The Fallacy of White Privilege

[*PhilHos*]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431393/white-privilege-myth-reality

Quote:A pillar of contemporary Leftism is the notion of “white privilege.” Given that a generation of high-school and college students are being taught that a great number of “unearned privileges” accrue to white Americans, the charge of white privilege demands rational inquiry.

The assertion turns out to be largely meaningless. And, more significantly, it does great harm to blacks.

First, no reasonable person can argue that white privilege applies to the great majority of whites, let alone to all whites. There are simply too many variables other than race that determine individual success in America.

And if it were true, why would whites commit suicide at twice the rate of blacks (and at a higher rate than any other race in America except American Indians)? According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, white men, who the Left argues are the most privileged group of all in America, commit seven out of every ten suicides in America — even though only three out of ten Americans are white males.

Whatever reason one gives for the white suicide rate, it is indisputable that, at the very least, considerably more whites than blacks consider life not worth living. To argue that all these whites were oblivious to all the unique privileges they had is to stretch the definition of “privilege” beyond credulity.

Second, there are a host of privileges that dwarf “white privilege.”

A huge one is Two-Parent Privilege. If you are raised by a father and mother, you enter adulthood with more privileges than anyone else in American society, irrespective of race, ethnicity, or sex. That’s why the poverty rate among two-parent black families is only 7 percent.

Compare that with a 22 percent poverty rate among whites in single-parent homes. Obviously the two-parent home is the decisive “privilege.”

Another “privilege,” if one wants to use that term, that dwarfs “white privilege” is Asian privilege. Asian Americans do better than white Americans in school, on IQ tests, on credit scores, and on other positive measures. In fact, according to recent data from the Federal Reserve, Asians are about to surpass whites as the wealthiest group of Americans. Will the Left soon complain about Asian privilege?

And how about “gentile privilege?” For most of American history it was a lot easier being a Christian than being a Jew in America. Yet, I do not know a Jew — myself included — who doesn’t believe that to be a Jew in America has always been an unbelievable stroke of good fortune. It is not surprising that an American Jew, Irving Berlin, wrote “God Bless America.”

There are even times when there is “minority privilege” in America today.

Every high-school student knows that given similar scholastic and extra-curricular records, one’s chances of being accepted into a prestigious college are considerably greater if one is a member of a minority, most especially the black minority.

And the biggest privilege of all is American privilege. Unless you or your family make some big mistakes, the greatest privilege of all is to be an American. That’s why much of the world wants to live in America.

So then why all this left-wing talk about white privilege?

The major reason is in order to portray blacks as victims. This achieves two huge goals for the Left — one political, the other philosophical.

The political goal is to ensure that blacks continue to view America as racist. The Left knows that the only way to retain political power in America is to perpetuate the belief among black Americans that their primary problem is white racism. Only then will blacks continue to regard the Left and the Democrats as indispensable.

The philosophical reason is that the Left denies — as it has since Marx — the primacy of moral and cultural values in determining the fate of the individual and of society. In the Left’s view, it is not poor values or a lack of moral self-control that causes crime, but poverty and, in the case of black criminals, racism. Therefore, the disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by black males is not attributable to the moral failure of the black criminal or to the likelihood of his not having been raised by a father, but to an external factor over which he has little or no power — white racism.

White privilege is another left-wing attempt, and a successful one, to keep America from focusing on what will truly help black America — a resurrection of the black family, for example — and instead to focus on an external problem: white privilege. In doing so, the Left has become the only real enemy the black has in America today.

— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code, was published by Regnery. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com. 2016 Creators.com

This article showed up on my Facebook newsfeed this morning and considering this topic came up in the other thread, I felt this was God's way of telling me to post it and so I did.

Thoughts? (On the article, not on God speaking to me via Facebook )

[Belsnickel]

The fallacy of this article is that is ignores what the concept of privilege actually is. The idea of privilege is that if you take two people in identical situations, save this one thing, one person will have an advantage over the other because of it. Are there other factors that affect people that cause some white people to be worse off than black people? Yes. Are there other privileges that can have more of an impact on a person than white privilege? Absolutely. Does every privilege apply in every situation the same way? No. But that's not what the concept of white privilege is about, and the actual idea behind the concept is what is ignored in the author's argument.

