The GOP mystique: It’s a white thing

[JLI Jesse]

As for Santorum he is a coward. Cowards run over to the news stations to cover themselves. He could have just admit and apologize and it wouldn't be as much of a big deal. But then again I could be wrong. He has to still deal with the comments he said about gays and now he has to deal with the blacks. If he says something stupid about women or Arabs it is over for him.

Quick Santorum story:

In late 2006, I had been a staffer on the Senate Finance Committee for about 10 months.  I was running the back room of the hearing, which included letting the Chairman know the speaking order and making sure the Senators had all the supporting documents for the hearing.

Santorum lost reelection in 2006 but was still in the Senate until January of 2007.  During one of the last hearings of the year, I was in the back room alone when Santorum walked out of the hearing room.  He looked at me and said "This is one of the most mind numbing experiences of my life" and left. 

I'm not sure if that says anything about him as a legislator, but thought it would be an interesting story to tell.

[BmoreAkuma]

As for Santorum he is a coward. Cowards run over to the news stations to cover themselves. He could have just admit and apologize and it wouldn't be as much of a big deal. But then again I could be wrong. He has to still deal with the comments he said about gays and now he has to deal with the blacks. If he says something stupid about women or Arabs it is over for him.

Quick Santorum story:

In late 2006, I had been a staffer on the Senate Finance Committee for about 10 months.  I was running the back room of the hearing, which included letting the Chairman know the speaking order and making sure the Senators had all the supporting documents for the hearing.

Santorum lost reelection in 2006 but was still in the Senate until January of 2007.  During one of the last hearings of the year, I was in the back room alone when Santorum walked out of the hearing room.  He looked at me and said "This is one of the most mind numbing experiences of my life" and left. 

I'm not sure if that says anything about him as a legislator, but thought it would be an interesting story to tell.

I am unsure why but it made chuckle

[Wise Son]

I don't give a sh*t about Santorum. I'm inclined to agree with you but am not absolutly100% sure what he said.  That is why the article said "sounded like" rather than "said."

The article's being ridiculously kind to him.

Literal "truth" (or at least partial truth) can be offered as a defense for statements evoking an "us vs. them" attitude. Yet to deny the hostility-evoking reality of one choice of certain adjectives, modifiers, ways of "framing" issues, and negative racial stereotypes, is to deny Truth ltself. Doesn't matter if one is talking about black or white folk. "Us vs them" stinks.

I agree with your point, but I don't think it applies to this issue. "White inferiority" would be hostility-evoking, as would "white oppression", as they both imply a degree of deliberate action that is not part of "white privilege".

If it helps, I am well aware that I get a large degree of privilege over women, simply by being a male. I don't seek it or like it, but that doesn't mean I can pretend it's not there. It doesn't make me feel bad as a person, or feel that I am in some way beholden to women, it just reminds me that I need to consider my male privilege if I'm interested in being objective and fair in a number of situations. I think the white privilege debate is the same - it's not arguing that there is something white people owe black people, or that white people are in any way inferior or less moral - it's simply saying that it needs to be acknowledged if fairness and objectivity is your goal.

I don't know, does that still sound like an "us vs them" thing?

[Battle]

If it helps, I am well aware that I get a large degree of privilege over women, simply by being a male. I don't seek it or like it, but that doesn't mean I can pretend it's not there. It doesn't make me feel bad as a person, or feel that I am in some way beholden to women, it just reminds me that I need to consider my male privilege if I'm interested in being objective and fair in a number of situations. I think the white privilege debate is the same - it's not arguing that there is something white people owe black people, or that white people are in any way inferior or less moral - it's simply saying that it needs to be acknowledged if fairness and objectivity is your goal.

Very good.

[michaelintp]

Wise Son, I see you are trying your hardest to revive the old discussions that we held several times, for pages and pages. I'm not biting. If anyone is interested, they can refer back to the old discussions, where more than once I've responded to precisely the points you repeat above.  I doubt anyone is interested, haha.

My objection is not just to one phrase, or one way of framing an issue, which I absolutely believe does evoke negative emotions and misperceptions, but rather to the whole thing of broadly making reference to "white people" or "black people" as we have seen done by those on the Right and those on the Left, and by persons who are black and persons who are white, with a broad negative racial spin.  Or at least that comes across to me as a negative racial spin. 

One way to test attitudes is to ask folks when they hear the phrase "white people" (if they are black) or "black people" (if they are white), does the phrase evoke an immediate positive feeling, negative feeling, or no feeling at all.  Before the mind translates anything into words.  Then to see how that positive, negative, or neutral emotion is translated into one's way of framing issues, and the like. 

Just a thought.

[Battle]

>>>michaelintp


Wise Son isn't necessarily talking about white people/black people. Wise Son is talking about white privilege which is far more pervasive than you could possibly imagine because the phenomenon crosses over different ethnic goups across the globe.

[michaelintp]

Battle, you know that we on the Forum extensively discussed the topic, more than once, in great depth. There is really no benefit in repeating what I said before. Anyone truly interested can refer back to those prior discussions. 

