White Privilege

[wolfgang]

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are
constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this
list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol
Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your
family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or
your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and
Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as
irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "****in' redneck," like
Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with
you, you'll "kick their ****in' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot
****" 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...

Full article in link.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Personally, I think many of these examples have more to do with class than race. I grew up in a poor area, which was primarily white. There, the things mentioned in the article were cause for people to be considered "white trash". I believe that a wealthy black girl who got pregnant at 17 would likely be more accepted than a poor white girl who got pregnant at 17. Obviously being both wealth (or even middle class) and white probably gives an even bigger advantage to someone like Bristol Palin in this situation.

[Still Growing]

Tim Wise's may be a very talented writer and may have a valid and noble cause but I think its irresponsible for him to use "White Priviledge" as a political argument in favour of Obama.

I think that Obama has earned his way to this point and the deviciness of this article over race rather than ideas is an insult to Obama.

This article was distasteful IMO.

[Brutha]

Being Republican also adds to it. If a white democratic canditate (say Hillary) would have a teenage daughter who's pregnant Fox wouldn't stop talk about it.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Being Republican also add to it. If a white democratic canditate (say Hillary) would have a teenage daughter who's pregnant Fox wouldn't stop talk about it.

Right but its not, so therefore the liberal media is not stopping to talk about it.

I agree with you that if the tables were turned that Fox would act no better than the liberal media is now.

I'm no fan of Palin but some of the arguments being made about her daughter are rediculous.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Tim Wise's may be a very talented writer and may have a valid and noble cause but I think its irresponsible for him to use "White Priviledge" as a political argument in favour of Obama.

I think that Obama has earned his way to this point and the deviciness of this article over race rather than ideas is an insult to Obama.

This article was distasteful IMO.

While I can't say I didn't disagree with the article, a part of me is also thinking the same as Still Growing.

I would hope we are past the point of needing to pull the "race card" with Obama. He has proved himself to me based on who he is.


But, truth is, a LOT of my friends (who are Republican) often say they are "terrified" if Obama becomes president because of his links to the Muslim world. So, still a lot of people are discrediting him based solely on his race.

These friends of mine love Palin because "she is just like" them. A white mom. They don't even like McCain but will still vote for him based on that. Just irks me.

[Brutha]

I agree with you that if the tables were turned that Fox would act no better than the liberal media is now.

The way Fox would attack something like that is different.
Arguments like

BROWN: Tucker, though, this obviously putting this young woman, Bristol Palin, smack in the media spotlight at what's already got to be a very challenging time in her life, I mean, how do you respond to people who wonder why her mother would have subjected her to this kind of scrutiny by accepting this high-profile position?

have a different quality than direct ones that Fox would bring.

But you are probably right that focusing on issues would be better than focusing on that story.
It's however a story that at least partly is interesting to the majority of Americans which makes it newsworthy in the traditional sense.

[Dannyboy1]

This is not the way to invoke change. This is the way to blame. Excuses of the ego. We are vibrational beings. Whatever we focus on, we match the vibrations of and create more of whatever it is. This is not a being talking. This is an ego.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy1

This is not the way to invoke change. This is the way to blame. Excuses of the ego. We are vibrational beings. Whatever we focus on, we match the vibrations of and create more of whatever it is. This is not a being talking. This is an ego.

So true. I feel I have totally fallen back to my ego ways with all this political stuff, I am looking forward to the campaign ending already.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by jawillie

While I can't say I didn't disagree with the article, a part of me is also thinking the same as Still Growing.

I would hope we are past the point of needing to pull the "race card" with Obama. He has proved himself to me based on who he is.


But, truth is, a LOT of my friends (who are Republican) often say they are "terrified" if Obama becomes president because of his links to the Muslim world. So, still a lot of people are discrediting him based solely on his race.

These friends of mine love Palin because "she is just like" them. A white mom. They don't even like McCain but will still vote for him based on that. Just irks me.

