Imagine: Protest, Insurgency and the Workings of White Privilege
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called "Imagine." The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure--the ones who are driving the action--we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.
So let’s begin.
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters--the black protesters--spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government. Would these protesters--these black protesters with guns--be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that's what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation's capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country's political leaders if the need arose.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry, screaming, black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a black rap artist were to say, in reference to a white politician and presidential candidate: "He's a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun." And what would happen to any prominent liberal commentator who then, when asked about that statement, replied that the rapper was a friend and that he (the commentator) would not disavow or even criticize him for his remarks. Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said in 2007about Barack Obama, and that's how Sean Hannity responded to Nugent's remarkswhen he was asked about them.
Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister--who also works for the organization--defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America's Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggestthat the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding,or blamed a white president for a fight on a school busin which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough--“living fossils” as he called them--“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.*
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recentlyat a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage,predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Arab Muslims and liberals,respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson,from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh,when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up The New York Times.
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week,that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
Game Over.
*(Denver Post December 29, 1995)
About Tim
Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S., and has been called, "One of the most brilliant, articulate and courageous critics of white privilege in the nation," by best-selling author and professor Michael...
Connections
Excellent
What a brilliant and thoughtful piece, Tim. The perspective is startling.
YUP
Now to go out and speak the truth in the context of my own life...
White non-privilege
Well, in the last installment we discovered that it was "white privilege" for a white kid to reasonably question some specious information that had been presented to him, information that defied all reason and experience and that in fact turned out to be bogus - the assertion that white drivers were driving through roadblocks for drugs with impunity while black and brown drivers were pulled over and subject to unreasonable practices. Shame on the kid for being right. Now this.
There's no reason to play a game. We don't need to look far for a parallel. In 1995, the nation's leading black racist, Louis Farrakhan, called for a march on the mall in Washington, and close to a million black men heeded his call. The white equivalent of that, if there were one, would be for a leader of the KKK to call for a march and to have 6 million white guys show up. Yet this march, called by a racist, with racist sentiments against whites widely in evidence, was almost exclusively hailed as a good thing. Please let me know when a Klan rally is equally praised.
As for the gun protesters or demonstrators, they weren't restrictively white, even if they happened to be predominantly white. White people are, after all, 80% of the population, so if they're just proportionately represented, they'll usually be the overwhelming majority of whatever it is they're involved in. There was nothing that prevented black gun enthusiasts from joining them, and I suspect that some did. In both DC, where they were prohibited from toting arms, and in Virginia, where they were allowed to, they behaved themselves and obeyed the law. Is that white privilege? Of course not; it's the privilege of living in a nation that allows free speech, assembly, and in some cases, the toting of firearms, all of which apply equally to black people.
Then there's the alleged spitting evidence on the part of the Tea Partiers. Watch the video clip Tim posted a link to. Did anyone spit? Nope. The reward offered by Sean Hannity still stands. Were any racial epithets yelled? Not as can be discerned from this or any other video or tape of the protest. Even so, Tim takes ONE supposed spitter, out of a group of thousands, the majority of whom were white but, again, who were not restrictively white in any way (Martin Luther King's niece is one such Tea Partier), shape or form, and uses him to defame the entire group. Some privilege. Protest in an orderly manner, obeying the law, discriminating against no one, and in turn be falsely accused of both spewing racial epithets and now, from Tim, spitting. This "white privilege" thing is really getting out of hand, isn't it?
Tim must have been hiding in a cave during all the hateful comments against George W. Bush, his daughters, Sarah Palin and her daughter, in order to think that insults hurled at Obama's daughter are somehow unique. A lot more of them would have to be hurled for the numerical disparity to even begin to get close. Both are wrong, but only insults against Obama's person or daughter seem to get Mr. Wise's attention. More white privilege, I assume - to be verbally eviscerated with impunity.
But I digress. Black radicals, or more to the point, black racists have had and still have free reign to say whatever they like with near impunity - certainly with regard to any potential criticism by Tim Wise. Racism against whites is ubiquitous in rap lyrics (http://www.tightrope.cc/sampler/racistrap.shtml). Al Sharpton has made a career out of engaging in racism, yet is widely viewed, especially now that he's slimmed down and wears a suit, as a responsible black leader. Tell that to Steven Pagones, the man he falsely accused of the non-rape of Tawana Brawley, but I guess being falsely accused of rape is another manifestation of "white privilege." Then there's Jeremiah Wright, a white hating, America hating radical. Could anyone seriously conceive of a white presidential candidate making it all the way to the White House with a white equivalent of Wright in his background? Of course not. He's be derailed in a heartbeat.
