This is Your Nation on White Privilege (Updated)
By Tim Wise
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are 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 “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” 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 if you're black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), you're a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to safeguard American institutions.
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 is “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 and the fact that she lives near Russia, 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 when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.
White privilege is being able to give a 36-minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.
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 go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and Harvard Business School (George W. Bush), and still be seen as an "average guy," while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then Harvard Law, makes you "uppity" and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.
White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.), and that's OK, and you're still cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.
White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you then go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly 20 years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."
White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you may have sold drugs at some point.
White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you dangerously naive and immature.
White privilege is being able to say that you hate "gooks" and "will always hate them," and yet, you aren't a racist because, ya know, you were a POW, so you're entitled to your hatred, while being black and noting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot.
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 and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.
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.
(Red Room Editor's Note: This online community of writers welcomes all the new members who have found us by way of Tim Wise's thought-provoking entries and who have taken the time to comment. We encourage you to read Tim's follow-up here, and to discover all the other great writing on other Red Room blogs and original articles.)
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend
- Share With:
Ada Anele says:
Thank you Tim, for being our
Thank you Tim, for being our mouthpiece, and for saying everything many of us have always wanted to say, but just never had the working definitions nor the vocabulary to do so. You are truly a modern-day prophet. Thank you.
mary ellen pleasant says:
to Ada Anele
white (male) privilege is getting to be deemed "a modern-day prophet" by your peers just because you are white and can understand basic fundamental truths of how society works...the historical and contemporary power dynamics and how it ties to race and class (still).........and are willing to speak out about it.....
people of color know and say the things Wise lays out above everyday......thats not to take away from Wises writings....but thats to point out your use of the word prophet.
my dear Ada.....it is not the work of a prophet to say the things..the obvious truths that Wise points out........it is his duty...and the duty of any other white person that wants be a part of a larger movement of people attempting to change the fate of humanity diseased by the dynamics of white patriarchal capitalist imperialism.............to take it one step further....it is not only ones duty to point out these truths.....it is ones duty to actively act against it.
Ada Anele says:
My dear Miss Mary Ellen...
My dear Miss Mary Ellen... Correct me if I'm wrong, but your response sounds quite condescending. Maybe you misunderstood me. Firstly, I am a 26-year-old black female (hardly Tim's "peer"). Secondly, you stated: "people of color know and say the things Wise lays out above everyday", which is exactly what I was referring to when I said he is our mouthpiece—saying the very things that many of us black people have always known and tried to express, but didn't always necessarily know exactly how to put into words for other races to understand.
Many times I find myself nodding my head in agreement and amazement after reading some of the essays on Tim's web site...because a lot of the things he says in his essays are EXACTLY how I've always thought and felt...but just never had the working definitions to express. THAT is what I was talking about in my comment; sorry if you took it the wrong way.
The only white privilege in this is that when black leaders say the EXACT SAME things as he does, they don't have as much credibility with white community—a fact that I'm sure Tim would readily admit. But that wasn't even the point of my initial comment.
So YES, Tim is a modern-day prophet to me because, like you stated "he can understand basic fundamental truths of how society works..." Not because he's white, thank you. I know of many other people who I also admire and consider to be prophets, such as the late Khallid Muhammad, who is black, and Pearl Cleage, who is ALSO black.
Donna Johnson says:
Understanding "Prophet"
If you study out what a "prophet" truly is, you'll understand that they don't speak only about the future, but also enlighten people about the present and past.
I am an African-European-Native-American woman.
I also am a writer/blogger who has been speaking as a prophet, as well. And, it is true that I haven't gotten anywhere near as much attention as Tim, but I keep speaking anyway...because, as you said, it is my duty to do so as a way to educate my family and community and sphere of influence. I speak of the present and the past mostly, but, when led to, will speak of the future, as well.
An "oracle" is a prophet who tells, who speaks. That's what we're doing.
Frederic Christie says:
To Be Fair...
A lot of this is partisanship, Tim. While I would say that the reason they have an old white male running for the Repubs and a younger black man running for the Dems does have to do with race (since even a lot of white Dems apparently can barely stomach voting for a black man), it strikes me that if Obama were white the same things would be happening and if McCain were black the same things would be happening. What I would say is different is the public ACCEPTANCE of these views. Of course MoveOn and pro-Obama supporters will say he is experienced (and liberals in the MoveOn/Daily Show/NYT vein have responses to all of the arguments you're citing that conservatives launch), but I think the general mainstream media tacit approval that Obama is unexperienced does stem from race.
Of course, the fact that even very liberal people view Wright's speech in a particular way IS race, 100%. Ditto for the boyfriend issue. But I think that part of the confounding causal source is the unmitigated savagery of the Republicans no matter the target, which of course is amplified by race but stands alone from it too. After all, McCain had no problem saying that Chelsea Clinton was Janet Reno's son...
Kenneth White says:
Flip the script...
It is difficult to visualize the current reactions of the public and of the media being the same if the ethnicities of the candidates were flipped and the issues and platforms remained the same. Let's try to picture what it would look like.
Here's the Republican McCain/Palin ticket. McCain is a short, white-haired 70+ year old Black senator, wealthy, war hero, 4-time cancer surviver, who regularly demonstrates that he is out of touch with working-class Americans. He not-so-honorably divorced his first wife and married a tall, classy, rich rodeo queen. He has a vile temper, joked about bombing Iran, once said Chelsea Clinton looked like Janet Reno's son, and on a daily basis is showing a penchant for attacking his opponent with bold-faced lies. It appears that he will say anything to win the presidency. He has voted with George Bush 90% of the time and has continually repeated the Bush mantra that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" while American financial institutions are shrinking and collapsing every day because of the deregulation that he has supported for years. Now include as his hand-chosen running mate, Sarah Palin - a 44-year-old Black woman whom McCain only talked to for maybe an hour on the phone before he selected her to be his fill-in for President... just in case. She is a pretty mother of 5 kids including a baby son with Down Syndrome. But, she's a neophyte in politics with a questionable record as mayor of a small town of 5,000 residents and a number of very questionable leadership decisions during her 2 years as Governor of a small state. And... it was discovered just days before the Republican convention that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant and will marry her boyfriend who is a hip-hop thug and proud of it and says he isn't ready for marriage. Her oldest son recently deployed to Iraq.
At the top of the Democratic ticket is Obama, a 47 year old tall, dark-haired multi-racial Senator who, though he looks White, was raised by his Black mother and grandparents after his White father left the family when he was a child. He is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review, an active athlete, who turned down high-paying opportunities in law to work as a community activist for little pay helping working class Americans improve their life. He was also a constitutional law professor and is a geat speaker who can elevate, encourage instill the belief needed for people to hope for, to strive for and to be more. He's married to bright, outspoken, admired working professional White woman and they have 2 charming, young daughters. They are the epitome of the American Dream, both coming from typical American families and achieving success through education and hard work. They are religious people who attend a large, active White church that once was led by an old White pastor who occasionally delivered controversial sermons. And Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, is a well respected, 60+ year old Black senator who - with over 30 years of experience in the Senate - is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee after also having served as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has endured and overcome personal tragedy and has a son heading to war in Iraq.
Just take a minute and picture it. If only the racial identities of our candidates for the highest office in the land changed, would the reaction of the media... and the public... and you be the same? I doubt it. I think the 2008 Presidential race would be over. McCain and Palin would be waving a White flag... and wouldn't that be ironic.
Frederic Christie says:
Let's Examine Your Reasoning...
You claim that, in essence, saying that a country should be bombed out of sheer sadism, arguing for capitalism while it's consequences smash the poor, marrying a rich woman, and so forth are routinely impediments to being elected barring a black man running.
Frankly, I couldn't think anything displays more naivete, and I doubt you believe that. Because of the emptiness of American electoral politics, people who say these things and worse, and people who actually COMMIT war crimes, routinely win.
Then I should point out that your account of McCain and Obama is incredibly one-sided and could come directly from a MoveOn piece of propaganda (yes, I subscribe to MoveOn and am a member, but the propaganda is still just that). For example: McCain is a very experienced Senator with a lot of actually commendable things to his name, not least the McCain-Feingold electoral reform. I find it amazing how quickly supposed politicos are to dismiss all the experience they were commenting on. (Just to be absolutely clear: I despise McCain and will vote Green in California, but would vote Obama in a swing state). Meanwhile, Obama has honestly likened the "hope" of a Vietnam veteran to the hope of MLK Jr. and is a staunchly pro-corporate, pro-jingoist, pro-statist, reactionary candidate.
In short, you seem to believe that, say, a white man who earned Purple Hearts in Vietnam with political experience stemming the moment from the moment he came home to the day he was running (e.g. John Kerry) would not be savaged by the Republicans. Of course he was, brutally, with vicious lies and irrelevant personal attacks (like, the fact that maybe the situation in which he earned the Purple Heart wasn't THAT impressive, which matters so much when the person you fought against dicked around with planes in the same time period then got addicted to cocaine while his opponent fought for justice).
Don't get me wrong, there is an additional twisting of the knife, an additional public acceptance, an additional powerful LAYER added on by racism. But it is not alone, and I think we do ourselves a disservice when we attribute everything to race pure and simple when race is, as Tim frequently comments upon, integrated with state, gender and capital to form a complex system of oppression.
Dwayne White says:
Not quite what I though...
