Religion, politics, sex .. and other taboo subjects

I've always felt "privilege" was a poor word choice. To the poor and most of the middle class it means rich people born with a silver spoon in their mouth. That makes it very difficult to explain the concept
Furthermore, a lot of problems cross over into the socio-economic realm. The reality is money opens doors and if you don't have money you don't feel all that privileged.
 
"privilege" was a poor word choice.
I don't necessarily disagree. You might note that I (unconsciously) avoided using the term after the NPR quote.

FWIW, it's a fnord, as you indicate.

Furthermore, a lot of problems cross over into the socio-economic realm. The reality is money opens doors and if you don't have money you don't feel all that privileged.
Well, you seem to be kinda down-talking someone here, as though we must address ALL facets simultaneously else none of them is valid. I hope that's not your intent!!

And also FWIW, you kinda dance lightly to money by using the unexplained buzzword "socio-economic" as a bridge. Since "access to disposable income" is indeed a social concern, I'd argue that "socio-economic" is at best redundant.
________________

(an aside -- Talking to people around the country, it's always struck me as strange that so many people would seemingly rather scrape by than "move away from home" to pursue superior opportunities. Up here, unskilled workers can start at a higher wage than in Minneapolis ($16 & rising), little transit is necessary (of my 350 co-workers, at least a dozen walk/bike to work, even mid-winter), & housing is inexpensive, with rents ~50% the Twin Cities & houses under $70K. My supervisor just passed his one-year anniversary, coming from the western Dakota oil fields; he's training a new guy, from southern Florida. I work alongside immigrants from just about everywhere, & 35% of my co-workers are women. Pretty good for a far-flung redneck little town.)
________________

Sorry to change lanes here, but I heard something last night (on NPR again :eek:). It's something that has never made sense to me, & I am willing to countenance that maybe I'm just messed up by my (ahem) privilege. Anyway:
A black person might discriminate on the basis of race, but a black person cannot be racist.
The speaker went on to say that racism is institutional, even codified, but not at all personal. Since blacks don't have institutional power, they can't be racist, QED.

Seriously: have I been using the word wrong all these years? :confused:

When I pursue the logic, does the converse apply, that since most people in control are white (& male & Christian & heterosexual & monogamous), it is those groups (particularly their confluence) who are inherently & always racist (& sexist)?
 
Last edited:
I've gotten in more than one argument about that. I understand the concept of institutional racism. I agree it's a thing. I disagree that personal racism is not a thing.

Apparently I live in some sort of alternate universe here in Broward County Florida. White people are in the minority here. The examples they throw at me don't apply here. It blows their mind. If I go into a bank to try and get a loan, the loan officer is probably hispanic. They aren't going to cut me any breaks because I'm white. I've been in stores where I have been made to wait because I am white. I have been refused service in bars and restaurants because I'm white. All this and I am told only white people are racist and I have no understanding of racism...lol.

During a discussion one person said Seattle is a very white city. It's not, but it is very segregated for such a liberal place. One of the apartments I rented a room in was in a hispanic neighborhood. I was the only gringo in the whole building.

I would argue that personal racism is the cause of institutional racism and that one does not override the other.

If you just want to call it economic reasons that is fine. I'm not as picky as you. I do think all aspects of a problem need to be looked at simultaneously. But my point was that it's hard to explain the concept of white privilege to poor white people.

I could go drive in the Dakota oil fields and make a lot of money. It's just too omfg cold there for me. Luckily, with what I do, I can live anywhere I want.
 
Friend of mine, white transwoman, moved here from her home state of Tennessee a few years ago. Now she can pee in the ladies room and not get fired for her gender.

Back in the hills of Tennessee a few years before she came here, she was looking for a rental, and the male agent assured her this one house was good because "All the blacks were over that hill in the next holler." Talk about blatant racism. He was all buddy buddy with her assuming she'd be happy to hear that bit of news.

He may have been a relatively poor white male. But he definitely knew of white privilege. And he was spreading it around.

I admit I haven't lived in amongst black people much. I did work at a restaurant in South Philly for a summer in college, where I was the only white person, either staff or customers, all summer. Back then in the '70's, if you lived above South St in center city Philly, you were white. If you lived south of South St, you were black, or further south, off the boat Italian. I lived one block north of South St, and I was having a hard time finding a job in between college terms, so I went one block south of South St, and found a job in this restaurant. I didn't care if I was the only white person. I love finding out about other cultures. Everyone was very nice to me. (Well, my boss was a bitch, but she was a bitch to everyone.) I never felt unsafe. (I was sexually assaulted in college, by 3 different men, all white.)

