Quote: Original post by Zahlman
Of course people are entitled to prepare the cuisine of other cultures. But they generally don't get it right. A lot of places in Toronto, however, don't try for authenticity, but instead for fusion. Korean/Japanese is a common combination around here*, and it's incredibly awesome.

Generally, maybe - but IMO Koreans/Vietnamese do a fine job of Japanese/French-bread ;)

There's actually a lot of shared food/drink between Japan and Korea, to the point where there's a tense rivalry over who actually created what. I got a very stern talking to on a Japanese train for suggesting that Plum Wine was Korean...

I play with the race card all the time. I enjoy making people believe I'm a caribbean mulato and that I'm BAD BAD VERY BAD.

Chicks love it.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I disagree. In fact, I think this statement is a contradiction. I agree that the social nature of the human condition has biological components, but the formation of collective identity and the resulting tribalism isn't biological, it's cultural.

Kind of. But there are a lot of complicated processes at play here. For all practical purposes, it's impossible to familiarize each person on the planet with every other cultural and ethnic group, therefore tribal identities based on ethnicity will naturally appear. Even in multiracial societies, the very concept of heritage makes people acutely aware of the fact that their neighbors are not descended from the same population. Blood is thicker than abstract concepts. There will always be people who find comfort in their ethnic identity, if only for the reason that they have accomplished nothing worthwhile in their lives on which to base their pride.

There's nothing "kind of" about it, identity is not carried in the genome. Familiarizing every person on the planet with every culture etc. isn't necessary, even so, I thought the issue was racial discrimination, not cultural discrimination. Concepts are pliable. So too the concept of heritage. The concept of 'blood' is an abstract concept. It might not seem that way because familial ties lend it emotional strength and thus imbue it with greater meaning (for some people), but it doesn't stand on it's own. It's a created notion that needs reinforcement to continue.

Quote: Original post by trzy
Tending to have a reverence for one's ancestors and one's heritage could very well be the influenced by biological factors.

Are you saying there is gene for an ancestor worship? It seems to me that the lengthy development requirements of human beings (born dependent, long childhood), lead us to revere our caregivers and providers. We pick up from our caregivers and providers their reverence for their care givers and providers who picked it up from theirs and so on stretching back generations. However, this chain of reverence isn't automatic. We might instinctively cling to our mothers as children, but one generation of neglect and abuse can break the chain of reverence.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
Collective identity, as an aggregate identity, is inherently pliable. Culture changes over time, both in content and reach. What constitutes "us" and what constitutes "them" does not remain constant.

It doesn't, but what remains constant is that there is always an "us" and "them." Educating everyone to become blind to differences in phenotypes between populations is unfeasible. Consider how rapidly people form tribal identities, even the most seemingly harmless of which can have serious consequences. Sports, for example. I think that it's impossible to prevent the formation of identities based on physical appearance. In fact, I don't even think that's really the root of the problem we need to be addressing:

Blindness to differences in phenotypes is not the antithesis of racial discrimination. Team sports provides an example of rapid tribal identity formation, but it also provides numerous examples of overcoming racism.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: From this it follows that racial discrimination is possible to eliminate. Attributing racial discrimination to biology is merely a way of saying that nothing can be done about it so there's no point in trying. That's a lazy justification for perpetuating racial discrimination.

I support promoting the idea of racial equality. It's an absolute requirement for a civilized world. I'm just making an observation. I don't think the fact that we perceive physical differences among ourselves is particularly bad or difficult to deal with. I think racial discrimination is rather the result of a racial/cultural hierarchy, which exists for very understandable reasons.

Understandable reasons? Such as the desire to control people?

Quote: Original post by trzy
This hierarchy needs to be flattened. That's where things get difficult. The most that groups at the top of the hierarchy can do is become aware of the problem and eliminate barriers. In the United States, legal barriers have been long removed, and there is a high level of awareness of the problem. Most importantly, there is the ingrained notion that people ought to be judged on their own merits.

