I apologize in advance.

Read this:It MIGHT interest you.

​

​

​

timjwise@msn.com ​

Ask a fish what water is and you'll get no answer. Even if fish were capable of speech, they would likely have no explanation for the element they swim in every minute of every day of their lives. Water simply is. Fish take it for granted.
So too with this thing we hear so much about, "racial preference." While many whites seem to think the notion originated with affirmative action programs, intended to expand opportunities for historically marginalized people of color, racial preference has actually had a long and very white history.
Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only unfree labor in the colonies that would become the U.S.
Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed virtually any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians and American Indians could not.
Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion laws, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny.
In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially restrictive housing policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930s to the '60s, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs.
In other words, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in the history of the cosmos. It has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.
White families, on average, have a net worth that is 11 times the net worth of black families, according to a recent study; and this gap remains substantial even when only comparing families of like size, composition, education and income status.
A full-time black male worker in 2003 makes less in real dollar terms than similar white men were earning in 1967. Such realities are not merely indicative of the disadvantages faced by blacks, but indeed are evidence of the preferences afforded whites -- a demarcation of privilege that is the necessary flipside of discrimination.
Indeed, the value of preferences to whites over the years is so enormous that the current baby-boomer generation of whites is currently in the process of inheriting between $7-10 trillion in assets from their parents and grandparents -- property handed down by those who were able to accumulate assets at a time when people of color by and large could not. To place this in the proper perspective, we should note that this amount of money is more than all the outstanding mortgage debt, all the credit card debt, all the savings account assets, all the money in IRAs and 401k retirement plans, all the annual profits for U.S. manufacturers, and our entire merchandise trade deficit combined.
Yet few whites have ever thought of our position as resulting from racial preferences. Indeed, we pride ourselves on our hard work and ambition, as if somehow we invented the concepts.
As if we have worked harder than the folks who were forced to pick cotton and build levies for free; harder than the Latino immigrants who spend 10 hours a day in fields picking strawberries or tomatoes; harder than the (mostly) women of color who clean hotel rooms or change bedpans in hospitals, or the (mostly) men of color who collect our garbage.
We strike the pose of self-sufficiency while ignoring the advantages we have been afforded in every realm of activity: housing, education, employment, criminal justice, politics, banking and business. We ignore the fact that at almost every turn, our hard work has been met with access to an opportunity structure denied to millions of others. Privilege, to us, is like water to the fish: invisible precisely because we cannot imagine life without it.
It is that context that best explains the duplicity of the President's recent criticisms of affirmative action at the University of Michigan. President Bush, himself a lifelong recipient of affirmative action -- the kind set aside for the mediocre rich -- recently proclaimed that the school's policies were examples of unfair racial preference. Yet in doing so he not only showed a profound ignorance of the Michigan policy, but made clear the inability of yet another white person to grasp the magnitude of white privilege still in operation.
The President attacked Michigan's policy of awarding 20 points (on a 150-point evaluation scale) to undergraduate applicants who are members of underrepresented minorities (which at U of M means blacks, Latinos and American Indians). To many whites such a "preference" is blatantly discriminatory.
Bush failed to mention that greater numbers of points are awarded for other things that amount to preferences for whites to the exclusion of people of color.
For example, Michigan awards 20 points to any student from a low-income background, regardless of race. Since these points cannot be combined with those for minority status (in other words poor blacks don't get 40 points), in effect this is a preference for poor whites.
Then Michigan awards 16 points to students who hail from the Upper Peninsula of the state: a rural, largely isolated, and almost completely white area.
Of course both preferences are fair, based as they are on the recognition that economic status and even geography (as with race) can have a profound effect on the quality of K-12 schooling that one receives, and that no one should be punished for things that are beyond their control. But note that such preferences -- though disproportionately awarded to whites -- remain uncriticized, while preferences for people of color become the target for reactionary anger. Once again, white preference remains hidden because it is more subtle, more ingrained, and isn't called white preference, even if that's the effect.
But that's not all. Ten points are awarded to students who attended top-notch high schools, and another eight points are given to students who took an especially demanding AP and honors curriculum.
As with points for those from the Upper Peninsula, these preferences may be race-neutral in theory, but in practice they are anything but. Because of intense racial isolation (and Michigan's schools are the most segregated in America for blacks, according to research by the Harvard Civil Rights Project), students of color will rarely attend the "best" schools, and on average, schools serving mostly black and Latino students offer only a third as many AP and honors courses as schools serving mostly whites.
So even truly talented students of color will be unable to access those extra points simply because of where they live, their economic status and ultimately their race, which is intertwined with both.
Four more points are awarded to students who have a parent who attended the U of M: a kind of affirmative action with which the President is intimately familiar, and which almost exclusively goes to whites. Ironically, while alumni preference could work toward the interest of diversity if combined with aggressive race-based affirmative action (by creating a larger number of black and brown alums), the rollback of the latter, combined with the almost guaranteed retention of the former, will only further perpetuate white preference.
So the U of M offers 20 "extra" points to the typical black, Latino or indigenous applicant, while offering various combinations worth up to 58 extra points for students who will almost all be white. But while the first of these are seen as examples of racial preferences, the second are not,
hidden as they are behind the structure of social inequities that limit where people live, where they go to school, and the kinds of opportunities they have been afforded. White preferences, the result of the normal workings of a racist society, can remain out of sight and out of mind, while the power of the state is turned against the paltry preferences meant to offset them.
Very telling is the oft-heard comment by whites, "If I had only been black I would have gotten into my first-choice college."
Such a statement not only ignores the fact that whites are more likely than members of any other group -- even with affirmative action in place -- to get into their first-choice school, but it also presumes, as anti-racist activist Paul Marcus explains, "that if these whites were black, everything else about their life would have remained the same." In other words, that it would have made no negative difference as to where they went to school, what their family income was, or anything else.
The ability to believe that being black would have made no difference (other than a beneficial one when it came time for college), and that being white has made no positive difference, is rooted in privilege itself: the privilege that allows one to not have to think about race on a daily basis; to not have one's intelligence questioned by best-selling books; to not have to worry about being viewed as a "out of place" when driving, shopping, buying a home, or for that matter, attending the University of Michigan.
So long as those privileges remain firmly in place and the preferential treatment that flows from those privileges continues to work to the benefit of whites, all talk of ending affirmative action is not only premature but a slap in the face to those who have fought, and died, for equal opportunity.

