Bill O'Reilly Denies then Proves White Privilege

[Mavorpen]

But you just did.

Yes, I thought that since he was including himself as an example, he was a relevant one, meaning that I thought that he lived in the United States. Much as if someone started spouting off about how unfair it was for tax dollars to go to the monarchy, I think that I would be forgiven for assuming that the person lived in the U.K.

Especially if the thread topic was, well, about the U.K.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Every time this sort of discussion comes up, all but without fail the same two sides crop up - one saying that racial privilege is no longer an issue, and the other saying that is is currently an issue. The latter side looks to "dismantle power structure[s]" (direct quote from earlier in the thread) and so on, while the former side doesn't see this as necessary and often even sees it as harmful. I think both groups kind of miss the point, however.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that while it is definitely a bad sign when one racial group has a persistently lower income distribution than another, it is not necessarily a sign of racial privilege.

First, to grossly oversimplify the situation in as non-controversial a way as possible:

• Poor communities tend to lack educational opportunities and have more problems with crime than richer communities.
• In large part because of these factors, people in poor communities often have a very difficult time getting themselves out of poor communities.
• Therefore, people from poor communities tend to be less successful.
• Poor communities tend to have more black people than white people.
• Therefore, black people tend to be less successful than white people.
• Therefore, black people are more likely to live in poor communities than white people.
• Thus forms a vicious cycle of poverty.

A lot of people, knowing this, would propose that aid be given to black people in order to rectify this state.

Except, then not only are you helping out black people who don't need this assistance, but then you miss all the other people who need assistance - whatever skin color they may have.

And even if you expand to cover every group you'd care to name, you still wouldn't be attacking the root problem - that poverty is so incredibly hard to get out of. If we were to, instead of giving assistance on the basis of race and instead based upon one's need, not only would we still be giving assistance to those who need it by definition, we would be automatically covering only the people who need the assistance, also by definition.

Yes, yes, poverty is bad. No one's denying this. What, specifically, does this have to do with the existence of white privilege?

He or she is denying it. It's the thought that if we can trace this back to class issues, then that's obviously the problem, and not racial privilege. Because these two things obviously cannot exist simultaneously.

[The Serbian Empire]

More so than a black man who is bankrupt, living with his parents in a lower middle class suburb with no job and no prospects, yes.

Uh, how? Do tell us how being a white man in that situation magically means there's a slim chance life is sort of maybe better?

A lack of funds is still a lack of funds and the courts don't treat poor whites much better if any better than poor blacks. I think the white privilege is more the monetary privilege than anything else. One can presume a white person is wealthier just walking down the street even if they really aren't as most billionaires are white.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

The term "white privilege" itself is misleading. A "privilege" is a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others. We are 50 years past the Civil Rights Act, no one group is given advantage over another any longer in America. A more accurate word would be "advantage", because there is certainly social inequality in America, but of circumstance not by law.

I would say that overall in America, there is a sort of white advantage. Like I said, it's only been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act - while the law changes instantly, the culture takes some time. We can't deny that. But do I think we should actively try to reverse this advantage? No. We should try to understand it, and should try to work towards something better.

We don't speak of institutional privilege, we speak of structural privilege.

Not the one exercised by the State, instead the one exercised by society's culture and norms + capitalism.

[Hindenburgia]

Every time this sort of discussion comes up, all but without fail the same two sides crop up - one saying that racial privilege is no longer an issue, and the other saying that is is currently an issue. The latter side looks to "dismantle power structure[s]" (direct quote from earlier in the thread) and so on, while the former side doesn't see this as necessary and often even sees it as harmful. I think both groups kind of miss the point, however.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that while it is definitely a bad sign when one racial group has a persistently lower income distribution than another, it is not necessarily a sign of racial privilege.

First, to grossly oversimplify the situation in as non-controversial a way as possible:

• Poor communities tend to lack educational opportunities and have more problems with crime than richer communities.
• In large part because of these factors, people in poor communities often have a very difficult time getting themselves out of poor communities.
• Therefore, people from poor communities tend to be less successful.
• Poor communities tend to have more black people than white people.
• Therefore, black people tend to be less successful than white people.
• Therefore, black people are more likely to live in poor communities than white people.
• Thus forms a vicious cycle of poverty.

