TV’s Frink said:
chyron8472 said:
I’m saying that he can have an opinion if he wants to. Being white doesn’t make him incompetent or irrelevant when talking about non-white issues. He might not understand the full scope of the experience, but that doesn’t invalidate his opinion.
I agree with all of this, by the way. He can always have an opinion, and he can talk about non-white issues. I’m white too. I’m saying that if a bunch of black people think something is offensive, it might just be offensive despite the white dude who doesn’t think it’s offensive. If there’s any doubt, I’m going to go with the people who have the full scope of the experience.
And as I said, if it’s something ludicrous like Jack Black having to change his name to Jack White, that’s a different story because you aren’t going to find a bunch of black people complaining about that.
darth_ender said:
Warbler said:
DominicCobb said:
If someone is eating an apple and another person is just watching them eat the apple, which one has the more qualified opinion on the quality of that apple?
what exact quality of the apple are you talking about. Without tasting I can still testify to quality of how it looks and smells. Of course I can’t testify as to how it tastes unless I tasted it.
I think this exclusionary attitude again causes resentment both ways. Maybe Warbler doesn’t know about that specific apple, but then, perhaps he could offer a more objective perspective on other qualities of the apple, while the person eating the apple may be overly-concerned with the most salient qualities, such as flavor.
I feel there is plenty of room for multiple races, including the privileged majority, at the table of discussion. I feel like your above post was the first to truly acknowledge that.
Take Affirmative Action as an example. Minorities are not proportionally represented in certain work environments (particularly white color jobs) or in higher levels of education. So institutions might lower their standards for particular races in an effort to create a nominal representation.
But then think of the white guy with the 3.9 GPA who is not admitted to the elite school of his choice, but learns that the black gal with the 3.4 was. He might feel some resentment. Simply saying, “Oh, you’re a privileged white guy and you’ll find another school,” does not necessarily solve his feelings of disappointment or frustration. It might exacerbate feelings of resentment towards African-Americans he already held. Similarly, the 3.4 black student may not be as prepared for school and might be unable to make it through the program, owing to the challenges of attempting to make it through a school of intense standards. Perhaps this student might have had better success at a less prestigious school.
Bear in mind, this is in no way stating one race is inherently more intelligent than another. I feel this is obvious, but I worry that my words might be misinterpreted.
Back to my example, hey, we want minorities to be able to reach their dreams. Many do, in fact, come from an underprivileged environment, possibly in some urban school where the educational standards were not as high. This presents a challenge when trying to overcome the disadvantaged position of society. Lowering standards is a sort of an opportunity to get a foot up from that disadvantage. On the other hand, it could also be an opportunity for greater failure. And though the elementary education of the two students in question was not equal, will creating different standards for the same students now at the university-level somehow create equality? Probably not.
I’m not actually trying to say which is better: Affirmative Action or flat rate standards. I am trying to point out that it is a complex issue. Usually, these issues actually require people of different perspectives to find a healthy, lasting solution. Excluding whites, even whites who do not fully understand the nature of white privilege, from the discussion leads to more problems than it solves.
