September 15, 2008
-
What? White privilege? Huh??
And now a word from your sponsors about white privilege, which supposedly became extinct like the dinosaur in 1964....
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
September 13, 2008Tim Wise's ZSpace Page / ZSpace
For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents,
because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no
one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative
action.White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from
holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired
confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word
answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their
homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.White privilege is, in short, the problem.
Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me (Soft Skull, 2005, revised 2008),
and of Speaking Treason Fluently, publishing this month, also by Soft Skull.
Comments (33)
hahaha,,, palin has you worried,, i started to put some question marks there,, but not necessary....
i think mcpow is still the one running for president,,, your right tho,, she may gather him some votes,,,
i started to say i didnt recognize any of those names towards the top of the post,, but i snapped finally,,, hahahahaha
terrorists,, if us citizens,,, should in fact have rights,,, others ,, no,,, thats just common sense,,,
ears and palin,,, have,,, i dont have a name for her yet,,, well,, i dont have a name for ears vp pick either,,, who was he again?? anyway,,, they have about the same degree of experience i would guess,, altho,, i wouldnt count experience as a plus,,,, too many politicians with experience in office,,, i personally think the numbers should be slashed,,,
i myself would do that when elected king,,,, to the tune of all of them,,, a nice number,,,
i will not be elected king tho,,, and mcpow will be elected president,,, well just have to live with it i guess,,, sad,, i know...
as far as white privilage,,, i havent experienced any of it lately,,, well,,, i guess thats a lie if you count mexicans as not white,,, and i believe tecnically,, they are,,, in scientific terms,,, scientific terms,,, hahahahahaha,,, im given the benifit of the doubt more here in terms of being able to pay for something,,,,,
that works the other way tho too,,, many many mexicans just dont like gringos,,, thats a shame too,,, i think some of them are really hot,,,
no room in mejicojohns world for prejudice,,, it is silly,, aint it..
I so sick of the Bush/McCain ticket. Bush is not running. McCain was the least like Bush of our Republican choices. This constant barrage of 'more of the same' garbage is what is turning people off of the Obama ticket. While McCain is an 88% party loyalist, Obama is 96% (some of us still look at the facts for ourselves). The change I want is disloyalty to the party line, a willingness to work for progress.
But that's just a response to the last sentence of the uncompelling myopic diatribe.
wow. Thank you.
p
@OldmanGordon - You were predisposed to be turned off the Obama ticket, Old Man. It didn't take much in your case. I do think, though, that if the Obama campaign stuck to the issues and simply ignored Sarah Palin, they'd be better off. As it is, Democrats are taking their eyes off the ball, protesting too much, and actually drawing MORE attention to McCain/Palin. And I guess I'm guilty of it too.
Fabulous!
You're right, but I was talking about the McCain surge in the polls in the last week. I think people are getting tired of the constant attempt to tie McCain to Bush. Criticize him on is record. Palin on the other hand...I'm fine with the criticism of her. At least a good portion of the criticism has been about her record and her qualifications.
I long for the days of "Old Hickory", when opponents could say what they meant, calling each other names such as "Jackass", without the current thin-skinned offended response. I was embarrassed that the republicans took offense at the pig-lipstick remark, rather than firing back with some clever "Obviously Senator Obama knows a lot about pork..." salvo.
I agree with you dear friend 100%
Hello darlin'! That's a stunner of an article.... but seriously; Ms Palin is as dense as all that is she? I had never heard of her until a week ago.
T.x
@Bapspal - No one else had heard of her either. Everything all right with you? Thanks for dropping by. You should have stayed for a spot of tea.
"White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug."
Absolute, unmitigated, rabble-rousing nonsense. I don't know a single human who thinks of "the boyfriend" as anything other than an uneducated, foul-mouthed, purile, idiot loser with zero control over his mouth or his penis. And neither do you.
There are so many things about this article that are just ignorant rhetoric, designed to stir up feelings of resentment and entitlement by sleight of hand. But I don't see the point in talking about it here.
