Wisconsin's "White Privilege" Wristbands

[betsy]

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

Yes, whites do better than some races. It has nothing to with the color of skin.

Take Africa for example: those countries that were colonized and ran by whites did better then compared to now when the whites had been kicked out and government-running fell into the hands of black Africans.

[betsy]

Michael, you're looking only from side of the fence.

Anyway, psychologically-wise, do you think wearing that band wouldn't instead magnify the feelings of "privileged" and "under-privileged?"

First of all, those words will be abused, like any other. The definition of being "under-privileged" will end up running from actual poverty to not being able to keep up with the Jones'.

What makes you - and those who came up with this irresponsible idea - think young white kids and young white adults would end up feeling when they do actually wear these bands - and the novelty of this "noble" cause had worn off?

I bet you those white privilege bands will be seen exactly as that - a status symbol - a message that says: "See? I am a privileged white!"

How do you think the under-privilege would feel seeing those wristbands being worn about? They'd be constantly reminded how they are so "under-privileged!" It'll be like rubbing it in their faces!

These are young people we're talking about. A lot of them, if not most of them, deal with insecurities - normal growing up pains. And you want to put this kind of load on them???

Are we aiming for massive suicides by young people here?

Edited March 25, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Yesterday at church, I had watched a Christian outreach video done by a missionary in Nepal and I was awed by it that I wanted to talk about it. I guess it fits here.

The video showed a very small village in the mountains of Nepal (somewhere in the Himalayas), where it's like watching people from ancient time....people living in huts and dire poverty, and everything is done by manual labor. The video showed their simple way of life.

The life expectancy is 40 years. But what struck me most were the children!

They showed happy children playing their childish games. Since there were no toys, I guess the surroundings became their source of amusements.

A trio of kids teasing a bull to get it to chase them. Some kids jumping from one slippery boulder to another in a rapidly gushing stream. The laughter were genuine. My husband quipped, "They're so full of life!" And that was a very accurate description.

I don't think I've ever seen such life from any youngsters in Canada in a very long time - considering my extensive work with children.

Don't you see what that wristband will do to our youth, regardless of color or social standing?

[betsy]

What about under-privileged whites? Surely you know they exist.

[betsy]

What about asians like the Japanese, Singaporeans, South Koreans, etc.., I wouldn't call them "under-privileged."

Where do they fit in this scenario? Why aren't they called to wear bands?

Are they being un-recognized and excluded as, "privileged," because they aren't white?

How can we stop racism when our schools are promoting it? This is racism tragetting white people.

Edited March 25, 2013 by betsy

[Moonlight Graham]

Someone who does not speak perfect English is not equal to a candidate that does. You may wish to argue that the difference should not matter but it is still a tangible in difference in skill set which invalidates your example.

...

Racism only enters into the picture if there are two candidates with the same resume, the same English ability, the same age and the same level of assimilation. I have never seen that.

I agree that for some jobs an accent can make a difference. But I know this employer well in my personal life, they are racist against Muslims/Arabs (I'd guess mostly because they've never really known any personally), they don't like them for xenophobic reasons, they don't "trust" Arabs. It's plain racism. This attitude certainly exist among other employers. I'm sure even many people on this board would hire a white person over an Arab Muslim (even one without an accent) if resumes and abilities were 100% equal.

[GostHacked]

You really need to think about posts like this. For example - can you think of other situations where disadvantaged people were forced to identify themselves to the majority, in fairly recent history ?

Think about it.

The many Occupy movements were exactly about that. Wall Streets and banksters advantage over the common man.

[Bonam]

Just read this thread. Freaking disgusting racism that someone would even suggest this. Absolutely monstrous, but typical of the people that profit off selling white guilt.

[GostHacked]

Just read this thread. Freaking disgusting racism that someone would even suggest this. Absolutely monstrous, but typical of the people that profit off selling white guilt.

Apparently there is no racism against whites. Sure we need to learn the history in order to not repeat it, but that does not mean I am going to take the blame for something that happened in the past.

Should I be blamed for the atrocities of Nazi Germany because I am the grandchild of a former German soldier?

Should I be blamed for the atrocities of whites in general for the slavery issue simply because I am white?

I agree it is racist. But sure if people want to feel guilty about it, then go ahead and wear the wrist band. Just don't count me as part of that group.

[Canuckistani]

I agree that for some jobs an accent can make a difference. But I know this employer well in my personal life, they are racist against Muslims/Arabs (I'd guess mostly because they've never really known any personally), they don't like them for xenophobic reasons, they don't "trust" Arabs. It's plain racism. This attitude certainly exist among other employers. I'm sure even many people on this board would hire a white person over an Arab Muslim (even one without an accent) if resumes and abilities were 100% equal.

