Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Women, basketball, hos and radio hosts

12728303233

Posts

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    oh boy that Chris Rock sure is making negative comments about subjects just like Don Imus! Watch that video! Chris Rock is JUST LIKE Imus! There is NO difference! hurr.gif


    Yes Chris Rock....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q8LxO4wnCQ&mode=related&search=




    and if you like propoganda in with actual footage.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6DaLo-hK4&mode=related&search=



    So.... whatever O_o

    Yes, Chris Rock's satirical critique of black people for being proud of ignorance and jail instead of valueing in education and his parody of white ignorance and denial towards racism is totally comparable to Don Imus's comments about nappy headed hos being jiggaboos. I concur.

    First off, the "jiggaboos and wannabes" line was from School Daze, so that should only reinforce the fact that everything was being said in jest. If you really have a problem with that, why don't you go protest Spike Lee. And why is it that you're allowed to decide what genre of comedy is allowed to use racial humor and what genre isn't? Either you're allowed to joke using racial humor, or you're not. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!! Stop trying to rationalize.

    I'm done with this thread. Jesus fucking Christ, I'm tired of making the same argument over and over again. I'm sorry. I'm sorry that it sucks so much to be black. I'd like to apologize to all black people for being white. I'm sorry that I get the unbridled joy and privilege of being able to see more white people on TV than black people. And I'm sorry that you have such shitty community leaders that they cheapen the fight against real honest-to-goodness racism in this country. Just ask yourself one thing, did this absolute shitstorm of outrage over a relatively harmless joke create less racists in this country or do you think it might have created more? Do you think that the next time someone actually says something maliciously racist that white people will be more inclined to be sympathetic towards your struggle or less? The corporate world will always be afraid of the backlash in the black community to perceived racism, but will the average white person really care? The only way to actually bring an end to racism isn't to make white people afraid that anything they say will be construed as racist by default. The only way to really put an end to racism is for white people to join in your fight. Sadly, I think the more often fucking shit like this Imus bullshit and the Duke Lacrosse bullshit happen, the less and less people will take notice when there is outrage over genuine racism.


    "There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, 'Wolf!' Why didn't you come?"
    "We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth."


    I'd also just wanted to thank everyone who genuinely tried to carry out a rational and intelligent discussion about this whole situation. There were more than a handful of idiots and assholes, but I just wanted to let everyone else know that your efforts where appreciated.

  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Rant

    Yeah what he said. If this situation stopped racism in any fashion then I'll eat my own testicles. But I reserve the right to salt them first. I hate Don Imus, but damnit I hate people making me defend him more. Damn youz all.

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I accept your apology.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    So, canman's not too bright, no-one's been reading the thread before posting in it, and what the fuck is that shit in your sig, imbalanced? Do you really think you're going to get to keep that when we straight-up ban racists and homophobes operating at your level?

    tmsig.jpg
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    So, canman's not too bright, no-one's been reading the thread before posting in it, and what the fuck is that shit in your sig, imbalanced? Do you really think you're going to get to keep that when we straight-up ban racists and homophobes operating at your level?

    Uh, I've had that for at least a year here? And it's parody, not actual hatemongering... is there a council for this kind of thing or should I just stick to G&T where nobody cares?

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    So, canman's not too bright, no-one's been reading the thread before posting in it, and what the fuck is that shit in your sig, imbalanced? Do you really think you're going to get to keep that when we straight-up ban racists and homophobes operating at your level?

    Uh, I've had that for at least a year here? And it's parody, not actual hatemongering... is there a council for this kind of thing or should I just stick to G&T where nobody cares?

    I seriously hope its a parody (regardless, poor taste there sweetheart), and G&T should care.

    Actually, on further reading, I discover that you don't really know what a parody is. What you have is a biased piece of whiny shit. The link goes or you do.

    tmsig.jpg
  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    and if you like propoganda in with actual footage.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6DaLo-hK4&mode=related&search=





    So.... whatever O_o

    What's that supposed to show? How thick you are?

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Didn't you see the white child beating up the other white child? Clear anti-white racism.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    and if you like propoganda in with actual footage.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6DaLo-hK4&mode=related&search=





    So.... whatever O_o

    What's that supposed to show? How thick you are?



    Yes Elkamil pick out the weakest part of my stance and attack it instead of commenting on my position of black people not using the word n*****. Really classy throwing insults at me also. Since you did not respond to my comments about the n***** word then I will have to assume we are in agreement and the only thing we differ on is if I should have posted the above link or left it out. GG unless you would care to respond to the main thrust of my position.

  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    That part was already commented on. Many times. You're just too damn lazy to read the thread, and that's not my problem.

  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    That part was already commented on. Many times. You're just too damn lazy to read the thread, and that's not my problem.


    I have read this thread from the beginning, and similar things have been mentioned. However, no one has laid out a case against the use Of the N***** word between black peoples like I have done for you. You are avoiding the question and insisting on using insults.

