Privilege in the United States

POSTED BY: RiveR6213
UPDATED: Saturday, July 26, 2025 06:23
VIEWED: 20076
PAGE 2 of 20

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SIRI

Monday, May 28, 2007 4:40 PM

Quote:
... But, simply put, there is wealth inertia...

Wealth inertia or status quo. It's simpler and frequently less painful to maintain what is than risk change or to look at our part in maintaining the status quo.

Yes, these are generalities but they can lead us to question and begin to make changes. I think it is a long, slow process. We start, we risk, we change, then we stop and wait for the next wave to hit us.

Siri

ANTIMASON

Monday, May 28, 2007 6:20 PM

Quote:
posted by yinyang- If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

just an observation from your quote= i dont believe we are entitled to any right that is absent a corresponding responsibility. we have the right to bear arms, or drink alcohol, but its our duty to do each responsibly. however with some things, like abortion, or prostitution.. those are rights we should not have, because they seem to negate the responsibility aspect altogether. my point being is that i believe the infiltration of secular ideology in western society to be responsible for the loss of this morally fundemental tenet

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, May 28, 2007 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Siri:

Wealth inertia or status quo. It's simpler and frequently less painful to maintain what is than risk change or to look at our part in maintaining the status quo.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle.

The fact that the rich tend to stay rich isn't just because they are rich. It's because the rich have access to the best prep-schools and the best Universities. It is not because they are entitled to them, but because they can afford them.

The poor don't stay poor because people wish to keep a status quo. The poor stay poor because they can't afford a proper education. That and they are always in "survival mode" because they can't get higher paying jobs because they have little to no education i.e. no-one who is in the dregs of society has the time to think about improving themselves because they are constantly thinking where that next meal is coming from, where next months rent is coming from, etc.

30 Days did an episode on this subject that was quite enlightening. I suggest you keep an eye out for it:

http://www.tv.com/30-days/minimum-wage/episode/425972/summary.html?tag
=ep_list;ep_title;0

Quote:
Originally posted by Siri:

Yes, these are generalities but they can lead us to question and begin to make changes. I think it is a long, slow process. We start, we risk, we change, then we stop and wait for the next wave to hit us.

There's a problem with this thought that can be summarized in a common saying:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Basically, there are tonnes of jobs out there that are suitable for someone who grew up poor. That is, a poor person who completes high-school; respect for education is key.

Some of them are, garbage man, janitor and a bus driver. And with one or two years at a community college, the trades. Also, while working one of these jobs, they could save to go to night school to further improve themselves. Then when these people have kids, they are starting off on a higher rug on the social ladder, live in a better neighbourhood, have access to better resources, etc.

But, the rub is that one has to want to AND be willing to work for it AND be willing to sacrifice for it. You solve those problems and goodness will follow. Somehow though, I doubt that this will be solved anytime soon as the poor have a tendency to keep those with potential down with them. Quite a vicious cycle.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

YINYANG

Monday, May 28, 2007 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by yinyang- If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

just an observation from your quote= i dont believe we are entitled to any right that is absent a corresponding responsibility. we have the right to bear arms, or drink alcohol, but its our duty to do each responsibly. however with some things, like abortion, or prostitution.. those are rights we should not have, because they seem to negate the responsibility aspect altogether. my point being is that i believe the infiltration of secular ideology in western society to be responsible for the loss of this morally fundemental tenet

Haha... that is so not what the quote is about. To clear up your confusion, in the book (and real life), Jeff is the character that gets fired from his job for being gay.

As far as "infiltration of secular ideology," I agree with you to a point. I think that the type of ideologies (consumerism, celebrity worship, views on sex, etc.) are the reason that we seem to be going down the drain. But, I do not believe secular ideology in general is a bad thing; and, even if it was, I'd much prefer it over a quasi-theocracy. (Not against religion, just the abuses religious governments tend to have, historically-speaking.)

