Nick Cannon under fire for "Whiteface" in new album's cover

[Simfan34]

There's no such thing as white face.

?

[Simfan34]

Of course he can't do Whiteface, only Obama can. In fact, Obama does it all the time 2012 and calls himself "Jon Huntsman."

I laughed.

[Simfan34]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ummm... being white automatically does mean you're privileged, all things equal and relative to non-white people. At least in the United States.

Appalachian backwoods hick Billy-Joe Johnson is more privileged than Simfan?

I think you missed the "all things being equal" part of the equation. Compare apples to apples, and Billy-Joe Johnson is more privileged than migrant farm worker Jesus Ramierez or Delta sharecropper Gwendolyn Jackson.
[/quote]

Yes, but "all things equal" in this case is a rhetorical fiction.

[Simfan34]

I guess respect is an old-fashioned concept.

At least you're not talking about "morality".

This is pretty funny.

I do wish that people would drop this idea that being white automatically means being privileged. It's such a white middle-class-and-upwards thing to think.

This is very true. Very very true. Emphasis on the "upwards" part here, it is ramapant here. I've written several articles on the topic because it just is too much.

[Simfan34]

This is pretty funny.

I do wish that people would drop this idea that being white automatically means being privileged. It's such a white middle-class-and-upwards thing to think.

Why not?  It's an automatic streak of sympathy from the ruling class.

What does that mean? The ruling class is not white.

[Simfan34]

Lief, lest you pride yourself too much on your non-white-ness, remember you're a pure Aryan. Yes, the good old king on one side of your background even styled himself the "light" thereof, that's how much.

But don't mind me, I'm just oppressed compared to super-privileged people like Bushie, and white members of the ruling class like Obama, Susan Rice,  Eric Holder, Condoleezza Rice... of course listing names is inane, but it's a device to show how ludicrous a statement that the "ruling class is white" is.

But then, Lief is just being silly. We're the sillier ones for getting worked up about it.

[Simfan34]

Well I'm white, so I don't know why I would pride myself on being something that I'm not?

And no, the people who are rejecting a pretty well accepted sociological framing of inequality are the silly ones.

The ruling class is wealthy. That is the only meaningful distinction one can make. Race-obsessed leftists are barking up a very wrong tree. It's inane to act as if race, gender, or anything else presents a greater barrier than wealth to anything. Or do you believe black people remain impoverished because of white racism as opposed to say... self-defeating social norms?

[Simfan34]

Or do you believe black people remain impoverished because of white racism as opposed to say... self-defeating social norms?

Yes?

Obviously wealth presents a greater barrier than race, gender, orientation, whatever. But acting like those other barriers and inequalities don't exist alongside wealth inequalities is ignoring actual real societal problems.

Yes, but it's far smaller. If you do think black poverty is the result of white racism then clearly you're discounting the effect of social norms and poverty.

It's interesting, that perhaps most of the people who endorse this view seem to be those suffering with "white guilt", that is, those most removed from it (and black experiences). It is rampant at my university. Conversely, from my experience, those who least agree with such sentiments are the minorities who've achieved success... because they know that their mere experience discounts it.