People need to get this straight. 'Muslim' is not a race. 'Muslim' (Islam) is a religion, and an ideology. Discounting someone based on their religion is not racism. Your friends are discounting him based on his (appearant) ties to an idiom, not based on his race.

Racism is ugly and one's character cannot be judged by race. Granted, there may be certain 'baggage' which effect thought process and decision making tendencies, certain histories which fuel cause and reason. But even that is circumstantial and not a blanket reality for any given race as a whole. We are all individuals with our own beliefs and should be treated as such, unique in our existence.

Examining one's religion gives insight to their belief system, and hence, an underlying current from which their decisions may or may not be based. Their view of reality, mortality and eternity do shape the foundations of their consciousness, and steer their thoughts and actions.

But Religion is not Race.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by jawillie

:
Racism is ugly and one's character cannot be judged by race. Granted, there may be certain 'baggage' which effect thought process and decision making tendencies, certain histories which fuel cause and reason. But even that is circumstantial and not a blanket reality for any given race as a whole. We are all individuals with our own beliefs and should be treated as such, unique in our existence.

Examining one's religion gives insight to their belief system, and hence, an underlying current from which their decisions may or may not be based. Their view of reality, mortality and eternity do shape the foundations of their consciousness, and steer their thoughts and actions.

But Religion is not Race.

We can only change ourselves. The more you fight against something the more power you give it. The more you shed light on the ego and focus on what is good, the more good grows around you and emanates outward.

[Brutha]

People need to get this straight. 'Muslim' is not a race. 'Muslim' (Islam) is a religion, and an ideology. Discounting someone based on their religion is not racism. Your friends are discounting him based on his (appearant) ties to an idiom, not based on his race.

His race is the reason why people associate him with being 'different'. The "secret Muslim"-meme get fulled by him being 'different'. If he weren't black people probably wouldn't associate him as much with Muslims.

[Andrew Brunelle]

The collective consciousness does think this way, but as SomeRandomGuy said, it looks to be more of an issue of class. Sure, race has some factor in the way the average American views the world, but it's more of a class bias. Rich, white Republicans are the ones that try and put these images in your head. They are consistently setting up systems to take our money away and have it flow to them. And the harder the average American works, the harder it is to make ends meet. And this leads to frustration. And it is easier to fall back on stereotypes for the average American than to blame who is really responsible for all this hate.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy

We can only change ourselves. The more you fight against something the more power you give it. The more you shed light on the ego and focus on what is good, the more good grows around you and emanates outward.

Refreshing and well said Dannyboy.

[Liveformx64]

Originally Posted by Dannyboy

We can only change ourselves. The more you fight against something the more power you give it. The more you shed light on the ego and focus on what is good, the more good grows around you and emanates outward.

Well said.

That is what I have been trying to convey on the world affairs forum for the past few weeks. I just haven't found the words for it, without sounding partisan.

If we can set aside the egos and babies daddies, and preachers we would realize how politically similar these two presidents are.

All I am trying to say is we are counter productively focusing our energy on what we think is important but at the end of the day doesn't mean squat when the election rolls around.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

The collective consciousness does think this way, but as SomeRandomGuy said, it looks to be more of an issue of class. Sure, race has some factor in the way the average American views the world, but it's more of a class bias. Rich, white Republicans are the ones that try and put these images in your head. They are consistently setting up systems to take our money away and have it flow to them. And the harder the average American works, the harder it is to make ends meet. And this leads to frustration. And it is easier to fall back on stereotypes for the average American than to blame who is really responsible for all this hate.