I linked to you; I think this essay is great! I think we can show our dissention without some of the nastiness as happened yesterday though. ie the woman at a rally saying Sarah Who "is nothing but a bucket of slop." Thanks for the post. I basically said the same thing in mine yesterday, though not as eloquently.
I think you have some good points...but I think your wrong on some too. But its intriguiing and well written!
I agree but it is not just white privilege. but white Republican privilege. Imagine what they would have done if Chelsea Clinton or one of the Kerry daughters had been in such a situation at 17 or even if one of MY kids had in my small republican town. All of liberalism would have been on trial and found guilty of bad parenting. Heck, my son had trouble getting an after school job and he is a good student. But we go to the liberal church --the horror--and kids from the mega church come first! Thank goodness some immigrants who started a restaurant hired him! And if Obama had gone to all those schools and dropped out he would never have even gotten a job! People are still upset about Obama's neighbors while Palin's husband wanted Alaska to drop out of the United States.
@Eccentrique - What the liberals are doing is just recognizing how much conservatives hate us and are prejudiced against us. Eye opening isn't it?
I remember going to hear Obama for the first
time. He said something that rang true to me being a woman in science. He said
that when you are a minority and different you attract a lot of attention
initially. But if you can't back it up with some substance then you turn people
off as quickly as they were attracted to you. Obama is right and I admire him
for understanding the power and the pitfalls of being a minority candidate. Likewise, Obama hasn’t gotten a free pass
from me or anytbody. And he has
held up to scrutiny quite well.
The man has a good head on his shoulders. He has shown presidentital temperment with his pick of Biden
as a running mate. He needed
someone with experience in international affairs to balance the ticket. Biden has proved to be correct in his Pakistain
policy.
@OldmanGordon - How can we expect him to get anything done if he can't work with his own party or the Democrats? He just runs around picking fights and trying to talk us into bad choices. And what is he going to do exactly besides build 100 new nuke plants and drill in a place where we haven't even done any studies to see if there is oil or not? He's attacking pork barrel spending which is something like 1% of the budget. He doesn't like economics while Obama does. I think McCain is rash. I have what I like about Obama on my site and on a previous post on this site. I also like it that Obama does not get mad easily. He has presidential temperament. McCain gets mad about lipstick remarks and is suing the National Enquirer. I want someone who won't push the button when he's having a bad day.
@Isismoon - Thanks for your comments. I think that his tendency is toward compromise. When he differs with his party it is in order to make a change. Especially since the congress is going to be Democratically controlled, he would not complain about gridlocked congress, but try to work out a middle ground.
I just checked out a little bit about McCain's temper. Soem of it makes me like him even more, like Teddy Roosevelt and my previously mentioned Andrew Jackson.
@OldmanGordon - His vp pick is not really a signal of compromise. What compromises is he known for lately? You can like his impulsiveness and temper but on the other hand you can see where I would find it distressing. And will any republican be able to handle the economy? Their deregulation ideas are causing many problems right now in the banking industry. And now we are finding that their hobbling of the EPA has caused many drugs to be found in drinking water and we have also been using some toxic plastics. I don't like their philosophy in general and I don't see how any parent could feel secure with one of them in charge, especially a loose cannon like he and his running mate. I don't see either of them as having a lick of sense.
@Isismoon - "I agree but it is not just white privilege. but white Republican privilege." Very good point.
You definitely made me think! I appreciate that. fratmom recommended your site.
John- I don't mean to hijack your board for a discussion with Isis. Would you like us to "take it outside?"
@Isismoon - His VP pick was a compromise with the conservatives. Obama chose someone who was almost exactly like him (according to liberal/conservative voting record).
Off the top of my head, here's some compromises McCain is know for recently: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, Voting for Barbara Boxer's amendments, and the Gang of 12.
Presidents don't control the economy as much as people would like to think. They don't write or approve legislation, though they can veto it (Bush has vetoed the least since Carter). The responsibility for the economic crisis is not squarely on any individual, party, or even the government.
