White Priviledge ?

In your manifesto, you seem to suggest that "white privilege" is comparable to "white man as oppressor".

How does your theory work? How is privilege and oppression linked?

 

The Law of Quota's and/or Affirmative Action.
Which we all know to be reverse racism.It's puts whitey on a lower rung towards
succeeding in life.Not at all how this Country was supposed to operate.
Taking into account Rugged Individualism and the Pioneer Spirit which
helped build this Country up so quickly and decisively.What other country has so
manifestly made such an impression on the world in such a quick time span.
I guess we're all supposed to just chuck that out the proverbial window
because a bunch of whacky liberals/democrats say so.

 

Hate to tell you this while you fight your battle but the good ole boy network comes in many colors.

 

It had to develop in that manner. Once one GOBN was created, others were needed to counter.

 

Hmm, you seem to assuming the white employers would all be racist and automatically prefer to employ whites?

I am not.

 

Sure it did, keep drinking.

 

White man as Oppressor is surely No theory.It is universally taught at most
eastern and California University by most all their Liberal professors.
One cannot graduate Columbia U. without at least some class or form
of Liberal indoctrination by a Liberal professor as to the grandeur of how
The White Man is and was an Oppressor.Thereby usurping his power via
his white priviledge.
In more contemporary sense a White man's Burden.Or to Take up the White
Man's burden.Meaning that whites had an obligation to rule over and see to the
cultural development of people from other than a " white priviledge " point of view.
That the white man had a burden to lift people out of poverty and ignorance.
Therefore assuming the White man had priviledge on his side and was in control
as in the decider or Oppressor.

 

Not all of them, but a scary amount of them surely would. Blacks tried this, and got everything burnt down by the KKK.

People did not leave the KKK because they all of the sudden disagreed with their racist views, they did not leave them because of the lynchings either they were fine with that, they left the KKK because they raped a white girl. That is the only reason the KKK basically died, it doesnt mean people are not racist anymore to some large degree.

 

Seeing as how you absolutely butcher your sentence structures in every way possible, I think maybe you might need a little of that liberal college indoctrination.

 

You know, few people put their racism to action if it comes with a financial cost. An employer might be racist, but if discriminating will come at a monetary cost, he'll probably follow the money. In the south, 80 some years ago, people sure were racist, but that didn't stop them for hiring blacks. And, in apartheid south africa, racist whites still hired blacks. Why? Because they were cheaper.

 

You meant " *sentence structure " did you not.Or do you fail to proofread your
own drool.

* no " s " for structures.That is ungrammatical.
ex. They are certain their will be a doctor in the office.

 

Exactly my point, even when they do hire them they treat them as cheap labor and refuse to raise their wages. As you said, they follow the money. If black people are struggling to find jobs you can offer them a job at minimum wage without raising their wages because they know they wont be able to get a job somewhere else, and if they do its likely with another racist white who would never raise their wages. White conservatives think minimum wage is too good for blacks, if that is too good for them you really expect them to raise their wages above minimum wage? Not in a hundred years. About 400 years to be exact.

Its absolutely hilarious how you pretend racism ended 80 years ago when liberals used federal power to end segregation, if the States were able to choose they would not have ended segregation (thus meaning obviously they were still racist). Northern Liberals forced them with federal power, that is a fact. Now the conservatives are trying to get these acts we passed in the 60's taken away, for example, "2013: In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that determines which jurisdictions have to preclear any voting changes with the federal government. The decision in Shelby County v. Holder effectively ended the use of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which requires any changes to voting rules in covered states and jurisdictions to be approved by the U.S. Justice Department before they can go into effect."

If someone is forced to end segregation, does that mean they are no longer racist? Of course not, they were forced. Dont pretend racism in the south ended 80 years ago when liberals FORCED them to stop discriminating. They are still extremely racist, this was how the south voted when it came to ending segregation.

"By party and region[edit]
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)"

The south overwhelmingly down voted the Civil Rights Act, they did not want to end segregation, so again in order to be intellectually honest you must stop pretending racism ended 80 years ago when liberals forced the end to segregation. If they could bring back segregation today, I am positive they would. That is why they hate the federal government SOOOO much beyond reason, because we always use the federal government to control the south. That is why the South is obsessed with "States Rights", that way their state can have the right to hold slaves, enforce segregation, remove the minimum wage and social security, all of these things they want gone and cannot do that with the liberal Federal government watching/blocking every move they make.