It won't get any easier with Obama if you're looking to hang on to your money and have less go to the government. It'll just be flowing to a 'rich black Democrat'. Here's his tax plan - check out the chart, today's tax vs. his proposed tax: The Folly of Obama’s Tax Plan — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

If you want to lay blame for why it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet, here's some real big reasons:

1) The war on terror / defense cost - about 20% of our annual budget. Social Security costs for our aging population - 20% of our annual budget. Medicare 13%, Medicade 10%, Unemployment Wellfare 12% : http://www.elunah.com/US%20Budget%202007.jpg
2) The mortgage implosion - millions of people not able to make payments when their ARMS matured and transitioned into higher rate fixed mortgages. Defaults. Mortgage companies holding the bag. Insurance companies holding the bag. Banks holding the bag. Federal bailouts. Taxpayer burden.
3) The emerging markets of China and India with their industrial and military build-ups - sucking up huge amounts of fossil fuels, natural resources, building and manufacturing materials - driving the costs up for the rest of the world.
4) Globalization of the world economy - outsourcing of manufacturing and service positions. Relocation of plants to cheaper work-base areas. NAFTA.

These are the issues which are costing us money, squeezing resources, devaluing our currency, taking away jobs. When the Prime Minister of China decides he wants 200 more tanks and 300 more jet fighters, the ripple effect is felt in your morning cup 'o joe. And, I guess, to use your terminology - he would be a rich yellow Communist?

[Brutha]

It won't get any easier with Obama if you're looking to hang on to your money and have less go to the government. It'll just be flowing to a 'rich black Democrat'. Here's his tax plan - check out the chart, today's tax vs. his proposed tax: The Folly of Obama’s Tax Plan — The American, A Magazine of Ideas

The article doesn't even argue against the fact that 95% of Americans will pay less tax under Obama plan.
It begins with saying that phase outs have disadvantages.
It never put a number on how costly those disadvantages are for the economy and ends with admitting that people probably don't react on the changed incentives because the system is too intransparent.

People care for the effective tax rate and how much money they have to spend at the end of the year and this article does nothing to debunk the claim that the majority of people will have more money under Obama.
Marginal tax rate doesn't mean the thing that normal people understand as the tax rate.
If you honestly believe that the chart represent what normal people call the tax rate the article conned you, by using clever terminology.

The article says that http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...teTaxPlans.pdf is a source that tell the truths. Just go to page 34 of that document and you can read there the numbers of the real tax rate.

[Liveformx64]

Has raising taxes ever shown to actually help the economy?

Some argue that any extra tax revenue generated is absorbed by more government programs.

Does anyone have any reading on this one way or the other?

[Brutha]

Some argue that any extra tax revenue generated is absorbed by more government programs.

There is no net increase in taxes .It about taxing the wealthy more and 95% of the population less than before (if taxes means the amount of money that the government takes from you at year end).

It however clear that when you reduce taxes and don't cut government programs at the same time you will get a deposit that is unhealthy for the economy.

[Doku]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Tim Wise's may be a very talented writer and may have a valid and noble cause but I think its irresponsible for him to use "White Priviledge" as a political argument in favour of Obama.

I think that Obama has earned his way to this point and the deviciness of this article over race rather than ideas is an insult to Obama.

This article was distasteful IMO.

Got to agree. Why do people believe that I need to apologize for being born white?

[Mewwy]

Originally Posted by JMan

3) The emerging markets of China and India with their industrial and military build-ups - sucking up huge amounts of fossil fuels, natural resources, building and manufacturing materials - driving the costs up for the rest of the world.

Isn't this exactly what the US has been doing for ages?

The world itself pretty much operates as a generally free market, especially when capitalism became mainstream. So competition is already expected. Of course the US economy will be challenged by any other country's development. There's nothing you can do to prevent this, other than continuing the cycle of depleting resources in exchange of profit in order to stay in the top of this competition.

Yes, it's all ripple effects; take sweatshops in India and China for example. When there are people willing to take jobs that compensate less than $1 an hour, and requires more than 12 hours of work a day, they are adding value and appeal to their own market, until they are economically flourished enough to beat down competitors. And what country's corporations provides them such opportunities?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The article doesn't even argue against the fact that 95% of Americans will pay less tax under Obama plan.
It begins with saying that phase outs have disadvantages.
It never put a number on how costly those disadvantages are for the economy and ends with admitting that people probably don't react on the changed incentives because the system is too intransparent.