[BmorePat87]

(09-30-2016, 02:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The fallacy of this article is that is ignores what the concept of privilege actually is. The idea of privilege is that if you take two people in identical situations, save this one thing, one person will have an advantage over the other because of it. Are there other factors that affect people that cause some white people to be worse off than black people? Yes. Are there other privileges that can have more of an impact on a person than white privilege? Absolutely. Does every privilege apply in every situation the same way? No. But that's not what the concept of white privilege is about, and the actual idea behind the concept is what is ignored in the author's argument.

I don't like the term "white privilege", because it does suggest that the person is being handed something or that they should be ashamed of it. It is also often times mischaracterizes as meaning "White people get things, particularly monetary things". 

No, it just means that if you compare me to another person who grew up with a lower-middle income single mom, but they were black, our experiences would vary because of our race. I would be less likely to get diagnosed with a behavioral problem or disabilities if we acted the same way. If our fathers were arrested with drugs, mine would be more likely to get a plea bargain, less likely to serve jail time, and if they served jail time, would likely serve less time. My father would be more likely to get a job after prison, even if the black kid's dad never went to prison, and equally likely if that kid's dad actually went to college, which my father did not do until the age of 49. When we went to get a job during high school, I would be more likely to get a call back with my Irish and Italian sounding name than if he had a traditionally Black American, African, or Spanish name. 

Obviously somethings can equalize this. Money can be a great equalizer. Having more support at home, which usually comes with having more money, can change this too. This shouldn't be brought up as a "you had it easy!" or "we had it hard!". It should be a "Just remember, we come from different experiences". 

[Belsnickel]

(09-30-2016, 02:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't like the term "white privilege", because it does suggest that the person is being handed something or that they should be ashamed of it. It is also often times mischaracterizes as meaning "White people get things, particularly monetary things". 

No, it just means that if you compare me to another person who grew up with a lower-middle income single mom, but they were black, our experiences would vary because of our race. I would be less likely to get diagnosed with a behavioral problem or disabilities if we acted the same way. If our fathers were arrested with drugs, mine would be more likely to get a plea bargain, less likely to serve jail time, and if they served jail time, would likely serve less time. My father would be more likely to get a job after prison, even if the black kid's dad never went to prison, and equally likely if that kid's dad actually went to college, which my father did not do until the age of 49. When we went to get a job during high school, I would be more likely to get a call back with my Irish and Italian sounding name than if he had a traditionally Black American, African, or Spanish name. 

Obviously somethings can equalize this. Money can be a great equalizer. Having more support at home, which usually comes with having more money, can change this too. This shouldn't be brought up as a "you had it easy!" or "we had it hard!". It should be a "Just remember, we come from different experiences". 

I am also not a fan of the term, primarily at this point because it has become such a part of the lexicon of the zeitgeist that it gets thrown around without the real meaning attached. Which leads to the misunderstanding about what it actually is.

The term is really something that is more of an academic tool for the social sciences. It's not something that every person is going to recognize or understand, and that includes the people throwing the term around all the time. I have often heard the term ceterus paribus which means, in essence, all else is the same. You're only changing one thing about the comparisons and everything else is constant. It's a part of the idea of privilege but because the term has become such an overused phrase it has really lost that. I do cringe now when I hear the term tossed around outside of a classroom because it's so often just used incorrectly. And I think when the term was really created, because they were thinking of it more for use in the social sciences, they weren't considering the implications of the word choice to the outside community.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-30-2016, 02:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't like the term "white privilege", because it does suggest that the person is being handed something or that they should be ashamed of it. It is also often times mischaracterizes as meaning "White people get things, particularly monetary things". 

No, it just means that if you compare me to another person who grew up with a lower-middle income single mom, but they were black, our experiences would vary because of our race. I would be less likely to get diagnosed with a behavioral problem or disabilities if we acted the same way. If our fathers were arrested with drugs, mine would be more likely to get a plea bargain, less likely to serve jail time, and if they served jail time, would likely serve less time. My father would be more likely to get a job after prison, even if the black kid's dad never went to prison, and equally likely if that kid's dad actually went to college, which my father did not do until the age of 49. When we went to get a job during high school, I would be more likely to get a call back with my Irish and Italian sounding name than if he had a traditionally Black American, African, or Spanish name. 