Is there any truth to this alleged "white privilege?" Are white people able to get away with stuff that blacks can't or don't? Absolutely not, and as Mr. Wise's article is an example of, just the reverse is true. White people frequently, and especially from Mr. Wise, are subject to much harsher scrutiny, have a double standard applied to them, and are much more likely to endure criticism.
You're Kidding, Right?
"Well, in the last installment we discovered that it was "white privilege" for a white kid to reasonably question some specious information that had been presented to him, information that defied all reason and experience and that in fact turned out to be bogus - the assertion that white drivers were driving through roadblocks for drugs with impunity while black and brown drivers were pulled over and subject to unreasonable practices. Shame on the kid for being right. Now this."
Brian, Brian, Brian. The deceptiveness reaches new levels. The study said exactly what Tim said it did, as you conceded. You argued that the study simply must be wrong or that drivers must have been doing something different to warrant the different treatment, a claim made with no evidence that in any respect did not refute Tim's point (since even if blacks are treated differently due to their behavior, the differential search rate and differential rate of finding contraband would STILL be a privilege that accrues to whites and not to blacks). Now you have moved on from saying that Tim claimed that whites move past drug-catching police roadblocks, a claim he did not make and in any respect is true since police have used roadblocks for the specific intent of finding drug trafficking, to saying that was what the student was objecting to, which is impossible since Tim only made the claim you misrepresent in the blog post about the student, not the original claim. The student was objecting to a fact that was simply true, and then went onto say something absurd and racist, half the argument you don't represent here because you are chronically dishonest. For those playing along at home, that is:
1) misrepresenting Tim's roadblock argument (he said that whites are unafraid of blowing past roadblocks set up for other reasons, like drunk driving or public safety, with weed in the car, something I can confirm since I've seen it happen and been in such cars, and have frequently been unafraid of police presence when I was intoxicated or around intoxicated people)
2) misrepresenting the context Tim made the argument in
3) misrepresenting the students' claims
4) misrepresenting the study's finding
5) misrepresenting half of Tim's argument for why the student's comments evinced white privilege in the first place
That's five misrepresentations, each of which ruin your argument taken individually. I am staggered at the dishonesty, or the lack of attention.
And, by the way, this too is white privilege: The ability to lie, and avoid reading or investing in the issues, because they're not too likely to affect you.
"There's no reason to play a game. We don't need to look far for a parallel. In 1995, the nation's leading black racist, Louis Farrakhan, called for a march on the mall in Washington, and close to a million black men heeded his call. The white equivalent of that, if there were one, would be for a leader of the KKK to call for a march and to have 6 million white guys show up. Yet this march, called by a racist, with racist sentiments against whites widely in evidence, was almost exclusively hailed as a good thing. Please let me know when a Klan rally is equally praised."
Apparently there is a need to play the game, because your memory of the incident is deeply distorted.
First of all: To liken Farrakhan to the Klan is really, really low. Farrakhan is a complex figure who says some stupid and offensive crap, but his organization is not a hate group that performs murderous felonies as part of their central mission.
Second: The Million Man March was actually reviled, quite frequently. You're not the first commentator to make these claims: They were made at the time, publically.
Third: Farrakhan may be sort of a jackass, but if you look at what the Million Man March was about and the things it said, it was highly restrained and not at all symbolic of Farrakhan's general sentiments.
You don't bother quoting anything Farrakhan has SAID that comes in the same city as the ballpark of calling an 11-year-old girl ghetto street trash. That's misrepresentation #6. This game's scoring is pretty easy. Tim's fundamental point is that white folks get to get away with vitriol that black folks don't get away with. One example against his dozens doesn't do it, but even if it did, Farrakhan is a marginal figure precisely because he says something close to as offensive as the Tea Party people.
"As for the gun protesters or demonstrators, they weren't restrictively white, even if they happened to be predominantly white. White people are, after all, 80% of the population, so if they're just proportionately represented, they'll usually be the overwhelming majority of whatever it is they're involved in. There was nothing that prevented black gun enthusiasts from joining them, and I suspect that some did. In both DC, where they were prohibited from toting arms, and in Virginia, where they were allowed to, they behaved themselves and obeyed the law. Is that white privilege? Of course not; it's the privilege of living in a nation that allows free speech, assembly, and in some cases, the toting of firearms, all of which apply equally to black people."
