Why did the whiteness thread get shut?

ryan198

I agree that thread was sadly enlightening in that people actually think that racism stopped 60 years ago, but I'm writing my dissertation based on critiquing neoliberal economics and whiteness (however conflated that terminology is) and it was helping me think through my proposal defense then it got shut down...ahhh!

Any way people should know that affirmative action quotas were effectively ended everywhere except in the military/government institutions (which not coincidentally is the most ethnically diverse institution in the country top to bottom by far).

Secondly when there were quotas on affirmative action there was a lawsuit levied at Cal-Berkely law, which was won by the plaintiff (a white student obviously). Interestingly while quotas which allowed less strong minority students get into Cal law based on skin color (of which there were 5 in 1978), there were 8 underperforming white students who were 'legacied' in...yet no lawsuits to prevent this (which still happens btw) from happening were filed.

Thirdly, what affirmative action did/does, where its still in use, is actually help similarly, or more likely better, qualified minorities get jobs that they wouldn't because underqualified whites were getting them in the past and even today. Moreover, in every situation that AA has been used to at least give minorities opportunity, even without quotas, racial/ethnic diversity has flourished, and when it hasn't the workplace/school has gone back to only hiring majorities...think the NFL Rooney Rule.

Fourth, and a lot of people don't seem to get this on the PJ board, affirmative action was intended to help all minorities in this society - more specifically women. In fact, a VERY strong argument could be made that white women have benefitted far more than the implementation of AA than any other 'minority' group.

Just a few things to think about ...

Ahnimus

In the United States, right?

onelongsong

ryan198 wrote:

I agree that thread was sadly enlightening in that people actually think that racism stopped 60 years ago, but I'm writing my dissertation based on critiquing neoliberal economics and whiteness (however conflated that terminology is) and it was helping me think through my proposal defense then it got shut down...ahhh!

Any way people should know that affirmative action quotas were effectively ended everywhere except in the military/government institutions (which not coincidentally is the most ethnically diverse institution in the country top to bottom by far).

Secondly when there were quotas on affirmative action there was a lawsuit levied at Cal-Berkely law, which was won by the plaintiff (a white student obviously). Interestingly while quotas which allowed less strong minority students get into Cal law based on skin color (of which there were 5 in 1978), there were 8 underperforming white students who were 'legacied' in...yet no lawsuits to prevent this (which still happens btw) from happening were filed.

Thirdly, what affirmative action did/does, where its still in use, is actually help similarly, or more likely better, qualified minorities get jobs that they wouldn't because underqualified whites were getting them in the past and even today. Moreover, in every situation that AA has been used to at least give minorities opportunity, even without quotas, racial/ethnic diversity has flourished, and when it hasn't the workplace/school has gone back to only hiring majorities...think the NFL Rooney Rule.

Fourth, and a lot of people don't seem to get this on the PJ board, affirmative action was intended to help all minorities in this society - more specifically women. In fact, a VERY strong argument could be made that white women have benefitted far more than the implementation of AA than any other 'minority' group.

Just a few things to think about ...

what about things like scholorships and other benefits that are available to everyone but whites? why is a 4.5 gpa student passed by for scholorship because they're white yet it's given to the minority with the 3.0 gpa just because they're not white?

first; show me the equality in that; then explain why it was ok for minorities to march for equality yet whites shouldn't march for those same rights.

callen

and I just got started on it. Maybe Kat was disapointed in Anhimus's position as well.

callen

onelongsong wrote:

what about things like scholorships and other benefits that are available to everyone but whites? why is a 4.5 gpa student passed by for scholorship because they're white yet it's given to the minority with the 3.0 gpa just because they're not white?

first; show me the equality in that; then explain why it was ok for minorities to march for equality yet whites shouldn't march for those same rights.

I don't like entitlements...or preferential treatment..no doubt..but to think a black male has it like a white boy....no way.

Ahnimus

callen wrote:

and I just got started on it. Maybe Kat was disapointed in Anhimus's position as well.

What is my position according to your interpretation?

ryan198

onelongsong wrote:

what about things like scholorships and other benefits that are available to everyone but whites? why is a 4.5 gpa student passed by for scholorship because they're white yet it's given to the minority with the 3.0 gpa just because they're not white?

first; show me the equality in that; then explain why it was ok for minorities to march for equality yet whites shouldn't march for those same rights.

