Study Shows White Privilege Among Poor.

[Bronzeage]

As I said, it is an analogy, which is a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

This example was an illustration of a situation where two people who had very similar education, yet one was born into a home which gave them an advantage over the other. I chose an analogy where both people have the same skin color in order to better illustrate the advantageous aptitude a person may gain from their background.

Actually, I'm starting waiver on this white privilege thing. Maybe there is no such thing and I truly am a superior person. One more post telling me I did it all on my own ought to do it.

But it still supports our position--the key factor in your example is what skills they got from their parents.

Yes, and it's turtles all the way down.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Wow. I don't know white people can live with all the white guilt they must feel!

It's known as the white man's burden.

Crap I feel bad for you white guys. If you need someone to unburden your guilt, you can send me money. That way I could reduce your "burden".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's known as the white man's burden.

Crap I feel bad for you white guys. If you need someone to unburden your guilt, you can send me money. That way I could reduce your "burden".

Ya, our guilt is more of a generic "meh ... I feel kind of bad about that", not something of the level that we're willing to part with our money over it.

 

[Bronzeage]

Crap I feel bad for you white guys. If you need someone to unburden your guilt, you can send me money. That way I could reduce your "burden".

Ya, our guilt is more of a generic "meh ... I feel kind of bad about that", not something of the level that we're willing to part with our money over it.

It's kind of like the way people feel about Sacco and Vanzetti. Yeah, it was a bad deal, but what are you gonna do?

 

[thebeave]

Crap I feel bad for you white guys. If you need someone to unburden your guilt, you can send me money. That way I could reduce your "burden".

Ya, our guilt is more of a generic "meh ... I feel kind of bad about that", not something of the level that we're willing to part with our money over it.

Speak for yourself. When Rev. Al Sharpton starts his ranting about some black dude who got wronged by a white (or even a half white) dude, I start writing checks like crazy. I can't help myself!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But it still supports our position--the key factor in your example is what skills they got from their parents.

What is supported is that those who have a position of power, authority, wealth, privilege are able to convey such to their children. In the US, that's been white people until very recently when affirmative action and other programs increased access to education and good jobs for women, people of color, etc.

I would again warn against confusing group averages with individuals. There being lots of white people being rich, powerful, and privileged doesn't do a whole lot for other white people who are not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, our guilt is more of a generic "meh ... I feel kind of bad about that", not something of the level that we're willing to part with our money over it.

Speak for yourself. When Rev. Al Sharpton starts his ranting about some black dude who got wronged by a white (or even a half white) dude, I start writing checks like crazy. I can't help myself!

The key is to write cheques from one of the accounts you're using to run a pyramid investment scheme that steals money from poor black people (you're white, so I assume you have at least a few of those like the rest of us do). That way, you assuage your guilt but don't need to touch your own cash.

 

[bigfield]

It's been around at least 57 years. I have always been aware of it and tried to put it to good use.

Would you be any worse off if you were not aware of White Privilege?

 

[Bronzeage]

It's been around at least 57 years. I have always been aware of it and tried to put it to good use.

Would you be any worse off if you were not aware of White Privilege?

I think any lack of self awareness is detrimental. The worse part would be how stupid I would appear if I denied it existed.

 

[bigfield]

Would you be any worse off if you were not aware of White Privilege?

I think any lack of self awareness is detrimental. The worse part would be how stupid I would appear if I denied it existed.

So when you say you put it to good use, all you meant was that you take it into account when you measure your own achievements.

 

[Derec]

Some people really think this is a documentary.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That was a classic.

 

[doubtingt]

But it still supports our position--the key factor in your example is what skills they got from their parents.

What is supported is that those who have a position of power, authority, wealth, privilege are able to convey such to their children. In the US, that's been white people until very recently when affirmative action and other programs increased access to education and good jobs for women, people of color, etc.

No, those at the top levels of wealth, power, and privilege, in the US are and have been a small subset of people, who are disproportionately white, but most white people are not included among them. Whatever trait you label the privilege with implies that the trait is largely a neccessary and a sufficient criteria for possessing the privilege and that people who share the trait share the same privilege. This is absolutely false, so the term is objectively inaccurate in reference to benefits tied to wealth, etc. The benefits in Bronzeage's analogy and those shown in the OP are of this sort that do not qualify as "white privilege". In fact, many of the differences in the OP study aren't about what the white kids have, but more about the bad things that they don't have as much of around them, namely parents, family, friends, and neighbors engaged in criminal activity. The benefit of not being around as many criminals can only be a "white" thing, if you assume that being a criminal is a "black" thing.

