Quote :

"I think systemic racism benefit from both: the actively, overtly racist and the unconsciously biased."

Systemic, yes.

But racism?

You're no longer talking about a person. You're speaking of a network as a whole, and have divorced this conversation from the intentions and beliefs of the individuals. Emergent behavior from the network doesn't stem from the intentions of a sentient actor. Using the word racism is anthropomorphizing a non-living thing.

5/8/2014 10:44:49 AM

good book

I've had a hard time with the semantics of terms like racism, systemic, oppression, etc. This book does a lot to shed light on that. Maybe not enough for me to agree with all its conclusions, especially with its use of terms, but semantics shmemantices... bottom-line is the system is seriously jacked up, and people of color are on the losing end.

[Edited on May 8, 2014 at 11:26 AM. Reason : whoops, there]

5/8/2014 11:08:07 AM

giant huge book

5/8/2014 11:08:36 AM

^^^Agree, it's certainly messy/ambiguous. I've always felt that oppression connotes the wrong idea though.

5/8/2014 11:14:40 AM

Systemic discrimination is a better term. That way it doesn't leave out women, homosexuals, people with disabilities, etc.

5/8/2014 12:30:24 PM

Quote :

"I think part of the problem is that people overlook the word systemic and get defensive about the word racism. Acknowledging systemic racism doesn't mean you're culpable or that you have overtly racist tendencies/bias."

I've always presumed that's why the term "privilege" was created, to try and bypass the connotations of the word "racism". But this too has seemingly become a word privileged groups don't like (and isn't the whole issue of terminology part of the systemic problem-- discussion can't reasonably commence until we find a term the privileged group likes).

5/8/2014 12:33:15 PM

The problem is this:

Statistically speaking groups like white men, white women, all men, and all women, are likely to have had advantages that you would call "privilege" the second you assume an individual person has simply because they are a member of that group you're being a stereotypical piece of shit.

"Privilege" is an excuse to be lazy and pigeonhole people based on their skin or genitalia. It's an unthinking tool to try to silence someone because they're white or a man or heterosexual, wholly independent of that person's experiences and values to the subject.

5/8/2014 1:25:23 PM

^ You're bending in circles to avoid culpability, blind to the fact that you're looking in the wrong places for solutions. Believing that one's self is privileged doesn't help squat compared to knowing that a group is oppressed and that something should be done about it.

See first page:

Quote :

"So would it be fair to say that black people are systemically criminals? Or that women are systemically adulterers? Therein lies my problem with this bullshit."

This is how cops see the issue, to be blunt. Race is measurable with a glance, and they need all the "awareness" they can muster to improve safety. They would be neglect, in their view, to ignore stereotypes which have material correlations with safety.

A study reporting that ivory tower teachers respond to emails with racial bias has a huge "triple blind" type bias. This is clearly an experiment where they would be far less likely to publish with weaker results, and the internet is frothing with excitement to any results that confirm bias. Not so for inconclusive or unimpressive outcomes. Even worse, the people who are attacked are actually the allies of social justice.

State legislators are the problem. But they don't care what you have to say.

5/8/2014 1:28:58 PM

I have a big problem with the term "Privilege" and how it's thrown around these days.

5/8/2014 1:37:51 PM

I find its ubiquity frustrating, but I think it makes sense as an idea/term. But like someone above mentioned, it suffers from a lot of the problem that other loaded terms like racism have

5/8/2014 2:37:18 PM

I saw a funny article ranking privilege of different groups one time. The premise was how it's sweet to have privilege, it's even sweeter to not have it, since the less privilege you have the more your argument is worth.

5/8/2014 3:40:49 PM

[Edited on May 8, 2014 at 5:04 PM. Reason : misread post]

5/8/2014 5:01:20 PM

Quote :

""Privilege" is an excuse to be lazy and pigeonhole people based on their skin or genitalia. It's an unthinking tool to try to silence someone because they're white or a man or heterosexual, wholly independent of that person's experiences and values to the subject. "

This is not at all true...

read this:
http://www.robot-hugs.com/privilege/

5/8/2014 5:37:18 PM

Look at #1 on that list.

5/8/2014 5:42:31 PM

5/9/2014 12:09:03 AM

Using oppressed to describe any subset of adult Americans in 2014 (except perhaps ex-felons of drug related crimes) is a fucking joke.

Quote :

"http://www.robot-hugs.com/privilege/"

The very comic suggesting that I should shut the fuck up because historically (and currently lol) I've dominated discussions. My point proven.

