One word sums up how far this discussion has come: EPIC

I'm just going to put out there what still hasn't been said yet, which really should have been- although I do remember... oh what's their account name, Promit! Yes, Promit, in the miffed-offed way he wrote his post was that most people are selfish assholes. Partially true, but not quite right. Everyone is born an asshole. The thing is, as we are humans we can grow past this to different stages based in our geneology- by which I mean out "bloodline" and I'm going to oversimplify it by an extreme amount by making this out to be RPG stats.

There are essentially five different types of assholes, with only three being relavant here: Dumbass, Smartass, Wiseass. We all get to the stage of Dumbass as kids because we don't know anything and we're learning but we're asses about because we're still trying to learn how to learn. Half of us make it to Smartass (This is where the majority of members of this forum are, no offense), which is where we understand pieces of the world - few or many dependent on your own lifetime of events - but we're essentially know-it-alls who are asses because we can't contemplate and/or express different subject matter with feelings, opinons, views on them. The same goes for facts and truth. We just can't do it at that level properly.

Last, we have the Wiseass (which is where I am currently and so are a few members on here but very few). These are the guys and gals who, from at least how long they've lived on Earth and how far they've understood the complexities in the Human Condition, know more about the world as though it was inate and can recognise so many things about the world both overt and subtle and articulate them.

DIGRESSION:
If you think I'm being a bit of prick by looking like I'm making myself seem to be better, just remember to look at how I write and my style, which is more "human" rather than real cold and hyper-critical. There's a lot of stuff that you can read behind text than just taking offense at what you don't agree with. I'm not a consummate Wiseass yet, as I've still got a long road ahead to go. Don't reply to this bit please, unless you know exactly what I'm getting at here. Anyway...

That's my piece. Oh, a few more things. The culture topic in this subject is really well done people! I couldn't talk about. The Football comment - that's right, I'm British and I called American Football, Football - was positively funny. Also, what's the difference between slaves in bondage and slaves in master-slave situations.

Quote: Original post by Dex Jackson
Everyone is born an asshole.

Utter rubbish.

You are born with no pre-conceptions at all; you pick up how to act from those around you.

If you are born into a family where the predominate view is 'all black people can go die in a fire' then you are likely to grow up believing that view point. This can be changed via interactions with others around you and as such challenging your own beliefs/views because of this.

Quote: Original post by phantom

Quote: Original post by Dex Jackson
Everyone is born an asshole.

Utter rubbish.

You are born with no pre-conceptions at all; you pick up how to act from those around you.

Lies! You're born loving your mom, specifically: her boobies.

Quote: Original post by Dex Jackson
One word sums up how far this discussion has come: EPIC
...
Last, we have the Wiseass (which is where I am currently and so are a few members on here but very few).

This thread has reached a premature state of epicness that can only be curbed and further nurtured by the wise words of James Hetfield:

"The accusations fly
Discrimination, why?
Your inner self to die
Intruding

Doubt sunk itself in you
Its teeth and talons through
Your living Catch-22
Deluding

A mass hysteria
A megalomania
Reveal dementia
Reveal

Secretly
Silently
Certainly
In vertigo you will be

Shortest straw
Challenge liberty
Downed by law
Live in infamy
Rub you raw
Witchhunt riding through
Shortest straw
This shortest straw has been pulled for you"

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

It's a short cut. A strategy built on low information costs: stereotype plus outward appearance equals inexpensive threat identification and avoidance or elimination. While appearance differences are instantaneous, stereotypes require interaction and some familiarity. And avoidance and/or elimination carry far greater costs. The insulation of one group from another leads to division and that diverts attention away from the survival of the aggregate group. Discrimination of this kind in modern circumstances operates as a throwback to primitive times when vigilance was necessary to prevent nearby hostile tribes from ransacking and pillaging the village. However, as a survival strategy it suffers from inflexibility. It begins to stand on it's own for it's own sake and thus becomes weakness. Native Americans, for example, were too caught up in their own tribal hostilities to band together to repel the European invasion. They recognized this too late to change the outcome. Similarly, white racism in the South isolated poor whites from slaves and that division kept both groups in poverty. Poor whites could deny their decrepitude by playing up the relative difference in status with blacks and in that contrast assert their superiority. Thus whiteness became a short hand for better.

