AllyWork

Helping White people fight White Supremacy

Bitching and Pitching

Published by vegankid | Filed under Common Myths, Government, Portraying Race

Wimmin of color in the blogosphere have found themselves being attacked on and off their blogs for expressing their views. Recently, brownfemipower received this comment on her blog:

I am so tired of “women of color” bitching about not getting anything. You don’t realize that women of color get everything and us “white” women get nothing. We actually have to work for a living. We pay our own bills (not depend on the government to do that for us) we get a job (not depend on the goverment to find our babies daddies) We actually have to pay for college (government)and we get screwed over when we try to get a job that would pay better because someone else came along that was a freaking man (regardles of what color that man was) I’m so tired of hearing about race or color, that’s bullshit. We are women that get screwed over day after day, time after time. Stop bitching about what color you are and start pitching in.

Bfp’s response was an inspiring mix of insight and compassion. Her response starts with:

This woman reminded me a lot of all the working class poor white mothers I have lived around my whole life…they’re getting fucked as hard as the rest of us women of color–but largely white mainstream feminist organizations like NOW and Feminist Majority aren’t doing these women any more good than they’re doing women of color. They aren’t advocating for poor women (there have been more rights lost for poor women in the last decade than ever before, in my mind), they aren’t organizing these women and they aren’t connecting generational structural violence in the form of military recruitment, poverty and isolation to violence against poor white women.

And furthermore, women of color have they’re own movement.
Poor white women don’t.

I don’t wish to respond directly at this time to this anonymous comment. What i would like to do is to look at a common myth within this comment. The myth is that wimmin of color suck up all the social benefits while White wimmin are stuck scraping by with nothing.

In response, Nappy as I wanna be writes:

That’s all in the eye of the beholder. By and large white women are still the majority of women on welfare, still are the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action, and still consider themselves to be the only one working and not taking money from the government (and yet overwhelming are being presented with these advantages)….

1. White women have children out of wedlock and also have baby daddies (we just call them fathers).
2. White women are divorced and have to have people track down their baby daddies otherwise known as ex-husbands.
3. White women receive welfare.
4. White women receive scholarships. No one ever argues the merit of a white woman receiving a scholarship. One of the things that makes the discord between poor whites and poor people of color is the entitlement. It is as if they know that they are supposed to have more because of this “race” thing and yet they don’t. That’s where the ultimate joke is played, because we could never get together as long as people don’t respect us and as long as people have absolutely no understanding that they are being benefitted.

The myth that wimmin of color receive all the social welfare benefits is not accidental and it is nothing new. Chris Crass’s Beyond Welfare Queens: developing a race, class and gender analysis of Welfare and Welfare Reform gives us a hystorical look at the welfare system and how it has become gendered and racialized.

To understand the racism of such comments, however, it is best to understand the brief hystory of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AFDC, which was rooted in the 1911 founding of the Mother’s Pension program, started in the 1930s as a way to allow widows with minor children to fulfill their “womanly” duties and stay at home taking care of the kids without having to “dirty their hands” with wage labor. This was meant to be a temporary solution until Social Security kicked in and survivors’ benefits became available. Obviously, AFDC was targeted towards middle-class White wimmin as working class wimmin rarely had the privilege of staying at home to take care of the children and, in the 1930s, it didn’t even occur to the US government that wimmin of color should receive such benefits. So essentially, AFDC welfare benefits were targeted to White, middle-class, widowed (”single”) mothers (a far cry from the single, poor, Black, teen mother, “Welfare Queen” stereotype of today).

Although it was the 1950s when the racialization of welfare first took place, the popularization of race-baiting was pushed forward greatly in the 1980s as Reagan took every opportunity to talk about “welfare queens”. The Right then rolled with this blatantly racist term and turned it into a national stereotype and a movement for welfare reform. The media played its role in perpetuating the stereotypes as well. During the debate on Welfare Reform, a journalist for Newsweek wrote, “Every threat to the fabric of this country - from poverty to crime to homelessness - is connected to out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy.” A few weeks later, the same magazine published an article on the “sexually irresponsible culture of poverty” that labeled teen moms as a social “underclass”. Newsweek was not alone in its attacks. The same month as Newsweek’s story on the “culture of poverty”, Diane Sawyer, on her show “Prime Time Live” asked a teenage mother on AFDC, “why should they [taxpayers] pay for your mistake?” Crass points to a study by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) of major news outlets and their coverage of welfare that showed the majority of welfare recipients pictured during the Welfare Reform debates were wimmin of color between the ages of seventeen and nineteen. One cover piece on welfare from US News and World Report pictured seven wimmin, all but one were wimmin of color with a majority being Black wimmin.

With an onslaught of images, it is easy to assume that those that benefit the most from welfare are young mothers of color. But the numbers speak differently. Only one percent of welfare recipients are under the age of 20, so this knocks out the teenage mother of color stereotype. Now let’s take a look at the rest of that stereotype.

Martin Gilens, in Why Americans Hate Welfare, finds that “the belief that blacks are lazy is the strongest predictor of the perception that welfare recipients are undeserving.” In a mid-90s study titled “White’s Stereotypes of Blacks: Sources and Political Consequences,” researchers Hurwitz and Peffley found that White people agree that most Black people are lazy (31 percent), not determined to succeed (22 percent), and lacking in discipline (60 percent). It was these stereotypes that fueled the racist attacks on welfare despite the fact that at the time, the majority of welfare recipients were White wimmin. By catering to racism through imagery and rhetoric, those with the agenda of wiping out welfare could convince the largest recipients of welfare (economically-poor White people) that it was a good idea.

It was Clinton’s Welfare Reform in the mid-90s that changed the face of welfare and turned a racist stereotype into fact. By the time Clinton came along, the Right had successfully convinced the nation that welfare was creating a pathological dependancy among poor people. The solution to this “pathology” was work, and thus the AFDC was replaced with Temporary Asistance to Needy Families (TANF) program which gave welfare recipients a short period of time to find work before they would be kicked off the benefit rolls. Ironically, a program that was created to keep mothers out of having to work was now forcing them to work for an average of $5.50 to $7.00 an hour with little-to-no benefits and a major shortage of subsidized childcare.

Though the benefits of TANF (commonly referred to as “welfare-to-work”) have been touted across the party lines, the celebration parade is largely just a morale-boosting, self-congratulatory spectacle. Among the “proof” that TANF and Welfare Reform have been so successful are the facts that benefit rolls have been cut in half and, perhaps more importantly, White wimmin now make up a minority (one-third) of welfare recipients. But it is easy for numbers to obscure reality.

Let’s look at the first evidence of proof: benefit rolls. What the numbers fail to mention is that just because the rolls have dropped by more than 50% does not mean that those that have left the rolls have done so because they have nudged their way into the job market. Quite the contrary. Data from the Department of Health and Human Services suggests that of those that have left the TANF rolls only 21.7% left because they found jobs. Fifteen percent leave because of changes in state policy and the majority (56 percent) leave for “unknown” reasons. As Gary Delgado points out in ColorLines magazine, “People disappear from the rolls because they are “sanctioned” for missing appointments or because they can’t find childcare, or they are “diverted” from applying in the first place.”

So what happened to the White wimmin who left the benefit rolls? Due to employment discrimination (and Affirmative Action policies that benefit White wimmin over people of color), White people found themselves in the job market in larger numbers than those of people of color. However, this doesn’t mean that these former welfare recipients found the euphoria of the working life that was promised in the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Instead, the newly employed workers often find themselves no better off or even worse than before they left the benefit rolls. Since 1979, the number of employed people living below the poverty line has jumped from 23% to 30% (33% for White wimmin and even higher for people of color). And less than a quarter find jobs with health benefits. So even those with jobs are finding that it is impossible to pay for all of life’s necessities. Many former recipients report that they skip meals, go hungry, or turn to food pantries and other emergency food assistance because they are unable to afford sufficient amounts of food.

A Government Accounting Office survey found that between nineteen and thirty percent of families returned to welfare soon after leaving. A quarter of those who leave welfare for work quickly lose their unstable jobs. Hystorically, welfare was there to provide a social safety net for those that found themselves pushed out of the unstable job market, but due to time limits for TANF, many families are finding themselves without such a net. Numbers suggests that a disproportionate amount of those returning to welfare are wimmin of color. While systemic racism will lead us to believe the stereotypes listed above (that people of color are lazy, not determined to succeed, and lack discipline), Delgado explains it as follows:

for women of color leaving welfare, there is the old triple whammy of race, gender, and welfare-recipient-status to shape their experiences in the job market. A 1999 study comparing the treatment of black and white welfare recipients, conducted by Dr. Susan Gooden of Virginia Tech University, found that black women earn less than whites, are less likely to be employed full-time, and are overrepresented in lower paying occupations. Gooden also found that black job applicants were asked twice as often as whites to complete a pre-application and that blacks were less likely to receive thorough interviews (45 percent as opposed to 71 percent for whites). Furthermore, 36 percent of African American respondents were subjected to drug tests and criminal record checks, while the 24 percent of whites who were asked to take any test at all were merely asked “character questions.”