Groups at the top fight to stay on top.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand." -- Frederick Douglass

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There's nothing "kind of" about it, identity is not carried in the genome. Familiarizing every person on the planet with every culture etc. isn't necessary, even so, I thought the issue was racial discrimination, not cultural discrimination. Concepts are pliable. So too the concept of heritage. The concept of 'blood' is an abstract concept. It might not seem that way because familial ties lend it emotional strength and thus imbue it with greater meaning (for some people), but it doesn't stand on it's own. It's a created notion that needs reinforcement to continue.

Good luck remolding the concept of "blood" and heritage. So long as there are families, discrimination based on blood. In that sense, discrimination is something that emerges from our very nature.

Quote: Are you saying there is gene for an ancestor worship? It seems to me that the lengthy development requirements of human beings (born dependent, long childhood), lead us to revere our caregivers and providers.

This is a function of our biology, is it not?

Quote: Team sports provides an example of rapid tribal identity formation, but it also provides numerous examples of overcoming racism.

Like what? It seems that many professional sports are highly race segregated.

Quote:
Understandable reasons? Such as the desire to control people?

The racial hierarchy exists because of the perceived link between race and cultural achievement. It is not surprising that races at the bottom of the hierarchy are associated with cultures that had not developed the written word, technology, and often lacked even a history.

Quote: Groups at the top fight to stay on top.

We've already made the most vital breakthrough: the idea that people ought to be judged on individual merit is deeply impressed upon us. Legal barriers have been removed. Awareness has reached its limits in Western Europe and the United States. What remains now is for leadership within historically disadvantaged groups to promote achievement and positive behavior, and to do what the "groups at the top" have done: become aware of racial discrimination within their own groups.

It's difficult to get someone to accept and like you if you make it a point to denigrate them and are quick to play the race card. Nobody in the mainstream is willing to address this, and so racial problems continue to fester in our society despite the major institutional barriers being removed.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
I got a very stern talking to on a Japanese train for suggesting that Plum Wine was Korean...

I should hope so. Where would you get such an idea ;) Ume-shu <3

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There's nothing "kind of" about it, identity is not carried in the genome. Familiarizing every person on the planet with every culture etc. isn't necessary, even so, I thought the issue was racial discrimination, not cultural discrimination. Concepts are pliable. So too the concept of heritage. The concept of 'blood' is an abstract concept. It might not seem that way because familial ties lend it emotional strength and thus imbue it with greater meaning (for some people), but it doesn't stand on it's own. It's a created notion that needs reinforcement to continue.

Good luck remolding the concept of "blood" and heritage. So long as there are families, discrimination based on blood. In that sense, discrimination is something that emerges from our very nature.

No luck is required. It'll happen on it's own. Some families reinforce the notion of "blood" others don't. Without reinforcement the notion loses it's grip on the imagination and withers. Discrimination emanates from the animal desire to dominate and control. The rest is simply cultural window dressing.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Are you saying there is gene for an ancestor worship? It seems to me that the lengthy development requirements of human beings (born dependent, long childhood), lead us to revere our caregivers and providers.

This is a function of our biology, is it not?

An Korean orphan adopted by Americans does not grow up worshiping her Korean ancestors. The process is cultural not biological.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Team sports provides an example of rapid tribal identity formation, but it also provides numerous examples of overcoming racism.

Like what? It seems that many professional sports are highly race segregated.

Hockey maybe. But that's about it. Look at the NBA - African-Americans, European-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Africans, Chinese, Spaniards, Russians and so on. Look at major league baseball or premiere league soccer. The rosters are as international as the sport.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
Understandable reasons? Such as the desire to control people?

The racial hierarchy exists because of the perceived link between race and cultural achievement. It is not surprising that races at the bottom of the hierarchy are associated with cultures that had not developed the written word, technology, and often lacked even a history.