Nice try, Brian. Non-Hispanic whites are not 80% of the population, and those marches don't include 14% Hispanics and Latina/os. This is an overwhelmingly white movement, beyond the representation of whites in attendance. But, hey, you've done your research, right? You knew that the Census includes Latina/os and Hispanics as white, and that that helps to distort a lot of figures? Oh, wait.
It is hardly accurate to say that Tea Partiers obey the law, given the assaults (like on the woman with the Rosa Parks poster) and libel (like against the green jobs czar) they've engaged in.
In any respect, the legality or illegality of their moves is not the question, and you seem not to be able to understand the game or its point. The point is that, legal or not, white folks get away with more in terms of popularity and avoiding criticism than black folks do. Nothing you've said so far indicates otherwise.
Answer me this, Brian: What major black movement has had anywhere near the public support the Tea Party organization has? Even black movements that abstained from violence and were fighting against, y'know, actual apartheid? To ask the question is to answer it.
"Then there's the alleged spitting evidence on the part of the Tea Partiers. Watch the video clip Tim posted a link to. Did anyone spit? Nope. The reward offered by Sean Hannity still stands. Were any racial epithets yelled? Not as can be discerned from this or any other video or tape of the protest. Even so, Tim takes ONE supposed spitter, out of a group of thousands, the majority of whom were white but, again, who were not restrictively white in any way (Martin Luther King's niece is one such Tea Partier), shape or form, and uses him to defame the entire group. Some privilege. Protest in an orderly manner, obeying the law, discriminating against no one, and in turn be falsely accused of both spewing racial epithets and now, from Tim, spitting. This "white privilege" thing is really getting out of hand, isn't it?"
Tim takes it as one example. You can click on the dozens of other links. (And he shows the evidence for it, mind you). I was particularly aghast at the wonderful comments made against an eleven year old, comments you think below your enlightened attention.
However, Brian, let's ask this: What would happen if a black protester in the same context as this was even accused of the same? Again, to ask the question is to answer it.
"Tim must have been hiding in a cave during all the hateful comments against George W. Bush, his daughters, Sarah Palin and her daughter, in order to think that insults hurled at Obama's daughter are somehow unique. A lot more of them would have to be hurled for the numerical disparity to even begin to get close. Both are wrong, but only insults against Obama's person or daughter seem to get Mr. Wise's attention. More white privilege, I assume - to be verbally eviscerated with impunity."
I knew this would come up, and let's be clear about this. First of all, you don't make any citations of these hateful comments. I admit they were out there, but nowhere near as central or accepted as within the Tea Party movement.
Second, likening Jenna Bush to Malia Obama is, again, a real stretch, and shows how little respect you have for the people you expect to read your drivel. Jenna was substantially older, and the Bush sisters were acting like, sorry for the sexist and potentially mean language, drunken skanks. I don't think this deserved as much attention as it did, though even that was white privilege. See, Jenna and her sister were able to look like they were different from the rest of the Spring Break crowd, even though they weren't. When I heard their antics,, I said, "So what? Pretty common". Their exceptionality acted to protect the rest of the nation's drunken brood. So again, we see white privilege lurking where you can't see it. How unsurprising.
But, since you don't bother citing evidence or making arguments, we don't need to bother with this. In any respect, Bush got to win two elections despite all that rhetoric. 9/11, PATRIOT, and disastrous Iraqi wars didn't get him out of office. Yet Obama already has the level of hate he does, despite making nowhere near the same degree of screwups. White privilege.
"
But I digress. Black radicals, or more to the point, black racists have had and still have free reign to say whatever they like with near impunity - certainly with regard to any potential criticism by Tim Wise. Racism against whites is ubiquitous in rap lyrics (http://www.tightrope.cc/sampler/racistrap.shtml). Al Sharpton has made a career out of engaging in racism, yet is widely viewed, especially now that he's slimmed down and wears a suit, as a responsible black leader. Tell that to Steven Pagones, the man he falsely accused of the non-rape of Tawana Brawley, but I guess being falsely accused of rape is another manifestation of "white privilege." Then there's Jeremiah Wright, a white hating, America hating radical. Could anyone seriously conceive of a white presidential candidate making it all the way to the White House with a white equivalent of Wright in his background? Of course not. He's be derailed in a heartbeat.
