This article starts with some of this lady’s goofy, but sincere, attempts to deal with “white privilege.” Okay, whatever, if you think it’s a horrible sin that someone is offered a sandwich instead of a tortilla.
But this is where she goes way too far:
"Gutierrez denies that any students were turned away from the drum corps, and vehemently rejects any suggestion that it is discrimination to offer a club catering to minority boys.
“When white people do it, it is not a problem, but if it’s for kids of color, then it’s a problem?” says Gutierrez, 40, an El Paso, Texas, native whose parents were Mexican immigrants. “Break it down for me. That’s your white privilege, and your whiteness.” "
She might have a point if there were any whites-only drum lines out there. But there aren’t (not legally at least). Why can’t they simply have a drum line for any kids, white or Latino? Are minority kids being left out of a drum line somewhere?
The concept of “white privilege” rests on the assumption that whites have no moral right to be the dominant majority. The attitude isn’t terribly different from anti-Semitism.
That’s completely ridiculous. No; neither whites nor anyone else have any “right” to be a dominant majority. And how that relates to anti-Semitism of all things I have no idea.
I think LonesomePolecat is trying to say that Jews don’t have the “right” to secretly control the world by manipulating the world’s banks through the Trilateral Commission and seances to Golda Meir.
A haphazardly written article that explains nothing in particular. Full of racist concepts and language with no coherent point. This is what happens when people use selective definitions of racism.
I’m not a supporter of minority-only groups, but I do not consider them to be racist in most cases. You can’t think of these situations as being symmetric; there’s a big difference between a minority-only group and a majority-only group.
For example, say you have a “Black Entrepreneur of the Year” in a country where there are few successful black businessmen / women. Well, that success might be an inspiration to black youths that otherwise might start to believe the idea that black people can’t be successful in business.
Conversely, “White Entrepreneur of the Year”; what would be the point of that? In a white majority country there will be lots of examples of white success.
Now, for the groups like in the OP, the case is weaker but you can still try to make a case for it. A successful latino group will be an inspiration for others; maybe a lot of latino kids wouldn’t consider doing that activity because they wouldn’t perceive it as something that people of their background can do or be welcome at.
ETA: I agree that some of the specific comments made in the article are fuckdumb; my point is simply that in general minority-only groups are not necessarily (or even usually) racist.
This is my usual stance, but the school is 50% hispanic, and (I’m guessing) 50% female. Since many schools have been forced to let girls play football, I’m not sure what rational this school is using to prohibit girls from being drummers. Also, if they just opened it up to everyone, it sounds like it would be mostly hispanic anyway.
In short, I’m not sure how she says “Nobody was turned away from the drum corps” and “It’s not discrimination to turn people away from this drum corps” in the same sentence.
Not even when they are the de facto majority? You don’t think minorities should ever have to make concessions to the majority? I don’t see how you can have any kind of actual community if all you have is a bunch of people with no language, religion, race, ethnicity, or culture in common. Multiculturalism is a disease, not a cure, and diversity is a handicap, not a strength.
Gutierrez’s comment was silly on several levels: a “whites only” drum corps in middle school would bring out not only angry parents of non-white kids, but a swift visit from the state, and possibly Federal, EEOC agencies, so she is factrually wrong; the white kids in her school, at 16%, are a minority; she appears to be advancing her own brand of racism or ethnocentrism with her odd comments.
That said, the concept of “white privilege” rests on nothing more or less than the fact that often people are granted actual privileges or get away with bad behavior simply because they are white.
Driving While Black is still the cause of traffic stops in many parts of the country. The only time that anyone is pulled over for Driving While White is if they happen to be cruising a black neighborhood in a manner that suggets to the police that they are seeking drugs or prostitutes. No white guy gets pulled over in a black or Hispanic neighborhood if he simply drives through it at the speed limit.
Programs set up to allow people to seek rehabilitation in place of jail for various, (typically drug), offenses are offered to whites at a rate much higher than that offered to other ethnic groups for identical crimes.
Similar situations, whether it is a shop clerk spending more effort to watch non-white shoppers as potential shoplifters or judges offering white kids the opportunity to enlist rather than go to jail for misdemeanor behavior while simply sending a black kid to prison, continue to occur.
Since most of these situations are based on humans behaving badly, rather than being enshrined in law, there may be no way to effectively prevent them from happening, but to deny that they happen is silly.
