicans would be wise to back off on her now too. I could care less about Sarah to be honest with everybody, she is a wreck IMO. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080917/Cartoon20080917.jpg) My mom is better suited for the job at all levels than she. That doesn't bode well for America. What some see as a Godsend cracks me up. She is a political liability in the long run. She comes across as an idiot. Joe Biden may be a lot of things in a lot of peoples minds, one thing he is not is an idiot. As the face to face debates will prove, he's actually very personable too. I like the fact he's not in the limelight.



He doesn't have to. The sheep are already lined up for the slaughter

Not quite sure the slaughter will go exactly as planned. I think many are in line but the killing floor is near and the window is ajar. Some will peek in and jump for the real American Dream.

[RobMoney$]

Typical lefty-victim-role,...YAWN.


If anything, Obama's race has worked pro-actively for him.

[yeahwho]

Typical lefty-victim-role,...YAWN.


If anything, Obama's race has worked pro-actively for him.

Tim Wise may bore you and come across as a "typical lefty-victim-role,...YAWN>

Whatever that means, if anything Barack Obama's race has been just as much a con as a pro active role for him. His race, as this Time magazine article points out so astutely, Remains The Elephant in the Room (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1841109,00.html).

This is something to keep in mind now that the Thomas Friedmans and Arianna Huffingtons of the world are imploring Obama to get angry, to shed his above-the-fray cool and fight back against the McCain campaign's silly-season accusations that he's a charismatic chauvinist who wants to teach kindergartners how to have sex. Over the past 18 months, Obama has been attacked as a naive novice, an empty suit, a tax-and-spend liberal, an arugula-grazing élitist and a corrupt ward heeler, but the only attacks that clearly stung him involved the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — attacks that portrayed him as an angry black man under the influence of an even angrier black man.

Barack Obama has a very clear understanding of the Planet Earth. He is not my first choice to be the President of the United States, but compromise is what will change this path we're on. Barrack Obama has a better grasp on issues and policy in every category over John McCain. He also has something McCain has lost, class and charisma. That is why I'm voting for Obama.

Tim Wise is making a fairly honest observation. I applaud him for writing his piece and I applaud the country I live in for granting him his first amendment rights to speak his mind.

Race currently plays no factor in my decision for picking Obama, but I'm not so dumb that I don't know race plays a factor in this election. Just as sex isn't making me want to cozy up to Sarah Palin's ideas for this Countries women.

[100% ILL]

if anything Barack Obama's race has been just as much a con as a pro active role for him. His race, as this Time magazine article points out so astutely, Remains The Elephant in the Room (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1841109,00.html).


If Obama wins he will be the first Black President. If Obama loses it will be because America did not want a Black man as President. That's the discussion I'm hearing among people I know at work,sad but true.
It seems we (Americans) are caught in a revolving door of racism. If you say well I'm not really concerned with the man's race, I just think he would make a great President. Inevitably someone will say that you are ignoring the struggle of African-Americans in this country and how far they've come since the days of segregation. If you say that guy is black and I'm going to vote for him because I think it would be awsome if America finally had an African-American as President, you're a racist because you mentioned his color.

Comming from a military background, racism seems silly to me, and other men I've known of varied racial backgrounds. When you're focused on something bigger than yourself,where you depend on somone else to perhaps save your life if necessary, trust me his color does not readily come to mind.
I guess when you have nothing else to worry about color/race becomes a factor.

Personally I'd vote for a 4ft. Purple guy, If he could get gas prices down to a reasonable level, and do something about my @#$%! property taxes.

[NoFenders]

Tim Wise is but one segment of a much larger and more cohesive America that has questions about Sarah Palin and even more pointedly, John McCain.

I didn't see any questions in that little memo. Did you?? Big difference in asking a question and making an accusation.










:)

[NoFenders]

Tim Wise is making a fairly honest observation. I applaud him for writing his piece and I applaud the country I live in for granting him his first amendment rights to speak his mind.




You and about 200,000 other racists would agree. Some the exact way, some the exact opposite. I guess it all depends on who your guy is and what reasons you have for believing it.

As I've said before. We all believe the lies and stories we really want to believe.