A lot of people, knowing this, would propose that aid be given to black people in order to rectify this state.

Except, then not only are you helping out black people who don't need this assistance, but then you miss all the other people who need assistance - whatever skin color they may have.

And even if you expand to cover every group you'd care to name, you still wouldn't be attacking the root problem - that poverty is so incredibly hard to get out of. If we were to, instead of giving assistance on the basis of race and instead based upon one's need, not only would we still be giving assistance to those who need it by definition, we would be automatically covering only the people who need the assistance, also by definition.

Yes, yes, poverty is bad. No one's denying this. What, specifically, does this have to do with the existence of white privilege?

He or she is denying it. It's the thought that if we can trace this back to class issues, then that's obviously the problem, and not racial privilege. Because these two things obviously cannot exist simultaneously.

I am not saying that these things cannot exist simultaneously, but rather that the issues that are being grouped under the banner of racial privilege are more effectively grouped under the banner of poverty issues.

Basically, what I am saying is that, instead of offering aid to everyone of a particular race due to people of said race being more likely to require said aid, we should, in a sort of tautological manner, simply offer the aid to people who require it.

This is because perfect implementation of the former system would mean that at least some people who need the aid would not get it, while at least some people who do not need the aid do get it, while perfect implementation of the latter system would mean that everyone who needs the aid gets it while nobody who doesn't need the aid does.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

He or she is denying it. It's the thought that if we can trace this back to class issues, then that's obviously the problem, and not racial privilege. Because these two things obviously cannot exist simultaneously.

I am not saying that these things cannot exist simultaneously, but rather that the issues that are being grouped under the banner of racial privilege are more effectively grouped under the banner of poverty issues.

Basically, what I am saying is that, instead of offering aid to everyone of a particular race due to people of said race being more likely to require said aid, we should, in a sort of tautological manner, offer the aid to people who require it. This is because perfect implementation of the former system would mean that at least some people who need the aid would not get it, while at least some people who do not need the aid do get it, while perfect implementation of the latter system would mean that everyone who needs the aid gets it while nobody who doesn't need the aid does not.

Are you saying that racial privilege does not play a major role in keeping black people in poverty?

[Wiendonia]

I am sick of white males denying the fact that white privilege exists. As a white male, it is disturbing that so many of us, are unable to get a grip with reality that white privilege is a major problem in today's society. Do you think white privilege is a big problem and how do we get rid of it?

As a white male who is a member of the under attack and slowly shrinking middle class I want to know exactly what privileged I have? Nobody told me or my family we have this magical privileged for being white or male or both! I'm sorry you feel guilty for thinking that because you are white you are better than everyone else and that you have to somehow bring white people down a notch to make things better. Why don't we work to improve the life of others?
So far this thread is about tearing people/groups down and not building them up. I for one say your guilt of "white" privilege can be cured by going out and helping those in need instead of sitting there and pontificating about how us "evil white people" need to reduce ourselves because of some supposed "privilege.

[Hindenburgia]

I am not saying that these things cannot exist simultaneously, but rather that the issues that are being grouped under the banner of racial privilege are more effectively grouped under the banner of poverty issues.

Basically, what I am saying is that, instead of offering aid to everyone of a particular race due to people of said race being more likely to require said aid, we should, in a sort of tautological manner, offer the aid to people who require it. This is because perfect implementation of the former system would mean that at least some people who need the aid would not get it, while at least some people who do not need the aid do get it, while perfect implementation of the latter system would mean that everyone who needs the aid gets it while nobody who doesn't need the aid does not.

Are you saying that racial privilege does not play a major role in keeping black people in poverty?

I am saying that what you are referring to as racial privilege is more essentially expressed as poverty.

Like I said in my first post, it's a vicious cycle, with poverty begetting poverty. The forces that are "keeping black people in poverty" ultimately derive from the poverty itself.

