Immigrants as scapegoats

[Dill]

(01-03-2019, 09:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If you want to play the "white privilege" game, then you need to acknowledge that in Asia, they have "Asian Privilege", in African they have "African Privilege", in the Middle East they have "Indian privilege". In Central and South America it's "Latin Privilege", and most of Europe, US and Canada have the "White Privilege". it's not a privilege like you are making it out to be. If it was a true privilege, I should be able to go anywhere in the world and get my special treatment, but I can't, cause in the Middle East/Africa/Asia/CS America there is no such thing as "white privilege".  It's simply a geographical privilege based on the majority that lives in that location rather than a "White" one.

Now if there is a minority out there screaming about "white privilege" and it's that important to them, there is always a place where they can go and get "their privilege". I plan to move to Asia in a few more years, now if I got over there and start screaming about how unfair it is there for me and they have their "Asian Privilege" what do you think they are gonna do?

Actually, "white privilege" extends far beyond the boundaries of North America and Europe, and certainly in the Middle East and Africa. You may certainly benefit from white privilege in the Philippines.

Why in the world is a privilege "only true" if it is recognized everywhere in the world?  Sunni Bahraini certainly are privileged in relation to Shia Bahraini, since the former control government through patronage and family. By your definition there is no Sunni privilege because Bahraini Sunni can't go "anywhere in the world" and retain a privilege they have in Bahrain.   I should add that Sunni are not the majority in Bahrain, but are still the dominant group.   Nothing is clarified by calling this a "geographical" privilege.

I don't get a sense from what you have written that you understand what is meant by "white privilege."  Have you read any books or articles on the subject?  It is not limited to and may not involve "special treatment."  

[Dill]

(01-03-2019, 09:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one "missed your point".  We all agree that "white privilege" is the same as "majority privilege" (except in rare historical cases where a minority actually controls most of the power like South Africa during Apartheid).

But most of us want to address the issue in some other way than running all the minorities out of America and making it 100% White Christian.

BTW if you are really moving to Asia I suggest you educate yourself a bit more on their culture.  For example Japanese don't have "Asian" privilege in China.  An American would be more welcome in many places there than a Japanese.

LOL, And NO other Asians have their Asian privilege in Japan.  But people who are born Japanese in Japan do have a privilege compared to Koreans or Chinese or Filipinos born in Japan.

I cannot think of anywhere in the world an "Asian privilege" exists as the counterpoint or facsimile of white privilege.  I cannot think of any place where Asians have colonized non-Asians, and consequently defined the social/aesthetic norms under which the non-Asians then had to live.

[Vas Deferens]

Glad we’re sending our best representatives.

Lets face it. We’ve hit a ln ignorance tipping point there is no going back from.

Anyone have the breakdown of the means by which sad old shoeless whitey is offing himself? Maybe the population that has put themselves in the right financial and emotional position balance needs to take a closer look at what rights poor whitey should really have. They’re already so undereducated and supposedly overdebted. Do they deserve the tools to take their own lives and pass the cycle of despair to the children they’ve already mistakingly brought into this unfair world?

Poor whitey with his access. Oh. What hath foresaken me father? Why hath not these buckets of end-times rehydrated rations filled my hunger like the label done to led me.

Cry me a ***** river.

[Beaker]

(01-03-2019, 09:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't even know what this means.

You agree racism exists.

You agree that in America white people control a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth and power.

So how can it NOT be a privilege to be a member of the majority.  Over ninety percent of the places you go in this country whites are the majority.  There are over 300 cities in the United States with a population over 100K and only 19 (6%) have a majority black population.  And even in these 6% of the cities there are large neighborhoods that are still majority white.  Plus even in majority black cities white people still own a majority of the businesses.   You don't have to worry about feeling out of place or about being judged or treated unfairly based on your race.  For minorities the opposite is true.  They are going to be in the minority in over 90% of the places in this country and they have to be concerned about being judged and treated unfairly based on the color of their skin.  Most of the businesses where they will apply for work are controlled by white people.  Blacks account for only 3.3% of all business owners.  Most of the banks where they will have to borrow money are controlled by white people.  Most police, judges, and members of juries are white people.

You dont have to be in the majority to be wealthy or powerful or both. And if you do have either or both ...even as a minority....and you give advantage based upon skin color, then you have given someone "privilege". Therefore it is not exclusive to whites. 

[GMDino]

Sure money and power and birthright can give anyone "privilege".

But that privilege then extends to those like them.

Poor whites in America's south believed they are/were above poor blacks because whites are better than blacks because "what black country every produced anything."



And in other countries it might be other races, but very few countries have a less homogenous citizenry than the US does.

But the beauty of the privilege is that even if you can't blame another race you can blame another religion...or any "difference" that will get the rabble, who think that they too are superior by virtue being like those in power, to care more about the mexican/Catholic/black/Muslim being the reason for their problems than the people in power.

