White Fright - Glenn Beck's Rally Was "the waterworld" of white self-pity

[Caine]

You don't have to believe in it; it believes in you.
I suspect you'll sho 'nuff believe in it once it's no longer propping you up.
Or maybe you'll just believe you're an oppressed minority when that time comes.
Maybe you already believe it now.

Instead of throwing stupid phrases out there like "sho' nuff"... since you have already made the statement...

Prove I am being "propped up" by "White Privlege".

Then, tell me what is proping up my black colleague who also has several children, a wife, a vehicle, and the same job as me.

I see no difference in his life and mine.
Both went in the military, both are police officers, both have children, both have a car, a place to live, a loving wife.

You tell me what is propping me up exactly?????

Every thing I have I got from working for it, right next to blacks the entire time... From high school, to the Army, to the Police Academy, to Now.

I don't view myself as an oppressed minority. I see myself as a self-made person, just like any other person who came from a poor background with no support from their family and made it to where I am today, which isn't very far... yet. (No, im not trying to say Ive made it to paradise or anything).

 

[1069]

Every thing I have I got from working for it, right next to blacks the entire time... From high school, to the Army, to the Police Academy, to Now.

They had to work harder than you did, to get the same as you.
They have to be exceptional, in order to achieve what a white man only has to be average to get.
But keep fooling yourself that it's because whites are inherently superior.
I'm sure you'll get away with such self-serving self-deception, since white privilege probably won't be entirely done away with during your lifetime.
I bet it will during your kids' lifetime, though.

 

[Caine]

They had to work harder than you did, to get the same as you.

Proof? Or more idiotic assumptions?

They have to be exceptional, in order to achieve what a white man only has to be average to get.

Proof? Or are you just being racist saying black people can't suceed unless they are spectacular.

But keep fooling yourself that it's because whites are inherently superior.

LOL. You are the one making that assumption, not me. See your statement above.

I'm sure you'll get away with such self-serving self-deception, since white privilege probably won't be entirely done away with during your lifetime.
I bet it will during your kids' lifetime, though.

So you have nothing. Thats what I thought.

 

[Hatuey]

"White Privlege" is a load of ****.

Ive not always been first.
Ive not always enjoyed preferential treatment.

The whole premise gets blown out of the ****ing water when you look at the millions of trailer parks full of redneck ass idiots who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and compare them to the equally moronic inner city thugs. Its about poor decision making.

The only "Privlege" there is, belongs to those with another "W" at the beginning of their group's adjective word.

"Wealthy".

Winston don't tell me you actually believe this "White Privlege" bull****.

So what you're saying Caine is that because there are some trailer park rednecks, there is no such thing as white priviledge? What if I called such a privilege the accepted societal value passed through generations? Would you be more comfortable addressing it? Your understanding of sociology never fail to amaze me. Tell me Caine, oh knowledgeable security guard, what kind of disadvantages did a middle class white family have 60 years ago? What about a middle class black family? Did they have the same exact disadvantages? What about generational poverty? How do you explain discrepencies in the % of poor and wealthy among blacks and whites? Do you think that it's because blacks are just lazy? How do you explain a rise in black CEOs over the last 50 years? Did blacks suddenly decide to start working in companies? Please explain to us this 'bull****'.

Now granted, there are millions of 'rednecks' living in trailer parks all over America. A 150 years ago it would have been thousands of such 'rednecks' but the reality still remains, most of these rednecks had absolutely no boundary to amassing wealth. A hundred years ago an Italian fresh off the boat could walk into New York and within 5 years he could have his own business without much hassle. Blacks up to about a 100 years ago still had to deal with being removed from their lands by agents of the law who were not much different than yourself. These conditions meant that even blacks who had assets could easily be brought back down to nothing very easily. I'm sure to somebody like you, who thinks in terms of what he currently sees around him today, that may not sound very relevant but to somebody who understands society beyond 'dem ppplz dere!' it's highly relevant information.