People care for the effective tax rate and how much money they have to spend at the end of the year and this article does nothing to debunk the claim that the majority of people will have more money under Obama.
Marginal tax rate doesn't mean the thing that normal people understand as the tax rate.
If you honestly believe that the chart represent what normal people call the tax rate the article conned you, by using clever terminology.

The article says that http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...teTaxPlans.pdf is a source that tell the truths. Just go to page 34 of that document and you can read there the numbers of the real tax rate.

Brutha, quotes such as 95% of all Americans will pay less taxes under Obama are misleading. McCain could say for example "under my plan 100% of all Americans will not incur tax increases" and it would be accurate or "under my plan there will be more money in the people's hands" or "under my plan I will give 6 times more over all tax cuts to citizens".

I am not saying I am pro McCain but rather just speaking about this one issue.

My position is that I am for Obama AND McCain's tax cuts.

Although I am for Obama for other reasons, I am completely against his tax increases to the wealthy.

McCain gives tax cuts to the same people Obama does but Obama was clever to make his a little more for the lower and middle class Americans. Very clever when it comes to getting votes.

What I am against is having our gov't get their hands on more tax base dollars. Its not their money to take. When your father dies why should the gov't take a disproportionate amount of taxes on money that has already been taxed?

Yes we need roads and schools but we don't need a gov't with more money. OK so Obama gets elected, increases taxes for the wealthy, tries to implement free health care but fails just like Hillary did when she proposed it when Clinton was in office and then the Republicans get back in office and have another huge tax base to spend on more war.

We need to make the US gov't smaller not larger and I am completely against both candidate's plans.

[Brutha]

Brutha, quotes such as 95% of all Americans will pay less taxes under Obama are misleading. McCain could say for example "under my plan 100% of all Americans will not incur tax increases" and it would be accurate or or "under my plan I will give 6 times more over all tax cuts to citizens".

It depends on what you want. this discussion was about whether the average American would have more money under Obama.
If you think that average people having more money is important, it isn't misleading.

If you think that inequality is a core problem in our society, it isn't misleading either.

"under my plan there will be more money in the people's hands"

And more money in government debt as he hasn't specified how he wants to get the additional trillion dollar out of the budget.

"under my plan I will give 6 times more over all tax cuts to citizens".

The numbers according to the taxpolicycenter are: "Senator Obama’s plan would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs) while Senator McCain’s plan would add $4.3 trillion."

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It depends on what you want. this discussion was about whether the average American would have more money under Obama.
If you think that average people having more money is important, it isn't misleading.

Yea I get it, I've read the story Robin Hood.

Like I said I'm for the Obama tax cuts but also the McCains.

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you think that inequality is a core problem in our society, it isn't misleading either..

The core problem is gov't mismanagement. So lets give the mismanagers more money from which to mismanage. Makes no since .

Originally Posted by Brutha

And more money in government debt as he hasn't specified how he wants to get the additional trillion dollar out of the budget.
The numbers according to the taxpolicycenter are: "Senator Obama’s plan would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs) while Senator McCain’s plan would add $4.3 trillion."

OK now here's the subject changer. I'm against what you mention above as well.

This is a switch from MICRO to MACRO. On the Macro I may agree but I'm not trying to give evidence in favor of McCain.

If your agenda is to spread propoganda for Obama this is an affective argument but I was hoping just to talk about the idea of taxes.

[Still Growing]

...Obama is black...

I would like to add to this subject that Obama is not black. He's half white and half black.

If you think about it, its a rediculous thing to say a mixed person fits one category or another. There are historical discrimanatory reasons that a person is labeled black if they have portion of African blood. The idea that someone who is mixed has to or should choose one parent's race over another is very barbaric.

Furthermore the idea of race will become irrelevant the moment we all agree that the gov't and companies should stop asking it.

This is another practice that we'll look back on and think "How stupid was that".

[Brutha]

The core problem is gov't mismanagement. So lets give the mismanagers more money from which to mismanage.

