|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: White Privilege | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
When I said English culture, I literally meant the culture of the English language. But it is not the English language which is suffering a disadvantage - it is a number of minority ethnic groups which are. To congregate every ethnic group under one umbrella culture, in order to oppose the thesis that any ethnic culture within that umbrella is disadvantaged, is to try to weave a carpet big enough to sweep the issue under.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm not seeing how the results might be any different than comparing the Southern United States with the Northern United States. The Northern states probably test better on average. Probably.
Would that indicate racism It would indicate that being born in certain regions affords you privileges not afforded those born in other regions. Since north/south is not typically strongly correlated to race in either of our countries I don't think we could suppose institutional or systematic racism (which is not necessarily deliberate) or even actual deliberate racism in the minds of actors in positions of power - as an explanation. The African-American culture is strongly correlated with race. And there is a known causal relationship too.
Are you referring to Ebonics? Sort of. Ebonics is a colloquial and imprecise term that carries all sorts of things with it - its meaning differs so widely between speakers as to render the word useless in our context.
Except that proper English is taught in all schools You guys say 'I wrote Tony' or 'Write me'. Proper English spoken by the English would say 'I wrote to Tony' or 'Write to me'. You spell things deliberately wrong to differentiate yourself from proper English. It's called American-English. A person whose primary language is American-English who takes an exam on just English is going to make mistakes an English speaker might not make. Even if they get taught 'proper English'. This arises because the term 'proper English' is actually kind of meaningless.
Living in Texas might maximize one's chance of using the improper conjunction of ya'll versus you'll. You're a Texan.I'm English. And even I know that 'y'all' is second person plural not an alternate contraction for 'you will'. We English sometimes use 'yous' or 'youse' to mean the similar things (mostly teenagers to be honest). It means the speaker is addressing more than one person, and avoids the ambiguity of 'you' which can be specific or general. "I'll see *you* later", an individual even if they are standing in a group"See ya'll later", the whole group Are Texans "underprivileged" therefore because they have modes of speech specific to their region? Maybe it has impact, but I'm going to suppose that if this effect exists at all - that 'Ebonics' is a more significant variant of English than Texan-English is. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
When was this? I was being economic with words, but you were referring to 'English culture' that everyone that speaks English having access too. There being different English Languages and different English Culture is kind of the important point.
We all agree black people are doing worse because of the colour of their skin No. We do not all agree on that. Are you working off the email copy? The post was edited to correct for the accidental dropping of the word 'not' within a couple of minutes. I'm surprised this didn't occur to you.
Despite it's name, AAVE is not unique to African Americans nor do all African Americans speak it. I am not a moron. I realize that language is not intrinsic to race. If you try reading my words you'll not I actually said:'being white maximizes ones chances of not speaking African American Vernacular English ' and ' being black maximizes your chance of speaking African American Vernacular English. ' Do you argue what I actually said is false? Given that we're mainly talking about a person's first/primary language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
No. ringo writes:
According only to you. Jon writes:
But more so for those who were born into it. English culture belongs to everyone who speaks the language. Children who were born into the "English culture", like me, heard the nursery rhymes in the nursery before we could even talk. It's a very different situation for children whose families come from other cultures, whose mothers don't even know our nursery rhymes. Sure, they can look up The Three Little Pigs on the Internet but why would they? They clearly do not have the "privilege" of knowing the English culture from birth, so references to English culture are not a valid reflection of their intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I've been discussing this almost as long as I've been discussing evolution. Pardon me for being disadvantaged. I'm new to this. Or should I say: Check your privilege. Not all of us have had the time to study this for so long.
I understand the counter-productive rhetoric. Then why do you continue to use it?
You adopted that format when you completely misunderstood privilege. This was me correcting your misunderstanding using the format you chose. Makes you kind of look bad when you try and win an argument in this fashion. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm explaining to you why I don't care to use the concept.
