Comments on: White Privilege – Can You See it?

By: Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:05:52 +0000

Wow. Maybe you should try to refute some of his points, or his argument in general, rather than bash him ad hominem. Or maybe respectful civil debate’s not your kind of style.

By: Cornelius Aesop

Cornelius Aesop — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:49:16 +0000

What about all the other races and ethnicities that comprise the US, but I get your point on a very basic level. There are plenty of research out there if one takes the time to read it and explore it. The interesting thing is the concept of race in the US compared to the rest of the world.

By: Kate Sedgwick

Kate Sedgwick — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 06:03:53 +0000

Wow. You should check out Rep. Richard Martin. I think he’s just your kind of politician.

By: Low Ball Jones

Low Ball Jones — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 06:09:32 +0000

One thing that makes this argument impossible for me to accept. “Whites”. You assume all whites have “unearned privileges”. Lady, you don’t know white folk.

In white society, in male society, in rich society, in every “elite” society, what people assume (like that famous Eddie Murphy skin where he dons white face and suddenly garners free riches just like all the other whites) is these organizations are extremely competitive.

For example, an outsider might look at people going into a Fortune 500 skyscraper and say “oh yeah, look, that’s not for me…all those people get a free ride”.

But inside, everyone knows that those at the top get much, much more than those at the bottom…and many are there getting stepped on, getting insulted, just to hang on to a small bit of salary and some privilege…a tiny bit.

By: Kate Sedgwick

Kate Sedgwick — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:02:29 +0000

Interesting thoughts. I do want to point out though that post colonial literature also acknowledges the wrongs that were done to colonized populations. If you have a look at a book like Achebe’s ‘Things Fall Apart’ or Dangarembga’s ‘Nervous Conditions’ you will see that many of these works are direct responses to the colonial influence and the harmful effects of colonization.

In addition, the field deconstructs popular native European and American authors with the reality of colonization in mind. Through this prism, Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is offensive and horrible, and the fact that it’s held up as a great work of literature denies the humanity of millions of people.

So, while I think that your point it interesting, I would argue that post colonial literature does more to slam and deconstruct what it at the center of colonialism and the way people and cultures are destroyed through that process than it does to praise it or belittle colonized cultures.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:08:16 +0000

I wasn’t really sure about the bookstore example at first…to me it seemed there might be more clear-cut cases, and I also thought that because of niche marketing these sorts of weird segregation phenomena happen quite a lot…but then on thinking about it some more, yes, why should this particular ‘niche’ be the case?
It reminds me of another case in literature, so called ‘post-colonial literature’. This is literature which (ok I’m only talking about the English case here, as I know it happens in other languages but I don’t have enough knowledge about them to comment) is written in English, in countries that used to be colonised by Britain – like India and South Africa, for example. In English literature it is studied as ‘post-colonial writing’, under the banner of ‘post-colonial theory’. Seems to me like it’s taking away from the identities of the countries in question to somehow suggest that any writing that comes out of the country, which happens to be in English, must be studied as ‘post-colonial’. I mean, come on, people have their own identities and realities, without having to assume that the former colonisers left ‘culture’ behind for them to be able to create literature! ha ha!

By: Sara

Sara — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:16:56 +0000

The class struggle is more important than identity politics. Wake up fellow Americans.

By: HyderabadChick

HyderabadChick — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:31:35 +0000

I’m just a poster, not the original author. I’ve heard that race doesn’t exist biologically – makes sense to me.

Life taught me – and friends once said to me “You’re black – WE’RE brown.” Race exists in the minds of others. As long as that’s true – doesn’t matter whether I believe or not – the belief in race will impact my world.

By: speedboat

speedboat — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:07:28 +0000

“Race” should be defined as a constellation of genetically inhertable characteristics. We are all absolutely one species, but the migrations and evolutionary history of the species have geographically isolated characteristics into groups. ie, race. It is a simple biological fact of dominant and recessive genes. I refer you back to my earlier comment about tribalism, another evolutionary fact, to understand why so many people think race is a fundamentally important difference.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:24:59 +0000

I must say, considering the subject matter its very interesting how most of these posts refer to Race. Does this mean you (the article writer and the following posters) believe that biological race exists? if so why is that?