I don't think he was trying in any way to belittle John McCain or his service. I think what he was saying, and I think it's valid, is that while each candidate has positives each also has some baggage and that being black outbaggages (yes, I said it!) any other baggage either candidate does or even could have. I found his comparison illuminating. Once I tried to think of McCain as a black man, even with his many qualifications, I realize that many people would never accept him with the other baggage he has and the um, baggage multiplier of being black. On the other hand, with Obama's qualifications it seems almost impossible to imagine him not winning in a landslide if he were white. It's like the scene in the movie "A Time to Kill" where the lawyer asks the jury to imagine that the victim of the rape had been a little white girl instead of a little black girl and somehow that makes what had been a close decision one sided. And it's not all about the Republicans who certainly would have savaged him anyway. But I can't imagine so many other people voting against Obama (like the supposedly disenchanted Hillary Clinton fans) and voting against their best interests (like many poor and middle class whites) if Obama were white.
Frederic Christie says:
Not Just Baggage, But Also Roles
I would add something else, Dwayne, a comment that occurred to me when I was looking at people pointing out that some of the criticism of Palin does express classist contempt for the white poor.
McCain and Palin have the option to play the game, to make political moves, to pander to different groups. Palin can try to express how great of a mother she is, or how much of a gun lover. McCain can express that he's a POW and a tough bastard, or he can use that same experience as a way to express sensitivity and kindness. They can choose from an array of strategies, an array of ways to sell themselves.
Obama, though, pretty much has one. He must strike the Robert Kennedy and the Martin Luther King, Jr. tones. He has to seem progressive, has to seem to avoid playing the game (while somehow ALSO seeming politically savvy to satisfy the traditional politico observers), has to give inspiring speeches. There's all sorts of ways that he can't proceed. He can't even discuss the racism that I'm sure he has seen and perceived as a black man because doing so would alienate so many more whites that he would kiss his Presidential ambitions goodbye. And so forth.
Dwayne White says:
Yes, roles....
I think that's an apt summation. And it saddens me that Obama cannot, or feels that he cannot, speak on race. Because I think you're correct, that there are so many whites that would refuse to vote for him if he even mentioned the fact that maybe, just maybe, white people have some responsibility on the issue. He has to walk a very fine line whereas McCain can throw all kinds of different strategies at him, and has.
Rebeca B says:
What?
Frederic Christie: I don't quite get where you are comming from. No, I don't think the war mongering, rich wife, etc. issues would be determinant factors in a Presidential race when both candidates belong to the same race (white). However, if anything, these blemishes would certainly be boradcast more in the mainstream media than they have (not at all) during this Presidential contest. However, in this instance where one of the major candidates is black, it appears that the media, et al., are all busy trying so hard to find every single blemish on Obama, and downplaying his character, judgment and diminishing his experience that they simply are giving McCain major passes on his character flaws.
Perhaps you didn't notice how differently you described both candidates. You were careful to mention most of McCain's past accomplishments, yet you didn't mention any of Obama's accomplishments, his profound knowledge of our Constitution, his many legislative accomplishements while a two term State Senator as well as a U.S Senator--reading your post made me see that perhaps you can't see/examine both candidates with an equal gauge (would you have omitted Obama's experience as you did if he were white?)--this is exactly what Tim was talking about!
I feel that race is the first and major issue in this campaign, political party is perhaps second.
Yes, McCain was viciously attacked in the 2000 Republican primaries--there is a difference between the Presidential primaries and the Presidential elections contest. In the primaries, members of the same party are vying to be elected as the official Party Presidential Nominee, and as such, it would be silly to blast their party's affiliations because they all belong to the same party (yes there are separete primaries for each major party). The 2000 Republican primary was especially viscious, and if you forget, one of the main ways the Bush hitmen eliminated McCain from the running was by loudly insinuating that McCain had a secret tryst with a black woman and now he has a black daughter--they showed photos of his adopted daughter (who is very dark skinned from Bangladesh) as proof of this. This was one of the major reasons why many people ran from him and voted for the village idiot who is now in office. Race was a major factor in who won the Republican primary.
If you listen carefully to what the media, most media commentators and McCain supporters, they repeat nonsensical untruths about Obama, they continue to claim he is "oh so innexperienced" despite his impressive record not only as a brilliant scholar but as a very effective legislator. they keep repeating the crap that was thrown at him by his opponent in the Primary--that he is all fluff, he is too vague, he doesn't talk about what he is going to do or how he is going to do it, etc. When Obama has been very clear on his positions and specifics of his plans--he has had a 60+ page Blueprint for Change on his web site since the begining of his campaign, he has pages and pages of information on who he is, who his family is, his love for this country, and easy to read single page issue positions. Most of the media, media commentators and McCain people don't seem at all interested in actually listening to his speeches or reading the tons of information on his web site. The "no experience, too vague" mantra is just repeated ad nauseaum.
Frederic Christie says:
Response
"Frederic Christie: I don't quite get where you are comming from. No, I don't think the war mongering, rich wife, etc. issues would be determinant factors in a Presidential race when both candidates belong to the same race (white). However, if anything, these blemishes would certainly be boradcast more in the mainstream media than they have (not at all) during this Presidential contest. However, in this instance where one of the major candidates is black, it appears that the media, et al., are all busy trying so hard to find every single blemish on Obama, and downplaying his character, judgment and diminishing his experience that they simply are giving McCain major passes on his character flaws."
I agree, and have expressed this very point against others who make the leap from saying that partisanship is at work as well to saying that partisanship or class or sex are the ONLY forces at work. My only quibble, and one that Tim is perfectly aware of, is that it's not just white privilege but also a confluence of other factors at work. We need to bear that in mind when crafting social theory. Clearly, race is in the room in this election.
"Perhaps you didn't notice how differently you described both candidates. You were careful to mention most of McCain's past accomplishments, yet you didn't mention any of Obama's accomplishments, his profound knowledge of our Constitution, his many legislative accomplishements while a two term State Senator as well as a U.S Senator--reading your post made me see that perhaps you can't see/examine both candidates with an equal gauge (would you have omitted Obama's experience as you did if he were white?)--this is exactly what Tim was talking about!"
Ummm, yes, that was because I was making the opposing argument to Tim. That is, McCain DOES have extensive policy crafting experience and even some policies that are actually quite good (McCain-Feingold being the quintessential example). Palin, of course, does not, while Biden does.
I don't think that being a Constitutional law professor is the same as a political career. It is an academic understanding, not an understanding of, say, diplomacy in action or putting together coalitions or crafting policy and then having to alter policy in response to events. Obama is simply younger than McCain, and spending time in academia and then in community organizing has taken some of the time he could have been in the Senate with. He clearly has political experience both on the state and federal level, but remember that McCain was a two-term Congressman and a four-term Senator after command experience in the military. McCain simply is more experienced in terms of what he has on his resume. By the way, I think that Obama and his family's activist credentials are far more important and far more qualifying than McCain's policy credentials, because that's what I think is important.
Who's the better candidate? Obama, hands down. And the fact that people characterize Obama as inexperienced and vague while Palin can use accusations of sexism to defend the fact that she has less political knowledge than most college kids is pure racism. A McCain Presidency would be disastrous for the world and for the poor, whereas Obama's Presidency would be markedly better. But there is a truth to the notion that now that McCain is running people are trying to dredge up information about his college career or imply that four terms in the Senate isn't serious experience and forget that he has been a maverick politico. (I think Obama is the better politician in terms of playing the game, but that's hardly something I want to reward).
My bottom-line point is that Obama is not more experienced than McCain. Obama knew this, so he countered that perception by adding Biden to the ticket. Where I think race is sticking its ugly head up again is the national love affair with Palin, the constant focus on her, while Biden's immense experience has simply disappeared.
"I feel that race is the first and major issue in this campaign, political party is perhaps second."
See, I don't know if I could agree with that. Were this 2000, it clearly would be. But 8 years of Bush and the Republican Party's corrupt politics have made it so that there is so much slime in general that party clearly matters quite a bit.
Rebeca B says:
Flip the script??
I can't see how you can say your scenario is a "flip the script" of the original script! Multi-racial? You did a mishmash of the script and quite frankly very difficult to follow and picture. What exactly is your point with this exercise?
Flipping the script would be more like having McCain be black and Palin be, a white man, and have Obama be white and Biden be a white woman. White priviledge would still be in effect where Obama would be the one favored by the meida and voters, and McCain the least favored because, well he can't really be trusted.
The other point is that by flipping the script as in my example, all the negative and nasty stuff about McCain (as a black man) would be broadcat loudly everywhere, being played over and over, and Palin wouldn't matter much because, well he (she) is running with a black man, so he (she) must be secretly anti-American; and Obama (as the white man) would be elevated to "the perfect Presidential choice" in a minute, all his accomplishments from birth to now would be praised over and over, he would also be called a "maverick" for choosing such a fantastic running mate--not only pretty but smart as well!, and Biden (if he were a she) would be equally praised as the perfect choice for VP, strong, intelligent, an all-Ameircan strong woman.
Rebecca Hensley says:
I'll Be Linking To This Post From My Blog This Week
Finally! Somebody made the real point (though many, I'm sure, will still manage to miss it). It's not about Obama being Black. It's about his NOT being White. And Palin is quintesentially White, if nothing else. Not only has she not unpacked her invisible knapsack of privilege about which Peggy McIntosh wrote so eloquently, but she thinks she's downright clever to have one. Somebody should tell her it's nothing to be proud of -- she was born with it. More's the pity. Maybe one of these days we'll be holding elections in a country where being a European-American doesn't make you "special" and being a person of color doesn't make you damaged goods.
Carol M says:
Agreed All The Way.