You mean lacked a written history. I'm only aware of one example of a culture that lacks history, an Indian tribe in the Amazon. At any rate, the racial hierarchy exists because five hundred years ago the race with the guns and the immunity to killer diseases viewed people in the other races as not-human. Cultural achievement had nothing to do with that (or maybe the lack of cultural achievement in the race with the guns had something to do with it).

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Groups at the top fight to stay on top.

We've already made the most vital breakthrough: the idea that people ought to be judged on individual merit is deeply impressed upon us. Legal barriers have been removed. Awareness has reached its limits in Western Europe and the United States. What remains now is for leadership within historically disadvantaged groups to promote achievement and positive behavior, and to do what the "groups at the top" have done: become aware of racial discrimination within their own groups.

It's difficult to get someone to accept and like you if you make it a point to denigrate them and are quick to play the race card. Nobody in the mainstream is willing to address this, and so racial problems continue to fester in our society despite the major institutional barriers being removed.

Reached it's limit? Nuts. The very argument you make indicates that's not the case - "We've done our part, now it's their turn" - stinks of white privilege. The "groups at the top" did not clean themselves up on their own accord. They had to be brought to it kicking and screaming and they are still kicking and screaming and dragging their heels. It takes more that 40 years to erase 400 years. Nobody in the mainstream is willing to address white privilege.

Hey Dex, please send Rebekah Wade my regards.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Discrimination emanates from the animal desire to dominate and control. The rest is simply cultural window dressing.

That's not necessarily true. Discrimination is a survival mechanism as well, and I think that's quite different than domination and control.

Quote:
An Korean orphan adopted by Americans does not grow up worshiping her Korean ancestors. The process is cultural not biological.

Orphans grow up in an atypical environment: separated from their biological parents. Most children will not be orphans and nobody is going to accept a proposal to forcibly reassign children to different parents. We're not ants, we're primates, and we're biologically inclined to raise our own offspring, which is probably plays a large role in how we tend to segregate ourselves into groups.

I think intellectual factors can help compensate for and overcome behavior we naturally incline to, but it is always in some sort of tension with nature that we don't fully comprehend yet.

Quote:
Hockey maybe. But that's about it. Look at the NBA - African-Americans, European-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Africans, Chinese, Spaniards, Russians and so on. Look at major league baseball or premiere league soccer. The rosters are as international as the sport.

Is this a joke? Three quarters of the NBA and two thirds of the NFL are black. Baseball is 60% white, 30% Hispanic. Soccer is perhaps the best example of what you are looking for.

Quote: You mean lacked a written history.

Lack of written history is essentially a lack of any history at all. Oral histories (or rather, mythologies) and archaeology can be used to infer something about a society's past, but not too much. Many societies lack even archaeological artifacts. The lack of a history is sometimes used to peddle absurd notions like the "noble savage", and even attempts to lay claim to other peoples' histories.

Quote: At any rate, the racial hierarchy exists because five hundred years ago the race with the guns and the immunity to killer diseases viewed people in the other races as not-human.

Thanks, Jared Diamond.

Five hundred years ago, people with guns and immunity to killer diseases did nothing different than what had been going on since the beginning of time: they went, they saw, and they conquered. The particular human tragedy that we refer to as "Colonialism" is only noteworthy for the fact that the conquerors possessed the philosophical and intellectual tools to undertake an endeavor, however fraught with problems, to atone for their sins and liberate mankind from its traditional ways. How's that for slanted?

Like I said, a race hierarchy was definitely established in the last 500 years, with blacks at the bottom and whites at the top. You are attempting to turn this into a black-and-white argument. European attitudes towards other racial groups were influenced by European perceptions of achievement. This is why some non-whites groups have been viewed more favorably than others.

The exact ordering of racial hierarchies vary from society to society.

Quote: Reached it's limit? Nuts. The very argument you make indicates that's not the case - "We've done our part, now it's their turn" - stinks of white privilege.

