White Privilege

[davy]

I'm just trying to figure out which universe Mr. Wise is from. I could understand his article better if Palin and McCain were not being slammed for exactly everything that he lists in his article, and if Obama had been buried at the polls.

However, the apparently sad reality is that they are being slammed for quite a bit. Seriously; they're getting slammed on CNN, Nightline, even Fox News. And we won't even discuss the Daily Show or Corbert Report (where Palin is probably best known for resemblance to the "shy librarian" best known from adult fare).

strange. the really sad reality is that guys like dobbs (on that same cnn) and hannity (on that same fox) have always questioned obama's ability.

except for recently of course, when it's clear that bringing up the question of obama's ability would invariably lead back to the question of palin's ability.

It's interesting to note, BTW, that the only groups that have slammed Obama for being educated are white supremacists and some black civil rights groups and journalists. White supremacists are pretty obvious, but no one has figured out why blacks have attacked Obama (outside of him apparently not being "black").

i haven't heard this; which ones?

Oh, and I take exception the "White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you" line. I see nothing wrong in liking firearms, in and of itself. Now, if she went out every night and raised hell, killing people left amd right, but why should someone who actually hunts be an issue? I hate pointing it out, but I think that the idea of having a VP who can actually fire back is an intriguing concept....

RG

the author wasn't questioning the legality or the morality of guns. he was saying that a white person with a gun isn't scary to other white people. but a black person with a gun is.

which is, in itself, a manifestation of white privilege

Everything Tim Wise said in that article on "White Privilege" is absolutely true.

i think he's on the right track; but i think his article was over exaggerated.

^ I want my White Privilege! Where do I sign up?

you're not in the united states. your version of privilege isn't as closely tied to race as it is here.

i don't even know if there is an actual WHITE privilege over there.

Yeah! Me, too!

I'm sorry....What's a "white privilege" again?

RG

you already have yours. you've lived with it all your life, so it's difficult for you to identify it.

and "white privilege" is simply the double-standard treatment that the ruling class of this country get to have that, to a degree, was described in the original article.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

strange. the really sad reality is that guys like dobbs (on that same cnn) and hannity (on that same fox) have always questioned obama's ability.

Nifty. Unfortunately, the article was about how Palin's abilities aren't being questioned. However, the article is in error re: that questioning, as pretty much everyone has questioned Palin's abilities, as lots of people have questioned Palin's abilities. All you need to do is read the editorial page of your local paper...

except for recently of course, when it's clear that bringing up the question of obama's ability would invariably lead back to the question of palin's ability.

Whatev. I just find it interesting that you haven't seen Palin's abilities being questioned, and yet that is pretty much all I've seen...

i haven't heard this; which ones?

the author wasn't questioning the legality or the morality of guns. he was saying that a white person with a gun isn't scary to other white people. but a black person with a gun is.

That's because when people think "black+gun" most people think gangstas or rappers, thanks to their excellent PR. However, white people are trying to catch up...we just need more people to go hunting with Cheney....

which is, in itself, a manifestation of white privilege

You still haven't defined what this mythical "white privilege" is, especially when the article is so divorced from reality.

i think he's on the right track; but i think his article was over exaggerated.

Only if you haven't read a paper in the last few months, or figured out how to turn the television. The article was inaccurate on almost every count. Not just one or two; it was wrong on every count.

you're not in the united states. your version of privilege isn't as closely tied to race as it is here.

As you've not defined this so-called "white privilege", we have no idea either...

you already have yours. you've lived with it all your life, so it's difficult for you to identify it.

Goshdarn it; I hate having something and not knowing what it is...

and "white privilege" is simply the double-standard treatment that the ruling class of this country get to have that, to a degree, was described in the original article.

1) I wasn't aware that the US even had a ruling class. Thing about democracies; we don't have an actual aristocracy, and the US doesn't even have a noble family (unless, of course, you're counting the Kennedies, but that's about it).
2) So how do you become part of the ruling class?

[Yes, I'm purposely being a bit obtuse. Put another way: I'm aware that some blacks are of the opinion that there is one set of rules for them, and another for just about anyone else; they aren't the only ones to think so, and the attitude isn't exactly new. Although this may true in some areas, I think that it's a valid observation the proverb "seek and ye shall find" is as much a warning as anything else, that is, if you seek racism you likely to find it regardless of whether or not it exists. If you truly want to abolish racism (as far as it can be, at any rate), you need to realize that the expectation of it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Tim Wise' article is proof that we need to question any authority; his article would have been slapped down by any competent fact checker. I hate to use the Daily Show as a source, but it has been interesting to watch the last two or three weeks, especially the coverage of both conventions, and especially his attacks on Sarah Palin....]

