Race to Our Credit

[Tom]

The usual

[tsihcrana laicos]

I am white, as in skin color, so what privilege does that give me?

All other things being equal: Your'e less likely to be born poor. Your'e less likely to be subjected to police brutality and/or jailed. Your'e more likely to be given a better education. On average, your'e more likly to be treated better. Businesses tend to treat you better. You have an easier time finding employment and an easier time staying employed. Your'e more likely to have a better (higher pay, more prestige, less alienating, etc.) job. And probably other things I don't remember off the top of my head.[/quote]

Me personally, no. That which you listed are not privilege, rather, a lake of degradation.

[Din]

Me personally, no. That which you listed are not privilege, rather, a lake of degradation.

What Morpheus listed, while accurate, is misleading. The privilege that 'white' people enjoy does not come into play only when some action is being considered. The privilege you enjoy exists whether or not you ever encounter police, seek a job or deal with businesses.

Your privilege is that your ethnic background is generally heralded as the norm by which all others are measured by. You do not have to put up with the marginalization that the others have to experience daily because they aren't of the norm. It is a norm that is reinforced constantly through the popular media, the rhetoric of public figures, the academia, the discourse of philosophy and literature, the social upbringing of youths, schooling, cultural influence, etc.

Ethnicity, of course, is not the only factor behind this norm. Gender, sexuality, socio-economic background, age, physical appearance and bodily capabilities all shape that which is normalize as natural and naturalize as normal, while marginalizing all others. The political analogy is the normalization in the United States of the liberal-conservative spectrum to the marginalization of other political alternatives. The way you get marginalized as an anarchist is not dissimilar to the way we get marginalized as non-whites.

[jacobhaller]

But there are confounding issues. A poor white woman is not privileged vis-a-vis a rich black man.

To assume, merely because of the color of their skin, that one person is privileged and another person is oppressed, is to ignore the actual conditions which lead to privilege for some and oppression for others, which sort people into classes.

[Post_industrial]

But there are confounding issues. A poor white woman is not privileged vis-a-vis a rich black man.

To assume, merely because of the color of their skin, that one person is privileged and another person is oppressed, is to ignore the actual conditions which lead to privilege for some and oppression for others, which sort people into classes.

Agree with Jacob. Its one factor out of hundreds or even thousands. Its not even the greatest factor which makes or breaks wether somone is oppressed on not.


I realy didnt like Ys analogy comparing diferent species of animals (One who eats the other) to humans with slightly diferent skin tone hanging out together.

The attitude twards race as a general trend in society varies in diferent cities around the world. In some places (Admittedly some but not all of the richer places to live) being white is generaly seen as an advantage, but not always.

You also dont take into account that racism occurs between diferent strains of "white" people. Irish people for example used to be reffered to as "White Niggers" by the early english invaders of North America. Im sure alot of english people held no animosity at all twards Irish people, but most did. Italians likewise were not concidered white, especialy sicilians. They were darker skined, and unless you are from Northern Italy you are probibly mixed with some Northern African blood. Spanish people are also white, just as white as italians are, maybe more so. Spainish invaders of central and south America definitly played the role of oppressor for a time, but now are extreamly poor. The tribes who live in Spanish controlled governments are even poorer.

Having blond hair and blue eyes for many Aryan Nation type racists is required to being "truly white". Italian, Greek, Spanish, even dark haired english doesnt count. If you found yourself in North Eastern Europe among other racists, being from any of those other "white" countries may still be a racial disadvantage.

There are also times when its dificult to tell which race has been oppressed more then another. Perhaps they both played the role of victim and aggressor at diferent times.

I am mixed race, with dark hair and eyes, with light olive skin that turns darker redish/gold if I stand in the sun long enough. If I stay out of the sun for long enough, I get fairly white, but never like someone from Northern Europe.

I think there is a degree of order and logic to morpheus philosophy that its better from non-white people to hate white people then for white people to hate non-white people, becuase in many cases white people are in a position of power.

However, I think there are also serious flaws in that philosophy that dont take into account alot of important factors. It also becomes an extreamly difficult philosophy to work with when you try to apply those values to all the races on earth, and not just to white people living in America.

[Post_industrial]

But there are confounding issues. A poor white woman is not privileged vis-a-vis a rich black man.

To assume, merely because of the color of their skin, that one person is privileged and another person is oppressed, is to ignore the actual conditions which lead to privilege for some and oppression for others, which sort people into classes.