Obviously somethings can equalize this. Money can be a great equalizer. Having more support at home, which usually comes with having more money, can change this too. This shouldn't be brought up as a "you had it easy!" or "we had it hard!". It should be a "Just remember, we come from different experiences". 

Sorry for Fred-ing your post by pointing out just one tiny part in all of it, but I really need to ask.

Have you ever heard of anyone in Africa with the name of De'Shawn/Mo'Nique/etc?

I'm pretty certain that those names are not traditional at all, and became a more recent (relatively speaking, the 70s or whatnot) trend.

It was part of an effort to intentionally distance themselves from the rest of America, to make themselves unique culturally or whatnot, and then there's complaints that it's distanced themselves from the rest of America.

- - - - - - -

EDIT: If you refuse to integrate yourself to a country's culture, you're really just creating your own troubles for yourself. Not just America, it applies everywhere.

[xxlt]

(09-30-2016, 02:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The fallacy of this article is that is ignores what the concept of privilege actually is. The idea of privilege is that if you take two people in identical situations, save this one thing, one person will have an advantage over the other because of it. Are there other factors that affect people that cause some white people to be worse off than black people? Yes. Are there other privileges that can have more of an impact on a person than white privilege? Absolutely. Does every privilege apply in every situation the same way? No. But that's not what the concept of white privilege is about, and the actual idea behind the concept is what is ignored in the author's argument.

This is standard operating procedure at the National Review.

[xxlt]

(09-30-2016, 05:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Sorry for Fred-ing your post by pointing out just one tiny part in all of it, but I really need to ask.

Have you ever heard of anyone in Africa with the name of De'Shawn/Mo'Nique/etc?

I'm pretty certain that those names are not traditional at all, and became a more recent (relatively speaking, the 70s or whatnot) trend.

It was part of an effort to intentionally distance themselves from the rest of America, to make themselves unique culturally or whatnot, and then there's complaints that it's distanced themselves from the rest of America.

- - - - - - -

EDIT: If you refuse to integrate yourself to a country's culture, you're really just creating your own troubles for yourself. Not just America, it applies everywhere.

So, were all those people who went to Oktoberfest Zinzinnati trying to distance themselves from the rest of America. What about the ones that go to the St. Patrick's Day parade? If you name your kid Otto, or Shamus, or Leonid are you telling the rest of America to go **** itself? Just asking.

[xxlt]

Chris Rock probably best illustrated what white privilege means when he said to an audience, "None of you white people in here would trade places with me, and I'm rich!"

Pretty sure those who allege the fallacy of white privilege would nod in agreement that they would not wish to trade places with Chris Rock and be rich if it meant also being black, and in the next breath still maintain white privilege is a fallacy. This is what is commonly known as being stupid, which is different from being ignorant. Ignorance is sort of forgivable and correctable. Stupidity is sort of not.

[*bfine32*]

(09-30-2016, 02:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The fallacy of this article is that is ignores what the concept of privilege actually is. The idea of privilege is that if you take two people in identical situations, save this one thing, one person will have an advantage over the other because of it. Are there other factors that affect people that cause some white people to be worse off than black people? Yes. Are there other privileges that can have more of an impact on a person than white privilege? Absolutely. Does every privilege apply in every situation the same way? No. But that's not what the concept of white privilege is about, and the actual idea behind the concept is what is ignored in the author's argument.

If a white male and a black male have equal grades, test scores, and financial situations "people in identical situations". Which is more likely to receive educational grants, scholarships, and loans?

White privilege is a lazy, outdated term. 

I was recently in Appalachian country and I did not see a whole lot of white privilege and I've heard the person most-likely to be the next President wants to take their jobs away.  

[Belsnickel]

(09-30-2016, 06:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a white male and a black male have equal grades, test scores, and financial situations "people in identical situations". Which is more likely to receive educational grants, scholarships, and loans?

They are equally likely, actually. But that does not fit the narrative.

(09-30-2016, 06:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: White privilege is a lazy, outdated term. 

I was recently in Appalachian country and I did not see a whole lot of white privilege and I've heard the person most-likely to be the next President wants to take their jobs away.  