 

Yes, everything is of interest to me. It was interesting. Thank you for sharing.

 

This article should be given to and read by every white and black person who thinks that the past doesnt matter and that racism, pregudice, and white privilege dont exist.

 

Google TIM WISE and enjoy..

Go to youtube as well.

The guy is AWESOME.

 

can I just point out that fish, if they could talk and had a capability that it takes to describe things probably WOULD have an explanation of water.
I can describe air. It moves and is crispy and cold or heavy and warm. It's soft and light most of the time, and sometimes it gets moist.

As analogies goes, that one sucks.
Im not sayin anything bout the article though, just the fish. Haven't read the article yet. ^^.

 

You said that bullshit and didn't read the article?

 

Has some valid points.

It's called reversed racism.Some americans told me in the US is quite acceptabe.

 

So, if a white person says they aren't racist, it's called reversed racism? See, in most cases (not all) "racist" is just another word for "white person" and that was my point. Thanks for validating it.

 

No,if a black person is racist and tries to cover it up by saying "a black person can't be racist" or tries to accuse you of racism just because "you don't wanna kiss their ass ",like you said in you're post,that's reversed racism - that's what I was saying.
Racist is another word for "white person" in most cases and my post validates it? WTF?

 

Okay, my bad. Thanks for clarifying.

 

Their is black people that are hyper sensitive about race and militant. They are use to dominating a conversation without true opposition to their argument. They are so use to debating passive liberals that fully understand where the black person is coming from but fall short of truly debating their black counterpart. I understand what you are talking about racism is a very serious charge and I think that hyper sensitive black people throw the term on well meaning white people to often. In my opinion it's like calling someone a racial slur calling a white person a racist isn't a light charge and black people need to understand that because it do hurt feelings. I know because I have been called a uncle tom many times for just stating a opinion that is different from my fellow black brother. Some of them throw the charge around without fear of consequences and without true debating their opinion and if you feel that a white person is racist or have made a racially insensitive statement take the time to explain your charge. Don't call your fellow white brethren a racist just because you want to win an argument or because they don't agree with your position. Now having said that Britty24 I hope you don't buy what Mr. Thomas Jackson is selling while he may offer some facts supporting you position the guy is racially motivated. This guy doesn't offer solutions to the race issue or a fair argument he is just repackaging racial stereotypes and racial hatred. With well coded language and a dubious motive and I'm not blaming you and I know you are well meaning it's just that Thomas Jackson isn't. He challenge the opposition to racism in this country that convey his feeling that racism shouldn't be regarded has a detestable practice. I can sense in his words he think it's a shame that Americans hate racism so much and we regarded it has a crime along with Killing, Rape, and robbery and yet racism to many Americans is equally has evil and some cases worst than all these crimes. And like many racist thinkers he ignores history the whole spirit of his statement is a us against them mentality.