What I'm trying to do now is raise a broader concern. That was the intent of my initial very brief comment on this thread. 

I would also like to share an additional thought: Nobody has a right to finger point with unclean hands.

I think its time to pass around the soap and bucket of water. All around. Republicans, Democrats, black, white. Because without proper hygiene, the infection will spread. Which will be disastrous for the body politic. And for us, as One People.

We get so wrapped up in partisan politics, often ugly partisan politics, that we forget that.

[michaelintp]

I've never heard of the "woman card" or the "anti-semite" card.  I guess because those issues are not games. 

Reginald, you made this comment some time ago on this thread, and I realize I didn't really respond to it. I believe that some folk on the extreme Left routinely dismiss antisemitism. I think it is fair to say that many Jews perceive antisemitism at work in the more vitriolic attacks against Israel, for example. Those who proclaim that they wish to see the state of Israel eliminated respond that they are not antisemitic, but rather "anti-Zionist." 

My raising this is a major digression (and I really don't want to get into that digression on this thread). I raise it ONLY to point out that antisemitism, in some ideological circles, is routinely dismissed.

[Reginald Hudlin]

Does antisemitism exist?  Absolutely! 

Can a person be anti-Zionist but not be antisemitic?  Yes.

Are there people who feel that if they criticize Israel, they will be branded an anti Semite unfairly, the same way there are people who feel like if they criticize the black community they will be branded a racist unfairly?  Yes.

Are some of those people right and some of those people wrong?  Yes.

There's nothing wrong with having a cause.  Being pro-black doesn't make you anti-white, etc...but if we all don't live by the same measure of justice and fairness, then it undermines the civilization we all live in.

[Battle]

Being pro-black doesn't make you anti-white, etc...but if we all don't live by the same measure of justice and fairness, then it undermines the civilization we all live in.

Thank you.

[Battle]

[Wise Son]

Wise Son, I see you are trying your hardest to revive the old discussions that we held several times, for pages and pages. I'm not biting.

You make it sound so dirty. Jst trying to chat.  

My objection is not just to one phrase, or one way of framing an issue, which I absolutely believe does evoke negative emotions and misperceptions, but rather to the whole thing of broadly making reference to "white people" or "black people" as we have seen done by those on the Right and those on the Left, and by persons who are black and persons who are white, with a broad negative racial spin.  Or at least that comes across to me as a negative racial spin. 

I think we're all against that. I do think that you're conflating racial generalisations with the discussion of social trends that affect different races differently.

Discussing "white privilelge" is different from discussing the topic of "white people", just like discussing "male privilege" is different from discussing "men".

If anything, discussion of privileges, whether white, straight or male, is an attempt to acknowledge that our society unfairly treats us as members of monolthic groups (male, female, straight, LGBT, white, black, etc.). Discussing it actually makes it harder to maintain an "us vs. them" mentality.
[/quote]

One way to test attitudes is to ask folks when they hear the phrase "white people" (if they are black) or "black people" (if they are white), does the phrase evoke an immediate positive feeling, negative feeling, or no feeling at all.  Before the mind translates anything into words.  Then to see how that positive, negative, or neutral emotion is translated into one's way of framing issues, and the like. 

I agree, and I was thinking about the kind of remarks that you seem to be conflating "privilege" discussions with, the kind where someone comes out with something like,
"The white man's always keeping us down!"

That's where the "privilege" discussion can be helpful. Instead of viewing the disparities between ethnic groups as being something actively hateful and deliberate done by all white people to all non-white groups, it recognises that it is a result of socialisation set up generations ago, and which can only survive as long as we avoid noticing it.

[michaelintp]

Wise Son, I disagree regarding attitudes and misperceptions evoked. We have had extensive discussion of "white privilege" and you know we disagree with regard to how that way of framing the issue affects attitudes. We have discussed the matter repeatedly and in depth and yet you act like we never have. I've made it very clear that I will not be drawn into it again. 

My comments above are not limited just to that concept.   

[Wise Son]

I understand that we've talked about it a lot, and I'm not meaning to sound as f we haven't.

I guess I'm just trying to find different ways to frame it, as we seem to just always be at cross-purposes. We agree about avoiding lazy genrealisations and sweeping pre-judgements, and avoiding an "us vs. them" mentality, but I simply don't feel that discussions of privilege fit into that description.

That's why I brought up male prvilege, and should also mention straight privilege, as privileges I benefit from, to remove the "us vs. them" aspect. I think these apply equally, whether or not I am in the dominant group or not, and don't feel that I am any more guilty or should be more ashamed depending on what group I am in.

[michaelintp]

Wise Son. If there are 1000 people and 100 are disadvantaged due to discrimination past or present, one could couch it as the 900's privilege or the 100's disadvantage.  Even in saying this I am repeating myself. My point of view is clear and you know it. One's choice of words, one's way of framing issues can bring people together or pull them apart.  This is my last comment on the topic on this thread. I am really tired of it.  Please don't ask me anything further on this.