Wisconsin's "White Privilege" Wristbands

[bush_cheney2004]

I applaud your efforts, however Betsy would have you wear them OVER your pants, I think.

That wouldn't be nearly as effective......wait for it.....think about it.....understand now ?

Some in Hip Hop culture defiantly wear pants pulled down in this very way, daring to break "white" social norms.

Edited March 24, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

You are trying to make up distinctions that do not exist. In both cases you have people collecting and using meaningless aggregate statistics to advance a political POV.

Characterizing the intentions as 'political' means nothing. Hitler was a politician, as is Harper, as is Al Gore.

You might as well be saying "you have people collecting data to do something".

In the case of IQs you don't like the POV but in the case of poverty stats you do like the POV. I believe the word to describe your position is special pleading.

I haven't said whether I "like" the POV or not, and it's immaterial.

Calling anything that distinguishes race as racist is just pedantic and useless.

You are completely missing the point. By singling out whites the advocates are implicitly blaming whites for the difference meaningless aggregate statistics. They are implying that there is a causal relationship between being black and being disadvantaged just like others have claimed their is a causal relationship between being black and having lower IQs.

And you are implicitly saying that collecting any stats on race is racist.

So where are we with this ? Can we move on from the academic discussion ?

[bush_cheney2004]

You are completely missing the point. By singling out whites the advocates are implicitly blaming whites for the difference meaningless aggregate statistics. They are implying that there is a causal relationship between being black and being disadvantaged just like others have claimed their is a causal relationship between being black and having lower IQs.

Agreed.....the social and economic dynamics are far more complicated, and as of late, has come to include many more groups and classes, many of whom are "white" (e.g. women, disabled, LGBT, HIV/AIDS, etc.)

[Guest American Woman]

Wouldn't White Supremacists love to wear something like this?

[g_bambino]

You're inferring the conclusion that whites are being blamed...

No, I explained what I think I see being expressed by various people in this thread, and it's not the "no discussion to be had here" message you seemed to be gleaning. People appear willing to discuss why so many African Americans lead relatively imporverished lives, but, for various reasons, take umberage with the "white privilege" theory and what they get for not swallowing it without question.

[TimG]

Calling anything that distinguishes race as racist is just pedantic and useless.And you are implicitly saying that collecting any stats on race is racist.

Collecting stats by race is not racist but using stats to advance a political POV is racist. In this case the political POV being advanced is that there is a causal relationship between being black and being disadvantaged. I say it is a political POV because it is not a view that is supported by any actual evidence - it is simply an assumption made by people who look at such statistics.

I also jump on the stats because the same people who like to use poverty stats for political purposes object to the collection of stats on crime or IQs because they oppose the political purposes that those stats might be used for.

Edited March 24, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

No, I explained what I think I see being expressed by various people in this thread, and it's not the "no discussion to be had here" message you seemed to be gleaning. People appear willing to discuss why so many African Americans lead relatively imporverished lives, but, for various reasons, take umberage with the "white privilege" theory and what they get for not swallowing it without question.

What they get ? I'm not sure what they get. If we agree that white privilege exists then the business of being upset about it can be worked out privately, and what to do about it publicly.

[Michael Hardner]

Collecting stats by race is not racist but using stats to advance a political POV is racist.

But using the stats for health studies, social studies or marketing campaigns is not racist ? Or is it ?

In this case the political POV being advanced is that there is a causal relationship between being black and being disadvantaged.

Whether or not it is causal is beside the point, so why don't we just drop the 'causal' angle, as it adds another distraction from the point. ie. Does being a different colour "cause" privilege ? Of course not.

I say it is a political POV because it is not a view that is supported by any actual evidence - it is simply an assumption made by people who look at such statistics.

It's a pretty inescapable conclusion that being of certain races is correlated with a certain status - leaving out the details of how that came to be, leaving out how certain people feel about it, leaving everything else out. We know that a certain race started out at a point of extreme disadvantage, and that they have not and perhaps will not catch up.