RG

 

[Lostlover]

I think there is a lot of truth to this article.

The double standard of the Palin illegitimate child episode is just shocking! He can be the "All American Boy" but yet when a person of color does the same thing there are all these negative stereotypes reinforced about minorities.

That must be real privilege to break some taboos and still be considered "All American". That's privilege.

Luckily, Michelle and Barack aren't having any grand kids born out of wedlock this election.

We'd have another 4 more years of the Republicans if the Obamas couldn't live to the standards the Repugs fail to live up to...

 

[Lostlover]

Also white privilege is being elected to president of the USA with a paper thin resume and no one questions your credentials but when a black man reaches for this office experience means something.

Or not knowing many heads of states before taking office (like Bush not knowing the Pakistani leader in 2000) doesn't hurt your political ambitions. But Barack's summer in Karachi is closely scrutinized for any "suspicious" activities.

 

[Kurn]

I don't disagree with all of the above (Generally, though a lot of exaggerations and rash conclusions) but I'm still voting for McCain.

For every good reason for voting for McCain, there's a better one for voting for Obama.
President Obama will cost us far less in the not-so-long run.

Obama is a major candidate for the same reason I wished that Hillary was in his place. He's way smarter than anyone else. His only competition has been Hillary.
Obama has a crystalline but still nuanced grasp of American values.
A win by Obama will go along way towards burying North American racism.

 

[Kurn]

isn't that considered forcing your opinions onto other people?

No, it's actually concision. (Which is very different from circumcision).

I haven't prohibited any contrary opinion. (and I can't so I don't try; it's all about stating things concisely...)

 

[Alpha1851]

The article's author is mistaken. It sounded like affluent privilege to me. Any person w/ money would probably get away w/ those things. Race and politics wouldn't even factor in.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Amen. It irritates me to no end how Bush was given nothing but green lights on his way to the White House, nobody cares about his criminal record (which he certainly has) but as soon as Obama tries to come through, all of a sudden we care about history and experience.

Well, itirritates me when all of this brought and then some, but seems to be forgotten when it's not convenient to the point. The possible criminality of Bush's actions was brought up. Repeatedly. Heck, it was even pointed out that Jeb had a conflict of interest in not ordering a recount because of the sheer number of problems. Straight up: It's weird how no one seems to remember that he has the lowest approval rating ever. But that seems to be ignored because it's not convenient to the point.

Palin has been given grief because she has an issue with pre-marital sex, and yet her daughter is pregnant. She's being grief because her political experience is limited to mayor of a small town and governor of a population-small state. She's being given grief because she fired and re-hired the library staff when she was mayor, and that she kept trying to ban books and even resulted in the librarian quitting. She's getting grief because of her encouraging earmarks for her state, and we won't talk about the Bridge to Nowhere. She's even been given grief because her foreign experience seems to be limited to merely being between two countries (Russia and Canada). She's gotten a lot of grief because she's claimed the women voters. She's even been teased because she looks like Tina Fey or that shy yet seductive librarian you usually see in adult films, or that she can shoot and dress a moose.

If you want some interesting reading, go check out Palin's record at factcheck.org. If you seriously think that she is being given a free ride, that trip should clear that up in a heartbeat...

But, because some anti-racist idiot ignores all of that because it's not convenient to his point, it's as if all of that is swept under the rug. If you have any question that any of this happened, all you need to do is a ten-second search on Google. If you want a more comedic take, check out the Daily Show or Colbert Report clips. Heck, even opening up your local newspaper would show that columnists and cartoonists haven't let up on the attack.

It's interesting how much ink has to be ignored in order to prove that some "white privilege" exists, and that Palin is being given a free ride. It begs the question of just what Palin would need to do in order to prove Wise wrong.

Of course not, an uneducated white man is endearing, an educated black man is elitist.

Care to point who the "uneducated white man" is? Both McCain and Bush may not have stellar collee careers, but they have received sheepskins. At the same time, it's interesting to note that "elitist" has been applied to almost every Democratic nominee regardless of sex or color (Kerry and both Clintons have been called "elitist").

