Portugeezer
Member
Spot on.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pentagon training manual: white males have unfair advantages
- Thread starter ISOM
- Start date
- Status
Spot on.
SousedLouse
Member
I sincerely doubt that, because I picked up on all of that stuff the moment I saw your post. That said, even thought the idea of "the PC police" is bullshit, you will get dogpiled on this forum if you post something suspect. So maybe you should be a little more thorough, and give your posts a once-over before you hit "Submit Reply".
Vermillion
Banned
Their race is why they have the lower social standing. Yes, there are people with lower social standing of a different race, but that's not the point, as only one of the groups has their race as reasoning for that social standing.
Furthermore, the comparison of Jews and blacks is one that I find erroneous, for reasons including visibility.
And lastly, we do say that we have benefited for being born in the United States. Of course we have.
Devolution
Member
White people who are at all offended by this or defensive need a fucking reality check.
I really don't understand how people can really think racism can be fixed if not by not fixing the economical issues if even something basic like the quality of schools is directly related with the property values of the neighborhoods. Good job getting equality if you have to go to worse schools compared to others. The same is pretty much true of hospitals and general services. It's a self-sustaining cycle and you even if actually tomorrow everyone started acting perfectly race-neutrals to everyone, group tensions would still exist out of economical differences, just see how perfectly white groups are and have been discriminated by other whites forever.
But i guess a more "socialized" sistem is unfeseable in the current united states.
But i guess a more "socialized" sistem is unfeseable in the current united states.
Devolution
Member
They are intertwined but "ghettos" were made because of skin color not the other way around.
I am confused by this. You picked up on what I wanted to say and still doubt my intended statement.
The piece of advice about posting protocol is understood.
edit: ok you doubt that my writing skills are at fault, understood.
Vermillion
Banned
Because it isn't just economic issues. It's disproportionate arrests, it's a lower chance for being hired, etc. Economic issues are a huge part of systemic racism, yes, but that's not all there is to it.
EDIT: And you can say those things build up to economic issues, but the fact is that aiming for fixing economic issues will not fix the underlying problems that cause minority races to be economically disadvantaged. In short, it would help non-minorities a ton, minorities a small amount, and generally relieve the symptoms yet not cure the disease.
jim-jam bongs
Member
We're the real victims here. Always being told we can't jump and dance.
The barriers to a more socialized system are partially affected by race as well - as in, literally white people (usually older generation) view people of color (usually black or brown) as moochers and simply not befitting of any social welfare system.
This is actually more widespread in the world - a white person will usually always be more advantageous in finding jobs around the world compared to any other person of a different color, especially if they're black.
Most ethnicity around the world are much more comfortable and accepting of Caucasian than they are of any other skin color, and usually much more hostile towards darker skin colors. Now, lest I overreach myself - it's definitely very obvious for me in Asian countries. Perhaps other countries fare better in acceptance of non-Caucasian, but I'm highly skeptical.
cyclonekruse
Member
True, but here is where the issue comes in. Let's say the poor white straight guy applies to the same college as the middle-class lesbian black woman. And for the sake of this example, let's say that in aggregate the black woman has it significantly better off than the white guy due to her class. Who do you think will get into the college given equal grades, extracurriculars, etc. (assuming it has a diversity policy)?
Now, I'm not entirely opposed to the promotion of diversity, especially in a college where part of the experience is exposure to viewpoints different from your own. There can be value in diversity. However, I also think that such policies can lead to instances where a white person legitimately has a case that his/her race was what held him/her back. In the above scenario, the black woman gets something (acceptance to college) that she did nothing (more) to deserve other than being born as a minority whereas the white man is denied something that he equally deserved for no other reason than being born a white man. That's the very sort of thing that we're trying to get away from, is it not?
This is true of every country of the world. Right-wing propaganda has always been set to stop those moochers from stealing our tax money, everywhere. 30 years ago here it was about against south-italians, then it was the turn of the albanian in the 90', now it's more against north-africans, but it's still the same concept all over again.
You'd need to read Libero, a right-wing newspaper from here. They often run articles on "why south italy don't work and south italians are lazy" or "why deadly incidents happen mostly in the south" and shit like this.
You mean like how multiracial people will fill in the ethnicity that grants them the higher chance to obtain what they need?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/us/14admissions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
If it's there, people are gonna try to game it anyway they can - it's part of human nature.
I do agree on modifying policies to better work it for the poor and disenfranchised; course, most of what I hear and read from the people in congress is an attempt to remove it altogether since obviously racism doesn't exist anymore now that a black dude is president.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Oh good, now we get to hear how affirmative action is the real racism.