Sure, like Chinese employers only hiring Chinese, Punjabi employers hiring only Punjabis. We've been thru this discussion before, and the same people for these wrist bands saw nothing wrong with that. Well, we all know that only white people can be racist.

[g_bambino]

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.

But I can't answer the question until you define who "they" are, where they are, and do better in comparison to what?

In the US, many people commonly called "black" or "African American" are living impoverished lives, I have to acknowledge that. At the same time, I have to also accept that many people commonly called "white" are, as well; so too are many people who are neither "black" nor "white" living very successful and enriched lives, both of which rather work against the "white privilege" argument. I have observed different paradigms in different parts of the world, as well. So, your question is still overly simplistic.

[Michael Hardner]

In the US, many people commonly called "black" or "African American" are living impoverished lives, I have to acknowledge that. At the same time, I have to also accept that many people commonly called "white" are, as well;... I have observed different paradigms in different parts of the world, as well. So, your question is still overly simplistic.

Simplistic and basic are different things. Your opening sentences are 'simplistic'. You are saying: White people are poor... black people are poor... So what ?

And, again, there is nothing that forces people to feel guilty about any of this. The excessive emotionality in the responses is up to individuals to work out, as I have said.

[TimG]

And, again, there is nothing that forces people to feel guilty about any of this. The excessive emotionality in the responses is up to individuals to work out, as I have said.

I am sorry but you are deliberately ignoring the clearly obvious objective if this campaign.

First lets take a look at the term "privilege":

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/privilege

Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.

IOW - the choice of the word "privilege" was intended to make people feel guilty. If people don't feel guilty then the organizers would have failed in the purpose they assigned to themselves. Your attempts to deny the clear connotations of the word are nonsensical. Edited March 25, 2013 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

this wrist band reminds me of a sci fi story I read. A totally equal society, where people had to wear various impediments so they could function no better than the next person. In this case it the band seems to signify that any acheivements of the wearer are not his but only because of white privilege, so why try? Do the black students have to wear black ones when they do well in athletics?

What's the point of the wrist band? If not guilt, is it meant to instil gratitude in the wearer? "Whoohee, look at what I get for being white"?

Edited March 25, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Moonlight Graham]

Sure, like Chinese employers only hiring Chinese, Punjabi employers hiring only Punjabis. We've been thru this discussion before, and the same people for these wrist bands saw nothing wrong with that. Well, we all know that only white people can be racist.

True enough. Western Europeans won the technological race to colonize most of the world, so I guess they also won the race to subject their racial, cultural, and economic superiority on most everyone else throughout the world. I have little doubt it would be similar if any other cultural/racial groups won the race.

[g_bambino]

Simplistic and basic are different things. Your opening sentences are 'simplistic'. You are saying: White people are poor... black people are poor...

Of course they were relatively simplistic, but not as simplistic as you've made them out to be and not simplistic enough as to fail to start to give a hint at how complex the matter is in contrast to your question about it.

And, again, there is nothing that forces people to feel guilty about any of this.

True; how one feels about it is up to them. However, there's an obvious drive behind those promoting these bands to instil in people of a certain race a feeling of guilt over what they get apparently just for being of that race, to the disadvantage of another race (or is it races?).

[ed.: c/e]

Edited March 25, 2013 by g_bambino

[Michael Hardner]

the choice of the word "privilege" was intended to make people feel guilty. If people don't feel guilty then the organizers would have failed in the purpose they assigned to themselves. Your attempts to deny the clear connotations of the word are nonsensical.

Not obvious at all. In fact I dispute that entirely. Your argument here will fail because it presumes that you can peer into the souls of people.

Furthermore, most of the discussion I seem to have had on this thread are about people seeing racism in any discussion of race, such as marketing campaigns - which I asserted to you and haven't heard a denial on yet.

So, let's review: any discussion of race is racist, and the intentions of this program are "obviously" to elicit an emotional response, ie. guilt. These are your assertions.

[Michael Hardner]

I have little doubt it would be similar if any other cultural/racial groups won the race.

Me too - which also discredits the assertion that this is all about guilt IMO. It could have happened to anyone, er... any race.

[Michael Hardner]

True; how one feels about it is up to them. However, there's an obvious drive behind those promoting these bands to instil in people of a certain race a feeling of guilt over what they get apparently just for being of that race, to the disadvantage of another race (or is it races?).

[ed.: c/e]

You're projecting your own feelings I think. I'm accused of being the prototypical white liberal on here, and I don't feel guilty ? Should I ? Why do you feel guilty ? You must feel it somewhat if you're so sure that it's what others feel.

[g_bambino]

You're projecting your own feelings I think.

I highlighted what those who're behind these bracelets intend to achieve: make people of a certain race believe they're committing an injustice against people of another race (or, is it all other races?) and feel guilty enough over that complicitness to invoke some kind of change to the supposed problem.

