White Privilege

  • Thread starter Earth
  • 1,707 comments
  • 89,126 views
I'm in no way saying that black people should or even could en mass go bleaching their skin. I'm saying that a lot is within one's control when it comes to physical appearance, and gave a drastic example of someone who clearly had body issues and went from being a black man to being a female skeleton.
I'm not sure what black people could change about their appearance to cause them to be judged on their race less, regardless of how far down the pecking order you believe racism is on the list of prejudices. I don't believe it's a purely physical appearance thing that can be "cured" by a trip to the local nip/tuck parlour.

Michael Jackson was a highly atypical example as far as I can see. To cite him seems to me like pointing at someone who's successfully undergone gender reassignment surgery and declaring that sexism doesn't have to be a thing any more.
 
Last edited:
One cant control ones ethnicity. A redneck can change its appearance, A jew can convert, A fatty can workout/diet etc. But you cant change your skincolour. That is what I meant with different kind of discrimination.
You may want to google Sammy Sosa, who claims his skin color is a result of a whitening cream he put on every night before bed.
Sosa previously admitted his appearance shift is the result of skin bleaching cream.

“It’s a bleaching cream that I apply before going to bed and whitens my skin tone,” Sosa told Univision in 2009. “It’s a cream that I have, that I use to soften [my skin], but has bleached me some. I’m not a racist, I live my life happily.”
 

I get that, but he seems to abnormal to be a pedophile (if that makes sense). But since it still is heresay in this case or untill I see the report itself I highly doubt him being a sexual predator.

You may want to google Sammy Sosa, who claims his skin color is a result of a whitening cream he put on every night before bed.

This actually would inforce the idea of "white privilege". Black people desperate to belong to the white race? Even if it is just about appearance then financial benefits? I just think its weird. I personally also dont get people who have extensive plastic surgery.
 
I'm not sure what black people could change about their appearance to cause them to be judged on their race less, regardless of how far down the pecking order you believe racism is on the list of prejudices. I don't believe it's a purely physical appearance thing that can be "cured" by a trip to the local nip/tuck parlour.

Michael Jackson was a highly atypical example as far as I can see. To cite him seems to me like pointing at someone who's successfully undergone gender reassignment surgery and declaring that sexism doesn't have to be a thing any more.

I don't remember saying that racism doesn't have to be a thing any more, and I pointed out that I used Michael Jackson intentionally because of how dramatic he was. My original point with Michael Jackson was that just about everything physical is ultimately within someone's control. You can change your physical appearance in all kinds of ways - and that doesn't make it less of an issue. So for example, if there was prejudice in favor or against blonde people (there is, both), it is within the blonde persons's control to change their hair color. And yet that prejudice is still an issue. @PocketZeven was trying to differentiate prejudice against people based on characteristics they can change vs. prejudice against people based on characteristics they cannot. I'm highlighting exactly why that's not a good idea to do - in part because it relies upon a sliding scale of current technology.

In other words, even if people could change their skin color with a $100 procedure at a strip mall, I would still not find it acceptable to treat people differently based on their skin color.
 
I don't remember saying that racism doesn't have to be a thing any more, and I pointed out that I used Michael Jackson intentionally because of how dramatic he was. My original point with Michael Jackson was that just about everything physical is ultimately within someone's control. You can change your physical appearance in all kinds of ways - and that doesn't make it less of an issue. So for example, if there was prejudice in favor or against blonde people (there is, both), it is within the blonde persons's control to change their hair color. And yet that prejudice is still an issue. @PocketZeven was trying to differentiate prejudice against people based on characteristics they can change vs. prejudice against people based on characteristics they cannot. I'm highlighting exactly why that's not a good idea to do - in part because it relies upon a sliding scale of current technology.

In other words, even if people could change their skin color with a $100 procedure at a strip mall, I would still not find it acceptable to treat people differently based on their skin color.

I am not differentiating with the intention to suggest one is worse/better then the other. I was trying to point out they are different. One's appearance (in the sense of beauty) can be altered. With makeup, clothes, plastic surgery etc. One's ethnicity not (except highly rare the examples that have been posted here). There are asians out there who have modified their appearance to resemble a caucasian as well and visa versa. Like everything in life there are always exceptions.

upload_2018-8-30_21-36-14.jpeg
upload_2018-8-30_21-37-12.jpeg
surgery0.jpg
 
This actually would inforce the idea of "white privilege". Black people desperate to belong to the white race? Even if it is just about appearance then financial benefits? I just think its weird. I personally also dont get people who have extensive plastic surgery.
I think you need to re-read what he said & Google the man.