*I* have historically dominated discussions? ME? I've been around for a few decades, how in the fuck have I historically done anything?

Oh, it wasn't you, it was a tiny minority of the people with whom you share some superficial characteristics. But fuck you anyway for being the same color as they.

[Edited on May 9, 2014 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

5/9/2014 12:57:03 AM

Quote :

""Privilege" is a moniker thrown around in an attempt to make the Haves feel bad for the Have-Nots, as if the Haves should be ashamed for being born into a different set of circumstances, and the Have-Nots deserve special treatment because of it. Let's just ignore the intrinsic nature of Capitalism and the socioeconomic stratification that results from it. Let's ignore the personal decisions of our parents/grandparents/etc. You will never, ever get rid of "Privilege" in any society. Acting like it's something that needs to be "fixed" is ridiculous, and acting like anyone who wasn't born at least white middle-class male deserves a leg-up even more so."

Hmmm..

5/9/2014 8:53:21 AM

I don't think it's meant to make anyone feel bad. It's just meant to illustrate that certain people have certain advantages. Wearing it as a label is dumb as shit, though.

5/9/2014 9:04:33 AM

i can't take any privilege grouping discussion seriously that ignores money and location

5/9/2014 9:29:59 AM

^Typically, privilege does consider wealth and location; they're just separate from other things.

5/9/2014 10:04:47 AM

Quote :

"The very comic suggesting that I should shut the fuck up because historically (and currently lol) I've dominated discussions. My point proven. *I* have historically dominated discussions? ME? I've been around for a few decades, how in the fuck have I historically done anything? Oh, it wasn't you, it was a tiny minority of the people with whom you share some superficial characteristics. But fuck you anyway for being the same color as they."

You seem to be willfully ignoring the central distinction of what makes privilege or institutional racism distinct from interpersonal racism. Almost everyone belongs to some group that defines some privilege in a situation. The fact that you choose to disavow this doesn't mean this privilege doesn't exist. There's nothing you can do about it, it's the nature of humanity. The fact you can so blithely dismiss its existence is proof itself that you, disco_stu, enjoy a privilege. This doesn't make you a bad person, it's just how it is. It is a flaw in society, that has existed for centuries, that we as modern humans should try to understand. We should build it into our culture so that we can be more respectful of each other, so that injustices don't balloon, so that we can be a more cohesive society, ideally.

Anyway, this is pretty groundbreaking story, hopefully this can lead to more fruitful and honest discussions:
http://www.vice.com/read/michael-jordan-was-a-racist-teen-twir?utm_source=vicefbus

Quote :

"The New York Post reported that in Michael Jordan: The Life by Ronald Lazenby, the Hall of Famer admits that as a teenager, he had contempt for all white people. Jordan grew up in North Carolina during the 1970s, in a hotbed of KKK activity. In the book, Jordan recounts a story where he threw a soda at a girl who called him a "nigger." “I was really rebelling. I considered myself a racist at the time. Basically, I was against all white people," "

5/10/2014 1:02:12 AM

Quote :

"It is a flaw in society, that has existed for centuries, that we as modern humans should try to understand."

It's a feature, not a flaw. Group identity was necessary since the beginning of the species. There is a major trend in evolutionary thinking that "group selection" was an significant mechanism for the creation of the human species itself.

If your tribe has worked to develop an intellectual, social, and real infrastructure that is ultimately necessary for survival, you do yourself no favors by letting outsiders into your tribe. Closed borders are relics of simple survivalist instincts. Your privilege discussion is nothing more than bickering over where those borders should lie.

Racism is a product of poverty and natural racial segregation. If you don't have both of these, racism does not naturally evolve. Nations will open their borders with rich neighbors even if they look different. This reflects the mechanism I've referred to. Mixing is totally fine if there's no capital differential.

We are designed to fear other groups, because it's the never-ending battle for control of resources. Without understanding that, we will never get over racism. A starving world is a racist world.

5/14/2014 4:13:22 PM

^this also partially explains why sports are a multi-billion dollar industry... it is an outlet for that particular trait within humanity.

5/14/2014 5:04:56 PM

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/05/harvard-adds-privilege-checking-to-orientation.html

Harvard’s Kennedy School Adds Privilege-Checking to New-Student Orientation

lol. lots of good quotes in this one.

[Edited on May 15, 2014 at 8:33 AM. Reason : .]