    I will not tell the people of the forum your motivation for aggressively insulting me like you have your last two posts. I will let them decide, however I think we would all like to hear your position on the use of N***** from your own mouth. I know that it might be asking alot but could you please put a little rational behind your position on the N***** word. Otherwise feel free to insult me some more, but do not expect me to respond to your insults a third time.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    That part was already commented on. Many times. You're just too damn lazy to read the thread, and that's not my problem.


    I have read this thread from the beginning, and similar things have been mentioned. However, no one has laid out a case against the use Of the N***** word between black peoples like I have done for you. You are avoiding the question and insisting on using insults.

    I will not tell the people of the forum your motivation for aggressively insulting me like you have your last two posts. I will let them decide, however I think we would all like to hear your position on the use of N***** from your own mouth. I know that it might be asking alot but could you please put a little rational behind your position on the N***** word. Otherwise feel free to insult me some more, but do not expect me to respond to your insults a third time.

    I, for one, am dying to hear why this line of thought has any bearing on the events surrounding Imus' ejection from the airwaves. I don't see how you or any other posters of like mind plan to prevail in this discussion if you refuse to actually stay on topic. The topic, by the way, is not "why is it okay for blacks to say the Nword but not whites?". Rambling off into tangential and irrelevant points will get you nothing but scorn around here.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    I have read this thread from the beginning, and similar things have been mentioned. However, no one has laid out a case against the use Of the N***** word between black peoples like I have done for you.
    Really? You haven't found anything in this thread that addressed your very original argument? Ok, let me help you out.

    Why can Chris Rock say the above statement? Could Dana Cook say something like the above? Why not? What word could my white friends use to describe the ignorant black people? Black people use "N****r,” what can a white man use if N****r is off limits?

    Good question.

    celery77 wrote: »
    Next time Chris Rock makes Whitey jokes I'll be sure to call the rainbow coalition since they do not want racism for anybody under any circumstance. They will protest for me. Am i rite?
    Tenor and context. I don't recall any incidence of Chris Rock ever targeting a specific group of amateur white athletes for ridicule based on their race alone. When he does, though, yeah you might have a point.
    gtrmp wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    If people want to get all up in arms about saying "nappy headed hoes" or "n*****" I think there's another place we should look to first, in fact the place that's completely marketed, cashed in on, and made "cool" these very terms.

    A black guy calling another black guy "n*****" has a different context than a white guy calling a black guy "n*****". Do you really think that the black man and the white man are expressing the same sentiment when they use the term? Do you really not see the distinction?

    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Intent doesn't have to be explicit for negative connotations to be carried through words. You are thinking about the words in a vacuum, when real life is far more complicated than just abstracting the words into a theory of communication. Given the history of racism and the nature of modern racism in the United States (that is, subtle and connotative), it is naive to assume that Don Imus wasn't possibly holding any kind of negative image of Blacks in his mind when he made the statements.

    Furthermore, if you don't understand the power difference between a black man using the word "nigger" and a white man using the word "nigger," I recommend you do some more reading about racism in general.

    Irond Will wrote: »
    So okay, I agree that we live in a world in which there are some double standards about the way in which performers are able to address race without inviting massive criticism. Specifically, white performers are basically strongly discouraged from using certain phrases or words. We all know this, and Imus knows this, but he did it anyways.

    The existence of this double standard doesn't really bug me too much, to be honest. One perspective on black performers using traditionally derogatory racial epithets in their performances is that they're "taking back the terms" or obviating their sting by using them in generally non-offensive contexts rather than in pejorative contexts.

    It's not exactly "taking back the lexicon" when a racist AM radio hack uses the phrases in pejorative contexts, and I think this context is pretty important.

    MKR wrote: »
    Nickle wrote: »
    I'm not arguing about Imus' actions, persay, so my knowlege of his history is completely irrelevant. What I'm saying is this: When you say that whenever a black person uses the phrase 'nappy headed hos' they can ONLY be joking, and whenever a white person says the same phrase they can ONLY be derogatory. Who's the racist, again?

    You are trying to tell me that a white person could NEVER say "What's up, my n*****?" with the same exact intent as when a black person says it? You're automatically assuming that the white person is saying "What's up, my slave" when in reality he's just trying to say "What's up my friend" in the same way that black people do.

    They could say it, but they should also be familiar with the social climate, so they should expect consequences.

    Unfair or not, black people tend to get more freedom with words historically used to subjugate them.

    YES. For god's sake people, understand that a word like that has history. Ten years of rappers using it and the black community claiming it back doesn't mean that you can start calling black people n***** again. Complaining that "but I can't say n******!!!!" is so fucking stupid it hurts.

    wwtMask wrote: »
    Nickle wrote: »
    I'm not arguing about Imus' actions, persay, so my knowlege of his history is completely irrelevant. What I'm saying is this: When you say that whenever a black person uses the phrase 'nappy headed hos' they can ONLY be joking, and whenever a white person says the same phrase they can ONLY be derogatory. Who's the racist, again?