While you may not like to call it white privilege because you yourself don't feel very privileged, the reality is that your family, your ancestors, had very few boundaries in life. If they worked hard, they would see the fruits of their labor regardless of their social standing. I don't know what your grandfather was but if he was a tailor? He could one day aspire to own his own shop without fear of having it burnt down by racists law enforcement officers. Now I wouldn't call that a great privilege but it's a privilege non-the-less. "White privilege" refers to an issue far more complicated than what you see today. It refers to how wealth was obtained, stored and passed down by blacks and whites. It refers to societal norms which made it possible for whites to give themselves an advantage which can still be seen today.

I mean do you honestly think that if the Rockerfeller family were some black family from North Carolina, that they'd have as much money? You may not think so but I bet you anything that the overwhelming majority of the rich white families today would not be as rich if they were named the Mbembas, Ampofos and Awolowos instead of the Kennedys, Rockerfellers and Waltons.

 

[Caine]

So what you're saying Caine is that because there are some trailer park rednecks, there is no such thing as white priviledge? What if I called such a privilege the accepted societal value passed through generations? Would you be more comfortable addressing it? Your understanding of sociology never fail to amaze me. Tell me Caine, oh knowledgeable security guard, what kind of disadvantages did a middle class white family have 60 years ago? What about a middle class black family? Did they have the same exact disadvantages? What about generational poverty? How do you explain discrepencies in the % of poor and wealthy among blacks and whites? Do you think that it's because blacks are just lazy? How do you explain a rise in black CEOs over the last 50 years? Did blacks suddenly decide to start working in companies? Please explain to us this 'bull****'.

Now granted, there are millions of 'rednecks' living in trailer parks all over America. A 150 years ago it would have been thousands of such 'rednecks' but the reality still remains, most of these rednecks had absolutely no boundary to amassing wealth. A hundred years ago an Italian fresh off the boat could walk into New York and within 5 years he could have his own business without much hassle. Blacks up to about a 100 years ago still had to deal with being removed from their lands by agents of the law who were not much different than yourself. These conditions meant that even blacks who had assets could easily be brought back down to nothing very easily. I'm sure to somebody like you, who thinks in terms of what he currently sees around him today, that may not sound very relevant but to somebody who understands society beyond 'dem ppplz dere!' it's highly relevant information.

While you may not like to call it white privilege because you yourself don't feel very privileged, the reality is that your family, your ancestors, had very few boundaries in life. If they worked hard, they would see the fruits of their labor regardless of their social standing. I don't know what your grandfather was but if he was a tailor? He could one day aspire to own his own shop without fear of having it burnt down by racists law enforcement officers. Now I wouldn't call that a great privilege but it's a privilege non-the-less. "White privilege" refers to an issue far more complicated than what you see today. It refers to how wealth was obtained, stored and passed down by blacks and whites. It refers to societal norms which made it possible for whites to give themselves an advantage which can still be seen today.

I mean do you honestly think that if the Rockerfeller family were some black family from North Carolina, that they'd have as much money? You may not think so but I bet you anything that the overwhelming majority of the rich white families today would not be as rich if they were named the Mbembas, Ampofos and Awolowos instead of the Kennedys, Rockerfellers and Waltons.

Your missing the point.

1069 claims that "White Privlege" is something that props ME up.

None of the **** you speak of applies to MY, and judging by your age from photos, YOUR, generation.

Nice try though, but it isn't the 1950s anymore.

 

[1069]

So what you're saying Caine is that because there are some trailer park rednecks, there is no such thing as white priviledge? What if I called such a privilege the accepted societal value passed through generations? Would you be more comfortable addressing it? Your understanding of sociology never fail to amaze me. Tell me Caine, oh knowledgeable security guard, what kind of disadvantages did a middle class white family have 60 years ago? What about a middle class black family? Did they have the same exact disadvantages? What about generational poverty? How do you explain discrepencies in the % of poor and wealthy among blacks and whites? Do you think that it's because blacks are just lazy? How do you explain a rise in black CEOs over the last 50 years? Did blacks suddenly decide to start working in companies? Please explain to us this 'bull****'.

