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.
How is the term "white privilege" a racial jab at white people? What historical inaccuracies are included in the term "white privilege" that has caused a detriment or some sort of fear of white people as a whole in our entire country? None that I am aware of and if you are honest, I'm sure you cannot find any way that someone saying that white people have a "privilege" based on not being assumed to be evil (like a Muslim) or a criminal (like a black person) or not trustworthy to judge a case (if they are of Mexican heritage) by the vast majority of Americans.
Well, respectfully, perhaps you should not traffic in racial politics that you don't understand the social effects of on this fragile experiment of a ship.
Quote:
The term "white privilege" is not racial rhetoric in a "racism" or xenophobic sense.
You're wrong.
Maybe it'll assist you to think in analogy. Stating that whites are privileged by virtue of their race is a fair equivalent to anti-Semitic logic that holds Jews are xyz (often equivalents of privileged: rich, powerful etc.) because of their group affiliation: irrespective of their actual background or resources.
The WP movement is basically a ball peen hammer tapping away at a land mine. It's entirely irresponsible, nonsensical, and dangerous given the history of the West. How easy you forget history given a couple of generations of relative cooperation.
Quote:
I also never heard media or a candidate of the Democratic party in this recent campaign say that any white, blue collar people are "stupid." I did see/hear them say "uneducated." Uneducated means they don't have a college education and IMO as a college educated black person, I don't think not having a college education makes someone "stupid." My dad is a high school drop out and he is not "stupid" but he is "uneducated."
"Uneducated" is media code for "stupid". However, that implication isn't the true damage of such categorization (and Trump won in the category of college educated White men). The damage is that calling the conservative base uneducated is a means of dismissing their interests without having to consider them. After some time, such a tactic causes great resentment.
On the above - minorities do not deal in "racial politics."
Racial issues in this country were a creation of the white majority and are still an issue due to the slow evolution on the concept of the social creation of "race" by white people.
You saying that minorities get "resources" and "power" from "racial politics" is laughable!!!
What specifically have minorities received from "racial" politics - ability to live where we want, ability to send our kids to schools we can afford or where we live regardless of race, the ability for women to work a job to take care of their families if they want, the ability for gay/lesbian couples to marry???
All of these things are common things that whites and especially white males have had as "freedoms" since the inception of our country. Minorities have gained nothing that whites did not already have. Is it your contention that minorities shouldn't have the above - the ability to live where we want, send our kids to schools we can afford no matter our race, have women be able to vote and work, have gay/lesbian couples have the legal protection of marriage?
You are spouting a lot of the white nationalist garbage with the above. What will whites gain from having "racial politics?" And what are the goals of "racial politics" of whites as a whole?
There is nothing in regards to your race as a white person that you need to politically advocate for. As stated if you want immigration reform, work on that. I am black and want immigration reform. That is not a "white" issue it is an American issue as a whole.
Okay. Your self interested, over-emotional, illogical blindness will lead you and this nation to a much worse place.
That's ignoring the fact that your rant is a wholly disjointed menagerie of social justice screams that is impossible to respond to because it makes no sense.
My recommendation is for you to think harder about politics and the society in which you live, rather than to go through your life riding waves of emotion and shallow self-interest.
That number would likely have been higher if Trump wasn't so terrible at expressing the distinction between "illegal" and "legal" immigrants. Of course, the left was more than happy to exploit that failing when they for damn sure knew he wasn't talking about "all Mexicans".
Those were mainly Cubans, who are mainly Republican. I told others, who were excited about the high turnout of Florida hispanics, that a lot of them would be Cubans, who vote Republican. But they didn't think so. They were wrong.
What has that got to do with what I stated. There are plenty of racist and xenophobic Hispanic Americans in our country along with Asian Americans and Black Americans and all others.
If they believe that hispanic heritage makes someone less credible as a judge (inferior to a non-hispanic heritage judge), they are a racist.
I believe the concern was that the Hispanic judge would not be impartial, given his ethnic affinity and Trump's (out of context) "attacks" on "Latinos"..... I don't think he stated the judge was inferior on account of being Mexican heritage.