It's also possible to acquire and defend resources through cooperation. Indeed, before there can be tribalism and discrimination, there must be cooperation.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

Biology drives humans together, it does not drive us to discriminate. That comes about through the contingencies of history and the accumulation of practice that we call culture. As I wrote above, cooperation precedes discrimination. If discrimination flowed from familial bonds, there would be too many feuds for ethnicity to ever form.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

The world Hemingway knew no longer exists. The pace may be slow but the progress is certain. For a more detailed elaboration of the notion, check out The ultimate power play: Did black sporting heroes pave the way for Barack Obama.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

What you deem stagnant, others deem sustainable. And just because a history is written down does not mean that it is immune from mythology. The notion that "history is written by the victors" betrays that reality.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

Romans and Africans weren't from substantially different racial backgrounds? The failure to adequately assimilate the conquered was only one of many factors leading to the downfall of Rome. Elite corruption, the collapse of the Republic and Christianity contributed as well, just to name a few.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

There is slavery in the Bible. There was slavery in ancient Greece. Above you wrote that the Romans enslaved nearly a third of their people, so why turn around and point to the Arabs and Africans? I don't see how European intellectuals familiar with the Bible could not have known about multi-generational slavery. The novel development of the slave trade, as practiced in the United States at least, was that it transformed human beings into chattel property. That wasn't the case with Greco-Roman slavery or Spanish and Portuguese slavery in the New World.

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Morally neutral? The wholesale destruction of the preexisting culture, the displacement of local populations and the extraction of natural resources for export, those things aren't morally neutral. That we see things more clearly today is no excuse to avoid acknowledging the past or shirk our responsibilities to make amends for the resulting imbalances from it that persist to this day. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Europeans acted worse than others in their position would have. I've listed a few already: chattel slavery, religious intolerance, genocide.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

They don't make their hay beating up on poor whites. For more, see Dog-Whistling Dixie.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

They use all that as code for minorities. Check out the dog whistle link above. More recent examples can be found in the efforts to blame the subprime loan debacle on Fannie Mae, the Community Reinvestment Act and ACORN.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

The discussion is still appropriate today. The Wealth Gap Gets Wider The gap between the wealth of white Americans and African Americans has grown. According to the Fed, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family has only one dime. In 2004, it had 12 cents. Was that because of a conspiracy? Conspiracy accusations seem to me a way to dismiss complaints and continue denying the reality, but there might be something to it. Consider: Subprime in Black and White (2007) Evidence is mounting that during the housing boom, black and Hispanic borrowers were far more likely to be steered into high-cost subprime loans than other borrowers, even after controlling for factors such as income, loan size and property location. See also: Foreclosures in Black and White (2007).

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

That's a bold assertion. What evidence can you point to that supports it?

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Nope. Doubly Divided: The Racial Wealth Gap Today, Asians are the group that as a whole has moved closest to economic parity with whites. ... Asians are still defined by race and branded as perpetual foreigners.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

At this point poor education is becoming more and more a function of underfunded schools and a recalcitrant majority population that would rather point fingers than roll up their sleeves and do something about it. For details see: Schools are still crumbling in 'corridor of shame' haunted by the old South, Teen Sues SC on Stimulus Standoff. It's so much easier to perpetuate stereotypes than it is to get to work fixing things.

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Who exactly does that labeling? With Obama it was white pundits. First he wasn't black enough, then when Rev. Wright made his splash he was too black.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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 privilege exposes the denialism at work in the dominant society. The irony is that the two loudest voices addressing the subject belong to two white men, Tim Wise and Robert Jensen. In effect, that it takes a white male to address the subject marks an instance of white privilege. For a more recent example of white privilege contrast the reaction to what Wanda Sykes said last night at the White House Correspondents Dinner to the reaction to the remarks by Limbaugh, Hannity and Cheney that she criticized. Pointing out white privilege does not breed an already breeding white resentment. What breeds that resentment is a demagoguery that paints the issues as a zero sum game wherein the gains of one group come at the expense of others. That isn't necessarily the case, but the message appears to bolster the ratings of the demagogues who spread it. Other aspects of that message are very notions that being confronted with the truth is insulting and that only impressionable self loathing folks are able to acknowledge the truth. I think it's very telling that these messengers teach their listeners that self-respecting people are people who stubbornly refuse to face the truth, who are too weak minded to even deal with the possibility that the truth might make them uncomfortable.