There’s more:

*A 1999 study conducted by the Poverty Research and Training Center at the University of Michigan School of Social Work found that 14 percent of participants in employment programs reported four or more instances of discrimination.

*A recent survey conducted by the Idaho Community Action Network in the cities of Lewiston, Burley, and Nampa on the availability of the Child Health Insurance Program found language barriers and racial bias in the administration of the program.

*Respondents to the National Partnership for Women and Families’ 1999 survey of employment service providers in Tennessee, Florida, New York, California, and Pennsylvania reported employer biases against either women or welfare recipients, or both. The survey also uncovered individual cases in Iowa where a welfare-to-work participant reported having to endure a co-worker’s racially derogatory comments on a daily basis. In Indiana, a woman left her job at a fast food restaurant after a co-worker made sexual comments and touched her inappropriately over several months.

So, while there is not yet an overwhelming body of research, the research that does exist clearly establishes that racial and gender discrimination is intensified by welfare reform.

So we see that until recently, the stereotype that most welfare recipients were wimmin of color just wasn’t true and that it has only become true recently because of discriminatory employment practices that have largely left wimmin of color out of the job market while given beneficial treatment to White people. While the “benefits” of welfare-to-work are certainly up for debate, it is apparent that those that benefit most, despite the myth, are NOT wimmin of color.

Regarding the notion that wimmin of color are doing more “bitching” than pitching in, it does not take a lot of research to find that organizations like Incite!, Kensington Welfare Rights Union, The Center for Third World Organizing, the Women of Color Resource Center, and other organizations consisting largely of wimmin of color are doing tremendous work to create a fair and just economy.

I’ll cover the topics of babydaddies, college scholarships, and pay inequity in future posts.

For more info, you can check out the links above and read the following:
Beyond Welfare Queens: developing a race, class, and gender analysis of welfare and welfare reform by Chris Crass
Racing the Welfare Debate by Gary Delgado
Women of Color and Welfare from Incite!
Welfare Facts from the Women of Color Resource Center
The Color of Welfare by Roberta Pergher
Affirmative Action Works! by Paul Kivel

[?]

90 Responses to “Bitching and Pitching”

Rachel S Says:
May 5th, 2006 at 12:39 pm Oops, put it up under the wrong post. I would add Welfare Racism by Ken Neubeck and Noel Cazenave.
Douglass Says:
May 5th, 2006 at 2:37 pm It is interesting how the smallest division can also be the deepest.

BrownFemipower couldn’t have put it better (except by deleting the word ‘poor’) when she said:

“ women of color have they're own movement.
Poor white women don't”

The bitterly racist attitude of the 1st commentor in question was created when the feminist movement splintered into movements of racial identity.

Whites were left out.

This may be an ideological blind spot for some of you, but here:

Movements of racial identity are fashionable as long as they are not white.

This is because of propaganda that either insinuates that whites are more evil than the average person in another racial subgrouping (farce), or that because Whites have a majority in the Continenal US, they do not need such a movement (true, but whites are only 30% of the global population), or that because the legacy of Jim Crow is still being reversed that a movement of White identity is counterproductive(true).

The reason that the commenter was angry at women of color is that she experienced the feminist movement fragment into racial subgroups that included everyone BUT whites.

She probably felt abandoned.

I am concluding with this question:

If women of color do not care about the embetterment of the white woman, why should white woman care about the welfare of the women of color?
brownfemipower Says:
May 6th, 2006 at 7:24 am i'm sorry douglass--but the "splintering" of the feminist movement resulted not because woc were working from a position of power and decided we couldn't take white women any more. It happened because rich white women blatently refused to incorporate woc issues into their agenda. issues like challenging the violence of the nation/state (why do we want to call the police for DV when we know very well the racism of both the cops and system we will be thrown into?)

frankly, i'm tired of my stuff being used as a way to justify a continued hate against woc--especially when woc are the ones who are looking to find ways to build alliances between us and poor white women. go to any mainstream white feminist org like feminist majority or now. they might both give a lot of lip work to poor white women but they certianly aren't incorporating stances that could be beneficial to poor white women into their agendas. if anything, they are blatently anti-poor white women--what do they call those who are anti-abortion? white trash crackers. (try looking at any white feminist bloggers posts when South Dakota pushed through all the legistlation).
woc, regardless if poor white women like us or dislike us, are working toward a world that would benefit poor white women. poor white women are sacrificing their kids to war as much as we are--and are we saying "oh, we should care about them too!" like FM is, or are we working to create violence free zones that provide credible alternatives to military duty? I mean the comparison isn't even close. our movement works to create community empowerment such that we can rely on each other and keep women (whether white or woc) out of the abusive welfare system to begin with. what the hell is now or fm doing?

it really just drives me insane that a WOMAN OF COLOR is the one who is writing about POOR WHITE WOMEN, taking the time to try to understanding where this white woman's hate is coming from, attempting to begin a discussion, and yet WOMEN OF COLOR are being berated YET AGAIN for DARING to break off into our own groups and get work done that way instead of begging racist white women to please pay attention to us. I JUST DEMONSTRATED THAT WOC CARE ABOUT POOR WHITE WOMEN BY MY POST--and here comes some person beating us up for NOT CARING.

oh, and so you know, this is NOT the first time i have written about the potential alliances between poor white women (or poor white men, for that matter) and women of color.

it is just such and insult, and a racist insult at that, that woc more than any other group out there with the exception of native peoples, have done so much freaking alliance building between poor white women, and yet we still have to suffer through "why should white women care about woc?"
douglass Says:
May 6th, 2006 at 9:53 am Brownfemipower.

I must have done a poor job of communicating my idea.

You said:

"(it) is just such and insult, and a racist insult at that, that woc more than any other group out there with the exception of native peoples, have done so much freaking alliance building between poor white women, and yet we still have to suffer through “why should white women care about woc?”"

It most certainly is.

But, I am NOT saying that.

You must have misread my post.

I said *IF* woc dont care about white women....etc).

I think the opposite is also true, If white women don't care about woc, why should woc care about white women, etc.

My point is that race is has divided and crippled the Feminist movement. (This may be influenced by my idea that class is most important, followed by gender, then race.)

WHY were white women prevented from forming movements of racial identity?

White women are prevented from forming successful movements of racial identity by political landscape formed by anti-jim crow and anti-fascist propaganda.

The political milieu of America prevents white women from forming a group of white women thus robbing the feminist movement of the power it would have IF whites coud organize on the basis of race to the same degree as blacks, or Jews, or anyone else.

The effect is that movements of white identity are SEEN as movements of white supremacy.

They are unable to gain public support.

I KNOW most woc care about white women, but I think by forming a group that's very definition includes everyone BUT whites makes white women FEEL abandoned to the infiltrated at worst, ineffective at best groups like NOW or Feminist Majority. (I am disgusted by their pro-coat hanger stance)

I was intrigued by your references to 'the system'

But, take a look at national incarceration statistics as of June 2003. You will find that bias falls worse on the lines of age, then gender (with bias against males), then race with most bias towards blacks.

The racial bias is insignificant compared to that of age and that of gender. (aka $ is involved)
vegankid Says:
May 6th, 2006 at 12:49 pm bfp - thank you for your words. I'm sorry that it was you who had to respond. I must say that you pretty much took the words out of my mouth.

douglass - as bfp stated, it wasn't woc who divided a movement, it was middle- and upper-class White wimmin who divided the feminist movement by locking out woc and poor/working-class White wimmin. I'm not sure what hystory books you've been reading, but obviously they are the same as mine. White wimmin HAVE organized on the basis of race. That's why woc felt the need to create organization by, of, and for woc, because White wimmin weren't including woc in "their" movement. If you're interested in reading more about this rift, i'd suggest starting with Sojourner Truth then work your way towards Angela Davis, Audre Lorde and bell hooks. Perhaps we should work on a book list regarding this topic for this site. Hmm... i'll see what i can do.

Regarding your hierarchy of oppression, i can only assume that you are a White man. I say this because if you were working-class womyn of color then you probably would try to divide yourself into three hierarchical pieces. The oppressions are inextricably connected and therefe must be tackled congruently as opposed to in some consequetive order that is mandated by those with the privilege to state that their form of oppression is more important than someone else's.

I would agree that race has crippled the feminist movement only insofar as the White feminist movement has failed to incoporated struggles of racial justice. If anything, the critique that such wimmin as Truth, Davis, Lorde, and hooks has brought has only worked to strengthen the feminist movement by creating a praxis that binds different forms of oppression together. And when such movements work as one, far more is accomplished.

Movements of racial identity are fashionable as long as they are not white.

First of all, its not about fashion, its about justice. So if we replace that pivotal word and change it to read: movements of racial identity are just as long as they are not White, then we have a whole new topic. The answer to whether a movement of White wimmin can be just depends largely on the approach they are taking. Are they excluding woc? Are they perpetuating systems of unearned privilege and White Supremacy? Or are they working side-by-side with wimmin of color because they recognize a common struggle? Are these wimmin coming together to challenge the notions of White Supremacy? In summary, are they truly working for justice?

