Summations Only

How do you explain the difference, then? How do you explain that nobody thinks it's really very racist to call a white guy "cracker" in your world where there's no such thing as privilege?I mean, if white people and black people are each as likely to be subject to racism in exactly the same way, then how do you explain things like institutional racism? How do you explain how none of the victims of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment were white? How do you explain the fact that a resume with a black person's name on it is less likely to receive a call for an interview than a white person's resume, even if the resumes are identical? Even if the resumes are identical except the white one has a felony conviction for workplace theft?I just don't see how your "privilege-free" model can actually make sense of anything. It's obviously wrong. No, you don't:

quote:

---

Sociologists Nol A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as ...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RacismPrivilege is central to the notion of racism.

Yes, that's what I said - discrimination that happens because of racial privilege. That's what "racism" means. Do you understand the point? Yes or no.

And the definition of "racism" is "discrimination that happens on the basis of racial privilege." Jesus, the one you've posted three posts about before I've even had a chance to reply. Did someone hit you on the head, or something? Your model where "racism" has nothing to do with privilege. For widespread, rigorous, academic definitions of my terms? Yeah, what a desperation ploy. You really caught me out on that one!Some days talking with you makes everybody dumber. This is one of those days.

Then how do you explain that they're not equally subject to racism, without recourse to the idea of privilege? Like I said, without privilege you can't understand anything about racism. Literally nothing. And the proof of that is that you don't understand it. You make that obvious each time you post.It's not racist to be white and called a cracker. There's nobody who will take you seriously if you complain that it is because it's meaningless. It's a joke. It's like the guy in Monty Python: "halp, halp, I'm bein' oppressed!" And that's because of the privilege situation, the difference in racial privilege between the black guy and the white guy. People find it funny because it's completely risible to take it seriously. Why do you think they don't, though? That's what I can't understand. How do you explain it, without privilege? It's just random? White people are more racist than black people? How do you explain it? I didn't say that it was ok to be a racist as long as you aren't white. You really have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

But racism is wholly dependent on privilege; if privilege did not accrue due to race, then there would be no racism. We wouldn't even have a word for it, just like we don't have a word for "discrimination on the basis of shoe-size-related privilege."By definition that's true, Hooah. How would you even be able to discriminate against someone on the basis of race without racial privilege? It just doesn't make any sense. That's how I'm able to explain the fact that the only way racial minorities can be racist is if they discriminate against those with less racial privilege than themselves. There's no way to discriminate against someone who is more privileged than you. It can't be done, because discrimination can only happen from more privilege to less. That's why "Male Rights Activist" is such a laughable term. That's why when someone says "white rights", we know immediately they're a racist. All that stuff is true, Hooah. Are you telling me you never once wondered why? Or were you just too dumb to notice?

I don't see the dissonance. Those two statements aren't in any way contradictory. It's wrong to be a racist, no matter what color you are. Racism is 100% wrong regardless of your race.But by definition, it's not racist for a black person to call a white person a "cracker." It's not racist because it's not discriminatory. And it fails to be discriminatory because the black person has no racial privilege over the white person.Look, if it were racist to call a white person a "cracker", it would be 100% regardless of the race of the person who did it. But it's only racist if you have racial privilege over the target of the epithet. If you don't, it's nothing. It's just a word. Hell, maybe it's even a word you use to refer to your close friends, or to let someone know they're in your ingroup. Didn't you ever wonder why black people can use the n-word amongst themselves but white people can't? It's because white people have racial privilege over black people.And since there's no race that has privilege over people of the white race, it's impossible for it to be racist to call a white person a "cracker." It's just impossible, because there's no way for it to be discriminatory. Racism is discrimination on the basis of racial privilege. Not merely on the basis of race.

Of course it's not racist! That's why Stuff White People Like is a hilarious and critically-acclaimed blog that spun off a best-selling book for whom the authors are now doing a coast-to-coast tour, and "Stuff Black People Like" isn't even something I dare do a Google search for because it would just return a torrent of racist filth.Again, how do you explain something like that in your "no-privilege" model of racial discrimination?

Well, yeah. Doesn't that comport with observation?I mean, what white person ever got mad about being called a "cracker"? Who ever acted like that was something to get upset about, or fault someone for saying? What black person ever got punished or accused of being a racist for saying it?How do you explain that black people can call each other the "n-word", and that's not racist? How do you explain that even the word's detractors among black people - those who maintain that it really shouldn't be used by anyone, a viewpoint I can respect - don't say so because they believe that black people are being racist with each other, but because they believe it encourages racist use among whites?I mean, you've got a big problem trying to say that calling a white person a "cracker" is every bit as racist as the reverse situation when there's just nobody who acts like it is, not even you, who self-censored the "n-word" but left in the "c-word." How do you explain that? Debate ceases to be meaningful when one side - yours - simply won't recognize reality. Do you really think we live in a world where "cracker" is racist? How do you explain the fact that nobody, including you, ever acts like it is? That's either an enormous construction of false consciousness or a necessary and easily-explained consequence of the fact that it's just not racist. Being of a race that is widely treated as superior to another is privilege. Perhaps even the definition of it. You just can't construe racism without recourse to privilege. It's all about privilege. I just don't see why that's not clear to you.