Is there any truth to this alleged "white privilege?" Are white people able to get away with stuff that blacks can't or don't? Absolutely not, and as Mr. Wise's article is an example of, just the reverse is true. White people frequently, and especially from Mr. Wise, are subject to much harsher scrutiny, have a double standard applied to them, and are much more likely to endure criticism."
*sigh* See above. Black radicals are not in the mainstream, the Tea Partiers are, game over.
Now, at the end, you make your core claim clear: There's no such thing as white privilege. Black folks and white folks have it just as good.
Let me say, Brian, as someone who actually, y'know, studies this stuff:
Ha. Hahahahahaa.
Whites make more money, have more amassed net worth even when income is held equal, are imprisoned less often for drugs even though they form a larger share of the drug-using population, are less likely to be denied for a loan even when credit-worthiness is held equal, are more likely to get into their preferred school. Their contacts allow them to get into colleges at double the rate of any supposed racial preference scheme. Having a white-sounding name on your resume is equivalent to eight extra years of work for a black applicant. It is better to be a white felon than a black applicant without a criminal record when applying for jobs. Implicit Attitude Tests and other bias tests, as well as interviews with young black teenagers, indicate widespread bias and discriminatory treatment that blacks begin to experience before they're even of legal age to buy a cigarette or vote.
The biggest joke is that you seem to be denying, honestly, that whiteness is an advantage in America. Trust me when I say that even your conservative idiot brigade, people like Dinesh D'Souza and Horowitz, don't bother putting it in your terms.
I Also...
Neglected to mention how filled with white privilege Brian's assertion that we live in a country where free protest with guns is allowed is. Remember how the non-violent, non-gun-wielding SNCC protesters were dispersed by guns and hoses? How protesters in Seattle were hit with tear gas and aerosolized psychotropics? How Fred Hampton was assassinated? How peace groups and Arab-American rights groups have had agent provocateurs among their most strident members? COINTELPRO? US-backed death squads assassinating peaceful protesters across the world? Rich white conservatives get to think that protest is free and unlikely to be responded to by violence. The rest of us don't have that luxury.
Now...
I think it's time for an open letter to the Tea Party folks. Try to direct that energy to more productive outlets, fill in the gaps the media isn't telling.
Brian, All I know is that
Brian,
All I know is that when I began to take a look at the uncomfortable mish-mash of ideas, feelings, beliefs etc., about race that I'd accumulated in a lifetime of being in this country, including taking the trouble to understand the experience of black people (and others), only good things came of it. One side benefit is my openness and ease with people I used to turn away from--not consciously turned away from, but in my unexamined confusion, I was cold and assumed that a wall between the races was inevitable. It's been very freeing. The thing is that perpetuating the attitude of the distant or even dangerous Other hurts everyone.
To Helen
>All I know is that when I began to take a look at the uncomfortable mish-mash of ideas, feelings, beliefs etc., about race that I'd accumulated in a lifetime of being in this country, including taking the trouble to understand the experience of black people (and others), only good things came of it.<
Fine. But that doesn't mean that you or anyone else should accept as true assertions that are false.
>One side benefit is my openness and ease with people I used to turn away from--not consciously turned away from, but in my unexamined confusion, I was cold and assumed that a wall between the races was inevitable.<
I've never been in that situation. From birth till now I've always been in and around a whole mix of people - races, nationalities, religions, you name it, and have always felt very comfortable about it. As but one example, I work in IT, and for most of my working life I've found myself to be a distinct minority at work, usually one of the few Anglos in a sea of Indians and Chinese, the result of which is that I have a disproportionate amount of Indian and Chinese friends. And Jewish. And Russian. And an Ivorian and Ghanain here and there. And even some Anglos.
>It's been very freeing. The thing is that perpetuating the attitude of the distant or even dangerous Other hurts everyone.<
I'm glad for you, but that still doesn't mean one can or should accept as true assertions that are false... even when they're made about white people.
brian, your comments make no
brian, your comments make no sense...let's take them a bit at a time...
"Well, in the last installment we discovered that it was "white privilege" for a white kid to reasonably question some specious information that had been presented to him, information that defied all reason and experience and that in fact turned out to be bogus - the assertion that white drivers were driving through roadblocks for drugs with impunity while black and brown drivers were pulled over and subject to unreasonable practices. Shame on the kid for being right."
