Black privilege
- Thread starter Meganium
- Start date
I'm going to allow this potentially controversial thread & discussion.
But I'm going to lay out a warning to everyone who decides to post here.
Keep this discussion respectful and mature.
But I'm going to lay out a warning to everyone who decides to post here.
Keep this discussion respectful and mature.
You bet wrong.
What privilegs do they have? I'm not from the US so I don't know.
"Is pizza delicious?" wouldn't be controversial.
This is going to get a bit ideological, but oh well -
In the big picture, no I don't believe it does. Personally, I believe it is an excuse for people who see a black person succeed in a system in which whites are dominant. In other words, unsuccessful whites blame "black privilege" on why someone of color is more successful than they are. For example, affirmative action (AA). Bigots blame AA for the reason they didn't get into their top university, but AA is more so that the universities (for example) can't discriminate against non-whites (this happens anyway, but is much less common in public universities than private universities). Those who are helped by affirmative action do belong in the institutions they are accepted into, but people who are against such policies incorrectly claim they are less "deserving" or "qualified" to get into them.
I guess to answer by my own ideological perspective, they don't. The US government has in place certain laws that help against institutional racism, but some white people (who are not affected by institutional racism) are against it because in their eyes it looks like "favoritism" or something along those lines. Culturally, the US also has "white privilege" (which I assume you know of) and those that have "white guilt" (in other words, the guilt of being white in a system that favors them over every other skin color) are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a person of color. This is in a nutshell, so I'm sorry if it seems incoherent
In the big picture, no I don't believe it does. Personally, I believe it is an excuse for people who see a black person succeed in a system in which whites are dominant. In other words, unsuccessful whites blame "black privilege" on why someone of color is more successful than they are. For example, affirmative action (AA). Bigots blame AA for the reason they didn't get into their top university, but AA is more so that the universities (for example) can't discriminate against non-whites (this happens anyway, but is much less common in public universities than private universities). Those who are helped by affirmative action do belong in the institutions they are accepted into, but people who are against such policies incorrectly claim they are less "deserving" or "qualified" to get into them.
I guess to answer by my own ideological perspective, they don't. The US government has in place certain laws that help against institutional racism, but some white people (who are not affected by institutional racism) are against it because in their eyes it looks like "favoritism" or something along those lines. Culturally, the US also has "white privilege" (which I assume you know of) and those that have "white guilt" (in other words, the guilt of being white in a system that favors them over every other skin color) are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a person of color. This is in a nutshell, so I'm sorry if it seems incoherent
Through personal experience I believe both white, and black people have their own distinctive advantages and disadvantages. It also depends on how they grew up and what they were taught. I don't think one really towers over the other, when looking at it from an overall stand point.
Generalizing an entire group of people and assuming they all think, act, and have all the same opinions is wrong and not factual
So can’t really say “they all feel society owes them something”
Every individual is different
So can’t really say “they all feel society owes them something”
Every individual is different
The thing is, when I try and think of laws or organizations that specifically benefit whites, I draw a blank. If I think about organizations that help blacks specifically, many examples come to mind. I'll give you a few: affirmative action and the quantity of scholarships for college specifically for blacks vs the same for whites. Keep in mind, this is specifically just for being black, not that you are poor or disadvantaged in any way, just for skin color.
Would I call this black privilege? No, because I don't blame my success or lack of success on other people. I think this is what privilege implies and I reject that idea.
Would I call this black privilege? No, because I don't blame my success or lack of success on other people. I think this is what privilege implies and I reject that idea.
If you're talking about as a whole, looking as zoomed out as possible on culture in America, I'd say you're insane to think black people aren't disadvantaged. You do realize that even though slavery is abolished the economic repercussions are still present today right? If you want to post any facts besides what appear to be racially charged generalizations, I'd be happy to dig up some studies on income disparities between whites and blacks. This is one area where studies are pretty consistent.
I'd agree that the environment you grew up in is much more important than race.
yikes, do you know what gerrymandering is?
@zen Any statistics about the disparity between whites and blacks is just that, a statistic. You are trying to reach a broad claim that this whole disparity is due to slavery. You have no evidence of this. I will say a small part of it could be. However, this is a small, small part from lack of generational wealth.
As for your last comment, you need to explain more.
As for your last comment, you need to explain more.
What do you think set a family up for generational wealth back in the day? I bet one of the requirements was not being a slave
,Oh and gerrymandering is very common in southern states for restricting the amount of say African Americans have at the polls. For example: Say there are 5 sections a part of circle A. 40% of circle A is black and 60% is white. If I draw the lines of counties so that all 35% of the blacks are in section 1 of circle A, then whites get majority in the other 4 sections. That is the basics of gerrymandering.
Last edited:
I agree with you that they have less generational wealth. However, your broader claim is that the disparity between the wealth of whites and blacks is solely based off of slavery is ludicrous and you have yet to prove it. So prove it.
As for your gerrymandering, can people place where they want these sections willy nilly? If so, then I agree, that seems like a shitty law.
As for your gerrymandering, can people place where they want these sections willy nilly? If so, then I agree, that seems like a shitty law.
I did some basic research. As for impact of gerrymandering, it seems both parties do it. You are also implying that if one party gets power, then it can gerrymander so that another party can't get into power again. This seems false since whether or not democrats or republicans win an election has changed a lot over the years.What do you think set a family up for generational wealth back in the day? I bet one of the requirements was not being a slave
Oh and gerrymandering is very common in southern states for restricting the amount of say African Americans have at the polls. For example: Say there are 5 sections a part of circle A. 40% of circle A is black and 60% is white. If I draw the lines of counties so that all 35% of the blacks are in section 1 of circle A, then whites get majority in the other 4 sections. That is the basics of gerrymandering.
When did I say it was solely based off slavery? I'm saying that was the start. There are a multitude of factors, that partially stemmed from slavery, such as having less opportunities for education. Slavery and Jim Crow laws basically gave African-Americans a late start at the game, economically. You can't talk about the differences in education without tracing it back to slavery, which is why I think slavery alone is a strong enough causality in regards to income disparity. Separate but equal was NOT equal.
And yes the people who are in office get to decide where they draw the lines, and it is literally done so their party has the maximum amount of power. It's kinda crazy that it exists. In the south it usually screws blacks, but I'm sure there are other parts of the country where Democrats are doing it to Republicans as well. The thing is though when you look at which RACE not which PARTY gets the short end of the gerrymandering stick, it's definitely blacks.
Most of the people who were affected by Jim Crow are now the grandfathers/grandmothers of today's black men and women. I think it is too far of a reach to say that because your grandfather poor that is the reason you are so poor. Especially, to the magnitude of the difference between the wealth of blacks and whites. I think past oppression is a small contributor. Wealth is a measure of how many transactions you have had over the free market, it works mainly in the present, not the past.
As for your second point, I don't know a lot about gerrymandering, but it seems illogical that you would draw lines specifically to black areas rather than the areas that would maximize the democratic voters. It is possible that there is only a correlation here.