Thank you! Also, who else is enjoying the irony? Aren't Republicans the main ones consistently whining over how "not fair" it is for them to be PC? Aren't they typically the same people who only think that racism and sexism are terms used by minorities and women to "get over" and NOT "take personal responsibility"? Since when did Republicans decide to go "feminist"......lol?
Republicans clearly take Americans for fools. The economy is in awful shape and Republicans are playing around like this is a game....a joke. How obnoxious is it, to basically spit on the heads of community organizers, by laughing at their work? People who are REAL, who make REAL changes, who aren't necessarily looking for money or accolades but are doing things for the better of their community..... from the goodness of their hearts.
I remember a time when fools I go to school with would PRAY for George W. Bush to win the presidency. Now they all of a sudden hate the man, and are rooting for McCain. People make mistakes in life so they can LEARN from them and never make said mistake again. Heck, even if a three year old burns his/her hand on a stove top, once they feel the pain of that burn they LEARN and don't do it again. That's the purpose of mistakes...for us to learn from them and move on. For some odd reason, though Republicans now all of a sudden REALIZE their mistake in being pro-Bush.....they learned NOTHING. Americans are STILL giving a "second glance" at a man that voted for Bush 90% of the time.
David M says:
Re: "giving a "second glance" at a man that voted for Bush 90%"
"Americans are STILL giving a "second glance" at a man that voted for Bush 90% of the time."
Americans are, by in large, fed up with the neoconservative failures in the Middle East and neo-liberal economic policies. Unfortunately, McCain is a more severe adherent to neoliberal economics and, McCain was the neoconservative's candidate of choice in 2000 (and was pushing for regime change in Iraq) when Bush was not. Indeed, McCain's ties to the neoconservatives run deep into the 1990's well before Bush made a decision between Powell and the neocons in 2002. Unfortunately, its a grave media failure that this is lightly covered and people continue with the meme of McCain=Bush, especially when Bush has, again, just broken with the neoconservatives on Iran.
Just like Bush? More like, if you are unhappy with neoconservative and neoliberal policies, you are about to get more of that. I'd like Tim Wise to place a rant down on that.
Tai Decker says:
Are all Republicans wrong?
Carol,
You are clearly blinded by your hate or confusion over who Republicans are and the general consesus in their beliefs. Try standing as close to the center as possible and make your claims about both sides otherwise the polarity you create sets up an irrational situation where one can't make any claim that would not be attacked as wrong. All Democrats are not wrong all the time. All Republicans are not wrong all the time.
There is a reason the country is nearly split, among those that vote at least, down the middle. There are valid points on both sides.
Both Senator Obama (Obama) and Senator McCain (McCain) are honorable people, in my opinion. Both have flaws and different viewpoints.
To recognize both and have a discussion on which way (more left or right) our collective country needs to go towards is what we should be discussing.
Your choice of words describing Republicans is just as bigoted as if you used the color of their skin. Your use of elitist ("fool") language is in itself foolish and hampers any real dialogue.
Frederic Christie says:
Get A Backbone, Dude
How about reading arguments and embracing ones with superior logic no matter where other people tell you they fall on an arbitary political spectrum? I am extremely far left, but there are some areas where I differ with others close to me on the spectrum in. For example: Like Chomsky, I don't think nuclear power is necessarily evil and vile; what, is coal any better? I don't think genetically modified food is also necessarily bad, though it certainly is playing out that way. I have major disagreements with Marxism and even Marx himself. And so forth.
The reason the country is split COULD be because there's valid points on both sides... or maybe some people are right and some people are wrong. The scientific community was at one point split down the middle about global warming; does that mean that global warming is and is not happening? Your notion of truth is startlingly solipsistic.
See, Tai, to say that the nation is split down the middle thanks to reason alone is sort of odd when polls show that majorities who voted for Reagan or Bush (either of them) didn't actually agree with any of their expressed POLICIES. Or that only half of the nation routinely even bothers voting. And if things are really split down the middle, why do incumbents win so overwhelmingly? A majority OPPOSED the war in Iraq before it began (see Time polls at the time: clearly state that majorities opposed a war not approved by the UN and not declared by Congress); does that mean that there's good arguments on both sides, or that what happens in American politics is decided by a powerful elite? Majorities think that we should sign everything from the CTBT to the Ottawa Convention on land mines, or that our political and economic system is fundamentally corrupt. As Michael Moore pointed out, we have a nation with vast majorities expressing progressive political planks, yet those aren't put into practice. What's your hypothesis?
Tai Decker says:
Michael Moore?
The fact you use for reference that propaganist enlightens me AND ends our discussion.
Frederic Christie says:
Another Gem!
Yes, apparently the guy's polls are wrong, despite the fact that you apparently haven't read the book and can't rebut his points.
Tai, in logic this is called an "ad hominem". Calling Michael Moore a propagandist does not mean he is wrong on any single point. If he were to say that the sky is blue, it does not become red because of your impression of his character or his person.
Want others who cite similar studies? Tim. The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Noam Chomsky. Michael Albert.
Or from this article: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041029.htm, "On Iraq, polls by the Program on International Policy Attitudes show that a majority of Americans favour letting the UN take the lead in issues of security, reconstruction and political transition in that country. Last March, Spanish voters actually could vote on these matters."
Or from this article: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PollVault/story?id=1834807 "With Gov. Mitt Romney set to sign Massachusetts' new universal health care coverage law today, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds the idea a popular one: Fifty-five percent of Americans say they'd support similar legislation in their own states."
So, Tai, you can think Michael Moore is a propagandist all you like, but at the end of the day (and I) have polls, and citations, and news articles, and think tanks, and reporters, and statistics, and studies, and arguments, and you have gems like the idea that commenting on the behavior of a political party is like racism because if you substituted the words "Republican" and "blacks" it'd be offensive.
Carol M says:
Did I SAY All Republicans Are Wrong?
Tai, to put it bluntly....you are an illiterate, and an arrogant one at that. This is not the first time where you have responded to a post in which you "read" something that just wasn't there. I never claimed ALL Republicans are wrong, nice straw woman, though...please re-post the statement where I said "REPUBLICANS ARE WRONG". My post was not even about Republicans being wrong, it was about Republicans at that time dancing around the issues and making reference to trivial things as a diversion from the issues, which in my opinion, is taking Americans for fools.
Tai Decker says:
Let's put it this way...(substitute "Blacks" for "Republicans")
Carol,
I'm utterly aghast at your reply, but since since I can't read, I'm illiterate as you obviously know, I take no offense.
Substitute in your reply...""Republicans clearly take Americans for fools." to "Blacks clearly take Americans for fools." You don' think I'd be censored and all but run out of town as being racist?
I read into your reply what you wrote, not what you meant.
For you see, regarding your mind I am truly illiterate.. I apologize.
Frederic Christie says:
*jaw open*
"Substitute in your reply...""Republicans clearly take Americans for fools." to "Blacks clearly take Americans for fools." You don' think I'd be censored and all but run out of town as being racist?"
Yes, Tai. Let's continue this stellar logic.
"Murderers murder people". Well, gee golly whillickers, if I replace "black people" with "murderers", it says "Black people murder people!" Gosh darn, it must be wrong to say that murderers are murderers! Tautologies are out the window, we can only grunt at each other!
Learn to make an argument, Tai.
To point to a group and generalize is not necessarily offensive and is certainly not bigoted per se, depending on many factors such as the accuracy of the generalization, the onerousness of the generalization, and the arguability of the generalization. To point to a RACIAL group and do so is offensive and bigoted because race doesn't exist in any real, non-socially-constructed way that would have powerful determining factors and doing so occurs not in a vacuum but in a context of power and privilege, of hate. There is no parallel force in politics, nothing remotely resembling such a thing.
And note that no one is saying that statements about racial groups are always offensive. For example: "On average, blacks, because of their culture, enjoy fried chicken". The statement might be true or false depending on how much you think soul food is essential to black culture and similar things, but the statement isn't necessarily racist. "Blacks love dem fried chicken" IS racist because it implies that it's not cultural and it implies that it's true for the whole population, and also because of a history that goes behind that racist assertion.
Oh, and no, you wouldn't be "censored" for doing so, at least if you did it on your own blog. Because we have freedom of speech even for trolls and reprobates. And that freedom of speech apparently even extends to people who adamantly refuse to learn, listen or become informed yet insist on commenting to blogs that aren't talking about the things they're talking about. I should go to a blog about horses and start wondering why they're not mentioning how awesome squids are. At least it'd sort of still be talking about ANIMALS...
Also, comments against blacks are factually wrong. This comment is factually right. That's another big difference.
Carol is talking about a tiny group of people, a few thousand politicians, pundits, etc. These people have shared ideology, a shared "group" that ACTUALLY EXISTS. There is a Republican Party. There is no Black Party that one signs up for when one is born black and that sends out shared messages and ideology.
You are so ignorant about not only racism but politics in general that I have to assume you are quite sheltered. Well, you're only making yourself look like a fool here. And no, that's not racist.
Marti Wilkinson says:
What about Male Privilege
In an LA Times editorial Gloria Steinem makes the astute observation that Palin is a younger version of Phyllis Schlafly. By selecting her as a Vice Presidential Candidate McCain is still able adhere to a patriarchal agenda while striving to appear as a progressive candidate. So while the observations of white privilege are very astute I think it's somewhat simplistic to state that is the only problem at hand.
