No – why would you think it would be okay with me?
I disagree with this – I think it assists in the understanding of privilege and related concepts.
I said “probably” I think I understand a little bit about white privilege and “whiteness”, but I have less understanding about “blackness” as a societal concept. I’m reading up on it.
This is how I see them as different – anti-black racism (in US history, since that’s what we’re talking about mostly) has resulted in millions of assaults, rapes, kidnappings, and murders, and in the stripping away of dignity and dehumanizing many more people. Anti-black racism has, through most of US history, been tolerated and even aided by the formal and informal power structure and government. Anti-white racism, in US history, on the other hand, has resulted in a comparatively tiny amount of crimes, and has never been aided by the formal and informal power structure and government.
Neither are acceptable, and both are bad. But, both historically and in modern times, one has been far, far worse for individuals and for society.
I see a big problem with white privilege, and specifically in this way he’s describing it. It is a big problem that a white person is largely presumed to have just made an innocent mistake (when, for example, saying something stupid about inner city people), while a black person is more likely to be presumed to be malicious or even racist in a comparable scenario.
So, then, any increase above the (undefined) “normal annual increase in premiums” is the same as “way up”?
Even if that amount is .1% above the “normal”?
I suppose if it were ten percent increase, maybe that might qualify. Unless, of course, the “normal” increase were $2, and the ghastly, ruinous increase amounted to twenty cents.
Is there some reason you are reluctant to specify the actual numbers here? I trust you are aware that arouses the suspicion that you are trying to pull a slow one?
Because that’s the same thing as talking about “whiteness.”
No, it obscures it.
Oh, dear. You don’t see the hazards in even entertaining the idea of “blackness?”
Why don’t you tell me what “whiteness” is instead?
Okay. Obviously. But that doesn’t address my point, which is that the Salon article argues that it’s okay to prejudge white people, but not blacks, because of history. I’m glad you don’t agree.
But so what? If we agree that neither are acceptable, why do you feel the need to say one has been worse than the other? How is that relevant? We already know that. Nobody is saying that whites have suffered as much as blacks or anything like that.
I think it’s you trying to filibuster the issue, the way supporters did every other piece of bad news before it actually happened. I guess it gives you time to explain why the bad news is good news after it does happen. “People lost their insurance, but it was crappy insurance!” Why couldn’t you guys have said that BEFORE?
I don’t blame MOST White people for the sins of the past. I DO blame a number of them for the sins that they allow to continue. That’s what "White privilege "is.
When the playing field becomes level, let me know.
LOL. I’m not creating the idea, I’m just pointing out that it exists as a social construct.
Whiteness is sort of like a very low-grade royalty or nobility, in my understanding. People who have “whiteness” (e.g. people who are considered “white” by most of society) have certain privileges and assumptions made about them that, generally, make things a bit easier. There are fewer barriers to success, people generally treat you better, assistance is easier to get, etc., on average (even though there are numerous individual examples who buck this trend). It’s not a biological construct, it’s a social construct, that has been around for centuries. As John Scalzi put it, being a Straight White Male is the lowest difficulty setting in the video game called “Life”.
The Salon article is not about lance strongarm, or even any white people at all, except those he names (like Paul Ryan). It’s mostly about American society, and some of the social constructs that exist in American society, like “whiteness”. Nowhere does the author judge anyone by his or her skin color.
LOL! Yeah, that’s it. Millions of white people in America live like barons.
All you’re saying is that discrimination in favor of whites still exists.
Why not just say that? Why make up this weird thing called “whiteness,” as if it’s some kind of complex thing? It just means white people.
Sure, some people still discriminate in favor of white people. We should continue to try to end this discrimination. What more is there to add to that?
"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."
I read this as saying that all white people are guilty of the sins of history by virtue of being white. It’s the sociological version of original sin.
I think I understand a little bit about white privilege and “whiteness”, but I have less understanding about “blackness” as a societal concept. I’m reading up on it.