It's a call for leadership and accountability. White privilege is an increasingly silly notion. Whites enjoy (diminishing) psychological advantages in some areas and not in others. It was instructive to think in terms of white privilege when whites enjoyed numerous advantages over all other racial groups in the United States, but this is no longer true. The notion of white privilege emphasizes race too much, while ignoring cultural biases and perceptions, and it's outlived its usefulness now that American race relations are more complicated than between blacks and whites, and when other racial groups have leapfrogged ahead of blacks and surpassed whites.

Although white, I have not enjoyed "white privilege." The cultural and environmental factors that enabled my success included my European cultural background and its emphasis on education, as well as lessons about overcoming horrific injustice and adversity, and a loving nuclear family (no extended family.) I suppose you could call it "environmental privilege", but that's life, and nobody proposes eliminating that, but rather promoting better environments and opportunities to develop those environments for underachieving groups.

Quote:
The "groups at the top" did not clean themselves up on their own accord. They had to be brought to it kicking and screaming and they are still kicking and screaming and dragging their heels. It takes more that 40 years to erase 400 years. Nobody in the mainstream is willing to address white privilege.

This isn't true. It was the application of Western values and philosophy by Western intellectuals that allowed Western society to clean itself up. There are still societies out there that apparently would prefer death and misery to abandoning tribalism and embracing their fellow man.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Discrimination emanates from the animal desire to dominate and control. The rest is simply cultural window dressing.

That's not necessarily true. Discrimination is a survival mechanism as well, and I think that's quite different than domination and control.

How so? At base it's about dehumanizing the other to psychologically facilitate killing them and taking their resources or preventing them from taking yours.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
An Korean orphan adopted by Americans does not grow up worshiping her Korean ancestors. The process is cultural not biological.

Orphans grow up in an atypical environment: separated from their biological parents. Most children will not be orphans and nobody is going to accept a proposal to forcibly reassign children to different parents. We're not ants, we're primates, and we're biologically inclined to raise our own offspring, which is probably plays a large role in how we tend to segregate ourselves into groups.

I think intellectual factors can help compensate for and overcome behavior we naturally incline to, but it is always in some sort of tension with nature that we don't fully comprehend yet.

The adoption example refutes the biological aspect of the issue. It's not in the genes. It's nurture, not nature.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
Hockey maybe. But that's about it. Look at the NBA - African-Americans, European-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Africans, Chinese, Spaniards, Russians and so on. Look at major league baseball or premiere league soccer. The rosters are as international as the sport.

Is this a joke? Three quarters of the NBA and two thirds of the NFL are black. Baseball is 60% white, 30% Hispanic. Soccer is perhaps the best example of what you are looking for.

No joke. The majority of the players are black, and the majority of fans are white and cheering on the black players. QED!

This also goes to show that racism is a bad economic strategy in that it cuts off access to human resources for arbitrary reasons. So too with sexism which is worse because it excludes half the population.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: You mean lacked a written history.

Lack of written history is essentially a lack of any history at all. Oral histories (or rather, mythologies) and archaeology can be used to infer something about a society's past, but not too much. Many societies lack even archaeological artifacts. The lack of a history is sometimes used to peddle absurd notions like the "noble savage", and even attempts to lay claim to other peoples' histories.

Oral history is how culture and identity was handed down for the vast majority of human beings. On balance, it describes the human condition across the ages moreso than written history. It's not about pushing notions like the "noble savage" (which is a European construction by the way). It's a recognition of what was, how things were.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: At any rate, the racial hierarchy exists because five hundred years ago the race with the guns and the immunity to killer diseases viewed people in the other races as not-human.

Thanks, Jared Diamond.

Five hundred years ago, people with guns and immunity to killer diseases did nothing different than what had been going on since the beginning of time: they went, they saw, and they conquered. The particular human tragedy that we refer to as "Colonialism" is only noteworthy for the fact that the conquerors possessed the philosophical and intellectual tools to undertake an endeavor, however fraught with problems, to atone for their sins and liberate mankind from its traditional ways. How's that for slanted?