Earlier this year Geraldine Ferraro caused a furor when she referred to Barack Obama as a 'sexist' while defending herself against criticism over making a racially offensive remark. More recently Obama's campaign has received a great deal of criticism for his 'pig in a lipstick' remark. This election is turning into a remarkable intersection of both white and male privilege.
Male privilege is being able to select a female vice president candidate who is pro-life, supports creationism, and shares the same conservative ideology.
Male privilege can cry foul if the female candidate that has been selected is subject to scrutiny of her political views and personal life. One thing that occurred to me was that if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant as a teenager the GOP would have had a field day with her. Male privilege allows for that type of selective attention.
Male privilege makes it possible to select a woman who is not prepared to run for a national office, and in case of a loss, use her gender as a scapegoat. So basically American women end up with the short end of the political stick no matter how you slice it.
As Ms. Palin herself would say "Yup, Yup"
Charles Bowser, Jr. says:
Really Well written
Your piece was posted on a UU website. Thank you, Tim. I know that someday, as long as writers like you are out there bringing light to the dark ignorance that ensares parts of this country's white manstream , all will understand that their privilage makes them victims too. Someday, thanks to those with the courage to stand up and point out racism, even when its subtle, people will see that when we deny rights and respect for one group, we all lose.
On that day we will truly understand the power of diversity.
Again, thanks.
a c says:
"Dark Ignorance"?
So here's to standing up to point out even subtle racist ideology: Usage of "dark," "black," "shady" further demonize darkness, blackness, and shades other than more positively connoted "white" and "light." (A la "dark times," "black magic," "shady part of town" vs. "white wedding" and "light-hearted," "bright-eyed"). Yes, there are examples to the contrary, but mostly language leans in the aforementioned directions.
Charles, I encourage you to be mindful of the way you use phrases like "dark ignorance" because language is a powerful, powerful thing... as Mr. Wise so beautifully shows! I was amazed at its impact and pervasiveness when this sort of thing was pointed out to me!
Frederic Christie says:
Coincidence
As interesting as that fact about English (and to a lesser extent a lot of European languages) is, I think this is just a coincidence of the language, nothing more. Yes, it is true that in Asian and African cultures the color black does get a bit better of treatment: In Asia, for example, WHITE is the color of Yin, the more negative of the two energies, and white is usually considered the color of death. Then again, no culture loves shadow and darkness due to human instinct. Being in the dark is dangerous. So I think that most of these factors are caused by coincidence and accident of history. That having been said, the fact that this happens HAS been a key part of European propaganda and racism (read Othello: the color of his skin is intricately described and used as a weapon...)
M E says:
Ridiculous
This is just looking for something where it does not exist in a black narcissism (I mean that in the clinical sense- a belief all things revolve around oneself). The symbolism of light and dark have been around for thousands of years. It most likely comes from dichotomies like day and night, Hades (below the earth) and Heaven (above the clouds). Many "evil things" happen in the dark is the symbolism. It has nothing to do with human skin color.
Steve S says:
it's not white privilege, it's class privilege
I think that some of that isn't white privilege but class privilege. Bristol being pregnant at 17 might be a blessed event, but that is because they have the money to make sure the child is cared for.
Bobbi Jo, living in a double wide trailer and having a baby wouldn't be such a blessed event.
It's not white privilege, it's class privilege. Halle Berry had a child with the man she is dating, but not married to. There's no outcry from society there.
It's class privilege.
Carol M says:
.............. Halle Berry
..............
Halle Berry is a biracial woman who by societal standards is aesthetically correct, and had a child with a white male model. Not only that, but she is racially "neutral"...she's a Bill Cosby and Denzel Washington.....in other words, in the eyes of many Americans she has transcended her race. It's easy to forget that Halle is half Black, it's NOT so easy to forget that someone like say....Michelle Obama and her kids... are black.
Even so, Jamie Lynn Spears is rich and was publicly vilipended for her pregnancy...however, her child being born out of wedlock was NOT attributed to her race.
A poor white girl who has a child out of wedlock would probably not be viewed nicely, I agree, but a black girl from the projects who has a child out of wedlock would not only be viewed badly, but it would be attributed to her race.
So in this case, it IS white privilege...moreso than class.
Frederic Christie says:
Agreed
This I absolutely agree upon. That is, even if the Dems "played nice" were Bristol Palin black, the media or some conservative jerks would take advantage of the opportunity to talk about how blacks just can't seem to stop getting pregnant. Whereas because she's white, rich and politically protected, I have heard almost NONE of the Christian Hypocrisy Squad giving their song and dance about how slutty and stupid today's children are (though maybe that's sheer political cynicism: after all, what could more obviously expose that they're not the solution to this supposed breakdown in ethics among the young than the fact that a kid raised in an environment 100% conducive to their propaganda got knocked up?)
In fact, this case REALLY makes Tim's point. Because for once, despite the normal savagery of the elections, Bristol's daughter is being left out by a gentleman's agreement, despite the obvious and relevant irony that Palin's own mechanisms for solving teen pregnancy clearly don't work. Now, I think part of this is honestly that Obama is a tad bit of a gentleman, and part of it is the fact that it's the Democrats who generally are a tad bit less willing to run attack ads, and part of it is Obama's general strategy and persona, but a huge part of it HAS to be that Obama knows that a lot of white America will view an attack upon a white girl by a black man's campaign as a racial assault. Obama has to play with kiddy gloves because that's how we like our black men to be: MLK Jr. (and, of course, our idealized accounting of MLK, the one talking about brotherhood not the one castigating the war in Vietnam).
Carol M says:
Yup
*nods in agreement* Nothing else needs to be said...I agree completely.
Rebeca B says:
It's not class priviledge, but white priviledge
SteveS: Although classism does exist in this society, I still believe racism overshadows all other isms of this society. With the issue of Bristol, people began to whisper (white and non-white alike), yet when the McCain/Palin camp told people that the issue with Bristol and the entire Palin family was a private matter, that "things happen" in families and that it should not be subjects of discussion, most people--especially white people stopped whispering and repeated the new mantra "things happen in families" don't criticize. This happened despite parading the entire family for political gain, and parading the preganant teen with her boyfriend--then parading Bristol as someone to be proud of (because she "made the choice" to keep the baby) and showcasing the impregnator boyfriend as this national hero (the welcome event at the airport was simply unbelievable!) **(I don't think the pregnant teen should be ashamed of herself, but since that family claims to be so right wing extremist christian, their "praise" just seemed odd and out of place)
However, reverse the situation, and pretend the pregnant teen was Obama's daughter. That would have been the end of his Presidential run. The media, the Republican party and even many in the Democratic party would have slammed and slimmed him and his family so badly there would be nothing left of them. Both parents would be labeled, 'bad irresponsible parents' 'are not teaching decency to their children', 'too busy with their careers to pay attention to their daughters'; and the pregnant teen daughter would be labeled 'floosy, easy, typical black teen, another casualty of the black community, an embarrassment to anyone who supports family values', the boyfriend would be seen as a thug, a gangster, probably a drug dealer'. The extremist christian right groups would use them as perfect examples of what is wrong with America and the destruction of American's values and families. They would become the poster family of what not to be like.
When an African American family moved into my neighborhood which is considered high middle class by some, many white neighbors were very involved in a major whisper campaign--"how can they pay their mortgage!, wonder what they do to make money, do you think they sell drugs?, I hope they don't bring gangs to this area, and look they have a Lexus, how do you think they got that!, they better keep their kids out of my yard! I don't want graffiti on my walls, who sold THEM the house!?, etc.
Now, rather than introduce themselves to this family, they stood there making horrible comments and insinuations that only reflected their racist attitudes. As the matter of fact they (the African American new neighbors) are a lovely family with lovely children. The husband is an attorney and the mother is a doctor--but they are black!! So nobody was interested in finding out about them, they were just interested in feeding their racist minds with conjecture and perpetuating the racist attitudes they espouse. It is very sad.
Here is my take on this issue: If there is a reason to be racist, that overshadows all other isms; when there is no reason to be racist (because the subject of their observation is also white), then they express classist attitudes, etc.
pablo cervantes says:
class privilege
Good point. And social class is determined both by income and values.
David M says:
Confirmation Bias and the long awaited media pressure on McCain
In a desperate attempt to find confirmatory evidence for his paradigm, conflating an entire group of (what is classified in the US as) rich and poor, Muslims, Christian and Jewish Americans as white, and then to assign priviledge to these people, Mr Wise has ignored the cacophony of charges leveled against the McCain camp for these very reasons. Indeed, up untill McCain selected Palin, he boasted for some time that the media was "his base" and enjoyed little attention to his egregious mistakes. Finally, the media has turned on this long standing pass given to McCain, and have, beginning just after the idiotic selection of Palin as a running mate, finally started to focus on the very issues Mr Wise is claiming isnt happening. Moreover, the internet blogosphere is howling over these very points and the GOP is trying to claim the victim by conflating the negative attention from bloggers to the Democratic party.
Mr. Wise, your assertions are so profoundly divorced from the last few days and weeks of event, that I urge you to break from your constrained paradigmatic thinking and observe the world around you, free from the conflations you seek to impose on dissimilar groups of people.
Frederic Christie says:
Polysyllabic Emptiness
You spent quite a lot of time and polysyllabic words not making a single goddamn point. Nowhere in Tim's point, for example, does he consign black to mean ONLY Muslims. This would be a very strange point for Tim in particular to make, since he routinely talks about WHITE privilege as WHITE privilege and points out how Latinos, Arabs, Asians, Sikhs, Muslims AND blacks all are disadvantaged. In fact, you ironically use the very "paradigm" you yourself criticize (and might therefore need to read some LatCrit): Since Tim was talking about white and black, you allege that that's honestly all he believes exists, despite the fact that he clearly made no such point. In any respect, this isn't an argument against his position.
