The Passion of the Whites
Wed, 2008-02-20 13:59
#1
Makwa
The Passion of the Whites
Wed, 2008-02-20 13:59
#2
Makwa
Yet another lively discussion about the [url=http://heartmindandseoul.typepad.com/weblog/2008/02/white-privilege.html... Privy Backpack[/url]: (dam you simple RSS feeds - when oh when will I get any rest!)
quote:
As a white man in this country today, I feel that I'm the least protected and have access to the least amount of privileges and advantages available, especially in the workplace. With all of the hype over embracing diversity and being ultra PC, I can guarantee you that every white colleague of mine would agree with me on this - we know that we'd be the first in line to get fired because everyone knows you wouldn't be able to fire a person of color without getting sued. People see what they want to see. What people don't realize now is that as a white male in this country today, I am the least protected by any kind of special privileges or benefits.
Wed, 2008-02-20 14:12
#3
"sniff" you mean it don't mean a thang to be free, white and 21 anymore? "sniff" I feel so bad for him, poor, poor pitiful thing.
Yeah, boo effing hoo. I remember having to take an IQ test for a gov't job, beating out all the other applicants and still not getting the job because I wouldn't be able to "get up in the morning" to go to work because natives have a poor work ethic.
Yep, and now let's just hold our breaths for the posters that will say "well, two wrongs don't make a right" "racism is racism" etc....
Wed, 2008-02-20 14:17
#4
saga
Interesting speculation, but where is the data to support it?
I think the data shows pretty clearly that we are still run by white males in government and other workplaces, especially at higher levels.
It would be difficult to defend those statements, based on evidence, I think.
I am aware that is a prevailing perception in some quarters, though.
Wed, 2008-02-20 14:28
#5
As I understand it - but I haven't researched it extensively enough - covering up oppression requires that, when challnged, the oppressor paint himself as aggrieved, put upon by whatever rules he is being asked to respect. Self-pity allows him to ratchet oppression up to repression, that of 'uppity' folks not deserving of these rules. I understand that more Blacks were lynched in the U.S. *after* the Civil War, when they gained entitlement to become land owners, even if they were allowed to access tiny parcels of it ("40 acres and a mule"). The KKK remained virulent so long because Southern Whites went on managing to whip Southern Whites into fits of self-pitying frenzy about Black people's meagre rights, in effect turning against Blacks a rage directed at Yankee victors (maybe in manner similar to the way divorced men turn against women and children their rage at the State for allowing her to leave and requiring child support?).
Interesting that the poster starts his rant with "As a White man". When I read these words, I understand that he is speaking from a privileged position, but he won't have that. He has managed to appropriate, in his own eyes and that of the Whites he is pitching to, the false standpoint of the underdog position, mimicking the discourse of an oppressed minority, in effect attempting to steal its voice, by shutting its members out of discursive space.
[ 20 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
[ 20 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2008-02-20 14:41
#6
saga
This is one of those times when a good troll would be handy! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
C'mon! There must be someone out there who has evidence to support these 'perceptions'.
"whipped into a self-pitying frenzy"
Nice turn of phrase, martin. I have seen that in action too!
Wed, 2008-02-20 14:52
#7
I'll pass on the "trolls", but I'd really like to dialogue with people from political minorities about this pattern and learn from their perspective.
Wed, 2008-02-20 17:22
#8
quote:
Originally posted by saga:
Interesting speculation, but where is the data to support it?
I believe the blog was from the US. Currently out of the three people who could win the US presidency this fall only 1 is a white male (McCain - yes, Clinton, Obama - no, and even then I don't think that Limbaugh or coulter would actually consider McCain to be a real man). So that is a 33% chance. Down 67% in only four years. That means that if this trend continues, four years from now the chances will be much less.
For example:
2004: 100% white males.
2008: 33% white males.
2012: -33% white males.
Or another way:
In the last four years the percentage of strong candidates for President who were white males dropped from 100% to 33%. That is a drop by 2/3. If it drops by a similar amount over the next four years then the percentage of stong candidates for President who will be white males drops to 11%.
Whether the true number is 11% or -33% doesn't matter too much. Either way this is a crisis of unimaginable proportions.
Thu, 2008-02-21 05:17
#9
One election cycle does not a trend make.
The fact that Obama and Clinton are the leading Democratic candidates is less a reflection on any racial dynamic than the fact that this year, the best candidates in that party simply happened to be a black man and a woman.
And it's great that the U.S. has gotten to teh point where race or gender will not hold someone back from being president, but I hardly think this is evidence of any big, overall trend. Obama is still the only black man in the U.S. Senate and Clinton is one of maybe 10 women (not sure on the exact number).