| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
20 May 2007 03:28:21 AM |
| Object: |
WHY AMERICANS SHOULD OPPOSE WHITE PRIVILEGE |
By writing about the politics of white privilege on Internet
Newsgroups and listening to the people who responded to that writing.
I have had to face one more way that privilege runs deep in my life,
and it makes me uncomfortable. However, the discomfort tells me I am
on the right track.
As a result, almost ever day for the past few months, I have received
many responses to my postings from people who want to talk about race.
I learned not only more about my own privilege, but more about why
many white folks can't come to terms with the truism I offered in the
posts, which is mainly that many White Americas, whether overtly
racist or not, benefit from living in a world mostly run by white
people that has been built on the land and the backs of non-white
people.
I have also received many e-mails too. The reactions varied from
racist rantings, to deeply felt expressions of pain and anger, to
declarations of solidarity. But probably the most important response I
got was from non-white Americans who said something like this: "Of
course there is white privilege. I've been pointing it out to my white
friends and co-workers for years. Isn't it funny that almost no one
listens to me, but everyone takes notice when a white guy says it."
Those comments forced me again to ponder the privilege I live with.
Who really does knows more about white privilege, me or the people on
the other side of that privilege? Me, or an African-American or
Hispanic-American inner-city teenager in New York City, Los Angeles or
Chicago who is automatically labeled a "gang member" and feared by
many white folks?
Me, or a homeless Native American on the streets of Bismarck, Boise or
Milwaukee who is invisible to many white people?. Whose voices should
we be paying attention to?
My voice gets heard in large part because I am a white male holds a
professional job with status. In most settings, I speak with the
assumption that people not only will listen, but will take me
seriously. I speak with the assumption that my motives will not be
challenged; I can rely on the perception of me as a neutral authority,
someone whose observations can be trusted.
Every time I open my mouth, I draw on, and in some ways reinforce, my
privilege, which is in large part tied to race.
Right now, I want to use that privilege to acknowledge the many non-
white people who took the time to tell me about the enduring realities
of racism in America. And, I want to talk to the white people who I
think misread my postings and misunderstand what's at stake.
The responses of my white critics broke down into a few basic
categories, around the following claims:
1. White privilege doesn't exist because affirmative action has made
being white a disadvantage. The simple response: Extremely limited
attempts to combat racism, such as affirmative action, do virtually
nothing to erase the white privilege built over 500 years that
pervades our society. As a friend of mine says, the only real
disadvantage to being white is that it so often prevents people from
understanding racial issues.
2. White privilege exists, but it can't be changed because it is
natural for any group to favor its own, and besides, the worst
manifestations of racism are over. Response: This approach makes human
choices appear outside of human control, which is a dodge to avoid
moral and political responsibility for the injustice we continue to
live with.
3. White privilege exists, and that's generally been a good thing
because White Europeans have civilized the world. Along the way some
bad things may have happened, and we should take care to be nice to
non-whites to make up for that. Response: These people often argued
the curiously contradictory position that (1) non-whites and their
cultures are not inferior, but (2) white/European culture is superior.
As for the civilizing effect of Europe, we might consider five
centuries of inhuman, brutal colonialism along with genocide of
indigenous peoples, slavery, forced religious conversions, rape,
plunder, mass murder, the Holocaust, and World Wars I and II, and then
ask what "civilized" means.
4. White privilege exists because whites are inherently superior, and
I am a weakling and a traitor for suggesting otherwise. Response:
Nazism quite obviously is not dead.
There is much to say beyond those short responses, but for now I am
more interested in one common assumption that all these correspondents
made, that my comments on race and affirmative action were motivated
by "white liberal guilt." The problem is, they got two out of the
three terms wrong. I am white, but I'm not a liberal. In political
terms, I'm a radical; I don't think liberalism offers real solutions
because it doesn't attack the systems of power and structures of
illegitimate authority that are the root cause of oppression, be it
based on race,
gender, sexuality, or class. These systems of oppression, which are
enmeshed and interlocking, require radical solutions.
While it is certainly true that white people are sometimes the victims
of racism or racism occurs between different people of colour, these
incidents fail in comparision to the number
of people of colour who are victimized by institutionalized white
racism; it's not hard to see where the real problem lays. Racism
against white people and racism between different people of colour
should always be condemned and denounced.