Agree with Jacob. Its one factor out of hundreds or even thousands. Its not even the greatest factor which makes or breaks wether somone is oppressed on not.


I realy didnt like Ys analogy comparing diferent species of animals (One who eats the other) to humans with slightly diferent skin tone hanging out together.

The attitude twards race as a general trend in society varies in diferent cities around the world. In some places (Admittedly some but not all of the richer places to live) being white is generaly seen as an advantage, but not always.

You also dont take into account that racism occurs between diferent strains of "white" people. Irish people for example used to be reffered to as "White Niggers" by the early english invaders of North America. Im sure alot of english people held no animosity at all twards Irish people, but most did. Italians likewise were not concidered white, especialy sicilians. They were darker skined, and unless you are from Northern Italy you are probibly mixed with some Northern African blood. Spanish people are also white, just as white as italians are, maybe more so. Spainish invaders of central and south America definitly played the role of oppressor for a time, but now are extreamly poor. The tribes who live in Spanish controlled governments are even poorer.

Having blond hair and blue eyes for many Aryan Nation type racists is required to being "truly white". Italian, Greek, Spanish, even dark haired english doesnt count. If you found yourself in North Eastern Europe among other racists, being from any of those other "white" countries may still be a racial disadvantage.

There are also times when its dificult to tell which race has been oppressed more then another. Perhaps they both played the role of victim and aggressor at diferent times.

I am mixed race, with dark hair and eyes, with light olive skin that turns darker redish/gold if I stand in the sun long enough. If I stay out of the sun for long enough, I get fairly white, but never like someone from Northern Europe.

I think there is a degree of order and logic to morpheus philosophy that its better from non-white people to hate white people then for white people to hate non-white people, becuase in many cases white people are in a position of power.

However, I think there are also serious flaws in that philosophy that dont take into account alot of important factors. It also becomes an extreamly difficult philosophy to work with when you try to apply those values to all the races on earth, and not just to white people living in America.

I think its better just to do everything we can to see people as individuals rather then members of a race.

[|Y|]

Din, no actual response?

[|Y|]

I thought about this in another topic.

What is worse, race privledge, or state privledge?

Someone born in the USA is going to be far better off (REGARDLESS OF RACE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER, etc) than someone born in Ethiopia.

Just wondering.

Oh wait, I forgot, Morph is using "white" interchangeably with "wealthy states" because, well, it goes against everyones conception of race, and it confuses the fuck out of people and such. He doesn't mind neglecting, say, white Russians, or Argentines because, well, they're poor whites, and it doesn't fit his corrupted conception of race which is really intended to marginalize people from accepting anarchism. You see, if you're "white" and "in a wealthy state" you should "hate yourself."

But it's okay to be a black person in a wealthy state, despite the fact that you are many many many orders of magnitudes better off than a black person in Ethiopia.

yes i'm racist, etc etc. I suck, I'm a patriot, I hate women, I'm pro bush, pro capitalism etc, thanks and good day!

Now that the insults are out of the way, does anyone care to answer the real question here?

What is worse, race privledge, or state privledge?

[Tom]

That's a pretty dumb example, Y, even for you.

I have, absolutely definetely, on numerous occassions in the past, heard morph say that blacks and other groups in the US or wherever else in the "west" are better of than the rest of the world, because of the rest of the worlds poverty.

Identifying state privalidge (which no-one can deny exists) doesnt not mean white privalidge does not exist.

So great, you've proved some states are richer than others, and that even the oppressed in those rich states are better of because of the exploitation of the poorer states. You're hardly a groundbreaker, there. It's the basics of the anarchist critique of global capitalism, hell, even the liberal critique of global capitalism.

[Din]

I think its better just to do everything we can to see people as individuals rather then members of a race.

Yes, it is. Particularly when the entire construct of a race tend to be rather fictive.

The rest of your points, I believe, are addressed in my reply to Jacob. I think it is foolhardy to compare different experiences of oppression and/or marginalization, as if there is some sort of objective manner in which one can determine who has been the most oppressed.

It is not a badge of honor to be the most oppressed. Nobody should be looking for it.

[Din]

But there are confounding issues.

Yes, hence the last paragraph of my post above.

A poor white woman is not privileged vis-a-vis a rich black man.