Like I said, a race hierarchy was definitely established in the last 500 years, with blacks at the bottom and whites at the top. You are attempting to turn this into a black-and-white argument. European attitudes towards other racial groups were influenced by European perceptions of achievement. This is why some non-whites groups have been viewed more favorably than others.

The exact ordering of racial hierarchies vary from society to society.

The Romans offered ways for those they conquered to become Roman citizens. Not so with the Europeans 1500 years later. The philosophical tool was to deny the humanity of those they conquered, the cultures they destroyed and the bodies they enslaved and transported across the seas to supply their labor needs. Liberalism didn't start up for another 200 years and even then it took another 100 years to ban slavery and another 100 years to begin to address racism. The race card is a black and white argument, so I'm not attempting to turn this in any direction other than towards the OP.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Reached it's limit? Nuts. The very argument you make indicates that's not the case - "We've done our part, now it's their turn" - stinks of white privilege.

It's a call for leadership and accountability. White privilege is an increasingly silly notion. Whites enjoy (diminishing) psychological advantages in some areas and not in others. It was instructive to think in terms of white privilege when whites enjoyed numerous advantages over all other racial groups in the United States, but this is no longer true. The notion of white privilege emphasizes race too much, while ignoring cultural biases and perceptions, and it's outlived its usefulness now that American race relations are more complicated than between blacks and whites, and when other racial groups have leapfrogged ahead of blacks and surpassed whites.

It's a call based on the notion that "they" are not "us", therefore it's inherently racist. Where is the leadership from those pushing the division? Where are the conservative white politicians in America stepping up to do something about the ongoing issues of poverty in black and latino communities? They're quick to complain about immigration, street crime, drugs, welfare and so on, but they run like rabbits when it comes to recognizing that the people they build careers complaining about are Americans just like them, people who deserve their support. The fact is that white people still enjoy privileges that other groups don't. The disparities still remain. Black unemployment is twice the national rate. Latino unemployment 150%. White privilege refuses to acknowledge the realities of race and complains that bringing such matters to it's attention over emphasizes race. Shield your eyes! Cover your ears! Run away!

Quote: Original post by trzy
Although white, I have not enjoyed "white privilege." The cultural and environmental factors that enabled my success included my European cultural background and its emphasis on education, as well as lessons about overcoming horrific injustice and adversity, and a loving nuclear family (no extended family.) I suppose you could call it "environmental privilege", but that's life, and nobody proposes eliminating that, but rather promoting better environments and opportunities to develop those environments for underachieving groups.

You just haven't noticed the privilege. I'm white. I used to not notice it too. It has nothing to do with your background and everything to do with the background and subsequent perceptions of those with the capacity to block your advances. Ever seen a cop harass someone because of their skin color? I have. Ever seen a cop not harass someone because of their skin color? I have. Two sides of the same coin.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote:
The "groups at the top" did not clean themselves up on their own accord. They had to be brought to it kicking and screaming and they are still kicking and screaming and dragging their heels. It takes more that 40 years to erase 400 years. Nobody in the mainstream is willing to address white privilege.

This isn't true. It was the application of Western values and philosophy by Western intellectuals that allowed Western society to clean itself up. There are still societies out there that apparently would prefer death and misery to abandoning tribalism and embracing their fellow man.

Sure, intellectuals set forward the ideals, but it fell to others to point out the hypocrisies and get bloodied for their efforts. It was only the shaming that did the trick.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Discrimination emanates from the animal desire to dominate and control. The rest is simply cultural window dressing.

That's not necessarily true. Discrimination is a survival mechanism as well, and I think that's quite different than domination and control.

How so? At base it's about dehumanizing the other to psychologically facilitate killing them and taking their resources or preventing them from taking yours.