"The idea of hypersegregation gained credibility in 1989 due to the work of Douglas Massey and Nancy A. Denton and their studies of "American Apartheid" when whites created the black ghetto during the first half of the 20th century in order to isolate growing urban black populations by segregation among inner-city African-Americans.[2] The percentage of black children who now go to integrated public schools is at its lowest level since 1968.[75] The words of "American apartheid" have been used in reference to the disparity between white and black schools in America. Those who compare this inequality to apartheid frequently point to unequal funding for predominantly black schools.[76]"

Segregation still exists largely, in my city I grew up on the poor side and had to go to Andress High School, to give you a sense of what that school is like check it out, "About 400 students were involved in a melee Thursday at Andress High School that some students said was racially motivated." That school only has about 2,000 kids, so for 400 of them to get into one massive fight? That is literally almost a quarter of the entire school that started fighting. I bring this up because Andress Highschool is probably the most underfunded school in El Paso in the poorest neighborhood. Chapin Highschool on the other hand which is only a couple miles away is FILLED with white people, at Andress I would be surprised if there was a single white person in one of my classes aside from myself, but at Chapin? The vast majority of kids there are white. So, in Andress its over 85% Mexican, at Chapin its like 85% white. This is modern day segregation, poor kids cant go to Chapin because they only let people who live close by go there, and the only houses close by are super fancy houses that only white people can afford, whereas Andress is surrounded by one story homes that are rundown and poverty stricken. They separate us based on income, and our races have already been largely separated by income, so to separate us by income would be to separate us by race for the most part. The Right wing wants to end public schooling, poor people will not be able to afford private schools so that would end up making minorities have NO SCHOOL whatsoever while white kids get the best schools, than they wonder why white people do so much better than minorities or poor people in general? (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hilarious.

 

White males had all the privileges for 200 years....they didn't have to compete with more than half the population, they had legacies passed down to them like bush. Whites have privileges they don't even know they have. Do you fear getting pulled over by the police because your white?

 

No, because you structure your sentence in a multitude of ways, thus making them sentence structures.

- - - Updated - - -

Its like starting the race when you are already at the Finish line than calling everyone behind you who didnt cheat lazy bastards

 

White Males also Built this country and bore the most responsibility on their
burdened shoulders.Last I checked we Have Black Officers.
,Black CEO's and a Black President and Black Attorney General.
What exactly does Al Shaprton want.
The simple conclustion to be drawn is what Valerie Jarrett said before the
2012 elections.Something about " It's Our Turn now.It's Our Time "
Which means an attempt to put Whitey on the plantation.

 

They were cheap labour. Having just come out of slavery and living under segregation, that's not very suprising. However, this was jobs that blacks were very happy to take, making whites angry because "they took our jobs". But even if both the white employers were racist, it was much cheaper not to be racist when hiring. But that all ended when minimum wage laws were passed and raised. Now, blacks couldn't compete by offer to work at lower wages, and the racist employers no longer had to face economic penalties for being racist. Guess what? They started hiring whites instead of blacks. Minimum wage laws enables racist hiring preferences economically.

I never said racism ended 80 years. Obviously, america is still very obsessed with race. It's fun to watch actually, how the entire country goes up in flames everytime there's a shooting in which the people involved are of different races. very, very patethic.

 

So, now we are really getting to the cusp of the discussion. It seems it isn't about about "white privilege" anymore, it's sounding like "white supremacy" now....

Your words

Texas's words

Yep, I believe we are getting a clear picture of where many "conservatives" minds are......

Thanks for "confirming" this privilege.

Oh, how it must be so terrible for those who have the same mindset as the poster above to have to look at their "black" president.

 

So we should base our laws around the will of racist employers? Excuse my French, but (*)(*)(*)(*) that. This is why we need minimum wage laws AND anti-discriminatory laws, we cant have one without the other because as you said they will use it to their advantage. Its funny how white people get mad when minorities take their jobs, but when they dont? Get a job you lazy bastard!!! lol its hypocrisy to the fullest, just like with Obama they will hate minorities no matter what they do, good or bad they will find a way to demonize them all the while screaming "im not racist! your racist for bringing it up!!"

Its not pathetic if you know the history of America, the fact we are actually protesting and fighting for our rights should be admired, not dismissed as "very, very pathetic". They are being tear gassed by the same cops they are protesting against, yet they still come back everyday that is the opposite of pathetic, that is heroic. The ones getting mad at the protesters instead of the cops who started the whole mess, those are the ones who are pathetic.

If you pay attention closely, you will notice when white people like Cliven Bundy protest and carry guns around pointing them at cops they call it "AMERICAN FREEDUM!!! !!!!" but when black people are unarmed protesting peacefully (up until the cops shot tear gas at them of course) you will notice the right wing calls them a "mob", or better yet they have been calling it a "lynch mob" missing out on the insane irony that the only actual lynch mobs that ever existed in America were not black people, they were southern white conservatives, the exact same people calling this a "lynch mob" lol.

Dont pretend these protesters who are fighting for their rights and against oppression are pathetic, you are the one who is pathetic if you believe that nonsense.

The similarities between them are uncanny

 

Actually that is incorrect. Blacks were systematically excluded from many jobs- not only in the South- though it was more prevalent there. While corporations will generally follow the money, individual employers commonly follow their own prejudices.

 

Well that is the idiocy what the far right keeps trying to tell Whites.

 

So you think this wouldn't happen with minority owned business's? The thing is no one is watching them Making sure they fill their quotas. I can tell you with 100% certainty they don't have to watch their diversity numbers compared to a place that employs mostly whites. No one would care if a business only employed black people. They wouldn't even notice and no group would be checking them out. Also guarantee no one working there would be worried if they didn't have enough white guys.

