A reader sent this semi-long piece about "white privilege" to me. I would argue with parts of it, but honesty bids me to admit that there's more truth in this screed than I wish there were. Here's how it starts; read the whole thing on the jump:
For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help. White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay. White privilege is when you can call yourself a "f**kin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their f**kin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot s**t" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug. White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.
White privilege is, in short, the problem.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"I think the idea is that a black woman whose teenage daughter got pregnant would face more public criticism of her parenting skills."
Getting pregnant is just a risk of having sex. Would we think differently about parents whose kids have sex? Or is the idea that the parent has failed to teach their kid to be responsible? But maybe the condom broke, etc...I think we have weird conflicted views on these things. What SHOULD we think about the parents of pregnant teens?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93AIV882&show_article=1
WASHINGTON (AP) - Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks—many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.
Really?!?!?!?
Sounds to me like emailer lives in another reality. A scary paranoid one.
Just for a few yucks I have a couple of responses to litany of white privilege complaints.
1. Gun Enthusiast = law abiding citizen vs gang bangers or white trash meth heads (pick your color) using illegally obtained weapons to satisfy there savage needs.
2. Community organizer = what lots of people do, meals on wheels, blood drives, big brother, literacy programs....you can imagine the list. We do admire these people, does it make them qualified for high office. Maybe, if you are Obama.
3. Bush Doctrine = There is no official Bush Doctrine. No white paper (sorry for saying white) Krauthammer coined the term as a short hand term to generally describe being on the offensive against terrorism.
4. Firing people for having opposing political view = perfect example of emailer's alternate reality.
5. POW experience has nothing to do with being fit for the Presidency = try explaining how this can be to most normal people. If this has to be explained to emailer, it again proves a huge disconnect from reality.
6. Small town mayor not being fit for high office = Ever hear of Harry Truman? Look it up.
Maybe the real story here is not White privilege but emailer fantasy world. This notion of continued white black enmity is not being fostered by most regular people. At this point is people like emailer who continue to try and stir the coals of racial hatred.
I cannot say, though I wish I could, there were not white people who think like the reader is commenting on. However, my major criticism of the comments are the assumption that the responses are "white privilege" (i.e., racially) based. I will agree that many have racial assumptions in mind, but, frankly, I think most people, or at least I, aren't responding just because of skin color.
First, in regards to the situation with Palin's daughter, there are a few things that are not taken into account by the reader, that her parents are married, and that she will be married prior to the birth of the child (although, I do have some fears that this might be a "shotgun" wedding). While I know that it is not all of any race, there are those who have a history of unwed mothers (with, in some cases, even multiple fathers) for generations. I have seen it with Whites, Blacks, and Latinos. While Palin's daughter made a mistake, she seems determined to right it as best she can. There is finger-pointing galore in regards to the cause of the abundance of unwed mothers, and I believe it is the system (mostly), but also bad decisions.
The system "ideally" treats everyone the same--poorly. A system, such as the welfare system, does not treat people as individuals (i.e., different needs and motivations), but exactly the same. I firmly believe in a "net" system, but not as long as it enables a lifestyle dependent upon the net.
In regards to the us of swear language, I don't like any of it. He's a punk.
As for college, Palin is not even close to the only one that has bounced from one college to another. There is a strong likelihood that this will become a regular course of things in the near future. In fact, I believe the number is around 40-50% of all undergraduate college students have attended at least two colleges. I would question their achievement (their college attendance in particular) if they hadn't graduated, not how many places they attended getting to that point.
However, this does bring up one of my soapboxes--an education system that is built around people going to college. This has put at least one (but we're working on the 2nd or 3rd, now) generation where it shouldn't be. We need trade schools and apprenticeships again. I could have used that instead of college, as I wasn't ready for college.
As to getting into college, I don't believe a person's gender or race should play a part in getting into college. Period. When some of the University of California campuses started rejected applicants because they were Asian (because the UC system had "too" many), that was wrong. I generally don't assume someone got into a college because of race or gender, I assume they got there because of their grades, because that is what I expect of the system (even though it happens regardless of my expectations).
There is a significant difference in being a Senator and a Mayor or Governor. As a Senator, one can point the finger at 99 other people, and most people will usually buy it (for a while, at least). When one is a Mayor or a Governor (or President), the blame (and credit) is often put onto shoulders it doesn't belong. In other words, responsibility. U.S. Senators have been known for many years as the least able to break the "let's get along" mentality, which is a major issue for the next leader of one of the most significant nations in the world. Senator Bob Dole was probably the "poster child" for this.
In regards to being a constitutional scholar, that appellation is questionable. Just because one is a lecturer (even a Senior one), does not make one a scholar. I am not aware of any scholarly papers or journals he contributed to (sorry, HLR does not count from a scholarly perspective). That, honestly, is not said to belittle what he has done, but to pop the rhetoric in regards to that.