I'm really starting to hit the point that I sincerely believe that if Obama doesn't win the election, it won't be because of some racist conspiracy. It will be because some anti-racist activist decided to overplay his or her hand and tick off even those who were going to vote for Obama, and they'll vote for McCain out of spite. People like Mr. Wise may end up creating votes for McCain...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Also white privilege is being elected to president of the USA with a paper thin resume and no one questions your credentials but when a black man reaches for this office experience means something.

Had you been paying attention, you would have noted that Obama's lack of experience has been questioned for a while. In fact, it's Obama's lack of credentials that makes him such a strong candidate. Put another way: If experience was the important factor, Obama wouldn't even be in the race.

At the same time, it's an interesting strike against McCain, because he's chosen someone with limited experience after trying to slam someone else's lack of experience....

RG

 

[Lostlover]

Had you been paying attention, you would have noted that Obama's lack of experience has been questioned for a while. In fact, it's Obama's lack of credentials that makes him such a strong candidate. Put another way: If experience was the important factor, Obama wouldn't even be in the race.

At the same time, it's an interesting strike against McCain, because he's chosen someone with limited experience after trying to slam someone else's lack of experience....

RG

The question is are you paying attention?

You made my point. Obama's credentials have been questioned but Bush's obviously weak foreign policy experience in the run up to the 2000 elections did not hinder him from winning the race.

I guess Americans learn in 8 year cycles.

We learned to prioritize experience in 8 year cycles or maybe we're expecting more from some candidates than others.

And it is a strike against McCain for picking inexperienced Palin because his main criticism of Obama was Obama's lack of experience.

With a stupid population, you can have it both ways. You can criticize your opponent for being inexperienced while choosing an inexperienced running mate.

By the way, we should be worried less on who has experience than who has the better judgment. This whole experience talk is crap, like I have said all along in the political forum. McCain valued experience so much he chose Palin as his running mate.

If the experience card is all you have, why not give it legs and run with it?

By the way, McCain is now running on Obama's "change" that catapulted him to a victory in Iowa and the proceeding race for the Democratic nominee.

Americans need to change the gear because we're stuck on stupid. We're going to decide on election day if change comes from having 26 years experience in Washington politics or by showing better judgment on policy matters?

Americans are stupid though. They bought the experience line about Obama even after McCain, the champion of experience, chose the least experienced vice presidential nominee since Spiro Agnew.

So, experience really wasn't that high on McCain's priorities when he hastily vetted his VP pick.

PS: Obama's lack of experience has helped him? Tell that to the majority of people polled that think he's not qualified to be president. What got Obama's campaign moving was his early and consistent opposition to the war. Not his inexperience . Again, this country learns in 8 year cycles. Experiences means something now but wasn't even a blip on the radar in 2000.

 

[TX-Beau]

Well, I agree that white privilege exists in the U.S. – anyone who’s white has benefited from it in one form or another, small or large. But the same is true when talking about how members of one racial classification in this country deal with the same kinds of decisions. You can solve that by exposure to people of different backgrounds. For every community – I suspect that those of you who aren’t Americans don’t really get why we have an obsession with this type of issue. It’s about wrongs we committed and touchy self esteem, and dirty smudges on our national mythology.

The bigger problem is institutional types of privilege, hypocrisy, and double standards in public conduct and positions of authority. Obama, Clinton, and yes even Palin, have all been hit with that bat. Though I have to say that the hypocrisy of the McCain campaign with regards to their attacks on Obama, and then the choice of Palin is truly staggering. I’ve given up on trying to predict which McCain will show up to work tomorrow.

We can all go on and on about how horrible and unfair this is, and it’s roots in Jim Crow and Slavery (a lot of white people in this country want to forget that it wasn’t that long ago that America was a quasi - apartheid state) but in the end, if the American populace is so blind that they buy that bill of goods, there’s not much we can do about it in the short run. It’s going to take as long to get out of our racial problems as it took to get into them.

Diversity is the key, yes and liberalism, which does work, slowly, in small steps, take heart, all you progressives out there, the champions of anachronism and white penis privilege have just co-opted a woman to save their bacon. Who’s winning this fight?

 

[davy]

I'd agree with that..

To my own detriment,I often assume most wealthy people are republicans..

- and white.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

The question is are you paying attention?

To what exactly? That anti-white person's memory seems to be limited to the last few days? Or that it's okay to out-and-out lie when you are attacking Whitey? It would be hard to miss that...

You made my point. Obama's credentials have been questioned but Bush's obviously weak foreign policy experience in the run up to the 2000 elections did not hinder him from winning the race.

