White Privilege at MU

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Does black culture perpetuate racism? Why is that question never asked? Quite frankly if we stop putting people into "buckets" and see them as individuals it would redress a lot of concerns we all have as a country.

No, black culture as a whole does not perpetuate racism. At least not in our country. There might be small pieces that do but throughout American History black people have disproportionately been the target of oppression while white people have been the enablers of it. And the question gets asked all the time.

I am a practicing Catholic and attend Mass every Sunday. At my last parish our choir director of 20 years was black and a gay man who lived with his partner. He was very active in our parish life. In fact many parents trusted their children to be alone in his care (we had a large children's choir) during choir practice more than some of the priests at catechism. He was a wonderful human being and christian. Three thousand attended his memorial service as he was greatly loved by all. We did not see black or gay. We saw a christian who lived his life as we all should: loving others as he wanted to be loved and we all did. I still mss him and I am sure he is in heaven.

That is a wonderful story. But the reality is that your friend was not just a wonderful human being and christian. He was a wonderful human being and christian who was also black and gay. Because of those two identities, he likely had to overcome more barriers and challenges to become a good christian that his white and straight brothers and sisters did not have to overcome. Why would you ignore that part of his heritage and culture? Those identities were part of who he was as a person, don't take those away. I attend service with several men and women who identify as LGBTQ. We've had extensive conversations about how difficult it is for them to have faith when many who share the faith, including leadership in the church, have told them that they are abominations who will burn in hell. If someone told me that, I would never follow their religion. But these men and women have such strong faith that they overcome that and still follow the way. That is a level of dedication and faith that deserves to be recognized.

[chapman]

Quite frankly if we stop putting people into "buckets" and see them as individuals it would redress a lot of concerns we all have as a country.

Kanye approves of this message.

[mu03eng]

This isn't what the sign is saying. There is a difference between being white and white culture. Being white doesn't perpetuate racism but participating in white culture does.

Here's the problem as I see it with this construction and why I think the message gets lost (as it's absolutely the right message to send). This isn't about racism(overt or conscious decision to impact people or people(s) based on the color of their skin) but a bias problem(subconcious decision making based on incomplete or inaccurate information). Human's individually and as monolithic culture structures (white, black, brown, tall, short, skinny, fat, educated, uneducated, etc)....have to make decisions/statements/take action on incomplete information. When the individual/culture runs into another individual/culture with a different or more complete information set these bias could result in conflict. The key is finding a way to rationalizing the information set of the two individuals/cultures without creating conflict. One group needs to realize the might cause offense while the other group needs to realize that the other party may have offended through no fault of their own. Making statements like the above(a culture is naturally racist, the term racism fair or not is to charged to be effective anymore) escalates the conflict not the reverse.

Basically, this boils down to a practical application of Hanlon's Razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It's relatively flippant but the point remains, if we assume the best from an intent standpoint and that it is an ignorance issue both sides can come together to resolve.

A very simple case in point, in my younger years I use to use the phrase "let's call a spade a spade" as short hand for let's be clear about the topic. However, I had a co-worker point out to me that sometimes spade was used as a slur and that some believe the phrase to be insensitive because of that confusion, so I excised the phrase from my lexicon. Was I being offensive by using the phrase? Not intentionally nor do I regret the use as it never even cross my mind as was not used in an offensive manner, but I know better now so I avoid it to be sensitive to those who might be offended by it.

It's no doubt a very difficult topic, but I think the sooner we move from the monolithic approach to bias and any -isms and move to view where it's an "information problem" we'll be better off. It won't solve actual racism but it should draw a much more bright circle around actual racism

[Galway Eagle]

This isn't what the sign is saying. There is a difference between being white and white culture. Being white doesn't perpetuate racism but participating in white culture does.

You essentially have two choices on what to do with white privilege. You can ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist, which perpetuates racism. Or you can acknowledge it and try to use it to help your fellow man which fights racism. I would imagine that is this what this event is meant to be about. Though I could be wrong. Students sometimes do dumb things despite good intentions.

I think a big barrier here is the use of the "R word." Some people are so uncomfortable with being associated with racism that it immediately shuts down any conversation. Everyone does racist things every day. I do. You do. Trump does. Obama does. Christians do. Athiests do. Everyone does. Everyone commits racist actions and has racist thoughts, but it doesn't make them racists, it just makes them human. I have only met 3 or 4 genuine bonafide racists in my entire life. But I have met thousands of humans who sometimes do or say racist things.

The whole concept of "white culture" is a joke and idiotic. You cannot lump together every white culture together when 90% of them hated each other through all of time.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The whole concept of "white culture" is a joke and idiotic. You cannot lump together every white culture together when 90% of them hated each other through all of time.

