On “White Privilege”
There seems to be a Progressive propaganda mill website called PolicyMic. They have a fatuous article there called “7 Actual Facts That Prove White Privilege Exists in America” written by one Zerlina Maxwell.
The article is a typical specimen of Progressive propaganda and I must say it is pretty light-weight. This sort of line of “reasoning” is filled with half-truths, uses ill-defined terms, is highly illogical, and is underhanded in its intent, which, if accepted, is really an ad hominem attack on anything they brand as a “white” perspective in any logical argument. Used in a discussion of moral dimension, it is a moral attack on anyone who has white skin and who has the gall to disagree with Progressivism, which is the very essence of what I term “white shaming,” which is to say, anyone who is white and concludes anything other than the Progressive line on racism is himself or herself a racist and should be ashamed with unearned guilt. Before, this shaming was accomplished by simply calling others racist but, of late, many times the race card is seen to be overdrawn, so an alternative mode of attack was seen as needed.
Furthermore this sort of argument is, in fact, an attack on the free will and gumption of any individual living a bad neighborhood, an implicit attack on the moral nature of anyone, minority or otherwise. Yes, it is an implicit attack on black people as well. Let us examine this propaganda in detail. Facts are stubborn things as we will see, and the Progressives in this article are now stuck with inconvenient facts.
Here are the alleged “facts” to support the legitimacy of the notion of “White Privilege” as presented in this laughable article, It says if you are white:
1. You are less likely to be arrested.
2. You are more likely to get into college.
3. You are more likely to “fit in” and get called back for a job.
4. You are less likely to be perceived as a “thug.”
5. You are less likely to be labeled “angry.”
6. You are more likely to make headlines when missing.
7. You are more likely to find adequate housing.
Superficially, some might say that these statements are incontrovertible. Let us see if that is true.
“1. You are less likely to be arrested”:
Let us translate this from a negative proposition to a positive one, being specific about the race aspect as well. Most will agree that the race in question is really the black race as supported by the accompanying photograph of a black man being taken away in handcuffs. We can then take the proposition and translate it to “Blacks get arrested more often on average than whites.” Crime statistics show this is a fact. Here is another fact. I believe it is well-established that crime and especially serious violent crime is higher per capita in black neighborhoods than elsewhere.
Now the question is, is this crime rate because of white or majority racism? Does the KKK mount late-night commando raids into black neighborhoods? Do white merchants with stores and services there provoke black crime? Should any ordinary white feel responsible when a black person commits a crime? Such inferences are obviously ridiculous. When it comes to morality, including wrongs called crimes, the individual who does it is morally supreme, for good or ill, if they are human.
If something done is wrong, some context can mitigate its gravity, but any decision to deliberately harm another human being remains wrong and subject to condemnation. To say that blacks are not responsible for their actions as individuals, is to condemn the black race as irresponsible and immoral, a conclusion in line with old slaveholders. Yet this disgusting conclusion is what the supporters of “White Privilege” have implied and really support. I maintain we all have individual choice, but the question remains, why is crime higher in black neighborhoods than elsewhere. I think I have some reasons.
First of all, black neighborhoods are typically dominated by Progressive politicians. The best example remains to be the city of Detroit. Progressives, at least for the last 50 years have typically taxed businesses out of a city, abused property rights, made corrupt deals in all manner of goods and services, cut down of police services, politicized court proceeding of all sorts but especially on violent crime, and enforced the dominance of the worst educational institutions in the nation. This last item is by far the worst crime of Progressive politicians. It is a fact that students from those inner-city (black) schools, as measured by anyone, often do not graduate, and generally learn much less than students elsewhere. With such a barren background and Progressive corruption, it is harder to achieve any real success. Furthermore, along with little success perceived and politicized, ineffective law enforcement, the proliferation of crime and gangs is almost inevitable. Considering how widespread gang culture becomes, it is not surprising it has a certain “trendy” appeal for some people, including dress styles, hair styles, and ways of speaking. If someone does not belong to a gang, but want to not stand out as a target, or in order to seem trendy, that individual might choose to adopt gang styles anyway. These styles are then typically taken as flags meaning “I am a gangsta, so you don’t mess with me!”
