White privilege

[jillio]

The manifestation of "white privilege" has its roots going back to Europe. It's a product of hundreds of years of "civilized" thinking steeped in a variety of prejudicial and discriminatory thinkings. "White privilege" didn't just arrived here all of sudden, did it?

You are confusing the concepts of inferior and superior races, prejudice, and discrimination with the concept of white privilege. They are not one and the same. Go back and read posts #272, 277, and 278. They reflect a grasp of the difference.

 

[jillio]

Let's not be hypocrites, shall we if you are unwilling to provide any immediate and concrete sources? Speak for yourself.

I provided several concrete sources in the first few posts of this thread. If you choose not to access them, it is your responsibility.

 

[Bebonang]

I would say yes. Money is just paper to them. Gotta give them something of value that they can use such as food, horse, gun, etc. If the entire stock market crashed... money's worthless to you, right?

We, modern Indians, would accept money very much to pay our bills like everyone today. If you are talking about the old days like in the 1800 or earlier. Sometimes we get rations (usually less that we got starved for food) and the Indian Agents usually tried to hide the food from them. Horses are something we cherish very much that we might have stolen from the white people. We were in awe with the Big Dog (horses) at the time. Guns were given to them in exchange for blankets and traditional objects. The white traders gave them liguors. The Indians need liguors (Fire Water) to keep warm in the winters and to keep from starving.

As for the entire stock market crashed with the money not worthy. I do not know.

 

[kokonut]

Take a history course.

The concept of ethnicity did not rise until the 1800s. People only started assocating things with colour of skin in the 1500s in Brazil in the Portuguese Empire.

Try again. Before the Portugal exports of black slaves to the Americas, slavery was based on religion convictions, and debts. "White superiority" is purely an Anglo concept that was embraced by British and Americans alike.

No. Human nature has not changed when it came to judging people by the color of their skin, or even the level of skin tone, too. Certainly it didn't start only 500 years ago.

Let me give you an example of one the earliest and longest example of using skin color to divide/separate them into lower and higher hierarchial classes. It's called the "caste system" used in the Hindu religion practiced in India where the more "fairer" skinned people rule over the more darker skinned people. This system dates back some 3000 years. Though this is done for religious reason it is still judging people by their skin color. You might want to start looking into the history of Brahmins and Dalits of India when skin color meant everything.

India wasn't alone on this either. Greeks did it. Romans did it. Everybody did it. It's a flawed human trait.

 

[jillio]

No. Human nature has not changed when it came to judging people by the color of their skin, or even the level of skin tone, too. Certainly it didn't start only 500 years ago.

Let me give you an example of one the earliest and longest example of using skin color to divide/separate them into lower and higher hierarchial classes. It's called the "caste system" used in the Hindu religion practiced in India where the more "fairer" skinned people rule over the more darker skinned people. This system dates back some 3000 years. Though this is done for religious reason it is still judging people by their skin color. You might want to start looking into the history of Brahmins and Dalits of India when skin color meant everything.

India wasn't alone on this either. Greeks did it. Romans did it. Everybody did it. It's a flawed human trait.

Again, you are talking about heirarchies. They have nothing to do with white privilege. And skin color is not the determining factor of caste. And that is in group difference, not out group difference. The same with the other examples you provided. White privilege is not an in group phenomenon.

 

[CJB]

Just because I claim there is a teapot on orbit between the Earth and Mars doesn't make it so. Making a claim is easy, supporting it with factual and impartial evidence is another story. It seems so easy to be able to write everything off as anecdotal or "be that as it may but X still exists." That is the kind of thinking seen when skeptics get suckered into arguments with True Believers of any topic.

(And to apply a small amount of snark - there's a great body of evidence supporting a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars somewhere. )

But there have been studies done. And there have been sociological experiments. It goes beyond anecdotes and it's a shared experience, not a belief. You can choose not to believe in it but there have been numerous studies in addition to anecdotes and essays on the topic.

Ever heard of the Implicit Association Test? It's a prime example of a test that gives hard core data that racism and its counterpart, white privilege, do indeed exist.

