This Comic Strip Explains White Privilege Perfectly In Simple Language

Ever had a hard time explaining white privilege to clueless people? This comic strip by a teenage artist might help.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Send to Kindle


Teenage artist Jamie Kapp, 19, knows a bit about white privilege and institutionalized racism. She also understands that many people just don’t get it.

“I was mad that I had to explain such a simple issue as white privilege in a comic because it’s something that people should read for themselves,” she said. (Buzzfeed)

So she took to Tumblr to discuss white privilege and used her skills as an artist to try to clue people in. It was effective, but at the same time, she was stunned as she became the victim of bullying, death threats, and hate mail because of her efforts. She ended up shutting down her blog. She seems adamant, however, that she not be considered a victim. See her message:

A detailed explanation of everything that happened can be read on Buzzfeed. She told Buzzfeed that she’d like for her message to be heard, so we’re going to share it here. It’s an important message. We just hope that this talented young lady can get back to creating important work soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

——————————————————————————————————————————

Let us know your thoughts at the Liberal America Facebook page. Sign up for our free daily newsletter to receive more great stories like this one.


tiffany willis texas liberal america

Tiffany Willis is the founder and editor-in-chief of Liberal America. An unapologetic member of the Christian Left, she has spent most of her career actively working with “the least of these” and disadvantaged and oppressed populations. She’s passionate about their struggles. To stay on top of topics she discusses, like her Facebook pagefollow her on Twitter, or connect with her via LinkedIn. She also has a grossly neglected personal blog and a literary quotes blog that is a labor of love. Find her somewhere and join the discussion.

Send to Kindle

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail


  • richardstarr

    *sigh*
    Statistics rarely tell the complete story. It all depends on exactly what is being looked at.

    1) School admittance by grades.
    Show me the case where the students are applying to the SAME school with the same grades.
    I believe the numbers reflect grades of ALL students rather than those attempting to go.
    To add clarity, please break out by income of the family. A school found to be denying non-white
    people entry who were equally qualified would quickly be sued and mocked.

    2) Graduation.
    Again, money is often a factor here. In other case you have people that are just not really ready
    to attend a particular school When I first went to college I got my first ever “F” in my life. Why?
    Because suddenly I actually needed to compete against people at my level. Worse, these people
    apparently had better study habits. I needed to attend a junior college first to adjust before I was ready.

    3)Likelihood of going to prison.
    OK. Again, money is likely a factor here. People with money can hire better lawyers. See OJ Simpson.
    The question that needs to be asked, how many people are in prison did not break laws?
    The laws against crack, a form of cocaine, were increased due to the insistence of congressional black
    caucus to deal with the crisis in the inner cities.

    4)Reporting of violent crimes.
    Interracial crimes are relatively rare. Most crimes are committed within the various communities.
    A criminal who did not live in the area is more likely to get noticed.

    There was a concerted effort in the 70’s to get TV to NOT report crimes in the inner city or mention the race of
    the person committing the crime. The thought was that talking about black people killing, raping, etc. was bad for the community’s reputation. Additionally, when a white person kills a black person it gets played up, especially if the white person happens to be a law officer. You have people who make a nice living rabble rousing. Meanwhile, around the same time as the Ferguson incident, you had an unarmed white kid killed by a black police officer. Somehow, Jesse and Sharpton did not consider that note worthy. Perhaps because it did not push their agenda. That agenda being the promotion of Jesse and Sharpton. Of note,in Ferguson, the black kid was seen attacking the officer prior to eventually being shot, but the white kid did not.
    The white kid apparently was wearing head phones and did not hear orders from the cop, he also reached for
    a cell phone which could have caused the officer to believe he was going for a gun.

    • Von Bailey

      You are a perfect example of the ignorance of which she speaks. You say a lot and demonstrate not a shred of it to be true. Most of it is just your racist assumptions put next to a very questionable perspective of history.

      1) You believing something is totally irrelevant to the facts. Many studies have been done to demonstrate the bias in college admissions, you simply don’t want to believe it as it will probably say something about why you were admitted, got an “f” because of bad study habits (which apparently didn’t stop you from getting into college in the first place) and had the resources to make changes.

