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

[FilmFestGuy]

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?

Because that's exactly what happened on Wall Street. They were giving out huge bonuses for quarterly and annual profits pretending that equaled success. What about those people who got bonuses at Lehmann Brothers just before it disappeared from the face of the earth?

Don't you think they wish they's looked more long-term?

 

[Hatuey]

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.

Do you know what generational poverty is? Seriously do you? Did you read anything I wrote? Or did you just decide to type away? Would you mind actually reading posts? Who knows? You may even come up with a coherent reply.

 

[haymarket]

from Filmfestguy

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.

First, thank you for the kind words about my previous post.
Second, your comment printed above is insightful. Because we only have two real choices, many people will reject the Democrats and go Republican simply because they have no other real choice. The republicans will take this as a sign of support and a sign that their policies and ideology are validated when that is not as clear as they would like to make it. In political science, we used to look at the 1964 and 1972 presidential elections as telling us that no matter how bad the candidates are (Goldwater 64 - McGovern 72) they will still garner a good 1/3 of the vote. In other words, if the Dems put up Mickey Mouse as their presidential standard bearer, at least 33% of voters would proudly cast their ballots for the smiling rat. And if the GOP selected Donald Duck, at least 33% would quack right along with them. We used to say that the election was won by the middle 30% who bounce back and forth as they did during those eight years.

One of the truly amazing things about the 1992 candidacy of Ross Perot is that he actually won about half of the actual votes that he had a chance to get. He took in 19% and all he really had any chance to get was something between 33 and 40%. The man did really well.

Today it is probably much less than that number. I would guess its down to about 15% - maybe even less. The libertarians pose no threat to the two major parties in any way shape or form. Nor does anyone else who has held minor party status on past ballots. The Tea Party could indeed make a difference but they pretty much have shown themselves to be populist Republicans and are more than willing to simply be part of that coalition.

If we had a party which really and truly looked out for the working class, the working class or Middle America - I think they could be successful at attracting a following. Maybe that is the process we are now in the middle of. Perhaps if both parties fail and trade places and then fail again and trade places and fail again and so on and so on people will get fed up. The Whigs did not die easily. Neither will the Dems or the GOP.

 

[Caine]

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?


and between the races?


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

geo.

Can you show me how those statistics PROVE that there is systematic racism?
You can't just guess based upon statistics that "there must be something going on, and that something is racism".

Any proof that racism today is keeping these people from suceeding?

 

[Caine]

Do you know what generational poverty is? Seriously do you? Did you read anything I wrote? Or did you just decide to type away? Would you mind actually reading posts? Who knows? You may even come up with a coherent reply.

And guess what.... My family is poor.

So, tell me how white privledge has propped me up...... again.....

 

[Hatuey]

And guess what.... My family is poor.

So, tell me how white privledge has propped me up...... again.....

Caine - have you not paid attention to what I've said the entire thread? At all? Here I'll explain it to you by TYPING REALLY SLOWLY so that you get it.

Let's say we had a white family in the U.S. called the Parkins in the 1880s. Let's say they were some poor rednecks from North Carolina who because of the Civil war ended up being nothing more than broke individuals dealing with life on the daily. Now let's say they got to work and after years of hard work they managed to buy their own far in North Carolina. Things started getting better for them slowly. As time went buy they accumulated wealth. Wealth which was then passed to their children and in turn passed on to their children. This wealth, because they were white, could not be seized by the government. As decades went by their assets grew and because of the social norms regarding how whites were to be treated their descendants had no trouble, aside from an outside force like a stock market crash, passing down the accumulated wealth started by the Parkins family in the 1880s.

Let's say you have an Irish immigrant named John Court in the 1910s who came to America almost completely penniless. Innitially this immigrant would have trouble accumulating wealth because of his 'foreigner' status in American society. His children, born in the 1920s, however would be considered Americans and would have little legal and social issues impeding them from accumulating wealth. As the decades went by this family much like the Perkins did, would slowly accumulate a level a wealth which would then be divided among descendants. This wealth would only be affected by outside forces which would be outside the control scale of the Court descendants.

Now let's say you have a 3rd family called the Johnsons. This is black family. Like the Perkins and the Courts they were some of the last in the African immigration waves to come to North America. Let's place them in the 1850s just to put a date on them. Unlike the first two families, there were affected by federal and state created laws which made it almost impossible for blacks to acquire land. When their descendants were finally able to acquire land they were affected by the imminent domain laws so common during the Jim Crow days. Not only that but there were laws affecting which schools their kids got into and thus how much wealth they could accumulate.