His skin color changed as a result of him trying to take care of his skin. Sammy didn't do it trying to reap the "benefits" of being white. He was already a 1%er: he has a net worth of $70 million from baseball and lives in the U.A.E.
 
Sosa lives in the Emirates? Isnt he Dominican? Yeah, that said, he definitely isnt doing it to white wash himself for America
 
Sosa lives in the Emirates? Isnt he Dominican? Yeah, that said, he definitely isnt doing it to white wash himself for America
According to his son, he's become a very private person much to do with the online comments.
Like, ‘Man, I gave so many years and so much hard work for you guys, and now you want to undermine all that because of some decisions I’m making—some personal decisions that don’t affect you at all?’”
I would assume living in the U.A.E. instead of in the Dominican or here makes it easier, being surrounded by a wealthy population that doesn't bum rush him on the street or make a big deal out of his life decisions. Maybe baseball isn't a big deal over there, either.
 
I think you need to re-read what he said & Google the man.

His skin color changed as a result of him trying to take care of his skin. Sammy didn't do it trying to reap the "benefits" of being white. He was already a 1%er: he has a net worth of $70 million from baseball and lives in the U.A.E.

The explanation is BS ofcourse. Bleach can never be good for your skin. And i didnt claim he did it for financial benefit, I cant explain it, hence the question mark.
 
The explanation is BS ofcourse.
Oh? Can you provide what it is then?
Bleach can never be good for your skin.
Cigarettes aren't good for your health, either. That doesn't stop people from doing it.
Photos of Sosa appearing with a much lighter complexion first surfaced at a 2009 musical awards show. He later told Univision he used a “bleaching cream” that “whitens” his skin.

On Wednesday, the former major leaguer addressed the controversy yet again.

“Look at what I am today,” Sosa told Sports Illustrated. “This is my life, and I don’t take garbage from nobody. I do whatever I want.”
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/...at-people-think-about-his-skin-bleaching.html

“It’s a bleaching cream that I apply before going to bed and whitens my skin tone,” Sosa said during an appearance on Univision’s Primer Impacto show in 2009. “It’s a cream that I have, that I use to soften [my skin], but has bleached me some. I’m not a racist, I live my life happily.”

“What happened was that I had been using the cream for a long time and that, combined with the bright TV lights, made my face look whiter than it really is. I don’t think I look like Michael Jackson,” he added.

Apparently, Sosa has kept up his use of the cream over the years, which has led him to appear even whiter than he did in 2009.
Although the trend is rarely discussed openly in the U.S., skin whitening is a booming business in other countries where lighter skin tones are hailed as a beauty must-have sparked by years of colorism, racism and ideals of lighter complexions being more attractive.

In West and South Africa, where a 2016 New York Times report said some 70 percent of women used lightening cream, the world of skin lightening is a multi-billion dollar industry. Following years of billboard ads tagged with ways for women to achieve "perfect white" skin, Ghana's government banned lightening creams and lotions. However, the country has struggled to remove the products from shelves.

In Asia, the skin whitening industry is worth over $13 billion, according to a BBC report. Historically, milky white skin in many Asian countries has been a symbol of nobility, wealth and an aristocratic lifestyle.
https://www.newsweek.com/sammy-sosa-skin-bleaching-lightening-636516
And i didnt claim he did it for financial benefit, I cant explain it, hence the question mark.
You don't have to explain it; there's already one. What you can do is not immediately link it to white privilege; Sosa had nothing to gain from becoming white. He was already well-off, well-known, and can have everything he wants.
 
Oh? Can you provide what it is then?

Cigarettes aren't good for your health, either. That doesn't stop people from doing it.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/...at-people-think-about-his-skin-bleaching.html



https://www.newsweek.com/sammy-sosa-skin-bleaching-lightening-636516

You don't have to explain it; there's already one. What you can do is not immediately link it to white privilege; Sosa had nothing to gain from becoming white. He was already well-off, well-known, and can have everything he wants.