Or: 'Person B has privilege.' Again we adopt a certain parsimony of word count, for what it's worth. It isn't worth anything. In fact, your way is worth less to me. Simplifying a complex concept into sound bites doesn't make the concept more palatable. I'm pretty sure that's part of the trick, though.
I already told you. As the slogan implies, you should first engage in introspection to see if you can puzzle it out yourself. If not, try a 'kind, receptive response that doesn't necessarily accept guilt while simultaneously treating the concern seriously. Such as 'if I am exhibiting privilege I am oblivious, please help me understand'.' So far, that's gotten me responses like:
quote: You need to check your privilege again. Not all of us have the luxury of caring about your moral dilemma. Anyways, recall that I've admitted I don't get it, have acknowledged that I don't feel guilt, and have been asking questions to gain an understanding. And I get met with basically "if you ain't with us, you're against us". More of the trick, I guess. Notice how it's practically impossible for me to have not needed to check my privilege, and that privilege is something that is so elusive that I may not even notice it at all, but it really is really there. You know what else is hard to notice? Things that don't exist and are made up. This whole thing is like some kind of Orwellian game, or something... "No, it's not that that person has a disadvantage, it's that you have a privilege". You're turning the tables around so that people don't consider that they need to help another person with a negative quality, but instead they need to notice and admit all the positive qualities that they themselves have. Now, in principle I don't have much of a problem with that. But the approach of carelessly using rhetoric that makes people feel guilt, and then on top of that, turning that back around against them with the charge that their guilt is misplaced because you didn't mean to imply responsibility, coupled with the problem being something that they couldn't possibly have avoided, and backed up with them not noticing it not because it isn't prevalent, but because it is so elusive, well, that just sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me. I'm still not buying it. And regarding my "feelings", they don't have anything to do with it. I just figure that as a wealthy white guy you would want me on your side and have been trying to explain why the approach to this problem isn't working. But again, since I'm not immediately with you then I must be doing everything I can to be against you. Okay then, good luck. I'll stop trying to help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Then why do you continue to use it? I disagree I am so doing.
I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm explaining to you why I don't care to use the concept. That doesn't change what I said.
It isn't worth anything. In fact, your way is worth less to me. As long as we agree that English allows you to use words this way. You can avoid doing so as you like.
Simplifying a complex concept into sound bites doesn't make the concept more palatable. It's not a palatable subject.
I'm pretty sure that's part of the trick, though. You've gone all suspicious again. It's really strange.
You need to check your privilege again. Not all of us have the luxury of caring about your moral dilemma. Indeed. You seem really keen to focus on my presentation of the point that I made addressed to someone else in three lines...and not on the thousands of other words on the subject I've written. I wonder why you care about the bit you've gone on about?
Anyways, recall that I've admitted I don't get it, have acknowledged that I don't feel guilt, and have been asking questions to gain an understanding. Why is acknowledging you don't feel guilt important? I really don't get why you guys insist on mentioning it all the time. Anyway you have also criticized me for the way I made a point some time ago and insinuated that this all part of some 'trick' or 'con' that means you can simply dismiss the whole thing. So it's not just asking questions. I think I've been answering your questions rather well haven't I?
And I get met with basically "if you ain't with us, you're against us". You even thanked me for pointing you to information that helped piece together the history of the word's usage and its recent usage explosion. And now you are waving a hand over all this as me saying this? What nonsense. I was critcising you focussing on a small part of my contribution to criticize me, and by extension the whole damnable enterprise in this thread, to the exclusion of the content of the messages in question.
Notice how it's practically impossible for me to have not needed to check my privilege, and that privilege is something that is so elusive that I may not even notice it at all, but it really is really there. You know what else is hard to notice? Things that don't exist and are made up. True, but then. I've pointed it out - dozens and dozens of specific examples and everything. So you should be able to see it if you actually look. The hardest part is knowing to look.
"No, it's not that that person has a disadvantage, it's that you have a privilege". I told you it was exactly NOT this. Not either/or but both. Because English lets you do this, remember? "Heads I win, tails you lose"
You're turning the tables around so that people don't consider that they need to help another person with a negative quality, but instead they need to notice and admit all the positive qualities that they themselves have. That's actually nonsense. Sorry.