Now granted, there are millions of 'rednecks' living in trailer parks all over America. A 150 years ago it would have been thousands of such 'rednecks' but the reality still remains, most of these rednecks had absolutely no boundary to amassing wealth. A hundred years ago an Italian fresh off the boat could walk into New York and within 5 years he could have his own business without much hassle. Blacks up to about a 100 years ago still had to deal with being removed from their lands by agents of the law who were not much different than yourself. These conditions meant that even blacks who had assets could easily be brought back down to nothing very easily. I'm sure to somebody like you, who thinks in terms of what he currently sees around him today, that may not sound very relevant but to somebody who understands society beyond 'dem ppplz dere!' it's highly relevant information.

While you may not like to call it white privilege because you yourself don't feel very privileged, the reality is that your family, your ancestors, had very few boundaries in life. If they worked hard, they would see the fruits of their labor regardless of their social standing. I don't know what your grandfather was but if he was a tailor? He could one day aspire to own his own shop without fear of having it burnt down by racists law enforcement officers. Now I wouldn't call that a great privilege but it's a privilege non-the-less. "White privilege" refers to an issue far more complicated than what you see today. It refers to how wealth was obtained, stored and passed down by blacks and whites. It refers to societal norms which made it possible for whites to give themselves an advantage which can still be seen today.

I mean do you honestly think that if the Rockerfeller family were some black family from North Carolina, that they'd have as much money? You may not think so but I bet you anything that the overwhelming majority of the rich white families today would not be as rich if they were named the Mbembas, Ampofos and Awolowos instead of the Kennedys, Rockerfellers and Waltons.

All true.
The fact that poor whites and affluent blacks exist does nothing to negate the reality of white privilege and systematic racism.
In the absence of these things, affluent blacks would been even more affluent, and poor whites would be even more abjectly poor.

White privilege gives whites a boost; systematic racism holds minorities back.
There is no law that says that even with a boost, whites can't fail; only that they would've failed even worse without a boost.
No law says blacks can't succeed despite the handicap of systematic racism; only that they would've been even more successful, if it didn't exist.

For the common run of middle and working class people, it means more: it can mean the difference between failure and success, rather than the difference between degrees of failure and success which you see at either extreme of the socioeconomic spectrum.

 

[Redress]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's please not talk about each other, and just calm down a bit. Thank you.

 

[Barbbtx]

Very True.

Just watch the interviews with Obama voters that were posted on YouTube by folks like Howard Stern.........................

:roll:

"I won't have to worry about my mortgage, or gas!"

Or the people showing up at clinics for their free health care the day after the bill was signed.

 

[Caine]

Or the people showing up at clinics for their free health care the day after the bill was signed.

LOL Are you serious?

I had no idea people were that dumb.

 

[HBKDXfan]

It all depends on the context of how you watch it. Someone will take it one way and others will take it another way. That's how politics work. I like Beck (when he's not screaming at people over the phone) so I might have viewed it in a different light from a Beck hater and vice versa. But if they don't like it, that's fine because it's their opinion.

 

[HBKDXfan]

White priviledge was an actual phrase in the past. I am very happy to say that hopefully it will stay in the past. I have black friends and they work the same amount of hard as everyone else does and the only reason issues get brought up anymore is because people bring them up. I understand that black people were treated unfairly by white people back in the day and I wish it weren't so, but now a days the only way to correctly justify "crying rascism" is to provide actual evidence of the event. Sorry guys but I haven't yet seen anything proving that the Beck rally was rascist, nor evidence of the 8.28 rally being rascist.