I also jump on the stats because the same people who like to use poverty stats for political purposes object to the collection of stats on crime or IQs because they oppose the political purposes that those stats might be used for.

Are you in favour of collecting such statistics ? If so, why the double-standard ? If race can be used to predict wealth, isn't predicting likelihood to commit crime just a correlative statistic ?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Does being a different colour "cause" privilege ? Of course not.It's a pretty inescapable conclusion that being of certain races is correlated with a certain status - leaving out the details of how that came to be, leaving out how certain people feel about it, leaving everything else out. We know that a certain race started out at a point of extreme disadvantage, and that they have not and perhaps will not catch up.

Catch up to what...'white privilege' ? Methinks you are falling into an old trap. Being 'white' ain't what it use to be, Bro !

[Michael Hardner]

Catch up to what...'white privilege' ? Methinks you are falling into an old trap. Being 'white' ain't what it use to be, Bro !

I think that's the idea.

[g_bambino]

If we agree that white privilege exists...

We don't, despite what the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction says and is trying to get high school students to believe.

[TimG]

Whether or not it is causal is beside the point, so why don't we just drop the 'causal' angle, as it adds another distraction from the point.

Implying causality is the entire point of the 'white privilege' bands. If the objective was simply to acknowledge the fact that some people are in a better situation then they would have left the 'white' out.

.

.

It's a pretty inescapable conclusion that being of certain races is correlated with a certain status

Correlation is NOT causation. Its a basic rule of statistics.

.

.

Are you in favour of collecting such statistics?

I have no problems collecting data if that data is not misused to draw conclusions that are. In the case of race based stats it will be invitably misused so I don't see the point. Edited March 24, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

We don't, despite what the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction says and is trying to get high school students to believe.

Ok - you don't think white people do better than other races ? Or you think that they do better, but for some specific reason ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok - you don't think white people do better than other races ? Or you think that they do better, but for some specific reason ?

Would that include 'white people' in 20th century Europe ? How about 'white' indentured servants in the Americas ? How about Ukrainians in Canada ?

[Michael Hardner]

Implying causality is the entire point of the 'white privilege' bands.

.

.Correlation is NOT causation. Its a basic rule of statistics.

Well, the correlation/causation question isn't important to me - maybe you can explain why it is to you.

.I have no problems collecting data if that data is not misused to draw conclusions that are.

That are ? That are what ?

In the case of race based stats it will be invitably misused so I don't see the point.

I completely disagree. Marketing campaigns, health campaigns and so on target specific audiences, and they're not racist for doing so.

You seem to be strained to make impractical conclusions, in your efforts to remain consistent.

[Michael Hardner]

Would that include 'white people' in 20th century Europe ? How about 'white' indentured servants in the Americas ? How about Ukrainians in Canada ?

I'm not sure. Are you trying to engage me in another topic so as to try to catch me in some inconsistency ? I'm actually flattered, but I don't have time to follow you on this little walkabout. Let's assume I would have tripped up at some point, and leave it at that, hm ?

[g_bambino]

Ok - you don't think white people do better than other races ? Or you think that they do better, but for some specific reason ?

What's a "white person"; does it include Latinos with white skin (assuming "Latino" is even a race)? Do better than other races in what and where? Are all people of the same race advantaged and disadvantaged in the same way in all places? Your question doesn't give the complexity of the matter its due recognition.

[TimG]

Well, the correlation/causation question isn't important to me - maybe you can explain why it is to you.

It really makes no difference what you think of it. The issue in this op is a campaign by people who DO believe that there is a causal relationship between being black and being disadvantaged (i.e. if the campaigners really cared about the disadvantage they would have left 'white' out of their campaign). I get the impression that you are trying to avoid this detail because you realize that it completely undermines your arguments. Edited March 24, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

What's a "white person"; does it include Latinos with white skin (assuming "Latino" is even a race)? Do better than other races in what and where? Are all people of the same race advantaged and disadvantaged in the same way in all places? Your question doesn't give the complexity of the matter its due recognition.