    Let me disabuse you of the idea that "nappy headed hos" would be said jokingly amongst black people. It wouldn't, ever. It's an insult, plain and simple.
    You are trying to tell me that a white person could NEVER say "What's up, my n*****?" with the same exact intent as when a black person says it? You're automatically assuming that the white person is saying "What's up, my slave" when in reality he's just trying to say "What's up my friend" in the same way that black people do.

    No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the white person's intent is outweighed by how everyone will perceive what they said. More so because it is pretty much a social taboo for white people to say such things. In my opinion, there's almost never a good reason for a white person to make use of the N word, and there's certainly never a good reason to use it to refer to a black person. When I hear such things, my first thought is "here's someone who must be racist, because only a racist would ignore the social taboo". When it's coming from a black person, the context and intent play far more into it.

    The context is important, that's what you should be taking away from what I'm saying. Also, you should stop assuming that, because some black people are cool with saying the N word amongst themselves, all black people are.

    MrMister wrote: »
    Nickle wrote: »
    I'm not saying I should be able to say the n-word, I don't think anyone should. But at it's bare bones, it's still discrimination based on the color of someone's skin.

    If it's discrimination, then it's the sort that I've only ever found self-entitled brats to care about.

    Frame the issue slightly differently: if a gamer was ragging on gamers, would you take it differently than if a jock was ragging on gamers? What if that jock had a history of beating up on gamers?

    MrMister wrote: »
    Nickle wrote: »
    But that is not analogous. Are you saying that skin color is equal to who you are as a person?

    No, I'm saying that being a member of any group, be it ethinic, social, or religious, creates a certain conversational presumption. If I say to another gay man "we're all just a bunch of little girls at heart, aren't we?" then he will most likely assume that I mean it in either a joking manner or am merely poking lighthearted fun. If a straight man says to me that "you're all just a bunch of little girls at heart, aren't you?" then I'll definitely be more guarded, because there's no inherent presumption that he's not attacking gays. If it's a good friend of mine, then regardless of his orientation, the presumption will be in favor of innocent fun, and I will most likely assume that he meant it in a silly way. If it's a stranger, however, then I'll have to try to assertain through conversational and social clues what he really meant by the comment (and likely be quite uncomfortable in the process). If it's a stranger who also happens to be an evangelical Christian with a history of gay-bashing, then I will most definitely take offense, as his meaning will be as clear as meaning ever is. Imus falls into the last case. Did you see the list of racist tripe Elkamil posted, all credited to his show? The Williams sisters belong in the National Geographic?

    It's also worth noting that there are some comments that no amount of context will be able to excuse. There's simply no way of reading the comment that the Williams sisters belong in the National Geographic such that it's not racist, and were one of my friends to say it I would feel obliged to confront them over it, despite all the normal presumptions I have about my friends being well-meaning people.
    'black people can say this, either as a joke or as an insult, but if a white person says it, it can ONLY be derrogatory, there is NO WAY he could just be joking'?

    No, it's not impossible for a white person to say something that might toe the line, but still have it be clear that the person has no ill intent. However, with white people, there isn't the strong presumption that they aren't being racist in any way. It has to be clear through other conversiational and social clues: for example, my friends have demonstrated to me over long periods of time that they're supportive and accepting.

    Imus has demonstrated the opposite.

    Hell, the same applies to black people talking about people of Asian descent: there's no longer a presumption of innocence. It's all about groups talking about each other versus talking about themselves.

    Furthermore, no one is saying that black people are infallible beacons of virtue. I was actually pretty offended by some of the stuff Cosby has said about black youth culture and language--I thought it was offensive, and demonstrated a cultural bias and lack of understanding. It's just that generally we interpret the comments of Cosby to be not-racist-against blacks, seeing as he himself is black, and the idea that he's racist against his own race is generally a mind-boggler.
    If you want to fight racism, go after the employer who won't hire black people. Go after the cop that pulls over any black man in a nice car. Go after the politicians that pass laws to benefit their rich white friends. Going after an aging talk show host who accidentally used a phrase that's considered 'taboo' for white people to say may get you the headlines, but it isn't going to accomplish anything to better our society.

    Imus is a racist fuck who spread hate. I think taking him off the air accomplishes something.

    Furthermore, I don't think you understand the full extent of racial priviledge. Living in a country where famous guys on the air are constantly dropping one-liners about how you, and your race, are apes and maids, affects you. Living in a country where no one does that, (or if they do, they're completely marginalized), is empowering. Racial priviledge does not consist solely in explicit patronage from the powers that be.

    celery77 wrote: »
    White people are complaining Imus' critics of complaining too much, while seemingly completely failing to see that they, in fact, are probably the biggest whiners in the whole situation. "Why can't we say n****?" "Why are rappers talking about hoes?" "Why isn't Dave Chappelle in trouble?" "Free speech is under fire!" "This is why we have race problems!" etc. all of which are infinitely more hysterical and ridiculous than saying "I find it offensive when a white man (with a history of racially insensitive remarks) calls a group of successful, young black women 'nappy-headed hoes.'" I mean really, who exactly is doing the whining or making unreasonable complaints here?