:(

[yeahwho]

Since this thread is going nowhere, I poop on it. (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=42411591&searchid=ca9bd0f4-e4e0-45bd-b15a-7d5f4213cb75)

[GreenEarthAl]

He recently wrote a follow up

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=106899383&blogID=434004349&Mytoken=D16AF883-A2A0-4D9A-915CB9DEFD14FD8013720044


Explaining White Privilege to the Deniers and the Haters

Here comes another one...pass it around!

tim

Explaining White Privilege
(Or, Your Defense Mechanism is Showing)
By Tim Wise
September 18, 2008

Sigh.

I guess I should have expected it, seeing as how it's nothing new. I write a piece on racism and white privilege (namely, the recently viral, "This is Your Nation on White Privilege"), lots of folks read it, many of them like it, and others e-mail me in fits of apoplexy, or post scathing critiques on message boards in which they invite me to die, to perform various sexual acts upon myself that I feel confident are impossible, or, best of all, to "go live in the ghetto," whereupon I will come to "truly appreciate the animals" for whom I have so much affection (the phrase they use for me and that affection, of course, sounds a bit different, and I'll leave it to your imagination to conjure the quip yourself).

Though I have no desire to debate the points made in the original piece, I would like to address some of the more glaring, and yet reasonable, misunderstandings that many seem to have about the subject of white privilege. That many white folks don't take well to the term is an understatement, and quite understandable. For those of us in the dominant group, the notion that we may receive certain advantages generally not received by others is a jarring, sometimes maddening concept. And if we don't understand what the term means, and what those who use it mean as they deploy it, our misunderstandings can generate anger and heat, where really, none is called for. So let me take this opportunity to explain what I mean by white privilege.

Of course, the original piece only mentioned examples of white privilege that were directly implicated in the current presidential campaign. It made no claims beyond that. Yet many who wrote to me took issue with the notion that there was such a thing, arguing, for instance that there are lots of poor white people who have no privilege, and many folks of color who are wealthy, who do. But what this argument misses is that race and class privilege are not the same thing.

Though we are used to thinking of privilege as a mere monetary issue, it is more than that. Yes, there are rich black and brown folks, but even they are subject to racial profiling and stereotyping (especially because those who encounter them often don't know they're rich and so view them as decidedly not), as well as bias in mortgage lending, and unequal treatment in schools. So, for instance, even the children of well-off black families are more likely to be suspended or expelled from school than the children of poor whites, and this is true despite the fact that there is no statistically significant difference in the rates of serious school rule infractions between white kids or black kids that could justify the disparity (according to fourteen different studies examined by Russ Skiba at Indiana University).

As for poor whites, though they certainly are suffering economically, this doesn't mean they lack racial privilege. I grew up in a very modest apartment, and economically was far from privileged. Yet I received better treatment in school (placement in advanced track classes even when I wasn't a good student), better treatment by law enforcement officers, and indeed more job opportunities because of connections I was able to take advantage of, that were pretty much unavailable to the folks of color I knew growing up. Likewise, low income whites everywhere are able to clean up, go to a job interview and be seen as just another white person, whereas a person of color, even who isn't low-income, has to wonder whether or not they might trip some negative stereotype about their group when they go for an interview or sit in the classroom answering questions from the teacher. Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, but even low-income whites are more likely to own their own home than middle income black families, thanks to past advantages in housing and asset accumulation, which has allowed those whites to receive a small piece of property from their families.

The point is, privilege is as much a psychological matter as a material one. Whites have the luxury of not having to worry that our race is going to mark us negatively when looking for work, going to school, shopping, looking for a place to live, or driving for that matter: things that folks of color can't take for granted.

Let me share an analogy to make the point.

Taking things out of the racial context for a minute: imagine persons who are able bodied, as opposed to those with disabilities. If I were to say that able-bodied persons have certain advantages, certain privileges if you will, which disabled persons do not, who would argue the point? I imagine that no one would. It's too obvious, right? To be disabled is to face numerous obstacles. And although many persons with disabilities overcome those obstacles, this fact doesn't take away from the fact that they exist. Likewise, that persons with disabilities can and do overcome obstacles every day, doesn't deny that those of us who are able-bodied have an edge. We have one less thing to think and worry about as we enter a building, go to a workplace, or just try and navigate the contours of daily life. The fact that there are lots of able-bodied people who are poor, and some disabled folks who are rich, doesn't alter the general rule: on balance, it pays to be able-bodied.