Your mixing up race and ethnicity. White culture refers to white skinned people as a race. What you are thinking of is ethnicity.

[Pakuni]

Your mixing up race and ethnicity. White culture refers to white skinned people as a race. What you are thinking of is ethnicity.

I think the point he's making, and it's probably a reasonable one, is that there is quite a bit of variety among the cultures mashed together as "white" culture. for example, lumping Spanish traditions together with Ukranian traditions as some sort of monolithic "White" culture makes about as much sense as lumping together Japanese and Kazak traditions as "Asian culture."

Rather, I think when one refers to "white culture" in the context, what they're really referring to is the predominant "American" culture, which historically hasn't always been kind, just and fair to its minority elements.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Here's the problem as I see it with this construction and why I think the message gets lost (as it's absolutely the right message to send). This isn't about racism(overt or conscious decision to impact people or people(s) based on the color of their skin) but a bias problem(subconcious decision making based on incomplete or inaccurate information). Human's individually and as monolithic culture structures (white, black, brown, tall, short, skinny, fat, educated, uneducated, etc)....have to make decisions/statements/take action on incomplete information. When the individual/culture runs into another individual/culture with a different or more complete information set these bias could result in conflict. The key is finding a way to rationalizing the information set of the two individuals/cultures without creating conflict. One group needs to realize the might cause offense while the other group needs to realize that the other party may have offended through no fault of their own. Making statements like the above(a culture is naturally racist, the term racism fair or not is to charged to be effective anymore) escalates the conflict not the reverse.

Basically, this boils down to a practical application of Hanlon's Razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It's relatively flippant but the point remains, if we assume the best from an intent standpoint and that it is an ignorance issue both sides can come together to resolve.

A very simple case in point, in my younger years I use to use the phrase "let's call a spade a spade" as short hand for let's be clear about the topic. However, I had a co-worker point out to me that sometimes spade was used as a slur and that some believe the phrase to be insensitive because of that confusion, so I excised the phrase from my lexicon. Was I being offensive by using the phrase? Not intentionally nor do I regret the use as it never even cross my mind as was not used in an offensive manner, but I know better now so I avoid it to be sensitive to those who might be offended by it.

It's no doubt a very difficult topic, but I think the sooner we move from the monolithic approach to bias and any -isms and move to view where it's an "information problem" we'll be better off. It won't solve actual racism but it should draw a much more bright circle around actual racism

A lot of good points in here and brings up a question I have often asked. Do we stop using the word racism because it makes people uncomfortable and start using something like bias? Or does that minimize the impact of these actions? A tough question for sure.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think the point he's making, and it's probably a reasonable one, is that there is quite a bit of variety among the cultures mashed together as "white" culture. for example, lumping Spanish traditions together with Ukranian traditions as some sort of monolithic "White" culture makes about as much sense as lumping together Japanese and Kazak traditions as "Asian culture."

Rather, I think when one refers to "white culture" in the context, what they're really referring to is the predominant "American" culture, which historically hasn't always been kind, just and fair to its minority elements.

Not exactly. White culture refers to privileges, experiences, histories, etc. of people who are white skinned as a group. Because whether you are Italian white, Irish white, German white, or American white, you receive the same privileges, advantages, and disadvantages that come with being white skinned. Just like whether or not you are Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, or Korean you receive the same privileges, advantages and disadvantages the come with appearing Asian. Or whether or not you are African, African American, Haitian, or Afro-French you receive the same privileges, advantages, and disadvantages that come with being black skinned.

Spanish and Ukrainian traditions are not questions of race but of ethnicity. White and black culture is about race.

[buckchuckler]

Rather, I think when one refers to "white culture" in the context, what they're really referring to is the predominant "American" culture, which historically hasn't always been kind, just and fair to its minority elements.

Has there ever been a culture that was kind to its minority elements?

[Pakuni]

White and black culture is about race.

But what is white and black culture except for some nebulous (at best) concept created for the sake of a label?
Culture is something definable. You can point to a tradition or characteristic and say "That's Irish" or "That's Brazilian."
What are the defining characteristics of white culture? Or black culture?

[chapman]

Has there ever been a culture that was kind to its minority elements?

Pretty much no.  "Middleman minorities" have historical suffered the most atrocities.
 Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell is a fascinating read in this topic.

[Pakuni]

Has there ever been a culture that was kind to its minority elements?

Actually, the Romans were quite decent to its conquered minorities so long as they didn't do anything silly like rebel.

[Galway Eagle]

Not exactly. White culture refers to privileges, experiences, histories, etc. of people who are white skinned as a group. Because whether you are Italian white, Irish white, German white, or American white, you receive the same privileges, advantages, and disadvantages that come with being white skinned. Just like whether or not you are Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, or Korean you receive the same privileges, advantages and disadvantages the come with appearing Asian. Or whether or not you are African, African American, Haitian, or Afro-French you receive the same privileges, advantages, and disadvantages that come with being black skinned.

