Anon: White Privilege
/An excerpt from Trojan Horse: Death of a Dark Nation. By Anon. Published by Trojan Horse Press, 2009. Available [HERE]
"At least I ain’t a nigger! ”--Michael Richards (Seinfeld’s “Kramer”) taunting blacks in audience at a L.A. comedy club. (2006)
It was a revealing comment from Michael Richards, who later claimed he was not a racist. However, when Richards used his “skin color rank” as the ultimate weapon to beat down his non-white opponents, he knew he had something that black people (niggers) will never have in America – regardless of wealth, position, or title: white privilege.
What is “white privilege?” Let’s defer to an expert on the subject: a white person
“The whole idea is to grapple with the difficult issue of racism by looking at it from a fresh viewpoint - the viewpoint of what I, as a white person, am given, unearned, simply because of the color of my skin in contrast to what other people are deprived of unfairly because of the color of theirs.” - Donna Lamb, Communications Director for Caucasians United for Reparations and Emancipation (CURE), a white organization that supports reparations for descendants of slaves.
In his 1935 book, “Black Reconstruction in America,” W. E. B. DuBois first described the “psychological wages” of whiteness:
“It must be remembered that the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage.
They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were white. They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks, and the best schools.
The police were drawn from their ranks, and the courts, dependent on their votes, treated them with such leniency as to encourage lawlessness.Their vote selected public officials, and while this had small effect upon the economic situation, it had great effect upon their personal treatment and the deference shown them.
White schoolhouses were the best in the community, and conspicuously placed, and they cost anywhere from twice to ten times as much per capita as the colored schools. The newspapers specialized in news that flattered the poor whites and almost utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule.”
74 Years Later And Not Much Has Changed
While (some) whites deny the existence of white privilege, their flimsy denials quickly evaporate whenever they are engaged in a conflict or competition with a non-white person. The belief that a white person should (always) triumph over a non-white person, usually surfaces when:
1. A black person is hired or promoted over a white person.
2. A black person is more affluent than a white person (unless the black person is an entertainer or athlete).
3. A white authority figure takes a black person’s word over a white person’s.
4. A black authority figure attempts to dominate them.
5. A black person beats the (white) system (OJ Simpson verdict).
6. A white person is treated (or mistreated) in a way usually reserved for black people.
Suddenly, all is not right with the (white) world. Either there’s an assumption that the black person did something illegal or unethical to in a “superior” position over a white person, or there is a blatant refusal acknowledge the superior position of a black person.
“A white salesman rings my doorbell and asks to speak to the homeowner. I ’m standing there in a pair of old shorts and house slippers. Do I look I 'a damn butler? I knew right then what time it was. I decided, no matter what this white man was selling, even if he was giving it away for free, he wasn’t stepping one foot inside my house.” - A black, fifty-something attorney from an affluent suburb of Virginia.
This is a common experience for many affluent blacks. A black person who drives a luxury car or lives in an expensive home is often perceived by (some whites of obtaining them through immoral or illegal means, such as welfare or drug dealing. The assumption is: “How can this black person afford something that I - as a white person - cannot afford?”
This perception is based on the fear of losing something (white privilege) that most whites deny even exists. White privilege also surfaces in the workplace whenever a white employee is told to perform a menial task that is usually reserved for black employees:
“You ain’t working me like a nigger.” -- A white male employee said after his supervisor told him to move some heavy boxes.
Black students attending predominantly white colleges and universities are regularly regarded with suspicion and scorn. The assumption on the part of (some)white students and faculty is: “This unqualified black is here because of reverse discrimination policies that penalized a more qualified white applicant who really deserved this spot.”
Even when the educational or financial backgrounds of these black students is unknown (they usually aren’t), the negative stereotypes persist. After graduation, the degrees of black graduates are routinely dismissed as “dumbed- down affirmative-action degrees,” or “affirmative-action things.”
In the minds of (some) whites, blacks have not earned whatever they have; do not deserve whatever they get; and wouldn’t have anything at all had it not been for the (misguided) generosity of whites. Some have gone as far as stating that blacks should be grateful they were “rescued from the jungle” and enslaved for 400 years so they could live in the greatest country on earth.
“America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.” -- Pat Buchanan: “Slavery Best Thing Ever to Happen to Blacks”
The obvious (and false) assumption is that America would still be the same great country even WITHOUT our 400 years of free labor, ingenuity, inventions (which helped to modernize the country), literature, art, music, science, and medicine. Perhaps, black people should be thanked for “rescuing” white America from an almost certain, mediocre, colorless, and less prosperous existence.
"Mr. Trump, it’s not ‘The Apprenti, it’s ‘The Apprentice.”