As do the forces keeping everybody else who is in poverty, in poverty.

To fix this, the best course of action is not to aid a specific racial group (since, as I explained above, that means you wind up giving aid to at least some people who do not need it, and miss at least some people who do), but rather to simply aid those who require it, across the board.

Again, this is something of a tautological statement, but I can't think of a better way to describe it.

[Mavorpen]

Like I said in my first post, it's a vicious cycle, with poverty begetting poverty. The forces that are "keeping black people in poverty" ultimately derive from the poverty itself.

Except, this is ultimately bullshit. Black people are discriminated against in the criminal justice system, negatively affecting their lives more than their white counterparts. Black people are discriminated against in the job market and are less likely to receive callbacks because of their name. Fuck, there are entire areas that are basically segregated, with the whites living in wealthier neighborhoods and the blacks stuck in the poor neighborhoods, allowing the districts to shift money from the majority black schools to the majority white schools.

These are real issues that are not "ultimately derived from poverty." They're issues that are derived from just plain fucking racism.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Are you saying that racial privilege does not play a major role in keeping black people in poverty?

I am saying that what you are referring to as racial privilege is more essentially expressed as poverty.

Like I said in my first post, it's a vicious cycle, with poverty begetting poverty. The forces that are "keeping black people in poverty" ultimately derive from the poverty itself.

As do the forces keeping everybody else who is in poverty, in poverty.

To fix this, the best course of action is not to aid a specific racial group (since, as I explained above, that means you wind up giving aid to at least some people who do not need it, and miss at least some people who do), but rather to simply aid those who require it, across the board.

Again, this is something of a tautological statement, but I can't think of a better way to describe it.

Except that you're ignoring how racial factors in hiring and law enforcement contribute to this cycle.

[Hindenburgia]

Like I said in my first post, it's a vicious cycle, with poverty begetting poverty. The forces that are "keeping black people in poverty" ultimately derive from the poverty itself.

Except, this is ultimately bullshit. Black people are discriminated against in the criminal justice system, negatively affecting their lives more than their white counterparts. Black people are discriminated against in the job market and are less likely to receive callbacks because of their name. Fuck, there are entire areas that are basically segregated, with the whites living in wealthier neighborhoods and the blacks stuck in the poor neighborhoods, allowing the districts to shift money from the majority black schools to the majority white schools.

These are real issues that are not "ultimately derived from poverty." They're issues that are derived from just plain fucking racism.

I am not claiming that racism has been totally eradicated, certainly. But at least some of the issues you see as being derived from nothing but racism are indeed derived from poverty. For instance:

there are entire areas that are basically segregated, with the whites living in wealthier neighborhoods and the blacks stuck in the poor neighborhoods, allowing the districts to shift money from the majority black schools to the majority white schools.

You here refer to the concept of "white flight" - wherein a wealthy neighborhood (which is more likely to be white than black, statistically) has its property values slowly degrade, which leads to the wealthier residents (who are more likely to be white, statistically) leaving, and poorer residents (who are more likely to be black, statistically) entering. The poorer taxbase then leads to degradation in services (e.g. road maintenance, schools, etc.) and further drops in property values, leading to a spiraling cycle that leaves you with a poor neighborhood which is predominantly black.

This wasn't because of racism, or even any one person or group. Because black people tend to be poorer than white people, the people who end up in poor neighborhoods tend to be black.

[Mavorpen]

This wasn't because of racism, or even any one person or group. Because black people tend to be poorer than white people, the people who end up in poor neighborhoods tend to be black.

Complete and utter bullshit. If you compare wealthy black neighborhoods to wealthy white neighborhoods, the wealthy black neighborhoods have less home value per dollar of income. If you compare poor black neighborhoods to poor white neighborhoods, it's the same exact thing. This means that even when homeowners in a neighborhood have roughly the same income, black-owned homes are STILL worth less. We've also found out that white people actively avoid multiracial neighborhoods, and that if they found a home that was in a neighborhood that fulfilled their criteria (good schools, low crime rate, etc.), they wouldn't buy it if there was a substantial representation of African Americans. You can't explain away this shit with poverty. It's racism. The sooner people stop denying this, the quicker we can address these issues and help minorities in general.

