Is White Privilege Real?

Republicans ran things until they screwed up the economy in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Democrats ran things for the next half-century.

They cemented control over the House with gerrymandering and voter suppression, just like Republicans have been doing in this century.



The above is an example where Democrats should have had control of the House.

 

I disagree. There truly is very little connection between a small victory in the theoretical popular vote and whom controls the House. When you consider that Democrat states tend to be ones with large urban populations with high concentrations of black voters whom vote Democrat 90%+, it is not surprising at all that Democrats would win the urban districts by enormous margins. Those enormous margins have no bearing on the eventual balance of power in the house, but they would have a huge effect on the non-existent theoretical popular vote.

 

You probably think history is a set of facts.

Because I don't agree with your extremist views? Because I didn't brainwash students with leftwing, or in your case rightwing ideology? Because I taught them how to research and come to their own conclusions?

I've taken your BS apart many times.

 

It is.

In your dreams, maybe.

 

You're describing the impact and strategy behind gerrymandering. Because races and ethnic groups are isolated in enclaves, there is no doubt some of what you describe happening naturally but not even close to the extent it has been engineered by pols.

When a white person (or Latino, Asian, Native American...) has absolutely no chance to be elected in many urban districts, regardless of their political views, we have a very unhealthy political climate.

This is an aside, but I want to express that I think Obama missed a golden chance to move this country toward a less racialized future. Tens of millions of white people voted for a black man for President. Instead of underscoring their choice by going to poor white communities first, telling them he would not forget them and that they made the right choice by supporting him, he played to his base.

 

I believe I have described reality with or without the impact of gerrymandering. Because Democrats rely so heavily upon the almost homogenous African American vote, and taking into consideration that the African American vote is heavily concentrated in urban areas, there is little doubt that Democrats want to break those African American districts up as much as possible to mix with white districts. It does Democrats no good to win a district by a 90-10 margin. I realize that gerrymandering works both ways, but because of the heavy concentration of the mostly homogenous African American vote, Democrats would have the most to lose if all congressional districts were magically all drawn up as equal sized squares superimposed on a map (I realize that is not possible due to population variance I am just saying it as a for example). If such a thing were possible, Republicans would clearly have the most to gain from that arrangement.

-I agree with you about Obama, but I would argue that the absolute last thing that Democrats want is a colorblind society, so I would not have expected Obama to move toward a less racialized society. Quite the opposite, Obama significantly increased racialization in this country, and I would argue that is by design. In a colorblind society, you would no longer see African Americans voting 90-10 for Democrats, because color would no longer reliably determine their vote. Democrats simply cannot allow that to happen. Hence you see them constantly discussing things like "white privilege".

 

Clueless nonsense.

This is what I thought was wayyyyyyy off the mark--and said so (see below).

You call this rubbish (see above) "common sense?" Egads.

 

So what?

 

So your outdated example shows the opposite of your claim.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. You asked if white privilege is real. I showed you that it is. No idea what your post has to do with my response.

If you know of any racist PAST in some Democrat, be happy that it's in the past, I'm, more worried about some Trump loyalists' racist present.

 

Roosevelt started the process with an Executive Order, so you're right about Democrats locking them up. Are you saying Republicans didn't support it? Is there some reason to turn this into a partisan issue?

Republicans were isolationists in 1941. Should their isolationism 80 years ago be held against them in 2021?

 

Outdated? No. Black people still have a harder time hailing a cab.

 

You decide if things work based on WHO runs them? That's insane! And it's even more insane that you publicly admit it

 

You said ethnic group, so I couldn't figure out who you were talking about.

 

Do you think Asians or Hispanics or Indians have trouble getting cabs, which are largely not driven by white people?

A sourced study for your evidence would be helpful here.

If not, why? And how is that white privilege?

 

I don't care if she was pink with polkadots. What she said was propaganda.

 

Huh? I was asked about a difficulty blacks have and I gave an example.

Who said anything about "white privilege," terminology I reject?

 

An example without much context. I was asking for additional context and a source for your claim.

I mean, with respect to hailing a cab, maybe a study would find no difference between an Indian’s ability to get a cab and a white person’s ability to get a cab. Would it be white privilege still then?

Perhaps a study would show how one dresses is a larger factor. I’d think someone of any color dressed like a homeless person would have a really hard time hailing a cab.
I can easily imagine a black man in his business suit might have an easier time hailing a cab than a white bum.

 

Still 100% false. Do you have any true examples?

 

African American is an ethnic group. And certainly you knew who was talking about.

 

I think there's a miscommunication. Once we evaluate how well things work, we go back and look for what caused things to go well. I will admit this publically.

 

"What", yes. "Who".... (as I said before) who cares! Does this new statement of yours imply that you have abandoned your previous position, in which you argued that you decided if something worked or not based on who was running them? It would appear like you did abandon it... but I just wanted to make sure.

 

Uh, no. It's the same exact premise. If we see what works and what doesn't, then we can see who's policies worked.

 

No, it isn't. Try this...

https://www.valdosta.edu/history/documents/what-is-history.pdf

Uh huh. This from the guy who thinks history is a set of facts.

 

Of course. They've been shoehorned into these districts by Republicans in many of the states they control. Democrats do their own gerrymandering, but as you point out they have been more reliant on support from minority voters and have a harder time isolating Republican supporters who are more evenly spread around.

Knowing what you see below, I would have thought Obama might have made a greater effort to consolidate the support of older whites who helped put him over the top.





https://news.gallup.com/poll/172439/party-identification-varies-widely-across-age-spectrum.aspx

More racialization? I don't see how focusing on black people would help Democrats.



https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-u-s-population-by-race/

Blacks will only be 13.6% of Americans by 2060.