That's all I'm saying about white privilege: on balance, it pays to be a member of the dominant racial group. It doesn't mean that a white person will get everything they want in life, or win every competition, but it does mean that there are general advantages that we receive.

So, for instance, studies have found that job applicants with white sounding names are 50% more likely to receive a call-back for a job interview than applicants with black-sounding names, even when all job-related qualifications and credentials are the same.

Other studies have found that white men with a criminal record are more likely to get a call-back for an interview than black male job applicants who don't have one, even when all requisite qualifications, demeanor and communication styles are the same.

Others have found that white women are far more likely than black women to be hired for work through temporary agencies, even when the black women have more experience and are more qualified.

Evidence from housing markets has found that there are about two million cases of race-based discrimination against people of color every year in the United States. That's not just bad for folks of color; the flipside is that there are, as a result, millions more places I can live as a white person.

Or consider criminal justice. Although data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration indicates that whites are equally or more likely than blacks or Latinos to use drugs, it is people of color (blacks and Latinos mostly) who comprise about 90 percent of the persons incarcerated for a drug possession offense. Despite the fact that white men are more likely to be caught with drugs in our car (on those occasions when we are searched), black men remain about four times more likely than white men to be searched in the first place, according to Justice Department findings. That's privilege for the dominant group.

That's the point: privilege is the flipside of discrimination. If people of color face discrimination, in housing, employment and elsewhere, then the rest of us are receiving a de facto subsidy, a privilege, an advantage in those realms of daily life. There can be no down without an up, in other words.

None of this means that white folks don't face challenges. Of course we do, and some of them (based on class, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other factors) are systemic and institutionalized. But on balance, we can take for granted that we will receive a leg-up on those persons of color with whom we share a nation.

And no, affirmative action doesn't change any of this.

Despite white fears to the contrary, even with affirmative action in place (which, contrary to popular belief does not allow quotas or formal set-asides except in those rare cases where blatant discrimination has been proven) whites hold about ninety percent of all the management level jobs in this country, receive about ninety-four percent of government contract dollars, and hold ninety percent of tenured faculty positions on college campuses. And in spite of affirmative action programs, whites are more likely than members of any other racial group to be admitted to their college of first choice.* And according to a study released last year, for every student of color who received even the slightest consideration from an affirmative action program in college, there are two whites who failed to meet normal qualification requirements at the same school, but who got in anyway because of parental influence, alumni status or because other favors were done.

Furthermore, although white students often think that so-called minority scholarships are a substantial drain on financial aid resources that would otherwise be available to them, nothing could be further from the truth. According to a national study by the General Accounting Office, less than four percent of scholarship money in the U.S. is represented by awards that consider race as a factor at all, while only 0.25 percent (that's one quarter of one percent for the math challenged) of all undergrad scholarship dollars come from awards that are restricted to persons of color alone. What's more, the idea that large numbers of students of color receive the benefits of race-based scholarships is lunacy of the highest order. In truth, only 3.5 percent of college students of color receive any scholarship even partly based on race, suggesting that such programs remain a pathetically small piece of the financial aid picture in this country, irrespective of what a gaggle of reactionary white folks might believe.**

In other words, despite the notion that somehow we have attained an equal opportunity, or color-blind society, the fact is, we are far from an equitable nation. People of color continue to face obstacles based solely on color, and whites continue to reap benefits from the same. None of this makes whites bad people, and none of it means we should feel guilty or beat ourselves up. But it does mean we need to figure out how we're going to be accountable for our unearned advantages. One way is by fighting for a society in which those privileges will no longer exist, and in which we will be able to stand on our own two feet, without the artificial crutch of racial advantage to prop us up. We need to commit to fighting for racial equity and challenging injustice at every turn, not only because it harms others, but because it diminishes us as well (even as it pays dividends), and because it squanders the promise of fairness and equity to which we claim to adhere as Americans.