How would McCain boasting about how the media is "his base" DISPROVE Tim's point? It'd seem to AMPLIFY it, given that McCain has the opportunity thanks to white privilege to have the media be loyal, whereas Obama has had to play a very strict game and avoid any racialized scandal...
And I'd love to see you quote ANY mainstream source (not, say, the Huffington Post or AlterNet, but CNN or NBC) that mentions what Tim says IN THE CONTEXT OF WHITE PRIVILEGE, which would be what your argument would have to be to make any sense. I eagerly await your failure to do so and the vindication of Tim's point (despite my caveats to it that I noted above).
M E says:
CNN
I agree the post you are responding to is a dizzying flurry of words which actually amount to little. But I just wanted to say that while it isn't all over the news, CNN has been stepping it up. They have provided some coverage on the double standard and racism:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/martin.bias/index.html?iref=newss...
David Mattisoff says:
Education
"Nowhere in Tim's point, for example, does he consign black to mean ONLY Muslims. This would be a very strange point for Tim in particular to make, since he routinely talks about WHITE privilege"
Clearly, Mr. Christie in his haste and his eagerness to use a strawman argument against a post he did not understand missed the fact that the United States assigns the "White" category to any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. This includes Jews, and Muslims living in those regions. For Mr. Christie to get something so fundamentally wrong should spend some time reviewing his response.
Moreover, The decision to cancel on Mr. King, one of the gentlest and highest-rated interviewers in television news, is the latest in a series of testy exchanges between Sen. McCain's campaign and the media. Sen. McCain, who once called the media "my base," has fallen out with news outlets that are widely perceived to have devoted more time to covering his opponent, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Stories like these are rather common now as there is a veritable deluge of criticisms on Palin and the McCain campaign's lamentations on their break with their "media base."
Frederic Christie says:
Seriously? Muslims Are Considered White? Who Do You Talk To?
"Clearly, Mr. Christie in his haste and his eagerness to use a strawman argument against a post he did not understand missed the fact that the United States assigns the "White" category to any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. This includes Jews, and Muslims living in those regions. For Mr. Christie to get something so fundamentally wrong should spend some time reviewing his response."
Ummmm, no, they don't. For an awful lot of whites, Jews are not "white" and Muslims (usually Arab, black or Indonesian Asian - only Persians can usually "pass" for white) are CERTAINLY not "white". In fact, the anti-Muslim, anti-Arab hysteria is so serious that Sikhs who are neither are beaten because of it. So you are simply wrong about the way the racial hierarchies are constructed, independent of links.
Putting that aside, my point was that this discussion is a red herring. We are talking about very specific groups: Whites and blacks in this country. All of the commentators who want to deny white privilege decide to bring in Asians, and Muslims, and Latinos, and the Irish, and quarter-black quarter-Japanese half-Germans. Those are simply not responding to the point.
"Stories like these are rather common now as there is a veritable deluge of criticisms on Palin and the McCain campaign's lamentations on their break with their "media base."
...Your point being?
White privilege doesn't mean that no one criticizes you, ever. It doesn't even mean that blacks can't be complimented in public; hell, it doesn't even mean there can't be a PERSONALITY CULT around them!
Let's take a clear example. Colin Powell was quite popular among whites and we patted ourselves on the back and said that we'd love him to run for President. This lasted exactly up until the time he didn't listen to Massa and decided to have tactical differences on the Iraq issue and questions about the dishonesty of the Bush Administration. Now he has disappeared entirely, even deeper than the average Bush ship-jumper or exile. He was not involved in a scandal, or dishonesty, or outing a CIA agent. The crimes he did were real, but what he got eliminated for was disagreeing with the Administration. Race plays a role there, whether or not you like to admit it.
Bill Cosby, similarly, has a star that wanes and falls depending on how much he's willing to pander to white Americans. Most white Americans don't know about Dr. Cosby's numerous collegiate arguments about race and racism. And originally the Huxtables were going to be working class: They had to be made into upper-middle class characters to be swallowed by white America. So even the examples of what looks like acceptance of blacks by whites are nothing but.
Yes, clearly McCain-Palin will draw fire, and their side will send fire back. But, as I keep pointing out to no response from you or others, the question isn't that fire is being sent back but what sort of fire one side tries to get away with and one doesn't, the tactics both sides can attempt, what slime being thrown sticks and what doesn't, etc. Obama simply cannot get the stigma of his lack of experience off him, even when this lack of experience is utterly mythical. McCain has been able to, and while criticisms of Palin have been noteworthy there have been INFINITELY more people willing to defend her expertise than there would have been had she been black.
Simply put, David, you have to imagine how much McCain and Palin would be getting away with their tactics if they were black. Imagine a black woman claiming that attacks on her expertise were sexism when she basically gotten an F on basic political questions in public. I cannot imagine the STORM that would erupt. The racism is so deep, in fact, that this never happens precisely because no black woman who was so underinformed would ever get that far. Palin's whole nomination is white privilege.
David Mattisoff says:
Please cite your examples
Mr. Christie: Ummmm, no, they don't. For an awful lot of whites, Jews are not "white" and Muslims...
Actually, they are. I've provided sources. These are the rules set up by the U.S. govt to work for the census, the FBI, etc. Sometimes, this runs into legal issues. This is exemplified in the article, Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification. Mr. Hefny, an Egyptian immigrant, fought to change his status from White to Black.
You began your rebuttal with this profoundly and quantifiably (and rather slanderous)statement
Moreover, Its difficult to proceed when your rebuttal contains no hard evidence, like my posts. I would like to proceed on how the rest of the post was ignored, but we must start somewhere.You might want to start with "For an awful lot of whites." What does this mean? Where do you draw your line? Why is it more appropriate than the U.S. government's classification? How do you get your information? Is this a conflation?
Frederic Christie says:
Nit-Picking, Dude.
"Actually, they are. I've provided sources. These are the rules set up by the U.S. govt to work for the census, the FBI, etc. Sometimes, this runs into legal issues. This is exemplified in the article, Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification. Mr. Hefny, an Egyptian immigrant, fought to change his status from White to Black."
So by your reasoning, racism doesn't exist against Latino/a immigrants because the census identifies them as white so they're part of the brotherhood, so to speak. No one is scared of Puerto Ricans or Mexicans.
Yes, the census only has a few categories: White (sometimes split into Hispanic or non-Hispanic), Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American and black. But this does not mean that white people see a Muslim, or an Arab, or a Persian, or a Sikh, or an Indian, and think "white". You are talking about government classifications which mean pretty much nothing in practice, whereas I'm talking about how people classify those they interact with into racial taxonomies. The latter determines quite a bit. For example, if I jump up and down and scream that I'm white when my name is Yasif Hussein, it won't help me get a job one iota. If I like Tiger Woods pretend I'm "Cablinasian" but try to apply for a bank loan against someone with the same credit as me who is white, I will lose the loan same as someone who is black. See the Deniers and Haters post: Tim goes down the line with evidence that shows that it's the name on resumes or how the guy interviewing the person for the loan or position determines the racial taxonomy that someone gets put into and therefore their treatment, not what the government arbitarily declares them as. The very article you linked shows this point: That man looks black and we all know it and find it weird that he is called white by the government.
"You began your rebuttal with this profoundly and quantifiably (and rather slanderous)statement"
Actually, if slander means a false accusation about you as a person, then this cannot be slander by definition. I was arguing about what you said, not who you were. Also, since it's written, not said out loud, it'd be libelous, not slanderous.
I am nit-picking, of course, but it's because you are really taking arguments down to the level of nit-picking. It really shows your desperation to make a point to argue that the treatment of Muslims DISPROVES the existence of white privilege or racism. Though to be charitable to you, it seems like you're trying to ask some theoretical questions and not necessarily deny white privilege. That's fair enough, but you have to understand that those theoretical questions aren't terrible interesting to a lot of people who see the overwhelming, clear social evidence and aren't going to discuss marginal cases...
"Moreover, Its difficult to proceed when your rebuttal contains no hard evidence, like my posts. I would like to proceed on how the rest of the post was ignored, but we must start somewhere.You might want to start with "For an awful lot of whites." What does this mean? Where do you draw your line? Why is it more appropriate than the U.S. government's classification? How do you get your information? Is this a conflation?"
It's more important because it's what matters in day to day life. For white folks (and innumerable studies not to mention common sense shows this, it's not some mythical notion), if they see a Latino with brown skin, an African-American (or other black ethnic group), an Arab, a Sikh, many Persians, Indians, etc. they don't see the racial group they're part of. Do you think white folks see Apu or the Bee Guy on the Simpsons and think "white" because the federal government classifies them thusly? Not even close. The very HUMOR of those characters comes from them clearly NOT being white. Meanwhile, an odd part of this visual classification system is the fact of "passing": Those with black, Latino, Arab, Indian, etc. heritage who because of dilution or genetic drift look white enough can pretend to be white, and therefore pass as whites in the eyes of whites, and thereby reap the rewards. The fact that you seem unaware of this social phenomenon or alternatively seem to think it's epistemologically problematic, I think, shows how far out of league you are in this discussion...
But, see, there's a difference between hard evidence and not making an argument. You're making only a tiny few ARGUMENTS, with or without evidence.
David Mattisoff says:
Re:
Mr. Christie: Nit-picking..It really shows your desperation..