    Does none of that answer your complaint? I'll put that to you in my words later, since you're so eager to read them.

  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    OK, I said I was gone, but I lied. I just need to clarify a few things. Sorry for the livejournal entry, I just felt it was neccessary to show where I was coming from. Trust me, I really don't like talking about that shit so much, and it won't happen again.

    Here was my point, now that I've taken some time away to cool off. I'm not arguing that Imus shouldn't have been fired. What he said was insulting to the team, and yes, may have carried racial undertones (aside from the obvious use of black vernacular).

    What I'm trying to say is that the idea of racism has shifted. Sure, back in the 50's and 60's, you had real segregation, based soley on racism. You had white people demanding black people use different facilities simply because they were black. But can you really say that this incarnation of racism is persiting strongly today? How many people in my generation (Generation Y, I think (~25)) truly harbor racist ideals? How many of the kids who are in their teens now do the same? I would argue that, aside from households that raise their children to be racists, in this day and age, with the world as connected as it is, 'true racism' is not nearly as powerful as it was. Groups like the KKK have been marginalized to a great extent, and I'm pretty sure most everyone else in the world understand that people like that are idiots. Yes, true racism does still exist, but it's not nearly as relevant in today's society.

    Sure, you've still got older people that harbor racist sentiments (as may have been the case here), but as a whole, as each generation passes, you'd be hard pressed to find even semi-intelligent people who are truly racist. Who truly believe that one race is inferior, soley because of their skin color. But, you might ask, if this is the case, then why are the races still, for all intents and purposes, segregated? Call it quasi-racism. The fear of the perception of racism. I know I haven't heard much support for the likes of Sharpton or Jackson here, but I still feel the need to point out that people like these are the people that are driving that wedge between black people and white people. I'm not saying no one should have taken action, and that Imus shouldn't have been fired, but when it becomes a big media shit-storm like this, no one benefits except the likes of Sharpton and Jackson.

    I do, in fact, think what Imus said was wrong. I'd love to abolish all offensive words from the English language. But you can try all you want to ban people from saying words, and it's never going to happen, nor will it change anything. We need to focus on what's really keeping people apart, and it's not what some old white guy says on the radio. Due to the media, and certain posters (I'm not counting myself out of this distinction), everyone's getting of the opinion that the other side is just looking to be victimized.

    I want to post a question, and I mean this in all seriousness, and not to be offensive. What can either side do to heal the rift? What can white people do (if anything) to reconcile what our ancestors did? Will we ever see an end to 'racism'? Trust me, I feel plenty of guilt over how minorities have been treated throughout the history of our country, but is there really anything white people can do to make up for it? If so, how far do we need to go? Can everyone ever truly be equal, or will one side always be complaining about how they are treated? (and believe me, this applies to EVERYONE of ALL RACES! White people complain more than minorities, at times) Will the idea of 'racism' continue to transmute to serve the purpose of anyone who wants to wield it as a weapon? Is giving so much power to the misguided words of some old asshole truly a positive step?

    Again, I'm sorry if I came off rude to anyone here with my previous posts, this is just a topic that strikes me really close to home. I'd love to see all of my friends together in one room, but despite the fact that none of my friends harbor any true racist beliefs (not that I know of, anyway), this just doesn't happen.

    Why?

    I guess I'm just arguing racial relations, as opposed to true racism, but I feel that racial relations are more relevant in today's society.

    EDIT: Also, could this debate about the n-word just stop? NO ONE should use it, but if anyone should be allowed any leeway with it, it would be the people who were once degraded by it. To tell the truth, just due to my upbringing, it's just as offensive to me when Chris Rock says it as when some white dude says it. Hence my earlier arguments.

    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    You see REAL RACISM IS MUCH WORSE

    Wouldn't we be better of discussing things like educational oppurtunities than wasting the last 40 pages talking about tired old DJs and semantics of the n-word?

  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »

    But what you are arguing here is that isolated incidents=full-blown all encompassing racism. I'm sorry that schools in Georgia are still retarded, but can you honestly say that that means that racism is everywhere? If anything, it just means that the members of the school board, or what have you, are backwards thinking. This does not neccessarily mean that everyone in Georgia, or everyone in the world, still behaves this way. Am I to be held accountable for what they do in Georgia?

    EDIT: Yep, as was stated in the post above mine, this kind of thing is the real enemy, not what Don Imus says. This is the kind of thinking that should be rallied against. Do you think that people rising up to get Imus fired had any impact on true racism, such as this? If anything, those old white idiotic school board members looked at this event and the reaction to it as a REASON that the schools should be segregated.