It's about responsibility, not guilt. And if one can't see the difference between those two things, there is little that this or any other article can probably do. Perhaps starting with a dictionary would be better.


*U.S Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. (Washington DC: Bureau of National Affairs, March 1995); Fred L. Pincus, Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth. (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003), 18; Roberta J. Hill, "Far More Than Frybread," in Race in the College Classroom: Pedagogy and Politics, ed. Bonnie TuSmith and Maureen T. Reddy. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press), 169; Sylvia Hurtado and Christine Navia, "Reconciling College Access and the Affirmative Action Debate," in Affirmative Action's Testament of Hope, ed. Mildred Garcia (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1997), 115.

**U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994. "Information on Minority Targeted Scholarships," B251634. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January; Stephen L. Carter, "Color-Blind and Color-Active," 1992. The Recorder. January 3.

[yeahwho]

He recently wrote a follow up

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=106899383&blogID=434004349&Mytoken=D16AF883-A2A0-4D9A-915CB9DEFD14FD8013720044


It's about responsibility, not guilt. And if one can't see the difference between those two things, there is little that this or any other article can probably do. Perhaps starting with a dictionary would be better.


Sometimes I wonder, but remember now I live in Seattle which is probably one of the more pro-active democratic cities in the United States, if it isn't a numbers game due to the larger White population of which Tim Wise writes.

Don't misunderstand me, but look at things subjectively on the mathematical scale if your part of a larger group of people, the odds are a larger percentage of that group will be racist. Just by the math.

Also a larger group of that same group of privilege will have full comprehension of what Tim Wise presents us with here.

How does one change the perception and reality of this? I do believe a much more pro-active stance within community is one of the ways to start.

Anyway I figured I would stay away from this because it is just a copy and paste on a so-called "Hot Item" but somewhere along the line I was called a racist for posting my thoughts about an Ed/Op piece.

Amazing.

[RobMoney$]

The point is, privilege is as much a psychological matter as a material one. Whites have the luxury of not having to worry that our race is going to mark us negatively when looking for work, going to school, shopping, looking for a place to live, or driving for that matter: things that folks of color can't take for granted.


While this may have been true 30 years ago, I think it's an idea that is well out of touch in the year 2008.


I once took the test to become a firefighter in the city of Philadelphia. During the initial meeting I attended in a HS. auditorium, the Commissioner (a black man) announced that there would be no extra points awarded on the basis your race. Previously the rule stated the city would award blacks and women an extra 10 points.
Upon this announcement, nearly half the auditorium stood up and simply left the test.

[yeahwho]

I've sort of reread my post and as usual it makes no sense, the point I'm driving home is perhaps finite, yet I think I grasp the dynamic Wise is making.

An African American female was fired in my workplace last year. She was given more leeway than anybody I've ever seen been given in our work environment, ever. She was also provided with top notch representation for her battle to keep her job. The union spent excessive amounts of money and time, the EOE provided not only one, but three different representatives from Federal, State and Local level.

The main thrust of the reason for all of the protection was to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt no harassment, discrimination or hostility was involved in the decision for her to be fired. In the end she was fired for the same reason any white male would of been fired. Also in the end she had tested the boundaries of what you can and cannot do in the industry I work in.

There are multiple ways to look at this, but I chose to look at it in a different way than many in my workplace did.

So this is where I will clarify my previous post.

This particular incidence was not stereotypical of the majority of African American Females. It is an isolated incident of a small percentage, just as there is in the population of White Females who do not perform their job worth a shit. In fact I've seen the exact same thing (A Firing) with White Females who did not get stigmatized by race, sex or any of the other things the African American Female employee has been labeled by.

The people in my workplace feel the African American Female was the poster child of bad employees while the majority of White Males in my industry rarely mention the White Female who got fired. It's sexist, it's racist and it's a stereotype.

Kind of long winded and fucked up and this all happened in the past two years, so I will say, "Yes" maybe on the surface everything looks better, but underneath all of this, a quiet racism continues.

I know I've left men out of the post completely and probably have rambled on to long, but the whole idea behind Tim Wise is to make a person really think. Not react. But think.