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Given that white achievements are celebrated as national achievements while the achievements of other ethnic groups are celebrated as ethnic achievements is itself an indicator of white privilege. The claim that white folk need a pat on the back for all the great work they've done rings hollow to me as the job isn't finished. The notion that white success comes at the expense of people of color again smells of bad zero sum game thinking. White success doesn't rest on the exclusion of blacks. That notion betrays an ongoing sense of "us and them" that in itself indicates a sense of white privilege and latent racism. It's an inversion of what it means to point out that black failures have roots in the ongoing exclusion of blacks, something that clearly can be demonstrated. See the above links about subprime loans and foreclosures. What can't be demonstrated is the subconscious lowering of barriers and standards for people of color. That's just an anecdote promoted by demagogues seeking increased ratings.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

How do you know that? And why do you offer yourself as the example when that demonstrates nothing other than your sense that you're not part of the problem?

Consider Employers' Replies to Racial Names and 'Black' Names A Resume Burden?

Quote: Original post by trzy

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?

Civil rights protesters got bloodied for their efforts.

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Yes, European dominance was a historical contingency, but that's still no excuse. It seems to me that Europe stands out for criticism because it's long history of warfare culminated in the Holocaust, which exposed the hypocrisy of it's vaunted sense of cultural and religious superiority.

Quote: Original post by Dex Jackson
That's my piece. Oh, a few more things. The culture topic in this subject is really well done people! I couldn't talk about. The Football comment - that's right, I'm British and I called American Football, Football - was positively funny. Also, what's the difference between slaves in bondage and slaves in master-slave situations.

I asked a question about Futbol, specifically about Didier Drogba, that went unanswered long before the topic of Football came up.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

It's a short cut. A strategy built on low information costs: stereotype plus outward appearance equals inexpensive threat identification and avoidance or elimination. While appearance differences are instantaneous, stereotypes require interaction and some familiarity. And avoidance and/or elimination carry far greater costs. The insulation of one group from another leads to division and that diverts attention away from the survival of the aggregate group. Discrimination of this kind in modern circumstances operates as a throwback to primitive times when vigilance was necessary to prevent nearby hostile tribes from ransacking and pillaging the village. However, as a survival strategy it suffers from inflexibility. It begins to stand on it's own for it's own sake and thus becomes weakness. Native Americans, for example, were too caught up in their own tribal hostilities to band together to repel the European invasion. They recognized this too late to change the outcome. Similarly, white racism in the South isolated poor whites from slaves and that division kept both groups in poverty. Poor whites could deny their decrepitude by playing up the relative difference in status with blacks and in that contrast assert their superiority. Thus whiteness became a short hand for better.

It's also possible to acquire and defend resources through cooperation. Indeed, before there can be tribalism and discrimination, there must be cooperation.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

Biology drives humans together, it does not drive us to discriminate. That comes about through the contingencies of history and the accumulation of practice that we call culture. As I wrote above, cooperation precedes discrimination. If discrimination flowed from familial bonds, there would be too many feuds for ethnicity to ever form.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

The world Hemingway knew no longer exists. The pace may be slow but the progress is certain. For a more detailed elaboration of the notion, check out The ultimate power play: Did black sporting heroes pave the way for Barack Obama.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

What you deem stagnant, others deem sustainable. And just because a history is written down does not mean that it is immune from mythology. The notion that "history is written by the victors" betrays that reality.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

Romans and Africans weren't from substantially different racial backgrounds? The failure to adequately assimilate the conquered was only one of many factors leading to the downfall of Rome. Elite corruption, the collapse of the Republic and Christianity contributed as well, just to name a few.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

There is slavery in the Bible. There was slavery in ancient Greece. Above you wrote that the Romans enslaved nearly a third of their people, so why turn around and point to the Arabs and Africans? I don't see how European intellectuals familiar with the Bible could not have known about multi-generational slavery. The novel development of the slave trade, as practiced in the United States at least, was that it transformed human beings into chattel property. That wasn't the case with Greco-Roman slavery or Spanish and Portuguese slavery in the New World.