In December 2005, Dr. Randall Pinkett became the first black person to win first place in Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice” reality TV show. Dr. Pinkett was the only Rhodes Scholar ‘Apprentice’ in the history of the show with five degrees: a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Rutgers; a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from the MIT School of Engineering; a
Master of Science in Computer Science from Oxford University in England as a Rhodes Scholar; a Master of Business Administration from the MIT Sloan School of Management; and a PhD from the MIT Media Laboratory, in the history of the show
Despite Pinkett’s impressive credentials and masterful performance on ‘The Apprentice,” his victory was almost stolen before a live audience of millions of viewers. When Trump asked Dr. Pinkett if he was willing to share 'first place with the runner-up, Rebecca Jarvis (a white female), Dr. Pinkett’s controversial (and correct) response was:
“Mr.. Trump, I firmly believe that this is ‘The Apprentice,’ that there is one and only one apprentice, and if you want to hire someone tonight it should be one. It’s not ‘The Apprenti,’ it’s ‘The Apprentice.”
After Pinkett’s respectful but firm refusal, Mr. Trump looked properly chastened because he had just revealed his racial bias on national television. Pinkett’s self-respecting response created a firestorm of resentment from the white press and angry (white) viewers, who booed, boo-hooed, and blasted Pinkett for choosing “selfishness over selflessness.”
It was illogical (and racist) to expect Dr. Randall Pinkett - a competitor in the most competitive reality show in television history -- to suddenly become non-competitive. Certainly, selflessness is not one of the qualities that made Donald Trump one of the most admired businessmen in America.
Yet, a black man was condemned for doing exactly what Mr. Trump would have done under the same circumstances: rightfully claim his prize. Dr. Pinkett’s real crime was not selfishness; it was his refusal to do what all black people are expected to do in a system of white supremacy: submit; be subordinate to the demands and expectations of white people; and sacrifice themselves (share his prize) to rescue a white damsel in distress.
Fair-minded viewers understood that asking the first black winner to share his prize was Trump’s gaffe, not Pinkett’s. Dr. Pinkett had every RIGHT (and every obligation) to resist a double standard that would have cheated him out of being the one and only winner.
The resentment from the white media and (some) white viewers can be explained with two words: white privilege. In other words: "it ain’t right for a non-white (nigger) to win over a (superior) white person, and that is why you should share your prize, Pinkett (nigger). ” In the face of this black man’s victory over a white person, white privilege reared its ugly head. That is the bottom line.
Black Success And White Resentment
“Please, I’m blacker than her mother.” - Meadow, teenage daughter of mobster Tony Soprano, referring to a black classmate. (HBOs Sopranos)
After “Meadow” learned of a black classmate’s early acceptance into an Ivy League school, she and a white male classmate sullenly assumed skin color was the reason for the black classmate’s acceptance to a prestigious college NOT academic performance. In addition, since the black classmate’s mother did not fit Meadow’s stereotype of what a black woman should be, Meadow decided she wasn’t “authentically black.”
White Perception Is More Powerful Than Black Reality
“I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though its run by blacks, primarily black patronship, ” said radio and TV commentator Bill O'Reilly , about his trip with Al Sharpton to the famous Harlem restaurant on his nationally syndicated radio show.
“There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, M-Fer, I want more iced tea.’ You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.” (September 2007)
Perhaps, O’Reilly’s words were not meant to be taken literally, but the fact that he saw nothing wrong with saying them publicly speaks volumes about the power of perception VS reality.
It’s hard to believe Mr. O’Reilly has never met any educated or sophisticated blacks in his profession. Yet he just “couldn’t get over the fact” that the black diners at Sylvia’s (a black establishment) weren’t screaming, ‘M-Fer, I want more iced tea! ” at their waitresses.
Certainly, there are loud and ignorant blacks, just like there are loud and ignorant whites in New York City, yet no one - including Mr. O’Reilly – would make the mistake of thinking all whites behaved a certain way.
Much of the credit for the negative stereotypes of blacks belongs to a mainstream media that (deliberately) rewards and promotes black entertainers who portray blacks as foul-mouthed buffoons, clowns, criminals, whores, and fools, instead of the wide range of humanity we represent: store clerks, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, doctors, lawyers, chemists, architects, educators, students, business people, cooks, clerks, 'firemen (and women), police officers, postal workers, and some extraordinary, but mostly average, imperfect human beings.
The OJ Simpson Verdict And White Privilege
The 1995 acquittal of OJ Simpson was not the first time a defendant was acquitted of murder, but it was the ‘first time in American history that a black man was acquitted of allegedly murdering not one, but two whites. After the verdict was announced, many whites were shocked and outraged, while many blacks were overjoyed. The unthinkable had finally happened: a black man (a nigger) accused of murdering two whites had leveled the uneven playing field of white privilege by having enough “green privilege” to hire a dream team of the best trial lawyers money could buy.