 

[Geo Patric]

Even if non-conservatives support the troops or practice Christianity, they aren't conservative, so their support or practice doesn't really matter in the right's narrative.

the opposition does not matter. the opposition does not matter EVEN WHEN there are areas of agreement.

this is a perfect post. about as honest as it can be. nonrecaltrant partisanship. no apologies. no quisling compromises.

and a sad commentary on contemporary american politics.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

There is no law that says that even with a boost, whites can't fail; only that they would've failed even worse without a boost.
No law says blacks can't succeed despite the handicap of systematic racism; only that they would've been even more successful, if it didn't exist.

For the common run of middle and working class people, it means more: it can mean the difference between failure and success, rather than the difference between degrees of failure and success which you see at either extreme of the socioeconomic spectrum.

i think socrates would have shared his crust of bread with you for this one. simple, clear and precise.

the facts are plain, the reasoning is uncomplicated, the conclusions are obvious to anyone who is not blinded by cultural indoctrination.

geo.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

So you base your speculation based on one journalists speculation and small observation?


Who cares what color these people were unless you are a racist or a race baiter.



When the anti-war protests were happening no one made race an issue. Says more about you and your ilk and racism than it does the tea party.

glennbeck.com - Quantcast Audience Profile
This is Beck's demographics provided to advertisers.

His audience is 95% white; 61% male

Versus the US, which is 66% white (non-Hispanic) and 51% female.

The point isn't that Beck is a racist. The point is that he appeals largely to white people. The movement may attract some minorities, but not many in comparison to the Republican Party at large and especially not compared to the Democratic Party or those that identify as Independent.

 

[1069]

glennbeck.com - Quantcast Audience Profile
This is Beck's demographics provided to advertisers.

His audience is 95% white; 61% male

Versus the US, which is 66% white (non-Hispanic) and 51% female.

The point isn't that Beck is a racist. The point is that he appeals largely to white people. The movement may attract some minorities, but not many in comparison to the Republican Party at large and especially not compared to the Democratic Party or those that identify as Independent.

It's unbelievable to me that his audience is 5% minority.
Not that I literally don't believe your statistics; I just don't see how it could be.

 

[Josie]

Beck is a conservative. Most blacks aren't. It's not surprising that his audience doesn't have a large black audience.

And....who the hell cares? Why does skin color mean so much to you?

 

[Geo Patric]

White priviledge was an actual phrase in the past. I am very happy to say that hopefully it will stay in the past.

hmmph, you do not get out much, do you?

According to the nonprofit, nonpartisan Kaiser Foundation, 12% of whites fall below the poverty line as compared to 33% of blacks and 30% of latinos. This makes sense when you consider that 9% of whites are unemployed as compared to 17% of blacks and 16% of latinos according to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics (as reported in CommonDreams.org).

and crime? we all know that crime is commited mostly by minorities, don't we? Or... wait... is it that Blacks get stopped, detained, questioned, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned at greater rates? Well, according to the dept of Justice... it is the latter.

but... man, that is a lot of reading, how about a few simple samples?

According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, in 2001 whites and African Americans reported similar rates of carrying a weapon (whites 17.9%, African Americans 15.2%), and similar rates of carrying a gun (whites 5.5%, and African Americans, 6.5%). African American youth represent 32% of all weapons arrests, and were arrested for weapons offenses at a rate twice that of whites (69 per 100,000, versus 30 per 100,000).

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, among youths aged 12 to 17, the rate of current illicit drug use was 11.1 % among whites, and 9.3% among African Americans. ...white youth aged 12 to17 are more than a third more likely to have sold drugs than African American youth. [6] ...white students annually use cocaine at 4.6 times the rate of African Americans students, use crack cocaine at 1.5 times the rate of African Americans students, and use heroin at the same rate of African Americans.

However African American youth are arrested for drug offenses at about twice the rate that of whites, and African American youth represent nearly half (48%) of all the youth incarcerated for a drug offense in the juvenile justice system.

and between the races?

In 2008, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,704 offenses among single-bias hate crime incidents were racially motivated. Of these offenses, 72.6 percent were motivated by anti-black bias while 17.3 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.

now, imagine how bad it would be if the issue of race were not "in the past".