[Hindenburgia]

I am saying that what you are referring to as racial privilege is more essentially expressed as poverty.

Like I said in my first post, it's a vicious cycle, with poverty begetting poverty. The forces that are "keeping black people in poverty" ultimately derive from the poverty itself.

As do the forces keeping everybody else who is in poverty, in poverty.

To fix this, the best course of action is not to aid a specific racial group (since, as I explained above, that means you wind up giving aid to at least some people who do not need it, and miss at least some people who do), but rather to simply aid those who require it, across the board.

Again, this is something of a tautological statement, but I can't think of a better way to describe it.

Except that you're ignoring how racial factors in hiring and law enforcement contribute to this cycle.

I am not so naive as to think that racism is a thing of the past. In cases where the race of a job applicant can be shown to have been a factor in a company's hiring decision, the company should absolutely be at fault.

Not to imply that you are doing this, but I would like to point out that you cannot determine this using general statistics - that is, you cannot say, for instance, that since 30% of people in the area are black, yet 15% of the people in the local law enforcement are black, that the law enforcement hiring practice is necessarily discriminatory, or that because there is a significantly larger number (having accounted for population ratios, of course) of black people without jobs that hiring practices in general are discriminatory. Because black people tend to be poorer than white people, black people tend to get worse schooling than white people. Since better schooling is directly correlated to better employment practices, this means that black people tend to have worse employment prospects than white people. This isn't discrimination, this is demographics.

[Mavorpen]

Because black people tend to be poorer than white people, black people tend to get worse schooling than white people. Since better schooling is directly correlated to better employment practices, this means that black people tend to have worse employment prospects than white people. This isn't discrimination, this is demographics.

Again, you REALLY should do more research on this topic. Not only that, but you REALLY need to understand how to compare things. You cannot compare black people who have received sub-par education to white people who have received adequate education and then conclude that clearly it's education that explains the hiring gap.

We actually have studies of this stuff. They intentionally created identical applications for applicants with "white sounding" names and "black sounding" names. They found a significant gap that showed that these black people had would have had to have roughly EIGHT years more experience to make up for being judged based off of their name and consequently their race. THAT is how to study a topic.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Except that you're ignoring how racial factors in hiring and law enforcement contribute to this cycle.

I am not so naive as to think that racism is a thing of the past. In cases where the race of a job applicant can be shown to have been a factor in a company's hiring decision, the company should absolutely be at fault.

Not to imply that you are doing this, but I would like to point out that you cannot determine this using general statistics - that is, you cannot say, for instance, that since 30% of people in the area are black, yet 15% of the people in the local law enforcement are black, that the law enforcement hiring practice is necessarily discriminatory, or that because there is a significantly larger number (having accounted for population ratios, of course) of black people without jobs that hiring practices in general are discriminatory. Because black people tend to be poorer than white people, black people tend to get worse schooling than white people. Since better schooling is directly correlated to better employment practices, this means that black people tend to have worse employment prospects than white people. This isn't discrimination, this is demographics.

Except that there are certain statistics that you can use to determine whether or not race plays a factor.

People with "black sounding" names are statistically less likely to get calls back on resumes, even when their qualifications are approximately equal.

During economic downturns, such as the one we had recently, black people are usually among the first to be laid off, and their unemployment rate tends to be twice that of white people.

Black people are significantly more likely to be stopped and frisked by police than white people.

Despite usage being approximately the same, black people are significantly more likely to be arrested and charged with marijuana possession than white people.

There's more. Shall I continue?

[Hindenburgia]

This wasn't because of racism, or even any one person or group. Because black people tend to be poorer than white people, the people who end up in poor neighborhoods tend to be black.