Scholarships are the choices of individuals/groups who decide to give those to whomever they want to - besides mostly white students win the awards not set aside for minority groups. Secondly, whites as an ethnic group, have an average household income (go look at the 2000 census) that is $15,000 more than those who identify as black so aren't you already, on average, born into a position of privilege ... particularly since your family can afford better school, teaching, etc...Again this is on average, but it speaks to wider dispersal of unearned privilege than the "minority scholarships" you are upset over. Finally, as I wrote before, if you really want to complain about losing privileges/jobs you should be complaining about white women, they are the one's "taking advantage" of AA, and minority scholarships, etc. the most.

callen

Ahnimus wrote:

What is my position according to your interpretation?

fair question...by reading your posts in closed thread....last couple pages anyway......that you feel that blacks don't have it as bad as some would like you to believe. Tell me it aint so Ahnimus.....I could be wrong in my assessment.

Ahnimus

ryan198 wrote:

Scholarships are the choices of individuals/groups who decide to give those to whomever they want to - besides mostly white students win the awards not set aside for minority groups. Secondly, whites as an ethnic group, have an average household income (go look at the 2000 census) that is $15,000 more than those who identify as black so aren't you already, on average, born into a position of privilege ... particularly since your family can afford better school, teaching, etc...Again this is on average, but it speaks to wider dispersal of unearned privilege than the "minority scholarships" you are upset over. Finally, as I wrote before, if you really want to complain about losing privileges/jobs you should be complaining about white women, they are the one's "taking advantage" of AA, and minority scholarships, etc. the most.

So basically "on average" is a stereotype and stereotypes have wider impact on society than reality. But again, you are speaking of your particular environment, I wish it was more in context, because I've never had the privledge to attend a different school or anything of the sort. Please keep it in context and say exactly what city you are talking about.

Ahnimus

callen wrote:

fair question...by reading your posts in closed thread....last couple pages anyway......that you feel that blacks don't have it as bad as some would like you to believe. Tell me it aint so Ahnimus.....I could be wrong in my assessment.

Not where I live. And that certainly isn't on the moon. I think all these broad assumptions are directed at the world, but should really be localized, I also don't think stereotyping is going to get you any closer to utopia

callen

Ahnimus wrote:

Not where I live. And that certainly isn't on the moon. I think all these broad assumptions are directed at the world, but should really be localized, I also don't think stereotyping is going to get you any closer to utopia

tell you in the US...there's lots of prejudice against blacks....and in the corporate world..they are very few.....verrrrry few.

ryan198

Ahnimus wrote:

So basically "on average" is a stereotype and stereotypes have wider impact on society than reality. But again, you are speaking of your particular environment, I wish it was more in context, because I've never had the privledge to attend a different school or anything of the sort. Please keep it in context and say exactly what city you are talking about.

that is a national average from the US census

surferdude

ryan198 wrote:

whites as an ethnic group, have an average household income (go look at the 2000 census) that is $15,000 more than those who identify as black so aren't you already, on average, born into a position of privilege ... particularly since your family can afford better school, teaching, etc...

This is such a garbage stat and you should know it. What about the widening economic divide that's leaving more white's in the exact same financial position as "those who identify as black".

Let's stop looking at people as part of a group based on color. I'm not a color, I'm a person. The sooner we start treating people as individuals and not a color the better off we'll be.

I'm sick and tired of it being some supposed hardship competition. The people starving to death in Africa they have it hard.

ryan198

Ahnimus wrote:

Not where I live. And that certainly isn't on the moon. I think all these broad assumptions are directed at the world, but should really be localized, I also don't think stereotyping is going to get you any closer to utopia

it's worked in the Army, NFL coaching, and wherever non-quota AA is used

Ahnimus

callen wrote:

tell you in the US...there's lots of prejudice against blacks....and in the corporate world..they are very few.....verrrrry few.

Good, so you recognize that it's just America that has all of these huge social problems. But I still think you are blowing it way out of proportion.

I don't know. I've never seen anything you describe.

ryan198

surferdude wrote:

This is such a garbage stat and you should know it. What about the widening economic divide that's leaving more white's in the exact same financial position as "those who identify as black".