[DroppinScience]

I am hardly the right person to comment on scholarships in the U.S. for minorities, but Diana was strongly disputing the claims in Tim Wise's article since she found it hard to find scholarships that were not specific to ethnicity or race that a white, middle-class girl could apply for. And the studies cited in the article for scholarships date back to 1994, so I'd be curious to know about more recent studies.

[Dorothy Wood]

so I will say, "Yes" maybe on the surface everything looks better, but underneath all of this, a quiet racism continues.




exactly. I'm constantly catching people saying racist things without maybe meaning to. one time I was helping a customer (a black woman) and one of my bosses happened to be in the shop picking up bills or something. she spent around $400. when she left, my boss was like, "wow, I didn't think she'd spend that much." without having any reason other than her skin color to make that judgment. and I said, "I did, she had expensive eyeglasses and a really nice purse". and then he seemed a little embarrassed.


as for the original blog, I can get on board with the stuff about the rednecks and pregnancy thing, but a lot of the other stuff seems more like the old standard conservative vs. liberal bullshit that happens no matter what race people are.


the second blog had a good point about people being jailed for drugs. my friend works at a kid prison and says that none of the black or latino kids do anything but weed, but the handful of white kids in there slid by getting away with weed and didn't get busted until they were selling/doing harder drugs.



racism exists, white privledge exists. except if you live in my neighborhood where white people are the minority. I get by alright though, cuz I'm part spanish with dark hair which makes me look vaguely ethnic rather than straight up white bread. at least I've never been called "white bitch!" by school kids like my roommate. ha.

[QueenAdrock]

I am hardly the right person to comment on scholarships in the U.S. for minorities, but Diana was strongly disputing the claims in Tim Wise's article since she found it hard to find scholarships that were not specific to ethnicity or race that a white, middle-class girl could apply for. And the studies cited in the article for scholarships date back to 1994, so I'd be curious to know about more recent studies.

There are scholarships for white, middle-class girls but they're open to absolutely everyone and there's usually one or two of them for the whole country. They're based on merit, too. So, while I think I'm intelligent, I'm definitely not at the level of the people who go to ivy league schools who would most likely snatch them up.

I came across MANY, MANY scholarships (which I was ineligible for) for different ethnicities, races, sexual orientation, everything. Since they are in the minority, they're running against people in a smaller pool overall and have a better chance of actually winning something if they're intelligent.

Since there are no "must be white and middle class" scholarships, which would be racist, it was a lot harder for me to get a scholarship to go to school (though financially, I was in the exact same boat as a lot of people who had to pay for their own school themselves). I finally found one that I could be competitive in, because it was only for children of people who worked in the government, and luckily I won that.

I do sincerely doubt the legitimacy of the "4% of scholarships were for minorities" deal though. I had to weed through a ridiculous amount of minority scholarships before I got to something I could apply to. And like you said, his claim was from 1994. I applied to schools 10 years after that, and quite a bit changes in a decade. I'd like to see new numbers, too.

[NoFenders]

racism exists, white privledge exists. except if you live in my neighborhood where white people are the minority. I get by alright though, cuz I'm part spanish with dark hair which makes me look vaguely ethnic rather than straight up white bread. at least I've never been called "white bitch!" by school kids like my roommate. ha.

So yes, racism exists. And just bitching about it as Tim Wise does, does not help anyone. It seems most want to bring racism to light only when it either benefits their career, or if it helps somebody else feel sorry for them. I have no patience for racism. I have friends of all colors. We grew up together. Two of my very best friends are black. I've known them since I was 6. We never have these discussions, because we don't look into that light. So much time wasted on hate, from everyone. Not just white people as Dorothy has just confirmed. White people are no worse than any other race when it comes to racial hate. There's just as many fucked up people with other skin tones. Kinda like when a Harley rider sees a guy on a GSXR. He has things to say about it. Sad, but true. The sooner we all get over it and stop making excuses, the sooner we'll be in a better place. But as long as people make money and gain support for their racial views, it will be here forever. Al Sharpton has made a lot of money of racism. There's a list of others just like him, and they're all different colors.