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

The point isn't that Beck is a racist. The point is that he appeals largely to white people. ...

and plays on the fears and hatreds therein. HE may feel one way or the other about the issue of race, but he USES it to inflame his audience.

who cares what he thinks? it is what he does that matters and it is what he does that makes him a racist.

geo.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

It's unbelievable to me that his audience is 5% minority.
Not that I literally don't believe your statistics; I just don't see how it could be.

They're not my statistics. They're his statistics.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Beck is a conservative. Most blacks aren't. It's not surprising that his audience doesn't have a large black audience.

And....who the hell cares? Why does skin color mean so much to you?

I didn't make a judgment. I just provided some facts based on the topic at hand.

Your opening statement is, I would assume, the very reason for it.

However, the larger question is this: if the movement that he supports (The Tea Party) has a largely older, white appeal (nearly 50% of his audience is over 50) how can it sustain itself based on the fact that we know that minority populations are growing much faster than non-Hispanic whites.

I'm not judging, but I think demographics don't favor the longevity of this movement.

Additionally: In the 2000 election, Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote. In the eight years since, Hispanic populations got larger and in 2008, only 31% voted for McCain.

In 2000, nearly 85% of Muslims voted for Bush. In 2008, 93% voted for Obama.

The gay vote used to hover around 70-75% Democrat, but it rose to nearly 90% for Obama.

The only one not trending downward for Republicans was the Asian vote - 62% for Gore in 2000; 62% for Obama in 2008. BUT, in 1988, nearly 60% voted for Bush 1.

It's not saying that Republicans, Conservatives, etc. are bigots. I'm asking how they get their message to appeal to an ever more diverse America?

I don't think Beck is the answer, as his message clearly doesn't connect with minorities - even worse than Republicans at large.

 

[haymarket]

from Filmfestguy

It's not saying that Republicans, Conservatives, etc. are bigots. I'm asking how they get their message to appeal to an ever more diverse America?

I think many people who look at demographics and what they will mean to elections in the not too distant future make a fundamental error. In this country there is an increasingly ignoring of the long run in favor of the short run. I would guess that many top Republican advisors are well aware of future demographics and what they spell for the GOP should they not change. However, they also are mainly concerned with the here and now and that is the election cycle we are no in. If they can appeal mostly to white Americans and win back the House and maybe the Senate, they see that as a great victory - and well they should. If they can continue the formula into 2012 and win without much minority support then they will do that.

I have heard some people say that there will be people we call "minorities" today that in the future will be included as "white". Consider that the Irish and Italians were once considered outside the dominant white group but today are solid members that nobody questions. I would guess that many Hispanics would be included as white and Asians are even considered by some to be some sort of super white because of their excellent record of success in economics and their low social pathologies.

I would suspect that the GOP has taken that into consideration and that is part of their long term plan - as minimal as that well may be.

I don't think Beck is the answer, as his message clearly doesn't connect with minorities - even worse than Republicans at large.

Agreed. Beck is not the answer but he is useful at the moment and a good mechanic knows how to use all the tools at his disposal. And Beck is a tool in every sense of the word.

 

[1069]

I have heard some people say that there will be people we call "minorities" today that in the future will be included as "white". Consider that the Irish and Italians were once considered outside the dominant white group but today are solid members that nobody questions. I would guess that many Hispanics would be included as white and Asians are even considered by some to be some sort of super white because of their excellent record of success in economics and their low social pathologies.

Say what...? :lol:
Actually, many hispanics are white.
But this is the first I've heard of this "super white" theory.
Maybe, actually, whites are "super blacks", because of their "excellent record of success in economics and their low social pathologies" as compared to blacks.
I think I'm going to start telling people I'm a super black. They really need to put that down as an option on polls.

:tongue4:

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Say what...? :lol:
Actually, many hispanics are white.
But this is the first I've heard of this "super white" theory.
Maybe, actually, whites are "super blacks", because of their "excellent record of success in economics and their low social pathologies" as compared to blacks.
I think I'm going to start telling people I'm a super black. They really need to put that down as an option on polls.