You're the poster who has made a quantifiably incorrect statement and has (still) failed to provide sources. Since my other points were ignored on the media and Palin, I have to focus down to short points. I would like to proceed onward, but if the past is prologue, I believe I'm unlikely to receive these sources. Regarding this call for evidence, you reply:
Common sense is a terrible crutch to rely on. It wasn't long ago that so called common sense believed adamantly that the world was flat, the earth was the center of the Universe, and -most appropriately- the ridiculous claim that black people are inferior. Please provide for this evidence. What you call a "tiny or few arguments" is still something that needs to be adressed re: the media and McCain's coverage through Palin and how it contradicts the premise of this article. I will be busy, so expect a reply in some time. Please take the time to, instead of hastily attack my work, read it.
Frederic Christie says:
I See...
"You're the poster who has made a quantifiably incorrect statement and has (still) failed to provide sources. Since my other points were ignored on the media and Palin, I have to focus down to short points. I would like to proceed onward, but if the past is prologue, I believe I'm unlikely to receive these sources. Regarding this call for evidence, you reply:"
No, THIS is a quantifiably false claim. The very next quote you cite shows me mentioning studies, and elsewhere in my comment I noted that Tim's very next article had numerous citations (the fact that whites respond to blacks with the same speaking styles negatively, or the fact that white-sounding NAMES on resumes are more likely to get a callback for interviews or job offers - that is NAMES, not the declared race but the name on the top of the resume). So, in fact, I have numerous pieces of evidence to make my claim.
Let's get clearer. I'll mention again the study that showed (you can actually still participate in the same program they used) that whites on average associate black faces with negative words and concepts and white faces with positive words and concepts. And the beatings across the country of Sikhs (if you need links I can bring them up but I'd hope this'd be unnecessary) are explicitly racist, not to mention the treatment of Muslims by the federal government itself under PATRIOT, also prove my point. The fact that blacks can "pass" for whites and reap benefits shows that the visual categorization matters quite a bit, and even your own ARTICLE makes my point!
Further, I have replied point-for-point to your every argument in quoted paragraph block form. You have not done the same, yet you claim arguments of yours have been ignored.
Not to mention that examples are evidence. The Apu and Bee Guy examples have composite logic that you can examine: Does it make sense that whites view Apu and the Bee Guy as white? It just simply doesn't, the humor stems from that very fact. This is an argument you simply don't want to reply to.
Putting all that aside, you haven't said a single point to rebut my claim. I am talking about how people PERCEIVE others: A white man or woman sees a person with dark skin, they do not generally think "That man is white". I have a friend who is decidedly white in a majority white suburb from a Sicilian background. Yet his skin is so tan that many have thought he is Latino or even black, and his father was very sensitive as to his familys' skin color (which was especially sad because the men of the family were quite handsome).
To be even clearer: Your point is talking about government classification taxonomies. My point was about how individuals perceive race. Yes, your point is arguably correct, except insofar as it's quite obvious that the federal government mistreats those it claims are white for census purposes but are in fact Arab or Muslim or so forth while they do not do so to anything remotely resembling the same degree to whites. Your argument is flatly absurd when taken as a reply to mine.
"What you call a "tiny or few arguments" is still something that needs to be adressed re: the media and McCain's coverage through Palin and how it contradicts the premise of this article"
I and numerous others here, Tim included, have replied to this argument on point. Your position that McCain can be covered negatively is a total red herring: Yes, many don't like Palin and question her expertise. But, like I pointed out to no reply from you, were she black she would NOT have the ability to say that such criticisms were sexist. Obama has had to sit silently as numerous people say he is empty or inexperienced or only talks about hope despite those being flatly false and in fact somewhat racist claims. The very fact that Palin could be NOMINATED despite political knowledge honestly resembling a middle schoolers' is a sign of white privilege. These are all claims with logic and evidence, now reply to them or don't.
pablo cervantes says:
You need to get your metaphors straight
The Tempest is full of theatrical metaphors, such as "what's past is prologue." The metaphor has been forgotten and the phrase has been corrupted. When Antonio tells Sebastian that they have the opportunity to "perform an act," he means "Act 1" of their own heroic drama. What's happened so far, i.e., "what's past," is the prologue to that play, and the script is henceforth in their hands, i.e., in their "discharge".
Prologues were common in Renaissance drama, though Shakespeare himself wrote few of them. The prologue usually set the scene and summarized the play. This is the "prologue" Antonio has in mind. "What's past is prologue," then, translates roughly as "What's already happened merely sets the scene for the really important stuff, which is the stuff our greatness will be made on."
I think what you mean to say is "if past performance indicates future performance...," or words to this effect.
David Mattisoff says:
Post Script - will respond in some time
Mr. Christie: For an awful lot of whites, Jews are not "white"
This assertion, combined with the Jewish author (Tim Wise) who writes on whiteness from an insider's perspective, hilights how your
Please take the time to define these terms and resolve another contradiction. In an effort to proceed to the actual content of my first post.
Frederic Christie says:
No, It's Still Nitpicking
The problem with defining racial categories is that they routinely devolve into tautology. Whites, for example, are "those who are recognized by society as white". Obviously that group includes the vast majority of Anglo-Saxons, Scots, Irish, German, Italians, Europeans in general, etc. And some other racial groups are able to "pass" in. Most accept Jews as white, though that used not to be the case, and even those few neo-Nazis who don't will SEE the average Jew and assume s/he is white until better informed. Meanwhile, for most Persians, Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs, Asians, Sikhs, Muslims in general (with rare exceptions), African Americans, Haitians, almost any group from Africa proper, Latino/as, Hispanics, Chicanos and Native Americans are not white. In this racial taxonomy, it usually further breaks down to white followed by Asian followed by Latino/a followed by black followed by Native American, though there are numerous times where this is not the case and in any respect people from those groups often would rightly argue differently.
As far as where we can make group statements about white attitudes: Numerous studies, polls, etc. of whites as a group show that data. To quote Tim Wise, for example: "To wit, a recent survey from the University of Chicago, in which whites and blacks were asked two questions about Hurricane Katrina and the governmental response to the tragedy. First, respondents were asked whether they believed the government response would have been speedier had the victims been white. Not surprisingly, only twenty percent of whites answered in the affirmative. But while that question is at least conceivably arguable, the next question seems so weakly worded that virtually anyone could have answered yes without committing too much in the way of recognition that racism was a problem. Yet the answers given reveal the depths of white intransigence to consider the problem a problem at all.
So when asked if we believed the Katrina tragedy showed that there was a lesson to be learned about racial inequality in America--any lesson at all--while ninety percent of blacks said yes, only thirty-eight percent of whites agreed (18)." http://www.counterpunch.org/wise04242006.html . The study he cites is noted in Ford, Glen and Peter Campbell, 2006. "Katrina: A Study-Black Consensus, White Dispute," The Black Commentator, Issue 165, January 5.
Frankly, this research is not hard to find, so to pretend it's not out there is pretty dishonest...
As far as why the classification I note is more appropriate than the U.S. government's: Because that's what matters in day-to-day practice, how people in society label one and then treat one. I have answered this question on point as well. You apparently simply don't like the answers, but the responses were quite clear.
What bothers me, David, is that unless you have never lived in America and have lived under a rock even outside of the country, there is no way you don't know all of this. Someone who can throw around words like "epistemology" should be able to guess that white people are afraid of Muslims, that Asians rarely get starring roles in movies (take the movie 21: originally a story about an Asian group, the stars are Kevin Spacey and two young white actors, with the Asian lead actors in a sidekick role), or that whites still have plenty of racial demons in the closet. So, yes, David, you really are nit-picking instead of raising anything cogent or concrete.
David Mattisoff says:
Problems so fundamental, its difficult to proceed
Christie: The problem with defining racial categories is that they routinely devolve into tautology.
Interesting. How do you then proceed to base your array of assertions of "white?" Will it lead you to certain conflations?
Christie: Most accept Jews as white
Christie: For an awful lot of whites, Jews are not "white"
Conflations like this, perhaps? Fundamentally, these assertions you draw are hamstrung by these conflations. There's a meta-theory here with a needed grounding of the very term it serves to deconstruct.
However, your issues are more fundamental than making assertions on a "race" category that you have difficulty defining. You are basing points on unprovable examples that never happened.
○ you have to imagine how much McCain and Palin would be getting away with their tactics if they were black.
○ Imagine a black woman claiming that attacks on her expertise were sexism when she basically gotten an F on basic political questions in public. I cannot imagine the STORM that would erupt.
○ there would have been had she been black.
○ if they see a Latino with brown skin, an African-American..
○ were she black she would NOT have the ability to say that such criticisms were sexist.
You are making false claims.
○ The very next quote you cite shows me mentioning studies, (Completely different than providing sources. You need to cite them. How do I know its not Just BS? I also need to read it to see if it fits your assertion)
○ Further, I have replied point-for-point to your every argument(Not at all. The most problematic being the points made against this article)
○ The fact that blacks can "pass" for whites and reap benefits shows that the visual categorization matters quite a bit, and even your own ARTICLE makes my point! (Actually, the article says the opposite. Its a guy who
○ Your position that McCain can be covered negatively is a total red herring: Yes, many don't like Palin and question her expertise.
(Its actually a major thrust of the the article)
Continuing from this:
Christie:...Your point being?