    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    So, is that how you argue things? By saying if it isn't everywhere then it isn't a problem? Because, if it is, then we can just be done here.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    So, is that how you argue things? By saying if it isn't everywhere then it isn't a problem? Because, if it is, then we can just be done here.

    Is this how you argue things, by reading only what you want, and twisting it to mean what you want it to mean? Because then yes, I agree, we are done here. I've never said that racism is not a problem, all I've said is that more progress has been made than people are willing to admit at times. If we could focus our attention on situations such as those in Georgia, we'd be much better served than just trying to attack the 'idea' of racism. Think of our war on 'terrorism' is a war against an 'idea' that can never be won? It's the same situation for Racism, if you choose to look at it that way. Why weren't these people fired, like Imus was? Because they don't have a radio show?

    EDIT: In a nutshell, do you think the reaction to this situation was overall a positive one, or a negative one? Were people supportive of this school's decision? Were people outraged? How do you think the ratio of supportive/outraged people would appear 40 years ago? How many semi-intelligent people under the age of 40 do you think support segregation in our schools? Racism aside, it's generally a stupid idea to teach a child in an environment that will not mirror his living situation.

    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Cuz it feels mroe satisfying to fire high profile people.

    Plus themedia eats that shit right up

    My question is where's Al Sharpton? Oh there's no cameras so guess it's not worth his time.

  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    The Truth..


    Thank you for sharing Nickle, we agree.

  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sometimes it can be difficult, having a conversation with those whose political views are so diametrically opposed to one's own.

    But even more challenging, is having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept even the most basic elements of your worldview. At that point, disagreement is less about the specifics of one or another policy option, and more about the nature of social reality itself.

    This is what it can be like sometimes, when trying to discuss the issue of white privilege with white people. Despite being an obvious institutionalized phenomenon to people of color and even some whites, white privilege is typically denied, and strongly, by most of us.

    Usually, this denial plays out in one of two ways: either we seek to shift the focus of discussion to our status as members of some other group that isn't socially dominant (so, for example, whites who are poor or working class will insist that because of their economic marginalization, they effectively enjoy no racial privilege at all), or we retreat to the tired but popular notion that all have an equal opportunity in this, our colorblind meritocracy.

    Denying one's privileges is, of course, nothing if not logical. To admit that you receive such things is to acknowledge that you are, at some level, implicated in the process by which others are oppressed or discriminated against. It makes fairly moot the oft-heard defense that "I wasn't around back then, and I never owned slaves, or killed any Indians," or whatever.

    If one has reaped the benefits of those past injustices (to say nothing of ongoing discrimination in the present) by being elevated, politically, economically and socially above persons of color, for example -- which whites as a group surely have been thanks to enslavement, Indian genocide and Jim Crow -- then whether or not one did the deed becomes largely a matter of irrelevance.

    Of course, what is ultimately overlooked is that denial of one's privilege itself manifests a form of privilege: namely, the privilege of being able to deny another person's reality (a reality to which they speak regularly) and suffer no social consequence as a result.

    Whites pay no price, in other words, for dismissing the claims of racism so regularly launched by persons of color, seeing as how the latter have no power to punish such disbelievers at the polls, or in the office suites, or in the schools in most cases.

    On the other hand, people of color who refuse to buy into white reality -- the "reality" of the U.S. as a "shining city on a hill," or the "reality" of never-ending progress, or the "reality" of advancement by merit -- often pay a heavy toll: they are marginalized, called "professional victims," or accused of playing the race card.

    Consider the common charge of conspiratorial paranoia hurled at any person of color, for example, who dared to point out the racially-disparate voter purging that took place in Florida in 2000, or in various places in 2004. White reality is privileged at every turn, so that if whites say something is a problem, it is, and if whites insist it isn't, then it isn't.

    Those of us who are white remain thought of as sober-minded, and never as given to underestimating the extent of racism, making a molehill out of what is, in fact, often a mountain, or playing our own race card (the denial card), which far and away trumps whatever version people of color may occasionally find in their own decks.

    In other words, privilege is not merely about money and wealth. It is not merely something that attaches when one is born with the proverbial silver spoon in one's mouth. Rather it is the daily psychological advantage of knowing that one's perceptions of the world are the ones that stick, that define the norm for everyone else, and that are taken seriously in the mainstream.

    Whiteness is so privileged in everyday dialogue that one need look no further than our nation's post-election discourse to see how it operates.

    So, for example, one after another commentator in the wake of election night pontificated, without hesitation, that the outcome had been a referendum on "moral values," and the result of high turnout amongst evangelical Christians, who overwhelmingly voted for President Bush.

