Jump to content

Mentions of Privilege


Recommended Posts

 

 

MY COMMENT


I read the article. Franlin leonard said:"when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" but he chose the wrong phrase. He talks about feelings but the issue is desires. The equation is simple. Fiscal capitalism in the USA doesn't work on merit or knowledge or erudition or wisdom. It works on inheritance + opportunity.  Whites are accustomed to a greater inheritance + opportunity than any other. That is why their forebears killed the native american for this land and enslaved blacks, no matter where we came from, to till it. This was to provide their future generations greater inheritance + opportunity. But whites comprehend what equality is, beyond what it feels like. Equality financially is a lessening of inheritance + opportunity for those getting the most. It is a simple financial loss. Black people do ourselves a disservice making equality  an issue of feelings, and not a financial loss, for whites. Black people want equality not to feel free, freedom doesn't come from equality. Black people want equality to gain more inheritance + opportunity. 

Another issue is the word slavery is never mentioned in these sort of articles. I quote the article:"Hierarchy-flattening programs like affirmative action wouldn't be necessary if Black Americans received equal opportunities. "  Black Americans were enslaved to white americans, that heritage is the basis to inequality. The USA didn't start with Native Americans+Blacks+Whites free and equal and Blacks+Native Americans had their equality taken away by whites. The USA was born with Blacks+ NAtive Americans enslaved/murdered/oppressed.  It wasn't like when the war between the states ended blacks+whites were equal. The author makes it seem like the modern era from 1968 to now matters. But it doesn't. The inequality black people refer to is American, is historic, is a heritage. 

I think the inability of Black people to mention fiscal capital context when it comes to the phenotypical racial relationships as well as the inability or lack of desire to connect slavery to the modern situation are dysfunctions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Privilege is a slippery slope. I think black people have weaponized the word racist, and "privilege" is an exponent of weaponization.  It's been said that "to he who carries a hammer, everyone else becomes a nail", an adage somewhat applicable to the dynamic between Blacks and White America. 

 

Among the greatest concerns of responsible and prominent white leadership is the ongoing threat of being labeled "racist" by the black community. Even Conservative right wingers deny being racists, portraying themselves as such things as patriots concerned about their country. Nobody wants to be called a racist. All the "Karens" out there would swear up and down that they are not racist.  But when the hammer comes down, these entitled bitches  are left bent out of shape and forever stigmatized.

 

The recent  high visibility of  blacks in the media and the government and corporate America, are all gestures this  institutionalized racist country have made to placate America's slave descendants, providing them with the privilege to represent their race.  This should be a right, but in the real world, that remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cynique  when i look at the history of the USA. The community of people in the USA who publicly+functionally act aracial + equal in treating every other human being has grown since the time of the thirteen colonies. the problem is, not all blacks , not all whites, not all native americans, not all men, not all women, not all christians, not all muslims, not all anglos, not all latinos, not all elders, not all children,  have embraced the idea of equality for all races. And the reason is simple. the people who have financially profited in the usa the most , always take advantage of others. always.  Now anyone can argue, that happens in human history , anywhere. but the problem is what you allide to in your last sentence in your prose Cynique. You talk of rights. that is the USA problem. The USA is like all other governments in human history , based on one group taking advantage of others, whether internally or externally or both. but, the USA has the oldest legal code among current governments in humanity where equality is inferred as a universal right. So if you look at historical fact aside the usa legal projection, the solution is to end the idea that equality should be a right. The preamble of the consitution of the USA written by white slaveowners  is the problem. the community of people in the usa who adhere by it, while larger than ever before, are not necessarily the majority populace in the usa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, richardmurray said:

@Cynique  when i look at the history of the USA. The community of people in the USA who publicly+functionally act aracial + equal in treating every other human being has grown since the time of the thirteen colonies. the problem is, not all blacks , not all whites, not all native americans, not all men, not all women, not all christians, not all muslims, not all anglos, not all latinos, not all elders, not all children,  have embraced the idea of equality for all races. And the reason is simple. the people who have financially profited in the usa the most , always take advantage of others. always.  Now anyone can argue, that happens in human history , anywhere. but the problem is what you allide to in your last sentence in your prose Cynique. You talk of rights. that is the USA problem. The USA is like all other governments in human history , based on one group taking advantage of others, whether internally or externally or both. but, the USA has the oldest legal code among current governments in humanity where equality is inferred as a universal right. So if you look at historical fact aside the usa legal projection, the solution is to end the idea that equality should be a right. The preamble of the consitution of the USA written by white slaveowners  is the problem. the community of people in the usa who adhere by it, while larger than ever before, are not necessarily the majority populace in the usa. 

 

Ultimately does this go beyond race and extend to class? After all powerful monied whites including the Founding Fathers were rich and waged a war of national liberation against British rule because they hated taxes and government control. Black enslavement and the genocide of Indigenous people were certainly racist, but also class driven economics. The least well off landless and small farmers after the Revolution needed land political leaders opened the West to expansion killing off even more indigenous people than in were exterminated in the original thirteen colonies.

 

Jump forward today and if you notice the assault on welfare programs including Social Security and Medicare and union busting in the name of individualism, self reliance, economic growth, and fiscal control are done by those critical even hostile to political reforms that advance freedom and racial equality. 

 

Even wealthy and middle class blacks who get over are often opposed to critiques and class based actions challenging Corporate Capitalism because these blacks benefit more from legal and social equality with whites yet poor and working class blacks need material economic equality. 

 

When we talk about race and privilege class cannot be denied. It's not just systemic white racism. Uncontrolled Corporate Capitalism and those with money exploiting poor and working people is the other side. The latter can come in blackface just as readily as white.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@KENNETH 

Quote

Ultimately does this go beyond race and extend to class? 

your first question is provocative, for the work. why? Your first question does three things. These three things are merely displayed for multilog, not to make a relevant point. 

1) it separates the word race or class in terms of their definition. when I use race or class I use them interchangeably. Race in the usa, for most people is phenotypical race. but religious race/gender race/financial race/age race also exist. Race is an unbounded word for me. So when I use the word race I am not suggesting it refers to the phenotypical only. In parallel, Class in the usa , for most people is financial class. But religious class/gender class/phenotypical class/age class also exist. Class is an unbounded word for me. When I use class or race, I see them equal in value to the words rank , order, classification, status, culture, heritage which all have the same root definition, at least to me; Arrangements based on a value. Yes heritage is what you carry, the value is your forebears way of life. Culture is what you grow, the value is your choice of way of life. Status is a label, the value is how others mark you. But all of said words are arrangements based on a value. 

2) you dont' mention it explicitly, but you place phenotypical race/class under or less than financial class/race. Personally, I think the emphasis or potency of orders/ranks/races/classes between themselves is based on a given populace to mull over. In the USA many people are fiscal capitalist, not all, but many. But the problem is many people in the USA are socialist, and socialism at its core is a system of one financial race. The worker. The problem with socialism is, the landless vagrant when they have a house may want more. And socialism doesn't have a financial upward mobility. It doesn't have downward, but it doesn't have upward. financial risk+reward is absent. Thus why most in humanity speak in socialist terms, the 1% in every country in humanity is majority fiscal capitalist. So, it financial orders greater than phenotypical orders. In my historical view, no. But, it all depends on the time and place. In the USA many, across class/racial lines want to create a consensus of finance>phenotype. but why?

3) why does a multiclassist or multiracial community  in the USA accept the concept of financial arrangements being superior to non financial arrangements? They feel it is the solution to peace. The USA is too multicultural in religion, phenotpye, language, gender, age, to use one of those factors for the majority. BUt, many in the USA feel that the commonly called middle class, is a financial race a majority can be a part of in the usa. Sequentially, financial race is superior to phenotypical class for said folk. Now, I argue, the USA has never had a majority above poor and below rich. The majority in the usa have always been poor. Before the war between the states that is unquestionable. After is where statistical assessment comes into play. The USA has been in the business of using statistical assessment, which is arithmetically proven can be used to attest to anything, to suggest a middle financial class has existed and needs to be reclaimed.

 

What is the relevant point? None of what I said before. I did say the prior wasn't relevant, just for multilog.  The relevant point is aracial. 

It is not going beyond race into class. As you alluded to, race/class go hand in hand. But, systems of classification always go hand in hand in any government in humanities history. The reality is, governments are themselves a class or race. Which undercuts why those who try to get away from races or classes ala aracial/aclassist usually fail. To restate, the usa is a fiscal capitalistic country, which demands poeple in it exists in races/clases/orders based on the trading of goods. Those with the most as you said ...

Quote

 After all powerful monied whites including the Founding Fathers were rich and waged a war of national liberation against British rule because they hated taxes and government control. Black enslavement and the genocide of Indigenous people were certainly racist, but also class driven economics. The least well off landless and small farmers after the Revolution needed land political leaders opened the West to expansion killing off even more indigenous people than in were exterminated in the original thirteen colonies.

 

Jump forward today and if you notice the assault on welfare programs including Social Security and Medicare and union busting in the name of individualism, self reliance, economic growth, and fiscal control are done by those critical even hostile to political reforms that advance freedom and racial equality. 

 

Even wealthy and middle class blacks who get over are often opposed to critiques and class based actions challenging Corporate Capitalism because these blacks benefit more from legal and social equality with whites yet poor and working class blacks need material economic equality. 

 

When we talk about race and privilege class cannot be denied. It's not just systemic white racism. Uncontrolled Corporate Capitalism and those with money exploiting poor and working people is the other side. The latter can come in blackface just as readily as white.

 

...which I concur to, in the modern usa , maintain the system of inequality, though I add it is also those that do not have who want to be in the advantaged inequal position as well.  But the question I posed to cynique is , maybe the flaw isn't that the have's abuse the have not, but the legal system in the usa, suggests that the have's shouldn't. I think the problem in the USA is the legal system is aracial or aclassist or at its core absent an arrangement. I daresay the usa legal structure allows for global citizenry. But the functional problem is the populace in the usa or the larger humanity is using a system of intermingled races/classes to align itself. which doesn't fit the legal system of the usa, and thus the constant clashes. The legal system is the problem. Most in the USA don't desire it but live under it, don't live by it, but live under it. and that creates problems when it comes to how privilege is approached. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, richardmurray said:

@KENNETH 

your first question is provocative, for the work. why? Your first question does three things. These three things are merely displayed for multilog, not to make a relevant point. 

1) it separates the word race or class in terms of their definition. when I use race or class I use them interchangeably. Race in the usa, for most people is phenotypical race. but religious race/gender race/financial race/age race also exist. Race is an unbounded word for me. So when I use the word race I am not suggesting it refers to the phenotypical only. In parallel, Class in the usa , for most people is financial class. But religious class/gender class/phenotypical class/age class also exist. Class is an unbounded word for me. When I use class or race, I see them equal in value to the words rank , order, classification, status, culture, heritage which all have the same root definition, at least to me; Arrangements based on a value. Yes heritage is what you carry, the value is your forebears way of life. Culture is what you grow, the value is your choice of way of life. Status is a label, the value is how others mark you. But all of said words are arrangements based on a value. 

2) you dont' mention it explicitly, but you place phenotypical race/class under or less than financial class/race. Personally, I think the emphasis or potency of orders/ranks/races/classes between themselves is based on a given populace to mull over. In the USA many people are fiscal capitalist, not all, but many. But the problem is many people in the USA are socialist, and socialism at its core is a system of one financial race. The worker. The problem with socialism is, the landless vagrant when they have a house may want more. And socialism doesn't have a financial upward mobility. It doesn't have downward, but it doesn't have upward. financial risk+reward is absent. Thus why most in humanity speak in socialist terms, the 1% in every country in humanity is majority fiscal capitalist. So, it financial orders greater than phenotypical orders. In my historical view, no. But, it all depends on the time and place. In the USA many, across class/racial lines want to create a consensus of finance>phenotype. but why?

3) why does a multiclassist or multiracial community  in the USA accept the concept of financial arrangements being superior to non financial arrangements? They feel it is the solution to peace. The USA is too multicultural in religion, phenotpye, language, gender, age, to use one of those factors for the majority. BUt, many in the USA feel that the commonly called middle class, is a financial race a majority can be a part of in the usa. Sequentially, financial race is superior to phenotypical class for said folk. Now, I argue, the USA has never had a majority above poor and below rich. The majority in the usa have always been poor. Before the war between the states that is unquestionable. After is where statistical assessment comes into play. The USA has been in the business of using statistical assessment, which is arithmetically proven can be used to attest to anything, to suggest a middle financial class has existed and needs to be reclaimed.

 

What is the relevant point? None of what I said before. I did say the prior wasn't relevant, just for multilog.  The relevant point is aracial. 

It is not going beyond race into class. As you alluded to, race/class go hand in hand. But, systems of classification always go hand in hand in any government in humanities history. The reality is, governments are themselves a class or race. Which undercuts why those who try to get away from races or classes ala aracial/aclassist usually fail. To restate, the usa is a fiscal capitalistic country, which demands poeple in it exists in races/clases/orders based on the trading of goods. Those with the most as you said ...

...which I concur to, in the modern usa , maintain the system of inequality, though I add it is also those that do not have who want to be in the advantaged inequal position as well.  But the question I posed to cynique is , maybe the flaw isn't that the have's abuse the have not, but the legal system in the usa, suggests that the have's shouldn't. I think the problem in the USA is the legal system is aracial or aclassist or at its core absent an arrangement. I daresay the usa legal structure allows for global citizenry. But the functional problem is the populace in the usa or the larger humanity is using a system of intermingled races/classes to align itself. which doesn't fit the legal system of the usa, and thus the constant clashes. The legal system is the problem. Most in the USA don't desire it but live under it, don't live by it, but live under it. and that creates problems when it comes to how privilege is approached. 

 

 

I use the terms race and class separately. 

 

1. Race is a social construct not a fact of nature. It is often used to define those different from us as subhuman and lacking dignity. It is used to treat others unjustly. This is especially the case in Western Civilization and specifically the US. 

 

2.  In a social sense class refers to differences in status, prestige, and privilege. Of course, all this is backed by wealth and income. So of course it's economic. Often times when I write or think about class it is in the Socialist framework - there are the wealthy owners of capital and workers which is everyone else. 

 

Thanks Richard Murray.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...