Only benefits that flow consistently and directly from one's race could be reasonably labeled "white privilege". For example, if Bronzeage also had a father in architecture who taught him the same skills and he was equally qualified and motivated as his classmate, but 7 of 10 potential employers preferred his classmate solely and directly because he was white while Bronzeage was black, then that would be "white privilege". Such privileges may and likely do exist, but neither the OP study nor most of what people who use the term refer to are actually about white privilege, but rather are about variable advantages imparted in subtle ways that vary as much or more within a race as between races and thus are modestly but not reliably related to race. Those indirect and subtle pathways by which the wealth, power, and education of family and community give advantages to a person are important. But ironically their consideration does more to weaken claims of "white privilege" than to support them, as with the OP. The OP tries to compare "poor" whites and "poor" blacks in order to claim that any better outcomes for whites is not wealth but race, and thus "white privilege". But these subtle ways in which "wealth" exists and transfers from one generation to the next show that the OP study is not comparing groups that are similar in all but race, but groups that differ notably in subtle forms of "wealth" and resources, therefore no differences in outcome are attributable to race influence in the kid's lives but rather to wealth differences they were born into. Were those wealth differences partly or even entirely the result of many indirect historical influences of race and racism before the kids in question were even born? Yes, but that is a different question and a different type of explanation.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think any lack of self awareness is detrimental. The worse part would be how stupid I would appear if I denied it existed.

So when you say you put it to good use, all you meant was that you take it into account when you measure your own achievements.

In hindsight, I do take it into account. I am fully aware I was offered opportunities other people would not have seen. I took advantage of some of them.

 

[bigfield]

So when you say you put it to good use, all you meant was that you take it into account when you measure your own achievements.

In hindsight, I do take it into account. I am fully aware I was offered opportunities other people would not have seen. I took advantage of some of them.

Fair enough. I was just curious as to what you meant, as your original comment was a bit cryptic.

I'm sure that if I were an Indigenous Australian, I would not have had many of the opportunities I have had, or the same treatment, and would have developed into a much different person, psychologically-speaking. It's just one way in which I differ from other people; just one reason of many why measuring my achievements against those of other individuals is a pointless exercise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it still supports our position--the key factor in your example is what skills they got from their parents.

What is supported is that those who have a position of power, authority, wealth, privilege are able to convey such to their children. In the US, that's been white people until very recently when affirmative action and other programs increased access to education and good jobs for women, people of color, etc.

You're still not showing racism.

 

[fromderinside]

What is supported is that those who have a position of power, authority, wealth, privilege are able to convey such to their children. In the US, that's been white people until very recently when affirmative action and other programs increased access to education and good jobs for women, people of color, etc.

No, those at the top levels of wealth, power, and privilege, in the US are and have been a small subset of people, who are disproportionately white, but most white people are not included among them. Whatever trait you label the privilege with implies that the trait is largely a neccessary and a sufficient criteria for possessing the privilege and that people who share the trait share the same privilege. This is absolutely false, so the term is objectively inaccurate in reference to benefits tied to wealth, etc. The benefits in Bronzeage's analogy and those shown in the OP are of this sort that do not qualify as "white privilege". In fact, many of the differences in the OP study aren't about what the white kids have, but more about the bad things that they don't have as much of around them, namely parents, family, friends, and neighbors engaged in criminal activity. The benefit of not being around as many criminals can only be a "white" thing, if you assume that being a criminal is a "black" thing.