    Yet what this analysis ignored is that it was only some evangelicals who overwhelmingly chose to re-elect the President, while others voted to do exactly the opposite. Indeed, black evangelicals voted at least four to one against Bush, meaning that the mainstream talking heads, as usual were privileging the white perspective, and universalizing the particular behavior of white folks, as if it were the standard for everyone.

    So too with the so-called "red state, blue state" divide. Fact is, the divide is less one of geography than race: a slight majority of whites in the blue states (including California, Illinois and New York) voted for Bush on election day, while the vast majority of blacks and the majority of other persons of color in the red states voted against him.

    But part of white privilege is never having to examine the peculiarity of white behavior (or even acknowledge that there is such a thing as white group behavior at all), and so naturally, this racial aspect of electoral division remains unexamined, and the more comforting perspective (for whites at least) that there is merely a split based on residence remains largely unchallenged.

    But it's more than that. Even more important as an example of white privilege -- the kind that adheres to all whites, not just the rich -- is the ability to avoid being stigmatized by the actions of others who just so happen to fall within the same racial group as you.

    While people of color bear the burden of disproving negative stereotypes regularly -- when interviewing for a job, taking a standardized test, or merely driving in the "wrong" neighborhood, where they are presumed not to belong -- whites rarely if ever have to worry that the actions of others like us, no matter how horrible, will stick to us or force us to prove that we are somehow different.

    For example, whites can screw up on the job, run entire corporations into the ground, rip off the Savings and Loans to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, cut corners on occupational safety and health in the workplace, or scam millions from employee pension funds, without the rest of us having to worry that such incompetence or outright dishonesty will result in whites being viewed suspiciously every time we seek to climb to the top of the corporate ladder.

    White men in Lexuses (or is it Lexi?) will not need to fear being pulled over by police on suspicion of transporting documents confirming their latest fiscal shenanigans.

    When Martha Stewart conspires to cover up a stock dumping scam, white women across America do not cower in fear that somehow they will be viewed as dishonest and predatory as a result. Nor white men thanks to Ken Lay.

    If the President of the United States mispronounces every fifth word out of his mouth, none of us white folks have to worry that someone will ascribe his verbal incompetence to some general white illiteracy. But honestly, do we think that if this President were black, or Latino or Asian Pacific American, or indigenous, and mangled the English language with the regularity of the actual President, that no one would make the leap from individual to group defect?

    Why is it that when the white President of the University of Tennessee overspends his expense account by tens of thousands of dollars, using public funds for expensive rugs, home furnishings and lavish chartered plane trips, no one suggests that perhaps it's time for the school to pick a black or brown chief executive, but when the black President of historically black Tennessee State University is seen as mismanaging that school's resources, voices all across my hometown of Nashville began to whisper (or even say quite loudly) that perhaps it was time for TSU to get a white President?

    For those reading this who are white, ask yourselves, when was the last time you felt the need to stand up and apologize for a crime committed by another white person? Better yet, when was the last time you felt the need to do this for fear that if you didn't, your community would come to be viewed as inherently violent and dangerous, and perhaps be attacked as a result? And when was the last time someone suggested that our failure to openly condemn white criminals implicated us in their wrongdoing?

    Yet what of the recent murders in Wisconsin by a Hmong immigrant, who killed six white hunters when they confronted him in a private deer stand? Not only did bumper stickers crop up within days reading, "Save a deer, shoot a Hmong," implying that the shooter was somehow representative of a larger group evil, but more to the point, the Hmong and larger Southeast Asian communities in Wisconsin and Minnesota (where the shooter was from) rushed to distance themselves from him.

    This distancing was, of course, only made necessary because to not do so would put others like them at risk, in a way no white person has ever been put at risk because some of our number occasionally kills folks.

    Likewise, nearly a decade ago, when a Hmong woman in the Twin Cities murdered her six children, her status as a racial and ethnic minority was front and center in discussion of the crime -- anger on talk radio was pointed at the Hmong as a group, or Asians more broadly, for example -- but a few years back, when Andrea Yates killed her five kids in Texas, or when Susan Smith drowned her two boys in a South Carolina lake, no one attacked them as examples of what's wrong with white folks these days.

    Even when some white teenager commits a racially-motivated hate crime, as happened recently in Simi Valley, California where four white youths beat two black kids to a pulp, the white response is one that seeks to demonstrate that their town is not racist (as if geography alone ever commits an aggravated assault), rather than hoping to prove that all whites aren't that way. The latter possibility would never enter their minds, and why?

    It's why in the aftermath of 9/11, you could hear one after another white person demanding to know (and being treated as reasonable for asking it), "where are the moderate voices in the Arab Muslim community prepared to condemn terrorism," all because nineteen out of 1.5 billion Muslims on Planet Earth flew planes into buildings. Yet one cannot fathom anyone being taken seriously if they were to ask, "where are the moderate white Christians," in the aftermath of Oklahoma City or any of a number of abortion clinic bombings.