The one is privileged through her ethnic background - as compared to a poor black woman. The other is privileged through his gender and socio-economic status - as compared again to a poor black woman.

To assume, merely because of the color of their skin, that one person is privileged and another person is oppressed, is to ignore the actual conditions which lead to privilege for some and oppression for others, which sort people into classes.

Privilege and oppression are not exact opposites. To be marginalized through a lack of privilege does not indicate that one is necessarily oppressed.

One can easily be privileged in certains ways without being privileged in others. The color of one's skin can provide privilege or the lack thereof. This privilege or the lack thereof can be accentuated even further or offset by other factors. Only a minority of people are thoroughly privileged in practically every factor - and this minority, of course, happen to be white, heterosexual males from an advantaged socio-economic background. The rest of us have a fine time balancing our privileges and our lack thereof.

I find that many white anarchists and many male anarchists tend to get defensive when non-whites or females point out their privilege. It's not that we are pointing out your privilege to deride you. There is no need to feel guilty about being privileged as if it was some sort of sin that have to be shorn of as an anarchist. I myself am privileged - through my gender and through my socio-economic background.

There is nothing wrong with privilege. Only the lack of it.

[Din]

Hmm ... the reply to Jacob was supposed to be above to the reply to Post_industrial.

[Post_industrial]

I more or less agree with you Din.

But I dont nessisarily think that hating another individual becuase of certain traits that they have in common with those in power is warranted in all circumstances.

For example, Ive been out to the reservations a few times, and I hear lots of references to the evils of the "Whiteman". I find it hard to judge them for this racist terminology (And I still call it racist even if its somewhat justified) becuase these people have been the victims of the largest genocide in recorded history and continue to live in poverty (In general).

To an extent, I understand Morpheus's point about reverse racism, though I dont agree entirely with the shift in terminology, dont think the analogy works in every instance where there are more factors involved, and also think that there is a diference between understanding why someone might feel resentment and thinking that it is ideal for them to feel resentment.

I dont think it is ever ideal for an individual with physical, cultural, religious, political, economic, or national traits to hate all people who were born into a diferent subgroup.

I think that marginalized individuals may deserve more leeway and understanding when concidering why they feel the way they do twards another group, but we should still be working twards seeing people as individuals rather then our subgroups.

[|Y|]

I find that many white anarchists and many male anarchists tend to get defensive when non-whites or females point out their privilege. It's not that we are pointing out your privilege to deride you. There is no need to feel guilty about being privileged as if it was some sort of sin that have to be shorn of as an anarchist.

Perhaps I'm getting defensive, but it's not becuase it "bothers me" so much that I see it as "ineffective." It's like saying, "okay, the liberals are right, let's attack this issue, let's go lobby congress to pass another affirmative action law" and such.

Think about it this way. If our critique is similar to that of liberals, and liberals outnumber us by a vast majorty, and indeed, work with the capitalists and the state, what use is our critique? It is the same. We have achieved nothing.

It's like, okay, going to some sports game or something and cheering on a team we don't really care about but like the color of their uniforms because they look similar to our own teams.

This is why I am so criticial. Because I see no change. I see no difference. I see liberal when I see anarchists spouting liberal policies. I see politics, when I see anarchists going on about how women are less privledged than me and whites have more privledge than other races. And all I can do is go, "what?" Yes, it's a problem, the civil rights movement has been working on them, capitalism is slowly assimilating them (mind you, this is so very important to point out, capitalism cannot really be hurt by racial and sexual equality). It's getting "fixed." But the underlying problem is not getting fixed, and that is our reliance on the state.

How do anarchists fix it? They cannot through law, that is ridiculous. Bookchin says do it by starving the "degenerates," I guess we could do that. Or maybe we could do it by simply assuming the best and not associating with racists in the first place. Teach a culture of high independence and seek a society with far less interdependency than our capitalist one.

The real sad part of this discussion is that class privledges exist in far far more stark examples outside of the western states, and yet, we don't discuss them. It's almost taboo to criticize other countries for their treatment of their respective peoples.

[jacobhaller]

I agree we should confront privilege.

I don't agree that we should start with skin and talk about 'skin privilege' (regardless of whether this particular 'white' person is actually privileged) and then move on to 'sex privilege' (regardless of whether this particular man...) although there are merits to discussing class privilege and general privilege and to discussiong how different 'racial' or other features build into class privilege and general privilege.

spelleins?