Guilty Until Proven Guilty
The OJ Simpson “not guilty” verdict led to frantic calls from politicians, talk show pundits, law enforcement, and (white) citizens for a drastic overhaul of the criminal justice system. Some of the proposed changes:
1. Allow non-unanimous jury verdicts.
2. Create a verdict system with three possible outcomes: guilty, not guilty, and not proven.
3. Set a minimum time limit for deliberation (because the four-hour Simpson verdict upset many people).
4. Allow juries of less than 12 people (overturning the tradition of a 12- person jury).
5. Change the venue rules to create a jury that is more “racially balanced” (eliminate predominantly black juries).
6. Use professional jurors. Train and pay people to be jurors, so they will have job experience and a “big picture” view by overturning the constitutional right to a “jury of our peers.
7. Repeal the sixth amendment (eliminate juries altogether!)
Ironically, the same justice system that has railroaded thousands of black men and women into prison was suddenly called into question because it failed to convict ONE black man (a nigger) accused of murdering two whites.
A legal system that allowed a black man (a nigger) to get a taste of the best white privilege his millions could buy was more than the white collective could stomach.
Murderous Spouses And White Privilege
Charles “Chuck” Stuart -- Boston, MA
On October 23, 1989, Charles “Chuck” Stuart murdered his pregnant wife, Carol, then told police that a black gunman forced his way into their car at a stoplight, robbed them, shot Charles in the stomach, then shot Carol in the head. Carol Stuart died that night.
Their son, Christopher, died 17 days after his father discontinued his life support. Boston police searched for black suspects, abusing the civil rights, using stormtrooper tactics, and racial profiling of blacks in Boston. On December 28, Stuart picked a black man, Willie Bennett, out of a lineup.
The case against Bennett came to an abrupt close when Stuart’s brother, Matthew, identified Charles Stuart as the killer. Matthew admitted he saw his brother shoot his wife and then shoot himself to support his false story.
Police discovered Charles Stuart had been involved in an affair and was having financial difficulties. On January 4, 1990, Stuart jumped from the Tobin Bridge to his death. He left no suicide note.
Susan Smith -- Columbia, SC
On October 25, 1994, Susan Smith murdered her two boys by driving her auto into a lake while the children slept in their car seats. The case gained worldwide attention because Smith initially reported to police that she had been carjacked by a black man who drove away with her sons still in the
car. Nine days later, after an intensive, heavily publicized investigation and nationwide search, Smith confessed to drowning her children.
Charles Stuart and Susan Smith assumed their white skin would guarantee their innocence if they accused a black man (a nigger) of committing the crime. And they were almost right.
Ironically, if we were able to ask Charles or Susan if they used white privilege to try to get away with murder, both would probably deny such a thing existed.
Black VS White Justice
Those who compare these cases with blacks who have (allegedly) falsely accused whites should be reminded that the white defendants went free - regardless of the evidence - 99% of the time.
To believe blacks have the same opportunity as whites to get justice when whites control the police, the media, the courts, the appointment of judges, the laws, the district attorneys -- even the DNA analysis labs -- is illogical and ludicrous.
It is just as illogical to believe wealthy and politically powerful white families wouldn’t use their influence (power) to “persuade” law enforcement officials to destroy or falsify evidence to assure a dismissal of all charges against their sons.
At the opposite end of the economic, political, and racial spectrum, there are thousands of cases where law enforcement planted or fabricated evidence against black defendants to ensure a conviction.
American Justice: Tulia, Texas-Style
In 1999, in a dusty town that boasted a population of around 5ooo, 40 Hack men and women in Tulia, TX were sent to prison by the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office during a fake drug scandal. The “defendants” were pressured to plead guilty even though no large sums of money, illegal drugs,
drug paraphernalia, or illegal weapons were found.
However, the trials of the first defendants by all-white juries, which resulted in long sentences despite the lack of evidence, made most of the untried defendants plead guilty in exchange for shorter sentences.
The “drugs” used to convict the black defendants were later discovered in be chalk not cocaine, a fact that the police and prosecutors were aware of. After the cases were legally challenged, most had already served several years in prison.
The recent wave of overturned convictions of falsely imprisoned black men feed after DNA evidence confirmed their innocence is ABSOLUTE PROOF that the American justice system is inherently racist and unjust.
We Can (Logically) Draw The Following Conclusions:
1) If blacks can be convicted on the basis of skin color (regardless of the evidence), it is logical to assume that whites can be acquitted or never charged on the basis of skin color (regardless of the evidence).
2) If evidence can be falsified by police and district attorneys to CONVICT black defendants, then it is logical to assume evidence can be falsified to ACQUIT white defendants.