Let's stop looking at people as part of a group based on color. I'm not a color, I'm a person. The sooner we start treating people as individuals and not a color the better off we'll be.

I'm sick and tired of it being some supposed hardship competition. The people starving to death in Africa they have it hard.

First I never said that Africans didn't have it bad. Second, what do people in Africa have to do with the difference between minorities and whites in American society (the richest society in the world)? Third, if you read my first post my dissertation is on neoliberalism (the stupid economic system of inequality that we live under) and whiteness (in all its complexity) so I understand that there is a larger number of whites being pushed into poverty. However, when 23-29% (depending on whose stats you use) of all American blacks are living in poverty compared to 8-12% whites, you cannot deny there is a difference in hardship. Again those are straight out of the census and unicef numbers, so you may call b.s. but IMO that's kind of silly.

ryan198

Ahnimus wrote:

Good, so you recognize that it's just America that has all of these huge social problems. But I still think you are blowing it way out of proportion.

I don't know. I've never seen anything you describe.

quick name 10 black corporate CEO's, NFL, MLB, NHL, or NBA owners, and/or U.S.Presidents, ... now do the same for 10 white corporate CEO's, NFL, MLB, NHL, or NBA owners, and/or U.S. Presidents....no inequality...today?

Ahnimus

ryan198 wrote:

quick name 10 black corporate CEO's, NFL, MLB, NHL, or NBA owners, and/or U.S.Presidents, ... now do the same for 10 white corporate CEO's, NFL, MLB, NHL, or NBA owners, and/or U.S. Presidents....no inequality...today?

That's your mess man, not mine. The society I live in doesn't operate on the same stereotypical premises yours does, we have different social issues. But nothing as vile and barbarous as you describe.

ryan198

what do you mean anhimus?

surferdude

ryan198 wrote:

However, when 23-29% (depending on whose stats you use) of all American blacks are living in poverty compared to 8-12% whites, you cannot deny there is a difference in hardship.

What's the growth trend for both these groups. I would expect to find black poverty rates decreasing and white poverty rates increasing.
I think the predjudice now a days is based much more on income than color. The US is a very tough place to be poor. The social safety net provided makes it very hard to make the climb out of poverty. I think making it raced based just muddies the waters and makes accurate analysis impossible. Making it race based makes it an emotional topic.

Ahnimus

ryan198 wrote:

what do you mean anhimus?

I mean, where I live a Black, Hispanic, yellow, pink or green person has just as much oppotunity as anyone else. I don't hear black people saying they are oppressed, they don't picket in the street. The only people here that tend to speak out are Native/Aboriginals and Women. Neither of which is currently being oppressed and the perceived differences are somewhat exagerative.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The original list was a little over the top...what was there like 50 items or something?

ryan198

surferdude wrote:

What's the growth trend for both these groups. I would expect to find black poverty rates decreasing and white poverty rates increasing.
I think the predjudice now a days is based much more on income than color. The US is a very tough place to be poor. The social safety net provided makes it very hard to make the climb out of poverty. I think making it raced based just muddies the waters and makes accurate analysis impossible. Making it race based makes it an emotional topic.

I will have to check again, but I believe that while there is an increasing level of white people getting poorer, blacks are still easily ahead. Check Lawrence Grossberg's book Caught in the Crossfire. I agree that the US is a very tough place to be poor, I was poor most of my life, and I am white, yet I still recognize that I was afforded some privilege based on the color of my skin. As for your second point I will have to again disagree in that race makes up part of the context of understanding a particular issue. Again going back to Grossberg, "context is everything, and everything is context"....I think that by generalizing how race and class co-exist to create the initial lens with which to look at individual situations allows for more accurate analysis...but that's just me.

Ahnimus

ryan198 wrote:

I will have to check again, but I believe that while there is an increasing level of white people getting poorer, blacks are still easily ahead. Check Lawrence Grossberg's book Caught in the Crossfire. I agree that the US is a very tough place to be poor, I was poor most of my life, and I am white, yet I still recognize that I was afforded some privilege based on the color of my skin. As for your second point I will have to again disagree in that race makes up part of the context of understanding a particular issue. Again going back to Grossberg, "context is everything, and everything is context"....I think that by generalizing how race and class co-exist to create the initial lens with which to look at individual situations allows for more accurate analysis...but that's just me.