Hystorically, the White feminist movement was working towards a very limited view of justice, one that exluded the needs of working/poor White wimmin and wimmin of color. Therefore, this movement of racial identity (tho race was largely left out of the discussion by the White feminists because Whiteness is so normalized in our society) perpetuated oppressive patterns of racism and classism (not to mention ableism and heterosexism). So no, it was not a just movement. But this doesn't mean that White wimmin should not get together. I believe quite the contrary. If the feminist movement (or any movement for social justice) is to reach its full potential then i believe it is essential that White people get together and talk about Whiteness, White privilege, and White Supremacy. We must talk about these topics so that we may overcome them and create a movement that is truly just and powerful, rather than continuing to force such movements to splinter.

And i know of very few woc groups that explicitly exclude White wimmin. Typically, the fact of the matter is that White wimmin just don't care to get invovled in such organization because they feel that it doesn't affect them or they take the fact that woc feel ostracized persynally. And rather than to remedy the situation, they take it out on woc by calling them splitters (or dissidents).

And i believe it is just ignorant to claim that racial bias is insignificant compared to that of age or gender. The largest demographic of prisoners are Black males between the age of 25-29. Across race, age stats jump all over the place. The majority of prisoners are between the ages of 25-29 but, percentage wise, the largest growing population is aged 55 and over with the largest numerical leap being between the ages of 45-54.

So what are saying to this Black male aged 25-29 who sits in prison? That his age and gender are far more important than his race? I just don't see how that makes any logical sense.
douglass Says:
May 6th, 2006 at 5:53 pm Vegankid.

I stand corrected on the topic of why the feminist movement splintered.

Thanks for sharing your expertise.

A lot of what you said about the historical pattern of oppression in the feminist movement is above my head.

Especially this:

“douglass - as bfp stated, it wasn’t woc who divided a movement, it was middle- and upper-class White wimmin who divided the feminist movement by locking out woc and poor/working-class White wimmin.”

Howard Zinn needs to take a look at my history book, I learned that whites were banned from the civil rights movement, de jure., because they ‘couldn’t understand’

But, isn’t your and BFP’s assertion that upper class white women locked out poor and middle class women a clear example of how class is more divisive than race?

You said that “The oppressions are inextricably connected and therefe (therefore?) must be tackled congruently as opposed to in some consequetive (consecutive?) order that is mandated by those with the privilege to state that their form of oppression is more important than someone else’s.”

Hmm, I was talking about the relative magnitude of the factors involved. I don’t think that a person can fail to make distinctions in the name of equality when the oppressions involved are indeed unequal in terms of their impact.

Also, you said,

“First of all, its not about fashion, its about justice. So if we replace that pivotal word and change it to read: movements of racial identity are just as long as they are not White, then we have a whole new topic.”

You quite literally ‘put words into my mouth’

The idea that “its about justice” is your assertion, not mine. I used the word ‘fashionable’.

Cloak your statements in the fog of idealism and hide behind your noble intentions all you like, but to me, 'Justice’ is just a word, and a subjective one at that.

You said that “percentage wise, the largest growing population is aged 55 and over”

Growth is not connected to volume.

You said; " I believe it is just ignorant to claim that racial bias is insignificant compared to that of age or gender"

Watch yourself when you toss around the word 'ignorant'.

At first glace, you are right, race appears to be the biggest determinant of incarceration:

Whites are imprisoned At 376 out of 100,000 people
Blacks are imprisoned At 2,526 out of 100,000 people
Blacks outnumber whites 6 to 1.

But, take a look at gender stratification:

•Males are imprisoned at 681 out of 100,000 incarcerated
•Females are imprisoned at 35 out of 100,000 incarcerated
•Males outnumber females nearly 20 to 1

That is one reason why age statistics “jump all over the place”, gender bias is so heavy that you can’t notice the pattern of young to old.

In fact, the gatherer of the stats INTENTIONALLY skewed the pattern of age by dividing those from 18-19 into a 2 year bracket, those 20-54 into 4-year brackets, and those above 55 into a sweeping 30+ year age bracket.

Now, look even closer, at gender stratification in the black and Hispanic population:
:
Black People
•Males 2,526 out of 100,000 incarcerated
•Females 191 out of 100,000 incarcerated
•Males outnumber females 13 to 1

•Hispanic people
•Males 997 out of 100,000 incarcerated
•Females 80 out of 100,000 incarcerated
•Males outnumber females 12 to 1

Now, vegankid, are you sure that race is more important than gender when it comes to incarceration?
vegankid Says:
May 8th, 2006 at 6:49 am d: "But, isn’t your and BFP’s assertion that upper class white women locked out poor and middle class women a clear example of how class is more divisive than race?"

Not as i see it. But we are coming at this from two different perspectives. You are trying to force me into a position of saying there is a hierarchy of oppression and i am never going to assert such a thing. I do, however, think it is a prime example of the intersections of race and class oppression and why the two must be tackled together. I'm not saying you have to agree with me. If you see a hierarchy, that's your thing, as long as you are fighting oppression we have common ground to work on.

d: "I don’t think that a person can fail to make distinctions in the name of equality when the oppressions involved are indeed unequal in terms of their impact."

I don't want to put words into your mouth, so i'll ask i you are saying that class oppression impact people more than racial oppression. If this is what you are saying, then i would have to disagree. How are you going to explain to people like James Byrd, a Black man who was beaten unconscious, tied to the back of a pick-up, then dragged to his death, that class impacted him more than race? I think that unfair. Oh, and i make no apologies for my crappy spelling. That's just who i am:)

d: "You quite literally ‘put words into my mouth’. The idea that “its about justice” is your assertion, not mine. I used the word 'fashionable’."

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth so much as explain that i'm not trying to talk about what's fashionable but what is conscionable. Yes, its a subjective word, but i rely a lot on my conscience and compassion to guide my actions. If that means i am living in a cloud of idealism, then so be it. It is the life i choose to life.

I understand that there are certain connotations that come along with the word ignorant, but i meant it according to its denotation: unaware or uninformed. You said it yourself, Black prisoners outnumber White prisoners 6 to 1. Even if the ration between males and females is larger, i don't see how you can claim that the racial stratification is insignicant when the racial make up of this country is 70% White and only 12% Black. When we throw together the number of all prisoners of color and compare it to White prisoners, the racial divide become even more obvious.

I agree that the statistics are skewed regarding age and that must be taken into consideration. But i NEVER said that race is more important than gender, nor will i. What i said is that race is not an insignificant factor. Again, what i will not do is to attribute a hierarchy. The prison-industrial complex is fucked up and we must attack it from all angles, not just one.

I am curious, though. Are you implying that the gender make-up of the US prison system is proof that men are oppressed? And if so, by whom?
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 8th, 2006 at 7:17 am Douglass:

'But, isn’t your and BFP’s assertion that upper class white women locked out poor and middle class women a clear example of how class is more divisive than race?'

It is certainly true that mainstream feminism has been a middle-class movement and has excluded poor women -- undeinably, there is class division.

The point that Vegankid and Bfp were making is broader than that -- it is not only poor white women who have been excluded by mainstream feminism, but also women of colour, queer women, trans and gender variant people, etc.

The feminist movement splintered because whiteness, straight-ness, cisgenderness, and middle-class-ness were normatised within the movment. Whiteness is normatised in society, and that's why one doesn't talk about *white* feminism -- mainstream feminism is white feminism by default -- but one does talk about women of colour feminism.

"what i will not do is to attribute a hierarchy"

Like Vegankid, I think heirarchies of oppression are meaningless.

On a (sort of) sidenote --

"Howard Zinn needs to take a look at my history book, I learned that whites were banned from the civil rights movement, de jure., because they ‘couldn’t understand’"

Actually, that's not true. A lot of freedom riders in the '60s were white, for example. The racial justice movement doesn't have to be restricted to people of colour, nor should it be. Liberation from racist structures affects everyone, not only the group being directly oppressed -- we *all* need to liberate ourselves from the racist structures of society.

--IP
douglass Says:
May 8th, 2006 at 11:28 am Irrational point, about the side note:

June 1966 happened.

There is no reason to deny that whites were kicked out of sncc and the civil rights movement evolved into a movement of black identity, even pan-Africanism.

That did not occur because of malice on behalf of black civil rights activists.

I think it occurred because many activists disliked the notion of integration once they REALLY looked at it.

They realized the notion of integration was focused on whites, that it insinuated blacks had an obligation to assimilate themselves into white culture and leave their culture behind, as if their culture was unwanted, or somehow inferior.

I will reply to your other insights and Vegankid's insights within the next day.
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 9th, 2006 at 6:12 am Douglass:

"I think it occurred because many activists disliked the notion of integration once they REALLY looked at it."

If by "integration" you mean the explanation you give here:
"They realized the notion of integration was focused on whites, that it insinuated blacks had an obligation to assimilate themselves into white culture and leave their culture behind, as if their culture was unwanted, or somehow inferior."

then i think that was always a given, and was not
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 9th, 2006 at 7:59 am (rubbish. half my post got lost. second try)

...I think that was always a given, and was not the aim of the civil rights movement because that kind of "integration" (which is not real integration) is not what racial justice means, and is not was desegregation means. So I'm not sure what your point is here.

I'm also not sure what you're getting at about June 1966. All I know about Jun 1966 is that that was when James Meredith was shot.