. But the approach of carelessly using rhetoric that makes people feel guilt, and then on top of that, turning that back around against them with the charge that their guilt is misplaced because you didn't mean to imply responsibility, coupled with the problem being something that they couldn't possibly have avoided, and backed up with them not noticing it not because it isn't prevalent, but because it is so elusive, well, that just sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me. I'm still not buying it. But that's your invention, its not what happened.
And regarding my "feelings", they don't have anything to do with it. I just figure that as a wealthy white guy you would want me on your side and have been trying to explain why the approach to this problem isn't working. Indeed. So if you have questions ask. If you want to address the dilemma I proposed, I dare you to do so. If you want to complain about cons and tricks because I happen to raise the historical facts of race relations in a moral dilemma about future race relations as a means of focussing Hyro and telegraphing to him what the horns of the dilemma are before he makes his attempt....don't bother it's really boring now. I've said all I can and you have only a handful of synonyms you can repeat.
But again, since I'm not immediately with you then I must be doing everything I can to be against you. I don't think it is necessarily true. If is so, that's your choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You haven't been born yet. God comes to you and says, "Congratulations, you're going to be an American. You will be born in 1971. Do you have a preference as to which race you'd like to be?'
Given we can all agree no race is superior to another....why is it that most people would choose to be white?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But it is not the English language which is suffering a disadvantage ... I never said it was...
To congregate every ethnic group under one umbrella culture, in order to oppose the thesis that any ethnic culture within that umbrella is disadvantaged, is to try to weave a carpet big enough to sweep the issue under. What are you talking about?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
They clearly do not have the "privilege" of knowing the English culture from birth, so references to English culture are not a valid reflection of their intelligence. Of course they are. And the implications of your statement are ridiculous. Is testing anything someone might not know from birth "not a valid reflection of their intelligence"?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I was being economic with words, but you were referring to 'English culture' that everyone that speaks English having access too. There being different English Languages and different English Culture is kind of the important point. Regarding homogeneity, you said:
quote: This is what I was replying to when I asked you to point out where I declared European- and African-American cultures as homogenous. I don't think I've ever tried 'to claim homogenousness' re European- and African-American cultures.
Are you working off the email copy? The post was edited to correct for the accidental dropping of the word 'not' within a couple of minutes. I'm surprised this didn't occur to you. Email? I don't get notifications, I replied to your post; you updated it while I was typing. Shit happens. You can get over it now.
'being white maximizes ones chances of not speaking African American Vernacular English ' and ' being black maximizes your chance of speaking African American Vernacular English. ' Being Indian also maximizes one's chances of not speaking AAVE. And at this point you're not even talking about a 'privilege', but rather a 'disadvantage', and one that, evidence suggests, is easily surmounted and not unlike the 'disadvantages' faced by many folks whose native dialect is removed from the academic or professional standard.
Do you argue what I actually said is false? No; just that's it's not at all indicative of a 'privilege', and certainly not one tied to race. In short, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
This is what I was replying to when I asked you to point out where I declared European- and African-American cultures as homogenous. I know, that's what I was referring to when I said
quote: Email? I don't get notifications, I replied to your post; you updated it while I was typing. Shit happens. You can get over it now. Get over it? Get over yourself. I apologize for thinking the charitable explanation was that you were working of a copy that was emailed to you. The truth is that you clicked 'reply' within a minute or two of me posting and then took 3 hours to write less than 30 words. You can hardly blame me for {not} concluding as most probable the hypothesis that involves you being very quick to click but very slow to type. In any event, I'm surprised it didn't occur to you.
Being Indian also maximizes one's chances of not speaking AAVE. Take it over to the Indian Privilege thread.
And at this point you're not even talking about a 'privilege', but rather a 'disadvantage', Two sides of the same coin.