I did experience one time, a customer coming in who refused to be served by me, because of the color of my skin. Many of my young coworkers were embarrassed and gave me sympathy. They said the guy was nuts, don't worry about him.

I don't think any of them were racist. They have every right not to trust white people. It's self preservation, not racism. At least that is how I see it, as a white woman. Being viewed with well earned suspicion is not a racist attitude, it's more like a life or death attitude.

Currently both my bfs are Latino. Mixed race. Kahlo is quite brown skinned and looks Native American. He doesn't talk about race much... we do talk of Mexican culture. But he was bullied for his accent when he moved here at age 13. For many years. He has had other kinds of trouble for being brownskinned. I don't think he is racist to be wary of white Americans.
 
I agree that being wary is not necessarily racism. At the same time I think there is a fine line. I do think white racists lump that all together and that's wrong.



We've been mentioning NPR and I had to chuckle when you mentioned Tennessee. I can never find an npr station while driving through Tennessee. Could be why they are so backwards.
 
During the Los Angeles riots, mobs of black men attacked businesses owned by Jews & Koreans, specifically because they were owned by Jews & Koreans.

Is that racism?

Judaism is a religion. Korea is a country.

So, no.

It's just proof that humans like to discriminate, and young men love to make a mess. It's proof that the powerless will take it out on others with less power than themselves. It can be argued that Jews have more power than blacks in our country, but in this case, they had less. Or their stores were unprotected from a mob. Of course, Jews have been traditionally hated by Christians for 2000 years as well.
 
I just think that it's a mistake to think of things in terms of
I was reading a thing, this author was referencing another author who, facing some terminal diagnosis and a limited lifespan, wrote that all that humanity has ever accomplished, has been "immortality projects"...our ability to contemplate a world without ourselves in it, and our own mortality, makes people want to leave something behind. This has driven every step of human evolution, every invention, every advance, every piece of art, music, writing, every child raised and just...everything. All of it.

The book in question was probably The Denial of Death, a 1973 work of psychology and philosophy by Ernest Becker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death

It's a book I'd like to read, but haven't gotten to yet. You hear about it all the time in "intellectual" circles.

I've spent a lot of my time lately reading about climate change -- for a series of articles I'm planning to write.

Since I think our climate crisis potentially threatens the continuation of human existence (and that of most species on this planet), I've been taking my own deep dive into questions of meaning, purpose and mortality (individual and collective).
 
Judaism is a religion. Korea is a country.

So, no.

It's just proof that humans like to discriminate, and young men love to make a mess. It's proof that the powerless will take it out on others with less power than themselves. It can be argued that Jews have more power than blacks in our country, but in this case, they had less. Or their stores were unprotected from a mob. Of course, Jews have been traditionally hated by Christians for 2000 years as well.

Explain why a former boss said he was half Italian and half Jewish. Is Italian a religion?

I had a friend who said he was Jewish, but Atheist.

If we are talking about the riots in 1992, they might best be described as classist instead of racist. I don't believe black owned businesses were passed by.
 
Judaism is a religion. Korea is a country.

So, no.

Jewish is also genetic. I have the DNA test to prove it. :D
Jews are considered an ethnic group. A person definitely can be of Jewish decent and that can be confirmed by a DNA test. Anti-semitism is both racism and religionism.
 
I've known non-religious people who identified as Jewish ethnically, and people who converted to the religion from other backgrounds. It can certainly be either/both.

I look at the whole racism thing this way:

1. In groups and Out groups. Maybe it's our basic monkey brains, our primitive wiring, but it's natural and easy to feel most comfortable around the kind of people you grew up with, and the less diversity in your closest contacts growing up, the more that is probably going to be the case. There is a tendency to view "outsiders" as threatening, as an ant would an invader from another colony, as a primitive human would someone from another tribe. Hell, I've known "racist" dogs, who only liked and trusted black people because they'd only ever lived with a black family. Dogs were programmed to adapt to human needs, and to a degree, that tribalism is easily part of their wiring, too sometimes. (EDIT: It's no excuse, it's a starting point in what I am saying.)

2. The "Powers that Be" in my opinion (leaders of government mostly, and those affiliated and invested in keeping people under control) prefer to keep people divided, distrustful of their neighbors. There was an article about why poor white people trusted Trump, or have trusted conservative politics...and much of it is encouragement of racism. Racist ideologies have been used to push any number of agendas, including the prohibition of marijuana which was mostly to protect the business interests of Hearst and DuPont. But hey. Those scary Mexicans and black jazz musicians gonna lure your white wimmin with the devil's weed! Racism was a tool for the powerful to manipulate the masses, through American history, certainly. To say nothing of other continents and nations, such as in South Africa and Australia. Seems the Brits were very keen on using it to justify their colonial expansions, and it's just been a mess ongoing.