5/15/2014 8:32:29 AM

Quote :

"Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt also said the company plans to look for women and minority candidates when there is another opening on its board of directors. There are currently three women and a native of India on Google's 10-member board. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/14/4117427/google-to-release-diversity-data.html?utm_content=buffer6794b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#storylink=cpy"

5/15/2014 8:48:57 PM

Quote :

"Earlier this year, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences received a $3 million endowment from a Raleigh couple to help rural students win admission to the university. Read more at http://www.wral.com/nc-state-expands-efforts-to-recruit-rural-students/13647016/#qchyyl6YCPLuObgy.99"

Oh no, they're taking seats from hardworking city students !1!1!!

5/15/2014 9:03:00 PM

wow, white people are loaded:


http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2013/04/29/the_racial_wealth_gap_is_growing_499.html

5/15/2014 10:06:46 PM

but but but I'm white and I'm not loaded therefore your argument is invalid

(/conservatroll)

5/15/2014 11:09:42 PM

I wonder how the security of knowing that i'd likely inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars one day would affect my general level of confidence and choices...

Or the converse, if knowing that i would never likely come into a large sum of money would impact my outlook on life, working, and politics...

5/15/2014 11:44:47 PM

I'm not denying any of the facts posted in this thread.

On average white people have it way better than black people in this country.

Explain to me how, then, assuming anything about me personally simply because I'm white is different than stereotyping?

Quote :

"There's nothing you can do about it, it's the nature of humanity. The fact you can so blithely dismiss its existence is proof itself that you, disco_stu, enjoy a privilege."

So, let me get this straight. Without knowing anything about my backstory, simply by virtue of knowing I'm white, you can say without a doubt that I'm "privileged", without proof, and simply asking how you know that is ITSELF *proof* of privilege?

Well, shit if these are the rules you win. I'm done playing. Let me just reiterate that I'm not denying that "privileges" exist, I'm denying that you can say anything meaningful about an individual based on the color of their skin with this knowledge(except maybe their propensity for sunburn). All you could say is that it is more likely that they have had privileges.

[Edited on May 16, 2014 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2014 12:51:00 PM

Is it racist to say: in general, African Americans aren't good swimmer?

http://www.wral.com/in-pools-young-blacks-drown-at-far-higher-rates/13648660/

5/16/2014 12:57:20 PM

I like how according to that graph above Hispanics, a group that arguably has less privilege and advantage than blacks in this country are out-wealthing the blacks across the last 20 years.

5/16/2014 1:03:04 PM

Why do you like that?

5/16/2014 1:07:07 PM

Maybe he's hispanic and has some ethnic pride.


Or maybe he's a racist.


Or maybe it's that it raises questions about what are the actual causes of socio-economic disparity.

5/16/2014 1:11:24 PM

Quote :

"Or maybe it's that it raises questions about what are the actual causes of socio-economic disparity."

[Edited on May 16, 2014 at 1:19 PM. Reason : like in this context means "find interesting"]

5/16/2014 1:19:19 PM

its because of immigration, 1st and 2nd generation immigrants start lots of businesses

[Edited on May 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2014 1:51:57 PM

I'd bet if you drilled into that data you'd find no statistical difference between those lines.

But if you did, it would be interesting to break the wealth down by industry to see if construction/the housing boom played a big factor in hispanic's rising wealth. At the peak of the boom, wages for skilled workers in that sector were probably getting pretty competitive, and Hispanics are pretty highly represented in construction.

5/16/2014 2:33:46 PM

^^ yep.

It takes a lot of planning and effort and hardship to be an immigrant, thus 1st generation immigrants as a group are self-selected motivated individuals.

Whereas the black community started out as a viciously oppressed class in America, hundreds of years ago.

Keep in mind blacks have been in this country as long as whites, but trace those lines back, and notice that they started at basically 0 for blacks in the 60s. Contrast this to the line for whites, which probably hasn't been near 0 since the 1800s.

Even if you accept Sayer's suggesting that blacks are lower than hispanics because they don't work as hard, this doesn't account for why blacks are even starting from nothing in the first place. That in itself is one of the travesties perpetrated by the American government and people.

5/16/2014 2:41:25 PM

Quote :

"Even if you accept Sayer's suggesting that blacks are lower than hispanics because they don't work as hard"

Hey where did I say that? Because I didn't. At all. Anywhere in this thread.

5/16/2014 3:12:35 PM

take it easy bruh, i meant "suggest" in the context of other hypotheses for explaining the data outside of the context of entrenched privilege and nepotism causing wealth to be hoarded amongst white people.

5/16/2014 3:14:25 PM

That's what I figured you meant when you said you "liked" it, or found it "interesting".