You can take the test here.

 

[kokonut]

You are confusing the concepts of inferior and superior races, prejudice, and discrimination with the concept of white privilege. They are not one and the same. Go back and read posts #272, 277, and 278. They reflect a grasp of the difference.

Judging a race based on superiority or the supposed lack of it is called discrimination, making a distinction on the differences. There is no way around it. The roots of discrimination and any superiority complex had its source somewhere at a particular period of time. We're seeing the manifestation of it now that took a long path of history. We're calling it "white privilege" only because we're becoming more aware of it and the nuances of such.

 

[Jiro]

We, modern Indians, would accept money very much to pay our bills like everyone today. If you are talking about the old days like in the 1800 or earlier. Sometimes we get rations (usually less that we got starved for food) and the Indian Agents usually tried to hide the food from them. Horses are something we cherish very much that we might have stolen from the white people. We were in awe with the Big Dog (horses) at the time. Guns were given to them in exchange for blankets and traditional objects. The white traders gave them liguors. The Indians need liguors (Fire Water) to keep warm in the winters and to keep from starving.

As for the entire stock market crashed with the money not worthy. I do not know.

Fire Water? Big Dog? interesting description by Indian! I like that.... Fire Water. Looks like a water, burns like a fire....

My post was referring to traditional Indian. is that the one living like Indians in old time with tipee and bows n' arrows?

 

[CJB]

however - not everybody can afford to go to school. not everybody benefit from school. Alternative way - great books, rich life experience, open mindedness, and curious attitude are more than perfect. Those are kind of people I tend to listen to better. They can easily make campfire stories out of these boring material.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Again, you are talking about heirarchies. They have nothing to do with white privilege. And skin color is not the determining factor of caste. And that is in group difference, not out group difference. The same with the other examples you provided. White privilege is not an in group phenomenon.

Right. Apples and oranges.

You can't compare what go on in the Anglophone world with the Iberians, Greeks, the Romans, Ottomon Empire, India, the Middle East, China, Indochina and so on. The reason for their existence are different.

"White privilege" only exist in the Anglo parts of the world. So I don't see why kokonut keep outsourcing other examples.

 

[kokonut]

Again, you are talking about heirarchies. They have nothing to do with white privilege. And skin color is not the determining factor of caste. And that is in group difference, not out group difference. The same with the other examples you provided. White privilege is not an in group phenomenon.

I am responding to Souggy's saying that people didn't judge on skin color until the 1500s which is incorrect. It's a long standing human trait that used skin color as a way to discriminate against others for whatever reasons or beliefs. Simply put. This wasn't a response about "white privilege."

 

[netrox]

Just remember, it's ok to be prejudiced. I always favor an educated doctor over a shaman.

 

[dogmom]

yes, Bebonang!
If I am going to purchase something by Native craftsperson, I either buy at pow wow, or tribal shop owned and operated by First Nations. Or,like wild rice - which I enjoy - much wild rice is available now made commercially, not in the traditional manner. I get the wild rice from White Earth <Ojibwe-Anishanaabe> through local coop or Native places. In this way I help Native cultures to empower and re-vitalize and continue traditions.
This relates to white privilege because previous generations of my relatives had a skin color that trumped being Jewish in many situations <my mother does remember those signs - "no Jews allowed" and she was in segregated dorm in college where they placed Jewish and African-American students> and sometimes allowed access over some others because of people's prejudicial actions.

 

[Jiro]

No. Human nature has not changed when it came to judging people by the color of their skin, or even the level of skin tone, too. Certainly it didn't start only 500 years ago.

Let me give you an example of one the earliest and longest example of using skin color to divide/separate them into lower and higher hierarchial classes. It's called the "caste system" used in the Hindu religion practiced in India where the more "fairer" skinned people rule over the more darker skinned people. This system dates back some 3000 years. Though this is done for religious reason it is still judging people by their skin color. You might want to start looking into the history of Brahmins and Dalits of India when skin color meant everything.

India wasn't alone on this either. Greeks did it. Romans did it. Everybody did it. It's a flawed human trait.