Crumpet Trumpet
Banned
amazing.Sigmond, so you're saying that because some white dudes will feel bad if we talk about extant systemic inequalities we shouldn't talk about extant systemic inequalities? Also, if you actually read the PDF, they mention you:
It's really easy for you to sit there and type stuff about the "marginal utility" of social justice advocacy if you're benefiting a lot from privilege, but it's kind of a bad look to tell other people what kinds of shit they have to just accept because from where you're sitting things aren't that bad.
I have heard mixed stories about east asia.
zero shift
Banned
The amusing part is why do they feel so threatened?
I'm not white but I am a straight male. When I hear shit like "Women are at a disadvantaged!" or "Gays have problems due to straight discrimination!" I usually hear them out. And if I don't agree I just shrug and go on my way. I don't scream "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!" or "I'M AFRAID TO ASK FOR SKITTLES BECAUSE THEY ARE RAINBOW COLOR AND I WAS WORRIED THAT THE STORE CLERK WOULD THINK THAT I AM ANTI-GAY!"
Its hilarious. Why does it bother people so much?
The problem I have with discussions on race is inevitably people say stuff like this.
On the one side you have people say there's no problem. On the other side you have people like J10 who think there is a problem and it is absolutely without a doubt everywhere.
Thanks to the internet - blogs and forums the two sides interact less and take their views even further to the extremes.
As for the manual itself - it's not impressive. How many manuals, documents did you 'read' when you signed up to work somewhere? I 'read' a ton because I was dealing with confidential information and money.
No, this manual will not change anything in a positive way. It's a feel good piece where people with liberal arts degrees justify their degrees (nothing wrong with that even though it sounds bad). And the people who read it and already agreed with it before they read it will enjoy it as well. So there's an enjoyment/justification deal going on with the manual.
So essentially this manual and the reporting of it by news outlets just entrenches the two sides even further.
What does this manual mean for the officers doing their jobs and investigating complaints, educating others? Nothing really. They'll probably ignore it entirely.
If they don't and take it seriously? They spend much more time on complaints, allegations than in the past.
In other words they become more like public defenders (overworked) or an HR department in love with their processes. Instead of addressing complaints, investigating and reporting to their bosses - they investigate and investigate and investigate because according to the manual, something must be there even though they can't find it yet.
If this office actually finds in favor of literally every complaint by a non-whitemale and then reports that to the Pentagon - they'll be laughed out of the building. They need to prove discrimination at least somewhat and not that the person was disadvantaged because of their ethnicity.
So TLR - this isn't impressive, it's words with no action. No practical value here.
You are the ultimate pessimist.
well since we're here now
Thank you. You saved me the trouble.
Sigmond, so you're saying that because some white dudes will feel bad if we talk about extant systemic inequalities we shouldn't talk about extant systemic inequalities? Also, if you actually read the PDF, they mention you:
It's really easy for you to sit there and type stuff about the "marginal utility" of social justice advocacy if you're benefiting a lot from privilege, but it's kind of a bad look to tell other people what kinds of shit they have to just accept because from where you're sitting things aren't that bad.
This should be required reading for these discussions:
It's essentially an expanded take on those same ideas, describing the ways that white Americans rationalize the existence of racial phenomena, such as segregated lives, economic inequality, disparities in arrest rates, and so forth; it consists of a set of rhetorical justifications (which collectively amount to "Anything but race") that, while not actually holding up to scrutiny in the real world, do allow the maintenance of cognitive dissonance between our collective post-racial rhetoric and manifestly unequal racial outcomes.
The author also talks about the ways that some black people buy into these ideas, how they are resisted, and white people who do not make use of these rhetorical frames in discussing race. Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow is in some ways a look at the effects of this willfully (color)blind approach to American society, and makes for great companion reading.
Devolution
Member
They can't separate the reality of being white from themselves. That many of the things they've been able to do, been granted or the benefit of the doubt they've received on numerous occasions is not a reflection or attack on their character or work efforts but merely how things are because of how this society was set up. We get to constantly see ourselves portrayed as hard working separate individuals that people should care about. This ideology is rarely extended out to different groups. That's why there is tokenism and stereotyping.
If people would just listen and be empathetic to the idea that they got a better starting off point in life based on race, gender, sexuality, class, etc, then we could have honest conversations about this. But people put walls up and get on the defensive before this is even possible. And those are the people who need to be reached most so they can go on in life and better understand what their privilege allows them to do and how they can deconstruct it and assist others.
Its damn near scary how it pretty much covers a lot of the angles people in this very thread tread on.
cyclonekruse
Member
That's about as noteworthy as a pro-life website including a list of common pro-choice arguments. I can see it now:
It's not very remarkable to be able to list off common counterarguments to your claims. What matters is whether or not those counterarguments have any weight to them.
What's your solution then? Every country in the world deals with the same problem. For those where there aren't multiple races, they discriminate based on caste/skin color or religion or language then.