Complete and utter bullshit. If you compare wealthy black neighborhoods to wealthy white neighborhoods, the wealthy black neighborhoods have less home value per dollar of income. If you compare poor black neighborhoods to poor white neighborhoods, it's the same exact thing. This means that even when homeowners in a neighborhood have roughly the same income, black-owned homes are STILL worth less. We've also found out that white people actively avoid multiracial neighborhoods, and that if they found a home that was in a neighborhood that fulfilled their criteria (good schools, low crime rate, etc.), they wouldn't buy it if there was a substantial representation of African Americans. You can't explain away this shit with poverty. It's racism. The sooner people stop denying this, the quicker we can address these issues and help minorities in general.

Not to imply that I believe you to be lying, but could you provide a reference for the home-value-per-dollar-income of a house owned by a black person being lower, on average, than that for a white person? I've never seen that even claimed before, so I am more than a little wary of accepting it to be the case out of hand.

For your second point, I would also be curious to see a source, though I am slightly more skeptical of it being the case because I don't see how that would be measurable in any sort of reliable manner.

Most of the rest of the post you replied to was an explanation of the phenomenon of "white flight". Seeing as you appear to disagree with that explanation (judging by the very first sentence of your reply), could you explain what you disagree with in it? I wasn't talking about home-value-per-dollar-income but rather simply regarding income, so I don't see how the second part of your reply is relevant, though I suppose I might just have not followed your point fully.

[Mavorpen]

Not to imply that I believe you to be lying, but could you provide a reference for the home-value-per-dollar-income of a house owned by a black person being lower, on average, than that for a white person? I've never seen that even claimed before, so I am more than a little wary of accepting it to be the case out of hand.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/resear ... k/rusk.pdf

For your second point, I would also be curious to see a source, though I am slightly more skeptical of it being the case because I don't see how that would be measurable in any sort of reliable manner.

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/609/1/200.abstract

Specifically from the paper:

Underlying and contributing to these policies and practices have been tradi tional racial stereotyping and discrimination. African Americans have been par ticularly affected as several studies have found them to be the most disfavored minority group by whites as well as other racial and ethnic groups (Charles 2005). Evidence indicates that it is the presence of blacks, and not just neighborhood conditions often associated with black neighborhoods (e.g., bad schools, high crime) that accounts for white aversion to such areas. In one survey, whites reported that they would be unlikely to purchase a home that met their require ments in terms of price, number of rooms, and other housing characteristics in a neighborhood with good schools and low crime rates if there was a substantial representation of African Americans. The presence of Hispanics or Asians had no such effect (Emerson, Chai, and Yancey 2001).

Most of the rest of the post you replied to was an explanation of the phenomenon of "white flight". Seeing as you appear to disagree with that explanation (judging by the very first sentence of your reply), could you explain what you disagree with in it? I wasn't talking about home-value-per-dollar-income but rather simply regarding income, so I don't see how the second part of your reply is relevant, though I suppose I might just have not followed your point fully.

The point is that you're completely wrong about what "white flight" even is. White flight involves white people flocking out of multiracial neighborhoods to homogeneous neighborhoods. It has nothing to do with their property value decreasing beforehand because of some unforseen occurance. It happens because either a) property values decline BECAUSE more minorities (blacks in particular) move into the neighborhood or b) the whites FEAR property value declining because of blacks moving in. It happens even when the blacks have comparable income. And as a consequence, they take the money spent on maintaining their relatively good infrastructure with them.

[Hindenburgia]

Because black people tend to be poorer than white people, black people tend to get worse schooling than white people. Since better schooling is directly correlated to better employment practices, this means that black people tend to have worse employment prospects than white people. This isn't discrimination, this is demographics.

Again, you REALLY should do more research on this topic. Not only that, but you REALLY need to understand how to compare things. You cannot compare black people who have received sub-par education to white people who have received adequate education and then conclude that clearly it's education that explains the hiring gap.

We actually have studies of this stuff. They intentionally created identical applications for applicants with "white sounding" names and "black sounding" names. They found a significant gap that showed that these black people had would have had to have roughly EIGHT years more experience to make up for being judged based off of their name and consequently their race. THAT is how to study a topic.