“2. You are more likely to get into college”:
This means “Fewer blacks enter college than whites.” Does it not seem logical that if black schools do worse in preparing students for anything, that fewer would go to college. Furthermore, it is a fact that a great number of higher education schools have that reverse discrimination called “affirmative action” or “diversity programs” going on which gives blacks easier requirements than any other group to enter. Yet because of inferior preparation from elementary and high schools for blacks, there is lower admission, attendance, and performance by blacks on average. Should the ordinary white student feel responsible for this? Ridiculous!
“3. You are more likely to “fit in” and get called back for a job.”:
Now really, outside of the entertainment industry with all other things being equal, does a candidate of lesser education, displaying gangsta hair styles, dress, and speaking really recommend one’s selection such an candidate over anyone who is educated, neatly-dressed, and well-spoken, of any color on any rational ground? I think not. The same applies to the gang style of skinhead. I ask if an ignorant white displaying the style flags of skinheads have an advantage over those who do not? I think not. All gang-affected individuals of any color are also less likely to communicate in a diplomatic way with both co-workers and customers. Is it surprising this would be grounds for an employer to reject such candidates? And we must note that without addition evidence, gang style might just indicate a real gangster. I think rejection is thoroughly justified.
“4. You are less likely to be perceived as a ‘thug.'”
This translates to “Blacks are more often seen as thugs than others.” To the extent that blacks display gangsta styles, is that surprising? I am sure that a well-dressed and mannerly individual is less likely to be seen as a gang member or thug. How could that be otherwise, since the advertising about personal affiliation is so easily perceived? I have a tip: If you want to not be perceived as a gang-member, drop the gang styles. That would also help with getting a job and creating new personal relationships with anyone, including members of your own race.
“5. You are less likely to be labeled ‘angry.'”
Translation: “Blacks appear more angry than other races.” I think that actually being angry is possible for those who experience frustration from less success than others because of lesser education. Furthermore, such an appearance is also enhanced by gangsta styles, because expression of anger and aggression is a common mode of gang-style communication. Again it is not the fault of ordinary white individuals.
“6. You are more likely to make headlines when missing.”:
Translation: “Blacks make fewer headlines when missing than whites.” True. Here is the only place where any guilt is to be had. Blame goes to those overwhelmingly Progressive reporters, commentators, and editors who have dominated the mass media. This is just another sign of the contempt Progressives have for blacks. Certainly few ordinary citizens have any blame here at all.
“7. You are more likely to find adequate housing.”
Translation: “Blacks have worse housing than whites.” Given bureaucratic Progressive Public housing, rent control, lesser success, and higher crime in these neighborhoods, there is nothing surprising here at all. Again no ordinary white has any hand in this at all.
Now let us address this whole skin color thing. Given the flawed premises of the “White Privilege” supporters as above, how about another non-white color? What about Asian Americans? How much of the above apply to Asians. Virtually ZERO. All those premises are knocked into cocked hats. This is now even a source of friction in California between Asian politicians and other Progressive politicians. Progressive generally want to keep Asians out of higher education by applying higher standards to them than other minorities. Asians are generally mindful of education, typically have a family work-ethic, usually dress neatly, and speak politely. These are the key reasons they have been successful. Their “privilege” had nothing to do with it and often their parents or grandparents were dirt-poor and discriminated against.
I conclude that if one cares at all about our fellow human beings who happen to be black, one wants to communicate to them their personal power of choice and morality, not enslave them with degrading and self-serving excuses like “White Privilege.”
Let me add that the real enemy of blacks is Progressivism and it is not surprising that Democrats are not only the greatest source of government corruption, they have nearly always been the backers of black repression. Democrats opposed the Republican movement to abolish slavery. Democrats backed the KKK, even up to modern times. Democrats backed racial segregation and opposed Republican efforts, such as those of Republican President Eisenhower to integrate. Even the latest civil rights bills would never have passed without Republican support with a strong Democrat opposition. Progressivism pretends to be everyone’s friend, but is actually a power-hungry clique that intends to exploit everyone else. Fundamentally, they are not friends of blacks, nor of anyone else, and it is our duty, as Americans and decent human beings, to oppose their cruel and evil tyranny.