Bush's credentials in that area were nonetheless questioned, and questioned extensively. The problem was that Gore was presented mostly as an environmental president and his speeches were usually tinged with that. Also, he was considered a continuation of Clinton's legacy. With Kerry (ironically enough), it was easy to swiftboat him because so much of his campaign was based on his military service. Not to mention that the Republicans were able to paint them as "elitist".

In short, they lost more to losing a popularity contest than because Bush was an idiot. I wonder how Bush would have fared if 9/11 had not happened....

I guess Americans learn in 8 year cycles.

You have good presidents, and you have bad presidents. I wonder how things would have gone if Rove had not been part of the mess, or if Bush had actually listened to his constituency. In that regard, I don't necessarily think that it's something you can lay at the feet of the American people. This is one of those times when the leadership needs to be held accountable rather than the group it leads.

And it is a strike against McCain for picking inexperienced Palin because his main criticism of Obama was Obama's lack of experience.

And I've said that how many times?

With a stupid population, you can have it both ways. You can criticize your opponent for being inexperienced while choosing an inexperienced running mate.

This is sort of what I meant when I said that people should be paying attention. If your proof that Americans are stupid rests on their inability to to recognize that McCain picks someone who has the biggest flaw of his opponent, and yet that has been pointed out in almost every discussion re: Palin, just how valid is your point?

By the way, we should be worried less on who has experience than who has the better judgment. This whole experience talk is crap, like I have said all along in the political forum. McCain valued experience so much he chose Palin as his running mate.

Duh. Which is why Obama looks so good right now.

If the experience card is all you have, why not give it legs and run with it?

Because McCain has one major flaw: His inability to
deal with economic issues. And given Palin's same inability, his decision to run with her is seen as just one more strike against him. That, and it's being seen as a cynical gesture in order to grab the female vote.

By the way, McCain is now running on Obama's "change" that catapulted him to a victory in Iowa and the proceeding race for the Democratic nominee.

No way! Honest? And relevance? Besides showing just how stupid McCain is running his campaign?

Americans are stupid though. They bought the experience line about Obama even after McCain, the champion of experience, chose the least experienced vice presidential nominee since Spiro Agnew.

Again, I could see us being stupid if we didn't recognize that. But...we have. The problem is that we have noticed the problem, but some of us are sorta hoping McCain will prove to be something other than senile. (I'm for Obama, but not everyone is....)

PS: Obama's lack of experience has helped him? Tell that to the majority of people polled that think he's not qualified to be president.

Well, he doesn't even have a full term as senator, and even what he does have has been wasted by the time that he's been on the campaign trail. Personally, I wish he had been Hillary's VP for at least a term before becoming president, but I'm hoping he'll do a decent job come January...

What got Obama's campaign moving was his early and consistent opposition to the war. Not his inexperience . Again, this country learns in 8 year cycles. Experiences means something now but wasn't even a blip on the radar in 2000.

Whatever. It was brought up on both sides, and it was decided that Gore's experience as Clinton's VP was a bad thing.

Just something to consider...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Well, I agree that white privilege exists in the U.S. – anyone who’s white has benefited from it in one form or another, small or large.

As you have yet to really define what this mythical "white privilege" is, I would question if you even have a clue what you're talking about. Until just recently, it was easier to start a business, get into school, get scholarships (not student loans), and even get government contracts if you were non-white (and still is in much of the country).

I think that you're also conveniently ignoring that that the black community itself placed limitations on itself over the last few decades, by actively discouraging education and entry into politcial office. There is a point where the black community needs to recognize that support of the "gangsta" culture is not a good thing....and that, as Pogo noted a long time ago, that the enemy is them.

We can all go on and on about how horrible and unfair this is, and it’s roots in Jim Crow and Slavery (a lot of white people in this country want to forget that it wasn’t that long ago that America was a quasi - apartheid state) but in the end, if the American populace is so blind that they buy that bill of goods, there’s not much we can do about it in the short run. It’s going to take as long to get out of our racial problems as it took to get into them.

You also tend to forget that the majority of the US wasn't a quasi-apartheid state; that applied usually to part of the South. At the same
time, blacks have separated themselves from the rest of the country, and have found ways to justify that. Just look at the Image awards, and the black movie awards, and who wins those awards (it seems sometimes like the only black filmmaker that's realized that gangsta movies and comedies don't win Oscars). And don't get me started on how much I think that the N-word is even more racist coming from black lips than white.

Yes, racism is alive and well in the US. I'm just wondering how much of it isn't white...