The fact is that white people did participate in the civil rights movement. That's not the same thing as saying that the movement was led by whites, but they undeniably participated. Part of the point of the freedom rides, for example, was that white people and black people were sitting together wherever they wanted.

As pedantic as this point is, I think it's important. My point is not to emphasise the role of whites in the movement, but to emphasise that it was not, as you suggest, a case of a racial justice/identity movement being "fashionable [or just] as long as they are not white."

--IP
skyscraper Says:
May 9th, 2006 at 10:19 am thank you so much for this very informative and analytical piece. i personally have learned a lot from it, in terms of history, opinions, interpretations and social movements.
douglass Says:
May 9th, 2006 at 8:39 pm IP,

Of course Whites participated in the Civil Rights Movement.

I was pointing out that for one reason or another, at one point or another in the late 1960s the movement of SCLC and those like King fell to a movement of Black power.

Today we have to deal with that legacy.

Vegankid:

You said, "The prison-industrial complex is fucked up and we must attack it from all angles, not just one."

I agree. If you are a revolutionary type, look into cybernetics and apply what you learn.

About gender bias, I think that males commit more crime and are usually a bit less sly than their female counterparts when dealing with the police.

That's not to deny that men are now being socialized to have some domesticated qualities before seen only in women.

Vegankid and IP:

I think that the conditions that create oppression are in a constant state of flux.

What is important is that we fight it.

Also, this statistic was incorrect:

Black People
•Males 2,526 out of 100,000 incarcerated
•Females 191 out of 100,000 incarcerated

The correct statistic is:
Males 2,335 out of 100,000 incarcerated
Females 191 out of 100,000 incarcerated
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 10th, 2006 at 4:06 am "1960s the movement of SCLC and those like King fell to a movement of Black power.
Today we have to deal with that legacy."

If "black power" means that black people can go to the same restaurants and white people, and can sit in the same parts of a bus, and can be addressed with the same common courtesy as white people, and can live their lives without being lynched because they're black, then yes that is what the civil rights movement was. But it was not a movement of exclusion of white people.

--IP
douglass Says:
May 10th, 2006 at 11:15 am IP,

Civil rights worker Emmie Schrader Adams said in her essay; From Africa to Mississippi, (can be found in Deep in Our Hearts; nine white women in the freedom movement),

:

"What was happening in SNCC in 1967?..One thing was clear: there was change at the top...Jim Forman had resigned as executive secretary and John Lewis' reelection as chairman was undone in the middle of the night in a highly suspect manner by a rump of nightowl staff...at the bottom, few programs remained....the dream of a nationwide protest movement of both races, now disowned, lay in guarded hearts. With earlier causes of division now cleared off the table, attention had finally turned to the race question. The vote to expel whites in December 1966 passed by one vote: 19 to 18, with 24 abstaining, including all nine whites still left in the organization. The majority of the staff had gone to bed-it was 2 a.m."
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 10th, 2006 at 4:22 pm I'm not sure why you're equating the civil rights movment with the SNCC. They weren't the only figures, and i think it's a mistake to base generalisations about racial justice on a single organisation. Roughly comparable to making generalisations about feminism based on NOW.

Again: the racial justice movment(s?) is not a movement for the exclusion of white people. Granted, there are some spaces that are only for people of colour, but as long as those exist in the context of a broader movement, I don't see how it undermines or shifts the goal of the movement as a whole.
--IP
douglass Says:
May 10th, 2006 at 7:09 pm IP,

Interesting.

you said: "I don’t see how it undermines or shifts the goal of the movement as a whole."

hmm.

To me, this is an issue of representation. My original point was that in today's American political milieu, spaces that are only for whites are dubbed as 'racist'. Spaces only for nonwhites are not.

That double standard is damaging to the white women excluded from mainstream organizations like NOW and feminist majority because of their lifestyle or their economic status or some other reason. These women have nowhere to go except to movements that don't really represent the plight of people like them. The leadership of such organizations is not composed of people in their situation.

I think that is damaging to the movement.
vegankid Says:
May 11th, 2006 at 12:54 pm d: "To me, this is an issue of representation. My original point was that in today’s American political milieu, spaces that are only for whites are dubbed as ‘racist’. Spaces only for nonwhites are not."

douglass, i think you may be looking at this too simply. These White-only spaces are typically labeled racist because that is what they are - they are working to perpetuate a social hierarchy where White people maintain power-over. But that is not to say that all groups of White people have to mimic such behavior, that's just the way it typically plays out in the society in which we live. For example, Ally Work is purposefully made up of White people. Why? Because we feel it is important for White people to get together and talk critically about Whiteness, race, privilege, etc. So when it comes to White people coming together to talk critically about equalizing power, i don't think you will find too many people calling it racist. The problem arises when such groups are excluding people of color because they don't feel they should be allowed an equal voice. And that is not what i'm seeing with people of color-only groups. Instead of trying to maintain systems of hierarchical power (as we see in White Supremacist groups), they are trying to create power and create a space where they can share common experiences and fight against oppressive systems.

To go back to the example of workers, its why unions create Labor Centers. Because workers are often forbidden to talk to one another at the workplace without fear of losing their jobs (especially during a known organizing campaign). People of color are often unable to speak freely in the presence of White people, therefore it becomes necessary to create safe spaces.

Which then brings us to the fact that White people often find themselves surrounded by nothing but White people. People of color, on the other hand, often find themselves surrounded by White people (thus, in a hostile environment). Which again, necessitates a safe space to get away to in order to discuss matters of persynal importance. It is not a way to segregate or create power-over. It is a means of persynal sanity and liberation. Often such groups are working side-by-side with White-dominated groups (unless, of course, they are working on an issue that White people have largely abandonded, which is not uncommon).

The last part comes down to the definition of racism, which hopefully this first edition of the Erase Racism Carnival will help to clarify. For me, racism is not just prejudice. It also entails a degree of institutionalized power and privilege. People of color are not awarded power and privilege institutionally in this society. So, by that definition, its not quite possible for a group of disempowered people to get together and somehow gain access to institutional power structures (read: be racist). But definitions of racism differ. I, for one, am not as interested in persynal prejudices as i am in institutional power structures and the persynal responsilities in de/constructing such structures.

I hope that makes sense.
douglass Says:
May 11th, 2006 at 3:58 pm Vegankid.

I see that your definition of racism here is systemic, that people who organize on the basis of race are not racist until they begin to reinforce their racial bond by controlling important societal institutions.

That makes sense ethically, as discrimination on the basis of race is supposed to be naughty. But, that would make MORE sense in an Ideal world.

Ideally, all power relationships should be equalized. Ideally, the majority should not organize to shape society in its own interests.

But, A majority group always exhibits patterns of oppression.

Once idealism yields to the more pertinent question of who gets what, is there any incentive for a white person to make her/himself and people in their position weaker as to appease the ideological position of people who do not share their traits and are fighting for a type of society that would put them at a relative disadvantage?

As I said before; ideally, all power relationships should be equalized.

But, from a position of naked self-interest, you won't catch me losing power for the sake of a culture that wants to destroy mine, or to benefit a person that wants to rob me in the name of equality.

That might sound cold, but I’ve been in positions where I’m strong and I’ve been in positions where I’m weak.

I prefer the former.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

Also, I'm curious. In light of this comment , do you think that I am a racist?
calvinthecat Says:
May 12th, 2006 at 9:19 am calvin was very impressed by this post. calvin would strongly recommend that ALL women work together to deal with the problems facing them. Some problems are unique, but they should be appreciated for what they are: stumbling blocks for all.

Dr. King's words should be recalled here about all people working together. Unfortunately, reaching out across an artificial divide is difficult. There is money to be made from maintaining these distinctions.

It's the same old story. The Old Massas, after the Northern War of Aggression, got together and pitted the poor whites against the former slaves. In the meantime, they were lapping up all the gravy. Times change, people don't.
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 12th, 2006 at 12:23 pm Douglass:

But, from a position of naked self-interest, you won’t catch me losing power for the sake of a culture that wants to destroy mine, or to benefit a person that wants to rob me in the name of equality.

Who is trying to destroy your culture. Who wants to rob you in the name of equality?

You seem to be trying to defend your position by claiming that any other position would put you at risk somehow, or that you are in danger of being systematically oppressed if you try to make society more equal. How are you at risk? On what basis do you regard yourself as being in danger of oppression, and from whom?

And you seem to think that "weak" and "strong" are the only possibilities -- why do you regard true equality as impossible?

--IP
alsis39.9 Says:
May 13th, 2006 at 10:13 am I find it really depressing that Douglass operates from the point of view that A) there can be only one White culture and B) This supposed White monolith has not already, often forcefully, incorporated other races to enhance and grow itself. If this supposed White monolith is being destroyed, Whites have done far more to destroy it than POC ever could. For now, at least, POC don't have that much power and they don't have the numbers to enact your rather bizarre fantasies, D.

I envy the rest of you your stamina. To me, it's like trying to discuss meteorology with someone who keeps insisting that rain falls up, not down. >:
evil_fizz Says:
May 13th, 2006 at 2:07 pm Once idealism yields to the more pertinent question of who gets what, is there any incentive for a white person to make her/himself and people in their position weaker as to appease the ideological position of people who do not share their traits and are fighting for a type of society that would put them at a relative disadvantage?