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Morally neutral? The wholesale destruction of the preexisting culture, the displacement of local populations and the extraction of natural resources for export, those things aren't morally neutral. That we see things more clearly today is no excuse to avoid acknowledging the past or shirk our responsibilities to make amends for the resulting imbalances from it that persist to this day. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Europeans acted worse than others in their position would have. I've listed a few already: chattel slavery, religious intolerance, genocide.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

They don't make their hay beating up on poor whites. For more, see Dog-Whistling Dixie.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

They use all that as code for minorities. Check out the dog whistle link above. More recent examples can be found in the efforts to blame the subprime loan debacle on Fannie Mae, the Community Reinvestment Act and ACORN.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

The discussion is still appropriate today. The Wealth Gap Gets Wider The gap between the wealth of white Americans and African Americans has grown. According to the Fed, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family has only one dime. In 2004, it had 12 cents. Was that because of a conspiracy? Conspiracy accusations seem to me a way to dismiss complaints and continue denying the reality, but there might be something to it. Consider: Subprime in Black and White (2007) Evidence is mounting that during the housing boom, black and Hispanic borrowers were far more likely to be steered into high-cost subprime loans than other borrowers, even after controlling for factors such as income, loan size and property location. See also: Foreclosures in Black and White (2007).

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

That's a bold assertion. What evidence can you point to that supports it?

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Nope. Doubly Divided: The Racial Wealth Gap Today, Asians are the group that as a whole has moved closest to economic parity with whites. ... Asians are still defined by race and branded as perpetual foreigners.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

At this point poor education is becoming more and more a function of underfunded schools and a recalcitrant majority population that would rather point fingers than roll up their sleeves and do something about it. For details see: Schools are still crumbling in 'corridor of shame' haunted by the old South, Teen Sues SC on Stimulus Standoff. It's so much easier to perpetuate stereotypes than it is to get to work fixing things.

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Who exactly does that labeling? With Obama it was white pundits. First he wasn't black enough, then when Rev. Wright made his splash he was too black.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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 privilege exposes the denialism at work in the dominant society. The irony is that the two loudest voices addressing the subject belong to two white men, Tim Wise and Robert Jensen. In effect, that it takes a white male to address the subject marks an instance of white privilege. For a more recent example of white privilege contrast the reaction to what Wanda Sykes said last night at the White House Correspondents Dinner to the reaction to the remarks by Limbaugh, Hannity and Cheney that she criticized. Pointing out white privilege does not breed an already breeding white resentment. What breeds that resentment is a demagoguery that paints the issues as a zero sum game wherein the gains of one group come at the expense of others. That isn't necessarily the case, but the message appears to bolster the ratings of the demagogues who spread it. Other aspects of that message are very notions that being confronted with the truth is insulting and that only impressionable self loathing folks are able to acknowledge the truth. I think it's very telling that these messengers teach their listeners that self-respecting people are people who stubbornly refuse to face the truth, who are too weak minded to even deal with the possibility that the truth might make them uncomfortable.

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Given that white achievements are celebrated as national achievements while the achievements of other ethnic groups are celebrated as ethnic achievements is itself an indicator of white privilege. The claim that white folk need a pat on the back for all the great work they've done rings hollow to me as the job isn't finished. The notion that white success comes at the expense of people of color again smells of bad zero sum game thinking. White success doesn't rest on the exclusion of blacks. That notion betrays an ongoing sense of "us and them" that in itself indicates a sense of white privilege and latent racism. It's an inversion of what it means to point out that black failures have roots in the ongoing exclusion of blacks, something that clearly can be demonstrated. See the above links about subprime loans and foreclosures. What can't be demonstrated is the subconscious lowering of barriers and standards for people of color. That's just an anecdote promoted by demagogues seeking increased ratings.

Quote: Original post by trzy

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.

How do you know that? And why do you offer yourself as the example when that demonstrates nothing other than your sense that you're not part of the problem?

Consider Employers' Replies to Racial Names and 'Black' Names A Resume Burden?

Quote: Original post by trzy

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?

Civil rights protesters got bloodied for their efforts.

Quote: Original post by trzy
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.

Yes, European dominance was a historical contingency, but that's still no excuse. It seems to me that Europe stands out for criticism because it's long history of warfare culminated in the Holocaust, which exposed the hypocrisy of it's vaunted sense of cultural and religious superiority.

You really have a lot of time to spear.

">"All these years I though I liked chicken because it was delicious. Turns out I'm genetically predisposed to liking chicken!" - Dave Chappelle.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It's also possible to acquire and defend resources through cooperation. Indeed, before there can be tribalism and discrimination, there must be cooperation.

Here you're assuming there is someone to defend against.