So, you use the very same fallacious reasoning to back up your claim that we discussed already? Cool story, bro.

[GMDino]

(09-30-2016, 06:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a white male and a black male have equal grades, test scores, and financial situations "people in identical situations". Which is more likely to receive educational grants, scholarships, and loans?

White privilege is a lazy, outdated term. 

I was recently in Appalachian country and I did not see a whole lot of white privilege and I've heard the person most-likely to be the next President wants to take their jobs away.  

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=educational%20grants%20by%20race

Quote:Grant Recipients and Race
Contrary to "myth" of minority scholarship inequity, white students receive disproportionate share of institutional merit-based and private grants, study finds.

By 
Doug Lederman
 
September 6, 2011

10 COMMENTS

 

Every so often, the issue of financial aid awarded on the basis of students' race flares. Lawsuits crop up challenging a state's or institution's ability to consider students' race inhanding out grants, or a white student (or a group of such students) announces the creation of a fund for scholarships reserved for white students, on the grounds that grant money flows disproportionately to members of minority groups.


A new report challenges the assumptions underlying such developments. The study, by the financial aid analyst Mark Kantrowitz, is plain about its goal: to debunk what the author calls "the race myth, which claims that minority students receive more than their fair share of scholarships."


Kantrowitz is no minority activist; as the publisher of Finaid.org, and an ABD in computer science from Carnegie Mellon University, he is first and foremost a financial aid data enthusiast, known for crunching numbers to help students and families, policy makers and others understand the complex world of financial aid.


Numbers present a compelling and clear argument in this case, Kantrowitz asserts in his paper. Mining data from the U.S. Education Department's National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, Kantrowitz examines the flow of federal, state, institutional and privately funded financial aid to students of different races.


Looking at all of those forms of financial aid together (excepting only federal tax benefits), Kantrowitz finds that the money flows to students of different races roughly in proportion to their representation in the overall postsecondary population: white students make up roughly three-fifths (61.8 percent) of all students, and they receive about that amount of all total grant funding (59.3 percent). Various minority groups also receive proportions of grant funding that track their representation among all students (Hispanic students make up 14.1 percent of students and receive that proportion of grant aid, etc.). That's more or less as it should be, Kantrowitz says.


The big differences come when examining breakdowns of different kinds of financial aid -- funds awarded to students based purely on their financial need vs. those awarded without regard to such need, scholarships awarded by institutions and by private organizations, etc.
Among all sources of grant funding (federal, state, institutional, private, etc.), white students (who make up 61.8 percent of all students) receive 51.3 percent of grant aid awarded based on financial need alone, while minority students receive 48.5 percent. That breakdown occurs, Kantrowitz says, for an obvious reason related to the relative financial stations of minority and white Americans in U.S. society: "Minority students receive a higher share of need-based grants, representing 48.5 percent of grant recipients and only 38.0 percent of the student population, [because] they are more likely to be low-income."


White students, in turn, receive 75.6 percent of grants awarded based on academic and other kinds of merit, compared to 24.3 percent allocated to minority students. These grants, Kantrowitz notes, are often awarded by semi-selective colleges as a "form of financial aid leveraging," to woo middle- and upper-income students who can pay meaningful portions of their tuition costs. "A full-pay student -- even with a significant discount in the form of a merit-based grant -- still yields more net revenue to the college than low or moderate-income students," he writes.


Focusing on institutional grants alone -- the funds that individual colleges and universities choose how to distribute -- white students receive 69.1 percent of all funds, but 75.9 percent of merit-based grants, and 60.7 percent of need-based grants. "Caucasian students are almost twice as likely to receive institutional merit-based grants as minority students" are, Kantrowitz writes. The figures hold for minority students of all kinds, as seen in the table below:






At public colleges, white students made up 62.7 percent of the student population but were 73.1 percent of the recipients of merit-based grants and received 68.2 percent of the merit-based funds; at private nonprofit colleges, white students made up 66.8 percent of the collective student bodies but received nearly 80 percent of the merit-based grants. Over all, white students were nearly twice as likely as minority students with SAT scores of at least 1400 (on a 1600 scale) to receive institutional merit-based scholarships, Kantrowitz says.