I am not so naive as to think that racism is a thing of the past. In cases where the race of a job applicant can be shown to have been a factor in a company's hiring decision, the company should absolutely be at fault.

Not to imply that you are doing this, but I would like to point out that you cannot determine this using general statistics - that is, you cannot say, for instance, that since 30% of people in the area are black, yet 15% of the people in the local law enforcement are black, that the law enforcement hiring practice is necessarily discriminatory, or that because there is a significantly larger number (having accounted for population ratios, of course) of black people without jobs that hiring practices in general are discriminatory. Because black people tend to be poorer than white people, black people tend to get worse schooling than white people. Since better schooling is directly correlated to better employment practices, this means that black people tend to have worse employment prospects than white people. This isn't discrimination, this is demographics.

Except that there are certain statistics that you can use to determine whether or not race plays a factor.

People with "black sounding" names are statistically less likely to get calls back on resumes, even when their qualifications are approximately equal.

During economic downturns, such as the one we had recently, black people are usually among the first to be laid off, and their unemployment rate tends to be twice that of white people.

Black people are significantly more likely to be stopped and frisked by police than white people.

Despite usage being approximately the same, black people are significantly more likely to be arrested and charged with marijuana possession than white people.

There's more. Shall I continue?

I was entirely unaware of the study regarding resume names. I'll have to look up the full study later, but the abstract was very interesting, and does point to a considerable amount of underlying racism. I'll reply regarding that after I've had a chance to do so.

But the other articles that Yumyumsuppertime posted do fall under a poverty-centric explanation quite well:

1. An impoverished background is directly correlated with lower employability, and black people are much more likely to be impoverished than white people. This has meant that black people are much more likely to be unemployed that white people.
2. My response to the stop-and-frisk one has two parts:
   
   1. First, the better of the two responses: stop-and-frisks would be much more likely to be done in a neighborhood that is known for having a high crime rate, through a combination of there probably being more of a police presence in higher-crime neighborhoods and heightened suspicion on the part of the police officer. Poorer neighborhoods tend to have high crime rates. Black people are more likely to live in poorer neighborhoods than white people. This would on its own make black people more likely to be stopped and frisked than white people, especially since I would suspect that, since black people tend to be poorer than white people, black people would be more likely to be walking rather than driving when compared to white people, also making them more likely to be stopped and frisked.
   2. And now for the second response, which is the far less optimistic of the two. Racial profiling (which, for the record, I very, very much disagree with, though I do know a number of people who don't) is the usage of statistics to attempt to identify likely criminals. While attempting to correlate race with the likelihood of being a criminal is very much a fool's errand, especially with how prone it is to confirmation bias (the criminals you don't find are the ones you don't know of, after all), since black people tend to be poorer, and the poverty is positively correlated with crime, one can see where such a notion would come from. It's a dumb, dangerous notion, but a notion nonetheless, and one that needn't be based upon racism. Though I'd be more than a little surprised if most instances of racial profiling didn't have some degree of racism underlying them.
3. From the article:

   It's easier to catch people with marijuana in communities where there are "open-air" drug markets, rather than looking in homes, basements or country clubs, said Burnett, the CEO of the National African American Drug Policy Coalition.

   
   In other words, in poorer neighborhoods, where they can't afford larger homes and therefore do more stuff outside, people are easier to catch smoking. And since black people are more likely to be in such neighborhoods, those are the people the catch there.

Also, I do see your post, Mavorpen - I need to leave for a bit, but I'll take a look through those sources once I do.

[Calimera II]

In the US? Nope.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

In the US? Nope.

It's fun to just read the OP, and skip the bits afterwards where people who know their stuff and are able to provide sources to back their claims actually discuss the subject in depth, isn't it?

[Jamjai]

yes, I think it easier for young females to find pink-collar job than a young male

and I also think more woman in general will find more success in the job market than a man

[Calimera II]

In the US? Nope.