You didn't read very carefully...no one said anything about running roadblocks. The individual in question was challenging the FACT that black and Latino folks are searched more often for drugs, even though whites are more likely to possess drugs. I provided the link. It is documented. Whites use drugs and possess them at least as often, if not more often than folks of color...contrary to stereotype. Deal with that bubba...
" Now this.
There's no reason to play a game. We don't need to look far for a parallel. In 1995, the nation's leading black racist, Louis Farrakhan, called for a march on the mall in Washington, and close to a million black men heeded his call. The white equivalent of that, if there were one, would be for a leader of the KKK to call for a march and to have 6 million white guys show up. Yet this march, called by a racist, with racist sentiments against whites widely in evidence, was almost exclusively hailed as a good thing."
Absurd comparison. First off, the folks who now praise and give constant coverage to the Tea Party folks, and white society generally, doesn't view the MMM as a good thing: they view it as you do, a gathering on behalf of black racism. Even though if you listen to the speeches from that event, there was NO racism expressed. In fact, the speeches were classic conservatism: appeals to black capitalism, entrepreneurship and "personal responsibility." And yet, tens of thousands of whites actually fled DC that week out of fear that there would be riots, even though there were no guns or violence at all..
"As for the gun protesters or demonstrators, they weren't restrictively white, even if they happened to be predominantly white. White people are, after all, 80% of the population"
No, whites (non-Hispanic as the Census refers to us) are only 67% of the population...
"so if they're just proportionately represented, they'll usually be the overwhelming majority of whatever it is they're involved in. There was nothing that prevented black gun enthusiasts from joining them, and I suspect that some did. In both DC, where they were prohibited from toting arms, and in Virginia, where they were allowed to, they behaved themselves and obeyed the law. Is that white privilege? Of course not; it's the privilege of living in a nation that allows free speech, assembly, and in some cases, the toting of firearms, all of which apply equally to black people."
Please provide one shred of evidence that the NRA supported the Black Panthers "right" to bear arms...
"Then there's the alleged spitting evidence on the part of the Tea Partiers. Watch the video clip Tim posted a link to. Did anyone spit? Nope."
Are you high? The congressman clearly reacts to having been spit on. Are you saying he was acting? The reward was not offered for proof of spitting, it was offered for audio evidence of n-word being hurled. But the fact is, when that was alleged to have happened, it was at a totally different point than that covered in the videos provided by Brietbart and FOX...and John Lewis, who said the word was hurled at him is an American hero to sane, antiracist people, so unless you have some solid reason for calling him a liar...
"The reward offered by Sean Hannity still stands."
It wasn't Hannity, it was Breitbart
"Tim must have been hiding in a cave during all the hateful comments against George W. Bush, his daughters, Sarah Palin and her daughter, in order to think that insults hurled at Obama's daughter are somehow unique. A lot more of them would have to be hurled for the numerical disparity to even begin to get close. Both are wrong, but only insults against Obama's person or daughter seem to get Mr. Wise's attention. More white privilege, I assume - to be verbally eviscerated with impunity."
What was said about Bristol or the Bush girls that equalled "ghetto trash" and "whore" who is entertained by her mother "making monkey sounds?" Give specific examples with links...
"But I digress. Black radicals, or more to the point, black racists have had and still have free reign to say whatever they like with near impunity - certainly with regard to any potential criticism by Tim Wise. Racism against whites is ubiquitous in rap lyrics (http://www.tightrope.cc/sampler/racistrap.shtml)."
And rap is regularly pilloried by people like you, even as you welcome Ted Nugent and others who fantasize about murdering Obama...
"Al Sharpton has made a career out of engaging in racism, yet is widely viewed, especially now that he's slimmed down and wears a suit, as a responsible black leader. Tell that to Steven Pagones, the man he falsely accused of the non-rape of Tawana Brawley, but I guess being falsely accused of rape is another manifestation of "white privilege." Then there's Jeremiah Wright, a white hating, America hating radical. Could anyone seriously conceive of a white presidential candidate making it all the way to the White House with a white equivalent of Wright in his background? Of course not. He's be derailed in a heartbeat."