:confused:

[yeahwho]

I think the real point is this, agree or disagree with Tim Wise, OK fine. He isn't pointing out that everyone is racist, he's pointing out a mathematical fact. A person would have to be ignorant to say things have not improved for minorities dramatically in the past generation. The point is a minority is a minority mathematically.

I can't change that nor do I feel guilty about who I am or the way the numbers here in the USA are, I accept this fact. I am trying to be considerate and objective about what happens around me. And believe me I have a long way to go before I would ever even consider myself enlightened (read any post I make).

The fact at my workplace is this, out of a few thousand employees who I work with, six have been actually fired the past 3 years. Four white men, one white woman and one black woman. All of the firings were deserved and all of them were equally fucked up on the job. The point is in 90% of all conversations about bad employees at my workplace the black woman is the first name to pass lips with fellow employees. Why is this? In an industry dominated by white males. The other five employees actually get very little spoken about them. The workplace culture I am in perpetuates a subtle racist and sexist tone that employees take home with them. It's true. I will be the first to admit it and I have no qualms of bringing it up whenever I hear the scuttlebutt about this woman being fired.

If she was a white male of the same age I actually think in the beginning of her problems somebody would of helped her by giving her a heads up on what is the proper job expected. Because she was black and female the insight and job performance evaluations were skewered and she was allowed to perform badly. My view and my view only. Most would not train her properly because they did not want to get involved in what they perceive as a legal problem with federal laws and discrimination suits.

It's there (racism and simple math) and I do not want to forget about it, I think it should become a much more open topic and also talked about freely. Why not try and make some sense of these claims of white privilege?

[GreenEarthAl]

Another one.




Racism as Reflex: Reflections on Conservative Scapegoating

Here's another one...pass it around!

Racism as Reflex: Reflections on Conservative Scapegoating
By Tim Wise
September 28, 2008

If hypocrisy were currency, conservatives would be able to single-handedly bail out the nation's free-falling financial system in less than a week, without the rest of us having to front so much as a penny.

So on the one hand, folks like this always tell others--especially the poor and people of color--to take "personal responsibility" for their lives, and not to blame outside factors (like racism, or the economic system) for their problems. But on the other hand, these same persons then demonstrate that their own ability to blame others for their personal setbacks, or the nation's problems, knows no rival.

So, for instance, if they or someone they know didn't get the job they wanted, it must be because of affirmative action or because the job was "taken" by an illegal immigrant; if their child didn't get into the college of his or her choice it must be because of some preference given to a black kid; if they can't afford to send their child to college it's because all the scholarship money was given to students of color; if their local schools are falling apart it's because of integration or multiculturalism; if their taxes are too high it's because of all those government programs for "those people." On and on it goes, with never so much as a nod to personal responsibility. Whatever goes wrong in the lives of white conservatives is almost always the fault of black and brown liberals, or so the story goes.

The right is so predictable when it comes to this kind of thing, that you can almost set your watch by their daily eruptions of stupidity.

And so in the past several weeks, we have been treated to three fresh examples of conservative scapegoating and buck-passing, in which they seek to blame the poor or folks of color for various social problems for which the latter are not the least bit responsible.

First, we have Neil Cavuto of Fox News, followed by Rush Limbaugh a few days later, along with smaller-market talk radio hosts and commentators, insisting that the nation's current financial mess is not the fault of greedy investors, free-wheeling bankers, speculators and other assorted rich people taking advantage of a largely deregulated market for bogus investments. Rather, it is the fault of poor people and those who seek to serve their communities, and especially folks of color, and those who insist on such things as civil rights.

How so? Simple: according to these blowhards, laws like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which seeks to steer investments to economically marginalized communities so as to stimulate economic development and reverse the longstanding process of racial and economic redlining, is the real culprit. If banks hadn't been forced to throw good money after bad, and make loans to "minorities and risky folks" as Cavuto said on September 18th, none of this would have happened.