First of all, I think you're conflating equality with some weird notion of racial supremacy. I think the incentive for whites is obvious: racial justice is a universal good. My benefitting from privilege means someone else is oppressed, and to me, that's fundamentally not okay.

The word appease also bothers me. It implies that people of color don't have serious, legitimate complaints worthy of our time and attention. We just need to give them what they want so they'll shut up.

I think any meaningful notion of racial justice does away with this mentality in favor of a (admittedly trite sounding) "we're all in this together".
vegankid Says:
May 13th, 2006 at 4:06 pm douglass - i couldn't help but laugh out loud reading your last question. I laugh because you probably don't want to know my answer. I'll let you know that any comments you make are not going to have any baring on whether i think you are racist or not. I believe i am racist. I believe all White people are racist. Now, do i think that because of your comments your are a sympathizer or member of some White Supremacist group like the National Socialist Party or the KKK? No. I believe you are a pretty average White persyn. Well, maybe a little outside of average since you are actually dialoguing about the topic of race (and it a very honest manner, i might add). And that is pretty rare for White folks to do. We tend to enforce racial categorization and hierarchy, but pretend they don't exist.

I agree that you are looking at this idea of racial justice and equality in a rather disturbing light. It has never been in my experience that people of color are organizing to be the next supreme power or to rob White people of anything except the ability to continue oppressing unchallenged. I think that fear of "people of color are out to get me" is what feeds White Supremacy and the systematic oppression of people of color. Rather than let anybody "get us", we will do everything in our power to maintain a system that benefits White people over people of color.

Instead, my experience has been that people of color are organizing simply for liberation. The power and control they seek is not power-over or control-over, but power-within and self-determination. Is that so much to ask? And why is it that you equate idealism with craziness? As if working towards an ideal world is an unrealistic and incomprehensible goal. A world without idealism is a very depressing world for me. I'm not unrealistic in that i don't believe this will happen in my lifetime. But it doesn't mean that i shouldn't do the work in my lifetime. If not now, when? If not me, who? Right?

And while there has been some good discussion lately as to whether there is such thing as White culture, the fact remains that if you are White, then chances are most or all of your cultural heritage has been destroyed (or at least you are disconnected from it enough that it is as good as gone). To receive status as a White persyn in the US, we must give up our ethnic and cultural heritage. If we do not, then we are not fully awarded the benefits of Whiteness.

d: "A majority group always exhibits patterns of oppression."

This is a tricky one. Cuz White people are not the majority. Not globally, and in the antebellum South, not locally. So numbers has very little to do with oppressor politics. But if they do, then isn't it in the best interest of White people to start equalizing racial power? Cuz all projections point to the fact that within the next 50 years or so, White people will be a minority globally and throughout the US. Why would we want to further the notion that the bigger group gets control if soon White people will not be the bigger group?

And can you please explain how racial equality puts White people at a disadvantage? The thing about equality is that there is no "strong" and "weak". If anything, i think it makes society stronger by no longer denying the collective the potential of so many people simply because of their racial categorization.

Sorry it has taken me a few days to get back to you. Been getting over an illness.
douglass Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 11:46 am Irrational Point,

I regard true equality as impossible for many reasons, one being the lack of an example of true equality in history, also because people have different traits that are valued differently. (Orwell’s paradox of some pigs being more equal than others)

IP: "..are (you) in danger of being systematically oppressed if you try to make society more equal.(?) How are you at risk? On what basis do you regard yourself as being in danger of oppression, and from whom?

well, not immediately, but For example, 44% of the freshman class at UGA in 2004 is there because of affirmative action.

That puts my white ass at a disadvantage.

That is open discrimination on the basis of race, not oppression.

I don't care how 'fair' it is, I care about the political implications of such an action (me being put at a disadvantage for one reason or another because of a division that is artificial)

Look at how whites are treated in Zimbabwe, that is oppression; they are treated similarly to blacks under South African apartheid.

Now, I'm not saying that is unfair, I'm saying that is a result of power, just as segregation was a result of power and apartheid was a result of power.

Capitalism is a cold game.

In short, The game is cold and I reserve the right to fight things that put me at a disadvantage. (as should everyone else)

alsis 39.9,

It would be depressing if I thought that way.

But, You made a few mistakes in judging my mentality.

I'ts ok if you think my ideas are bizarre, and I'm not worth talking to, if that's your opinion.

But, in the future please refrain from accusing me of saying stuff I didn't say.

Evil fizz,

I don't believe in racial supremacy, in fact I think that the division of people into various groups serves the political elite, wherever you may go, whatever the divisions may be.

Good point about the word 'appease', I should have used a word other than appease, but I guess that my usage of the word shows that I identify with whites more than another group.

eh, That's one of my problems.

Vegankid,

VK:"We tend to enforce racial categorization and hierarchy, but pretend they don’t exist."

To me, that is an insightful comment. It goes in line with my experience.

VK: "my experience has been that people of color are organizing simply for liberation. The power and control they seek is not power-over or control-over, but power-within and self-determination."

Of course, but, power is power and a group that seizes power will reinforce the previous patterns of oppression so that their defeated opponent(s) cannot seize power in the same way they did. That process might take 200 years, but it happens.

VK: "And why is it that you equate idealism with craziness? As if working towards an ideal world is an unrealistic and incomprehensible goal. A world without idealism is a very depressing world for me. I’m not unrealistic in that i don’t believe this will happen in my lifetime. But it doesn’t mean that i shouldn’t do the work in my lifetime. If not now, when? If not me, who? Right?"

You SHOULD fight for such goals if you think they could happen, but in light of what I have seen in history, I just think such things are impossible. But, I could be WRONG, so keep up the good work.

Also, you are right about 'white' culture, in my mind it never existed because 'white' is a term invented to accommodate the bastardization of European genes in the US. But if we consider 'white' to mean 'European', that culture it fell with Rome and was smothered by Christianity.

VK: " d: A majority group always exhibits patterns of oppression." VK:"This is a tricky one. Cuz White people are not the majority. Not globally, and in the antebellum South, not locally. So numbers has very little to do with oppressor politics. But if they do, then isn’t it in the best interest of White people to start equalizing racial power? Cuz all projections point to the fact that within the next 50 years or so, White people will be a minority globally and throughout the US. Why would we want to further the notion that the bigger group gets control if soon White people will not be the bigger group?"

First, I misused the word 'majority'. Sorry, I meant a majority of power, not of population.

Whites are already a minority globally with only 30% of the population, but again, I think that this is about power, and at the end of the day the common element of oppression is a willingness to hurt someone who is weaker than you.

The groups "white' and 'black' are entirely based on an illusion and are maintained only because the power relationships they create are desirable to the members of the most powerful group.

In this case, the 'white' group is the one most interested in maintaining the power relationships that are a result of the artificial division.

Whites don't necessarily want to preserve their genes, or their race, they want to preserve their advantage in power.

So, perhaps I AM willing to benefit from a privilege, as long as it isn't unfair, but then again, the concept of 'fair' is abstract. Money is real and power is real. It’s tempting to say fuck it, I could fight for some revolution or some abstraction that made me feel good about myself, but I will have noting to show for it at the end of my life. Why not just go for the money, go for the power and have something to give the people I am close to?
It’s tempting.

Perhaps I'm simply a capitalist bastard, but thanks for sharing your ideas and insights (vegankid, IP, alsis39.9, evil fizz and others)

You got me thinking about how my privilege hurts people I can’t see, so thanks.
brownfemipower Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 2:05 pm but For example, 44% of the freshman class at UGA in 2004 is there because of affirmative action.

That puts my white ass at a disadvantage.

That is open discrimination on the basis of race, not oppression.

I don’t care how ‘fair’ it is, I care about the political implications of such an action (me being put at a disadvantage for one reason or another because of a division that is artificial)

How does having 56% (the majority) of your population in a school when you are not the majority population in the country equal a disadvantage?
brownfemipower Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 3:45 pm p.s. how is 56% of the students getting into your school based on the generational privileges of whiteness an advantage to my brown butt?

should we be fighting over who gets the bigger percentages of whatever "privilege" the system is willing to offer us, or should we be holding the system accountable and demanding that everybody, regardless of who they are, where they came from, how much money they have, etc etc etc, has a free education--that is a nationalized higher level education system?
but how many of those 56% white students will agree to that, when they are already thinking they are at a disadvantage because 44% of the students got in on affirmative action.
douglass Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 4:20 pm brownfemipower,

I am suspicious of your means of approaching what I said, because my basic point is that these notions of social relations exist in the mind, but the question of who gets what is REAL.

But, you do have a point. 56% of that class had nothing to do with affirmative action.
I retort by saying that 44% of the class did not earn the marks to get in, but got in ONLY because of their race, displacing an equal number of whites that worked to earn marks better than the 44% there because of affirmative action.

Having a government program that OFFICALLY discriminates on the basis of race, AGAINST the white MAJORITY definitely puts me at a disadvantage. Although, the point of Affirmative action is to undo the effects of government policies that discriminated on the basis of race AGAINST blacks and other minorities.