My Essay: On “White Privilege”
On “White Privilege”
There seems to be a Progressive propaganda mill website called PolicyMic. They have a fatuous article there called “7 Actual Facts That Prove White Privilege Exists in America” written by one Zerlina Maxwell.
The article is a typical specimen of Progressive propaganda and I must say it is pretty light-weight. This sort of line of “reasoning” is filled with half-truths, uses ill-defined terms, is highly illogical, and is underhanded in its intent, which, if accepted, is really an ad hominem attack on anything they brand as a “white” perspective in any logical argument. Used in a discussion of moral dimension, it is a moral attack on anyone who has white skin and who has the gall to disagree with Progressivism, which is the very essence of what I term “white shaming,” which is to say, anyone who is white and concludes anything other than the Progressive line on racism is himself or herself a racist and should be ashamed with unearned guilt. Before, this shaming was accomplished by simply calling others racist but, of late, many times the race card is seen to be overdrawn, so an alternative mode of attack was seen as needed.
Furthermore this sort of argument is, in fact, an attack on the free will and gumption of any individual living a bad neighborhood, an implicit attack on the moral nature of anyone, minority or otherwise. Yes, it is an implicit attack on black people as well. Let us examine this propaganda in detail. Facts are stubborn things as we will see, and the Progressives in this article are now stuck with inconvenient facts.
Here are the alleged “facts” to support the legitimacy of the notion of “White Privilege” as presented in this laughable article, It says if you are white:
1. You are less likely to be arrested.
2. You are more likely to get into college.
3. You are more likely to “fit in” and get called back for a job.
4. You are less likely to be perceived as a “thug.”
5. You are less likely to be labeled “angry.”
6. You are more likely to make headlines when missing.
7. You are more likely to find adequate housing.
Superficially, some might say that these statements are incontrovertible. Let us see if that is true.
“1. You are less likely to be arrested”:
Let us translate this from a negative proposition to a positive one, being specific about the race aspect as well. Most will agree that the race in question is really the black race as supported by the accompanying photograph of a black man being taken away in handcuffs. We can then take the proposition and translate it to “Blacks get arrested more often on average than whites.” Crime statistics show this is a fact. Here is another fact. I believe it is well-established that crime and especially serious violent crime is higher per capita in black neighborhoods than elsewhere.
Now the question is, is this crime rate because of white or majority racism? Does the KKK mount late-night commando raids into black neighborhoods? Do white merchants with stores and services there provoke black crime? Should any ordinary white feel responsible when a black person commits a crime? Such inferences are obviously ridiculous. When it comes to morality, including wrongs called crimes, the individual who does it is morally supreme, for good or ill, if they are human.
If something done is wrong, some context can mitigate its gravity, but any decision to deliberately harm another human being remains wrong and subject to condemnation. To say that blacks are not responsible for their actions as individuals, is to condemn the black race as irresponsible and immoral, a conclusion in line with old slaveholders. Yet this disgusting conclusion is what the supporters of “White Privilege” have implied and really support. I maintain we all have individual choice, but the question remains, why is crime higher in black neighborhoods than elsewhere. I think I have some reasons.
First of all, black neighborhoods are typically dominated by Progressive politicians. The best example remains to be the city of Detroit. Progressives, at least for the last 50 years have typically taxed businesses out of a city, abused property rights, made corrupt deals in all manner of goods and services, cut down of police services, politicized court proceeding of all sorts but especially on violent crime, and enforced the dominance of the worst educational institutions in the nation. This last item is by far the worst crime of Progressive politicians. It is a fact that students from those inner-city (black) schools, as measured by anyone, often do not graduate, and generally learn much less than students elsewhere. With such a barren background and Progressive corruption, it is harder to achieve any real success. Furthermore, along with little success perceived and politicized, ineffective law enforcement, the proliferation of crime and gangs is almost inevitable. Considering how widespread gang culture becomes, it is not surprising it has a certain “trendy” appeal for some people, including dress styles, hair styles, and ways of speaking. If someone does not belong to a gang, but want to not stand out as a target, or in order to seem trendy, that individual might choose to adopt gang styles anyway. These styles are then typically taken as flags meaning “I am a gangsta, so you don’t mess with me!”