Generational poverty can and is eventually broken. Your family might currently be poor but what little wealth you've accumulated will get passed down to your kids. They in turn should be able to use that head start to create their own wealth and pass it down to their own children and so and so on until it is your descendants 3-4 generations removed are eventually those which reach a certain level of wealth and financial stability. The same case is what is currently happening with African Americans. In reality they are only one full generation removed from a time where accumulating wealth for them was quite hard. This means that we won't see blacks reach the same levels of poverty as whites in America for another 40-50 years. It's only natural. As we speak there are more black corporate executives than ever in the history of America but regardless this doesn't mean much. The majority of the black community is still being affected by centuries of institutionalized racism and poverty. The privilege people talk about in regards to whites is not one which can be explained with a 'whites only' sign. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Do you understand what white privilege is now? I don't really know what your family history is. Your ancestors really had nothing stopping them from acquiring, accumulating and passing down wealth if they were from the same white bread you seem to be. Maybe they were Jewish or something and thus affected some of the same laws which affected blacks and stopped them from acquiring health. Maybe they were just lazy rednecks who never worked a day in their lives. I simply don't know your family well enough to know why they never accumulated wealth. However, I'm willing to bet dollars to **** that the reason you don't understand why you haven't been 'propped up by white privilege is because you have not a ****ing clue what it is. You think it's some sort of magic wand that is placed on the head of every white child when they're born. The reality is that white privilege is not something which can be observed within a single generation or explained with anecdotal evidence. It's something which is observed in American society as a whole.

 

[1069]

Caine - have you not paid attention to what I've said the entire thread? At all? Here I'll explain it to you by TYPING REALLY SLOWLY so that you get it.

Let's say we had a white family in the U.S. called the Parkins in the 1880s. Let's say they were some poor rednecks from North Carolina who because of the Civil war ended up being nothing more than broke individuals dealing with life on the daily. Now let's say they got to work and after years of hard work they managed to buy their own far in North Carolina. Things started getting better for them slowly. As time went buy they accumulated wealth. Wealth which was then passed to their children and in turn passed on to their children. This wealth, because they were white, could not be seized by the government. As decades went by their assets grew and because of the social norms regarding how whites were to be treated their descendants had no trouble, aside from an outside force like a stock market crash, passing down the accumulated wealth started by the Parkins family in the 1880s.

Let's say you have an Irish immigrant named John Court in the 1910s who came to America almost completely penniless. Innitially this immigrant would have trouble accumulating wealth because of his 'foreigner' status in American society. His children, born in the 1920s, however would be considered Americans and would have little legal and social issues impeding them from accumulating wealth. As the decades went by this family much like the Perkins did, would slowly accumulate a level a wealth which would then be divided among descendants. This wealth would only be affected by outside forces which would be outside the control scale of the Court descendants.

Now let's say you have a 3rd family called the Johnsons. This is black family. Like the Perkins and the Courts they were some of the last in the African immigration waves to come to North America. Let's place them in the 1850s just to put a date on them. Unlike the first two families, there were affected by federal and state created laws which made it almost impossible for blacks to acquire land. When their descendants were finally able to acquire land they were affected by the imminent domain laws so common during the Jim Crow days. Not only that but there were laws affecting which schools their kids got into and thus how much wealth they could accumulate.

Do you understand what white privilege is now? I don't really know what your family history is. Your ancestors really had nothing stopping them from acquiring, accumulating and passing down wealth if they were from the same white bread you seem to be. Maybe they were Jewish or something and thus affected some of the same laws which affected blacks and stopped them from acquiring health. Maybe they were just lazy rednecks who never worked a day in their lives. I simply don't know your family well enough to know why they never accumulated wealth. However, I'm willing to bet dollars to **** that the reason you don't understand why you haven't been 'propped up by white privilege is because you have not a ****ing clue what it is. You think it's some sort of magic wand that is placed on the head of every white child when they're born. The reality is that white privilege is not something which can be observed within a single generation or explained with anecdotal evidence. It's something which is observed in American society as a whole.

Perfect.

And I'd just add that as wealth was accumulated by these white families, so was education, also denied blacks until recently.
And so was a sense of entitlement, so clearly on proud display at the Glen Beck rally in Washington.

 

[Trynce]

George Washington Carver was a great American.

Not sure what Glenn Beck or his rally has to do with racism. I've never heard any racist rhetoric from him. I hear instances of racism disguised under the proxy of "affirmative action" every day, though. The TEA party was about restoring small government, but idiots like Palin got involved and bastardized the thing, so now it's a mockery.

 

[Hatuey]

Perfect.

And I'd just add that as wealth was accumulated by these white families, so was education, also denied blacks until recently.
And so was a sense of entitlement, so clearly on proud display at the Glen Beck rally in Washington.

