There’s a difference, though, between being “connected” and being white. There’s no doubt if your grandfather was a Senator, you probably have family connections that helped you. What you got to realize is, not all - or even more than a small minority - of whites are connected in that way. To generalize from that small minority of whites to all whites is illogical.
You may not know them, if you live in Manhattan or San Francisco - but there are poor whites - millions and millions of them - who live in the flyover country.
It’s a benefit that far, far more white people receive than black people – and white people who receive may not recognize that this, rather than mere hard work alone, was part of their achievement and success. It’s, in other words, a privilege that some people don’t realize that they benefited from.
Dude. I’m tangata whenua. You don’t need to cite wikipedia to tell me about my history. I don’t cite thisarticle every time we have a discussion about free speech. Our founding document is the Treaty of Waitangi. If you want to have a discussion about that then you only need to ask.
Well: I for one am glad that “wikipedia says something.”
However that is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Concepts such as “traditional owners”, the Moriori, tangata whenua, these are established concepts that we have had conversations about for centuries down under. You aren’t going to learn a lot about it with a two-minute google search. I’m not saying we can’t have discussion. But you need a proper frame of reference first. For New Zealand: I suggest you start here.
But what is relevant are the words you wrote in the OP. Since you are obviously reading my posts: there are questions I asked you in post 158. I’ll quote them again here for our convienece:
We’re not the only ones participating in this thread and most Americans know fuck all about Australian or New Zealand history; including some links for the folks playing along at home strikes me as a basic courtesy rather than some sort of condescending attemtpt to talk down to you about your own history.
…well I did include several links for the folks “playing at home.” Three to be precise. So I’ve done as you’ve asked. If LinusK knows fuck all about Australian and New Zealand history then he shouldn’t be acting like he does. You can’t get more condescending than giving me a lecture on what happened in my history by spending two minutes on google.
I said he is welcome to join us in conversation. But it is a conversation that has been going on for centuries. And the conversation going on in Australia is different to the one going on in New Zealand. So he needs to get a frame of reference.
QFT. There are any number of “privileges” any one person can enjoy. Were you beaten or neglected when you were a child? Are you above-average intelligence? (Half of people are’t.) Do you suffer from mental illness? Millions of people do. Most importantly, are you rich? Or is McDonald’s your idea of a treat? I was once a passenger in a girl’s car in college. She stopped at a full-service gas station. I had literally never been to one. She had unfettered access to Daddy’s credit card. I got $0 from my parents. Who was more privileged?
Please note I’m not whining or complaining. It’s just an example because my life is the one I remember. I’m privileged just from living in a first world country.
Why do you think it’s not useful to compare some things - like wealth, for example - but it is useful to compare others - say, sexual orientation, or race?
Human Action already stole my response, so I’ll offer a different one. Suppose there’s a county - we’ll call it “Japan” - that privileges being Japanese. Suppose it’s a wealthy country, with a rich and impressive cultural history. Are you OK with that?
You’re misunderstanding me. I’m saying that there’s no point in crossing various categories - any categories - for comparison. For any given single category, like race, gender, or wealth, if all other characteristics are equal, relative privilege can reasonably be compared. I’m white, straight, upper middle class, cis, male, and able bodied - in general, I experience more privilege than Bob, a black straight UMC cis able man; or more than Jim, a gay white UMC cis able man; or more than Jill, a straight white UMC cis able woman; or more than Don, a straight white cis lower middle class able man (there are some few situations in which each of them might experience more privilege than me, but I probably experience privilege far more often in my day to day life).
But it’s Bob generally more privileged than Jim, or Jill, or Don? That’s not nearly so clear, and depends on the circumstances, and I don’t think there’s much of a point comparing their overall privilege. But we can clearly say that Bob doesn’t experience white privilege, like all the others do, and Jim doesn’t experience straight privilege, like all the others do, and Jill doesn’t experience male privilege, etc.
Am I OK with the existence of Japan? Yes, I am OK with that, I have no desire to eliminate the country of Japan from existing. I’m not sure how it relates to the discussion, but I am fine with Japan’s continued existence.
My “caveat” the usage of the word. Can you cite any examples, that aren’t from you, of people being “accused of” being white, or “guilty of being white”?
And again I note that you’re choosing to disregard talking about real issues, in favor of a) your paraphrase of someone else’s paraphrase of an uncited Facebook post, and b) trying to moralize being born with certain genes.