We all agree there is privilege embedded in certain group within this country (and others).  We just disagree on why that matters and what it means for the rest of the people in this country.

[Beaker]

(01-04-2019, 10:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sure money and power and birthright can give anyone "privilege".

But that privilege then extends to those like them.

Poor whites in America's south believed they are/were above poor blacks because whites are better than blacks because "what black country every produced anything."

And in other countries it might be other races, but very few countries have a less homogenous citizenry than the US does.

But the beauty of the privilege is that even if you can't blame another race you can blame another religion...or any "difference" that will get the rabble, who think that they too are superior by virtue being like those in power, to care more about the mexican/Catholic/black/Muslim being the reason for their problems than the people in power.

We all agree there is privilege embedded in certain group within this country (and others).  We just disagree on why that matters and what it means for the rest of the people in this country.

My point is that privilege is a horseshit concept. Its simply dressing up racism and calling it something else making it seem to those already affected by racism like there are more things lined up to work against them. Every racial group has racists among them. Whites are the majority in this country, and by extension of that fact would have more people among them to be racist in their outlook. So let's just call racism racism, and fight against it, wherever it exists, together. 

Fred and I will not likely come to any agreement about this. We are actually both on the same page against racism, but we don't see things the same way in terms of the benefit to society of an additional concept labeled privilege. I also realize I need to stop now because we have hijacked this thread about scapegoating when there is already a thread discussing the privilege concept.

[GMDino]

(01-04-2019, 12:13 PM)Beaker Wrote: My point is that privilege is a horseshit concept. Its simply dressing up racism and calling it something else making it seem to those already affected by racism like there are more things lined up to work against them. Every racial group has racists among them. Whites are the majority in this country, and by extension of that fact would have more people among them to be racist in their outlook. So let's just call racism racism, and fight against it, wherever it exists, together. 

Fred and I will not likely come to any agreement about this. We are actually both on the same page against racism, but we don't see things the same way in terms of the benefit to society of an additional concept labeled privilege. I also realize I need to stop now because we have hijacked this thread about scapegoating when there is already a thread discussing the privilege concept.

When it gets down to the very base of it I can agree that it is rooted in racism.  I just feel that using the word privilege puts more of a fine point on how it become part of how society operates in that racism can be as simple as the words used to describe someone and privilege are the action used to keep others down. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-03-2019, 09:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I really don't care about discussing any of it. Your opinions on the merits of the policies put in place or called for don't matter to me. I was merely pointing out the attempts to limit, or attack, legal immigration under the Trump administration.

Oh wow, I guess that's putting me in my place of irrelevancy. I guess I should stop commenting on things when I have zero intentions of following up on my comments in a civil discussion.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-03-2019, 09:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one "missed your point".  We all agree that "white privilege" is the same as "majority privilege" (except in rare historical cases where a minority actually controls most of the power like South Africa during Apartheid).

But most of us want to address the issue in some other way than running all the minorities out of America and making it 100% White Christian.

BTW if you are really moving to Asia I suggest you educate yourself a bit more on their culture.  For example Japanese don't have "Asian" privilege in China.  An American would be more welcome in many places there than a Japanese.

No kidding. Japs aren't to welcome anywhere over there. Could have something to do with the aggressiveness from past wars, people tend to not forget the beheadings and cannibalism. There is almost always an exception Fred just as you said about South Africa. And I've lived overseas before so I'm aware of the culture that I am going to.

Also there is really no proof that Trump is trying to make this nation White and Christian that's just rhetoric, he is still allowing migration from many countries of different ethnic backgrounds and different Religions. The only one he declared against was Muslim, but maybe that's cause we are at war with terrorists overseas and most seem to be Muslim??

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2019, 03:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh wow, I guess that's putting me in my place of irrelevancy. I guess I should stop commenting on things when I have zero intentions of following up on my comments in a civil discussion.

I did follow up by pointing to attacks on immigration. I was not commenting on the value of these attacks, and so discussing the opinion, whether positive or negative of them, is irrelevant and isn't follow up on my commentary.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-03-2019, 11:59 PM)Dill Wrote: ??? Not sure what you mean by "control".  The US, before Trump, had more diplomatic power than any country in the world.  Obama managed to get China, russia, and Iran to sign a nuclear deal along with Germany, France and Great Britain. No other country could engineer a deal like that, precisely because of how the US has behaved since WWII, building and upholding alliances. When the US throws its economic weight against Russia, it brings along the 17 trillion dollar EU economy.  That is only possible because something--a great deal--hasn't "backfired." Shouldn't we be facing those "facts"?

The major US foreign policy failures result from bad judgment, like the Iraq invasion or the Vietnam war--from politicians ignoring foreign policy experts and diplomacy.  Of course people who don't believe in nation building "have no plan"--with disastrous results. 