[TimG]

Your argument here will fail because it presumes that you can peer into the souls of people.

This was a marketing campaign designed to change attitudes. The people who created it were fully aware that the word 'privilege' implies undeserved benefit. They chose that word because they wanted people to feel guilty about their 'undeserved advantage'. You can pretend to be a lawyer and spout about how we can't really know what people think but that is a cowardly argument that no one except you believes. This is not a court room. We don't need to prove something 'beyond reasonable doubt. Stop pretending that we do and acknowledge that the only rational assumption given the evidence is that the people who designed the campaign wished to make white people feel guilty. Edited March 25, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

This was a marketing campaign designed to change attitudes. The people who created it were fully aware that the word 'privilege' implies undeserved benefit. They chose that word because they wanted people to feel guilty about their 'undeserved advantage'. You can pretend to be a lawyer and spout about how we can't really know what people think but that is a cowardly argument that no one except you believes. This is not a court room. We don't need to prove something 'beyond reasonable doubt. Stop pretending that we do and acknowledge that the only rational assumption given the evidence is that the people who designed the campaign wished to make white people feel guilty.

You simply repeat your assertion, call my argument cowardly, then imply that I don't believe my own argument. Well, I do believe it. Sorry. I don't think acknowledging reality means "making people feel guilty". All I get from this is that maybe you feel guilty, and I don't. If you don't have anything more to prove this to me, then I guess we're done.

[Accountability Now]

I trust many of you have been around the block with talks on racism so I trust what I am offering is not new. However, consideirng the topic of White Privilege I thought the following video on the subject by Tim Wise is interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5OkHysPNog

I have only watched it once as its is nearly an hour long but the on concept that stuck with me is his comment at the end that we can't just discard our past history and ask everyone to move on. There are reasons for us being in the position we are in and we have to acknowledge that. I do agree with that statement but I don't fully engage it. The white man has lead the charge in modern civilization. Call it what you will but it is a white man's game and the only way to win is to play it the same as the white man. You look at the rich black people or Japanese, Chinese or any other minority who is willing to cast the history aside and just say fuck it...I'm willing to play. These people will succeed. The people that don't are the ones who choose not to play the game simply becasue its the white mans game. My example on this would be natives in Canada. There are many who simply will not move past the injustices done to them and therefore will always be stuck where they are because of their hate for the white man. However, there are many natives who have succeeded in the so called white game simply becasue they have chosen to not let history dicatate their decisions.

I am fully aware there are numerous indiviudal examples that people can cite which may what I'm saying. However (IMO), history can be acknowledged but it can not be changed. The 'White man' will not stop and let people catch up however he will let everyone play as long as they are playing his game.

The reality is the white man's game is capitalism and the truth is that certain races (blacks and natives come to mind) were given an unfair shake. They were pushed into a capitalist system with no tools to compete. More so, any tools they did have were taken away by scared white people who didn't want to compete. Again....this is in the past. Today, natives in Canada get advantages to enter the work force and many other advantages that allow them to succeed IF they chose to play the game. The same goes for blacks or other minorities in the US as many opportiunites are given to minority owned businesses. There are also Equal Employment opportunities that ensure minorities get an extra step up and allow them to play the game IF THEY CHOSE TO.


As much as we want to acknowledge history, we need to look to the future to get through this. Its no longer a white man's game....its a game that everyone can play if they choose it.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Accountability Now

[TimG]

Well, I do believe it. Sorry. I don't think acknowledging reality means "making people feel guilty"

You can believe the sky is purple but that does not make it true. The assertion I made is quite simple: the choice of the word 'privilege' was made because the campaigners want self identified people to feel guilty. There is simply no other rational conclusion if one looks at how the word in understood by the majority of people. You are obviously entitled to your opinion but your opinion in this case no more rational than claiming you believe the sky is purple.

[Bonam]

this wrist band reminds me of a sci fi story I read. A totally equal society, where people had to wear various impediments so they could function no better than the next person. In this case it the band seems to signify that any acheivements of the wearer are not his but only because of white privilege, so why try? Do the black students have to wear black ones when they do well in athletics?

What's the point of the wrist band? If not guilt, is it meant to instil gratitude in the wearer? "Whoohee, look at what I get for being white"?

You're thinking of the short story "Harrison Bergeron". While it has some similarities, that is a story ridiculing the final logical conclusion of enforced equality. While I can see the analogy, I don't think the wristbands can really be viewed in that light, I think they are more properly viewed as blatant and overt racism, a setting apart, not a forcing of equality.

I'd like to see someone ask Muslims to wear a wristband depicting a burning world trade center; I'm sure that would go over well. And the average Muslim has about as much connection to 9/11 as the average white highschooler has to "white privilege".