I’ve cited a dictionary definition, I’m not going to argue basic English meanings of words any more. When you reject the dictionary, there’s really not anything else I can say, and I’m not going to spend time trying to figure out what you’d count as an acceptable cite (when you reject the dictionary) and trying to track down whatever it is.
I think that the behavior shown in A is a real issue, and is a major part of why people tune out progressives. And B is a thing that I’m objecting to and arguing against in this thread.
Also, poorer people don’t have access to the same outlets for expressing their concerns - they are less able to travel, have less free time (because despite what some right-wingers think, many poor people work extremely hard for long hours), and don’t move in the same circles as the upper- and middle-class audiences they need to reach.
They should pay better salaries in general.
You also may not know that there are millions and millions of minorities who live there as well.
Aye, there’s a great quote by Russell Brand on this:
“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I’m rich and I complain about inequality they say I’m a hypocrite. I’m beginning to think they just don’t want to talk about inequality.”
Who makes the decision on what is and isn’t an Identity Group?*
Those are good questions. Some identity groups include blacks, trans-, women and recently Muslims.
There doesn’t seem to be a particular logic to it. Note that not all religions are identity groups. FLDS is not an identity group, so far as I know, despite the fact their marriages are illegal and they’re actively prosecuted.
Who makes the decision on what is and isn’t an Identity Group? What metrics are involved? Who do you apply too? Do you get a certificate?
There’re no metrics, there’s no applicate & no certificate. I don’t know who makes the decision. I believe you know all that.
What does an “Identity Politics Advocate” advocate for? What is it that they want?
Generally they want things they think are good for their group, whatever that may be. Marriage licenses for gays, affirmative action, reparations, more of members of their group in elected positions are some examples.
Can you name some identity politics advocates? I don’t know who any of them are.
Sure. Madeleine Albright, members of BLM, ILGA, GATE, GLISA, CAIR, Log Cabin Republicans, TASH, Rep. John Lewis, Emma Watson and, at least arguably, Hillary Clinton.
Can you provide quotes to prove that identity politics advocate say what you claim they do?
I could, but you can find them just as easily.
Why would you be upset that I didn’t know what you were saying? I still don’t know what you are talking about. I hope that doesn’t upset you.
I’m sorry you don’t know what I’m talking about. If you’ll tell which sentences you don’t understand I’ll try to clarify.
I was talking about the concept of “original owners of land”.
And it is a slippery idea. For some more examples, who are the “original owners” of Palestine (now Israel)? Northern Ireland? Mexico? The USA? Texas? South Africa? Crimea? Prussia (now Poland)? Yugoslavia? Argentina?
The point I’m trying to make is that the categories you seem most interested in - race, gender, sexual orientation - for example - are less important than categories you seem less interested in. Wealth, for example. Why?
I’m also interested in “white privilege”. What, specifically, does someone get just for being white?
You’re misunderstanding my question. I didn’t ask if it’s ok for Japan to exist. My question is if - hypothetically - Japan actively discourages or even prevents non-Japanese from living there or becoming citizens is that OK? If they treat non-Japanese differently - say, as outsiders - even if they do live there, is that OK? If they actively - and passively, for that matter - discriminate against people who aren’t Japanese living in Japan, does that make them bigots and racists?
Because wealth is changeable, for one – I think that government policy is the best way to address wealth inequality (and any associated privilege or lack), but many or most privileges for those other categories can’t (or shouldn’t) be addressed by government (i.e. government can’t force store owners to be less suspicious of black customers, or force film and TV professionals to portray black people more positively, and the like). I’m fine with talking about the privileges of wealth, I just think the best way to address them is different than the way to address the other issues of privilege.
There are probably thousands of answers or more – here are a few that come to mind (for America): a myriad of positive role models - historical figures taught in schools and media figures and fictional characters of all types (as opposed to only athletes, performers, and a very small number of politicians, historical figures commonly taught, and positive fictional characters); a societal/cultural standard of beauty that relatively closely matches one’s skin color, facial features, and hair texture; a greater level of assumed trust from authority figures (teachers, law enforcement, etc.); a lack of numerous reminders each day that one has been considered less than human by most of society for the majority of the country’s history; the general assumption that one’s positions and achievements are due to merit, rather than other factors (especially for white males – white women probably share this lack of privilege with many minorities to some degree); much less personal fear from those one interacts with day-to-day; a language standard (i.e. the “proper” way of speaking) that is usually pretty close, if not identical, to the dialect one happens to speak in the home and learned from one’s parents. Just off the top of my head – I’m sure others can chime in with plenty more examples.