I don't think if the question is: "It won't get any easier with Obama if you're looking to hang on to your money and have less go to the government."
With a 95% chance any you will have it easier to hang on his or her money. That sentence isn't about gov't mismanagement but about how much money most people have to give to the government.

This is a switch from MICRO to MACRO. On the Macro I may agree but I'm not trying to give evidence in favor of McCain.

You are trying to give evidence in favor of cutting the amount of money that goes from taxpayers to the government.

This is not about McCain or Obama but about the position we hold in regards to taxes in general.

McCain has a bunch of people as economic advicers who believe in the magic powers of tax cuts to increase tax revenue.
For that reason he doesn't cut government programs to pay for his tax cuts. You need to cut government programs to reduce the mismanagement you are talking about.

[Akashic_Librarian]

I loved that article, its quite right we white folk do seem to have our problems over looked. But I wouldn't say its true of all white people, I mean I certainly HATE Sarah Palin, and I quite like Obama, and I am a white male...

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
As I said, I'm for Obama and McCain's tax cuts. Did you not read that?

McCain would have 6 times over all more tax cuts however they are focused on the wealthy. He does give a tax cut to the lower and middle class however Obama's is more. McCain should match Obama's.

Obama's tax increase for the wealthy would be used for more gov't programs such as free college for all and healthcare. I do not agree with increasing the size of the gov't so therefore I do not agree with this tax increase on the wealthy. I don't agree with Robin Hood economics either.

As for me "trying" to give evidence about less taxes I am not speaking about the validity of trickle down economics but rather about my opinion on what the gov't is there for. In my opinion the gov't SHOULD NOT double tax and should not create a success punishment tax. This is a question of what the role of gov't is.

Being from Germany I take it that you are a socialist, is this correct? If so I love that for you and for your country but I just happen to wish for a different future. Its not that your way is wrong but it just fits Germany so much better than the US for various reasons and at this point in time.

I'd love to live in Germany and I'd accept the system that they have however for the US I'm hoping that it doesn't not become socialist.

[Brutha]

As I said, I'm for Obama and McCain's tax cuts. Did you not read that?

You are generally for the idea of cutting taxes.
You don't like focusing tax cuts on the poor and middle class, while giving no tax cuts to the rich.
Did I get that right?

Being from Germany I take it that you are a socialist, is this correct?

Labels are always complicated but if you want to label my political loyalits go to the SPD in Germany.
On this question you could call me a socialist but when it comes to issues like having more or less union rights in the Germany I'm no socialist.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It depends on what you want. this discussion was about whether the average American would have more money under Obama.
If you think that average people having more money is important, it isn't misleading.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't want to keep more of the money they earn. The thing is that the rich people Obama will tax more to make up for the rebates he will give to the middle class do not use the government programs he will fund with that revenue. The poor and middle class will. And the rich will cut money where they can (usually labor is the first to feel the sting) in order to make up for the tax increase.

So, sure, in the short run everyone in the middle and lower class get to keep their money. In the long-run, they are more dependent on the government than they were before. You also remove the incentive to become wealthy, because technically you are making more money but you are giving more of it back to the government.

This is not to say I like McCain's plan better, btw.

If you think that inequality is a core problem in our society, it isn't misleading either.

Equal opportunity, not equal wealth.

And more money in government debt as he hasn't specified how he wants to get the additional trillion dollar out of the budget.
The numbers according to the taxpolicycenter are: "Senator Obama’s plan would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs) while Senator McCain’s plan would add $4.3 trillion."

The reason the increase would occur under McCain is because of tax cuts to business and the wealthy. These are the people that would stimulate our economy. If we tax them more than we already are, as Obama suggests, they will certainly find other countries to do their business. This goes back to the long-term effects of taxing the rich.

As an aside, if I were running the show, I'd freeze federal taxes across the board until the economy corrected itself with the exception of the most crucial necessity of revenue. For most people, that would be a 15% raise in income and it would reduce the cost of running a business in the US in the billions. After that, I would keep taxes at whatever rate is necessary to eliminate the national debt in a reasonable amount of time with effecting the economy.