Spanish and Ukrainian traditions are not questions of race but of ethnicity. White and black culture is about race.

I don't think you're realizing how much ethnicity impacts culture. I understand that you can say white culture to group then all together but I think that's a BS way to group everybody together.

I know Italian people darker than certain African Americans do which should be lumped where. As far as histories, I know at three three of those ethnicities listed were treated as a step below "real whites" for years. How can you lump all these people together and say "white culture"

I'm not arguing against black culture here, white Americans stripped their actual culture from them and they developed one where ethnicity isn't as impactful.

[mu03eng]

Not exactly. White culture refers to privileges, experiences, histories, etc. of people who are white skinned as a group. Because whether you are Italian white, Irish white, German white, or American white, you receive the same privileges, advantages, and disadvantages that come with being white skinned. Just like whether or not you are Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, or Korean you receive the same privileges, advantages and disadvantages the come with appearing Asian. Or whether or not you are African, African American, Haitian, or Afro-French you receive the same privileges, advantages, and disadvantages that come with being black skinned.

Spanish and Ukrainian traditions are not questions of race but of ethnicity. White and black culture is about race.

The problem with the grouping is that it is too broad and too easily obfuscate as "that's not my culture" or "I'm not that". The monolithic approach will fail, it's just too easy to avoid being part of the problem on the individual level.

[buckchuckler]

Actually, the Romans were quite decent to its conquered minorities so long as they didn't do anything silly like rebel.

In many ways they were decent yes, but they also stole (conscripted???) children from people in these civilizations and put them to work in the Legions (as one example).  Not really something that would go over well nowadays. 

What they did well was allow cultures and religions to remain in place. 

[mu03eng]

A lot of good points in here and brings up a question I have often asked. Do we stop using the word racism because it makes people uncomfortable and start using something like bias? Or does that minimize the impact of these actions? A tough question for sure.

Put me in the camp of saying the less aggressive to make the discussion the topic the better, which is why I articulate it as an information problem. If the "sides" in an issue have different information and it's about education one side or both then it's much easier for the people involved to accept because they aren't reacting to being bad people they are reacting to information.

[mu03eng]

What they did well was allow cultures and religions to remain in place.

Not really, they just took the long con. Case in point, the number of Christian celebrations which are repurposed from pagan rituals. It's societal erosion theory: The idea being that their culture will become absorbed into my culture simply from repeated exposure (time and pressure shapes the cultural world just as well as the physical world).

[buckchuckler]

Not really, they just took the long con. Case in point, the number of Christian celebrations which are repurposed from pagan rituals. It's societal erosion theory: The idea being that their culture will become absorbed into my culture simply from repeated exposure (time and pressure shapes the cultural world just as well as the physical world).

I am a little unclear on what you mean, but I get most of you point (I think).  The Christians may be a great example of how many minority groups were treated in the Roman Empire. 

But contrary to that, Judaism and Islam were both in many ways, unchanged,  during Roman rule (obviously one big change in Judaism, but that wasn't really the result of the Romans).

Either way, the point is, in every society there will be those that are who are at the bottom.  If people can move their station up by getting others to fear/hate/misunderstand those that are different, well, history tells us that most people will take that opportunity to make themselves feel (and appear) better at the expense of others.

[muwarrior69]

No, black culture as a whole does not perpetuate racism. At least not in our country. There might be small pieces that do but throughout American History black people have disproportionately been the target of oppression while white people have been the enablers of it. And the question gets asked all the time.

That is a wonderful story. But the reality is that your friend was not just a wonderful human being and christian. He was a wonderful human being and christian who was also black and gay. Because of those two identities, he likely had to overcome more barriers and challenges to become a good christian that his white and straight brothers and sisters did not have to overcome. Why would you ignore that part of his heritage and culture? Those identities were part of who he was as a person, don't take those away. I attend service with several men and women who identify as LGBTQ. We've had extensive conversations about how difficult it is for them to have faith when many who share the faith, including leadership in the church, have told them that they are abominations who will burn in hell. If someone told me that, I would never follow their religion. But these men and women have such strong faith that they overcome that and still follow the way. That is a level of dedication and faith that deserves to be recognized.