:tongue4:

Well, technically, we're all African if you trace it back far enough...

 

[FilmFestGuy]

from Filmfestguy



I think many people who look at demographics and what they will mean to elections in the not too distant future make a fundamental error. In this country there is an increasingly ignoring of the long run in favor of the short run. I would guess that many top Republican advisors are well aware of future demographics and what they spell for the GOP should they not change. However, they also are mainly concerned with the here and now and that is the election cycle we are no in. If they can appeal mostly to white Americans and win back the House and maybe the Senate, they see that as a great victory - and well they should. If they can continue the formula into 2012 and win without much minority support then they will do that.

I have heard some people say that there will be people we call "minorities" today that in the future will be included as "white". Consider that the Irish and Italians were once considered outside the dominant white group but today are solid members that nobody questions. I would guess that many Hispanics would be included as white and Asians are even considered by some to be some sort of super white because of their excellent record of success in economics and their low social pathologies.

I would suspect that the GOP has taken that into consideration and that is part of their long term plan - as minimal as that well may be.


Agreed. Beck is not the answer but he is useful at the moment and a good mechanic knows how to use all the tools at his disposal. And Beck is a tool in every sense of the word.

I agree with nearly 100% of what you say, here - and thank you for a well thought-out post.

But my question is this: how many of these voters they're losing today for short-term gains will hold a long-term grudge against them? Political identities can and do shift. But there always remain a certain core that will look back at "X" election and say that they can never vote for said party again. For many minorities, there are certain things that are driving them away from the Republican message and they may never get them back. Already, my 18-year-old second cousin isn't just liberal. He's vehemently anti-conservative because just as he was coming out, Prop. 8 was passed. His best friend (my niece) joins him in that anger, and she votes for the first time in her life this year after turning 18. Another good friend has said he'll never vote Republican again in a national-level election (after voting for Bush twice) because of the Arizona immigration bill. It's odd, I know, since that's a local issue - but his wife is Hispanic and his daughter, obviously, half-Hispanic.

Personally, the Republican Party, the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck can do whatever the hell they want, but they come across to me like so many of the Wall Street bankers of the 2000s who take short-term gains while giving up long-term security.

That said, Democrats clearly haven't done much for their long-term security either.

God, the time is ripe for a good alternative party. It just pisses me off that the opportunity is being wasted on a group that has already tied itself to one of the major parties.

 

[1069]

I agree with nearly 100% of what you say, here - and thank you for a well thought-out post.

But my question is this: how many of these voters they're losing today for short-term gains will hold a long-term grudge against them? Political identities can and do shift. But there always remain a certain core that will look back at "X" election and say that they can never vote for said party again. For many minorities, there are certain things that are driving them away from the Republican message and they may never get them back. Already, my 18-year-old second cousin isn't just liberal. He's vehemently anti-conservative because just as he was coming out, Prop. 8 was passed. His best friend (my niece) joins him in that anger, and she votes for the first time in her life this year after turning 18. Another good friend has said he'll never vote Republican again in a national-level election (after voting for Bush twice) because of the Arizona immigration bill. It's odd, I know, since that's a local issue - but his wife is Hispanic and his daughter, obviously, half-Hispanic.

Personally, the Republican Party, the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck can do whatever the hell they want, but they come across to me like so many of the Wall Street bankers of the 2000s who take short-term gains while giving up long-term security.

That said, Democrats clearly haven't done much for their long-term security either.

God, the time is ripe for a good alternative party. It just pisses me off that the opportunity is being wasted on a group that has already tied itself to one of the major parties.

The short term may be all that matters, if all the dire predictions I've been hearing come true.
There may be no "United States of America", at least as we now know it, in the long term.
There certainly may not be a two-party system in another hundred years; there may not be a republican party, there may not be a democratic party. Who knows?
I don't worry about the future much, or the past, so how can I blame others for focusing exclusively on the short term?