AmeriKKKa

[Sean Hayden]

I'm more convinced by her argument about unionization.

[pErvinalia]

She's basically denying white privilege:

Furthermore, the privilege theory of causation – Black workers get less because white workers get more, and its corollary – flies in the face of American reality.

[Sean Hayden]

"Black workers get less because white workers get more" --not the same thing.

[Sean Hayden]

It's simply pointing out that "white privilege" cannot account for the better conditions of white workers where they exist.

But it DOES account for white workers being better off than black workers, whether or not they are unionized, whether they are in the north or the south, whether or not they are vegetarians, whether or not they listen to jazz music, whether they prefer domestic beer to imported, whether or not they drive a sedan or an SUV, etc, etc...

But it doesn't. Unionization accounts for improved conditions for white workers. Where white workers have failed to unionize they have not enjoyed the same benefits. It may be useful to acknowledge some limits to the scope of your "white privilege", really.

I mean, how poor does the community need to be before you acknowledge you're barking up the wrong tree?

"Hey hillbilly, how's being white treatin' you this fine day sir!?"

[pErvinalia]

"Black workers get less because white workers get more" --not the same thing.

How is it not the same thing? When a white person gets a job over a better qualified black person, the black worker gets less because the white worker gets more.

[Seabass]

It's simply pointing out that "white privilege" cannot account for the better conditions of white workers where they exist.

But it DOES account for white workers being better off than black workers, whether or not they are unionized, whether they are in the north or the south, whether or not they are vegetarians, whether or not they listen to jazz music, whether they prefer domestic beer to imported, whether or not they drive a sedan or an SUV, etc, etc...

But it doesn't. Unionization accounts for improved conditions for white workers. Where white workers have failed to unionize they have not enjoyed the same benefits. It may be useful to acknowledge some limits to the scope of your "white privilege", really.

I mean, how poor does the community need to be before you acknowledge you're barking up the wrong tree?

"Hey hillbilly, how's your white treatin' you this fine day sir!?"

There are homeless white people in this country. This does not mean that white privilege doesn't exist. There are A LOT more black homeless than white homeless, and black homeless people are treated worse than white homeless people.

Again, unionization and white privilege are two separate and distinct issues. Do you think that if every job in the US gets unionized that white privilege will cease to exist?

[pErvinalia]

It's simply pointing out that "white privilege" cannot account for the better conditions of white workers where they exist.

But it DOES account for white workers being better off than black workers, whether or not they are unionized, whether they are in the north or the south, whether or not they are vegetarians, whether or not they listen to jazz music, whether they prefer domestic beer to imported, whether or not they drive a sedan or an SUV, etc, etc...

But it doesn't. Unionization accounts for improved conditions for white workers.

And black workers. BUT, white workers are still advantaged over black workers. And that's white privilege.

[Sean Hayden]

It's simply pointing out that "white privilege" cannot account for the better conditions of white workers where they exist.

But it DOES account for white workers being better off than black workers, whether or not they are unionized, whether they are in the north or the south, whether or not they are vegetarians, whether or not they listen to jazz music, whether they prefer domestic beer to imported, whether or not they drive a sedan or an SUV, etc, etc...

But it doesn't. Unionization accounts for improved conditions for white workers. Where white workers have failed to unionize they have not enjoyed the same benefits. It may be useful to acknowledge some limits to the scope of your "white privilege", really.

I mean, how poor does the community need to be before you acknowledge you're barking up the wrong tree?

"Hey hillbilly, how's your white treatin' you this fine day sir!?"

There are homeless white people in this country. This does not mean that white privilege doesn't exist. There are A LOT more black homeless than white homeless, and black homeless people are treated worse than white homeless people.

Again, unionization and white privilege are two separate and distinct issues. Do you think that if every job in the US gets unionized that white privilege will cease to exist?

We have an example of the ability of unionization to raise the living conditions of all workers. So, you tell me, if unions become stronger and more prevalent will the effects of "white privilege" cease? I think there is a decent chance at least for the --entire process of unionizing-- to make it ancient history, yes.