Quote: Biology drives humans together, it does not drive us to discriminate. That comes about through the contingencies of history and the accumulation of practice that we call culture.

This completely arbitrary and impossible to say with certainty. Disentangling culture, nurture, and nature is very tricky, especially considering that culture is essentially derived from human behavior, which in turn is influenced strongly by genetics. You're asking me to swallow a whole lot by saying that we have to biological faculty for discrimination. I don't believe there is a "racial discrimination" gene, but humans discriminate about all sorts of things, and I think that's an inherent part of our nature.

Quote:
As I wrote above, cooperation precedes discrimination. If discrimination flowed from familial bonds, there would be too many feuds for ethnicity to ever form.

This is a strawman argument. Just because discrimination is biological in origin, and that we form families, does not mean do not possess a simultaneous inclination to co-operate with those who are familiar to us and who are not perceived as threats.

Quote: The world Hemingway knew no longer exists. The pace may be slow but the progress is certain. For a more detailed elaboration of the notion, check out The ultimate power play: Did black sporting heroes pave the way for Barack Obama.

Hemingway's world is gone but surely even you'll concede that racism is not.

Quote:
What you deem stagnant, others deem sustainable.

And what others deem sustainable, I deem miserable. Primitive societies are extremely violent. In some hunter-gatherer societies, even in recent times, more than half of deaths were caused by violence. Hardly a lifestyle worth sustaining.

Our current way of life is by all means sustainable: population is increasing, not decreasing, hence it is sustainable. We have obviously not hit the planet's carrying capacity yet. When we begin to approach this, resource scarcity will put pressure on people to conserve and reproduce accordingly.

Quote:
And just because a history is written down does not mean that it is immune from mythology. The notion that "history is written by the victors" betrays that reality.

Of course not, but advanced civilizations with written and archaeological histories at least provide something to analyze.

Quote: Romans and Africans weren't from substantially different racial backgrounds?

They were. But Romans did not have extensive contact with sub-Saharan African societies. Phenotype variations throughout the Roman Empire on the whole were probably not nearly as great as in modern Western countries. Even so, we can't say with certainty that the Romans, and other peoples of the Empire, were not racist or discriminatory. I've seen Roman art exhibitions first hand and I'll tell you something, all those busts of famous emperors and generals look remarkably similar. The Romans were aware of the physical differences between themselves and Germanic invaders. A mural I once saw depicting a Roman soldier fighting a barbarian depicted both figures in a very stereotypical fashion. The description of the painting at the museum pointed out that this was quite common in Roman artwork.

Quote:
The failure to adequately assimilate the conquered was only one of many factors leading to the downfall of Rome. Elite corruption, the collapse of the Republic and Christianity contributed as well, just to name a few.

I didn't say it was the only one, but it was a major one. The contribution of Christianity is an old theory but a biased and controversial one. If I'm not mistaken, it dates back a century or two, about the same time that the myth of an Islamic Golden Age began to take hold (put forth by anti-clerical scholars initially, and later bolstered by Nazi historians.)

Quote:
There is slavery in the Bible. There was slavery in ancient Greece. Above you wrote that the Romans enslaved nearly a third of their people, so why turn around and point to the Arabs and Africans?

Slavery was not a widespread institution (thanks to Christianity) in 15th century Europe. It is true that the Europeans introduced a particularly brutal form of multigenerational chattel slavery, which is not what the African slave traders practiced. But the notion that pre-colonial Africa was an idyllic, picturesque safari is false. Violence among some societies on the continent was appalling. Given that there is no real history of Africa, other than what can be pieced together by scarce archaeological evidence and a few written accounts by North African and Mediterranean observers, defaulting to an anti-European/anti-colonialist "noble savage" mythology is unfair.

Quote:
Morally neutral? The wholesale destruction of the preexisting culture,

Supplanting culture is not necessarily a bad thing. Depends on the culture. I'm glad I wasn't born in Rome, for instance.

Quote:
the displacement of local populations and the extraction of natural resources for export, those things aren't morally neutral.

The extraction of wealth? Sounds like the process of creating wealth to me. We now have a robust international system of trade that has enriched everyone, even the former colonials, in ways unimaginable only a couple centuries ago. This is really just the process of globalization: the wealthy come to impoverished, but resource-rich, areas of the world and build wealth there.

Quote: That we see things more clearly today is no excuse to avoid acknowledging the past or shirk our responsibilities to make amends for the resulting imbalances from it that persist to this day.