And you were wrong. I thought I made that clear. The proof is how what you call "racism" just doesn't line up with actual observed racism. Well, I would, obviously, since I'm the white guy. Ergo, it'll be racist and they'll be justifiably upset. Because black men are inherently violent? I don't get it. Wow, amazing. "N*gger", "slanty eyes", but you think I'm the racist. Amazing. I think maybe you don't understand what I mean by "privilege." Hint: it's not a good thing. Having the most of it is of practical benefit, but it's morally wrong. Right, like your conclusion that a group of young, black men is particularly likely to become violent. You enjoy the privilege that nobody assumes that about you, which extends from your race.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Men can certainly be the victim of sexual harassment, and have. But, again, it's trivially observed that it comes down to privilege. A man can be sexually harassed by his superior.Again, I don't see how this isn't stupendously obvious. Privilege is central to sexism, and sexual harassment, in precisely the same way that it is central to racial discrimination.

Where are you getting that? Quote the post.

I'm struggling to understand why everyone's having a problem with it, since it seems so obvious and completely comports with the reality of how people respond to things. Not racist, because it's not possible for there to be discrimination against the white customers in this scenario. The white people will get served, and the black guy will get fired, because the white people are the ones with the privilege and the black employee, doubly, is not - he's black (racial dis-privilege) and an employee (class dis-privileged.) Right. So the white people will be served. How do you not see the privilege? I'm honestly asking, how do you observe a situation where a black person is serving white people in a restaurant and not see about a dozen different interacting axes of privilege? It's like you're telling me that you can't tell one note from another. I can believe that there are people who can't, and people who can't hear the notes at all. But all of you? That beggars belief. You can't all be this flat-out ignorant. It's just not possible.

Of course there are. The problem for you is why nobody acts white stereotypes are racist. The authors of "Stuff White People Like" are on a coast-to-coast book tour. How is that possible that "Stuff White People Like" is actually so incredibly racist, but nobody seems to have noticed?

Well, look, it hasn't escaped my notice that every one of you, with the exception of Chicken, are known liars. Every single one of you has made this a personal vendetta against me. Why should I be surprised to see you feigning ignorance in order to contradict me?I just don't know what it is, but there's just something about the way I post that makes some people completely lose their shit and have to contradict me no matter what. It's weird, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. It's embarrassing sometimes, but it's what adults do - we take our lumps, admit we were wrong, and get over ourselves. Why can't you?

Racism is discrimination on the basis of race, and discrimination always refers to privilege.The privilege is key. Sometimes, there are non-privileged reasons to make discriminations based on race; for instance it's not racist when your doctor says "well, taking the fact that you're an African-American into account, it's probably better for you to take this medication instead of this other one", or "well, taking into account the fact that you're of Ashkenazi Jew ancestry, it's probably a good idea to have you tested for Tay-Sachs disease.That exactly meets Hooah and Rahvin's definitions of "treating people differently because of their race" - I mean, to a T, we're literally talking about how people are being treated - but nobody thinks that's racist. In fact, what we now know is racist or sexist is medically treating people the same based on their race or sex - assuming that we can learn everything we need to know about the medical needs of African-Americans or women based on medical tests that generated data only from studies of white men.What's the difference? Privilege. Racism is always a matter of privilege - privileges that break down along racial lines. I don't deny that the black guy holds some animus against white people in your example, but you asked whether the situation was racist against white people. And it's just plainly not. They have all the power in the situation and the black guy has hardly any. They're privileged over him in half a dozen different directions. How could they possibly experience racism from him? No, that's a pretty basic class privilege - having to work for someone else. Sorry, just can't be denied. There's always privilege. Everybody there has privilege by virtue of living in the United States, by virtue of being able to afford to eat at a restaurant, not being homeless and therefore employable, being able-bodied instead of handicapped, being neurotypical instead of wracked by a phobia against leaving their home, and so on. Privilege isn't a thing where you have it or you don't. That's where these discussions usually go off the rails; privileged people point to a handful of disadvantages they may have as though that disproves their privilege. Nonsense. Privilege is all relative, which is why an Asian can be racist against a black person but not really against a white person. (Arguably, black people have the least racial privilege of the major races in the United States.) If she genuinely sexually harassed you, then it was because she had more privilege than you. I can't determine what it was without knowing more, but without her privilege over you, it was impossible for you to have been harassed by her. How could it have been?