The US was "finding a way through trade to boost the economies of people that are making progress" etc. until Trump's America first project.

This brings me back to my primary question--What is your view of universal human rights? Should they be displaced by something like National rights?  Wh

Yes we do have Diplomatic Power and still do, I don't see how that's actually changed just cause Trump's in office. If anything he has definitely flexed that muscle against China.

So you agree if the end results is going to be the same as before we started, just different players, then we shouldn't be sending our troops in, and instead we should be pimping our Allies and shafting the perps via sanctions? Cause I don't object to that, nor do I think you will actually find many objections to that as well.

Whoa, When I say help boost other countries economies, that doesn't mean they get to fleece us. Needs to be fair and balanced.

For clarification, are you referring to the UN Universal rights?
If so, then yes, why wouldn't I believe in that?
What I don't believe in is being the World enforcer of those rights against countries that violate their citizens rights.
No country is perfect and we don't live in a Utopian world, we violate some of those rights upon occasion as well. Not only that, each country does not always place the same value for each of those 30 rights.

[Dill]

(01-04-2019, 06:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: For clarification, are you referring to the UN Universal rights?
If so, then yes, why wouldn't I believe in that?
What I don't believe in is being the World enforcer of those rights against countries that violate their citizens rights.
No country is perfect and we don't live in a Utopian world, we violate some of those rights upon occasion as well. Not only that, each country does not always place the same value for each of those 30 rights.

Sorry I am late getting back to this, Mike. Thanks for responding.

I asked the question about universal rights because or your comments about the need to put American citizens first. That seems to assume that somewhere, somehow, US citizens are not "put first" in some sense.  

I don't understand why anyone would think that non-citizens are somehow privileged over citizens. Sometimes, though, in cases where the human rights of non-citizens are respected, I have heard people call that "special treatment."   For example, I have heard it said that refugees who bring their children through the desert hundreds of miles on foot to get to the US are "getting away" with child abuse, whereas any US parent doing that would be arrested.  

So I was just curious about what, in your view, counted as Non-citizens receiving preference over citizens. How could they be "put first" in any sense?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-04-2019, 12:16 AM)Dill Wrote: Actually, "white privilege" extends far beyond the boundaries of North America and Europe, and certainly in the Middle East and Africa. You may certainly benefit from white privilege in the Philippines.

Why in the world is a privilege "only true" if it is recognized everywhere in the world?  Sunni Bahraini certainly are privileged in relation to Shia Bahraini, since the former control government through patronage and family. By your definition there is no Sunni privilege because Bahraini Sunni can't go "anywhere in the world" and retain a privilege they have in Bahrain.   I should add that Sunni are not the majority in Bahrain, but are still the dominant group.   Nothing is clarified by calling this a "geographical" privilege.

I don't get a sense from what you have written that you understand what is meant by "white privilege."  Have you read any books or articles on the subject?  It is not limited to and may not involve "special treatment."  

You are right, I certainly have seen it in action in the Philippines when I pay more for something than the locals do. The locals call it the "Kano Discount". And I can not own land there, but a Filpino can come to the US an buy land.

Give me your examples of "white privilege". I bet most of them are just stereotypes and racism, but amuse me.

[Belsnickel]

(01-09-2019, 06:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You are right, I certainly have seen it in action in the Philippines when I pay more for something than the locals do. The locals call it the "Kano Discount". And I can not own land there, but a Filpino can come to the US an buy land.

Give me your examples of "white privilege". I bet most of them are just stereotypes and racism, but amuse me.

You do understand that racial privilege is due to systemic racism, right? So of course examples of white privilege would be racism, because that is what drives it.

[fredtoast]

(01-09-2019, 06:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Give me your examples of "white privilege". I bet most of them are just stereotypes and racism, but amuse me.

Yes.  White privilege is based on stereotypes and racism.

What is amusing about that?

[Dill]

(01-09-2019, 06:23 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You are right, I certainly have seen it in action in the Philippines when I pay more for something than the locals do. The locals call it the "Kano Discount". And I can not own land there, but a Filpino can come to the US an buy land.

Give me your examples of "white privilege". I bet most of them are just stereotypes and racism, but amuse me.

"Just" stereotypes and racism??  

Couple off the top of my head:

1. Before I could work in Qatar, I had to go to a hospital for blood tests. I was led up a back stair into a room where a nurse took my blood, but through an open door I could see a large glass window with 50-60 brown people behind it waiting for blood tests. I had been taken to the head of the line.  Same thing several years later when I was treated in a hospital--head of the line for white (British, German, americans).  Later a brown-skinned American colleague (born in Bolivia) was led up the back stairs of the same hospital and the people behind the glass practically rioted when they saw him. American or not, he had to go to the back of the line.