[Sean Hayden]

So no limit whatsoever on the scope of "white privilege" regardless of anyone's actual conditions. Your homeless, but it's still better to be homeless than homeless and black!

--right, sorry, I'd offer a few of the benefits of being white, but I'm a bit indisposed at the moment.

[Seabass]

It's simply pointing out that "white privilege" cannot account for the better conditions of white workers where they exist.

But it DOES account for white workers being better off than black workers, whether or not they are unionized, whether they are in the north or the south, whether or not they are vegetarians, whether or not they listen to jazz music, whether they prefer domestic beer to imported, whether or not they drive a sedan or an SUV, etc, etc...

But it doesn't. Unionization accounts for improved conditions for white workers. Where white workers have failed to unionize they have not enjoyed the same benefits. It may be useful to acknowledge some limits to the scope of your "white privilege", really.

I mean, how poor does the community need to be before you acknowledge you're barking up the wrong tree?

"Hey hillbilly, how's your white treatin' you this fine day sir!?"

There are homeless white people in this country. This does not mean that white privilege doesn't exist. There are A LOT more black homeless than white homeless, and black homeless people are treated worse than white homeless people.

Again, unionization and white privilege are two separate and distinct issues. Do you think that if every job in the US gets unionized that white privilege will cease to exist?

We have an example of the ability of unionization to raise the living conditions of all workers. So, you tell me, if unions become stronger and more prevalent will the effects of "white privilege" cease? I think there is a decent chance at least for the --entire process of unionizing-- to make it ancient history, yes.

Well I disagree based on knowing that in the past, unions have been racist as hell. If the entire country got 100% unionized, I would imagine that white privilege and some of the disparities between white and black would probably be reduced somewhat, but I cannot imagine that they would be entirely eliminated. I know too much about this insane country's past to believe that.

[Seabass]

So no limit whatsoever on the scope of "white privilege" regardless of anyone's actual conditions. Your homeless, but its still better to be homeless than homeless and black!

--right, sorry, I'd offer a bit of the benefits of being white, but I'm a bit indisposed at the moment.

Statistically, if you are white, you are far less likely to be homeless than if you are black, and if you do find yourself homeless, you are more like to receive help, less likely to be a victim of violence, etc.

[Sean Hayden]

--unreal

[Sean Hayden]

It's simply pointing out that "white privilege" cannot account for the better conditions of white workers where they exist.

But it DOES account for white workers being better off than black workers, whether or not they are unionized, whether they are in the north or the south, whether or not they are vegetarians, whether or not they listen to jazz music, whether they prefer domestic beer to imported, whether or not they drive a sedan or an SUV, etc, etc...

But it doesn't. Unionization accounts for improved conditions for white workers.

And black workers. BUT, white workers are still advantaged over black workers. And that's white privilege.

Nobody is denying that. Again, in her piece white privilege does more work than that.

[pErvinalia]

She's denying it. Again:

Furthermore, the privilege theory of causation – Black workers get less because white workers get more, and its corollary – flies in the face of American reality.

[Sean Hayden]

She's denying blacks get less because whites get more. She talks about the idea that whites have entered into some kind of agreement whereby they benefit so long as they don't upset the status quo. She denies that privilege.

Have you read it yet?

The term “privileges” was used to describe measures, such as relatively decent schools and medical care, to which whites received greater access. The problem with this conception is that these measures, rather than representing undeserved “privileges”, were in fact reforms won by the working class through bitter struggle. These class gains represented the return of a small part of the great wealth held by capitalists that workers had produced. Privilege theory – on the basis of unequal access to these gains under racist American capitalism – converted hard-won class victories, reforms and rights into “undeserved” workers’ “privileges”.

The privilege model, moreover, was producing radicals who tried to convince American workers that they were getting more than their fair share, and that they should give up their already inadequate lifestyles, possessions and class gains. It was manna from heaven for the ruling class.

--emphasis mine