      2) Money is a factor. What you ignore is why white people have it and people of color don’t. Like she say’s, white privilege is the ability to ignore things around you and you do it very well.

      3) It is a lie that black leaders wanted harsher penalties for crack cocaine.

      4) This doesn’t even make sense.

      It is a lie that there was a concerted effort to not report crime in inner city. there was a concerted effort to get the news media to report a balanced perspective of crime. Just as many white people killed whites as blacks were killing blacks but the only violence on television new were ones that were committed by blacks unless it was a famous white person. That was not balanced.

      The difference between the Ferguson incident and the Salt Lake City incident is that the police in SLC didn’t respond to protesters with tanks and tear gas. They were also forthcoming with information regarding the incident. To ignore how each PD handled the situations is part of that ignorance of white privilege of which the young lady speaks.

      • richardstarr

        You are displaying willful ignorance on many levels.
        I got an “f” when I first went to college because I was not used to competing.
        The difference between me and some others is I was able to change, put in more time
        and effort, and overcome my shortcomings.

        Money is THE factor. If you think the kids of Michael Jordan or Will Smith are going to have
        any problem going to where ever they want, you are kidding yourself.

        As to getting money, I’ve met people from all over the world that came here and became
        successful. I worked with a number of Black Africans, they were on the road to becoming
        Americans and are here legally, and they have contempt for many of the people here who
        do not make the most of their opportunities.

        Want to make a better life for yourself? You can follow the examples of those that
        work hard, or you can simply choose to believe that you don’t have a chance and
        assume that your effort is meaningless and not try.

        Regarding black leaders, CHECK THE RECORD.
        Here’s a quick article that may help you.
        http://www.wnyc.org/story/312823-black-leaders-once-championed-strict-drug-laws-they-now-seek-dismantle/

        I grew up during the time I speak of, I have to wonder if you did.
        The simple truth is, more black people killed other black people despite the lower percentage
        of the population they represent. And most of the crimes reported dealt with murders committed while additional crimes were being committed.

        The differences between the protests is there were not riots going on.
        Too often bad elements use legitimate protest as a shield to break into stores and do
        vandalism. To ignore a crowd’s behavior is to continue to rationalize rather deal with
        reality.

        • Von Bailey

          By your own admittance, in your first post, your study habits were not up to college level and yet you got into college anyway. That’s a privilege of which most people of color do not get to take advantage. Poor study habits means you are tracked into classes that don’t get you into college.

          If you think that pointing at a few black millionaires makes up for all the non-millionaire white people that get into those same colleges, you’re again, purposely naive and ignoring reality, just as the young lady points out in her cartoon.

          Bravo, you met some blacks from somewhere else that are bigots who agree with your warped perspective of black people in America. So what? They’ve been subject to the warped perspective of black Americans that the American white media creates and then ships all over the world for people to see what life is like in America. They have no more of a clue as to what black America is than you do.

          No where in the article that you cited does it say that the congressional black caucus wanted harsher sentencing for crack cocaine. It talks about them speaking to Nixon, in the 70s about heroin. The article then goes on to point out that by the 80s and the war on cocaine and crack the only “black leader” pushing for the war on drugs was Charlie Rangle, while “other black officials started to finally embrace reforms” (that’s actually from your article. You should read what you cite, I did).

          So your article actually demonstrates that you lied, as I said. I was alive back then too. I remember a powerful white Senator from Boston pushing for the tougher laws for crack cocaine because Len Bias, a black basketball player, who had signed with the Boston Celtics, died after using crack.

          Here’s something specifically about the creation of crack cocaine sentencing. Notice there’s not one mention of the Black Congressional Congress in it at all.

          http://www.salon.com/2011/06/19/len_bias_cocaine_tragedy_still_affecting_us_drug_law/

          • richardstarr

            My study habits were not up to par, but my intelligence and grades were.
            After my wake up call I worked hard and succeeded.

            You are, yet again, willfully ignoring the fact that it is MONEY and not race that
            is the issue. You act like poor white people get in to college while black people
            are being denied. Now if poor white people were being let in to the exclusion of
            black people, especially more qualified black people, then you’d actually have
            some to claim as privilege.