There was already an imbalance to begin with. Should we amend for that as well? The world cannot remain static and societies cannot be expected to remain entirely self-sufficient. Communists have tried to build self-sufficiency in the modern world with disastrous results (see North Korea.) It's simply unnatural. It seems incredibly wrong to suggest that an ascendant Europe ca. 1500 should have simply sat on its collective ass, letting modernity and the dream of a better future escape.

Were morally outrageous transgressions committed as a result of colonialism? Obviously! But like I said, hindsight is 20/20. We must obviously learn from past mistakes so as not to repeat them but what I don't agree with is portraying globalization as an inherently unworthy, unnecessary, or evil endeavor. Makings amends for the past -- in other words, helping lagging societies and groups catch up -- is most certainly desirable, but it should be done within the context of further globalization (which will provide true economic justice) rather than self-loathing, reparations, or ethnocentrism.

It's the choice between China and Singapore on the one hand, and Zimbabwe and (possibly soon) South Africa on the other hand. I've touched upon the notion that human rights come about as the practical result of development. Primitive societies don't have the notion of human rights, for example, while the most advanced ones do. The notion of human rights was perhaps conceived prior to 1500 but not born before the 18th century. Economic development was the midwife and, later, nanny that saw it through to the 20th century.

Quote: There are plenty of reasons to believe that Europeans acted worse than others in their position would have. I've listed a few already: chattel slavery, religious intolerance, genocide.

Slavery was rampant in the Islamic world. Genocide has occurred countless times outside of Europe throughout human history. In fact, Islam can be viewed as a sort of parallel society to Europe, also rooted in near-eastern civilization, but founded on very different principles. Like European civilization, it spread far and wide as well -- by the sword. The result? Widespread destruction and stagnation. Barbaric customs like honor killing and slavery were readily absorbed into Muslim cultures, rather than rooted out. Today, for example, honor killings are a major problem in Pakistan, as is wage slavery, a form of multigenerational slavery somewhat comparable to serfdom.

Islam's rejection of Greek philosophy and of rationalism ultimately limited its destructive power.

Quote:
They use all that as code for minorities. Check out the dog whistle link above. More recent examples can be found in the efforts to blame the subprime loan debacle on Fannie Mae, the Community Reinvestment Act and ACORN.

Subprime loans are an enormous problems, how can you deny this? Most subprime borrowers were white. The industry got greedy and relaxed lending standards and offered ridiculous terms to too many people who lacked creditworthiness.

Quote: The discussion is still appropriate today. The Wealth Gap Gets Wider The gap between the wealth of white Americans and African Americans has grown. According to the Fed, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family has only one dime. In 2004, it had 12 cents. Was that because of a conspiracy? Conspiracy accusations seem to me a way to dismiss complaints and continue denying the reality, but there might be something to it. Consider: Subprime in Black and White (2007) Evidence is mounting that during the housing boom, black and Hispanic borrowers were far more likely to be steered into high-cost subprime loans than other borrowers, even after controlling for factors such as income, loan size and property location. See also: Foreclosures in Black and White (2007).

"White privilege" is not an appropriate discussion to be having. I agree that the wealth gap is getting larger. But like I said, this is not the case for Asians and Indians. It's not just the wealth gap that is increasing between blacks and the rest, it seems like there is a virtual genocide on young black males occurring as the result of violent street culture.

Quote: Nope. Doubly Divided: The Racial Wealth Gap Today, Asians are the group that as a whole has moved closest to economic parity with whites. ... Asians are still defined by race and branded as perpetual foreigners.

Your link-fu is usually very strong, but this is just downright feeble. The little blurb about Asian Americans at the end is laughable and, if anything, unwittingly reinforces the point that lingering racial prejudices (which will take time to erase if they are subconscious -- like I said, the major breakthroughs have already been made) are not the major barrier to success:

Quote:
Today, Asians are the group that as a whole has moved closest to economic parity with whites. (There are major variations in status between different Asian nationalities, however, and grouping them masks serious problems facing some groups.) While Asian immigrants have high poverty rates, American-born Asians have moved into professional positions, and the median income of Asians is now higher than that of whites. However, glass ceilings still persist, and as Wen Ho Lee, the Chinese-American nuclear scientist who was falsely accused of espionage in 2002, found out, Asians are still defined by race and branded as perpetual foreigners.