The dominant ethnic or ruling group will always have it easier, especially if they are in the majority.
Example India, fair skinned Hindu males have it easier than dark skinned Muslim females. In China, the dominant Han majority has it easier than Mongolians, Uyghur or Tibetans. In Iraq, Kurds will never be equal to Sunni or Shia Muslims.
This is just a consequence of human nature and class based society. I agree people need to reflect on how they benefit being born a certain color, or being born as part of the dominant ruling group.
CHEEZMO™
Obsidian fan
Abolish private property, the state, and usher in a classless society.
jim-jam bongs
Member
People will always discriminate along class lines; but, unlike race, one can change their class. If you can eradicate racial discrimination you should end up with a more egalitarian society. I'm not sure it's possible to do that, but it's a noble goal and it's better than just throwing our hands up in despair and maintaining the status quo.
Of course it's a noble goal, but one I don't think will ever be achieved in America. If you eradicate racial discrimination, another form will pop up, ie. Ethnic group based then. What is the real difference between a Hutu and Tutsi? Can you tell me the difference racially between a Gujarati Indian and a Tamil Indian? Look at how Scottish white people view themselves differently from Welsh, English, or Irish people.
Those who have power will never voluntarily give it up. It's why so many get up in arms if you bring up affirmative action or equal employment as a means to level the playing field. You get vehement opposition categorized as reverse discrimination.
One thing people tend to forget is, white people are still 60-75% of the population in the US. Black people make up around 12%ish, how can the playing field ever be leveled?
Devolution
Member
You're painting an awfully black and white picture here.
Femmeworth
Banned
*adds to book list*
TacticalFox88
Banned
_cover.jpg)
Also great books to read.
youngwerther
Banned
CHEEZMO™;90183020 said:
yuck
MWS Natural
Member
I love how they totally changed this once the hispanic population grew in the US. Hispanic weren't white when I grew up, I'm sure they are happy they got entrance into the club though.
Pretty sure they wouldnt have let Ricki Ricardo be all with Lucille Ball if they didnt think Hispanic dudes(some) were white....and wasnt that in like the 50s?
ClassyPenguin
Banned
well since we're here now
Sums it up, really.
SuperAngelo64
Banned
GAF hivemind on full steam.
MWS Natural
Member
Hm...I think Cuban's have a whole nother deal going on..
Hispanics weren't counted as "white" until the 2010 census.
aka "fuck all of you" levels of participation.
cyclonekruse
Member
I've been thinking about this and I think my point of disagreement is that I don't view it as white people categorically being better off than black people or males categorically being better off than females. I see it more as two distributions of individuals. Kind of like how we say that men are typically taller than woman. That's true on average but there are many exceptions to the rule. Some men are shorter than the average woman and some women are taller than the average man.
In the same way, I don't think we should treat white men monolithically when it comes to privilege. Nor should we treat black men (or women, or gay people, or whatever) monolithically. If a graph were made that placed people according to how easy their life is/has been, it might well be true that, say, homosexuals would rank lower on average than heterosexuals. But given the hundreds of millions of people in this country, I can pretty much guarantee that you can find heterosexual individuals who have had it very rough in comparison to the average homosexual person. So I don't think it's correct to dismiss someone's experience as being easier simply due to them being straight or white or male. I try not to presume to know what someone else's life was like based on their skin color or sexual orientation or religious beliefs.
Now, I will grant that the lowest of the low on the imaginary graph of life suckitude would probably be littered with minorities of all stripes. But rather than saying, "Oh, he's white, he doesn't need help" or "She's gay, I need to be extra kind to her because her life must have been hell" I would rather learn more about the individual before acting on my prejudices.
As for your other point, I do recognize that I've had an easy life. I was born with the normal amount of limbs, for example. School was easy for me. That's not a benefit that I "deserved" to have, but it was true. I was a planned pregnancy. I was born to a two-parent household. My parents were (and still are) respected members of the community. I wasn't bullied or picked on because the upperclassmen liked my brother so much. There is very little crime where I grew up. I am white and grew up in about as white of an area as you could be (there were literally 0 black people in my community--a couple of Hispanic families and one adopted Indian kid were all the racial minorities there were). I could go on and on and on. But as I told the therapist that I saw in college, knowing that I had it so easy just made me feel worse about my depression and anxiety. To have all of those perks and still suck at life doesn't make a person feel very good about him/herself. And I fully admit that I have no one to blame for my ills (which still aren't even that bad at all) but myself.
So again, rather than saying black people categorically have it worse off, I try not to assume such things. Because I don't know what's going on in a person's head. Or the environment in which s/he were raised. At least not until I talk to him/her first.
It's been a while since the last AA thread.
- Status