I'll concede this point. From my perspective, I was trying to say that discrimination is a survival mechanism in that it allows for the creation of simple standards upon which to create groups in opposition to other groups competing for the same resources. Discrimination can create insular societies capable of resisting external invaders and infiltrators. To the extent that it's ultimately all about acquiring and defending resources, you're right.

Quote: The adoption example refutes the biological aspect of the issue.

I think biology is at the very least a factor in that it drives us to form families and that no policy will successfully strip humans of the desire to bond with their children. Therefore, blood-based affiliation, and ultimately ethnic discrimination, will be an ever present factor.

Quote: No joke. The majority of the players are black, and the majority of fans are white and cheering on the black players. QED!

Cheering on someone for amusement does not indicate acceptance. I recently read a Hemmingway novel where a "Negro" boxer was hailed as a celebrity. Doesn't mean fathers and mothers would allow their daughters to marry him.

Quote:
Oral history is how culture and identity was handed down for the vast majority of human beings. On balance, it describes the human condition across the ages moreso than written history.

Oral history is mostly just mythology. It's an excellent vehicle for culture but a shoddy method for handing down historical facts, which is why human societies were stagnant and remained completely undeveloped for most of their existence.

Quote: The Romans offered ways for those they conquered to become Roman citizens. Not so with the Europeans 1500 years later.

Romans enslaved a quarter to a third of their own population. They also did not have extensive contact with people of substantially different racial backgrounds. Interestingly enough, the Roman practice of absorbing conquered people into their society eventually contributed to the destruction of the Empire, according to some theories: the widespread use of Germanic soldiers and commanders in the military -- outsiders without any real notion of being Roman -- led to internal breakdown within the military machine, leading to the collapse of the Western Empire.

Quote:
The philosophical tool was to deny the humanity of those they conquered, the cultures they destroyed and the bodies they enslaved and transported across the seas to supply their labor needs. Liberalism didn't start up for another 200 years and even then it took another 100 years to ban slavery and another 100 years to begin to address racism. The race card is a black and white argument, so I'm not attempting to turn this in any direction other than towards the OP.

The concept of slavery was introduced to Europeans by Arabs and Africans, who practiced it widely. Opinion among late medieval European intellectuals varied, with some in support and others against the idea. I don't know whether they understood what the African slave trade would develop into: multi-generational slavery. Some Protestant groups, like the Quakers, opposed it very early on; their opposition was made possible by the humanizing influence of Christianity (certainly one of the major innovations of the Judeo-Christian tradition.) Eventually, this led to the abolition of slavery altogether.

Colonialism in general was morally neutral. It was no worse than any other expansionist effort, only more successful. Hindsight is 20/20. A lot of morally repugnant things occurred (recognized even at the time they were occurring), but there is little doubt that the modern globalized world is better than the old one. There's no reason to believe that Europeans acted worse than anyone else in their position would have.

Quote: It's a call based on the notion that "they" are not "us", therefore it's inherently racist. Where is the leadership from those pushing the division? Where are the conservative white politicians in America stepping up to do something about the ongoing issues of poverty in black and latino communities?

I don't see them caring much about poor white people, either. What's your point? Conservatives will respond that they are most definitely looking out for poor people in accordance with their usual prescriptions: family values, self-reliance, piety. It's the same prescription given to whites.

Quote:
They're quick to complain about immigration, street crime, drugs, welfare and so on, but they run like rabbits when it comes to recognizing that the people they build careers complaining about are Americans just like them, people who deserve their support.

Conservatives don't look favorably upon criminals, drug users, and chronic welfare recipients regardless of their race.

Quote:
The fact is that white people still enjoy privileges that other groups don't.

Again, you're turning this into a black and white thing, as if these were the only two races. This discussion might have been appropriate at the height of Jim Crow, but not now. White privilege implies more than just having an edge over disadvantaged groups, it implies a racially-motivated conspiracy to oppress non-whites, or some sort of atavistic racism.