The BS comment was in reaction to the post of @McLaren where the explanation was that he was daily applying a "softening" cream that "happened" to bleached his skin to "take care of his skin". Your consequent links and quotes confirmed that "softer" skin was not the goal. I am also not saying he did it for financial reasons. I am saying I cant explain the reasons.

Cigaretes and Alcohol work differently in the sense that you get gratification of the nicotine and alcohol. I dont think Bleaching your skin will give you a contact high. And I am not a chemist , but putting bleach on your skin doesnt seem like a good idea.
 
I dont think Bleaching your skin will give you a contact high.

I can see it giving the person the same sense of gratification that those obsessed with plastic surgery feel.

As for Sammy himself, he seems to have a few screws loose so it's hard to really say what his motivation is.
 
I can see it giving the person the same sense of gratification that those obsessed with plastic surgery feel.

As for Sammy himself, he seems to have a few screws loose so it's hard to really say what his motivation is.

Your are correct, but I was suggesting chemical gratification and not psychological.
 
Cigaretes and Alcohol work differently in the sense that you get gratification of the nicotine and alcohol. I dont think Bleaching your skin will give you a contact high. And I am not a chemist , but putting bleach on your skin doesnt seem like a good idea.

You can get a high from skin contact. Depends what the chemical is and what the carrier is.

It also may or may not be a good idea to "bleach" your skin". Again, it depends what the chemical is. If it's peroxide or hypochlorite, you'd probably give yourself burns eventually. I'd suggest that the fact that Sosa still has skin probably indicates that this isn't the case. ;)

If it's just something that inhibits or destroys melanin, it's probably no more dangerous than any other drug. Likely less so than most, as it's unlikely to be irreversible and it's probably dermal layers only.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening

Apart from mercury, most of the other common agents listed seem pretty benign. People do significantly worse things to their bodies all the time. We still have people like The Donald who like the "tan" look. This is just the opposite. It's fine. I'd rather cover myself in most of that stuff than get blasted with UV, to be honest.
 
The BS comment was in reaction to the post of @McLaren where the explanation was that he was daily applying a "softening" cream that "happened" to bleached his skin to "take care of his skin". Your consequent links and quotes confirmed that "softer" skin was not the goal. I am also not saying he did it for financial reasons. I am saying I cant explain the reasons.
They actually do.
“It’s a bleaching cream that I apply before going to bed and whitens my skin tone,” Sosa said during an appearance on Univision’s Primer Impacto show in 2009. “It’s a cream that I have, that I use to soften [my skin], but has bleached me some. I’m not a racist, I live my life happily.”
Cigaretes and Alcohol work differently in the sense that you get gratification of the nicotine and alcohol. I dont think Bleaching your skin will give you a contact high. And I am not a chemist , but putting bleach on your skin doesnt seem like a good idea.
You are really misunderstanding Sosa's situation. He's not doing it for a contact high either.

I've posted twice the words from his own mouth about why he did it; to soften his skin. Turning white was a side effect. Now, whether or not that's the real reason he did it, no one knows. Until then, there's nothing out there to say he's lying about why he does it. But I highly doubt it has any sort of link to the "benefits" of being white; as I said, Sosa is a very well off individual and is very well known in the US. At the stage of his life where he began turning white, he was far away from suffering the everyday struggle of the average US citizen.
 
They actually do.


You are really misunderstanding Sosa's situation. He's not doing it for a contact high either.

I've posted twice the words from his own mouth about why he did it; to soften his skin. Turning white was a side effect. Now, whether or not that's the real reason he did it, no one knows. Until then, there's nothing out there to say he's lying about why he does it. But I highly doubt it has any sort of link to the "benefits" of being white; as I said, Sosa is a very well off individual and is very well known in the US. At the stage of his life where he began turning white, he was far away from suffering the everyday struggle of the average US citizen.

I already stated I have no idea why he is doing it. That whitening his skin wasnt his goal is something i dont believe. There are enough skincare products that dont whiten skin.
 
Trying to get back away from trying to turn black people white(like really what the??).

The main issue seems to keep circling back to the Black fatherless problem, it's significant among US blacks compared to Whites and Asians, not having a stable household and having one parent means right off the bat your likely to be on the low end of income, meaning your going to live in worse of areas that are more effected by crime and have lower quality of education. This isn't any other races fault, it has to be fixed internally.