2. I flew to India in 2009 on Jet Air. I was in economy class, the only white guy, and an Indian stewardess asked me to come forward to Business. There was a spare seat and she led me to it.  I asked her to give the seat to a woman in economy who had a baby, but she said no.  I got the seat or no one did. (I should add that I paid more for cultural artifacts in India than locals did; but I don't misunderstand the term so badly as to call cheaper prices for locals "Indian privilege.")

I have lots of such examples of systemic preference for whites across a number of developing countries. It is baked into some former British colonies for sure. White Americans White Germans White British get special treatment in many countries when they must interact with local bureaucracies--even if they can't vote there and don't have the same rights as citizens.  Stereotypes are certainly involved--of superior white North Americans and Europeans.  Filipinos in Qatar have no "Asian privilege" that's for sure. If they are assaulted or robbed by a Qatari, they may be bundled unceremoniously out of the country.  That won't happen to an American, or Brit, Or German, or Italian.

I can't buy land in Qatar either, but that doesn't establish some Arab or Qatari "privilege" if you understand how the term is used here. Doesn't mean the legacy of colonialism doesn't continue to more favorably balance my relation to the state and private institutions than that of browner foreign residents.

If you are murdered in the Philippines, will it be a bigger deal (press coverage, embassy attention) than if a Filipino is murdered there, or in the US?  What are your thoughts on that?

[GMDino]

Sitting congressman wants to know how “white supremacist” became an offensive term https://t.co/RBDIu0GNgn pic.twitter.com/WgjnyPDsvB

— Josh Billinson (@jbillinson) January 10, 2019

[Dill]

(01-10-2019, 12:52 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Sitting congressman wants to know how “white supremacist” became an offensive term https://t.co/RBDIu0GNgn pic.twitter.com/WgjnyPDsvB

— Josh Billinson (@jbillinson) January 10, 2019

"White Supremecist" wasn't all that offensive until after WWII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It became offensive through its association with purveyors of the holocaust and segregation.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-09-2019, 06:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You do understand that racial privilege is due to systemic racism, right? So of course examples of white privilege would be racism, because that is what drives it.

(01-09-2019, 07:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  White privilege is based on stereotypes and racism.

What is amusing about that?

Oh so that's why Asians have all of the power in Asian countries.
So then other countries must also have Systematic racism.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-09-2019, 07:32 PM)Dill Wrote: "Just" stereotypes and racism??  

Couple off the top of my head:

1. Before I could work in Qatar, I had to go to a hospital for blood tests. I was led up a back stair into a room where a nurse took my blood, but through an open door I could see a large glass window with 50-60 brown people behind it waiting for blood tests. I had been taken to the head of the line.  Same thing several years later when I was treated in a hospital--head of the line for white (British, German, americans).  Later a brown-skinned American colleague (born in Bolivia) was led up the back stairs of the same hospital and the people behind the glass practically rioted when they saw him. American or not, he had to go to the back of the line.

2. I flew to India in 2009 on Jet Air. I was in economy class, the only white guy, and an Indian stewardess asked me to come forward to Business. There was a spare seat and she led me to it.  I asked her to give the seat to a woman in economy who had a baby, but she said no.  I got the seat or no one did. (I should add that I paid more for cultural artifacts in India than locals did; but I don't misunderstand the term so badly as to call cheaper prices for locals "Indian privilege.")

I have lots of such examples of systemic preference for whites across a number of developing countries. It is baked into some former British colonies for sure. White Americans White Germans White British get special treatment in many countries when they must interact with local bureaucracies--even if they can't vote there and don't have the same rights as citizens.  Stereotypes are certainly involved--of superior white North Americans and Europeans.  Filipinos in Qatar have no "Asian privilege" that's for sure. If they are assaulted or robbed by a Qatari, they may be bundled unceremoniously out of the country.  That won't happen to an American, or Brit, Or German, or Italian.

I can't buy land in Qatar either, but that doesn't establish some Arab or Qatari "privilege" if you understand how the term is used here. Doesn't mean the legacy of colonialism doesn't continue to more favorably balance my relation to the state and private institutions than that of browner foreign residents.

If you are murdered in the Philippines, will it be a bigger deal (press coverage, embassy attention) than if a Filipino is murdered there, or in the US?  What are your thoughts on that?

1. That's a money thing. They know you have it. Many of the others probably don't.
2. That was nice of her, but did the group decide as a whole? or did she simply pick you? Maybe you are tall and she thought you'd be more comfortable? that's a myriad of reasons that might not be just cause you are white.

Oh yes, developing countries, they look to whites as having money that's all. That's why we pay more sometimes, they know they can ask for more money and we have it, a local will argue over a penny.

But, who holds the majority of the positions of power in those Asian Countries? Whites or Asians?