It's fun to just read the OP, and skip the bits afterwards where people who know their stuff and are able to provide sources to back their claims actually discuss the subject in depth, isn't it?

There isn't any privilege of any type. Sources showing that White people are generally richer than others are crap because they don't show us shit about a supposed privilege.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

An interesting article that addresses this issue.

MANY white Americans say they are fed up with the coverage of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. A plurality of whites in a recent Pew survey said that the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News reflected that weariness, saying: “All you hear is grievance, grievance, grievance, money, money, money.”

Indeed, a 2011 study by scholars at Harvard and Tufts found that whites, on average, believed that anti-white racism was a bigger problem than anti-black racism.

Yes, you read that right!

So let me push back at what I see as smug white delusion. Here are a few reasons race relations deserve more attention, not less:

• The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.)

• The black-white income gap is roughly 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967.

• A black boy born today in the United States has a life expectancy five years shorter than that of a white boy.

• Black students are significantly less likely to attend schools offering advanced math and science courses than white students. They are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled, setting them up for educational failure.

• Because of the catastrophic experiment in mass incarceration, black men in their 20s without a high school diploma are more likely to be incarcerated today than employed, according to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Nearly 70 percent of middle-aged black men who never graduated from high school have been imprisoned.

All these constitute not a black problem or a white problem, but an American problem. When so much talent is underemployed and overincarcerated, the entire country suffers.

Some straight people have gradually changed their attitudes toward gays after realizing that their friends — or children — were gay. Researchers have found that male judges are more sympathetic to women’s rights when they have daughters. Yet because of the de facto segregation of America, whites are unlikely to have many black friends: A study from the Public Religion Research Institute suggests that in a network of 100 friends, a white person, on average, has one black friend.

That’s unfortunate, because friends open our eyes. I was shaken after a well-known black woman told me about looking out her front window and seeing that police officers had her teenage son down on the ground after he had stepped out of their upscale house because they thought he was a prowler. “Thank God he didn’t run,” she said.

One black friend tells me that he freaked out when his white fiancée purchased an item in a store and promptly threw the receipt away. “What are you doing?” he protested to her. He is a highly successful and well-educated professional but would never dream of tossing a receipt for fear of being accused of shoplifting.

Some readers will protest that the stereotype is rooted in reality: Young black men are disproportionately likely to be criminals.

That’s true — and complicated. “There’s nothing more painful to me,” the Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, “than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

All this should be part of the national conversation on race, as well, and prompt a drive to help young black men end up in jobs and stable families rather than in crime or jail. We have policies with a robust record of creating opportunity: home visitation programs like Nurse-Family Partnership; early education initiatives like Educare and Head Start; programs for troubled adolescents like Youth Villages; anti-gang and anti-crime initiatives like Becoming a Man; efforts to prevent teen pregnancies like the Carrera curriculum; job training like Career Academies; and job incentives like the earned-income tax credit.

The best escalator to opportunity may be education, but that escalator is broken for black boys growing up in neighborhoods with broken schools. We fail those boys before they fail us.

So a starting point is for those of us in white America to wipe away any self-satisfaction about racial progress. Yes, the progress is real, but so are the challenges. The gaps demand a wrenching, soul-searching excavation of our national soul, and the first step is to acknowledge that the central race challenge in America today is not the suffering of whites.

The links to the sources for his claims are in the body of the article itself, so feel free to click over and check his math.

[Ashmoria]

pehaps the phrase you are looking for is "what is wrong with white people?"

i use that phrase frequently these days.

Which would make you a racist. Nice one.

maybe but when i see the polling around things like the ferguson Missouri clusterfuck the results do make me wonder what is wrong with white people.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fer ... story.html

[Ashmoria]

I would agree that music can be traced to African American people but it was nothing to do with Africa. It was devrloped centuries later. Do rappers use drums in their music? No.

Yes. Come on now, don't pretend you're a master on black culture. You clearly know absolutely nothing about it.

Also, "drums"? Really? Is THAT the extent of your knowledge concerning African music? Holy shit this is hilarious.

there are no drums in rap music?