If we're going to start talking about other things: Obama's idea of increasing the minimum wage (over 10%?) will (would) destroy many small and family owned businesses, and increase unemployment.
@OldmanGordon -
" John- I don't mean to hijack your board for a discussion with Isis. Would you like us to 'take it outside?' "
Not at all. I like and appreciate comments and dialogue, as long as they're reasonably respectful. Carry on.
@OldmanGordon - Well, policies by the GOP have controlled the economy and are not working out. True that is not all that has happened but we do need some regulation now--not "lesser government". We need change and a democratic president would bring that. Obama has been able to bring many young people into polictics. The man is inspirational. And Obama is very moderate on many issue and chose someone for vp with experience. McCain is conservative but sometimes compromises for his own good. He chose someone who is ultra conservative and knows nothing about any issues and is rigid and uncompromising. The women barely made it through college. Yet he picked her because of her extreme stands on social issues and to try to get the woman vote. Obama made a good choice for the country and McCain made a good choice for McCain. Obama likes people and wants the best for his country. McCain and what's her name are egotistical and advancing their agenda--which is oil and wealth for their friends. That is why Excentrique's post makes so much sense. Obama makes good solid choices. If you want to talk issues, I have the energy polices side by side on my site and Obama's is much more sensible and nuanced as an energy policy needs to be.As for the GOP, they have chants for an energy policy and McCain's is barely more than a chant. McCain makes risky choices and is bad with details. I'm not looking for risk in my life right now.
As for minimum wage, we need to give people enough wages and health coverage so that they don't go to the ER for medical care and raise our premiums. My daughter is an ER nurse and people who have no money HAVE to be treated at an ER so they come in with minor complaints because they can't afford a doctor. A good solid middle class is good for a country. It provides stability to society. McCain would risk that. Not to mention that I have not heard or read anything about the minimum wage going up father. McCain has said twice he would try to bring back the draft. Who from your family is going to fight his next war?
Here is a little more about McCain's science policy (thoughtless chanting) vs Obama's thoughtful approach from physicstoday:
The energy debate, such as it is, continued to focus on the Republican mantra "Drill, baby, drill." About 12,000 McCain supporters took up the chant during a massive rally in Virginia during the week.
While Obama has moved his position toward allowing more offshore drilling than is currently allowed as part of a wider alternative energy plan, the Republicans are still hammering the Democrats for slowing the "drilling" solution to high gasoline prices. The argument seems to have gained credence among many voters despite a Department of Energy assessment that more drilling wouldn't have any impact on prices for a least a decade, and then would result in at best a marginal change.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, appearing on Meet the Press Sunday, criticized the Republican focus on drilling as a solution to the energy crisis. In a quote that Democrats are circulating on the Web, Friedman noted that the Republicans are missing the arrival of the energy technology revolution.
and on his very poor for the US vp pick:
Thomas Friedman isn’t impressed with McCain, describing McCain’s vice-presidential pick as completing "his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.”
"John McCain was all about global warming and the integrity of the science. The selection of Sarah Palin is a complete reversal from that position," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC). "She is disturbingly part of the pattern of the Bush administration in their approach to science generally and the science of the environment in particular."
Isis - Since this conversation has devolved from discussion of actual points to denigration ("Thoughtless chanting") and sweeping fear-inducing attacks ("McCain would risk [the destabilization of society]"), I'll gladly visit your site, hoping for a much more well-thought out and well-reasoned factual discussion of the issues, but I suspect I'll find what you've cut and pasted from the daily disorted Kos and the New York Times.
@OldmanGordon - This is why discussions between "liberals" and "convervatives" never get anywhere. One person's unassailable logic, based on years of careful observation and life experience, is the other's "denigration" or "fear-inducing attack". Isismoon could never in a million years come up with anything that was well-reasoned or factual enough to suit you, Old Man. We start from diametrically opposite world views about what is good and what is evil, and our reasoning, such as it is, proceeds from there. It's really quite hopeless.