I guess that is where your experience and my experience differ. Donival never felt different as a black/gay man in our parish or even the Methodist congregation where he was the musical director before he came to our parish; nor did we ignore his heritage either. In fact we celebrated it as he brought his Baptist and African American music traditions to our worship services and Sunday Mass. Donival also loved the latin and liturgical traditions of the Catholic Church.  Our Church choir (some 60 strong) together with the Delaware Gay Mens Choir (his partner was a member) performed at the Trenton War Memorial with the Trenton Symphony Orchestra for a Veteran's Day Concert. We truly appreciated and loved him for not what he was but for who he was and the feeling was mutual. I wish we could get past group think and see people for who they are and how they can make a mark and touch ones life. 

[Pakuni]

In many ways they were decent yes, but they also stole (conscripted???) children from people in these civilizations and put them to work in the Legions (as one example).  Not really something that would go over well nowadays. 

What they did well was allow cultures and religions to remain in place.

I don't think "stole" is a fair description. Young men of a certain age were expected to serve in the military. It's really no different than the compulsory military service in many countries today.

[buckchuckler]

Hmmm, I believe that many young boys were taken from other groups after the Romans defeated them as a way to make certain the parents wouldn't cause too much trouble.  These hostages were trained and educated as Romans, in part to make the leaders of these cultures more Roman when they were sent back.  After spending their childhood in Rome learning and training they were then put into the military.  After their Military service some were sent back to rule their past culture, though they had been thoroughly Romanized.

Not quite the same as mandatory military service in Israel, Switzerland or wherever else. 

This did come back to bite the Romans in the butt in one of their worst defeats ever though.  Kind of a neat historical story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

Now clearly this is one situation, and the one that I remembered so maybe not all cultures were treated in this manner after Roman subjugation, but I would have a hard time thinking this was a Arminius was a one off situation.

[mu03eng]

I am a little unclear on what you mean, but I get most of you point (I think).  The Christians may be a great example of how many minority groups were treated in the Roman Empire. 

But contrary to that, Judaism and Islam were both in many ways, unchanged,  during Roman rule (obviously one big change in Judaism, but that wasn't really the result of the Romans).

Either way, the point is, in every society there will be those that are who are at the bottom.  If people can move their station up by getting others to fear/hate/misunderstand those that are different, well, history tells us that most people will take that opportunity to make themselves feel (and appear) better at the expense of others.

Let me put it a different way, not all suppression of minority cultures were by force but the suppression was no less real. Once the Roman empire converted to Christianity it suppressed by limiting access to "government services" unless you were a member of the faith, they made Christianity attractive by grafting Christian concepts onto pagan concepts. The Roman empire did the same thing with Greek theology, Zeus and Jupiter are the same god with Jupiter as the Roman version to ensure transition from one model to another without force being required.

Like I said, my main point is all dominate states/culture have suppressed minority ones, often by violence, but some times by economics, assimilation, etc.

[buckchuckler]

Let me put it a different way, not all suppression of minority cultures were by force but the suppression was no less real. Once the Roman empire converted to Christianity it suppressed by limiting access to "government services" unless you were a member of the faith, they made Christianity attractive by grafting Christian concepts onto pagan concepts. The Roman empire did the same thing with Greek theology, Zeus and Jupiter are the same god with Jupiter as the Roman version to ensure transition from one model to another without force being required.

Like I said, my main point is all dominate states/culture have suppressed minority ones, often by violence, but some times by economics, assimilation, etc.

[GGGG]

I guess that is where your experience and my experience differ. Donival never felt different as a black/gay man in our parish or even the Methodist congregation where he was the musical director before he came to our parish; nor did we ignore his heritage either. In fact we celebrated it as he brought his Baptist and African American music traditions to our worship services and Sunday Mass. Donival also loved the latin and liturgical traditions of the Catholic Church.  Our Church choir (some 60 strong) together with the Delaware Gay Mens Choir (his partner was a member) performed at the Trenton War Memorial with the Trenton Symphony Orchestra for a Veteran's Day Concert. We truly appreciated and loved him for not what he was but for who he was and the feeling was mutual. I wish we could get past group think and see people for who they are and how they can make a mark and touch ones life. 

Why are you limiting his experience only within the context of your church?  The guy lead a life outside of the church where he undoubtedly experienced biases all the time.

And as for your last sentence, I agree completely.  But ignoring that biases exist and addressing them is not going to make that happen.

[Babybluejeans]

This. Even the pretty quote is "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin" - not "live in a nation that declines to acknowledge the color of their skin." I think we had another related conversation of this in another (probably rightfully locked) thread, but while I have a lot of sympathy/empathy for everyone that was raised to be "colorblind" that doesn't mean it works.  Aiming to be colorblind is a skin deep (pun intended) solution to a much deeper problem. It turns "racism" into something that we all try to prove we aren't, but blinds us to the institutional disadvantages of the system that we reinforce everyday... while simultaneously and dissonantly trying to prove we aren't interpersonally racist.

This is very well said. Thanks.