This criticism of McCain, and his break with his (self described) media base occurred through the media's interaction with Palin - unlike what this article claims. In fact, the McCain camp is still blocking media coverage of Palin. He's protecting her from the media, which is contradictory to this article. The media, long (and incorrectly) accused of a liberal bias, is filled with a preponderance of "conservative" voices. From Ailes at Fox, to Buchanan and Kristol quietly acknowledge that there is no longer a liberal media monolith, to the media's failure to cover the lead up to the Iraq war
See how these points in Wise's article get covered in the media, and sometimes its a ridiculous reversal by commentators when looking at two "white" people, with the exception of one as a representative of the GOP and one is not.
Here's the the points made in the Article.
Article: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.
Probably the most relevant recent counter example of this is
Apparently, O'Reilly doesn't have a problem with nailing "Whites" (whatever this means)
Article: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)....
AP story covered @ LATimes ABC Boston Globe Yahoo Chicago Tribune USAToday CBS Seattle Times Forbes Salon FOXNews UPI HuffPo etc.
Although, neoconservatves say "She's bright and she's a blank page."
Article: 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.”
Karl rove
Article: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
Immediately disqualified? People have run soundbites on gaffes for ages.. Certainly, no one is disqualifying Obama for his gaffes. There's whole websites compiling his gaffes and he's still the Democratic candidate.
Article: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 is “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family
LATimes NYTimes CBS StarTribune TimesUK ABC NationalPost Guardian Telegraph Atlantic MSNBC
A quick review of this site shows that you have the time to spend making a reply to nearly every poster. I really don't have the time that you do to post on the internet, so do not be surprised if the next installment occurs after some time.
The internet sites, democratic and republican, from Kos to Free Republic, are a buzz over attacking Palin on these issues. Frankly, McCain has been a veritable gaffe machine and the media has largely given him a pass. It wasn't until Palin that they turned their attention back to the GOP, and the McCain campaign doesn't like it. Palin coverage broke McCain's "media base."
I don't have the time to finish all of Wise's points, and I don't have the time to keep this dialog up on a daily basis. There's more, like Wise's assertion that "able to convince white women" - guess what? continuing analysis of large Gallup Poll Daily tracking samples from recent weeks do not provide evidence to support it.
I really don't have time to the next installment is going to wait a little.
Frederic Christie says:
Nit-Picking, Part Three.
"Interesting. How do you then proceed to base your array of assertions of "white?" Will it lead you to certain conflations"
Because in practice it's fairly obvious what occurs and how people define things. There simply are clear differences between the social group that is defined as white and the social group defined as black in terms of opportunity and access. Just like the rich are "those with wealth" or maybe those with more than a certain income, which is a fairly tautological definition but does not invalidate the clear advantage of wealth.
The definition isn't made by a dictionary, in short. Racial definitions are constructed by people actually acting and categorizing, so it's an empirical fact and not a definition where people are placed.
"Conflations like this, perhaps? Fundamentally, these assertions you draw are hamstrung by these conflations. There's a meta-theory here with a needed grounding of the very term it serves to deconstruct."
This is why your quoting sucks, David. Context matters, and it is dishonest for you to take comments from two separate posts and juxtapose them as isolated sentence fragments.
"A lot" of whites can believe X (that is, an absolutely large number) while "most" can believe Y (that is, despite the absolutely large size of the population X, Y is still proportionally much higher). And this is actually what occurs. KKK, Neo-Nazi or similar acolytes tend to say Jews are not white. There's quite a lot of Americans out there who think things like Zionists control the government or were behind 9/11. They clearly do not classify Jews as part of them, as white in the racial taxonomy. But these are a fraction of the population now, as opposed to earlier in history. It's just that even a fraction of the white population is millions of people, and considering how vocal these people are, they have a disproportionate impact. David Duke, for example, pretty clearly doesn't think Jews are white and has been a Holocaust denier, yet he nearly won major elections.
Like I noted, though, even those KKK guys will often see a Jew in the store or on the street and think s/he is white because of the way its defined. This is the same property that allows some people who are ethnically black, Latina/o, Arab or similar to "pass" as white in the eyes of whites. So what is of paramount importance is what people perceive other races as. Obviously this varies and is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean its real, no more than the fact that the distinction between "red" and "blue" is an arbitrary choice along a color spectrum doesn't deny the existence of the color spectrum. You seem to come from some weird post-modernist cult...
It's easy to say, "Hey, this guy is 2/3 Muslim and 1/3 white, will he be looked at as white or black by people? How will he be treated?" Similarly, one could make class appear to be a phantom by saying that some people look at some millionaires and don't see wealth while they look at others make much less and see wealth, or by noting the pernicious and arbitrary definitions of poverty and wealth. To then graduate, as you are determined to do, to say that wealth (or race) don't exist because sometimes you can't point to them is idiotic and is an inversion of social science.
If you do a study, take the group that is socially defined as white, is defined by the government as white, or self-identifies as white, and look at their advantages and privileges, it will be higher than other groups ranging from APAs to blacks to Latino/as. I don't know how much clearer we can get, David...
"However, your issues are more fundamental than making assertions on a "race" category that you have difficulty defining. You are basing points on unprovable examples that never happened."
Because I'm (and Tim is) asking the audience to imagine the situation in question honestly and extrapolate from real phenomena for what would occur. If you want real life, non-hypothetical EXAMPLES of black women being attacked who are unable to resort to sexism, or individual black misbehavior being turned into an assault on the community in general, or the disparate treatment of white and black ignorance and undereducation, etc. they are quite clearly out there. Once you have this data, the suspicious treatment of Obama, Palin and McCain has a clear explanation.
More importantly, Tim is making a hypothesis. One can look at a variety of discrepancies in treatment between Obama and McCain/Palin. It is odd, for example, that the common parlance can assume Obama as inexperienced while letting Palin off the hook for infinitesimal experience and let both McCain and Palin off the hook for abysmal educational histories. The racial hypothesis clears the issue up. Down the line, Tim's examples explain fairly clearly some otherwise odd facts.
"You are making false claims."
You say with no evidence or argumentation, and this is what I was expecting to happen.
People who want to argue against race and white privilege will sometimes take an intellectual tack. First, they'll start asking what seem to be reasonable questions about the way data is collected, or the "epistemology", or the taxonomies used, or how race might interplay with other factors.
Then, once they get answers that are clear but complex, they then throw their hands up and say, "Well, your answers prove race is a phantom, it doesn't exist".
THIS is why I was so insistent that you were in fact nit-picking: Because your skepticism is so disproportionate to any other social claim made that it simply has to be because of the vested social interest in denying that there is such a thing as white privilege and institutional racism against non-whites. But there just is, in the real world, as a fact, and dancing around with semantics doesn't do the job...
Argue against the examples or not, David, by providing counter-evidence and opposing hypotheses, but if you can't do so don't pretend that such failure to respond isn't indicative of the strength of the proposed hypothesis.
"(Completely different than providing sources. You need to cite them. How do I know its not Just BS? I also need to read it to see if it fits your assertion)"
Yes, but the problem is that your quote make it seem like I had mentioned nothing or indicated nothing. More importantly, I DID cite sources and showed you where to find them - see http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/explaining-white-privilege-deniers-..., where Tim noted numerous studies that I used for points.
Similarly: "This idea that we make choices based on traditional gender stereotypes suggests that some of the
political choices we make aren’t really choices at all. They’re just reactions—visceral responses to stimuli on some very basic level. Even if we don’t know it, we may be making choices based on negative feelings toward blacks, women or, in John McCain’s case, the aged. “We don’t observe our mental operations,” says Brian Nosek, associate professor of psychology. “We only experience them." http://magazine.clas.virginia.edu/x13792.xml
The test I noted about black and white faces is the Implicit Association Test, performed by Nosek, Greenwald and Banaji of Harvard. You can find the IAT online and take it, it's fairly interesting.
And so forth. If you want me to point you to the data yourself, fine, but I made assertions about data backed up with evidence. If you just want a list of studies pointing to the ongoing salience of race, I can drop hundreds into your lap, but you seem to have a deeper methodological problem and I frankly think you will deny any evidence when presented, since apparently Tim's piece on denying white privilege with extensive citation of the clear fact of it did not sway your skepticism.
"(Not at all. The most problematic being the points made against this article)"
This is a factual claim. Has there been any claim of yours I have not rebutted in paragraph by paragraph form?
Meanwhile, you have cited me incompletely every time and have failed to respond to me point by point. Yet you continue to pretend that you are presenting more evidence and argumentation.
" (Actually, the article says the opposite. Its a guy who An Egyptian immigrant is suing the U.S. government because they've told him he's white when his entire life he's been black. ... "Definitely, I would've had more opportunity for advancement and even for hiring had I been considered black," he says. "I was prevented from applying and requesting positions and other benefits for minority person because I knew I was legally white.""
I would say in general that he's wrong, but notice how this works. The immigrant LOOKS black to most whites. He clearly is discriminated against, whether or not he is aware of it (and he appears quite obviously aware of it). Given this fact, it makes sense for him to want to at least reap some ancillary benefit.
Hefny, for example, makes clear that ""It hurts me. It definitely hurts me," Hefny says. "It hurts me because I am unable to reconcile my reality as a black person." He thinks that his reality IS a racial reality and that it is the government that is misidentifying who he is. That makes my point quite starkly, I'm afraid: Self-identification and where people are placed by society matters quite a bit more than government statistics.
But notice that I don't have to make this argument, David. Because the government categorizations make the point clearly: Whites are doing the best and other racial groups are not. And government studies, like the Glass Ceiling Commission or the Boston Federal Reserve Bank, indicate the depth of white privilege and institutional racism against blacks.