I can tell you with 100% certainty, however, that if elected, McCain and Palin not only COULD but WILL risk the destabilization of the WORLD in pursuit of their own mad world views, just as every Republican Chief Executive since Gerald Ford has done. You can mark my prediction on the calendar, and take it to the bank if there are any left by January 2009.
@Eccentrique - Given a million years and a million monkeys, maybe. I don't agree that liberals and conservatives can't have beneficial conversations. The problem is that most people are not willing to grant any space for the other's points, fearing that giving in on a point is losing the discussion completely.
As an example, I think a position on abortion that waffles is the most reasonable position. How can you cavalierly say that anyone has to 'keep the baby'; likewise, how can you coldly deny the humanity of the developing fetus? ,,, (I thought I'd throw in commas like mejicojohn just to see how it feels) Maybe most have resolved that dilemma in their minds, and are now firmly dug in in their trench, unable to understand or empathize with the dilemma anymore.
I find that many people would rather argue with someone who is never going to change their mind rather than someone who is moderate. Example of that,,,(it still doesn't feel like English) I posited the idea that while I found some things sinful and wrong (eg drunkennes, fornication, including sodomy, homosexuality, marital infidelity, etc), I thought the government was in no position to punish or even outlaw them. The person I was discussing it with was disappointed that I was being so reasonable. They'd prefer an angry evangelical bible-thumping response just so that they could share in their tired rhetorical 'discussion'.
@OldmanGordon - As it happens, you've used two examples where you'll get little argument from me. I, like you, am not personally in favor of sexual license. But I wouldn't criminalize it, for the reason that it (mostly) only affects the consenting adults engaged in it. Abortion is a slightly tougher issue than, say, adultery or homosexuality, because it arguably affects a non-consenting life. But at the end of the day, each person has to answer to his/her God for his/her decisions regarding his/her sexual behavior.
I get much more exercised about those behaviors that affect all of us. Specifically, those instances (and they are legion) where the rich exploit, rob, plunder, and even murder the poor for their own profit. I will give not one inch on that topic, whether it's government officials or the private sector (or, commonly, both working in tandem) doing the pillaging. Government exists to serve ALL the people, and the "free market" is hardly an acceptable substitute for ethical government. A quick and painless death is far too good for those who oppress the poor and disenfranchised.
Now, here's what I enjoy. We reach the point of agreement, then we can discuss things. Most people think that that's the end of the argument...agreement. In the examples where we agree, lets take homosexual marriage, where I am going to assume we disagree. Can the government put a stamp of approval on something that the citizens deem to be 'wrong'. One example of 'yes' is strip clubs: I thnk the majority of Americans don't approve of them, but consider them legal. I realize I'm arguing your side here, but it's the concept that we have to look at.
@OldmanGordon - Now here's what I do NOT enjoy. We reach a point of agreement that a topic is not important enough to be particularly controversial, and you want to discuss THAT rather than something that affects our daily lives in a more direct way.
I'm curious why you think we disagree about homosexual marriage. I personally am very ambivalent about it, and ultimately I have a lot more important things on my mind. I can dispose of the subject in about two or three sentences, though. Viscerally and due to my residual Christianity I'm made uncomfortable by homosexuality, and would prefer that the word "marriage" not be associated with it. On the other hand, I don't think gay couples should be discriminated against, and I would accord them full civil rights in a union which I would term a "civil union". But then it's essentially just semantics, and if the gays and the state want to use the term "marriage", far be it from me to angrily protest.
And yes, the government CAN do anything it wants, pretty much. We citizens have no real way of knowing what the citizenry as a whole thinks about anything. And our fellow citizens - present company excluded, of course - are extremely easy to manipulate through their fears and their profound ignorance.
@Eccentrique - I don't mean that I want to discuss an irrelevant issue to death, but that I like to go from our point of agreement, in order to find where we diverge.
I can agree with almost everything you said. Far be it from me to angrily protest, too, but to voice some concern, and hope that those who disagree can give in on the offensiveness of the semantics if I can give in on the offensiveness of the morality.
Great post and so well said. Just wish more could read it.
Comments are closed.