Diversity is the key, yes and liberalism, which does work, slowly, in small steps, take heart, all you progressives out there, the champions of anachronism and white penis privilege have just co-opted a woman to save their bacon. Who’s winning this fight?

So, we should decide who's president based on skin color vs. gender? Or should we decide who's president based on the better overall skill and ecperience? Wouldn't it really be progressive if that mattered more than race or gender?

RG

 

[TX-Beau]

As you have yet to really define what this mythical "white privilege" is, I would question if you even have a clue what you're talking about. Until just recently, it was easier to start a business, get into school, get scholarships (not student loans), and even get government contracts if you were non-white (and still is in much of the country).
RG

I don’t remember being appointed definer of terms, you have a browser do a web search, here, I’ll help you:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=White+privilege+definition&btnG=Search

I wonder why you immediately start maligning other people’s comprehension. Perhaps your argument isn’t strong enough to stand on its own. Why do YOU think white privilege doesn’t exist, see that’s not hard, and I didn’t have belittle you to ask it.

Ahh entitlements, well, I certainly don’t agree that “until recently” it was only the poor white people being discriminated against. Being a white man I suppose I should be offended. Poor me, ethnic people can get into college easier than I, wait, I got into college, it was pretty easy(great grandpa was the first, grandpa the legacy was second, Dear old dad the third, cousins brothers, and now nephews, all got into college, most the same college which is still a majority white people and always has been), well it’s easier for them to go into business, wait I did that too, no dice, no scholarships at all for me, there I’ve been discriminated against. Of course I come from a family with a long line of discrimination riddled white people who went to college, who also had good jobs and paid for each others educations.

I think that you're also conveniently ignoring that that the black community itself placed limitations on itself over the last few decades, by actively discouraging education and entry into politcial office. There is a point where the black community needs to recognize that support of the "gangsta" culture is not a good thing....and that, as Pogo noted a long time ago, that the enemy is them.
RG

Statements like that go better with a source, Source?

You also tend to forget that the majority of the US wasn't a quasi-apartheid state; that applied usually to part of the South. At the same time, blacks have separated themselves from the rest of the country, and have found ways to justify that. Just look at the Image awards, and the black movie awards, and who wins those awards (it seems sometimes like the only black filmmaker that's realized that gangsta movies and comedies don't win Oscars). And don't get me started on how much I think that the N-word is even more racist coming from black lips than white.
RG

I don’t know where you grew up in the U.S. where it was always a haven of multi-cultural, racial equality. Where was that exactly? The West? Ask some Native Americans about that, The north? Texas, LOL yeah right, Texas, land of the contrary. The rest of that isn’t really here nor there and it’s mostly your cant anyway, so go to it.

Yes, racism is alive and well in the US. I'm just wondering how much of it isn't white...
RG

And I’m just wondering why you excuse white people from their racism by pointing fingers at rappers.

I’d go into an explanation of institutional/social racism vs. personal racism, but I suspect I’d be talking to a wall. Why do you feel so put upon, I at least am capable of recognizing the benefits you get just from being born white and Male in this country. Ask yourself this, when was the last time you saw a Black/Female/Hispanic/enter ethnicity here, president, answer, never, look at the decision makers and the wealthy, they are overwhelmingly what ethnicity? I've seen the good old boy network operate in my favor, and I know I benefitted from it. These are the realities, scream "evil entitlements" all you what, they exist becuase it was damn near imposible for other people to get the kind of institutional support I got simply from being born who I was.

So, we should decide who's president based on skin color vs. gender? Or should we decide who's president based on the better overall skill and ecperience? Wouldn't it really be progressive if that mattered more than race or gender?
RG

Frankly this is your strawman, I didn’t say any of that, if you want to argue against yourself I’m not going to stop you.

Of course race is still a problem in the U.S. of course it always has been, and of course it was white people on top(still on top, though it’s trending away from exclusively on top), and I’m wondering why that’s so hard for some white people to admit it.

 

[Lostlover]

To what exactly? That anti-white person's memory seems to be limited to the last few days? Or that it's okay to out-and-out lie when you are attacking Whitey? It would be hard to miss that...



Bush's credentials in that area were nonetheless questioned, and questioned extensively. The problem was that Gore was presented mostly as an environmental president and his speeches were usually tinged with that. Also, he was considered a continuation of Clinton's legacy. With Kerry (ironically enough), it was easy to swiftboat him because so much of his campaign was based on his military service. Not to mention that the Republicans were able to paint them as "elitist".