I am responding to Souggy's saying that people didn't judge on skin color until the 1500s which is incorrect. It's a long standing human trait that used skin color as a way to discriminate against others for whatever reasons or beliefs. Simply put. This wasn't a response about "white privilege."

keep reading and learning. Sounds like you're just starting it out. That's why right now - you're coming up with these flawed theories and statements. The more you read on, the clearer it will get. it's work in progress. keep it up.

The source especially these great books are already provided for you. It will greatly shortened your learning time.

 

[kokonut]

Right. Apples and oranges.

You can't compare what go on in the Anglophone world with the Greeks, the Romans, Ottomon Empire, India, the Middle East, China, Indochina and so on. The reason for their existence are different.

"White privilege" only exist in the Anglo parts of the world. So I don't see why kokonut keep outsourcing other examples.

Let's not twist this response of yours, Souggy. You said that people didn't judge others by their skin colors until the 1500s. This is incorrect. India has been doing this for 3000 plus years in their caste system. Greek and Romans did this and even coined the word "barbarians." What about Ancient Egyptians and Nubians? And how, according to some research, that Egyptians killed off red-headed people thinking they represent evil. This is an example of how they did indeed judged and prejudged others based on skin color and distinguished these groups according to their ethnicities. Again, it all goes back as a flawed human trait we exhibit.

This isn't about "white privilege" but a response to your claim that people didn't use skin color to discriminate against those who were different.

 

[Jiro]

No. Human nature has not changed when it came to judging people by the color of their skin, or even the level of skin tone, too. Certainly it didn't start only 500 years ago.

Let me give you an example of one the earliest and longest example of using skin color to divide/separate them into lower and higher hierarchial classes. It's called the "caste system" used in the Hindu religion practiced in India where the more "fairer" skinned people rule over the more darker skinned people. This system dates back some 3000 years. Though this is done for religious reason it is still judging people by their skin color. You might want to start looking into the history of Brahmins and Dalits of India when skin color meant everything.

India wasn't alone on this either. Greeks did it. Romans did it. Everybody did it. It's a flawed human trait.

caste system isn't based on skin color as the deciding factor...... It's by birth. Once you're born as a farmer, you're farmer for life - including your future generations. It's a social stratification, not skin test. That's why they come to America... to rise up thru social ladder.

but yea - we digress..... this is :topic:

 

[kokonut]

keep reading and learning. Sounds like you're just starting it out. That's why right now - you're coming up with these flawed theories and statements. The more you read on, the clearer it will get. it's work in progress. keep it up.

The source especially these great books are already provided for you. It will greatly shortened your learning time.

Actually, they're quite correct. If you actually think people started judging others by their skin color only 500 years ago you are sorely mistakened and misinformed.

 

[Jiro]

Actually, they're quite correct. If you actually think people started judging others by their skin color only 500 years ago you are sorely mistakened and misinformed.

*looking at your skin color* ah yes you are right. here's a chocolate gold medal, my master.

 

[jillio]

Judging a race based on superiority or the supposed lack of it is called discrimination, making a distinction on the differences. There is no way around it. The roots of discrimination and any superiority complex begins at the source somewhere at a particular period of time. We're seeing the manifestation of it now that took a long path of history. We're calling it "white privilege" only because we're becoming more aware of it and the nuances of such.

Not exactly. The belief that a particular race is superior is called prejudice. Acting on that belief in a manner that oppresses a member of that race is called discrimination.

Again, kokonut, we are talking about white privilege, not discrimination and prejudice. It is an entirely different concept than prejudice and discrimination. Please, take the time to read some of the material you have been directed toward. It will clarify the issues you are confused about.

 

[jillio]

Right. Apples and oranges.

You can't compare what go on in the Anglophone world with the Iberians, Greeks, the Romans, Ottomon Empire, India, the Middle East, China, Indochina and so on. The reason for their existence are different.

"White privilege" only exist in the Anglo parts of the world. So I don't see why kokonut keep outsourcing other examples.

Either he truly does not understand the concepts and their differences, or he is just attempting to derail the thread with irrelevent posts. Who knows which?