Of course, that is not the subject of this thread, and neither is it a conversation I'm interested in continuing. Therefore, /tangent

---

"If I were a Nazi, someone would defend my constitutional right to hate Jews. If I were a Klansman, someone would defend my rights to hate blacks. It's a funny place, this world. Hate has rights. Love has none." - Jeff, Murphy's Boy

ANTIMASON

Monday, May 28, 2007 8:46 PM

Quote:
yinyang -Haha... that is so not what the quote is about. To clear up your confusion, in the book (and real life), Jeff is the character that gets fired from his job for being gay.

i understood that, although i wasnt quite sure the relevance of the quote. what is meant by "right to hate"? i was commenting on the constitution and how these things are interpreted

Quote:
Of course, that is not the subject of this thread, and neither is it a conversation I'm interested in continuing. Therefore, /tangent

i wasnt trying to hijack the thread.. i was simply making a comment about your quote

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
White Privilege in the United States, Is it true or not? Do we have an advantage because of our race, or color? Is this the original Affirmative Action? What do you think about it?

I consider myself to be fairly privileged. I’m privileged with a sense of self-confidence and a desire to improve myself. The stereotype of a wealthy person is one who is stuck up and snobbish, but that’s an unfortunate stereotype. The mechanism behind that is just self-respect, so that stereotype demonizes self-respect. Furthermore, popular culture tends to look for scapegoats for poverty. It’s the “Man” keeping you done. And even more unfortunate is that popular culture tends to glorify criminal lifestyles. The reason why the poor stay poor in the United States has more to do with a lack of self-respect then with a lack of money. In other countries, that might not be the case, but in the United States, typically poor people do not have to stay poor, and on average a person who is poor today will not be in ten years if that person applies themselves. That’s the benefit of living in a wealthy country. They will however have to work their way out of poverty and that will require a lot of confidence in oneself. You can’t paint this with a broad brush. For some it will be easier and others it will be harder, but the principle weapon against poverty in the United States is, as it has been for many years, hard work.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with providing these hard workers some government help. I’m all for that, but government entitlements can quickly become a source of dependency that erodes the positive and principled attitudes that are the real key to success. So the benefit to society from government help reaches a maximum and then begins dropping off very quickly. The key is to keep it at that maximum and not overdo it.

As far as an advantage due to race? That depends, if being white means that you won’t identify with the ‘Gangsta’ culture, then yes, you might have an advantage. The solution to that is for the majority of intelligent people in this country to stand up and decry this unhealthy attitude, not to institute government sanctioned racism.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:23 AM

TV Nation had a telling segment:

Quote:
It included an investigation into whether it was easier for a white felon or a distinguished black actor to get a taxi in New York. TV Nation hired Louie Bruno, a white man who'd done time in four different prisons, and Yaphet Kotto, a highly successful black actor, to test New York's taxi drivers.

As a native New Yorker, Kotto probably wouldn't have been at all surprised by the outcome. Although a few cabbies stopped for him, the majority sped past to pick up Bruno, waiting a little further down the road. When this happened, Bruno asked the driver to take him a short distance to where a TV Nation crew was waiting to ask the driver why Kotto had been ignored. The driver would usually either claim not to have seen the actor, or say that he thought Kotto looked threatening; but the same thing happened even when Kotto tried to hail a cab while holding a baby and a bunch of flowers.:

What they didn't mention here was that the black actor was very well groomed and well dressed in an conservative suit, vest and tie; while the white ex-con was scruffy and had on dirty jeans and a denim jacket with the sleeves cut off (if memory serves me).

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:10 AM

Quote:
What they didn't mention here was that the black actor was very well groomed and well dressed in an conservative suit

Depending on the situation, that mighta been the problem...

I don't like "suits", they tip poorly and have snarky attitudes, and given a choice, I only deal with them when driving the Executive Transport. (upgraded luxury car we charge a premium for)

In a regular fleet cab, between the two, I generally grab the guy who looks like he *needs* a ride as a matter of principle and cause I empathise with him, he's closer to me, cause most cabbies live almost hand to mouth don't ya know, especially what with fuel cost these days.

The only outright racist guy we ever hired, and that more or less unknowing - he lasted less than a day, cause we fired him on the spot for refusing a pickup and I went and took his cab and his run and made his ass walk from there.

I think in some of that experiment, there might have been less of an issue with race than empathy, most of the guys I work with don't much like "suits" neither, just as a matter of jealousy and bitterness about being lower in the social and economic ladder, so without knowing the mindset of a cabbie, they might be misperceiving some of the reasoning.