No; just that's it's not at all indicative of a 'privilege', and certainly not one tied to race. Except being born white gives you the privilege of being much more unlikely to have AAVE as your primary language, given the hypothesis that AAVE disadvantages test takers. That's the argued privilege you have just because you are white. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Get over it? Get over yourself. I apologize for thinking the charitable explanation was that you were working of a copy that was emailed to you. The truth is that you clicked 'reply' within a minute or two of me posting and then took 3 hours to write less than 30 words. You can hardly blame me for coming up with a hypothesis that involves you being very quick to click but very slow to type. In any event, I'm surprised it didn't occur to you. Stop being a dick. This shit happens regularly around here. Most people point it out and move on. But leave it to the all-arrogant Modulous to try to blame his debate partner for a mistake he himself made... Anyway, I'm ready to move past this. Are you?
Being Indian also maximizes one's chances of not speaking AAVE. Take it over to the Indian Privilege thread. This thread is about 'white privilege'. Pointing out that what you call a 'privilege' applies to almost everyone is entirely on topic, unless you want to argue otherwise, but then you are back to where many were when this thread began: defining 'privilege' in such a way that it has no useful meaning. And I don't feel like going in circles with you just 'cause you couldn't get here sooner. So I'm not going there.
Except being born white gives you the privilege of being much more unlikely to have AAVE as your primary language, given the hypothesis that AAVE disadvantages test takers. That's the argued privilege you have just because you are white. So you're just going to ignore everything else I said about dialects and their ability to 'disadvantage' people? How much do you know about AAVE and the dialects of American English? What defines Standard American English and how many people speak it from birth?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Then I am sure you will have no problem providing independent, statistically significant evidence that the reason behind Asian-American achievement in academia is because of cultural values of "hard work" and stuff. I consistently support my position with research from the peer-reviewed literature, so I expect you can attempt the same instead of making mere assertions. quote: Source Yeah, but: 1. I didn't mention internment camps. I said "labor unions." 2. The racism of labor unions extended beyond the 1940s. There have been many other factors at play behind Asian-American success in academia -- factors which were not present for African-Americans. Your citation was explicit to mention that it was relevant to 1940's Asian-Americans. It does not explain why Asian-Americans, per capita, perform better than the entire native population.
That (1) African-Americans are discriminated in the job market and that (2) this has a significant role in explaining the present socioeconomic divide between whites and blacks has been well-established. I don't doubt that any of that exists, which I have already said. Many different studies have concluded many different potential reasons. Here are a few, some of which you have already mentioned: 1. African-Americans are three times more likely to be poor than Anglo-Americansa. Potential reason is systemic racism against African-Americans b. Potential reason is the perception of systemic racism against African-Americans 2. Among African-Americans, there is an internal struggle that performing well in school means you are "acting white," and such pressures denigrate those who want to do well in school.a. Factors such as microagression, may further dissuade black students from wanting to try harder since they feel as though they are ostracized regardless You evidently do not appreciate the extent to which racism is embedded in our society's institutions -- political, educational, corporate, and social... Racism is much more pervasive than you think precisely because present-day racism manifests itself in ways that are not so obvious to privileged individuals who otherwise consider themselves not to be prejudiced. But the effects are very real, and they are deeply entrenched in society, so electing a black president doesn't suddenly -- like a specter in the fog -- make this structural racism vanish. I can appreciate how deep the rift still is, although the gap has thankfully been steadily closing, albeit very slowly. My contention is not that racism doesn't exist, but that racism is often overstated as the culprit. Black people are constantly being told by other black people and white people, that white people are out to get them or disadvantage them in some way, whether it is wholly true, partially true, or totally false. I think this kind of mindset is terribly destructive to them. For one thing, there's a lot less racists than there are egalitarians. Providing this bleak narrative gives blacks this illusion that the system is so corrupt that you might as not even bother. And there are many white voices, possibly even yourself, that think you are helping by showing solidarity but in reality create an even bigger problem. You say that perhaps I "can't see my own privilege." Okay, I am willing to concede that possibility. Are you willing to concede that in a lot of ways, all your excuses for why blacks are underperforming is actually hindering them more? Have you ever heard the expression that well-meaning liberals are shackling blacks to a plantation mentality? It is patronizing to assume that they need to be rescued and that they need you to rescue them? If I am an unaware of my privilege, then perhaps you are unaware that your savior-complex that is demeaning.