Figures like those explain why state and institutional merit-based financial aid has increasingly come under attack from groups that advocate for low-income and minority students (like Education Trust) and why some campus leaders have argued that institutions should move to once again allocate their precious aid dollars based on students' financial need rather than other factors. Minority students receive 34.7 percent of all privately funded scholarship money, and make up 30.5 percent of recipients of privately funded scholarships, Kantrowitz reports.


"To put minority students on an equal footing would require increasing annual private scholarship awards for African-American students by $83 million and Latino students by $197 million," he writes. "These figures are based on equalizing the mean grant, the ratio of total funding to total student enrollment, so that all racial groups have the same mean grant."



Kantrowitz concludes: "Over all, merit-based grants tend to disproportionately select for Caucasian students. This is compensated somewhat by the distribution of need-based grants according to race, since minority students tend to be less affluent than Caucasian students. Shifting funding from merit-based grants to need-based grants will yield more balance in the distribution of grants according to race, but it will not entirely compensate for private scholarships that collectively demonstrate implicit preferences for Caucasian students."

I really wanted to stay out of this stupid argument....anyone who says whites don't have a generally easier path than minorities is either blind to the world beyond their own horizon or a liar...but the constant moaning and crying that somehow, someway a minority is getting a benefit that a white person isn't is just sad.

Carry on.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-30-2016, 06:10 PM)xxlt Wrote: So, were all those people who went to Oktoberfest Zinzinnati trying to distance themselves from the rest of America. What about the ones that go to the St. Patrick's Day parade? If you name your kid Otto, or Shamus, or Leonid are you telling the rest of America to go **** itself? Just asking.

Yes, because everyone who goes to Oktoberfest is German, and everyone who goes to St Patrick's Day parade is Irish.

Also single festivals or holidays are absolutely the same as living an entire lifestyle of "us vs them". Yup, totally see the logic there.

 

[xxlt]

(10-01-2016, 01:15 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, because everyone who goes to Oktoberfest is German, and everyone who goes to St Patrick's Day parade is Irish.

Also single festivals or holidays are absolutely the same as living an entire lifestyle of "us vs them". Yup, totally see the logic there.

 

So the festival goers are cool, but the parents of kids named Otto or Gunther or Shamus or Fiona or Leonid or Svetlana are living the "us vs them" lifestyle. Got it.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-30-2016, 06:18 PM)xxlt Wrote: Pretty sure those who allege the fallacy of white privilege would nod in agreement that they would not wish to trade places with Chris Rock and be rich if it meant also being black

That is complete and utter bullshit.  How many white people wouldn't trade places with Michael Jordan?  That joke is, what, a false strawman?  The premise is that racism isn't only rampant, but so dominant that people wouldn't "tolerate" being black in exchange for fame and fortune.  Now THAT is funny. Sure, potentially not being able to get a cab back to my NY penthouse apartment is a real deal breaker....

White privilege is largely an invention of activists in response to failed social and liberal policies....or perhaps in response to their success - the lack of overt racism as society progresses leads to insinuations of hidden racism which can't honestly be proven or disproven.

[treee]

White privilege exists and is misunderstood by people of all ideological leanings.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-01-2016, 02:52 AM)treee Wrote: White privilege exists and is misunderstood by people of all ideological leanings.

White privilege is essentially a false proxy for wealth privilege

[Belsnickel]

Wow, I mean, I get that I didn't sit here and type out a lecture on the topic with sources but it is interesting how those that have often been against the idea of privilege on the past have just ignored the explanation of it and continued their argument as if the common misrepresentation of the concept were actually true.

[xxlt]

JustWinBaby
That is complete and utter bullshit.  How many white people wouldn't trade places with Michael Jordan?  That joke is, what, a false strawman?  The premise is that racism isn't only rampant, but so dominant that people wouldn't "tolerate" being black in exchange for fame and fortune.  Now THAT is funny.  Sure, potentially not being able to get a cab back to my NY penthouse apartment is a real deal breaker....

White privilege is largely an invention of activists in response to failed social and liberal policies....or perhaps in response to their success - the lack of overt racism as society progresses leads to insinuations of hidden racism which can't honestly be proven or disproven.