I think most people who try to debate what is known as 'white privilege' debate it on a very basic level. They ask themselves 'I'm white so why didn't it affect me?' well the reality is that white privilege was more like white luck. For it to affect you you'd have to depend on who your ancestors were and how lucky they were with money. If your ancestors were savvy with money and worked hard then chances are you have benefited from it on some level. However if they were lazy trash who never worked for anything and basically depended on money falling from the sky then you didn't really benefit from it. It's not a real 'privilege' it was more of an 'advantage'. The ancestors of whites in this country had a clear societal advantage which they could make full use of and there is a sizable percentage of them did.

 

[Caine]

Caine - have you not paid attention to what I've said the entire thread? At all? Here I'll explain it to you by TYPING REALLY SLOWLY so that you get it.

Let's say we had a white family in the U.S. called the Parkins in the 1880s. Let's say they were some poor rednecks from North Carolina who because of the Civil war ended up being nothing more than broke individuals dealing with life on the daily. Now let's say they got to work and after years of hard work they managed to buy their own far in North Carolina. Things started getting better for them slowly. As time went buy they accumulated wealth. Wealth which was then passed to their children and in turn passed on to their children. This wealth, because they were white, could not be seized by the government. As decades went by their assets grew and because of the social norms regarding how whites were to be treated their descendants had no trouble, aside from an outside force like a stock market crash, passing down the accumulated wealth started by the Parkins family in the 1880s.

Let's say you have an Irish immigrant named John Court in the 1910s who came to America almost completely penniless. Innitially this immigrant would have trouble accumulating wealth because of his 'foreigner' status in American society. His children, born in the 1920s, however would be considered Americans and would have little legal and social issues impeding them from accumulating wealth. As the decades went by this family much like the Perkins did, would slowly accumulate a level a wealth which would then be divided among descendants. This wealth would only be affected by outside forces which would be outside the control scale of the Court descendants.

Now let's say you have a 3rd family called the Johnsons. This is black family. Like the Perkins and the Courts they were some of the last in the African immigration waves to come to North America. Let's place them in the 1850s just to put a date on them. Unlike the first two families, there were affected by federal and state created laws which made it almost impossible for blacks to acquire land. When their descendants were finally able to acquire land they were affected by the imminent domain laws so common during the Jim Crow days. Not only that but there were laws affecting which schools their kids got into and thus how much wealth they could accumulate.

Generational poverty can and is eventually broken. Your family might currently be poor but what little wealth you've accumulated will get passed down to your kids. They in turn should be able to use that head start to create their own wealth and pass it down to their own children and so and so on until it is your descendants 3-4 generations removed are eventually those which reach a certain level of wealth and financial stability. The same case is what is currently happening with African Americans. In reality they are only one full generation removed from a time where accumulating wealth for them was quite hard. This means that we won't see blacks reach the same levels of poverty as whites in America for another 40-50 years. It's only natural. As we speak there are more black corporate executives than ever in the history of America but regardless this doesn't mean much. The majority of the black community is still being affected by centuries of institutionalized racism and poverty. The privilege people talk about in regards to whites is not one which can be explained with a 'whites only' sign. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Do you understand what white privilege is now? I don't really know what your family history is. Your ancestors really had nothing stopping them from acquiring, accumulating and passing down wealth if they were from the same white bread you seem to be. Maybe they were Jewish or something and thus affected some of the same laws which affected blacks and stopped them from acquiring health. Maybe they were just lazy rednecks who never worked a day in their lives. I simply don't know your family well enough to know why they never accumulated wealth. However, I'm willing to bet dollars to **** that the reason you don't understand why you haven't been 'propped up by white privilege is because you have not a ****ing clue what it is. You think it's some sort of magic wand that is placed on the head of every white child when they're born. The reality is that white privilege is not something which can be observed within a single generation or explained with anecdotal evidence. It's something which is observed in American society as a whole.

And how exactly has white privlege put me where I am today? Lets analyze........

I went to.. public schools. Right along side of black students. I had the same classes with... black students..... My family money (or lack thereof) did not change anything about this experience.
After leaving high school, I joined the U.S. Army at 18 years old in 2001. Many blacks also joined the Army in 2001. My family's money did not assist me in being eligible to join the U.S. Army. As many poor black young men also did the same thing.
After ending my term of service with the U.S. Army. I applied, and was accepted to the police department and academy.... Nothing about my family's money assisted me in obtaining this job......AND... I completed the academy, alongside of..... *gasp* black police officers......
I have never taken a loan from my father to bail me out of financial debt that I put myself into by being careless with my money.... so nothing there could have assisted me.

So... in conclusion. I still fail to see how "white privlege" has "propped me up".

Can you please explain?