In regards to terrorists, according to the UN they are not "national" soldiers, and thus do not qualify under the Geneva Convention. They do not have "rights" (I'm assuming we're talking the Miranda "rights"), because they are a foreign combatant, thus the U.S. Constitution does not apply. Much of the "torture" the people at Guantanamo have received is the same torture inflicted upon me by high school and college-aged kids driving down the street with their windows down, and speakers (especially the woofers and sub-woofers) blasting. The majority of the techniques used comply with the Geneva Convention. I soundly condemn any techniques that do not. The "problem" with terrorists is that their structure is not national. They do not function as military units (generally), therefore "traditional" intelligence gathering cannot be done.
Do not misunderstand me. Those pictures were wrong, and so was mistreatment. I will also be honest, I'm not sure all the right people got punished, but that happens far too often with bureaucracies, and far less in military ones than civilian ones. Also, don't forget that this is a war of (mis)information. The mistreatment of the Koran seems to have been more of a person realizing that they had a perfect opportunity to stir up anger against the U.S.. The press ran with it, rather than checking it (a reoccurring failing).
I am NOT scared of law-abiding people having and carrying (including conceal-and-carry) guns. I celebrated when the draconian laws imposed on the citizens of D.C. where determined as unconstitutional. There are people that should not have guns, but most of those shouldn't have knives, baseball bats, chains, or cars.
I did not deride anyone for staying home with their kids on the first day of school, although I would like to be able to afford that option. Also, one can see their kids off (or drop them off), and then go to a memorial service. I will admit that I am not comfortable with the "Alaska first" thing. However, there are still people in the South (of many colors) who want to secede again. I am not convinced that that automatically is an issue, in fact, it might even be a source of comfort of all. Perhaps someone will be in the White House that doesn't feel that the Federal Government is our Savior.
I would not attack or demean a person for being a community organizer, but I might disagree with their goals (I'm not saying I disagreed or agreed with Obama's). I have yet to hear (but maybe I'm not listening to the "right" people) anyone saying the Palin is experienced in foreign policy (except for dealing, as Alaska does, with two foreign powers Canada, an easy one, and Russia, not so easy). Being a political science major with an emphasis on foreign policy doesn't make one an expert either, look at the history of the State Department. However, taking one's campaign to the Brandenburg Gate to make a speech to the world, implies that the world's opinion of the candidate matters more than the citizen's. I hope that it doesn't mean that Obama would submit the independence of the country to an unelected world body, about whom we citizens have no say. I don't think Bush wants to be hated or despised by the world, but he felt (whether you agree with the result or not) that he had no options in regards to the safety of the U.S. and it's people. His feeling of obligation overrode his personal feelings on the matter.
The choosing someone because they are the same gender/race/economic class crap has been used by both parties. Hillary was no different (she used gender). Obama has been using race. Bill Clinton was the first "black" President, so he was called. Sadly, that is the way politics is. Identity politics is merely following the herd.
I'm going to assume regarding the political firing thing that we are talking about the firing of the U.S. Attorney's, which, for the positions in question, IS a politically appointed position. Clinton did the same. That is different than taking advantage of (including monetarily) the backdoor political cronyism, of which there is some evidence (but in the case of all such, it is rather thin). I will equally attack anyone for that stuff, it hurts the community and the country. Biden did that, too, to get out of serving.
There is a difference in attending a church, including being a member of it, and calling a person a "spiritual adviser", who had (until the heat got too much) a position (if only an unofficial one) on your campaign. Bringing Christian principles into government is unavoidable if you are a Christian (that covers all four, supposedly). There is a difference between calling something a judgment (which most pastors, including Wright, do at some point), and damning an entire country (whether it be the U.S., Iran, Israel, or whomever).
"Bush Doctrine," "Bill Clinton Doctrine," and what have you, will often change as events warrant. Who someone calls friend, I might call acquaintance. I would have had no idea either. Did Gibson mean "the Kyoto Protocol" (I hate that program)? Palin didn't assume that Gibson and she were using words differently. Also, with all the rabid anti-Bush mania out there, Gibson firmly planted her in a political minefield.
We all like one word answers, or at least we don't like it when someone comes up with a nuanced answers that force us to think, however, the question still needs to have an answer. Bill O'Reilly has also said that he likes Obama, and was impressed with him, so take that for what it is worth.
Conclusion:
I think the issue is, at least as I see it, is not so much whether White, Black, or Purple, but that race rarely (I would like to say never, but I'm sure that is not true, as much as I would like it to be.) enters into how I view the world, while it seems race is the primary determinate in the reader's world. I was hoping that Obama's entry into presidential politics was going to bring something new (like reconciliation), but not only has that not happened, it seems to be worse. I would like to posit that for the majority of the American people, race is not the issue, but the politicians and media are making it an issue, because it works so well to create fear of the other. I don't disagree with Obama because of his skin color, I disagree with him because of his stated means for the goals both he and I want our country to achieve.
If there where to exactly the same candidates, but with just different skin colors (which could only happen in world that is not yet here), I would probably choose them by the flip of a coin, except for the fact that, at that point, I would try to determine how this would change the perspective of the world (probably one of the few times I would actually think that way).
Perhaps I'm odd, or perhaps someone thinks I am deceiving myself (possibly).
What is this whingeing about "white privilege"? Black privilege is officially encoded in law here in the US, to the disadvantage of whites.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.