They have different ways of identifying race -mostly asking people to self-identify I think.

Do you think they do better or not ? I'm all for talking about complexity, as long as we're on the same page to try to work on problems.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure. Are you trying to engage me in another topic so as to try to catch me in some inconsistency ? I'm actually flattered, but I don't have time to follow you on this little walkabout. Let's assume I would have tripped up at some point, and leave it at that, hm ?

Thank you for sparing us both from the obvious. It's time we can spend on something better in life.

[Michael Hardner]

It really makes no difference what you think of it. The issue in this op is a campaign by people who DO believe that there is a causal relationship between being black and being disadvantaged (i.e. if the campaigners really cared about the disadvantage they would have left 'white' out of their campaign).

I don't think that that is true. Whether your race "causes" the result or whether other people treat you differently ... I don't know if that's causal or not. It's beside the point, in any case if we're just looking at the result.

I get the impression that you are trying to avoid this detail because you realize that it completely undermines your arguments.

I don't think it affects my argument either way. Look at the statistics and you can see advantages or disadvantages. For any analysis, the discussion of "causes" is far more problematic and difficult if not impossible to determine.

I think it's a distraction to looking at the result - as I said we don't have to know why, we just have no know the obvious - which is that this group that started out at a place of subjugation and has not yet achieved parity.

No multivariate analysis is required to look beyond the obvious. Why people start blubbering and shrieking about racism in such an obvious context is beyond me. It's a form of reverse PC, I guess, but they have to get over it themselves.

[Shady]

What I am getting from this thread is that some people feel resentful, guilty or other negative emotions when faced with the fact of African American disadvantage in American life. They seem to be suggesting we don't talk about such things.

That's what I am getting from it.

Wow, that's not what I'm getting from it at all. I'm all for discussion issues. What I'm against is symbolism over substance. SOME African Americans face disadvantages. To think that it's all, in my opinion, is inherently racist on it's own. Furthermore, local, state and federal policies are already in place, and have been for decades, in an effort to correct inbalances in opportunity, etc. Furthermore, it's widely known that African Americans have faced obstacles in the past, as well as in the present. Everybody knows that. So the need for so-called awarness is absurd. Furthermore, young people are the most open, understanding and tolerant of such issues. Making them wear these ridiculous wristbands is in my mind, counter productive. Now, if you wanna make older people wear them, than that might make some sense in terms of fostering awarness.

Anyways, it's been already stated, but these types of issues should be taught in schools during history classes, or civics classes etc. And I can only imagine African American students who have to attend schools were some of their peers are asked to wear such nonsense. I would feel quite uncomfortable if somebody else had to wear something on my so-called behalf.

This type of PC crap needs to stop.

[scribblet]

Ok, well you do feel bad in some respect - so I say you should manage your emotional state. Managing what is talked about in public is probably not a realistic option for you.

Still no idea what you are going on about, I don't feel bad about anything, but maybe not making personal attacks is not an option for you. Maybe you should check your own 'emotional state' .

[Shady]

Still no idea what you are going on about, I don't feel bad about anything, but maybe not making personal attacks is not an option for you. Maybe you should check your own 'emotional state' .

It sounds a lot like projection. It's also an ad hominem argument.

[Michael Hardner]

Still no idea what you are going on about, I don't feel bad about anything, but maybe not making personal attacks is not an option for you. Maybe you should check your own 'emotional state' .

Your words:

"don't remember much else but all it did was foster resentment. In fact, none us had thought much about race and inequality as jobs and promotions were based on skill sets, interviews and merit. However, after these seminars, the requirement to keep race stats (% of asians, e. asian, black native, disabled etc.) and the awarding of additional points for just being a minority, it did change perceptions on who was actually being discriminated against."

Clearly, the "us" in this is you - so were you resentful or not ?