Of course, none of the reactionary cranks making this argument has seen fit to present even a single, solitary piece of statistical evidence to support their scapegoating of CRA. Evidence doesn't matter. Simply saying it, simply insisting that it's the black and the brown and the poor who are to blame is supposed to be enough. Sadly, for lots of Americans it will be. The kind of people who listen to the Limbaughs of the world, after all, rarely care much for facts. But for those who still put a premium on truth, and who place more value on honesty than their own need to nurture their anger, here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, the Community Reinvestment Act only applies to banks and thrifts that are federally-insured. This means that the independent mortgage brokers, who are responsible for half of all the nation's sub-prime lending--and who have been writing such loans at more than twice the rate of banks and thrifts--aren't even covered by the law. And make no mistake, it was the hand of the mortgage broker, more than any other, that precipitated the housing bubble. These are folks who were writing "stated income" loans (which means you don't have to prove your income, you can just tell them a number and get the OK), not caring about whether the borrower might default, since they were going to turn around and dump the loan at a profit, onto the secondary market, by pawning it off to investors who were gobbling up debt, betting on the further expansion of home values. In this scenario, neither the original broker nor the investor who bought up the debt was concerned about what would happen to the borrower who took out the initial loan. After all, if a borrower defaulted, but the housing market was still going up in value, they could swoop in, foreclose and sell the house again at a profit.

On neither end of this equation were poor people to blame. The persons getting stated income loans were overwhelmingly middle class, perhaps hoping to keep up with the richer folks down the block, but certainly not the poor. Most poor folks are still renters, or just hoping to get a modest home. And let it suffice to say that none of the vultures snapping up the mortgage debt on the secondary market were poor, and very few were persons of color. These were affluent white people, willing to gamble on the potential misfortune of others.

Secondly, the idea that loans to the poor or to moderate income folks could create this mess is almost inherently absurd. Fact is, the risk involved with loans to such persons is quite low. The amount of money lost, even when a low income family does default, is quite minimal. On the other hand, when a middle class family, striving to live above their means, takes out a note that eats up half of their income, the amount lost when the bubble bursts is quite a bit more substantial. This is one of the reasons that, according again to the evidence, loans to those with more moderate incomes are actually less risky than those to the affluent. Looking at CRA-related loans, for instance, the fact is, these represent nearly one-fourth of all loans written, but less than 10 percent of the high-cost, high-risk loans that precipitated the current crisis. These loans actually have lower default and foreclosure rates than non-CRA connected loans, and are twice as likely to be retained in the portfolios of the banks that originated them than other loans. In other words, it is not CRA loans being dumped into the hands of greedy speculators, and then falling flat, taking the economy with them.

Finally, to the extent low-income folks of color are shuttled into the sub-prime market, and then unable to pay their house notes, this unhappy fact owes more to discrimination than anti-discrimination efforts such as CRA. As several studies have shown, banks often reject borrowers of color, even when they have credit records similar to whites with the same incomes. Then, these rejected applicants are steered towards sub-prime lenders which charge far higher interest and place the borrowers in great jeopardy by driving up the amount they must repay.

A few years back, a study of Citigroup (which includes Citi, the group's sub-prime lender), found that Citi in North Carolina was charging higher interest even to borrowers who could have qualified for regular loans. In the process, over 90,000 mostly black borrowers were roped into predatory loans, and as a result paid an average of $327 more per month for mortgages than those getting loans from a prime lender. This added up to over $110,000 in excess payments over the life of the loans, on average. In other words, folks of color who could have qualified for lower-interest loans (that they would have been able to pay back far more easily) were steered to higher-cost instruments by greedy financial institutions, looking to make a quick buck at their expense. That's not the fault of civil rights protection, it's the fault of economic civil rights violations.

As if blaming the global financial squeeze on the poor wasn't putrid enough, along comes the National Review Online, which descended even deeper into the pit of obvious racism on September 26th. To wit, the blog entry entitled "Cause and Effect?" by Mark Krikorian, executive director of an anti-immigration group in DC, in which he notes failed S&L Washington Mutual's stellar record on corporate diversity, as if this were somehow connected to their insolvency. The fact that WaMu had been ranked as one of the top ten businesses in the Hispanic Business Diversity Elite, and had received a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equity Index (which focuses on equity for lesbian and gay folks), are, in Krikorian's mind, linked to their financial troubles. Because, ya know, if you have too many Latinos and gays working for you, well, clearly you can't care anything about the bottom line. That Krikorian presents no evidence, or even logic, to suggest a linkage between workplace equity and financial incompetence doesn't matter: his readers, predisposed to scapegoat the non-white and non-straight for anything and everything, can be expected to take the bait.