I highlighted two sentences. The first lends credibility to my idea that culture is more important than race in determining how barriers are erected and overcome. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet the less successful Asian groups are southeast Asians -- Vietnamese, Laotians, Thais, Indonesians, Malaysians, and Filipinos. These cultures are substantially different from each other and from Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Austronesian people are linguistically, ethnically, and culturally different from their northern neighbors. I'm not surprised there are differences in achievement, but nevertheless, I believe many (most?) of these groups will be far more successful in the near-term, racial barriers or not, than blacks and Hispanics. Most of this article's discussion of Asian Americans focused on the incredibly poor treatment they received as immigrants, which I've often cited as evidence of their ability to overcome and succeed. The Chinese are especially good at this wherever they go (they are the most successful ethnic group in southeast Asia, which breeds resentment among locals, and has erupted in violence) -- they're basically the Jews of Asia.

The second sentence concedes that Asians are now wealthier than white. Hence, Caucasian-Asian privilege. After this, the article mentions "glass ceilings" but is remarkably vague and anecdotal. Wen Ho Lee? Please.

Quote:
At this point poor education is becoming more and more a function of underfunded schools and a recalcitrant majority population that would rather point fingers than roll up their sleeves and do something about it. For details see: Schools are still crumbling in 'corridor of shame' haunted by the old South, Teen Sues SC on Stimulus Standoff. It's so much easier to perpetuate stereotypes than it is to get to work fixing things.

The school system sucks. Whites are suffering from this as well. Less sensitivity training, federally-mandated curricula, and teacher's unions, and more education, please. I used to be for federally-funded education but at this point, I'm not so sure.

In fact, I'm starting to think that many children would be just as well off with half as much school as now. Given the kind of jobs US high school graduates are qualified for, they may as well go to work straight out of elementary school. Maybe we haven't hit rock bottom yet, but we will soon. No amount of increased funding is going to help.

Quote: Who exactly does that labeling? With Obama it was white pundits. First he wasn't black enough, then when Rev. Wright made his splash he was too black.

Reverend Wright was a fruitcake, that's for sure. It wasn't that Obama was accused of being "too black" (Wright may have been), it's that he was exposed as a political opportunist.

Quote: For a more recent example of white privilege contrast the reaction to what Wanda Sykes said last night at the White House Correspondents Dinner to the reaction to the remarks by Limbaugh, Hannity and Cheney that she criticized.

Sykes has not generated nearly as much buzz. Give me a break. Everything I've seen on TV has focused on the venue at which this took place. Even so, most of the panelists I see being interviewed on CNN are not up in arms about this.

Quote: Given that white achievements are celebrated as national achievements while the achievements of other ethnic groups are celebrated as ethnic
achievements is itself an indicator of white privilege.

A lot of white people want to abolish Black History Month for this reason, but then they're branded as racists. It seems to be the out-of-touch black leadership and self-loathing liberals who push this ethnocentric crap. I think most Americans are ready to move on.

Quote:
Consider Employers' Replies to Racial Names and 'Black' Names A Resume Burden?

This is indeed interesting and I'll have to take a closer look at it. Personally, I know a successful black female lawyer with an extremely "black" name.

Quote: Yes, European dominance was a historical contingency, but that's still no excuse. It seems to me that Europe stands out for criticism because it's long history of warfare culminated in the Holocaust, which exposed the hypocrisy of it's vaunted sense of cultural and religious superiority.

At least Europe did something about it. The very nation that committed the Holocaust has effectively self-castrated itself as an act of contrition. You won't see this from the Turks or genocidal maniacs in Africa. What you will see, however, is a lot of laughably hypocritical Euro- and Jew-bashing by the world's peanut gallery of thuggocracies and failed civilizations.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote: Original post by slayemin
A: What would you do if you saw a Black man or Chinese man dropping a bag on the bus.
B: Drugs and DVDs, respectively.

Hahahah... that just made my day.

I've never been creeped out by bags left on a bus, but I only use the university transit system, and it's not uncommon for somebody to leave a backpack or something on the bus. In hindsight, it seems like a pretty good target for a bomb, considering bags are left on the bus all the time...

I've lived in the 'deep south' for many years now and haven't heard the race card being played.. seriously anyways. Friends will joke about it and whatnot...

Uh... Just for the record, I didn't post that. I think you made a copy/paste error.