            You have a warped perspective of America and black people.
            I believe that black people can, and do, succeed, if they put in the effort.
            I’ve witnessed this happen in my life. Calling the people I met bigots because
            they don’t like people that don’t put in the effort is stupid. A refusal to put in
            the effort because of a believe of not being allowed to succeed is a self fulfilling
            prophesy.

            OK, here is a better article.
            I admit I skimmed it because I knew the truth and thought it would be
            more complete.

            http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1632

            “The Congressional Record shows that in 1986, when the strict, federal anti-crack legislation was first being debated, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)—deeply
            concerned about the degree to which crack was decimating black
            communities across the United States—strongly supported the legislation and actually pressed for even harsher penalties. In fact, a few years earlier, CBC members
            had pushed President Reagan to create the Office of National Drug Control Policy.”

            Saying I lied is hardly conducive to a polite conversation, especially when I didn’t.
            I find it ironic that you consider a white Senator’s concern over a black athletes
            death as proof of a negative attitude towards black people. No doubt if he had
            expressed a lack of concern you would have considered that proof too, and if he
            had not mentioned it you would claim his indifference to their plight, etc.

            • Von Bailey

              You are willfully ignoring that white people as a whole have more money and wealth than black people and how it got that way. But again, the cartoon points that out very well and you demonstrate it with every word you write.

              I’m not going to attempt to explain to you the disparities. You willfully choose not to see them. That’s very American of you and very common. To claim I have a “warped perspective of America and black people” without demonstrating it in the least is simply negative characterization for lack of any relevant point. You described your “friends” feelings about black people and I characterized those feelings. If you or your friends don’t like it maybe you should consider why I think their bigoted instead of assuming some pompous attitude about your assumed knowledge of black America. An experience you’ve not demonstrated the least bit of real knowledge about.

              You did not cite a better article. It references as it’s source an article that does not give a source for its comment. In other words, there’s not a single quote or release from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) or any of it’s members, that backs up the claim in the article. And you haven’t demonstrated that the legitimacy of my article is in question at all which squarely puts the onus of the law on a white congressman in Boston who happened to be Speaker of the House, who used HIS power, not the CBC to push the bill through.

            • Stuart Stribling

              “Money and not race” is at the core of this issue? As if money and race don’t go hand-in-hand? Another example of white privilege thinking right there.

            • richardstarr

              Tell that to Michael Jordan’s kids or Obama’s.
              Too many poor people come here from other countries, work hard, and succeed.

              If you have a household that values education, then odds are the kid will get a
              chance to do the most with whatever his abilities allow him to do. If they have
              the resources, they can pay for the teachers and materials to maximize that.

            • Penny Marie Sautereau

              No, YOU are the one ignoring reality to evade admitting your privilege. Please just STOP.

            • richardstarr

              Privilege is just the new PC buzz word.
              It implies that if you could not possibly have earned what you have.
              Also, a privilege can be taken away, or in this case it used as an
              excuse to implement “corrective” programs to aid those not privileged.
              You want an excuse to give yourself an edge while not feeling guilty for
              violating the concepts of judging a person as an individual.

        • Von Bailey

          White people kill more white people than any other race kills anyone. You apparently don’t care about that as it doesn’t reflect in a negative light on black people, so what’s the point.

          The difference between the protests in Ferguson and SLC was the response of the police. You not seeing the difference is just another example of purposeful ignorance. Something that, as the young lady’s cartoon points out, white privilege allows.

        • Stuart Stribling

          Wait! What does “competing” have to do with college grades? Most colleges are not norm-referenced. You either know the content or you don’t, and whether you know it better or worse than the guy next to you has nothing do with anything. You got an F because you didn’t study, didn’t know the material, were unqualified, had a bad day, etc. etc. You didn’t get an F because 1000 other students where “putting in more time and effort and overcoming their shortcomings”. This is the main flaw with conservative thinking — that “working hard” will always get you by. Working hard will get you low wages and sore legs at the end of a long shift. Enjoy.

          • richardstarr

            When I was in college, many of the classes were graded on a curve, so even a 90%
            did not always result in an “A” in some cases. But more importantly, teachers teach
            to the class. If everyone is failing the course, you have to take a hard look at how
            the class is being taught. If the “normal” amount of people are failing, you lay the
            blame at the students feet. The teacher observes how much material is being
            absorbed and judges how much material to feed the class based on questions as
            well as the results being generated via the work leading up to the main tests.