 

Paragraphs!! Holy crap paragraphs, PLEASE!!! :smt101

 

Your right my bad I got a little carried away I promise in the future that I want write anymore novels lol.

 

Just a thought here.....

While I lived in Sweden, I thought I knew about racism and later realized that in a country like Sweden, racism is a bit simpler (if you will) compared to a country with a history such as the US.
-->
When I moved to Houston to go to UofH - I moved to the Third Ward -
No, I had NO clue as to where I moved, but I had no-one to ask and that was what I could afford.
Now, the Third ward is huge and not all bad - there are areas that are perfectly fine, sort of - it IS home to UofH although the crack-distric bordered (at the time at least)to it (as is the case with many universities in many cities).
I lived fairly deep within the Third Ward and at the edge of one of the fairly bad parts south/south west of the university on the other side of MLK (if anyone know the area).

Anyhow, I can say that I was the only white for blocks and blocks and I was NOT welcomed - I was subject to a bunch of BS the forst 6 months or so and my head was spinning - I had NO clue as to what was going on and could not figure it out, why I was being treated the way I was.
I was naive and had NO grasp of the history of racism/slavery and how deep it penetrated everything.

After being there for a while and slowly gaining friends and having discussions with black Americans did I finally "get" it - its one thing to read about it in books, but you can not even grasp its reality until you have lived here for a while - Of course I cant entirely understand it as Im not raised here or black -but at least I got a "fast-track" education by moving into the Third Ward right of the bat and being treated as I was in the beginning - It truly taught me something very valuable!

In any case, an event about 6 months into me living there finally told me that I was "ok" and accepted as living there.
I lived there another 1.5 years and I must say that in many ways , I miss the camraderie we had in that little, bug-infested, leaky crappy apartment complex - we were all dirt poor and shared whatever we had when someone really had absolutely less than nothing (which we usually took turns doing). No, it was not all good, there were stuff I rather forget - but I really miss some of the folks.

Anyhow, with that rant, I wanted to say that I, the first 6 month were subject to a LOT of suspicion and treated with what I can not find another word for- should it be racism????


Disclaimer: this is not a complaint, Im just relaying something where I think I was being unjustly treated, and that this in turn taugh me something valuable about how it feels like to be judged on something that should not matter and how powerless that made me feel.
As I said, a fast-track education of sorts to understand (somewhat) what some live with every day...

My man, doesnt even wanna drive my car alone as he is afraid that he will get stopped in my car....

 

I stopped after the first sentence; you need to circumsize that shit.

 

That was mistake number 1.

 

I can circumsize you
First misstake going to UofH....ok, I get thatStill, dont regret a thing!!!!!
Btw - how would I know that being born and raised in Stockolm, Sweden?? Hmmmm???

Even if you want to antagonize me (and I did not falling for it), there were about 5 places that did Apoptosis (graduate school) at the time - and not many would take a foreginer with no money - most of places asked for you to have funding which is a catch 22 for foreginers as you cant get NIH grants unles you are an American citizen - hence my choice.
Today, I have been able to buy my own home.. in LA.. so that tells you how my choices were "bad". I still love ya my dear antagonist

And I will love you until it annoys the snot out of you!!!

Edit:
and when it does, I will continue, and I will love every minute of it!!!!
Bwaaahahahahaha

 

The price white Americans must pay for living in this nation?? (The consequences for slavery are not a one-way street...though I think being on one part of the street has it advantages). Being guilt tripped isn't fun but that is the way of the world. Our ancestors were slaves and we (most blacks anyway) will never have any knowledge of our family lines before slavery. Our last names were erased and our history and culture is not readily availabe to us...except what we've built here together with whites...which isn't so bad. Black folk must remember to take ownership of the U.S. because sometimes we allow ourselves to act like strangers in our own house...when in fact...WE BUILT IT Y'ALL...literally....who do you think built the White House?

If I need to "get over it"...then people like Thomas Jackson need to get over feeling "guilty" and stop complaining.

Poor and middle class whites (but especially poor) need to be mindful that black folks are not preventing them from having anything. It's called CLASS WARFARE. The economic elites...particularly in times past...knew that the easiest way to maintain power was to pit poor whites and some middle class whites against blacks of all socioeconomic levels (divide and conquer, my friends).

 

At least he put fullstops, and that's something considering how some people write here!