In short, they lost more to losing a popularity contest than because Bush was an idiot. I wonder how Bush would have fared if 9/11 had not happened....


You have good presidents, and you have bad presidents. I wonder how things would have gone if Rove had not been part of the mess, or if Bush had actually listened to his constituency. In that regard, I don't necessarily think that it's something you can lay at the feet of the American people. This is one of those times when the leadership needs to be held accountable rather than the group it leads.


And I've said that how many times?


This is sort of what I meant when I said that people should be paying attention. If your proof that Americans are stupid rests on their inability to to recognize that McCain picks someone who has the biggest flaw of his opponent, and yet that has been pointed out in almost every discussion re: Palin, just how valid is your point?


Duh. Which is why Obama looks so good right now.


Because McCain has one major flaw: His inability to
deal with economic issues. And given Palin's same inability, his decision to run with her is seen as just one more strike against him. That, and it's being seen as a cynical gesture in order to grab the female vote.


No way! Honest? And relevance? Besides showing just how stupid McCain is running his campaign?



Again, I could see us being stupid if we didn't recognize that. But...we have. The problem is that we have noticed the problem, but some of us are sorta hoping McCain will prove to be something other than senile. (I'm for Obama, but not everyone is....)


Well, he doesn't even have a full term as senator, and even what he does have has been wasted by the time that he's been on the campaign trail. Personally, I wish he had been Hillary's VP for at least a term before becoming president, but I'm hoping he'll do a decent job come January...



Whatever. It was brought up on both sides, and it was decided that Gore's experience as Clinton's VP was a bad thing.

Just something to consider...

RG

You're questioning why I think Americans are stupid. Have you paid any attention to politics the last 8 years?

We clearly won't agree. I think you're hung up on the "white" part of the "white privilege" part.

Kennyworth was right when he said you could replace "white" with "Republican" and the article would still remain intact.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't think that Americans are stupid, I think they're lazy, apathetic in large degree, and unwilling to put in the time and energy necessary to get a good grasp on politics

I also think that could be applied to most any population at most any time in one degree or another. The founding fathers were worried about demagoguery and factionalism way back there at the beginning.

...The more things change.....

 

[TX-Beau]

Yeah, because for the most part everyone buys in to the bullshit. Most people are in the middle. Most people, white or black, have to work for a living. Sitting around and speculating on everything in racist and "privileged" terms are for those who have too much time on their hands conjuring up labels and scenarios the rest of us are supposed to live with or accept as fact.

Yeah! Yeah...

Except, that all those people with no time to think about politics are the first ones to get the shaft from the fools they elect, and they take the rest of us along for the ride.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

You're questioning why I think Americans are stupid. Have you paid any attention to politics the last 8 years?

Unfortunately. Even worse, I've been paying attention to what other people think about our politics. However, I think that judging a group based on its politicians isn't exactly the best way to decide what the group is like. I don't think any country on Earth would survive that examination. Especially a country like the US where there are so many different political groups and lobbyists to make happy.

Just out of curiosity: Were you even aware that there was a movement to impeach Bush? We Americans get that Bush was a major screw-up. But, before you start calling us "stupid" based on our politics, do some basic research in order to figure out what our true feelings on the situation are.

We clearly won't agree. I think you're hung up on the "white" part of the "white privilege" part.

No, I'm hung up on that somehow someone thinks that Sarah Palin has been given a free pass. Worse, that it's because she's white. Not only is that inaccurate (it seems sometimes as if she's been slammed by pretty much every talking head show, blog, and editorial page), it's also racist (it presumes preferential treatment due to her skin color).

Right now is not a time when we should throwing around any kind of racie-based argument, especially if it's being brought up just to show that someone can. If race gets any further than it already is into the discussion, Obama will lose. And four more years of Bush is not something anyone wants....

Kennyworth was right when he said you could replace "white" with "Republican" and the article would still remain intact.

Yeah; it would still be inaccurate and attempting to disparage a particular group....

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I don't think that Americans are stupid, I think they're lazy, apathetic in large degree, and unwilling to put in the time and energy necessary to get a good grasp on politics.

I think you would be surprised to see the sheer number of groups there are that are trying to make a difference on some level. I don't think apathy is an issue; I think that spreading things a bit thin would be more accurate.

Even more accurate would be to say that thanks to people like Tom Wise, people that should get into politics don't because they don't see why they should. Any advance over the last few decades seems small because people looking for bigger advances discount the ones that do happen. After all, why bother when you will no effect? People like Tom Wise do more harm than they would expect....

RG