            If you come from a situation where the amount of work you need to do is low, to one which is higher, its not unusual to not do as well. This is what happened to me. After getting my poor grades I adjusted my study habits and got better grades.

            Working hard results in your keeping your job while others lose theirs.
            If you are quota based, after you complete that work, you have time to other work
            to get ahead of the game. I worked 2 part time jobs while going to school. The result was I finished school without being debt.

      • ExRadioGuy15

        You are correct, Von Bailey….
        Richard Starr is most likely a Republican (possibly a Libertarian).
        Most Republican Conservatives are simply psychopaths. Remember that psychopaths are intelligent, but, instead of using that intelligence for good, they use it to mask their psychopathology and manipulate the stupid.
        So, while Richard’s arguments “look” sane and reasonable, when you peel off the layers of propaganda and the psychopathology behind it, you see it for what it really is.
        If you’ve ever read Karl Rove’s “troll playbook”, he explains exactly how to sound reasonable and sane while actually practicing psychopathology, which can’t be surprising because he’s a psychopath.
        I’ve taken to refusing to engage in debate with the three insane wings of the GOP (Cons, Tea Partiers and Libertarians, the last two are sociopaths) because there’s just no way to get them to acknowledge the truth. The Con psychopaths simply ignore you and the sociopaths suffer from severe cases of cognitive dissonance.
        So, if I don’t respond any further on this comment thread, you know why. The Con psychopaths know they’re wrong but they don’t care. The GOP sociopaths will use propaganda and logical fallacies to support their “side” of the argument.
        Just read the comments, you’ll see.

        • Von Bailey

          The point is not to attempt to change their minds but to expose the fallacious nature of their arguments in a public forum. I don’t expect to change their minds, but hopefully I can swing someone to common sense who may need that one bit of information to make an informed decision.

          I think it helps that people see that he has nothing to back up what he believes. Makes it harder for them to justify accepting his notions of reality.

  • Von Bailey

    Every democrat in the house at the time was a co-sponsor of the bill. That’s how the politics workedback then. Democrats compromised on a bill that got them some of what they wanted (Federal leadership in establishing effect drug abuse prevention, education programs and expanded Federal support for treatment and rehabilitation) and gave the republicans some of what they wanted (harsher sentencing so they could claim to be tough on crime). That’s the way politics worked then. Both sides got some of what they wanted.

    I see nothing in any of your cites a quote a single CBC member saying that they wanted harsher penalties for crack than cocaine. You simply made that up to justify a blatantly racist policy and blame it on the victims of the policy.

    • richardstarr

      No, not every Democrat was a cosponor.
      Let’s do some math, if 16 of 19 members of the CBC were cosponsors, then that
      means 3 of them were not. Stop trying to make stuff up.

      And given that Charles Rangel was not only a member, but a founder of the CBC,
      and he had been constantly been fighting for harsher penalties because of his
      belief that it affected his constituents more, and that the black churches were pushing
      for harsher penalties for crack in general, are you really trying to say with a straight
      face that the members of the CBC did NOT want the harsher penalties?

      The victims of the users of crack cocaine were primarily black.
      The people pushing for harsher laws were primarily black.
      And the violators of the law were also primarily black.

      To push the idea that somehow this was a racist policy just makes you look like a bigot that chooses to ignore the reality of the time.

      It is harder to find specific quotes for events that occurred prior to the news being
      relayed via the internet. Now I’m sure that if I wanted to I could read through press
      releases and the congressional record to find quotes, but I’m still waiting for you to
      post a single quote of opposition to the increased penalties by a significant portion
      of the CBC at the time of the bill. I know Maxine Waters came out against it as some
      point, but Rangel always pushed for it.

      • Von Bailey

        You make a lot of claims without a shred of evidence to support them.

        1) You’ve supplied not a single member of the CBC calling for harsher penalties for crack than cocaine. Not one. You’ve simply assumed it and ignored that the large majority of “co-sponsors” were NOT part of the CBC and what that implies.

        2) You haven’t supplied a single quote from Charlie Rangel saying that he wanted harsher penalties for crack than cocaine. You’ve simply assumed it to facilitate your false arguments.