The good thing though is this is actually getting coverage now and people are starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together to help fix this, but would be parents need to make better life choices.
 
Trying to get back away from trying to turn black people white(like really what the??).

The main issue seems to keep circling back to the Black fatherless problem, it's significant among US blacks compared to Whites and Asians, not having a stable household and having one parent means right off the bat your likely to be on the low end of income, meaning your going to live in worse of areas that are more effected by crime and have lower quality of education. This isn't any other races fault, it has to be fixed internally.

The good thing though is this is actually getting coverage now and people are starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together to help fix this, but would be parents need to make better life choices.
You can have a conversation about this on an individual level but not on the national level. It's not politically correct.

One Side
- family values
- bring down the welfare state
- everybody work
- reduce food stamps

Other Side
- racists!
- slavery!
- white privilege!
- patriarchy!
- police brutality!
 
I couldn't care less about political correctness, it's censorship of intellectual debate and creates more division then it's claimed to stop.

No one should be afraid to debate anything, rejection of a debate for sake of sensitivity and feelings doesn't solve anything long term, its a band aid that never stops the bleeding.
 
I couldn't care less about political correctness, it's censorship of intellectual debate and creates more division then it's claimed to stop.

No one should be afraid to debate anything, rejection of a debate for sake of sensitivity and feelings doesn't solve anything long term, its a band aid that never stops the bleeding.
Well you're right, but that doesn't change anything. We've moving towards political correctness not away from it and to the point where you can't have a discussion of facts it's all about emotions and feelings. As long as someone is aggrieved or upset and you can throw out one of the cancerous buzzwords (racism, homophobia, islamophobia, fat shaming, slavery, religion, feminism, gender pay gap etc. etc. etc. ) the conversation must end because whichever side is hurt will circle the wagons and shout you down. When your job or your career is on the line, you capitulate. That's how the PC culture takes hold.

Given that I think you're right and the root of the problem is in the decline of the family unit, how do we solve the problem? What caused the problem to begin with?
 
The main issue seems to keep circling back to the Black fatherless problem, it's significant among US blacks compared to Whites and Asians, not having a stable household and having one parent means right off the bat your likely to be on the low end of income, meaning your going to live in worse of areas that are more effected by crime and have lower quality of education. This isn't any other races fault, it has to be fixed internally.

Blacks have far less wealth than whites, much of which is down to disparate home ownership rates. Home ownership tends to correlate with stability, both as a community and at the individual family level, and is one of the largest predictors of wealth accumulation. And when you look at the fact that blacks are denied mortgages at nearly triple the rate of whites, it's hard to see how that can be "fixed internally."

In much of the country, blacks face unemployment at double the rate of whites. It goes without saying that higher unemployment leads to more financial instability. When you look at the fact that blacks often miss out on callbacks and interviews because their name "sounds black," it's hard to see how that can be "fixed internally."

Of course, names that "sound black" aren't the only barrier to getting higher-paying jobs. Blacks are about 50% less likely to have a college degree than whites. Undoubtedly, some of that gap is attributable to not having enough money to pay for college, which sets up a unfortunate cycle where blacks can't afford college, but without a college degree can't get a job that pays enough to afford college. It's hard to see how this Catch-22 can be "fixed internally."

Individual and family wealth, of course, doesn't fully explain the education gap. Lack of college success can also be attributed to lower achievement in high school. And when much of the achievement gap between black and white students comes down to funding and teacher qualification, it's hard to see how that can be "fixed internally."

So what all of this economic talk got to do with the "fatherless problem" you identified? Well, financial problems are cited in more than half of all divorces. Divorce leads to single-parent households, which in the US skew heavily towards mothers having custody. Hence, "fatherless" households.

Another factor leading to fatherless households, of course, is crime and incarceration. When you see that, for example, blacks are up to ten times more likely to be arrested for using marijuana than whites, despite the fact that there is not a significant difference in marijuana usage between blacks and whites (see same link), it's hard to see how that can be "fixed internally."

At the end of the day, the "fatherless problem" has a lot of factors, many of which have nothing to do with personal choices or a lack of responsibility. Perhaps we should try and help remedy those factors rather than just scolding them to "make better life choices."

---

You can have a conversation about this on an individual level but not on the national level. It's not politically correct.

