Was justice served fairly in the Micheal Brown tragedy, whats your opinion ?

by Finkelstein 164 Replies latest social current

• 

  lisaBObeesa

  "White privilege" would apply to America before the 60's and to South Africa during Aparteid.

  No, that is not what 'white privilege' means. that is not what people are talking about when they use the term.

  We can't discuss it because you don't understand the concept.

  So if you insist on using it then your motivation will be clear, it will not be accepted and no progress will be made.

  But then that is the whole point of using it, isn't it?

  you don't even understand the meaning of the term let alone my motivation.
• 

  Simon

  No, that is not what it means.

  We can't discuss it because you don't understand the concept. I tried my best to explain to you but you continue to redefine the words to be what you THINK they mean.

  I will not attempt to explain the meaning of the term 'white privilege' to you again.

  You refuse to beleive it means anything other than what you already believe it means, so it is pointless.

  you don't even understand the meaning of the term let alone my motivation.

  All the words you are using are negative and things like "no", "you don't understand", "your're wrong", "you refuse", "you don't understand", "I will not attempt".

  You may imagine you are explaining things but you haven't explained anything at all. You have heard a phrase used and are intent on repeating it without being able to explain what it really means or whether it is justified. You just chastise anyone who takes the time to extually explain what their view is and what it's based on, how they interpret the language and why they think the phrase is wrong and unhelpful.

  You can chose to be constructive and use dialog and discussion to get to a point of shared understanding but right now you are not explaining anything.
• 

  Simon

  Lisa: When you use a phrase like "white privilege" then you are making racial judgements.

  'Privilege' implies: authority, entitlement, freedom, license and/or right. It is a colorful word (no pun intended) which is why it is a bad word to use which is also why it is precisely the phrase that is used. It helps to incite people and make people angry on both sides - one side is insulted and the other is told that another group haa been given more than them because of their color and it's unfair. It would be, if it were true.

  This sort of language feeds into the sense of injustice and animosity and is not constructive if the intention is to have a dialog.

  If you want to insult people? Sure - go round accusing people of using their "white privilege" which many translate to "whitey gets more than us". It doesn't help any of the people that you claim to want to help.

  If you take the antonyms for 'privilege' we would have counter phrases such as:

  • "black disadvantage"
  • "black handicap"
  • "black misfortune"
  • "black restriction"

  Do you think those would be good phrases to use? Remember, they are just the opposite of "white privilege". I don't think they would fly - again, they are too judgemental and colorful and would be a distraction. The conversation would never get past the language used to start it as we've seen here.

  This is why the choice of words and labels IS important if you want to make progress. Labels are particularly bad unless the words have very definite, clear, singular and precise meaning which very few do.

  This is why I think it's better if we talked about "the unique challenges facing afican americans today" if that is indeed something that you think can and should be improved. If you object to that phrase then come up with a different one - just don't insist on using something that is misleading or that others may find unsulting.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Sorry this thread topic turned into racial debate, if I had known it was going to end up in that direction I wouldn't have started it.
• 

  Simon

  Kind of inevitable. There was already one running about the actual grand-jury decision itself but this is more about opinion than fact.
• 

  sammielee24

  The word privilege is an accusation of racism or discrimination when defined by color.

  If you remove the word 'white' and insert 'black' - every single black person walking around in the USA would then have 'black privilege'. If you took the phrase 'affirmative action' whereby quotas are met by color - and just switched it out for 'black privilege' - it automatically infers that you have advantages that no other group does.
• 

  Simon

  Affirmative action is one way to try and make up for some disadvantage but of course comes with it's own problems (positive discrimination is still discrimination and unfair to someone).

  I don't think advantage / disadvantage has quite the same nuance that "privilege" does and yes, linking it to color signifies that people are being handed something purely because of their color (and things are being denied to others because of their color).
• 

  sammielee24

  So people in government look like you and somehow that makes ALL white people privileged?

  Barack Obama is a black President - but he and his children will always have privileges that the majority of Americans regardless of their color/culture will never have. Should he 'check his privilege' at the door?

  Today we try to raise kids to see past color, past gender specifics - to work toward achieving equality for all people - continuing to use such terms as 'white privilege' just fosters stagnation as it promotes racism and does nothing to work toward equality.
• 

  Simon

  So people in government look like you and somehow that makes ALL white people privileged?

  Today we try to raise kids to see past color, past gender specifics - to work toward achieving equality for all people - continuing to use such terms as 'white privilege' just fosters stagnation as it promotes racism and does nothing to work toward equality.

  Apparently, not everyone does. Some are only able to see color and because they are unable to look beyond race they assume everyone else is unable to do so too.

  If people truly believe that anyone in authority has to be the same color as them for anything to be fair then what hope is there? Does every cop and politician have to be some multi-cultural mixed race being?

  I think the truth is that many judge things based solely on skin color but the people doing that are equally likely to be black. We've seen it in this case - the facts and evidence don't matter to some at all, and they don't know the people involved, the only fact that matters is shared skin color.

  Because *they* cannot let go of this prejudice they believe that everyone else must be like that too.

  But it's a fair opinion to have.

  If we would be mistrusting that a jury made up of a majority of black people would give a fair verdict based on the evidence alone then it is equally fair that they don't trust a majority white verdict especially given the long previous manifestation of prejudice that happened in the country. Heck, white people have proven beyond doubt that they are capable of being more than just unfair.

  What it will take both sides realising is that we're judging things based on a minority and the past. The protesters and rioters do not represent all the black community. They are better represented by the witnesses, many who chose to truthfully report what they saw and who looked past race and color.

  Likewise, it's unfair to use white people who descriminated now or in the past as representing the views of white people today and their sense of honesty either.

  "Why can't we call just get along?"

  Indeed.
• 

  Pacopoolio

  "White privilege" is a sociological term that has an exact meaning and definition. If someone thinks a hamburger is chicken soup because they have never heard of a hamburger, and when you explain to them what it is, and they say "that's your definition, it means chicken soup," then there's no way to communicate with someone because they refuse to use common language. It ceases to be about understanding things, and instead about trying to look right or prove what already exists.

  Of course this is a thread where someone obviously inserted the word "most" in an instance where it wasn't used, included a swipe afterwards, and instead of admitting an error and apologizing when it was directed pointed out, attempted to dodge, so it's pretty much completely obvious as to what's going on here, and no further explanation is necessary. As stated, everything is plain for everyone to read; and it's a clear example of why some people refuse to see things that plainly exist, even when backed into logical corners where they cannot deny it.
  
  On a side note - thanks everyone for the PMs on this, but this is about as far as I go :)