But, I didn't perpetuate any of that oppression. I'm not getting any restitution from the Tunisians whose ancestors’ enslaved mine, and I don't think they owe me a damn thing, just as I don’t owe anything to today’s American black population.

The recent focus on ' white racism' serves the goal of 'leveling the playing field', aka redistributing power from whites to blacks, as to make up for the centuries of oppression blacks had to endure.

But, do you think I care about that?

Here's my point, if you don't like being weak, FIGHT.

Make your labor value worth something by educating yourself, get experience in an industry that you can excel in. Just don’t ask me to pay for it or give my place to you because my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather owned a slave.

I think this way partially because I am bitter and steadfast in fighting things that discriminate against me.

BFP, you should be bitter and steadfast in fighting things that discriminate against you.

What else is there to do but sit around and hope that those in power will pity you?

.
shannon Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 4:37 pm Brownfemi, you know what, you hit the nail on the head of why I don't have the patience to do this sort of work. Like, the white folks are so busy trying for white 100% of everything, that they forget that there's so many different avenues to having a good life, and many may be more effective and cheaper and easier than worrying about whether there's enough white people everywhere. I think it's better for everyone to be able to have a good life, than one group to have everything.
shannon Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 4:47 pm Douglass, white people have complained about AA, even when I have shown them marks higher than theirs- they don't care about grades, as they aren't complaining about their white classmates who aren't up to par or discrimination, because no compassion is shown for the hundreds of years of discrimination that people of color have gone through and the discrimination we still go through (apparently if you're not light enough, you're not important enough to rate compassion) . I'm not seeing why white skin makes you better at school and darker skin means you don't study. Why whites believe stuff from like what, the 1900s, and are still talking about it, I have no idea. To me it seems like insanity. We're trying to educate ourselves and get jobs even as whites fight to bar us from doing so. For god's sake, pick a fricking side. If you want us to be educated, stop fighting against it, and if you don;t, don't complain if people are poor, for goddess' sake. While in my heart I know you're just looking for a means to rationalize your hatred, in my head I'm trying to make some logic out of this and it's just like wtf.
brownfemipower Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 6:07 pm I retort by saying that 44% of the class did not earn the marks to get in, but got in ONLY because of their race, displacing an equal number of whites that worked to earn marks better than the 44% there because of affirmative action.

please. i graduated from the university of michigan. i know all about how "hard" white folks work. there was a class i took where the only requirment in the class was to turn in one 10 page paper at the end of the semester and show up for all the classes except two, and there were *still* young white kids who failed the class. i have seen those "hard working" white kids puking out on the lawn of their fraternity house on st patricks day. I have seen how three young men attempted to force a chinese grad student into changing their failing grads on their exams by threatening her with calls to their parents who "know" the dean. Our very own dear president was a class a example of the "hard working" fuck ups that i went to school with--the same fuck ups who got drunk and passed bottles of liquor around at the graduation ceramony that i had spent almost eight years working to get to. the same fuck ups who show up for the first and last day of class and then complain when the professor gives them a failing grade. at a recent TA meeting, that was the biggest topic on the agenda, how does one deal with the rich white kid who threatens you?

how is it that our president, who is on very very good days, a "C" student, gets into one of the top business schools out there? does his "C" count for more than my "A"? Or does it *pay* more than my "A"?

One inherent assumption in your logic is that 100% of white folks "deserve" to be giving admittance to a school, and that 100% of poc are not just stupid, but *not as smart as* 100% of white folks--our "best" isn't a good as your "worst".

The other inherent assumption in your logic is that the structure that put admissions at 100% white for generations is an ultimatly nuetral structure that just so happened to let white folks in exclusivelly--and now poc are playing the system the same way white folks did--and even though we are inherently dumber than 100% of the white population, we are going to play that system so well, that we're going to take over the u.s.

do you see the flaws of that logic?

Here’s my point, if you don’t like being weak, FIGHT.

Make your labor value worth something by educating yourself, get experience in an industry that you can excel in. Just don’t ask me to pay for it or give my place to you because my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather owned a slave.

I think this way partially because I am bitter and steadfast in fighting things that discriminate against me.

BFP, you should be bitter and steadfast in fighting things that discriminate against you.

What else is there to do but sit around and hope that those in power will pity you?

can i ask what makes you assume that i'm not fighting? that i'm not bitter as hell? what makes you assume that i am sitting around waiting for somebody to pity me? what evidence do you have that i am doing any of these things? my implied support of affirmative action? because i challenged your anti-afirmative action stance, i *must* be sitting morosely on my ass waiting for the world to save me?
douglass Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 6:57 pm Shannon,

Whoa!!!!!

Why do you have to play me like that?

Shannon: "white people...don't care about grades" (and according to Shannon, I’m the racist)

Shannon: " I’m not seeing why white skin makes you better at school and darker skin means you don’t study" (when did I say THAT?)

Shannon: "We’re trying to educate ourselves and get jobs even as whites fight to bar us from doing so" (some whites, not all)

Shannon,

I don't know where you got the impression that I said or even insinuated such patently racist remarks.

Please don't frame me like that, or misrepresent my position with an easily refutable or clearly racist position. Instead, Shannon, review what I have written here, and THEN tear me a new one. ( it shouldn’t be that difficult, I'm no Pascal.)

But, PLEASE don't just make stuff up, Shannon.

BFP, hold your horses.

First, the president went to an elite boarding school, like the rest of our politicians.
(I'm surprised you didn't know why our politicians never talk about high school.)

I admire the passion in your writing, but I made my statement about the people who got into UGA because of affirmative action, NOT all POC.

I'm sure they (the people who got into UGA because of AA) displaced non-white students that didn't fall into the categories put forth by AA as well as whites (my bad for neglecting to say that).

But, you CANNOT deny that the people who got into UGA because of AA had resumes that were less appealing than those of the people they displaced.
That's a fact. Whether AA is justified or not is debatable, but the displacement of prospective students by AA is a fact.

Again, I admire your passion, and I DID sound like I was saying that you didn't fight, so i apologize for that, formally.

Although that wasn't my point, It was wrong of me to make a statement that would send that message.

Regardless of what you may think of me, I'm glad that you (BFP) stick up for yourself politically.

also, you seem to get the impresson that I am attacking you. Why?
alsis39.9 Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 7:55 pm But, in the future please refrain from accusing me of saying stuff I didn’t say.

Fine. So clarify, if I'm not getting you, Douglass. You claim that the cultures of POC want to "destroy" yours. What is it exactly that makes you think this ? It seems a bit arrogant to me that you'd believe that if POC are more in the drivers' seat that they would automatically assume some kind of malevolent role toward this mysterious monolithic "White" culture you refer to.

It's also telling that you talk to POC who are relating their uphill struggles in college and all you can counter with is "I refuse to give up MY place..." etc. It never seems to enter your head that the trouble could be that there are not enough "places" for everyone. College, for example, is ridiculously expensive for most Americans, leaving the graduate heavily in debt even as he/she is exhorted to do something with a degree other than just dash off in search of the highest-paying slot available. So somebody like Shannon or BFP relates how they are playing the game exactly as they were told to, even as they see the folks who set up the rules of the game getting waved through the pearly gates of privilege when they fuck up. But you don't look at them and see people doing exactly what the powers that be have exhorted them to do-- You only see somebody stealing a "place" that you arrogantly assume belongs to you.

That's what I see. If I'm wrong, go ahead and explain why.
douglass Says:
May 14th, 2006 at 9:19 pm BFP, I forgot to add that also, many people eligible for AA don't need it and rise above the overwhelming majority of their white classmates, just as many whites don't even have a high school education.

alsis 39.9,

you are confusing a positive judgment with normative judgment, and I see why, I wasn't clear enough.

"Once idealism yields to the more pertinent question of who gets what, is there any incentive for a white person to make her/himself and people in their position weaker as to appease the ideological position of people who do not share their traits and are fighting for a type of society that would put them at a relative disadvantage?"

That is the question of incentive. I am making the positive judgment of saying that there is little incentive for whites to support measures that would destroy white privilege. Not the normative judgment of saying I should NOT support such measures. I do not endorse oppression.

"But, from a position of naked self-interest, you won’t catch me losing power for the sake of a culture that wants to destroy mine, or to benefit a person that wants to rob me in the name of equality".

yet again, I said "from a position of naked self interest”, I do not take such a stance. the question I raise is again the question of incentive.
Again I am against oppression. I said myself I do not care about the plight created by the centuries of oppression on minorities, because I am being honest, why should I, I didn't DO any of it.

I don't think useless divisions like race have anything to do with the value of human life.

Also, I don't want anything that is given to me because of my race. I hate to break it to you, but white people don't have a trust fund.

ON college, My experience is different than yours, I come from the beautiful state of Georgia, which gives a free college education to ALL Georgians with a > or = 3.0 high school GPA under it's HOPE scholarship program.

The real question is how can we create programs that will aid historically oppressed people AND elicit support from the white majority, instead of the abrasive policies of Affirmative Action, which no matter how just it's cause, no matter how noble it's intentions, AA discriminates on the basis of race.

Whites perceive it as a move of political combat.