You may feel that as the “dominant majority,” you are entitled to such privileges, (and some number of white people might agree with you), but the majority of us prefer to hope that the U.S. would treat all its citizens equally and the enforcement of white privilege is both real and offensive.
But that’s not white privilege, that’s just racism against blacks. It’s not whites getting away with anything, just blacks being persecuted despite not doing anything wrong.
And that’s how it should be. Nobody should be pulled over for driving the speed limit.
The simple absence of being a target of racism isn’t a privilege, it’s a right.
The question remains - is this white privilege, or simply discrimination against blacks? Is the answer to give whites rehabilitation less often, or give it to blacks more?
It is using the term “white privilege” that is the problem. The presumption behind it is that whites gets something they don’t deserve, when in many cases (including yours) they are simply getting something that everyone deserves. And it’s not a white person’s fault that they get what everyone deserves, yet calling it “white privilege” seems to shift the fault to them, instead of those who are committing the racism.
The phrase “white privilege” has been employed to indicate the freedom from harrasment for decades. If someone wants to start complaining that the word “privilege” is not appropriate, then get a time machine and go back to when it was coined and get it changed to something different.
This is similar to quibbling against homophobia on the grounds that hatred is not a fear. Once a word or phrase has made it into the language, coming back to complain about its use or etymology more than forty years after the fact is neither relevant nor useful.
And it’s being abused. It’s a confusing term already.
I want to change it NOW though. We don’t have to simply accept whatever is handed to us by the past. We can complain, and we can change. That is not semantic quibbling, it is why we debate things on this forum.
It is both.
We change words all the time to make them better. We have abandoned words like “idiot” and “colored” to name a few, and that was a deliberate decision. We can debate whether terms have unfair biases and try to get rid of them - “pro-life” vs. “anti-abortion” for example. Words change, and meanings of words change, and we are absolutely free to change either. If that weren’t true, then we couldn’t create terms in the first place.
White privilege, as I said, is a biased term. It may be accurate sometimes, but it also can be used to imply that whites have things they don’t deserve - and therefore can be taken away from them.
At minimum, I object to misuse of the term, as you did when mentioning driving while black. I have a right not to be pulled over for no reason, as do blacks. That is not white privilege, it is simply a human right, and it’s not my fault that someone else doesn’t respect that right for someone else.
You can also rant about the drought or the poor play of your favorite sports team on this message board, but neither of those actions are going to have any bearing on the real world, either.
The choice to abandon idiot, imbecile, and moron may or may not have been a good idea. It simply placed their replacements into the category of “bad” word, thus expanding the number of words available to be used as insults.
There was nothing wrong with colored, it simply fell out of favor in favor of black. (Negro was actively changed to black, but there was actually a logical reason for that decision.)
While there may be a point to debating the use of a term, this thread is not the place to do it. Regardless what language you would prefer to see used, this thread is about its application, not its nomenclature. If the topic is so important to you, then you should open a new thread to discuss it rather than hijacking this one.
Only if you have avoided such discussions since 1965 so that you are unaware of the actual usage and meaning of the phrase. The phrase has never been employed to mean that whites should have something taken from them (aside from the benefits of racial discrimination).
By a small group of people, endorsed by the media, and pretty much not used in normal conversations. ::: shrug :::
Actually, you can. Particularly when the issue of what to call something is different than the action being named.
Yep. You used the phrase in your title and made no mention of your antipathy to the phrase until the thread was well under way and you are now taking the thread in a direction that has nothing to do with the thoughts expressed in the OP.
The Original Poster of a thread has a limited amount of influence over how that thread can proceed, but changing topics in mid-stream is a hijack, regardless who posts it.
Absolutely. But starting a thread on the grounds that a person behaved foolishly and then changing the topic to object to one’s own language in the title of the thread is not the way to do it.
Ms. Gutierrez’s words and actions are the topic you presented. Lonesome Polecat chimed in with a claim that the phrase used had a different meaning than the way in which she used it. Those are the themes running through this thread.
If you tought that she should have been chastised for the term she used, then you should have included that objection in the OP rather than trying to change the topic in the middle of the thread.
If you believed that, (although I do not see her claiming that anything should be taken away from whites, only that non-whites should be granted the same opportunities that she wrongly ascribes to whites), then you should have made that point in your OP rather than interrupting your thread at a later post. Your OP makes no mention of the phrase being used improperly (in your opinion).
How is that similar to anti-Semitism? Jews never were a dominant majority.