Underachieving groups are culturally and economically impoverished, in some cases as a legacy of past white racism, in other cases not. If Europeans had never set foot in sub-Saharan Africa 500 years ago, that part of the world would still remain disadvantaged but it wouldn't be "white privilege" then.

If you insist on using the term "privilege", you'll have to modify the term to be more inclusive. "Caucasian-Asian privilege" perhaps, so that we include not only whites, but middle easterners, Indians, and Asians, who appear to be equally as privileged as whites.

Quote:
The disparities still remain. Black unemployment is twice the national rate. Latino unemployment 150%.

At this point, it's becoming more and more a function of poor education. Black families are in shambles and education is effectively frowned upon in many communities. For some reason, being "white" is perceived as uncool. That's far more egregious than any sort of latent white racism. I've read that developmental factors can affect children prior to beginning school in such a way as to inhibit their intellectual development later on. Good values and parenting aren't going to be imposed top-down by successful whites on people who don't really like them. That's why it has to come from within the community.

Unfortunately, whenever the black community produces a leader, they're labeled as insufficiently black (Barack Obama) or Uncle Tom (Bill Cosby) because a cabal of idiots riding on the coat tails of the Civil Rights movement maintain a stranglehold on the community.

Quote: White privilege refuses to acknowledge the realities of race and complains that bringing such matters to it's attention over emphasizes race. Shield your eyes! Cover your ears! Run away!

White privilege frames the issue in a way that is critical of whites and lays none of the blame on blacks. In other words, it's biased and racist, and breeds resentment among whites. You don't win favor among people by insulting them. Sure, you might convert some impressionable folks into self-loathing types, but you're going to make a lot more people uncomfortable in a counterproductive way.

White folks in the United States have a legitimate desire to be proud of the enormous achievements of their racial group. They want some sort of positive reassurance that their conscious effort to re-evaluate racially discriminative attitudes is being acknowledged and appreciated. Telling them that their success is mostly due to a subconscious effort to shut out people of color is completely out of line and not even demonstrably truthful. Most importantly, it isn't working. Race relations between whites, Latinos, and blacks still suck, despite white hyper-sensitivity to the issue. If you want to talk about "white privilege", you'll also have to factor in the effect of whites subconsciously lowering barriers and standards for colored people, in order to prove to themselves they aren't racists and for fear of being branded as such by others. Because I don't see you considering this, I can only conclude that you're peddling an anti-white racist viewpoint.

Quote: You just haven't noticed the privilege.

It has never been a significant factor in my life. I can assure you nobody has been passed over for a job offer or academic admission in favor of me because I was white and they weren't.

Quote: Ever seen a cop harass someone because of their skin color? I have. Ever seen a cop not harass someone because of their skin color? I have. Two sides of the same coin.

Actually, I haven't personally seen either of these things occurring, not that I doubt they do.

Quote: Sure, intellectuals set forward the ideals, but it fell to others to point out the hypocrisies and get bloodied for their efforts. It was only the shaming that did the trick.

Who got bloodied for their efforts? Surely you're including the whites you saw to it that slavery was ended in Europe and the United States, and those hundreds of thousands who lost their lives in the American Civil War over it?

Generally, I get the feeling that some people want to push the notion that European cultural values are more destructive than other societies, citing colonialism and slavery as examples, while ignoring the sheer brutality of competing civilizations and savagery of primitive life. I think this is wrong. Violence is a nasty part of human nature and Western civilization, through its advanced technology and organization, enabled horrors to be unleashed on an unprecedented scale, but it also did something other societies were mostly unable to figure out: turn people into humans.

If only this angle were examined more often in history classes and popular cultures. It would offer an inspiring message, allowing us not only to acknowledge our mistakes, but to reinforce the truly positive aspects of our culture, and give us the confidence to continue believing in them.