3. In consideration of that, I ask readers to contemplate the mental images: A group of white people...A group of black people...A group of Asians...A group of Hispanic people... Etc. Imagine in your mind, what kind of income range and type of work they do, what kind of housing they live in, if they are in a segregated group (as is still too common in the US.) Yes, there are poor whites who live just as poor as the poor of other groups, that is true. But if you can point at one group with more of a representation in the middle, upper middle, and especially the highest socioeconomic classes, they will be overwhelmingly white in that pie chart. And THAT is where talk of "privilege" comes into play. Because the ones with the most power, are still mostly white...and also...male.

It is something that even my not-a-feminist self wants men to understand, when we see photos of committees and groups crafting policy for our health care and wellbeing, and it's a room full of men, that makes my blood boil, and I know many women feel the same. Hell, how very far behind the curve, is SCIENCE for the love of fucking god, in even understanding female anatomy, compared to male??? Why are people still arguing over the Skene's gland and why did my health class have accurate illustrations of the structures and functions of a guy's business, but I'm only just now learning about how the internal clitoris is structured in the last few years?? This should be NO mystery! I still get to read about how female pleasure in sex serves no actual purpose. Great. Pen me up and call me Betsy, since evidently I'm livestock, and my human experience means nothing. Ya bastards.

It's this thing that I keep seeing, and seeing, and seeing, where the mansplainin' of whatever evolutionary or breeding strategy is served by some behavior is used as justification to treat other people badly. OK, so maybe something about our nature can be used as a starting point, but if we stop there as though it's just the right and proper way things are...? Personally I think that as The Thinking Animals, we CAN do better, so we have an OBLIGATION to do better, and I'm sick of hearing people scrambling for excuses as to why they should not HAVE to do better.

(Again, this is a more enlightened forum. The net is dark and full of assholes.)

EDIT: I jump back and forth between race and sex because of the concept of privilege. This is a pretty good illustration of my own, actually, that I more easily speak to my own experience, which is that of a white female. So yeah, I've felt it when I've been among a mostly black or Hispanic group as the only white person, that "you are not one of us" discomfort, and near-hostility. And confronted with the idea that I have racial privilege, the question is...what do I personally do about that? I don't honestly know, other than to care, be compassionate, support policies and leaders who seem interested in equality, and be generally pissed off that there are children born into racial groups where the odds that they'll experience upward economic mobility and a good standard of living, aren't so great. I've lived in poverty exactly long enough to know that it SUCKS.

The book in question was probably The Denial of Death, a 1973 work of psychology and philosophy by Ernest Becker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denial_of_Death

It's a book I'd like to read, but haven't gotten to yet. You hear about it all the time in "intellectual" circles.

I've spent a lot of my time lately reading about climate change -- for a series of articles I'm planning to write.

Since I think our climate crisis potentially threatens the continuation of human existence (and that of most species on this planet), I've been taking my own deep dive into questions of meaning, purpose and mortality (individual and collective).

It was, and I want to read it, too.
 
Last edited:
3. In consideration of that, I ask readers to contemplate the mental images: A group of white people...A group of black people...A group of Asians...A group of Hispanic people... Etc. Imagine in your mind, what kind of income range and type of work they do, what kind of housing they live in, if they are in a segregated group (as is still too common in the US.) Yes, there are poor whites who live just as poor as the poor of other groups, that is true. But if you can point at one group with more of a representation in the middle, upper middle, and especially the highest socioeconomic classes, they will be overwhelmingly white in that pie chart. And THAT is where talk of "privilege" comes into play. Because the ones with the most power, are still mostly white...and also...male.

FWIW there's two problems with this thought experiment.

First is that the median Asian is better off (economics and education) than the median caucasian..

The second is that when you go to the margins (ceo's, national politicians), there's about as much chance of a random white person reaching that position as there is a random non-white person.

I don't disagree about middle and upper middle though. I would argue that still leaves a lot of white people out in the cold and that's why you see such push back.

From a personal standpoint, I find it hard to understand 'white' privilege when I grew up in a below average neighborhood, minority white school district, having Red Lobster as our extravagant night out, never took a plane for vacation, and didn't get money from any family members for college. I did have 'two intelligent supportive parent' privilege and 'never went hungry' privilege. I think we try and short cut it by race and it really short circuits the argument.
 
Explain why a former boss said he was half Italian and half Jewish. Is Italian a religion?

Your former boss? You're expecting me to guess on the whys and wherefores of a person I haven't met?

I have an ex-lover whose mother was from Sicily and father was a born Israeli. Not, as Angelina so kindly refers to, as per a "DNA test," but born and raised in Israel, with Mediterranean coloring.