“2. You are more likely to get into college”:
This means “Fewer blacks enter college than whites.” Does it not seem logical that if black schools do worse in preparing students for anything, that fewer would go to college. Furthermore, it is a fact that a great number of higher education schools have that reverse discrimination called “affirmative action” or “diversity programs” going on which gives blacks easier requirements than any other group to enter. Yet because of inferior preparation from elementary and high schools for blacks, there is lower admission, attendance, and performance by blacks on average. Should the ordinary white student feel responsible for this? Ridiculous!
“3. You are more likely to “fit in” and get called back for a job.”:
Now really, outside of the entertainment industry with all other things being equal, does a candidate of lesser education, displaying gangsta hair styles, dress, and speaking really recommend one’s selection such an candidate over anyone who is educated, neatly-dressed, and well-spoken, of any color on any rational ground? I think not. The same applies to the gang style of skinhead. I ask if an ignorant white displaying the style flags of skinheads have an advantage over those who do not? I think not. All gang-affected individuals of any color are also less likely to communicate in a diplomatic way with both co-workers and customers. Is it surprising this would be grounds for an employer to reject such candidates? And we must note that without addition evidence, gang style might just indicate a real gangster. I think rejection is thoroughly justified.
“4. You are less likely to be perceived as a ‘thug.'”
This translates to “Blacks are more often seen as thugs than others.” To the extent that blacks display gangsta styles, is that surprising? I am sure that a well-dressed and mannerly individual is less likely to be seen as a gang member or thug. How could that be otherwise, since the advertising about personal affiliation is so easily perceived? I have a tip: If you want to not be perceived as a gang-member, drop the gang styles. That would also help with getting a job and creating new personal relationships with anyone, including members of your own race.
“5. You are less likely to be labeled ‘angry.'”
Translation: “Blacks appear more angry than other races.” I think that actually being angry is possible for those who experience frustration from less success than others because of lesser education. Furthermore, such an appearance is also enhanced by gangsta styles, because expression of anger and aggression is a common mode of gang-style communication. Again it is not the fault of ordinary white individuals.
“6. You are more likely to make headlines when missing.”:
Translation: “Blacks make fewer headlines when missing than whites.” True. Here is the only place where any guilt is to be had. Blame goes to those overwhelmingly Progressive reporters, commentators, and editors who have dominated the mass media. This is just another sign of the contempt Progressives have for blacks. Certainly few ordinary citizens have any blame here at all.
“7. You are more likely to find adequate housing.”
Translation: “Blacks have worse housing than whites.” Given bureaucratic Progressive Public housing, rent control, lesser success, and higher crime in these neighborhoods, there is nothing surprising here at all. Again no ordinary white has any hand in this at all.
Now let us address this whole skin color thing. Given the flawed premises of the “White Privilege” supporters as above, how about another non-white color? What about Asian Americans? How much of the above apply to Asians. Virtually ZERO. All those premises are knocked into cocked hats. This is now even a source of friction in California between Asian politicians and other Progressive politicians. Progressive generally want to keep Asians out of higher education by applying higher standards to them than other minorities. Asians are generally mindful of education, typically have a family work-ethic, usually dress neatly, and speak politely. These are the key reasons they have been successful. Their “privilege” had nothing to do with it and often their parents or grandparents were dirt-poor and discriminated against.
I conclude that if one cares at all about our fellow human beings who happen to be black, one wants to communicate to them their personal power of choice and morality, not enslave them with degrading and self-serving excuses like “White Privilege.”
Let me add that the real enemy of blacks is Progressivism and it is not surprising that Democrats are not only the greatest source of government corruption, they have nearly always been the backers of black repression. Democrats opposed the Republican movement to abolish slavery. Democrats backed the KKK, even up to modern times. Democrats backed racial segregation and opposed Republican efforts, such as those of Republican President Eisenhower to integrate. Even the latest civil rights bills would never have passed without Republican support with a strong Democrat opposition. Progressivism pretends to be everyone’s friend, but is actually a power-hungry clique that intends to exploit everyone else. Fundamentally, they are not friends of blacks, nor of anyone else, and it is our duty, as Americans and decent human beings, to oppose their cruel and evil tyranny.
About admin
Computer Geek and philosopher.