Not sayin some of em DIDN'T pass him by due to race considerations, just sayin that was not the only likely factor, and wearing a suit is kind of a backfire when trying to empathise with poor cabbies.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RIVER6213

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
TV Nation had a telling segment:
Quote:
It included an investigation into whether it was easier for a white felon or a distinguished black actor to get a taxi in New York. TV Nation hired Louie Bruno, a white man who'd done time in four different prisons, and Yaphet Kotto, a highly successful black actor, to test New York's taxi drivers.

As a native New Yorker, Kotto probably wouldn't have been at all surprised by the outcome. Although a few cabbies stopped for him, the majority sped past to pick up Bruno, waiting a little further down the road. When this happened, Bruno asked the driver to take him a short distance to where a TV Nation crew was waiting to ask the driver why Kotto had been ignored. The driver would usually either claim not to have seen the actor, or say that he thought Kotto looked threatening; but the same thing happened even when Kotto tried to hail a cab while holding a baby and a bunch of flowers.:
What they didn't mention here was that the black actor was very well groomed and well dressed in an conservative suit, vest and tie; while the white ex-con was scruffy and had on dirty jeans and a denim jacket with the sleeves cut off (if memory serves me).

What you seem to be talking about here is "automatic assumption" meaning stereo typing. I don't know the whole number but I think that there are about 38+ million black people in the United States, and out of that 38+ million people, there are around 8 or 9 million that are not subscribing to the idea of the so-called "American Dream" or at least subscribing to it in the way we arrogantly think they should be subscribing to it. This 8 or 9 million seem to be out for their own gain, also, this 8 or 9 million represent the gangster-rap groups, and the so-called ghetto, ebonic speaking groups. Now this is where the fun begins... The media focuses on this particular group and give them plenty of air time on the television, and radio stations. This particular group seems to be very good at promoting themselves because our television is full of their music, their style of dress, their manner of speaking, and a world view. What that world view is has never been made clear, but my point is that this group gets some serious exposure, and is being called by the media as "Black culture." They say that this defines the whole culture. White America sees this and says "Wow! This must be Black culture" and assumes that all that gang-banging, robbing, murder, baggy pants wearing, calling their women "hoes" is what ALL black people do. Most Black people don't engage in any crime. Most black people are buying their homes,working their jobs, and raising their children, and never really done anything to anyone, and pretty much mind their own business, but they get to take blame for the criminal element out there. End result is that a Black programmer goes to the store at night to pick up a pack of smokes and maybe some beer, and the people in the store immediatly assumes that he is a threat even before he opens up his mouth. A black woman goes to a Walmart and is followed by security because it is already assumed that she might steal something. A black man waving down a taxi gets passed by because it is already assumed that he might try to rob the cab, or at least tip bad. We seem to be doing a lot of assuming in this culture.

This topic was, and is not about Black people at all, but I noticed that the people here kept using Black people as the template in which to measure society by in this discussion, so I thought I would toss in my bit for King and Country.

My point in the beginning of this topic was this: The fact that we have white skin automatically gives us certain privileges over all the other races here in America. Most of the time we are taken at our word. People assume that we are straight dealing, and hard working. People assume we are telling the truth. People assume that we didn't steal something. We are innocent until proven guilty, but any other race, especially the black

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
This is what I have learned and seen in this culture and no one can tell me anything different.

And that sounds like a preconceived notions you’re protecting, not an actual assessment of society.

The media does frame the way we see things and the AfricanAmerican culture doesn’t always benefit the good names of the majority of AfricanAmericans in this country, but I think you’re taking it to a bit of a dramatic extreme that actually is a bit racist itself. It’s just as racist to claim that all white people are racist because they are white, which is essentially what you’re saying. That’s just as much an automatic assumption. I don’t know if that is a product of the drama or an actual sentiment, but from your stated unwillingness to hear any opposing opinions, it sounds like a sentiment to me.

Certainly the White culture benefits from its majority status, but whether or not a white person is viewed with a presumption of innocence depends a lot on whose doing the viewing. Contrary to the assumptions made about white people, racism is not a purely “white” phenomenon. And I would say that there is actually far less racism, on average, among white people then other ethnics groups in the US simply because White people are under the microscope, as it were, with regard to racism. AfricanAmerican culture gets away with blatantly racist statements, from musicians and activists, that would never be tolerated from white culture, because the assumption is, as absurd as it sounds, that black people can’t be racist.

So the story is not quite as one-sided as you portray it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE