For those who think privilege isn't real and that white fears of oppression by Obama/blacks is real-

[Anonymous]

http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/black-powers-gonna-get-you-sucka-right-wing-paranoia-and-rhetoric-modern-racism

Wise's tone can be a bit much, but there is no denying the facts he offers, especially when they are as meticulously sourced as these are.

[Anonymous]

The problem, Goose, is that most Whites simply do not feel the kind of anger that the author says they do. Some Whites may have felt anger over some of those things, and some Whites may have said those silly things.

The truth is, only an asshole would be pissed because higher taxes are being imposed on tanning booths. Those things are melanoma machines and everybody sensible person knows it. Except some assholes. And assholes and racist often overlap, so it shouldn't be surprising that an asshole would attribute a tax on their use of a melanoma machine to racism.

But taking lots of examples in which a few White assholes behave in a racist manner does not make most Whites racist. Nor does it support the notion that most Whites have privileges that they did not earn and do not deserve.

You and your cited pal actually have some valid points. But you paint White people with way too broad of a brush and that's why your arguments are not particularly effective and can actually alienate some Whites who would otherwise agree with you.

[Anonymous]

...who is goose...?

[Anonymous]

FWIW, the opening line of the article: "Prominent white conservatives are angry about racism."

And then he links to prominent white conservatives being angry about racism, but racism by blacks against whites only.

Sooooo... how are broad strokes being used? Oh yea... because you can't read.

[Anonymous]

The broad brush is being used in that the article implies that lots of Whites are angry about racism by Blacks towards Whites. This is simply not the case. A fairly small group of silly Whites feel that way. Tea-party Whites. Most of us do not. And many of the examples in the article are not even about alleged racism by Blacks against Whites. Blacks aren't seeking to impose a tax on tanning booths. The government is, with the help of cancer advocates. Some silly Whites may call that racism against Whites, but I doubt even any of those silly people think that Blacks are the cause of the tax.

[Anonymous]

Again, I refer you to the opening line of the article. He is speaking specifically about prominent white conservatives, largely pundits but some of them in the government, who believe that. He says specifically and explicitly who he is talking about and then links to sources demonstrating folks holding the believes he speaks of. He does not speak of whites in general.

And while it is easy to dismiss this as simply crazies on the fringe, unfortunately, that is not the case. Many of these people are major players with lots of followers. That's not to say their followers necessarily believe this shit, but these folks do carry influence.

So, we can argue over just who specifically holds these believes and how influential they are... or we can recognize that this shit is REAL and do something about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The broad brush is being used in that the article implies that lots of Whites are angry about racism by Blacks towards Whites. This is simply not the case. A fairly small group of silly Whites feel that way. Tea-party Whites. Most of us do not. And many of the examples in the article are not even about alleged racism by Blacks against Whites. Blacks aren't seeking to impose a tax on tanning booths. The government is, with the help of cancer advocates. Some silly Whites may call that racism against Whites, but I doubt even any of those silly people think that Blacks are the cause of the tax.

Some Tea Party whites, some non-Tea Party whites. I have also experienced/observed reverse racism, not only black to white, but minority to minority. To characterize the whole for the part is wrong in any scenario. That's why that essay 'the white man's backpack' made me want to barf every time we were forced to read it in grad school. It would have been interesting as a conversation starter, but was presented as the holy grail of truth. Racism should be discussed, but I would speak from direct experience, patterns and stats, but avoid vast generalizations about whole groups of people (ie white conservatives, Tea Party whites).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broad brush is being used in that the article implies that lots of Whites are angry about racism by Blacks towards Whites. This is simply not the case. A fairly small group of silly Whites feel that way. Tea-party Whites. Most of us do not. And many of the examples in the article are not even about alleged racism by Blacks against Whites. Blacks aren't seeking to impose a tax on tanning booths. The government is, with the help of cancer advocates. Some silly Whites may call that racism against Whites, but I doubt even any of those silly people think that Blacks are the cause of the tax.