There has to be a better way.
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 1:00 am First off, Douglass, affirmative action is *not* giving someone a place at a university *solely* on the basis of race. Affirmative action is when you have two candidates who are equally qualified, and you pick the one who has less privilege (not just racial privilege, by the way). So no, they are not there *just* because of AA -- they're people who would be good enough to get into those schools anyway. Furthermore, AA doesn't exist for the benefit of individuals, it exists for the betterment of society.

Vegan and Bfp are quite right about the remaining 56% -- that's a majority when whites are actually a minority of the population. So, even with AA you still have a significant privilege.

"If you don't like being weak, FIGHT>"
People of colour are fighting. You seem to think it's as simple as just working...think again about that, because it is not the case that people of colour generally don't work hard enough, or that white people generally work harder. White people are more successful because they have privileges on socioeconomic and political levels. Which menas that POC face more obstacles in education and getting a job than white people and that has nothing to do with how hard they work or how hard they fight.

"But, I didn’t perpetuate any of that oppression."

Yes, you do. Anyone who accepts privilege or doesn't question privilege, or does actively fight against privilege is de facto perpetuating oppression. This oppression is structural, which means that as a white person you benefit from privilege and therefore you perpetuate oppression *by default*. It's only if you actively oppose oppression, and actively work for equality that you can claim to have lessened your contribution to the perpetuation of oppression.

"So, perhaps I AM willing to benefit from a privilege, as long as it isn’t unfair"

You haven't earned that privilege in any way -- you were jsut lucky enough to be white. Therefore all and any privilege you may benefit from is unfair.

"I regard true equality as impossible for many reasons, one being the lack of an example of true equality in history"

Why does that mean you shouldn't try to acheive equality?
--IP
alsis39.9 Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 6:13 am "Again I am against oppression. I said myself I do not care about the plight created by the centuries of oppression on minorities, because I am being honest, why should I, I didn’t DO any of it."

You should care because you are still benefitting from it, and reaping advantages that you have done nothing to earn. So have I. In dismissing the struggles of POC as being all about "idealism" and not about reality, you are in fact continuing to "do" it. The "trust fund" of even the poorest White person is in his or her skin color. Skin color brings in the eyes of the White majority an assumption of worthiness and ability that simply doesn't come to POC trying to make it in a White world. I think you should endeavor to listen harder to what the POC here and elsewhere are trying to say to you. Your privilege is invisible and all around you, like air. The fact that you can't see it even as you exercise it in this thread does not render it non-existent.

I do not write this from some kind of position as intuitive saint, as I am White myself (of Eastern Euro-Jewish extraction). So just to elaborate a bit: You say that college is easier to afford in GA than much of the rest of America. If you consider that a good thing, start reading up on America's military machine, the bipartisan love of pork that makes it impossible for the country to send most adults with a hunger for education to college. Writers like Jim Hightower have pointed out repeatedly that if we were to re-apportion the billions we waste on military might, everybody who wanted to could attend a college for free. The arguments over who really earned that slot and why exist because we live under an artificially-created system of scarcity. You should be pointing a finger at your elected officials and asking them what they intend to do about this, not looking askance at a Black college student and claiming that she "took" something that rightfully belongs to you.
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 6:58 am What Alsis said.

--IP
douglass Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 9:22 am Alsis, and IP;

Again, I’m not pointing my finger at blacks, I'm trying to show you WHY it is so difficult to get a white person to see things in the light you present them under.

surprisingly (i was surprised, I’m sure you’re perfectly agreeable), I agree with you here about the politicians, in fact it is my position that white on black racism in the continental US is entirely irrational, born out of the history of class struggle where poor whites had no reason at all to hate the black slaves, but had a reason to hate the plantation owner who profited from not having to hire their free labor.

But, taking monies away from the military at this time would have consequences felt in our oil bourse, and consequently in the purchasing power of the Dollar, which would make the military cut useless.

Perhaps a sales tax/lottery combo would work best for a socialistic system of college education.

But, still I think this 'white privilege' idea is bollucks.

alsis, It seems like total bullshit to me, otherwise we would give the Native population their land back, and move back to Europe.

Allow me to turn the tables to show you what I REALLY think this is.

Here: your Jewish privilege, which you can't see, it's like an invisible backpack, follows you everywhere, it allows you to be a citizen of Israel, It gives you rights that the non-Jewish residents of Palestine don't have, rights you think are yours because you arrogantly think that there is only one God, AND that you are his ‘treasured possession’

Your ancestors stole the country of the native peoples because of their Jewish arrogance, that must be equalized by giving the Palestinians places in the universities ahead of Jewish students who excel only because of their daddy’s hubris and their Jewish exceptionalism.

Next, You need to find the ancestors of the Canaanites, and the others your ancestors knocked off of your land, and give them special privileges to make up for the years of oppression they had to endure.

See how ridiculous that is?

That’s how I see the idea of 'white privilege'
Jay Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 9:54 am retort by saying that 44% of the class did not earn the marks to get in, but got in ONLY because of their race, displacing an equal number of whites that worked to earn marks better than the 44% there because of affirmative action.

I assume UGA keeps application materials confidential, so I'm curious how you derived this statistic?
douglass Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 9:57 am Look,

I'm not claiming that I’m 'right', I'm just sharing my perspective. If you know for sure that I’m wrong, please, show me WHY I’m wrong.
Jay Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 10:01 am Douglass,

Who are you addressing?
douglass Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 10:46 am Jay,
I'm addressing The people who were kind enough to respond to my confusion over the existence of 'white privilege'.

Also, The Atlanta Journal Constitution published an article in 2004 stating the 44% ratio, you can search their archives and find it.
Jay Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 10:49 am Thanks.
alsis39.9 Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 12:41 pm [snort.] Douglass, dude, we can talk about Jews until my lily complexion turns the color of this border. (Though not all Jews are White, BTW.) However, your analogy in this context is a pile of crap. I don't live in Israel and partake of its culture. I live in the United States and partake of its culture. I plan on staying here until I die or am run out. The United States is a country founded by Gentiles, which means that mass culture as it relates to my religious/ethnic origin has dominion. I am not Gentile and never will be. So let's please not go down that particular side road today, since it's only periphally related to the subject at hand-- if that much.

"...taking monies away from the military at this time would have consequences felt in our oil bourse, and consequently in the purchasing power of the Dollar, which would make the military cut useless..."

Nobody said you had to do it tomorrow, but examining the military machine, and talking to folks around you about our dependence on oil --foreign or not in origin-- would do a world of good in understanding why, to paraphrase Shrub, the pie doesn't grow any higher. It always puzzles me in this type of discussion that when White folks bring up class issues, they only do it to shut down discussion. Talking about scarcity as it relates to education, to energy resources, and all manner of other issues could actually blast down a few walls and bring that unity that so many Whites claim we believe in. Looking at our circumstances from these angles would cost you little, except your dependence on arguments that everyone's already heard --and POC have largely rejected-- any number of times. So why won't you do it ?

"...alsis, It seems like total bullshit to me, otherwise we would give the Native population their land back, and move back to Europe..."

Reducto ad absurdum = Checkmate ? I don't think so. However, if it makes you happy to believe that it somehow equals a moral victory, have at it. Why your earnestly telling myself and others how the masses that need persuading see the issue should impress me is a mystery. I know those folks. I've been one of them. What I wonder --not to speak for everyone here-- is what prevents you from speaking to them about what you've learned here.
douglass Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 1:23 pm alsis39.9,

first of all, I’m not trying to argue for the sake of 'winning', I am just trying to learn, it is good that you are challenging my views.

I have no beef with you or anyone else who has commented.

In fact, I cherish your opinion.

You might not like my analogies, but you cannot deny that my comparison of whites in America to Jews was valid inasmuch the land of Isreal is LEGALLY the birthright of every Jew.

You can say all you like that my example of the genocide of the Native population, but I did not intend it to be a reductio argument, I intended it to be an example of the logical result of using the government or some other pressure group to reverse historical patterns of oppression. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. I am questioning why it is a necessary thing in light of it's selectivity.

After all, the Europeans DID steal north and south America through genocide while fomenting the anesthesia of Christianity, and nothing is being done, the Cleveland INDIANS are still at team, and the native population is still in poor shape mentally and financially. Nothing is being done relative to what is being done for Blacks.

Why should the black population be singled out for special LEGAL privileges (such as AA) when other minorities and the native population get short changed, they receive unequal amounts of aid relative to their plight and population. If the goal of such action is reversing the effect of oppression, rather than only aiding a particular minority that won such treatment through political mobilization, perhaps government policy would be more even handed.

ok, I see you prefer the perspective of the economist, although I must note that the result of ending the artificial scarcity of college education would be similar to the sophomoric phrase "too many chiefs and not enough indians'
although I think what you propose in the field of education will become increasingly tenable on the state level, and in the distant future on the federal level.
After all, There is a ratio between skilled and unskilled labor that is demanding more skilled labor and less unskilled at the same rate technological innovation drives unskilled labor into obsolescence. (side note, unskilled labor that is underpaid has the comparative advantage in production compared to unionized or governmentally regulated labor, that might make technological innovation have a different effect on the underpaid and underrepresented labor market)

We will see more efforts in the direction of making college less difficult to get in to as this trend manifests.