Or a more prejudiced analysis.

ryan198

Ahnimus wrote:

I mean, where I live a Black, Hispanic, yellow, pink or green person has just as much oppotunity as anyone else. I don't hear black people saying they are oppressed, they don't picket in the street. The only people here that tend to speak out are Native/Aboriginals and Women. Neither of which is currently being oppressed and the perceived differences are somewhat exagerative.

do they really have the same opportunity to be a corporate CEO as, say George Bush's daughters? I guess that's what I'm getting at, is that if this is supposedly an equal society, and everyone has an equal opportunity to get to the top, then why isn't that the case. I assert that is not the case because white men own the companies, they run the government at its highest levels, they own the means of communication, and they are the one's who have to relinquish it to others, be they of different class/race/gender/sexuality.

ryan198

Ahnimus wrote:

Or a more prejudiced analysis.

do we not look at any situation through a prejudicial lens? By this I mean, that word necessariy suggests that you are using your past knowledge to formulate an opinion (pre-judge) on the present. My feeling is that if I am already going to be prejudicial, as is anyone else unless they are like the goldfish in Ani DiFranco's Little Plastic Castle song, then I am going to do my absolute best to understand the situation as best as I can by getting the most information that I can about a given topic. If you choose to live in a world of self-centeredness, and say that you are being un-pejudiced then I would certainly disagree.

Ahnimus

ryan198 wrote:

do they really have the same opportunity to be a corporate CEO as, say George Bush's daughters? I guess that's what I'm getting at, is that if this is supposedly an equal society, and everyone has an equal opportunity to get to the top, then why isn't that the case. I assert that is not the case because white men own the companies, they run the government at its highest levels, they own the means of communication, and they are the one's who have to relinquish it to others, be they of different class/race/gender/sexuality.

Uh, no I don't have equal opportunity, but I'm also white. You are referring to some kind of classism that has nothing to do with race. Oprah isn't going to cut me a cheque either. Bottom line is, no one cares about me or will do anything for me. My taxes get spent on social programs I'll probably never benefit from. Meanwhile I make $30,000/year. Not a lot of money. But I make more than a McDonald's employee simply because I got a bit of education. A native friend of mine has a bit more education than me and he's a network administrator making lots of money. Plus his dad is/was the chief of Rama and he get's a cheque annually from the Casino Rama.

So yeah, his daddy helped him get where he is, but he also went on to become educated and work towards having a career. This guy really doesn't like the typical native view of Canada which defies the system and just complains about it all the time. This guy knew what he had to do and did it instead of whining about being Native.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

ryan198 wrote:

do we not look at any situation through a prejudicial lens? By this I mean, that word necessariy suggests that you are using your past knowledge to formulate an opinion (pre-judge) on the present. My feeling is that if I am already going to be prejudicial, as is anyone else unless they are like the goldfish in Ani DiFranco's Little Plastic Castle song, then I am going to do my absolute best to understand the situation as best as I can by getting the most information that I can about a given topic. If you choose to live in a world of self-centeredness, and say that you are being un-pejudiced then I would certainly disagree.

there are very successfull people of all races... layers, doctor's, CEO's, talk show hosts comedians, TV reporters,politics.. etc.. pretty much everywhere I can think of

surferdude

ryan198 wrote:

do they really have the same opportunity to be a corporate CEO as, say George Bush's daughters? I guess that's what I'm getting at, is that if this is supposedly an equal society, and everyone has an equal opportunity to get to the top, then why isn't that the case. I assert that is not the case because white men own the companies, they run the government at its highest levels, they own the means of communication, and they are the one's who have to relinquish it to others, be they of different class/race/gender/sexuality.

Explain to me why some of the highest paying jobs in America, pro sports, don't follow this racial model. Why don't we complain about the disproportionate number of blacks in the NBA or NFL and the lack of latinos?

By making it race back you lose sight of the reality of the individual.

boxwine_in_hell

Whitey dont likes to be mades funs of

RolandTD20Kdrummer

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Whitey dont likes to be mades funs of

who does though?