Funny you mention not being able to get a cab. In NYC in 2016 my white friend hails a cab immediately in front of his building any time day or night. When his clean cut, professional, 40 year old friend who is black tries to hail a cab he can't get one for over an hour, and finally has to call my white friend to come down from his apartment to stop three cabs in five minutes, which all pull away when they realize the ride is for the black guy. Cab four my white friend gets in, then the black friend gets in, then the white friend gets out. This is what a black man has to do in 2016 to get a cab in what some call "the greatest city on earth," New York City. I'm sure if he were rich the indignity would just roll right off.

There is some complete and utter bullshit in this thread, and you are slinging it champ.

[BmorePat87]

(09-30-2016, 05:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Sorry for Fred-ing your post by pointing out just one tiny part in all of it, but I really need to ask.

Have you ever heard of anyone in Africa with the name of De'Shawn/Mo'Nique/etc?

I'm pretty certain that those names are not traditional at all, and became a more recent (relatively speaking, the 70s or whatnot) trend.

It was part of an effort to intentionally distance themselves from the rest of America, to make themselves unique culturally or whatnot, and then there's complaints that it's distanced themselves from the rest of America.

- - - - - - -

EDIT: If you refuse to integrate yourself to a country's culture, you're really just creating your own troubles for yourself. Not just America, it applies everywhere.

Which is why I said "Black American" too. You even bolded me saying that.

What's funny about this post is that most of the top 10 popular baby names in the US aren't even English in origin. They're Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, French, or even Persian in origin. Some are Anglicized versions, some are not. The reality is that US culture annexed other groups as they came to the US and included them into the fold, expanding the concept of "White" in the US. We don't teach the concept of the melting pot anymore because it's not accurate. America is more of a "tossed salad" with aspects of the various ethnic groups remaining intact to create one larger America culture. 

The other funny part about this post is that you're not even disagreeing that name discrimination occurs, you're blaming these people for having different names. Because it's not like white people name their kids different things too. Giving them states, cities, and last names as their first names. Replacing vowels with "Y's". Adding in random X's. Making up fake Irish sounding names. Finding random old English, Scottish, Irish, German, Welsh words. "Oh, you names your daughter 'Brynn'? That means 'hill' in Welsh. Good job."

[GMDino]

(10-01-2016, 02:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That is complete and utter bullshit.  How many white people wouldn't trade places with Michael Jordan?  That joke is, what, a false strawman?  The premise is that racism isn't only rampant, but so dominant that people wouldn't "tolerate" being black in exchange for fame and fortune.  Now THAT is funny.  Sure, potentially not being able to get a cab back to my NY penthouse apartment is a real deal breaker....

White privilege is largely an invention of activists in response to failed social and liberal policies....or perhaps in response to their success - the lack of overt racism as society progresses leads to insinuations of hidden racism which can't honestly be proven or disproven.

And again this comes down to a definition of "racism".

If blacks prefer to live and hang out with black (most of the time) are they "racist"?

If an Asian man has white friends and not black one is he a "racist"?

But the flippant attitude that somehow the racism is only "insinuated" is just wrong.  They invent new words and new rules to cover it up but its still prevalent in society today from the government to private business.

I have worked at places where the employees flipped out because a black man filled out an application.  Just the application....didn't get hired.

Why?  They had a black guy there before and he was "lazy".

They also had a dozen white guys who were always late for work, got caught sleeping during their shift and/or were fired for doing/dealing drugs in the parking lot.

But black people are "lazy"...don't hire "them".

I've had conversations with dozen of people who tell me that don't hate blacks!  They hate "n***ers!  They are different from blacks.

A few of those conversations occurred while they were waiting for their welfare check at the post office box and it was running a day late because "those "n***ers" get theirs first because the government thinks they deserve it more!"

Its a big country filled with ugly people.

Are they a majority?  No way.  Not even a large minority.

But big enough, and in many cases influential enough.

One might be running for president right now.  Hard to tell if he's all things (sexist, racist, elitist) or just a raging dbag...but either way he's stirring up that minority and they are emboldened.

Racism will ALWAYS be a problem.

And when it is called out (even if if they are right to call it out) there will be those saying either a) its just s small problem, get over it or b) there is no problem its all in your head.

Which are two things that someone who has had the privilege of not dealing with racism int heir lives would say.  Maybe even white privilege.