Wright did not say anything remotely racist. He talked about racism. That is not racist. Sharpton was wrong about Pagones, but how is that evidence of racism? Of wrongful accusation, yes, but how is that evidence of bias towards whites generally please? Oh and as regards preachers, where is your outrage over Pat Robertson, who said a few years ago that a nuclear device should be exploded in the State Dept--far worse than anything Wright said...
"Is there any truth to this alleged "white privilege?" Are white people able to get away with stuff that blacks can't or don't? Absolutely not, and as Mr. Wise's article is an example of, just the reverse is true. White people frequently, and especially from Mr. Wise, are subject to much harsher scrutiny, have a double standard applied to them, and are much more likely to endure criticism."
Sure, and that's why white terrorists like Stack in TX aren't even called terrorists, but merely criminals, who were legitimately disgruntled with the IRS...please...
Non-privilege
>You didn't read very carefully...no one said anything about running roadblocks.<
You did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqLijhxT_M&feature=related
>The individual in question was challenging the FACT that black and Latino folks are searched more often for drugs, even though whites are more likely to possess drugs. I provided the link. It is documented. <
You provided the link, but what you stated is not a fact. What is documented in that report was that blacks, whites and Hispanics are stopped at the roughly the same rates (9% of driver). The data does show that there's a disparity in search rates for the driver and/or vehicle, but it also says "while the survey data can reveal these racial disparities, they cannot answer the question of whether the driver's race, rather than the driver's conduct or other specific circumstances surrounding the stop, was the reason for the search," so one can not reasonably assume that discrimination or racism was in play. As for whites being more likely to "possess drugs," the survey show that whites and Hispanics were almost identical in the likelihood of possessiing "contraband," whether it be drugs or not, while the likelihood for black drivers was considerably less. The problem with that, however, is that the data set is LESS THAN 10. If this were a Statistics class, that would be tagged as a sampling error. With such a small data set, one can not reasonably draw any conclusion from it, as even one individual response can throw the statistics off considerably in one direction or another. There is simply not enough information to state that whites or Hispanics are more likely to possess contraband than blacks based on that data.
>Whites use drugs and possess them at least as often, if not more often than folks of color...contrary to stereotype. Deal with that bubba...<
Done. Now please deal with the fact that what you said about black and brown drivers being pulled over more frequently, having their trunks splayed open, their dashboards ripped apart, and their wheel wells eviscerated or whatever, while white drivers drove past these supposed road blocks with a trunk full of weed is simply false. And there are no roadblocks for drugs.
Right
" You did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqLijhxT_M&feature=related
Tim didn't say that white people RUN roadblocks. He said that they are unafraid of them, even when they have contraband in the car, despite the fact that African-Americans and Latina/os are used to the idea that their cars might be searched using the logic of the pretextual stop. Since the study supports that conclusion, it's correct.
"You provided the link, but what you stated is not a fact. What is documented in that report was that blacks, whites and Hispanics are stopped at the roughly the same rates (9% of driver). The data does show that there's a disparity in search rates for the driver and/or vehicle, but it also says "while the survey data can reveal these racial disparities, they cannot answer the question of whether the driver's race, rather than the driver's conduct or other specific circumstances surrounding the stop, was the reason for the search," so one can not reasonably assume that discrimination or racism was in play. "
Hahahahahaha.
If I drop a glass a hundred times, and it falls and breaks a hundred times, my study actually "cannot answer" the question of whether or not gravity makes glasses break. Sometimes, when glasses fall, they don't break, and in any respect, it could have been pixies making it fall each time.
Studies have to say what their data can't indicate because they don't make the controls. That doesn't mean you can't make the conclusion. It just means the study, on its own, doesn't support it. What the study ALSO doesn't support is the conclusion that you made, as if it had to be the case: That a difference in behavior led to the difference in searches. Tim didn't assume white privilege or racism based on the study alone, but note, again, that this conclusion, alone, supports white privilege. No matter the reason, if whites are searched less often, that's an advantage that we get and others don't.
More importantly, there's the second conclusion you don't talk about: That searches of whites yield more contraband.
Tell me, Brian. What possible explanation can you have besides racism for the fact that blacks are searched more often than whites, even though those searches yield less contraband? You can't point to behavior or to police policy, because it's flatly and clearly irrational.