African and Caribbean blacks emigrating to the United States also score higher than that of native African-Americans proves exactly nothing regarding the lack of racial bias in the SAT. Consider that immigrants to the U.S. are often rather well-educated, and the education of one's parents plays a predictive role in shaping SAT scores. So that could rather easily explain the above phenomenon and in no way refutes my central thesis: that SAT tests structurally favor whites. Supposing this reason even remotely should be entertained, are you suggesting that it's "white" to be ambitious and educated? It still doesn't explain why whites and Asians perform better versus blacks and latinos when they all study the same exact curriculum, but especially is true of Caribbean and African immigrants. Surely if the curriculum is so lopsided to help white people, it would necessarily affect everyone that is not white, but especially immigrants, no? With that in mind, at what point MIGHT the difference in cultural norms reflect a more accurate reason? That's a genuine question. What would it take to consider that as a possible factor? The rest of the thread is a redundancy of what we've already previously argued. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It would indicate that being born in certain regions affords you privileges not afforded those born in other regions. But is it significant enough to warrant, say, placing the contraction "ya'll" on nationwide SAT's to accommodate Texans and Southerners in light of them doing more poorly statistically?
Since north/south is not typically strongly correlated to race in either of our countries I don't think we could suppose institutional or systematic racism (which is not necessarily deliberate) or even actual deliberate racism in the minds of actors in positions of power - as an explanation. But the main thrust of the argument is advantage vs disadvantage, and how we should level playing field, is it not?
Except that proper English is taught in all schools You guys say 'I wrote Tony' or 'Write me'. Proper English spoken by the English would say 'I wrote to Tony' or 'Write to me'. You spell things deliberately wrong to differentiate yourself from proper English. It's called American-English. Okay, well, for it's worth I don't feel disadvantaged by it!
A person whose primary language is American-English who takes an exam on just English is going to make mistakes an English speaker might not make. Even if they get taught 'proper English'. Not necessarily. My Turkish girlfriend teaches native speakers how to speak their own fucking language properly LOL! Sad, but true.
And even I know that 'y'all' is second person plural not an alternate contraction for 'you will'. We English sometimes use 'yous' or 'youse' to mean the similar things (mostly teenagers to be honest). It means the speaker is addressing more than one person, and avoids the ambiguity of 'you' which can be specific or general. Oh, wow... I didn't know that. That contraction is very common in New York, Chicago, and Boston. Now I know where it originated. Makes a lot of sense that it is still common in those areas since those regions were where the English emigrated to first and built epicenters.
Maybe it has impact, but I'm going to suppose that if this effect exists at all - that 'Ebonics' is a more significant variant of English than Texan-English is. Okay, getting back to the topic, where were you going with the Ebonics argument? What were suggesting be done? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Stop being a dick. This shit happens regularly around here. Most people point it out and move on. That's what I did.
But leave it to the all-arrogant Modulous to try to blame his debate partner for a mistake he himself made... I was trying to understand what happened. So I asked. Leave it to Jon to think this is about blame.
Anyway, I'm ready to move past this. Are you?This thread is about 'white privilege'. Correct.
Pointing out that what you call a 'privilege' applies to almost everyone is entirely on topic If your point is to acknowledge something we aren't hiding then...I don't know what then. I guess....OK.
but then you are back to where many were when this thread began: defining 'privilege' in such a way that it has no useful meaning. Academia have been using it for a century. It sounds like you are just misunderstanding the concept.
So you're just going to ignore everything else I said about dialects and their ability to 'disadvantage' people? No.
How much do you know about AAVE and the dialects of American English? Not a great deal.
What defines Standard American English and how many people speak it from birth? This doesn't seem related to anything I was saying.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024