Some Tea Party whites, some non-Tea Party whites. I have also experienced/observed reverse racism, not only black to white, but minority to minority. To characterize the whole for the part is wrong in any scenario. That's why that essay 'the white man's backpack' made me want to barf every time we were forced to read it in grad school. It would have been interesting as a conversation starter, but was presented as the holy grail of truth. Racism should be discussed, but I would speak from direct experience, patterns and stats, but avoid vast generalizations about whole groups of people (ie white conservatives, Tea Party whites).

True, but the poll data on race and the tea party shows a distinct difference there with non-tea party whites.

[Anonymous]

Yeah. I'm sure that the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and Babe Buchanan are really pissed that those Blacks are trying to tax their tanning beds.

[Anonymous]

FWIW, the use of the term "white conservatives" and "tea partiers" was brought in by one of the posters and is not present in the article itself. The article speaks about prominent white conservatives and then links to those being discussed. There are NO broad strokes used in the article, only in the faulty analysis that was brought here. An individual imagined broad strokes and responded with his/her own only slightly narrower strokes.

[Anonymous]

There *is* denying the facts that he offers. I don't have time to unpack them all, but here is what he claims re: vehicle and person searches:

"Or maybe it's because of the data from the Justice Department, to the effect that blacks are far more likely than whites to have their cars and persons searched after a traffic stop, even though whites, when searched, are more than four times as likely to have drugs or other illegal contraband on us?"

Here is what the cited document actually says about the racial profiling that is implied by OP's link:

"However, while the survey data can reveal these racial disparities, they cannot answer the question of whether the driver's race, rather than the driver's conduct or other specific circumstances surrounding the stop, was the reason for the search. The survey asked few questions about circumstances or driver conduct. For example, having drugs in plain view of police is a circumstance that would normally warrant a legal search of the vehicle. But since the survey did not ask drivers whether any drugs within plain view were in the vehicle, the analysis is necessarily limited." (BJS Report at 11.)

While I don't quarrel with the data itself showing differential incidence of searches -- it is telling, however, that the authors of the cited report themselves stated that their study was insufficient to establish racial profiling, a fact not highlighted in OP's link -- there is no evidence given in the cited document to suggest that "racism" is the motivating factor for the stop, unless you think that by definition, any statistical disproportion in searches = racism by definition. I don't, but I know that some people do.

[Anonymous]

The truth is, only an asshole would be pissed because higher taxes are being imposed on tanning booths. Those things are melanoma machines and everybody sensible person knows it. Except some assholes.

Right. The thing to keep in mind is that only *some* people feel this way. Of course, they're complete assholes, they're immature, poorly socialized, etc... But they're a minority of folks in general.

Unfortunately, they make up one of the more powerful voting blocks of the Republican base, along with religious hypocrites, so they hold an outsized influence on public policy...

[Anonymous]

Wrong. A very small group of people support tanning booths. That group was too weak to defeat a measure requiring consent for anyone under 18 to use them in Columbia MD. In about 5-10 years, you'll be able to find a pay phone easier than a tanning booth. Somehow I just don't see Bill Frist fighting very hard for Whites to kill themselves in tanning booths.

[Anonymous]

Wrong[...]Somehow I just don't see Bill Frist fighting very hard for Whites to kill themselves in tanning booths.

True, but the fucking mouth-breathing imbeciles that make up the GOP base don't care about that stuff; they just want more evidence that Obama's a racist Islamo-Nazi who takes from hard-working whites, and gives to shiftless, lazy blacks. They're idiots, they're not a majority of Americans by any stretch...but without them, the GOP would never win another election:

http://wonkette.com/416574/tanning-salon-tax-is-yet-another-example-of-reverse-racism-in-obamas-america

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't go quite so far as PP, but there definitely is a very dangerous and scary trend toward folks equating anything Obama does that doesn't directly favor whites over blacks as racism. And when he does take steps that directly or indirectly help the black community or black individuals, he is more openly denounced as engaging in "reverse racism".

This is simply unfair. Was every measure taken by a white president that directly or indirectly benefited white folks evidence of blatant racism on the part of that President? Clearly not. So to do that for Obama is unfair and ultimately demonstrates its own form of racism. How pervasive this is, how representative these groups/individuals leading these cries is hard to know. But this does exist and it's a very troubling trend and demonstrates just how far we have go to on race relations and racial understanding in this country. Post-racial my ass.