And I don't feel guilty. Guilt is appropriate when one has wronged
another, when one has something to feel guilty about. In my life I
have felt guilty for racist or sexist things I have said or done, even
when they were done unconsciously. But that is guilt I felt because of
specific acts, not for the colour of my skin. Also, focusing on
individual guilt feelings is counterproductive when it leads us to
ponder the issue from a psychological point of view instead of a moral
and political one.
So, I cannot, and indeed should not, feel either guilty or proud about
being white, because it is a state of being I have no control over.
However, as a member of a society--and especially as a privileged
member of society--I have an obligation not simply to enjoy that
privilege that comes with being white but to study and understand it,
and work toward a more just world in which such unearned privilege is
eliminated.
While it is certainly true that white people are sometimes the victims
of racism or racism occurs between different people of colour, these
incidents fail in comparision to the number of people of colour who
are victimized by institutionalized white racism; it's not hard to
see where the real problem lays.
Some of my critics say that the goal of eliminating white privilege is
ridiculous; after all, people have unearned privileges of all kinds.
Several people pointed out that, for example, tall people have
unearned privilege in basketball, and we don't ask tall people to stop
playing basketball nor do we eliminate their advantage.
The obvious difference is that racial categories are invented; they
carry privilege or disadvantage only because people with power create
and maintain the privilege for themselves at the expense of others.
The privilege is rooted in violence and is maintained through that
violence as well as more subtle means.
I can't change the world so that everyone is the same height, so that
everyone has the same shot at being a pro basketball player. In fact,
I wouldn't want to; it would be a drab and boring world if we could
erase individual differences like that. But I can work with others to
change the world to erase the effects of differences that have been
created by one group to keep others down.
What matters is what we decide to do with the white privilege. For me,
that means speaking, knowing that I speak with a certain unearned
privilege that gives me advantages I cannot justify.
It also means listening when an elderly black gentleman or a lady from
India who reads my postings to these Internet Newsgroups, e-mails me
to thank me and share their painful experiences of dealing with racism
in America with me. The gentleman in particular who has lived with
more kinds of racism than
I can imagine through more decades than I have been alive, says to me,
"White privilege, yes, good to keep an eye on that, son. Keep yourself
honest. But don't forget to pay attention to the folks who live
without the privilege."
It takes only a bit of empathy to listen, and a bit of courage to act.
It is important that all
Americans both white and non-white alike unite and join together to
fight unearned privilege and institutionalized racism where ever it
may occur.
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: WHY AMERICANS SHOULD OPPOSE WHITE PRIVILEGE |
20 May 2007 03:44:00 PM |
|
|
"Whites are now the only group whose interests are not being promoted
by state institutions, such as TV and the law.
There has been much talk in the controlled media recently about
'institutional racism' within the police, the education system, the
media and other public bodies. The very phrase 'institutional racism'
of course conceals the hidden liberal agenda, implying that anything
which protects or advances the interests of the white majority in our
own country is somehow wrong, and therefore needs to be rectified. In
fact, an objective examination of what is actually happening quickly
reveals that the only people to be the victims of serious and
sustained 'institutional racism' are - you've guessed it - native
British Whites!
Anti-white bias on television
One of the most powerful state institutions - some would argue the
most powerful - is of course the BBC, particularly BBC Television. Is
television 'racist' in the liberal sense of the word? It is hard to
see in what way ethnic minorities are being abused, under-represented
or attacked in any way on BBC TV (or indeed any of the independent TV
networks). On the contrary, the liberal élite who control this
formidable propaganda tool seem to go out of their way to show the
'ethnics' up almost always in the most positive light. Indeed, liberal
sensitivities on this subject are now so acute that there is a
tremendous outcry from the chattering classes if a member of an ethnic
minority is shown in an unflattering situation.
Witness the squeals of protest a few months ago when a black character
in the popular soap Coronation Street was depicted as a burglar. To
pacify the 'anti-racist' lobby, it now usually happens that on the
rare occasions when a TV crime drama features a black or Asian
lawbreaker this will be balanced by the appearance of an admirable
police constable from one of the ethnic minorities taking part in his
arrest, and then probably a lawyer from one of those minorities acting
as prosecution counsel in his trial - not to mention, of course, the
good dusky doctor who will be found treating him if he gets hurt!
Dramatic portrayals of pimps, drug-dealers, muggers, rapists and other
unsavoury characters in the various soaps are almost always played as,
and by, Whites.