5/16/2014 3:24:52 PM

Quote :

"Is it racist to say: in general, African Americans aren't good swimmer? http://www.wral.com/in-pools-young-blacks-drown-at-far-higher-rates/13648660/"

Nope, but if you look at any black person and say to them, 'I bet you can't swim." Would that not be racist?

5/16/2014 4:24:44 PM

Quote :

"Is it racist to say: in general, African Americans aren't good swimmer? http://www.wral.com/in-pools-young-blacks-drown-at-far-higher-rates/13648660/"

That could easily be attributed to the fact that African Americans are statistically more likely to have absentee or negligent parents.

5/16/2014 6:42:34 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/27/not_all_men_how_discussing_women_s_issues_gets_derailed.html
This parallels race issues pretty well.

Quote :

"Instead of being defensive and distracting from the topic at hand, try staying quiet for a while and actually listening to what the thousands upon thousands of women discussing this are saying.... ... Those tweets say it far better than I ever could, for many reasons. The most important is because I’m a man, so I haven’t lived through what they have. I can’t possibly understand it at the level they do, no matter how deeply disturbed I am by the situation and how sympathetic I may be to what they’ve gone through. This is not a failing, or an admission of weakness. It’s a simple truth. I’m a white, middle-class male, so I can understand intellectually what black people have undergone, or what women have dealt with, or what Japanese-Americans suffered in America in World War II. As someone raised Jewish, I may have more of an understanding for what an oppressed people have withstood in general, but I’ve never really been oppressed myself. That puts me in a position of—yes—privilege."

[Edited on May 28, 2014 at 12:45 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2014 12:43:06 AM

Quote :

"Third, the people saying it aren’t furthering the conversation, they’re sidetracking it. The discussion isn’t about the men who aren’t a problem. (Though, I’ll note, it can be. I’ll get back to that.) Instead of being defensive and distracting from the topic at hand, try staying quiet for a while and actually listening to what the thousands upon thousands of women discussing this are saying."

So I stay quiet while the other side talks. That doesn't sound like a "conversation" to me.

5/28/2014 1:02:26 AM

ha are you joking...?

It's the "listening" that is important, is the point. It's not stay quiet and be quiet for ever, it's listening without being defensive that is key.

If your post wasn't a joke, it's demonstrative of the defensiveness the column is describing...

5/28/2014 1:12:23 AM

I mean I understand the listening part, but the "privilege" crowd often seem to subtly imply that the people who have privilege should NEVER talk. At least about any issue that effects the less privileged group. Unless maybe it's to apologize.

I don't think it's universally wrong and it's certainly natural to be defensive against a stereotyping of your group. Especially considering an individual in the group has no control over the crazy-ass actions of other members. I doubt the "not all men" hashtag sprang up instantly as some sort of defensive argument, but rather a condemnation of the mens rights types and an encouragement to women that not all men are like that.

[Edited on May 28, 2014 at 1:36 AM. Reason : grammar]

5/28/2014 1:31:50 AM

The implication isn't that they should "never" talk, but the ones in a discussion with privilege, by definition, have had more than their/our fair share of talking, which is part of the problem.

It's just as important too for people without a privilege to listen to people with a privilege, to understand why they don't understand the nature of their privilege, but others do.

The #notallmen hash tag doesn't make sense, because no one is saying it's specifically all men, this is just a deflection or a way of dismissing the problems women are complaining about, which is part of the problem. The correct response, assuming you understand the problem, is to observe when you're being intimidating or sexist without specifically meaning to be, or when your buddy/friend/whatever is doing so, and using your privilege to try and stop it.

5/28/2014 4:17:38 AM

So, essentially it's OK to generalize a person as long as they're either white or a man. Because some white people and some men have had "privileges".

Got it.

-------------------------------------------
#notallmen is a response to the idea: "teach men not to rape". Suggesting that men are inherently rapists is not "problems women are complaining about"; it's sexist garbage but that doesn't matter because it's sexist against men and fuck them.

[Edited on May 28, 2014 at 8:45 AM. Reason : .]

5/28/2014 8:43:10 AM

a lot of these campaigns go beyond awareness and seem to imply that men are supposed to be protectors of women's virtue and ignore that women can want and initiate sex. sexual assault campaigns never seem to mention that when two parties are drunk, the man can't give his consent either and seem to imply that if two people have sex its because the man has forced himself on the woman or beguiled her into submitting while ignoring that the opposite may be true instead.

but this campaign doesn't seem to be doing that.

5/28/2014 9:14:52 AM