Kristen Gillibrand Gives a Powerful Explanation of White Privilege

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR

She is irrelevant and is actually hurting her chance to remain in office the longer she stays in the race.

+1

old news

She just needs to stop.

OP here. I don't think she should be running for President but that doesn't mean her answer to that question wasn't spot on. It was really good.

How did s that a good answer to the woman’s question. She said it is a totally different issue and, just because it is a different issue, it is more important to address that white families living in a poverty.

In her example about bailing out a white kid, she falsely assumed that this white family have money to bail out - these people barely can pay their day to day bills, and struggling to feed their kids. How are s that a good answer if it does not address concerns of the large group of voters?

Don't bother, some of the poorest communities in this country are white but because they're "white trash" they obviously aren't as well liked by these politicians and their ilk.

12:22 here. I want to clarify something. I do think her answer was a very good one but also think that poor whites have it very rough. It's just that even poor whites have been able to use facilities, attend schools, and buy property, etc in a way that black men and women couldn't.

oops. 21:22

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR

She is irrelevant and is actually hurting her chance to remain in office the longer she stays in the race.

+1

old news

She just needs to stop.

OP here. I don't think she should be running for President but that doesn't mean her answer to that question wasn't spot on. It was really good.

How did s that a good answer to the woman’s question. She said it is a totally different issue and, just because it is a different issue, it is more important to address that white families living in a poverty.

In her example about bailing out a white kid, she falsely assumed that this white family have money to bail out - these people barely can pay their day to day bills, and struggling to feed their kids. How are s that a good answer if it does not address concerns of the large group of voters?

Don't bother, some of the poorest communities in this country are white but because they're "white trash" they obviously aren't as well liked by these politicians and their ilk.

12:22 here. I want to clarify something. I do think her answer was a very good one but also think that poor whites have it very rough. It's just that even poor whites have been able to use facilities, attend schools, and buy property, etc in a way that black men and women couldn't.

oops. 21:22

Yeah, that was her whole point. It's not that poor whites in towns with dying industries don't have it rough, they do. But at least they have been able to attend schools and drink from the same water fountains and apply for jobs without having their color of their skin be an immediate no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR

She is irrelevant and is actually hurting her chance to remain in office the longer she stays in the race.

+1

old news

She just needs to stop.

OP here. I don't think she should be running for President but that doesn't mean her answer to that question wasn't spot on. It was really good.

+1

And I agree with other posters that poor whites have it rough. If you're not in the 0.1%, you ain't $hit. We are becoming more of an oligarchy every day.

[Anonymous]

After watching her constantly interrupt the other candidates during the debate and repeatedly exceed her allotted time, I have no interest in anything she might have to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I didn't know she had this in her. What a thoughtful answer to an important question.

At Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)’s roundtable at Youngstown, Ohio, on Thursday, a white woman holding a baby in her arms asked how Democrats could throw around the term “white privilege” when her community was struggling.

Question: I hear you saying there is a lot of divisive language coming from Republicans, coming from Trump and that we are looking for ways to blame each other. But the Democratic Party loves to throw around terms like white privilege. Now this is an area that across all demographics has been depressed because of the loss of its industry and the opioids crisis. So what do you have to say to people in this area about so-called white privilege?

Gillibrand: So, I understand that families in this community are suffering deeply. I am fully hear from you and folks that I’ve talked to just in a few minutes that I’ve been here, that is devastating when you’ve lost your job, you’ve lost your ability to provide for your kids, that when you put 20, 30 years into a company that all of the sudden doesn’t care about you or won’t call you back and gives you a day to move. That is not acceptable and not okay. So no one in that circumstance is privileged on any level, but that’s not what that conversation is about.

Question: What is it about?

Gillibrand: I’m going to explain.

What the conversation is about is when a community has been left behind for generations because of the color of their skin. When you’ve been denied job, after job, after job because you’re black or because you’re brown. Or when you go to the emergency room to have your baby. The fact that we have the highest maternal mortality rate and if you are a black woman you are four times more likely to die in childbirth because that healthcare provider doesn’t believe you when you say I don’t feel right. Because he doesn’t value you. Or because she doesn’t value you.