    It's why whenever this issue is raised, white folks rush to insist that we're "just individuals," and want to be thought of as such, rather than as whites. Indeed, we often believe that to even point out our racial identity is racist, as it groups us unfairly and diminishes our "humanness," or "Americanness."

    Of course, the irony in such a position is that it is only members of the dominant group in a society who could ever have the luxury of viewing ourselves, or expecting to be viewed by others as "individuals."

    That's the point: no one else has ever been able to assume they would be viewed that way, because at no point have they been, nor do they get to be so viewed today, as the aforementioned examples demonstrate all too clearly.

    To even say that our group status is irrelevant or should be is to suggest that one has enjoyed the privilege of experiencing the world that way (or rather, believing that one was). In other words, it is the result of a particular social arrangement, whereby some and not others have been seen as individuals no matter the actions of others within their group. There is, of course a phrase for this arrangement.

    White privilege.

    And until it is eradicated, dug up and discarded root and branch, there can be no legitimate discussion of "colorblindness" or simple individualism. Nor can we be taken seriously as a nation when we hold ourselves up as an example to other nations of what freedom and democracy are supposed to look like.

    -Tim Wise

    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    One more post, just to clarify on the Georgia school situation. Say this news was all over CNN like the Imus story. Do you think people all over the globe are saying "Hey, that's a good idea!!". I don't think that's the case. Yes, racism does still exist, and I'd wager everything I have that it will still exist by the time I die. But, is our time better served by trying to eradicate every biggot from the world? Is that even possible? Idiots exist, folks.

    All I'm saying is that positive steps have been taken, and we would be better served by moving forward towards more progress, while marginalizing people like those in the Georgia school board, or people like Imus, who will be largely regarded as idiots. If we spend all of our time trying the impossible (eradicating racism alltogether) when will we find the time to enjoy the fruits of our labor?

    EDIT: And as for white privilege, yes, it exists. I just don't think it has as much of an impact as people think it does. The idea of white privilege, while I will say that it may hold some relevance, is still a bit nit-picky. It's like trying to create differences, and blowing them out of proportion. How much of an impact do you think 'There's more white people on TV' really has? I'd say less than you'd think. If you're always going to maintain that white people have it better off, and you're going to keep come up with the tiniest things to justify this, how is anyone ever going to make progress? And, like I've said before, the 'power' of white privilege has faded quite a bit since the term was invented. Do you really think the ratio of white/minority in our media is as bad as it was two decades ago? Who is the one not willing to change, in this situation? If you're going into every situation with the predisposition that the person you're talking to has it better than you, how are you ever going to truly accept that person as a friend? Does White Privilege mean the same thing for every white person? I'd argue that the idea of white privelege is akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you continue to perceive the difference, it will continue to exist, regardless of anything that may change in the world.

    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Jinnigan, I was just about to congratulate you for an awesome post, then you go and name the author at the very end. :P

    Also, it's penises, so I guess Lexuses is correct too.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Awesome post, Tim.

    steam_sig.png
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yes, white people, in general, are the only group that has the luxury of being regarded as individuals.


    And no one sees the contradiction in this statement?

    And you think, in this day and age, that everyone judges a black person as representative as the black community? This may have been the case in the past, but I remember when Rodman kicked a guy, or did whatever else he did, I don't think anyone said "Oh, that's just how black people act." In today's society, with the internet, and mass communication, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS, AND WE ARE ALL PART OF A GROUP. You still maintain that in case of a crime white people are individuals. That sniper in D.C. was a black guy, right? You didn't see everyone in the country getting scared of all black people, all at once. Did you? I'm sorry for those Arab people that have been discriminated against because some of their people did something atrocious. Again though, I'm just as upset that old white guys are running the country as you are.

    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • drinkinstoutdrinkinstout Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Jinn, at first I thought you wrote that.

    Regardless, :^:

    I haven't posted in here in a while because I wanted the dust to settle and I wanted to read other people's opinions and absorb what they were saying.

    I recant some of the things I said earlier - and I will admit that me being a while male makes certain things not necessarily better, but in no way makes them more difficult for me, like anyone not in a majority "grouping" has to deal with.

    I can't really say I'm sorry because I don't feel personally responsible and I honestly try to live my life and look on everyone as equals - it is difficult at times I will admit but I hope that continuing to instill equality in our children and successive generations will work a lot of these problems out.

    Nothing can be achieved over night. Maybe this entire scene will be for the benefit of the fight against racism. We won't know today or tomorrow however.

    I do not know of any personal gains I have achieved because of my status and I hope that I have not reached where I am due to being a white male. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    Yes, white people, in general, are the only group that has the luxury of being regarded as individuals.


    And no one sees the contradiction in this statement?

    The only contradiction I see is that no one is saying that.

    steam_sig.png
  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Of course, the irony in such a position is that it is only members of the dominant group in a society who could ever have the luxury of viewing ourselves, or expecting to be viewed by others as "individuals."