As the HOPE scholarship proves, the conditions are now conductive to such programs. All we need to do is push the lower middle class and the middle class to use their influence to put pressure on the governors and state legislators as to be the catalyst, instead of cutting down on the military while it is overextended.

In Georgia, that is what happened, governor sunny Perdue was stopped in his tracks for trying to even cut back on Barnes' HOPE program by the Georgian middle class, when word got out he was thinking about cutting down on HOPE, there was talk of driving the man out of office. Perdue backed down

So, my disagreement is not with the goal of equality, it is with techniques that I see as counter-productive and hypocritical that end up poisoning action taken in the name of equality.
alsis39.9 Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 2:54 pm "...You might not like my analogies, but you cannot deny that my comparison of whites in America to Jews was valid inasmuch the land of Isreal is LEGALLY the birthright of every Jew..."

Yes, I can and do deny its validity. However, I don't want to divert this thread further from its original focus, so I'm bowing out now.
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 5:50 pm "Why should the black population be singled out for special LEGAL privileges (such as AA) when other minorities and the native population get short changed, they receive unequal amounts of aid relative to their plight and population."

I'm curious as to why you see this as an argument against equality for black people instead of as an argument for equality of American Indians. By the way, when I say 'people of colour', that includes American Indians. I'm not sure it is the case, however, that AA isn't used with American Indians who apply to university.

As regards your use of the word "privilege" in this context, I think it's innacurate to call AA a "privilege" when white people still have privilege over people of colour even taking AA into account.

We can't undo the past, and we can't give back the land that once belonged to American Indians, because other people live on it now, who are not to blame for the appropriation of that land. We are all, however, involved in their continued mistreatment. We can and we should respect the land that remains to them and fight for the rights of American Indians to live in equality and dignity with white people.

"So, my disagreement is not with the goal of equality,"

Your earlier comments indicate otherwise. However...

"it is with techniques that I see as counter-productive and hypocritical that end up poisoning action taken in the name of equality."

Firstly, techniques are not set in stone -- they can change and be adapted. But to reject racial equality offhand because you disagree with some of the techniques used by some people for acheiving it is foolish. If you have a better idea, put it into practice.

(That said, so far the only two techniques you have pointed out have been AA and POC-only spaces, and neither of those are hypocritical.)

As regards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, i think we should keep that to a separate thread as there are many more issues involved in that situation than are being discussed in this thread. We can discuss it on my blog, on the thread about foreign aid to the PA, in which you commented earlier.

--IP
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 6:03 pm I've justed about privilege on my own blog, Douglass. I don't want this thread to become sidetracked, so you can take the Israeli-Palestinian issue there if you wish:

http://irrationalpoint.blogspot.com/2006/05/privilege.html

--IP
douglass Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 6:38 pm rry for the sidetrack. It won’t happen again.

The techniques I abhor are those that discriminate on the basis of race or some other inherent trait in the name of fighting discrimination on the basis of race or some other inherent trait. (such as AA and POC only spaces),

Once these techniques are employed, the movement that employs them stops being a movement of liberation and starts being a combatant in a cultural war, not by the choice of their goals, but by the choice of their MEANS.
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 12:25 am Is it discrimination per se that is the problem, or oppression (that uses discrimination as a tool)?

it has already been explained to you that AA does not confer benefits over white people.

POC-only spaces, are acceptable where they exist in the context of a broader movement and are not used to replicate heierachical structures. They are techniques used against oppression that are acceptable because they are not oppressive.

"Once these techniques are employed, the movement that employs them stops being a movement of liberation and starts being a combatant in a cultural war, not by the choice of their goals, but by the choice of their MEANS."

No, a goal does not change because we disagree about the methods. You can still support racial justice and racial justice movements and disagree with AA and POC-only spaces. Lots of people do.

--IP
douglass Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 8:46 am IP,

IP:"it has already been explained to you that AA does not confer benefits over white people."

Some explanations are not believed, especially when they ignore the issue of displacement.

IP: "a goal does not change because we disagree about the methods. You can still support racial justice and racial justice movements and disagree with AA and POC-only spaces. Lots of people do."

Wow, I agree with that.

I am just disillusioned with a movement that I see using the techniques of the segregationist,(anything that discriminates on the basis of race)

When they say 'equality' I read 'raising the position of our movement above other minorities and that of the white majority'.

Believe it or not, I am a proud supporter of TRUE equality.

I just think true equality is 1) impossible within the capitalist system 2) impossible within our technological-industrial society (borrowed from M.Ellul) and 3) will never come from a pressure group or a political movement seeking to gain concessions from society to it's members.

True equality is a goose. Chase it all you like, but you will end up going in circles.

That is why originally I said class is most important, because in capitalism the rich shape society in their own interest, the first thing you need to do to eliminate 'white privilege' is to eliminate the capitalism that allows an inequitable distribution of resources (in our case, towards whites).

If a movement is fighting for equality without planning to destroy the vehicle that enables such inequity (capitalism), that movement’s quest for 'equality' is REALLY just greed cloaked in the holy banner of liberation, hence my assertions that VK was being an idealist and that true equality is impossible. I meant what I said in the context of the continental US.
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 12:40 pm "Some explanations are not believed, especially when they ignore the issue of displacement."

Alsis and others already explained why it's not a question of displacement. There aren't enough places at university for everyone -- it's a competitive system. White people are not automatically entitled to places at university, and if someone less privileged has the same qualifications as a white person, then the place should go to the less privileged person because that person has worked harder to get to that point than the more privileged person (and university places whould go to the best qualified and hardest working applicants. University admissions systems have their own flaws too). That's how AA works, but I doubt very much that you will ever hear anyone say that it's a perfect system, because it isn't. A lot of people disagree with it, including many racial justice acitivists (racial justice is not a single unified campaign). I have my own issues with it, but I won't go into them here because it's not relevant. The point is that we can agree or disagree with it's advantages and disadvantages of AA, but its goal remains just as valid.

"I am just disillusioned with a movement that I see using the techniques of the segregationist"

I think that's foolish. You can disagree with the techniques, but then *say* "I am disillusioned with this technique and I disagree with those you advocate it, and I would support a different technique that is employed to acheive racial justice" rather than "I am disillusioned with racial justice and see it as inherently discriminatory." The first is valid, the second is stupid.

"When they say ‘equality’ I read ‘raising the position of our movement above other minorities and that of the white majority’."

That doesn't invalidate the real meaning of equality, yet you keep insisting that it does.

"will never come from a pressure group or a political movement seeking to gain concessions from society to it’s members."

Again: racial justice is not about gaining concessions, it's about being equal.

"Believe it or not, I am a proud supporter of TRUE equality."

Given that you are so against contributing anything to a racial justice movement because you (by your own admission) like benefiting from it, I find it this hard to believe. Believing that complete equality is impossible is no excuse for not trying to lessen the privilege gap, and by doing nothing, you are contributing to the oppression of others.

--IP
douglass Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 2:01 pm IP,

You said: "The point is that we can agree or disagree with it’s advantages and disadvantages of AA, but its goal remains just as valid."

YES!

I question the means, because when a person employs discriminatory means, WHY are they any better than the segregationist?

IP: (Dug: “When they say ‘equality’ I read ‘raising the position of our movement above other minorities and that of the white majority’.”)
That doesn’t invalidate the real meaning of equality, yet you keep insisting that it does."

Of course it doesn't, but it DOES suggest that 'equality' does not describe the goal of such a movement.

You (IP) elaborated by saying " racial justice is not about gaining concessions, it’s about being equal."

Exactly, and when a movement stops trying to be equal and starts looking for an advantage, what they aim for is no longer true racial justice, it is power.

Just so you know, I actually take some of my time to teach poor, inner city, minority kids how to read.

Now, that doesn't make me any less of an asshole, but to me, that is a way to help somebody have a better future without employing some technique of warfare or power politics.

Also, I don't like benefiting from oppression. Such things make me feel uncomfortable. I’m just pointing out that there is little incentive for a white person to ACTIVELY break down that system, especially if they are socialized to deny its existence.
IrrationalPoint Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 2:05 pm You benefit from oppression every day.

--IP
douglass Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 2:17 pm I know,IP.

How does that impact my idea that the use of techniques that are abrasive to the white majority is counter-productive to the movement as such actions harden whites AGAINST the goal of racial equality?

but whatever, you are free to disagree and my opinion is not better than yours.

I have told you already that I have trouble givingafuck about 'white privledge' because I didn't create it nor did I choose it.

But, I do care about how I can undo it.
douglass Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 2:18 pm WITHOUT making thigs worse
shannon Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 2:30 pm Dude, douglass, it's not like I've never talked to a white person before- the truth is that people of color aren't as slow as whites think they are. Like, I just said what was underneath that rhetoric(you guys never make up original lies, either) - it's not like we can't decode it and see what you really think about us. I'm college educated(at Emory) and I worked much harder than white folks who may have had an internship working at daddy's law office, but showed up drunk to class. . Seriously, if white people really cared about whether peop

AllyWork

Helping White people fight White Supremacy

Recent Comments

Archives

Bitching and Pitching

Published by vegankid | Filed under Common Myths, Government, Portraying Race

90 Responses to “Bitching and Pitching”