        3) Your “points” still lack a single black person saying that they wanted a difference between the sentencing for crack and powdered cocaine. You’ve simply assumed it from the start and can’t let go of something that facilitates your imaginative version of reality. Your basically saying that black people knew that it would adversely affect their community and didn’t care or were too stupid too care. That’s racist.

        I have no intention of attempting to prove a negative. You are the one who made the comment that “Black leaders pushed for the harsher sentencing in the first place”. That’s a lie and you’ve provided NOTHING to the contrary but racist assumptions in an attempt to blame the victim. Classic American white racist behavior.

        • richardstarr

          The LAW they COSPONSORED specified the harsher penalties.
          Are you saying they cosponsored a bill who’s content they disagreed with?
          Get real.

          The fact that others who were not members of the CBC also did is irrelevant other
          than to show that it was a popular bill.

          The black community was screaming for action because the crack epidemic was
          hurting THEM. It was not hurting suburban white communities. The law was written
          in response to their outcry and was designed to aid them. By removing the criminals
          from their community it did not adversely affect them, it increased their quality of life.

          • Von Bailey

            Yes, they sponsored a bill that had content that they disagreed with. If that’s a new concept to you, look up the word compromise, familiarize yourself with the concept, then apply it to politics. It was something that was done a lot before a black president was elected and the republicans decided compromise was a bad word as it would actually achieve something that the black president may get credit.

            The rest of your diatribe is just more words without a single black person stating that they wanted harsher penalties for crack over powdered cocaine as you originally claimed. So it’s still simply a lie that you can’t let go of.

            • richardstarr

              There is a big difference between VOTING for a bill because you don’t like it
              or parts of it and cosponsoring it. You cosponsor it to go on the record that you
              support it because often a voice vote comes later on and its harder to prove that
              you voted one way or the other.

              You just can’t wrap your mind around a simple concept that sponsoring something
              means you back it. And black leaders WERE asking for harsher penalties for crack.
              The fact that cocaine did not get a boost too is irrelevant because they were not
              requesting that that drug also get an increased penalty.

              If you ask for a piece of pie, and you don’t get a piece of cake along with the pie
              you asked for, that’s on you for not asking for it.

            • Von Bailey

              You just have nothing to support your comments except your assumptions. You cannot find d a single story where a black leader backed harsher sentencing for crack over powder. Nothing. You are not black leader so you interpreting their intent in a destructive way towards their own community is simply self serving. You having nothing substantial to back it up demonstrates it’s lack of veracity.

              You ignoring this is just white racist hubris.

            • richardstarr

              They asked for harsher sentences PERIOD.
              They neglected to raise the penalties on cocaine at the same time because they did
              not think to do so. Later on, people like yourself decided that there must be racist
              reasons to do so.

              You choose to ignore what sponsoring means because it does not fit the story
              you are trying to sell. Removing criminals from a community is hardly “destructive”,
              though I imagine it is upsetting when someone’s friend or relative goes to jail for
              the crimes they committed, they still committed the crime and the penalties were
              still increased because of the demands of leaders of the black community.

            • Von Bailey

              You’re still missing a single black person backing up your incredibly racist claim. You choose to ignore that because white racists never need a black person to help explain white racist assumptions of black people. Never have. It’s easier to believe the absurd than deal with a reality that forces them to deal with reality.

            • richardstarr

              Charles Rangle is certainly black, he certainly called for the increased penalties on
              crack, you just have your panties in a twist because the bill that raised penalties for
              crack did not simultaneously raise penalties on cocaine.

              For some reason you don’t want the people that cosponsored the bill and presumably voted for a bill they supported to take responsibility that they neglected to raise penalties on cocaine so that racists like yourself could be satisfied that white people would also get punished harsher.

              You have decided to live your life looking through the prism of race.
              No doubt to attribute any failures in your life to outside agencies rather than accept
              your part.

            • Von Bailey

              No he didn’t. That is a lie. 301 co-sponsors and all that you see are 16 black people as the motivating force to increased penalties directed at the part that would obviously affect black people more than anyone else. They just weren’t bright enough or didn’t care that white people using the same amount in powder would spend less time in jail. It had nothing to do with the Speaker of the House pushing it through for his own political needs, it was the blacks hurting themselves. The kind of pseudo-logic racists have been using for centuries. Blacks aren’t smart enough to make laws that don’t hurt them.