Only benefits that flow consistently and directly from one's race could be reasonably labeled "white privilege". For example, if Bronzeage also had a father in architecture who taught him the same skills and he was equally qualified and motivated as his classmate, but 7 of 10 potential employers preferred his classmate solely and directly because he was white while Bronzeage was black, then that would be "white privilege". Such privileges may and likely do exist, but neither the OP study nor most of what people who use the term refer to are actually about white privilege, but rather are about variable advantages imparted in subtle ways that vary as much or more within a race as between races and thus are modestly but not reliably related to race. Those indirect and subtle pathways by which the wealth, power, and education of family and community give advantages to a person are important. But ironically their consideration does more to weaken claims of "white privilege" than to support them, as with the OP. The OP tries to compare "poor" whites and "poor" blacks in order to claim that any better outcomes for whites is not wealth but race, and thus "white privilege". But these subtle ways in which "wealth" exists and transfers from one generation to the next show that the OP study is not comparing groups that are similar in all but race, but groups that differ notably in subtle forms of "wealth" and resources, therefore no differences in outcome are attributable to race influence in the kid's lives but rather to wealth differences they were born into. Were those wealth differences partly or even entirely the result of many indirect historical influences of race and racism before the kids in question were even born? Yes, but that is a different question and a different type of explanation.

Yeah Toni. They went affirmative action thinking that; emerging minorities among bigots would be beneficial to everybody, minorities would take to bigoted education like fish to water, and that educators are of the benign humanist kind. The results are disastrous. White education rates are down, blacks are taught they are inferior, and teachers have unionized to get more money abandoning their natural instincts to educate selflessly.

As for tye rest. When rich blacks in a beemer or a mb don't get pulled over in Beverly Hills for whatever while whites in champs get a free pass I'll be convinced its 100% all genetic (race) and 100% environmental (hand me down socialization). Til then any person who thinks blacks aren't normally treated with suspicion and/or fear is wearing a fool's brain.

 

[doubtingt]

No, those at the top levels of wealth, power, and privilege, in the US are and have been a small subset of people, who are disproportionately white, but most white people are not included among them. Whatever trait you label the privilege with implies that the trait is largely a neccessary and a sufficient criteria for possessing the privilege and that people who share the trait share the same privilege. This is absolutely false, so the term is objectively inaccurate in reference to benefits tied to wealth, etc. The benefits in Bronzeage's analogy and those shown in the OP are of this sort that do not qualify as "white privilege". In fact, many of the differences in the OP study aren't about what the white kids have, but more about the bad things that they don't have as much of around them, namely parents, family, friends, and neighbors engaged in criminal activity. The benefit of not being around as many criminals can only be a "white" thing, if you assume that being a criminal is a "black" thing.

Only benefits that flow consistently and directly from one's race could be reasonably labeled "white privilege". For example, if Bronzeage also had a father in architecture who taught him the same skills and he was equally qualified and motivated as his classmate, but 7 of 10 potential employers preferred his classmate solely and directly because he was white while Bronzeage was black, then that would be "white privilege". Such privileges may and likely do exist, but neither the OP study nor most of what people who use the term refer to are actually about white privilege, but rather are about variable advantages imparted in subtle ways that vary as much or more within a race as between races and thus are modestly but not reliably related to race. Those indirect and subtle pathways by which the wealth, power, and education of family and community give advantages to a person are important. But ironically their consideration does more to weaken claims of "white privilege" than to support them, as with the OP. The OP tries to compare "poor" whites and "poor" blacks in order to claim that any better outcomes for whites is not wealth but race, and thus "white privilege". But these subtle ways in which "wealth" exists and transfers from one generation to the next show that the OP study is not comparing groups that are similar in all but race, but groups that differ notably in subtle forms of "wealth" and resources, therefore no differences in outcome are attributable to race influence in the kid's lives but rather to wealth differences they were born into. Were those wealth differences partly or even entirely the result of many indirect historical influences of race and racism before the kids in question were even born? Yes, but that is a different question and a different type of explanation.

Yeah Toni. They went affirmative action thinking that; emerging minorities among bigots would be beneficial to everybody, minorities would take to bigoted education like fish to water, and that educators are of the benign humanist kind. The results are disastrous. White education rates are down, blacks are taught they are inferior, and teachers have unionized to get more money abandoning their natural instincts to educate selflessly.

As for tye rest. When rich blacks in a beemer or a mb don't get pulled over in Beverly Hills for whatever while whites in champs get a free pass I'll be convinced its 100% all genetic (race) and 100% environmental (hand me down socialization). Til then any person who thinks blacks aren't normally treated with suspicion and/or fear is wearing a fool's brain.

This incoherent word salad idiocy has zero logical relevance to any point I have made or to the OP. Are you off your meds?