"(Its actually a major thrust of the the article)"
No, the major thrust of the article is that no matter how negatively McCain is covered, certain advantages in coverage accrue his way. His weak education, for example, may be a blemish, but Obama can have HIS sterling education called into question in a way he could not were he black.
Quote Tim once saying that McCain has been treated sunnily by the press or never faces criticism. You cannot do so. That is the DEFINITION of a red herring.
Rather, Tim's point, and this is so shiningly obvious that it really belies your honesty and integrity to be arguing against it, is that McCain gets ADVANTAGES from being white that Obama cannot and does not. He has privilege, even though (as Tim makes clear in the very next article) white privilege doesn't mean that you're always the winner or always have the edge, it just means that the playing field starts tilted your way.
And, in fact, Tim makes around 22 distinct comparisons in paragraph form. 14 are about Palin, 1 is about Bush exclusively and 8 are about McCain, all of course compared to Barack or Michelle Obama. So to say that the thrust of the article is MCCAIN is another factual distortion on your part. You could backtrack and say you're talking about the McCain-Palin TICKET, but come on, man.
So let's take a concrete example. Has the end of McCain's love affair with the press stopped his advantages from being a white POW and made the press start to criticize his racist claim to "always hate" "gooks"? If not, then Tim's specific point stands and yours is and always was a red herring. This is what happens when you simply point to a factoid about McCain's relationship to the media and don't actually REPLY TO THE ARTICLE. In the sense of looking at actual claims made and rebutting their composite logic. See the difference?
"This criticism of McCain, and his break with his (self described) media base occurred through the media's interaction with Palin - unlike what this article claims. In fact, the McCain camp is still blocking media coverage of Palin. He's protecting her from the media, which is contradictory to this article. The media, long (and incorrectly) accused of a liberal bias, is filled with a preponderance of "conservative" voices. From Ailes at Fox, to Buchanan and Kristol quietly acknowledge that there is no longer a liberal media monolith, to the media's failure to cover the lead up to the Iraq war"
No, it's not contradictory to this article.
First, the fact that McCain is protecting Palin from the media clearly does not mean that Palin faces media or even public criticism, just that her handlers want to keep her under tight wraps. Reagan and Bush were similarly controlled in their press appearances at many a time, yet both at various points in their Presidency had massive media support and certainly large approval ratings. So your argument is a non sequitur. As someone noted here, according to NPR since Palin was announced McCain is now polling a majority among white women.
But even if there was widespread public criticism of Palin, that wouldn't invalidate Tim's point. Because the point is that Bristol can marry someone bragging about how much he likes violence and almost no one makes the criticism that her entire family is now connected to a thug. The point is that Palin can even GET NOMINATED for this position despite apparently not having the slightest political knowledge whatsoever (it appears that every commenter here has more political information and research on hand than she does and thus would seem to be more qualified to be VP than her). Were she black, we can be quite sure that McCain would indeed have vetted her quite thoroughly and would have rejected her immediately. The point is that Wright says ANYTHING about Obama (and is in fact a serious problem) among whites but the horrendously incendiary comments by Palin's church are just fine and attacking those is being insensitive or even classist to white folks.
In short, you're still not replying to the point being made. Tim's point is COMPARATIVE, your point is absolute.
"Apparently, O'Reilly doesn't have a problem with nailing "Whites" (whatever this means)"
Ummmm, that's not a counter-example.
The fact that Bristol is getting away with this behavior still points to white privilege, even if Jamie isn't.
But, as people have pointed out here numerous times, Jamie Lynn and Britney and Lindsay and the rest may face strong conservative condemnation for their actions (and frankly, they should since their behavior is pathological), but almost no one points to them and says that their behavior proves that whites are pathological and all get drunk and go to clubs. Meanwhile, conservatives through studies and the news media will point to any example of black misbehavior to attack the community. Just look at the way black riots are presented in the media versus white riots.
In short, nit-picking, red herrings and non sequiturs. The fact that there can be a gentleman's agreement protecting Bristol is a sign of white privilege...
"AP story covered @ LATimes ABC Boston Globe Yahoo Chicago Tribune USAToday CBS Seattle Times Forbes Salon FOXNews UPI HuffPo etc.
Although, neoconservatves say "She's bright and she's a blank page.""
A red herring. According to Google, there are 739,000 results for the search prompt "Obama inexperience". http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Obama+inexperience&btnG=Google+Sear... . Numerous articles and pundits point to Obama's lack of experience and it is taken quite seriously. Even if Palin's has been taken as seriously, which it has not, the point is that whites seem to believe that Palin and Obama are somehow on the same page.
More importantly, go ahead and ask yourself a random sample of how many people think Palin is inexperienced and that Obama is inexperienced. Or, wait, I'll do it for you. http://blog1.thejtandbearshow.com/2008/09/12/latest-ap-poll--palin-leads... .
"Before reading the poll, notice that the article is named to suggest that whites are the only reason McCain is ahead. The poll speaks for itself, though. Obama's strategy to take on Palin for experience is backfiring big-time: The poll suggests that perceived inexperience is more of a problem at the top of the Democratic ticket than in the No. 2 spot for Republicans.
Eighty percent say McCain, with nearly three decades in Congress, has the right experience to be president. Just 46 percent say Obama, now in his fourth year in the Senate, is experienced enough.
Fully 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience — an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about McCain running mate Sarah Palin, serving her second year as Alaska governor after being a small-town mayor."
Though the blog I'm citing argues the opposite, nothing could prove more drastically that race matters and that your points are simply false. Because Palin has less experience than Obama. Period. This is obvious. Yet she is perceived by whites as having MORE EXPERIENCE. What possible hypothesis do you have to this point?
"Immediately disqualified? People have run soundbites on gaffes for ages.. Certainly, no one is disqualifying Obama for his gaffes. There's whole websites compiling his gaffes and he's still the Democratic candidate."
Are any of those gaffes as serious? No. And, as I note above, the impact of those websites are far more serious to Obama than Palin. We make excuses for Palin. Obama has never said anything that indicates basic political illiteracy. Palin has.
"A quick review of this site shows that you have the time to spend making a reply to nearly every poster. I really don't have the time that you do to post on the internet, so do not be surprised if the next installment occurs after some time. "
It shows in that your responses aren't responses.
"The internet sites, democratic and republican, from Kos to Free Republic, are a buzz over attacking Palin on these issues. Frankly, McCain has been a veritable gaffe machine and the media has largely given him a pass. It wasn't until Palin that they turned their attention back to the GOP, and the McCain campaign doesn't like it. Palin coverage broke McCain's "media base."
I don't have the time to finish all of Wise's points, and I don't have the time to keep this dialog up on a daily basis. There's more, like Wise's assertion that "able to convince white women" - guess what? continuing analysis of large Gallup Poll Daily tracking samples from recent weeks do not provide evidence to support it.
I really don't have time to the next installment is going to wait a little."
Except all the other data says it's wrong: http://www.feministing.com/archives/010931.html
But I frankly doubt your ability to read points as written, David, even when quoting them. Tim wasn't saying "White women are now going to vote for Palin" (though the polls I've cited on the topic indicate that). Tim was saying that white women have stated that they are giving her a second look. You don't rebut that, you don't even try.
The fact is, David, that you apparently have the time to dredge up thirty to forty links, but what you don't have the time to do is actually read what your opponents are saying. There is not a single argument you have made that was not a non sequitur, red herring or otherwise completely irrelevant to the discussion. The closest you came to something relevant was the Jamie Lynn Spears point, except even there you missed the argument.
Meanwhile, all of this smokescreen has had the predicted effect of distracting us from the point: White privilege matters in this election. Racism matters in this election.
Hell, the point you make proves this! You say that McCain has been a gaffe machine yet he has been getting a pass. This proves the salience of white privilege. You seem to think like many commenters here that Gore's poor school record or Kennedy's drunk driving disproves rather than proves white privilege.
Do you have any arguments to those points? Because at this point, it appears that you don't have any actual POSITION to call your own, making all of this quite dishonest...
joe jackson says:
Hindsight
It turns out, Palin is the number one concern voters have with McCain since September. This runs contrary to the premise in this article "This is Your Nation on White Privilege." and in the posts by Frederick Christie.
(Oct 21) Palin - Top concern voters have with McCain
Oct 23
Fifty-five percent of respondents say she’s not qualified to serve as president if the need arises, up five points from the previous poll.
September 24, 2008 Forty-nine percent say that Palin is unqualified to be president if the need arises, compared with 40 percent who say she's qualified.
In part by voters concerns of Gov. Palin, Obama is enjoying a very comfortable lead. Even Karl Rove is declaring a big Obama victory. Thank you, Gov. Palin, for your contribution.
Frederic Christie says:
Not the Point
Joe: "Hindsight" is right, because actually this change does not disprove our previous point.
Yes, Obama has closed the gap in a number of areas, even among white voters, and yes, though McCain has similarly closed gaps Obama still has massive (and historical) advantages among all sorts of groups such as women.
Like Tim points out in the post following this one, white privilege doesn't mean one can't screw up. Of course one can. Palin did.
But two points remain constant.
a) Palin was given an opportunity no minority, woman or man, would be allowed. The fact that she botched it does not disprove the opportunity nor the privilege behind it.
b) Palin has been taken to account far slower than she would have been and had to defend far less seriously far more serious allegations. Even at this late date, she benefits RELATIVELY from white privilege.
Though we are in 100% agreement that we can be thankful for Palin and McCain's bad vetting job.