 

Well, see the thing with anti-discrimination laws is that they make employers -both racist and not- more relucant to hire black people unless they are very sure they are dependable, because if it turns out they're not doing a very good job, they can't get rid of them without having to go through a lot of costly legal trouble. The result is that poor, uneducated blacks -especially those from rough nieghborhoods- are basically excluded. Not because of racism, but because of the unintended consequences of the law. now, combine that with the minimum wage law which strikes hard against poor people in general, and which removes the economic cost to racism, you've got two very anti-black laws, if we judge them by their result.

No, I still think it's patethic. It's, very, very patethic. It's group thinking at it's worst, and there's obvious double standards applied here. People only seem to care when it involves two people of different races. And when it happens, they form into racial groups and get hostile to other racial groups. That is patethic, I don't know what else to say about it. the USA is not over race.

Actually, no, it's not incorrect. But measures were of course taken against blacks -both in the south US and in south africa. iirc, in both places whites workers won against blacks by having minimum wage laws enacted, which as I've said removes the economic cost for discrimination. But I was talking about the times prior to that.

Not if it costs too much they don't. A white racist might not like blacks, but he's not going to pay a white worker to do the same thing a black worker could do for a much lower cost.

 

You libs want some real world reasoning for this so-called 'oppression' of blacks? Well here it is:

As far as getting pulled over by the cops. Why do you think that is? Because all cops are racist? No, it's because blacks commit the majority of crimes in this country. I remember when I was younger, my friends and I had Grateful Dead stickers all over our vehicles. We got pulled over more than our friends with no stickers. Eventually I realized, regardless of how many stickers I have, if I don't have any drugs, weapons, etc in the car, the cops are just wasting their time. The reason blacks get pulled over more than whites (I'd like to see some evidence of that btw) isn't because the cops are racist. It's because there's a better chance of the cops finding 'something' (drugs, weapons, arrest warrants, etc, etc). I'm sure more young people get pulled over than senior citizens too. Same reason. If blacks wouldn't commit so many crimes, they wouldn't get 'harassed' so much by the police.

As for jobs, those anti-discrimination laws are terrible for minorities. Most employers are looking for workers who will show up every day, do their jobs, and not cause trouble. It doesn't matter what color or gender they are; a good employee is a good employee. But, because of those wonderful laws liberals champion, employers are scared to death of losing their business because of a frivolous lawsuit. Who's the most likely to sue for discrimination? Women and minorities. If a white employee and black employee both fail to do their job equally, they both get fired, some ambulance-chasing lawyer will be chomping at the bit to represent the black employee in court. It happens a lot, and employers don't want bothered with that constant threat. So if you have a black and white applying for the same job, who would you hire? Again, if blacks want equal consideration and treatment, then stop playing the race card at every turn and take responsibility for themselves in the work place.

 

So basically your argument is they would be better off working for less than minimum wage than not working at all? I dont blame black people for not taking that offer seriously. Yes laws have unintended consequences, that is what reform is for. You reform laws in a way to remove the loopholes such as the ones you brought up. You say they hire less black people because its harder to fire them, which is why we have mandatory requirements where you have to hire a certain amount of black people depending on the demographics of the area to eliminate that very loophole you brought up. Guess what? Racists absolutely hate it, when they hate something it means its working is the way I see it for most things.

"And when it happens, they form into racial groups and get hostile to other racial groups."
Not true, did you not see the protests? There was a good amount of white people marching with the blacks supporting them, not a SINGLE ONE of them was attacked. Black people are mad at conservative whites, which is why they vote overwhelmingly liberal, they are fully aware of the fact it was white liberals who saved them from slavery, ended the Jim Crow Era, gave them equal rights and affirmative action, the list just goes on and on of what white liberals have done for them, and the list of what white conservatives have done TO them is a very long list also.

Do you know about John Brown? He essentially kicked off the Civil War, he went to Harpers Ferry I believe in Missouri, and he slaughtered rich white slave owners and attempted to give the slaves guns so they can fight for their freedom, this was a white man who did this and he died trying to save black slaves. The black community is entirely aware of the fact white liberals are willing to fight side by side with them, they accept us openly it is the conservative whites they do not accept because its pretty damn hard to accept someone who wants you in chains, and is literally throwing you and your race in chains on a massive scale the world rarely ever see's, America has more people in jail than the rest of the world and the majority of them are black, who supports this? White southern conservatives, its hard to accept these people when they are actively enslaving your entire race.

 

why do you think they supposedly commit more crimes? its because the crime stats a skewed because so-called blacks are more likely to be prosecuted for the same crime committed by a so-called white, why? because of institutioanl racism. why? because america is a racist country, its being shown all the time. America was built on racist foundations, many people still hold onto these traditions. thats what tradition means, its an intrinsic part of american fabric sadly. why? because of 'white privilege' and as such, as soon as there is none, fewer so-called whites will be in positions of power. dumb white racists werent employing non so- called whites and their business was collapsing, why? because their racism was causing business to fail so the politicians stepped in to save these 'dumb white racists' from themselves. there comes a time when their own racism will begin to really hurt a so- called white racist, this is where regulation of so- called white businesses was needed and this is where the line was drawn, where said racism was not causing too much distress to the poor little racists.