"As for whites being more likely to "possess drugs," the survey show that whites and Hispanics were almost identical in the likelihood of possessiing "contraband," whether it be drugs or not, while the likelihood for black drivers was considerably less. The problem with that, however, is that the data set is LESS THAN 10. If this were a Statistics class, that would be tagged as a sampling error. With such a small data set, one can not reasonably draw any conclusion from it, as even one individual response can throw the statistics off considerably in one direction or another. There is simply not enough information to state that whites or Hispanics are more likely to possess contraband than blacks based on that data."
No, for God's sakes, it's not.
First of all: The study PUBLISHED THE FREAKING RESULTS. Let me make the example again. I survey 1000 college students, 90 of whom are black. Of those 1000, 100 have an opinion on the fountain. That makes 9 black students who have an opinion on the topic. Does this make it statistically insignificant? No. The total data that they drew the conclusions from were from far above levels of statistical significance.
Second, look at it again. The asterix does not apply to the tables that make the conclusions Tim do, which is why the study made the conclusions it did.
The point is, all the data supports Tim's conclusions, the study says what Tim says it does, the student was wrong, and so everything Tim says follows.
"Done. Now please deal with the fact that what you said about black and brown drivers being pulled over more frequently, having their trunks splayed open, their dashboards ripped apart, and their wheel wells eviscerated or whatever, while white drivers drove past these supposed road blocks with a trunk full of weed is simply false. And there are no roadblocks for drugs"
There are roadblocks for drugs (I cited you a link, you didn't respond, pretty standard), and this is all true. There are plenty of studies that indicates that blacks are pulled over more often. In fact, as I pointed out to no reply from you, even the study Tim cited does. See, whites have net more contacts with police. The fact that, on the road, whites have equal contacts with police, means the net rate of police contact for blacks is higher than it should be. E.g. they're pulled over more often. (Oh, and Tim never claimed the roadblocks were put up for drugs. For God's sakes, learn how to read and/or listen). Done.
Also, this is polemics. It's a polemical example or metaphor, not a serious argument. Want to defend every polemical example your guys say? Go on, defend the "axis of evil" line. This'll be hilarious.
I also find it startling that you can so easily accept that whites commit more drug violations. If you had done an ounce of research or cared about racism beyond denying it on t3h Interwebs, you would know that African-Americans make up the majority of prisoners and often the numerical majority, certainly FAR beyond their representation either in the general population or in the drug-using or selling population, of those prosecuted and imprisoned for drugs. In some states, 80-90% of the drug offenders sent to prison are black. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=37736 for some of the statistics, it takes ten minutes in Google to get twenty more links. I am sure you are aware of this, even dimly.
So, if you can accept that blacks use less drugs, then you have to accept the white privilege hypothesis. Because we can apparently use more drugs yet not lose our liberty for it. And for those black men and women who are spending years in jail for smoking a little pot, losing voting rights, becoming unable to get a job thanks to their status as a felon, ripped from their families and children, often experiencing torture or attacks from inmates, and frequently turning to crime to support themselves due to the lack of normative options, that privilege you and I have was all that mattered. Even if you think that privilege is small, it was the difference between freedom and jail for millions.
And yet you claim in your responses to others here that you are enlightened, with no bias in your heart. Brian, chances are you are not (neither am I, even though I "passed" the IAT Test with no sign of implicit bias), your comments here show that you are not, and most importantly, not listening to brown and black voices, or to fellow white voices that are telling you about racism and white privilege, is in and of itself racist. If the vast majority of African-Americans report discrimination that they encounter constantly, then either you have to admit that white privilege at least exists insofar as you and your community tend not to experience that kind of racial discrimination, or you have to deny the voices and lived experiences of millions of people.
Population
>No, whites (non-Hispanic as the Census refers to us) are only 67% of the population...<
Yes, whites, as the Census refers to us, are 80% of the population. Non-Hispanic whites are 67% of the population. The two are not mutually exclusive. If one is referring to racial groups, rather than cultural or linguistic groups, whites are 80% of the population.
*tsk tsk*
"Yes, whites, as the Census refers to us, are 80% of the population. Non-Hispanic whites are 67% of the population. The two are not mutually exclusive. If one is referring to racial groups, rather than cultural or linguistic groups, whites are 80% of the population."
Brian, that's not the freaking point. Our claim is that the Tea Party is dispro non-Hispanic white. It just is. Your irrelevant conclusion from the Census did not defend their racial makeup for this reason.