And then there's Louisiana state lawmaker, John LaBruzzo, who proposes solving the problem of poverty by giving financial incentives to poor women on public assistance to be sterilized, so as to cut down on their birthrates. LaBruzzo, whose legislative district was once represented by neo-nazi David Duke (who also proposed something like this in 1991), insists his plan isn't racist, sexist, or classist, but merely aimed at cutting down on excessive welfare costs. He also claims that his plan would reverse the current pattern, whereby poor women are encouraged to have more babies so as to collect more welfare.

Putting aside the inherently Hitlerian, eugenic rationale for such actions, LaBruzzo, as with Duke, and most right-wingers, ignores every bit of logic and evidence so as to push this kind of nonsense. First off, he ignores the now-twelve-year-old welfare reform law, which prevents additional payments for persons on welfare who have additional children. Although these "extra" monies were never very much (in Louisiana they amounted to less than $100 per month at the time the law was changed), now they are essentially non-existent. Secondly, LaBruzzo ignores the evidence from more than twenty years of research, which indicates that persons receiving public assistance do not, in fact, have more children, on average, than non-welfare receiving families. So the idea that poor women need incentives not to have babies is nonsense. What they need is decent-paying jobs, something LaBruzzo has no idea how to create.

And finally, the underlying premise of LaBruzzo's plan--which, if the public comments posted to Nola.com (New Orleans' main media website) are any indication, is quite popular--is entirely bogus. Contrary to conventional wisdom (or at least, contrary to what a lot of white people think, whether wise or not), the numbers of people even receiving cash welfare in Louisiana are ridiculously small. LaBruzzo, who said the idea for this bill came to him after seeing folks in New Orleans during Katrina who were dependent on so-called government handouts, apparently doesn't feel the need to do any homework. For had he done so, he would have discovered that at the time of the flooding, there were fewer than 5000 households in the entire city receiving cash assistance, out of nearly 200,000 households in all. Fewer than four percent of black households, and only about one in ten poor households were receiving the kind of welfare that LaBruzzo would seek to tie to sterilization. Since Katrina, the number of persons on state aid have fallen even further, as the poor muddle through with very little assistance of any kind. But rather than push for rental assistance for low-income folks, which would improve the lives of poor folks and their communities dramatically, LaBruzzo is content--as conservatives almost always are--to blame the poor for their condition and seek to change their behavior (or in this case, compel their infertility) so as to solve the problem of economic deprivation. How very typical.

So there you have it: white conservatives who simply cannot bring themselves to blame rich white people for anything, and who consistently fall back into old patterns, blaming the poor for poverty, black and brown folks for racism, anybody but themselves and those like them. That anyone takes them seriously anymore when they prattle on about "personal responsibility" is a stunning testament to how racism and classism continue to pay dividends in a nation whose soil has been fertilized with these twin poisons for generations. Unless the rest of us insist that the truth be told--and unless we tell it ourselves, by bombarding the folks who send us their hateful e-mails with our own correctives, thereby putting them on notice that we won't be silent (and that they cannot rely on our complicity any longer)--it is doubtful that much will change.

[funk63]

Do you think other racial groups have discussions like this? Fuck no. Because they have something whites dont have, pride. Whites are the ones that perpetuate themselves as being transcendent of race. Scared of saying certain things, walking on eggshells around certain people.. You know who you are. Im not sayin all white people are like this. Im talking about the kind of white people that play tennis and wear jeans with holes in them, whites that call blacks african-american and that laugh histerically when black people make fun of them to their face. Grow some fuckin balls, come down to earth. Quit being guilty of your skin. Im mixed myself and I have friends of all different backgrounds. And take it from me half the reason motherfuckers give you shit is because you act like you gotta watch what you say and its like your acting like your better than it all.
If you want to help race relations in this country just come down to earth and lighten up.