After all, Israelites have interbred with the northern tribes for millennia. Or with Greeks, Egyptians and other Africans, Romans, Spaniards, going back to the BC era. Of what use is a DNA test for the "wandering Jews?"

At best, Jews are those who try to "live by Torah." At least, they enjoy matzoh on occasion. Perhaps it's useless to argue. They are a "race," (extremely broadly speaking, unless purely Israeli), a culture and a religion. Can we leave it at that?

I had a friend who said he was Jewish, but Atheist.

Well, we can argue whether discrimination applies to race, to culture, or to religion all day, all month, all year long. What's the use? All of the above.
 
Of what use is a DNA test for the "wandering Jews?"


Why would someone get a DNA test that gives you an insight into your ancestry? I suppose the answer varies, but I imagine it's curiosity and because we can. There's no test specifically for Jewish genes (as far as I know) but "Jewish" genes do show up on DNA test results for ancestry. Most of the genes are identified by region or country and then there's "Jewish." Biological Jews will have a mix of the various countries/regions and the Jewish genes. Anyway, I was just answering the question about whether targeting Korean and Jewish owned businesses for destruction and looting is racism.
 
Last edited:
Why would someone get a DNA test that gives you an insight into your ancestry? I suppose the answer varies, but I imagine it's curiosity and because we can. There's no test specifically for Jewish genes (as far as I know) but "Jewish" genes do show up on DNA test results for ancestry. Most of the genes are identified by region or country and then there's "Jewish." Biological Jews will have a mix of the various countries/regions and the Jewish genes. Anyway, I was just answering the question about whether targeting Korean and Jewish owned businesses for destruction and looting is racism.

I don't like all the ads I see for these new DNA ancestry tests. I am paranoid as to where that info ends up. But anyway. I am shocked. Are you telling me there are "genes," according to these tests, for region/geographical area, and then also somehow a "gene" for a certain religion or culture such as Judaism? I don't get it, how can that be? Is there a gene for Catholicism that would be the same for an Irish person as for an Italian or a South American?

I would think a Jewish "gene" would mean, your ancestors were from the area known as Israel, or Judah/Judea on the map. That tiny snip of land in between Egypt and Babylon and Assyria. Although determining the difference between, say, Babylonian genes and Judean genes would seem to be to be very difficult as they are both basically Semitic.
 
Is there a gene for Catholicism that would be the same for an Irish person as for an Italian or a South American?

No, there is not. It's interesting to ponder why "Jewish" is a genetic, a cultural and a religious identification when (to my knowledge) there is no such other peoples of a religion that can be identified genetically. There's a lot of research about this, but here's an interesting and helpful snippet from one of many articles:



DNA Links Prove Jews Are a 'Race,' Says Genetics Expert

"Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity. Who is a Jew? has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel....Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a race....

Is Judaism a people or a religion? Or both? The belief that Jews may be psychologically or physically distinct remains a controversial fixture in the gentile and Jewish consciousness, and Ostrer places himself directly in the line of fire. Yes, he writes, the term race carries nefarious associations of inferiority and ranking of people. Anything that marks Jews as essentially different runs the risk of stirring either anti- or philo-Semitism. But that doesnt mean we can ignore the factual reality of what he calls the biological basis of Jewishness and Jewish genetics. Acknowledging the distinctiveness of Jews is fraught with peril, but we must grapple with the hard evidence of human differences if we seek to understand the new age of genetics."
 
Modern day Israel is the size of New Jersey, approximately.

Jews were dispersed as early as 700 BCE during the Syrian invasion, and then the Babylonian invasion and exile of the Levites. Most of these dispersed Judahites and Israelis never did return to their so called holy land. They stayed and intermarried with Babylonians. Those they did return intermarried with peoples of other regions that the empires brought into the area. The "Jews" were once again dispersed by various Greek and Roman overlords/emperors over the following centuries BCE and 1st century CE. Jerusalem was sacked in 70 CE. All inhabitants were driven out. It was repopulated by Romans.

The myth/sacred story of the escape from slavery of the "Jews" (prior or just at the beginning of Yahwism) from Egypt may or may not have happened. Moses may or may not have actually been a full blooded Egyptian (if he ever even existed as more than a demigod/hero, which is questionable). Modern archeological evidence strongly suggests the Hebrews were always in Palestine, did not "return and conquer" as Exodus asserts. That's just a story, a hagiography if you will.

With all the ancient history and mythology surrounding the genesis and history of the Hebrews/Jews/Israelites, it is surprising, to me, that (some) geneticists make a distinction of "Jewish" ancestry as separate from a general Semitic ancestry that applies to all countries of that region covering a much larger area than New Jersey.
 
Back
Top