I'm sure I don't need to explain to you that most Hispanics and Latina/os are not considered racially white by most Americans, and that Hispanics and Latina/os have radically different sociopolitical data to non-Hispanic whites...
Alleged spitting
Me: "Then there's the alleged spitting evidence on the part of the Tea Partiers. Watch the video clip Tim posted a link to. Did anyone spit? Nope."
Tim: "Are you high? The congressman clearly reacts to having been spit on. Are you saying he was acting?"
No, I'm saying he wasn't spit upon. If I were high, perhaps I'd think he was spit upon as well. What you see is him wiping something off his right cheek. It could be he thought he was spit on, but he doesn't even look over to see the source of what you claim is someone spitting on him, and any normal person would have done that. And no one is shown spitting on him up till that point. Maybe it was sweat. Maybe it was a bug. Maybe it was a false sensation. But whatever it was, there's no evidence of anyone spitting on him.
Me: "The reward offered by Sean Hannity still stands."
Tim: "It wasn't Hannity, it was Breitbart"
Fine. Breitbart it is.
Nice Try
" No, I'm saying he wasn't spit upon. If I were high, perhaps I'd think he was spit upon as well. What you see is him wiping something off his right cheek. It could be he thought he was spit on, but he doesn't even look over to see the source of what you claim is someone spitting on him, and any normal person would have done that. And no one is shown spitting on him up till that point. Maybe it was sweat. Maybe it was a bug. Maybe it was a false sensation. But whatever it was, there's no evidence of anyone spitting on him. "
Weird, since the guy was ARRESTED for it, though Cleaver declined to press charges. You saying the cops AND the Congressman are wrong?
"Last weekend, as the House of Representatives gathered to debate health care reform while Tea Partiers protested outside the Capitol, word emerged that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spit on by one of the demonstrators.
Cleaver released a statement confirming the incident, but some questioned his claims. Fox News personality Sean Hannity asked if there was any evidence proving that it had actually happened, and Tea Party groups offered a cash reward for proof."
So now you are calling a guy a liar based on your perception of the video. Meanwhile, you had no doubt that the Million Man March was racist, even though you clearly had no idea what was being said there or anything about it despite its association with Farrakhan. A more clear example of what we're talking about there couldn't be.
White privilege or class war or corporate war or age war?
Imagine a web site with targets on the locations of opponents. Imagine posting the home addresses of opponents. Imagine gleefully cheering those who throw bricks through opponents' windows. I'm not talking about Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. I'm referring to the SHAC 7, who were tried as domestic terrorists, not for actually harming anyone but for doing the things that the Tea Partiers are doing now, such as described above. They were all white, yet they were condemned and convicted.
Is the difference that the Tea Partiers are generally wealthy older whites advocating for less regulation of corporations whereas animal protesters are generally younger middle and working class whites advocating against corporations and on behalf of nonhuman animals and the planet?
All that said, I absolutely believe white privilege is helping the Tea Partiers whereas if people of color used the exact same tactics, they would be condemned by the media and the government. But I also believe it's helping them only because they are attacking programs that they and the media perceive as only helping people of color and because they are supporting corporate power (through their calls for less government regulation and more privatization). If they were actually championing those without power, then their whiteness would be of minimal benefit.
~ Mark Robison
"I don't want nothin' if I have to fake it." — Lucinda Williams
Multi-Variable World
":All that said, I absolutely believe white privilege is helping the Tea Partiers whereas if people of color used the exact same tactics, they would be condemned by the media and the government. But I also believe it's helping them only because they are attacking programs that they and the media perceive as only helping people of color and because they are supporting corporate power (through their calls for less government regulation and more privatization). If they were actually championing those without power, then their whiteness would be of minimal benefit."
I wouldn't say MINIMAL benefit, Mark. White leftists like Chomsky get attention, black leftists like Fred Hampton get shot. Chomsky himself admits that. But yeah, I agree, race is not the only vector. It's just like how a white woman still has to deal with the daily gendered assaults on her humanity. These factors (class, race, state, ability status, gender, sexual orientation) work in interplay. Sometimes, one factor is dominant. Other times, different ones are, or are equally dominant.
Tim's point remains valid: If they were black, it'd be a problem. Your point is ALSO valid: If they were advocating for different goals, it'd be different. If they were poorer, it'd be different. If they were white WOMEN, it'd be different. If they were protesters in another country, like in Latin America, they'd be shot. And so forth.