So institutional racism is real. It doesn’t take away your pain or suffering. It’s just a different issue. Your suffering is just as important as a black or brown persons suffering but to fix the problems that are happening in a black community you need far more transformational efforts that targeted for real racism that exists every day.

So if your son, is 15 years old and smokes pot. He smokes pot just as much as black boy in his neighborhood and the Latino boy in his neighborhood. But that black and brown boy is four times more likely to get arrested. When he’s arrested that criminal justice system might require him to pay bail. 500 bucks. That kid does not have 500 bucks he might not be able to make bail. As an adult with a child at home and he’s a single parent, if he is thrown in jail no one is with his child. It doesn’t matter what he says, I have to go home, I have a child at home, he’s only 12. What am I going to do. It doesn’t matter.


Imagine as a parent how you would feel so helpless. That’s institutional racism. Your son will likely not have to deal with that because he is white. So when someone says white privilege, that is all they are talking about. That his whiteness will mean that a police officer might give him a second chance. It might mean that he doesn’t get incarcerated because he had just smoked a joint with his girlfriend. It might mean that he won’t have to post bail. It means he might be able to show up to work the next day and lose his job and not be in the cycle of poverty that never ends. That’s all it is.

But it doesn’t mean that [doesn’t] deserve my voice, lifting up your challenge. It also doesn’t mean that black and brown people are left to fight these challenges on their own. A white woman like me who is a senator and running for president of the United States. Has to list up their voice just as much as I would lift up yours. That’s all it means. It doesn’t take away from you at all. It just means we have to recognize suffering in all its forms and solve it in each place intentionally and with knowledge about what we are up against.

How about this, Cupcake: NONE of them should be smoking pot in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR

She is irrelevant and is actually hurting her chance to remain in office the longer she stays in the race.

+1

old news

She just needs to stop.

OP here. I don't think she should be running for President but that doesn't mean her answer to that question wasn't spot on. It was really good.

How did s that a good answer to the woman’s question. She said it is a totally different issue and, just because it is a different issue, it is more important to address that white families living in a poverty.

In her example about bailing out a white kid, she falsely assumed that this white family have money to bail out - these people barely can pay their day to day bills, and struggling to feed their kids. How are s that a good answer if it does not address concerns of the large group of voters?

Don't bother, some of the poorest communities in this country are white but because they're "white trash" they obviously aren't as well liked by these politicians and their ilk.

12:22 here. I want to clarify something. I do think her answer was a very good one but also think that poor whites have it very rough. It's just that even poor whites have been able to use facilities, attend schools, and buy property, etc in a way that black men and women couldn't.

Are white women not women now? AFAIK the poorest region in America isn't even in a stereotypical ghetto, but some rural area in Kentucky, and the poverty is multigenerational. Not every state practiced strict segregation either and blacks weren't the only ones subjected to it.

[Anonymous]

She acts as if politicians haven’t been trying to address these issues for 50 years and affirmative action hasn’t been in place for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR

She is irrelevant and is actually hurting her chance to remain in office the longer she stays in the race.

+1

old news

She just needs to stop.

OP here. I don't think she should be running for President but that doesn't mean her answer to that question wasn't spot on. It was really good.

+1

And I agree with other posters that poor whites have it rough. If you're not in the 0.1%, you ain't $hit. We are becoming more of an oligarchy every day.

No better example of that than in the DMV.

[Anonymous]

There was nothing great or powerful about her answer. Democrats have been oppressing minorities for generations. This was pure pandering.

[Anonymous]

What is holding back poor whites from progress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I didn't know she had this in her. What a thoughtful answer to an important question.

At Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)’s roundtable at Youngstown, Ohio, on Thursday, a white woman holding a baby in her arms asked how Democrats could throw around the term “white privilege” when her community was struggling.

Question: I hear you saying there is a lot of divisive language coming from Republicans, coming from Trump and that we are looking for ways to blame each other. But the Democratic Party loves to throw around terms like white privilege. Now this is an area that across all demographics has been depressed because of the loss of its industry and the opioids crisis. So what do you have to say to people in this area about so-called white privilege?