We've moving towards political correctness not away from it and to the point where you can't have a discussion of facts it's all about emotions and feelings. As long as someone is aggrieved or upset and you can throw out one of the cancerous buzzwords (racism, homophobia, islamophobia, fat shaming, slavery, religion, feminism, gender pay gap etc. etc. etc. ) the conversation must end because whichever side is hurt will circle the wagons and shout you down. When your job or your career is on the line, you capitulate. That's how the PC culture takes hold.

:rolleyes:
 
So what your saying is work on outcomes before starting on the biggest difference between blacks and other races who are economically better off, where is the individual responsibility?

When there was segregation black households had a significantly higher rate of 2 parent households and it's declined since, despite affirmative action, despite less racism, despite no legal boundries for employment, its worse, this is an internal problem and it's clear by the fact most single parent black children will most likely never see the other parent, most single black parents never even got married, if it was purely a financial issue why does the other parent disappear from their lives completely.

They live in a first world country, they have significantly better opportunities then people do in 3rd world countries yet they live like they are in the 3rd world.
 
I'm actually curious, is there data that backs up the single parent phenomenon with black children? It's not that I don't believe you, I hear that statistic frequently, but I can't recall I've ever seen a legit source for it or even a reason why it happens. I'm genuinely curious to read about it, but can't find much that's not either bias or has flawed research.
 
I'm actually curious, is there data that backs up the single parent phenomenon with black children? It's not that I don't believe you, I hear that statistic frequently, but I can't recall I've ever seen a legit source for it or even a reason why it happens. I'm genuinely curious to read about it, but can't find much that's not either bias or has flawed research.
Here have a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_structure
 

That doesn't really provide any reason as to why though. It just shows some data that supports a greater number of black kids grow up without a dad versus white kids. It also states that blacks have a higher incarceration rate, but I'm not entirely sure if that's connected since fathering a child while in prison is difficult (although not impossible).

I was hoping more for an actual study vs. a Wikipedia article that cites John McAdoo without really saying how McAdoo is. I assume he's related to Prof McAdoo (I can't think of her first name) from Michigan State that did sociology work. But past that, I don't really know.
 
So what your saying is work on outcomes before starting on the biggest difference between blacks and other races who are economically better off, where is the individual responsibility?

Exactly the opposite. I'm suggesting that we try and address some of the causal factors that perpetuate financial (and therefore familial) instability for blacks.

When there was segregation black households had a significantly higher rate of 2 parent households and it's declined since, despite affirmative action, despite less racism, despite no legal boundries for employment, its worse, this is an internal problem and it's clear by the fact most single parent black children will most likely never see the other parent, most single black parents never even got married

You have any sources for any of this? I'm especially interested in your claim that there is "less racism" today.

if it was purely a financial issue why does the other parent disappear from their lives completely.

I didn't say it was purely a financial issue; I also mentioned incarceration rates, and disproportionate arrest rates. I'd be particularly interested in hearing why you do or don't think it's okay that blacks get arrested at up to 10 times the rate whites do for the same crime.

They live in a first world country, they have significantly better opportunities then people do in 3rd world countries yet they live like they are in the 3rd world.

The conversation is about realities for whites and blacks in the same country. What has the "3rd world" got to do with it? I'd also be very interested in hearing exactly which parts of any American's life resemble a "3rd world country" at this point.

I supplied several sources in my post. Would you care to actually rebut any of them with specific reasoning? Or maybe provide some sources of your own? Hyperbole and speculation isn't really going to get us anywhere.
 
Of course, names that "sound black" aren't the only barrier to getting higher-paying jobs. Blacks are about 50% less likely to have a college degree than whites. Undoubtedly, some of that gap is attributable to not having enough money to pay for college, which sets up a unfortunate cycle where blacks can't afford college, but without a college degree can't get a job that pays enough to afford college. It's hard to see how this Catch-22 can be "fixed internally."

Yeah that's a load of bull. Granted you're not going to strike it rich, but you can get a decent paying job in the trades without a degree and if you really want to go far it's not hard to find a company willing to pay for your education.

It's not like there's a lack of jobs in this sector either as electricians, plumbers and HVAC techs are in very high demand at the moment and it will likely only increase due to how many people are retiring from the industry. I know carpenters/framers are also in high demand, but I admittedly don't know what you need for training to get into that, but I can't imagine it's much different.
 
Back