But, in the world that progressives (were) helping to bring about, his "concern" - admittedly silly - is only a natural extension of the progressive race theories that dictate outcomes based on race. What you can wear, what you can eat, the media you are allowed to consume and the experiences you have.... all through the prism of race.
His comment was basically the end-game of an identity politics **** show that the leftists have been putting on for a few years now. Through that prism, he was right. So why so upset?
Those were mainly Cubans, who are mainly Republican. I told others, who were excited about the high turnout of Florida hispanics, that a lot of them would be Cubans, who vote Republican. But they didn't think so. They were wrong.
That's a bit of an over-estimate the size of Cubans as a percentage of "Latinos" in America!
Even there, only half of Cubans in Florida voted Trump.
Those were mainly Cubans, who are mainly Republican. I told others, who were excited about the high turnout of Florida hispanics, that a lot of them would be Cubans, who vote Republican. But they didn't think so. They were wrong.
Florida has gone to Democrats in 2008 and 2012. Somehow all those Cubans found it in their hearts to vote for Obama.
So you ignored the racial rhetoric of the election?
If you did, why would you do so? IMO the only time people ignore racial rhetoric is because it doesn't affect them and they don't care about the people being attacked based on race or religion. They only care about their own "tribe" as mentioned above.
I basically agree with him and I did not vote for Trump due to his position on trade mostly but also due to the fact he did encourage the racist element. Of course, Democrats do the same just it is anti-white discrimination they encourage.
The fact is I will not let politics interfere with my friendships and associations.
I believe the concern was that the Hispanic judge would not be impartial, given his ethnic affinity and Trump's (out of context) "attacks" on "Latinos"..... I don't think he stated the judge was inferior on account of being Mexican heritage.
But, in the world that progressives (were) helping to bring about, his "concern" - admittedly silly - is only a natural extension of the progressive race theories that dictate outcomes based on race. What you can wear, what you can eat, the media you are allowed to consume and the experiences you have.... all through the prism of race.
His comment was basically the end-game of an identity politics **** show that the leftists have been putting on for a few years now. Through that prism, he was right. So why so upset?
It was Trump who was looking through the prism of race, and disregarding a judge's oath to put aside partialities and view a case on its merits and rule on objections in accordance with the law. If the case is a jury case, it's the jury who decides on the facts, while the judge makes the decisions on the law. Judges are used to putting aside their partialities. Even if a judge cannot put aside all partiality, the case had nothing to do with immigration or Trump's stance on immigration or with hispanics. So his comment was way out of line and an insult to any sitting judge, and no reason whatsoever to recuse a judge.
Trump was doing what Trump always does: He blames someone else ahead of time, in case he fails. So the bad result can be logically blamed on what it was he blaming before. In this case, an hispanic judge. In the election, on a "rigged election." Trump never, but never, admits faults or failure. Never. So that means he has to have a scapegoat.
He was out of line, and that was just something that seemed logical to him that people would believe. Of COURSE an hispanic judge would have been unfair to Trump, since Trump wanted to deport hispanics! So logical, his supporters would think. But if he had won the litigation, you'd never hear a peep out of him about the hispanic judge. Just like with the election. Not a peep about it being rigged. No reason to blame someone about a failure any more. But he was ready. Because, as I said, he never admits failure.
What has that got to do with what I stated. There are plenty of racist and xenophobic Hispanic Americans in our country along with Asian Americans and Black Americans and all others.
If they believe that hispanic heritage makes someone less credible as a judge (inferior to a non-hispanic heritage judge), they are a racist.
Crap .
The judge had Mexican roots which is a country not a race. There is no question that there could be bias. No one is accusing anyone of racism in this case.
Now to an unusual case of an immigration judge who was suing the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging discrimination. The judge is of Iranian descent and she says her superiors ordered her not to hear any cases that involved Iranian nationals. NPR's Richard Gonzales reports.
But surely Trump can be suspected as having bias with Russia because he built a brick crap house there. A first generation immigrant would never have any bias for their parents country of origin.
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.
