Relevant article: “How the GOP became the white supremacy party — and got away with it”.
“Way up” is a term that lacks precision, don’t you think? Or don’t you? Perhaps, if you are not too busy, you might tell us just perzackly what those words mean?
From this article:
"White privilege is an assumption that whiteness, and white people, are benign. White privilege is also an assumption of preeminent good intent and innocence.
The historical record suggests otherwise: whiteness was born of violence towards people of color."
Wow.
Sorry, but a white person is not responsible for the sins of whites in the past. Using “white privilege” as an excuse for racial prejudice against whites by blaming them for past injustice is evil.
And it even defines “whiteness” as white privilege, as if a white person can’t possibly be white any other way. (Meanwhile, people are busy saying race isn’t even a real thing, but a social construct).
ALL people should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and presumed to have good intent until otherwise shown. That’s the basic principle behind opposition to racial prejudice. This is a very disturbing, but not surprising, abuse of the concept of white privilege – using it as an excuse for racism directed at whites.
People should be treated as individuals and judged by their actions, not by race. Pretty simple.
Up more than the normal annual increase in premiums. The administration has specifically said they will be lower than they were before ACA was passed. The insurers disagree, and they are the ones who decide these things, not the administration.
What it should have said: “How Democrats lost the white vote and found a way to make themselves feel morally superior for losing the white vote.”
You are demonstrating a misunderstanding of white privelige and even “whiteness” (as used in this article) – both of these are societal concepts, not racial concepts. “Whiteness”, as in the societal concept (not the race), really was born of violence – in the US, it was “born” as a way to distinguish the people-that-can-be-enslaved from the people-that-cannot-be-enslaved, through extreme violence and terror (which grew and grew for decades afterwards).
You are falling into the trap of assuming it is reasonable to treat any anti-white bias and bigotry similarly to anti-black (or other non-white groups) bias and bigotry. They are not the same. Bias and bigotry from members of an out-power group towards members of an in-power group is different than the other way around. It has always been different.
In your mind, perhaps. I think Reginald Denny would disagree that his beating was different from Rodney King’s except for the weapons used.
So how does minority/minority prejudice fit into your worldview? Is it less awful for blacks to hate Koreans than for Koreans to hate blacks?
Nope, you’re not getting it. If we’re just talking about individuals, then I would judge bigotry the same. But when society is in the mix, then they’re not. Black bigotry towards whites does not register on the radar of “harm to individuals and society” when compared to white bigotry towards blacks, both through history and in the present.
Here is a simplified primer on white privilege.
And that demonstrates how preposterous they are!
White is a race. Not a “societal concept.” By confusing the two, it gives one permission to take a societal concept and apply it to those in a race instead.
No, that’s white supremacy, which is a belief, not race.
You don’t see any problem with using a class of people and labeling it as a historical concept? What if I chose to do that with “blackness” – you don’t see the pitfalls?
Bullshit!
This is absolutely and totally false. Bigotry and prejudice are always wrong, regardless of the victim. There is no possible way to justify bigotry against a white person that doesn’t open up justification of bigotry against a black person, or anyone else, too.
All people should be judged by the content of their character. Period. If you can’t accept that, you have no business even discussing racism.
You’re not getting it.
We are ALWAYS talking about individuals. People are individuals, not “society.” If you want to talk about society, just do that.
It’s still wrong.
It’s also a societal concept, as is color. It can be both.
You are wrong here. “Whiteness” can describe a societal concept as well as a race.
“Blackness” is probably also a societal concept – as is the more general “people of color”. When used as a societal concept, it does not necessarily overlap/synonymize with the entire race that uses the same word.
This doesn’t contradict anything I said. I never said any sort of bigotry is acceptable or not wrong, I just said they are not all the same.
Again, not contradicting anything I’ve said. You’re still missing my point, so I’ll think and read about it and try again.
Society exists (and has people in it). I can talk about both.
Which I have not contradicted.
But you can’t mix them up.
You can’t blame individuals for society, or for what others have done just because they are members of a certain group.
That’s what racists do. You can’t use the logic of racism when opposing racism.
Sure as hell looks like you have to me.
I’m not blaming any individuals (except Paul Ryan, and others who have said racist things, whether they meant to or not).
LOL. I’m sorry that you’ve misunderstood me. Perhaps you’d like to point out where I blamed any individuals (besides people who actually said or did racist stuff) “for society”.
So for instance, when someone says a black person should “stop acting so black” would that be okay with you?
But it’s a racist way of describing a societal concept. It implies that all whites accept or are responsible for it. It invites confusion between the two, perhaps deliberately.
Okay, so please tell me how you define “blackness” as a societal concept.
But it sure appears that you did:
I read “different” to mean one is more acceptable than the other. So what do you mean by “different” exactly? More acceptable? How does this “difference” matter? Maybe you could give a concrete example.
But the Salon article does.
I’m saying the use of a race to describe a societal concept invites this. It assumes all members of that group are part of that concept and not individuals.
Back to the article:
**White privilege is an assumption that whiteness, and white people, are benign. White privilege is also an assumption of preeminent good intent and innocence.
**
Do you not see the problem with that?
What about this bit, then?
Of course I see the problem with it, but the statement is an accurate diagnosis of a real social phenomenon; the problem is that that phenomenon exists.
What about it?
Huh?
It’s not a diagnosis of a problem, it’s a declaration that some people can be judged by their race.