    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Nickle wrote: »
    Yes, white people, in general, are the only group that has the luxury of being regarded as individuals.


    And no one sees the contradiction in this statement?

    The only contradiction I see is that no one is saying that.

    you mena you don't see the irony of condeeming white people for grouping blacks as a group then for it's entire length it does the same thing to "white people"

  • drinkinstoutdrinkinstout Registered User
    edited April 2007
    People who are white don't get grouped together as "White People" by the majority because we ARE the majority. That, I believe is what he is saying and is correct.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    People who are white don't get grouped together as "White People" by the majority because we ARE the majority. That, I believe is what he is saying and is correct.

    Yet he falls into the same trap by basically turning white people into a faceless group. These things are so much easier when you boil everything down to generic "groups" based off of general notions of race aren't they? Pity that reality is far more complex.

  • NickleNickle Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Here's my problem with the whole "when a black guy commits a crime, it looks bad on all black people, but white people don't have the same problem" argument: When an idiot white guy like Imus or those in the Georgia school board does something racist, then all of a sudden OMG ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST, WE HAVEN'T MADE AND PROGRESS!.

    If you fail to see the hypocrisy in that, than next time I post, I'll use smaller words.

    Xbox/PSN/Steam: NickleDL | 3DS: 0731-4750-6906
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Nickle wrote: »
    Here's my problem with the whole "when a black guy commits a crime, it looks bad on all black people, but white people don't have the same problem" argument: When an idiot white guy like Imus or those in the Georgia school board does something racist, then all of a sudden OMG ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST, WE HAVEN'T MADE AND PROGRESS!.

    If you fail to see the hypocrisy in that, than next time I post, I'll use smaller words.

    .. Who said all white people are racist? Oh that's right, no-one. There were however lots of people saying that the "black community" is too uppity.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • drinkinstoutdrinkinstout Registered User
    edited April 2007
    People who are white don't get grouped together as "White People" by the majority because we ARE the majority. That, I believe is what he is saying and is correct.

    Yet he falls into the same trap by basically turning white people into a faceless group. These things are so much easier when you boil everything down to generic "groups" based off of general notions of race aren't they? Pity that reality is far more complex.

    he is, yes - but collectively, society actually doesn't because society is largely made up of white people.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    People who are white don't get grouped together as "White People" by the majority because we ARE the majority. That, I believe is what he is saying and is correct.

    Yet he falls into the same trap by basically turning white people into a faceless group. These things are so much easier when you boil everything down to generic "groups" based off of general notions of race aren't they? Pity that reality is far more complex.

    he is, yes - but collectively, society actually doesn't because society is largely made up of white people.

    I'll be sure to bring that up at the next white people meeting

  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited April 2007
    People who are white don't get grouped together as "White People" by the majority because we ARE the majority. That, I believe is what he is saying and is correct.

    Yet he falls into the same trap by basically turning white people into a faceless group. These things are so much easier when you boil everything down to generic "groups" based off of general notions of race aren't they? Pity that reality is far more complex.

    he is, yes - but collectively, society actually doesn't because society is largely made up of white people.

    So what you're saying is that white people don't see white people as a faceless group? So does that mean blacks or asians see themselves as faceless groups? I am confused by what you're saying.

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    So white people aren't allwoed to think there's a "black community' but it's ok to lump all white people into one cultural group? Woo double standards!

  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The white experience is not equivalent to the white community.

    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • drinkinstoutdrinkinstout Registered User
    edited April 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    People who are white don't get grouped together as "White People" by the majority because we ARE the majority. That, I believe is what he is saying and is correct.

    Yet he falls into the same trap by basically turning white people into a faceless group. These things are so much easier when you boil everything down to generic "groups" based off of general notions of race aren't they? Pity that reality is far more complex.

    he is, yes - but collectively, society actually doesn't because society is largely made up of white people.

    So what you're saying is that white people don't see white people as a faceless group? So does that mean blacks or asians see themselves as faceless groups? I am confused by what you're saying.

    I was elaborating on the point I believe the author was trying to make.

    It is easy to label and group the things that are in the minority and I believe it might even be a part of who we are.

    Taking this to an abstract example, imagine you are to sort a bag of skittles by color and assume that the colors are not distributed evenly. How do you begin? You locate the smallest minority, single them out and remove them - call them the Purple ones. You move on down the line removing colors and naming them. When you have the majority left, sure it has a name but they are just the leftovers - it doesn't matter what color they are because you're done.

    or something like that anyway.

    Do I personally fall into the grouping problem? I will admit that yes, I do - and I notice it and wish I didn't.

    And there is no way I can honestly say how being a minority makes me feel or look at myself because.... I'm not one.





    edit: forget it, I acknowledge my own shortcomings and that of society and I wish things were better - there are people here who can explain things better than I and have the patience to repeatedly restate their views every other page for those willing to listen and those not. I'll go back to reading.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Sign In or Register to comment.