Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im not sure about med school, but for business school there are TONS of minority only scholarships......
And yet there has been a drop in enrollment of minorities in MBA programs.
I don't think so. Try another one. Pathetic wails of "what hard a life white men have" merely make me roll over in laughter.
There are many forms of privilege in this country, Being born to educated parents. Being raised in an upper middle class environment. Having wealthy parents.
Yet being white and being male is still a privilege. This country is owned by white men, and run by white men, and white men remain most comfortable dealing with other white men, which allows white men superior access to these hugely beneficial social networks.
Now how one can address this issue is beyond me, but to deny that its a fact is dishonest.
Well, I can only speak for myself. But, I often personally have a visceral negative reaction to the "privilege" stuff. .
Call it what you wish but being born to privilege is a fact of life whether this privilege is being born into wealth, being born to educated parents, being born to parents with strong socio-economic networks, being born in a region with strong educational systems........or being white and male.
But this has nothing to do with their whiteness and everything to do with their richness. Its not a white thing, its a money thing.
And yet most of the folks with money do happen to be white, and are most comfortable with other whites, making it easier for whites from outside of these networks to penetrate once they learn the rules.
Hummmmm.I think you are correct..in that I see it "One of the Same"...It's either privilege or non- privileged..and those non-privileged by statistics are non-white..be that as it may..it always ends up the same...those with less aren't worthy..as like Romney said, "They are the takers"..ya know that pesky 47% of population folk
But this has nothing to do with their whiteness and everything to do with their richness. Its not a white thing, its a money thing.
But being in that position of Old Monied families is due to their Whiteness, For Example. The Kennedy's are classic old money, a Black Family could not have possibly made its fortune in the early 1900s as easily, when most were in the Jim Crow South.
The idea that social mobility should have cured this injustice since 1965has two problems
1 Rags to riches is the exception not the rule in every country on the planet
2. racism did not disappear with the Civil Rights act.
Now most Asian and Hispanics came to this country post 1970 off so and do not have the same systemic issues that faces African Americans.
I think it's more black disprivilege, than white privilege.
Now of course it's more social than legal so I do not know of anything but time that will fix it.
But being in that position of Old Monied families is due to their Whiteness, For Example. The Kennedy's are classic old money, a Black Family could not have possibly made its fortune in the early 1900s as easily, when most were in the Jim Crow South.
The idea that social mobility should have cured this injustice since 1965has two problems
1 Rags to riches is the exception not the rule in every country on the planet
2. racism did not disappear with the Civil Rights act.
Now most Asian and Hispanics came to this country post 1970 off so and do not have the same systemic issues that faces African Americans.
I think it's more black disprivilege, than white privilege.
Now of course it's more social than legal so I do not know of anything but time that will fix it.
People who were in America and fully able to participate in its economy have had a greater opportunity to amass multi-generational wealth, sure, that's on it's own a fact and not really controversial. That the effect lingers, to some extent, today although the impact decreases every year also is pretty clearly factual: it's hard to say how much that's the case (you'd need hard data on the proportion of currently held wealth amassed prior to 50 years ago).
However, my hackles (and I think others too) go up after hearing this, because so often what comes next from a person is that they think people whose families came to America more recently, people whose families were in this country then but did not amass family wealth, and so on are currently significantly advantaged in the current day, which isn't the case. Or that they will say that the people whose families did accumulate wealth wouldn't have done so in a more egalitarian environment -- also broadly not true (excluding plantation owners). Or far worse than any of those inaccurate viewpoints, they will take the lingering statistical effects of past racism as an excuse to advocate for current day racism.
So I get the frustration a lot of people who want white folks to recognize that they historically did have opportunities in this country which others did not enjoy which some (but not all) individuals continue to benefit from the legacy of today, but instead of listening people get hostile because they expect the person saying that to either then follow that up with an apologia for modern-day racism or some "you-didn't-build-that" nonsense -- and frankly the people who do follow up with that deserve far more derision and hostility than they do get, but at the same time people who just want to talk history get flack they don't deserve.
Why do people focus on "white privilage" instead of "non-white disadvantages"?
Possibly because , in the mindset of so many of those who subscribe to the so-called "progressive" ideology, equality of result is of greater importance then equality of opportunity.
The blind pursuit of equality of result, and its apparent veneration by many in positions of influence is, in fact, a sure-fire guarantee that among the vast majority of "also-rans" which, unfortunately. is the usual outcome in any open competition, pressures will develop to use the monopoly on coercion granted to the state to redistribute the rewards.
But in fact, we have of our own accord. and with relatively little hard-core opposition, developed a "safety net" in all advanced societies. The problem lies with the self-appointed "enlightened few" for whom the pursuit of power long ago eclipsed the pursuit of mere wealth.
As expressed in the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers were in basic agreement that "all men are created equal". If we agree to dismiss (for now) the obvious point that the rhetoric of the day did not include women, slaves or other disempowered groups, the point remains that all those "invited" to the "starting line" were to be allowed an equal chance to become unequal.
And in fact, the sum total of the results of 240 years of human progress has addressed many of the slights and oversights to which the chronic complainers are so eager to call attention.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-22-2015 at 06:53 PM..
Why do people focus on "white privilage" instead of "non-white disadvantages"?
Possibly because , in the mindset of so many of those who subscribe to the so-called "progressive" ideology, equality of result is of greater importance then equality of opportunity.
The blind pursuit of equality of result, and its apparent veneration by many in positions of influence is, in fact, a sure-fire guarantee that among the vast majority of "also-rans" which, unfortunately. is the usual outcome in any open competition, pressures will develop to use the monopoly on coercion granted to the state to redistribute the rewards.
But in fact, we have of our own accord. and with relatively little hard-core opposition, developed a "safety net" in all advanced societies. The problem lies with the self-appointed "enlightened few" for whom the pursuit of power long ago eclipsed the pursuit of mere wealth.
As expressed in the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers were in basic agreement that "all men are created equal". If we agree to dismiss (for now) the obvious point that the rhetoric of the day did not include women, slaves or other disempowered groups, the point remains that all those "invited" to the "starting line" were to be allowed an equal chance to become unequal.
And in fact, the sum total of the results of 240 years of human progress has addressed many of the slights and oversights to which the chronic complainers are so eager to call attention.
Blah Blah Blah Blah
This was so difficult to read. So much pointless rhetoric. I could edit half the words out of your argument and say the exact thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