Readers of this article will be all too familiar with the following
storyline:-
Evil white 'racist' leads hate campaign against innocent and loveable
black character, culminating in a dramatic and shocking act of
violence. At this point, point, the white racist's plan backfires. His
petrol bomb explodes prematurely (indicating also that he is stupid),
engulfing him in flames likely to result in a well-deserved death. But
wait! His intended black victim happens to come along at that very
moment, and selflessly risks his own life to save the racist.
Recovering in his hospital bed, the hapless white man is sternly
admonished by a liberal policeman/doctor/nurse (very possibly black)
on the evils of racism.
This liberal morality tale is simply a slightly more sophisticated
version of those mawkish 'anti-racist' films from the 1960s, often
starring the likes of Sidney Poitier. The liberal agenda which
underpins this type of nonsense might at first seem so laughable that
no intelligent, independently minded person could swallow it - until
it is remembered that the majority of people in our educationally
dumbed-down society are not intelligent or independently minded enough
to work things out for themselves. Nick Griffin (Spearhead No. 361)
gave a precise figure on this:-
"The most crucial fact of all is that diffusion research all over the
world has shown that only a very small proportion of any given
population - in the region of a mere 2.5 per cent - will ever make up
their own minds to adopt a new innovation."
How often have you heard someone self-righteously proclaim: "Of
course, I don't believe what I see on TV" - only to hear him a few
minutes later quite unconsciously parroting some liberal jargon he's
picked up from the box?
No joke
Promotion of the liberal agenda on television, whilst mostly unsubtle,
is in fact far from being laughable or puerile. It works, to a very
great extent. Most people watch television to be entertained, and
those who control the medium are well aware of this. This is why most
propaganda is disseminated, not through news or documentary
programmes, when people are more 'on their guard', but through
entertainment items such as the soaps and popular 'dramas'. This is
why shows like Eastenders portray a kind of liberal fantasy world,
free from racial conflict (unless introduced by sinister 'outsiders'),
where homosexual and bisexual characters rub shoulders with the rest
of the community at the Queen Vic (with no adverse criticism or
comment, even from the older people there), and the only person with
AIDS is a heterosexual. In this Alice-through-the-looking-glass world
of liberalism, anything goes, whether it be drug-taking, incest,
homosexuality or mixed marriages.
Anti-white stereotyping
If non-Whites have little cause for concern over 'institutional
racism' in the media, what of the majority white population? Here
there is cause for a great deal of concern. White people are regarded
as fair game for racial stereotyping. Any insult, falsehood or attack
may be levelled at us through the medium of television, and we will
not find pro-white 'watchdogs' then raising protest on our behalf.
Whole TV mini-series have been created to portray white history in a
bad light. Anyone watching Roots could be forgiven for thinking that
white people were the sole perpetrators of slavery and Africans its
sole victims. Never mind that slavery in America and the British
Empire lasted barely two hundred years, whilst elsewhere it existed
for thousands of years - and still exists.
And as for those beastly Germans, of course, a multibillion-dollar
entertainment industry has been created to vilify them. It has long
been a principle of law in civilised countries that if someone is
charged with a crime they are at least permitted a fair hearing to
defend themselves. This is certainly not the case with the German
Nation. Indeed, in some countries, notably France and Germany itself,
'Holocaust' denial is a criminal offence. If Basil Fawlty's
stereotyping of Germans had been directed at any other group - Jews,
Blacks, Asians - John Cleese would have been in a jail cell so fast
his feet would hardly have touched the ground.
Under-representation of whites
The other old chestnut trotted out by liberals is that there are not
enough ethnic-minority members among people in the media. This is the
biggest lie of all. Apart from the numerous black and Asian producers,
directors and administrative staff who work in the television
industry, there is one particular minority which is certainly vastly
over-represented at the highest levels. Considering that these people
amount to less than one per cent of the population as a whole, their
position at the top of British television is nothing less than
astonishing. One Alan Yentob is the Director of Programmes for BBC1
and BBC2. Channel Four is headed by Michael Grade (family name
Winogradsky), who replaced Jeremy Isaacs. Channel Five is owned by the
exotically named Moses Znaimer, and run by one David Elstein. The big
cheese at ITV is Michael Green, who owns the powerful Carlton TV.
ITV's controller of entertainment is Claudia Rosenkrantz. If we are to
tackle the problem of 'institutional racism', perhaps the best place
to start would be at the rotten heart of the British power structure.
It is time to get greater representation for indigenous Britons within
our own cultural institutions."
Robert Colby
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