Gillibrand: So, I understand that families in this community are suffering deeply. I am fully hear from you and folks that I’ve talked to just in a few minutes that I’ve been here, that is devastating when you’ve lost your job, you’ve lost your ability to provide for your kids, that when you put 20, 30 years into a company that all of the sudden doesn’t care about you or won’t call you back and gives you a day to move. That is not acceptable and not okay. So no one in that circumstance is privileged on any level, but that’s not what that conversation is about.

Question: What is it about?

Gillibrand: I’m going to explain.

What the conversation is about is when a community has been left behind for generations because of the color of their skin. When you’ve been denied job, after job, after job because you’re black or because you’re brown. Or when you go to the emergency room to have your baby. The fact that we have the highest maternal mortality rate and if you are a black woman you are four times more likely to die in childbirth because that healthcare provider doesn’t believe you when you say I don’t feel right. Because he doesn’t value you. Or because she doesn’t value you.

So institutional racism is real. It doesn’t take away your pain or suffering. It’s just a different issue. Your suffering is just as important as a black or brown persons suffering but to fix the problems that are happening in a black community you need far more transformational efforts that targeted for real racism that exists every day.

So if your son, is 15 years old and smokes pot. He smokes pot just as much as black boy in his neighborhood and the Latino boy in his neighborhood. But that black and brown boy is four times more likely to get arrested. When he’s arrested that criminal justice system might require him to pay bail. 500 bucks. That kid does not have 500 bucks he might not be able to make bail. As an adult with a child at home and he’s a single parent, if he is thrown in jail no one is with his child. It doesn’t matter what he says, I have to go home, I have a child at home, he’s only 12. What am I going to do. It doesn’t matter.


Imagine as a parent how you would feel so helpless. That’s institutional racism. Your son will likely not have to deal with that because he is white. So when someone says white privilege, that is all they are talking about. That his whiteness will mean that a police officer might give him a second chance. It might mean that he doesn’t get incarcerated because he had just smoked a joint with his girlfriend. It might mean that he won’t have to post bail. It means he might be able to show up to work the next day and lose his job and not be in the cycle of poverty that never ends. That’s all it is.

But it doesn’t mean that [doesn’t] deserve my voice, lifting up your challenge. It also doesn’t mean that black and brown people are left to fight these challenges on their own. A white woman like me who is a senator and running for president of the United States. Has to list up their voice just as much as I would lift up yours. That’s all it means. It doesn’t take away from you at all. It just means we have to recognize suffering in all its forms and solve it in each place intentionally and with knowledge about what we are up against.

This IS a thoughtful, good, nuanced answer.

And it is why Democrats lose with white voters.

Why are we so attached to the term "white privilege" when it is basically scolding the biggest voting demographic and requires 4 paragraphs to explain to people so that they are not offended? Whose idea was that?

People do not want nuance. People do not want complexity. People do not want their political party, and by extension, the government, to tell them how to be a "better person." And the Democratic Party does not want to meet them where they are.

You want to correct the criminal justice system? Infant mortality? Why don't we talk about these ISSUES and work to correct them instead of giving lip service to institutional racism and ultimately getting nothing done because no one is going to vote for someone who says they have some sort of unfair privilege?

The older I get the more liberal I get in my positions and the more frustrated I grow with the lack of common sense in the Democratic party. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She acts as if politicians haven’t been trying to address these issues for 50 years and affirmative action hasn’t been in place for decades.

THIS.

She has an earned reputation of saying anything and doing nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR

She is irrelevant and is actually hurting her chance to remain in office the longer she stays in the race.

+1

old news

She just needs to stop.

OP here. I don't think she should be running for President but that doesn't mean her answer to that question wasn't spot on. It was really good.

How did s that a good answer to the woman’s question. She said it is a totally different issue and, just because it is a different issue, it is more important to address that white families living in a poverty.

In her example about bailing out a white kid, she falsely assumed that this white family have money to bail out - these people barely can pay their day to day bills, and struggling to feed their kids. How are s that a good answer if it does not address concerns of the large group of voters?

+1.

She's just trying to pander to the crazy wing of the Dem Party, since they are overrepresented in the primaries.

Good luck with selling your soul to the devil

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is a great explanation!!

Actually it’s a pack of lies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a great explanation!!

Actually it’s a pack of lies

You sound smart.