Everything I have, I earned. Nothing has been passed down to me.
The same for my father. As his father didn't have **** to pass down.


The old family story is that at one point my grandmother's (dad's side) side of the family was wealthy, but after having his heart broken by some cheating woman, the wealthy guy in the family ran off with his money and never returned. Its a funny story, I bet alot of familys have a story like that though..
As far as my mothers side, they were all west virginia miners except my Papaw who joined the Corps back in the 50s and ended up in NC.

Regardless of how one gets poor, when one gets poor, it is difficult to get out of being poor. Black people do not have a monopoly on being poor.

So, how about that explanation of how family money obtained through "white privlege" has propped me up?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

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.

So what, why the need to whine because white people happen to like something in particular. Black folk historically have voted liberal, so it would make sense they wouldn't be as a group largley represented here as beck fans.


Common sense d00d. it's not a racist thing.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Evidence is the proportion of thse who showed up. Something with a broader appeal would have a better propotion. Try to stay with the confines of what I'm saying.

So a jay-z concert is equally racist? :roll:

 

[Harshaw]

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.

If his audience hit every demographic mark to a T, would it make the bitching about him stop? To that question, I say:

:rofl :rofl :rofl

So why do people insist on focusing on such insipidly irrelevant things?

 

[Josie]

So a jay-z concert is equally racist? :roll:

Al Sharpton's rally, BET watchers, Rev. Wright's church, the weekly Sunday soccer game in my town....

How silly to see people as "colors" instead of just people. Good grief. Did people who think like this grow up in the 60s and just can't seem to get over it? Or are there really this many younger people who continue the prejudices from the past?

 

[Boo Radley]

So a jay-z concert is equally racist? :roll:

You keep missing the point. I never claimed anyone racist. Only that a clear appeal is visable. And yes, jay-Z would likely appeal to one demographic more than another. Do you deny this?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You keep missing the point. I never claimed anyone racist. Only that a clear appeal is visable. And yes, jay-Z would likely appeal to one demographic more than another. Do you deny this?

Why would you point that out at all, what are you infering, don't be so cowardly and just say what the point of noting race is about.

 

[Boo Radley]

Why would you point that out at all, what are you infering, don't be so cowardly and just say what the point of noting race is about.

I try not to infer much. I try to state clearly. I did nothing more than point out his appeal is mostly to whites. That seems well supported. Now, why is another topic, and I would need to see more data to reach a conclusion, but I suspect the appeals vary, and would include some who are racist, as we can find with a lot of speakers. So, while I think there is something to consider in the make of his audinece, I have no reason to call him racist. And I know too little about the entire makeup of the audience to call the audience racist. But I can say he appeals more to whites than people of color on the whole. I bet his numbers suggest the same thing.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I try not to infer much. I try to state clearly. I did nothing more than point out his appeal is mostly to whites. That seems well supported. Now, why is another topic, and I would need to see more data to reach a conclusion, but I suspect the appeals vary, and would include some who are racist, as we can find with a lot of speakers. So, while I think there is something to consider in the make of his audinece, I have no reason to call him racist. And I know too little about the entire makeup of the audience to call the audience racist. But I can say he appeals more to whites than people of color on the whole. I bet his numbers suggest the same thing.

Ahh so you were just the jester of irrelevant facts. Sorry my bad, I thought you had an actual point. :shrug:

 

[Josie]

I try not to infer much. I try to state clearly. I did nothing more than point out his appeal is mostly to whites. That seems well supported. Now, why is another topic, and I would need to see more data to reach a conclusion, but I suspect the appeals vary, and would include some who are racist, as we can find with a lot of speakers. So, while I think there is something to consider in the make of his audinece, I have no reason to call him racist. And I know too little about the entire makeup of the audience to call the audience racist. But I can say he appeals more to whites than people of color on the whole. I bet his numbers suggest the same thing.

.............So?.............

 

[liblady]

.............So?.............

have the day off?

 

[Boo Radley]

Ahh so you were just the jester of irrelevant facts. Sorry my bad, I thought you had an actual point. :shrug:

It was a point. He has an appeal. And I wouldn't call that racist. You're the one who had a problem with that point for some strange reason.

 

[Josie]

have the day off?

1. None of your business.
2. How does this have to do with the topic?

 

[liblady]

1. None of your business.
2. How does this have to do with the topic?

just wondering..........why so offended?

 

[RightinNYC]

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.

This is fun:

Dailykos - 92% caucasian, 63% male

dailykos.com - Quantcast Audience Profile

RAAAAAAACISTTTTTTSSSS

 

[Josie]

just wondering..........why so offended?

Not offended. Why would it even matter to you? Talk about the topic, not my personal life.