              You have provided no quote where Rangel said he wanted harsher sentencing for crack than powder. Your assumptions that my metaphoric panties are twisted is simply projection. I’m not the one who can’t find anything to back up my words, you are. Why should I be in any discomfort at all for simply pointing out your racist rants are lies?

  • Von Bailey

    It took you that long to find out that you really can’t find a single person on the CBC endorsing harsher sentencing for crack over powder cocaine? I note again, NO QUOTE. It says something about your word that you still stick to the same lie after spending so much time and not finding evidence to back it up.

    Rangel wanting Nixon or Reagan to get tougher on crime is not the same as him endorsing harsher sentencing on a particular drug in a specific bill that would harm his own self professed community more than others. Him saying that something was “well intentioned” is also not an endorsement of the same. That’s just a demonstration of how desperate a stretch you will make to hold onto your racist assumptions.

    Let’s talk about revisionist history; YOU originally said that “The laws against crack, a form of cocaine, were increased due to the insistence of congressional black caucus”. Now that you can’t back it up, all you refer to is your interpretation at vague references to laws during that time by one congressman. Here’s something that your point ignores: Charlie Rangel did not speak for the CBC regarding this at the time. There would have been a press conference if something like that occurred and there wasn’t so it didn’t. So all you’ve done is make spurious assertions about the CBC as a group with nothing to back it up, but still insist on your interpretation being correct. Just like white racist do in America, use their vague racist interpretation of a single black person to justify the racist arguments that they make about the whole.

    You haven’t quoted any opinions about the CBC as a group on the matter or differentiated their actions as individual democrats from any other democrat that voted for the bill. As your own articles point out, not all the CBC voted for the bill, which demonstrates that they did not act as a group. But you ignore that because it doesn’t fit your racist narrative.

    It is stupid to push for harsher penalties for one drug over another unless you thought you were getting something for it that would allow you to avoid the harsher penalties. There was more in the bill than just harsher penalties and you ignoring that is simply self serving.

    The sentencing disparities were justified because of a news blitz about Len Bias being killed and how crack cocaine had ruined the promising career of a young black man out of college headed for the Boston Celtics. The congressman of Boston at the time was the Speaker of the House and made a big deal about how this demonstrated how crack cocaine was more dangerous than powder. Simply typing Len Bias & Crack Cocaine into google supplies a wealth of evidence to support this.

    It is you who ignore history for your racist version so that you can continue to believe that black people did this to themselves and thus nothing to do with white America. Convincing yourselves with a racist rationale that you can ignore it, just as the young lady says in her cartoon.

    • richardstarr

      1) A law was passed, cosponsored by 16 of 19 members of the CBC.
      2) That law raised the penalty for crack, but not for cocaine.
      3) Crack was a significant problem during the time the law was passed, with many
      black civic groups having rallies and the like to get people to do something.
      Cocaine, for whatever the reason, was not their concern.
      4) The law passed.

      I’m backing it up with logic and the record.
      In order to show that this was NOT the desired outcome, you would need to
      demonstrate speeches representing the view of the CBC to the contrary made
      at the time of the bills passage, and you can’t.

      The simple truth is, is that at the time they did not CARE about cocaine.
      They cared about crack. The EFFECT of the law was a disproportionate
      penalty. You keep trying to get people to believe that this was not the desired outcome.

      Later on, racists like yourself decried this, and eventually people like Rangel
      regretted it. He was the FOUNDER of the CBC and during the time of the
      penalties being increase most certainly was a member.

      • Von Bailey

        As I said, you’ve been lying from the beginning and don’t have the integrity to admit when you are wrong. You said that the CBC insisted on harsher penalties for crack over powder. Not being able to demonstrate the veracity of that claim when challenged, you changed to relying on a single congressman on the CBC doing it. Not being able to back that up, now it’s unnamed “black civic groups”. You’ve changed your lie so much you don’t even reference your comment anymore.

        And still not a quote from a single black person, including Rangel, saying they wanted harsher sentencing for crack than powder cocaine. You read the lie somewhere and simply believed it because it fit in your racist assumptions about black people. Those assumptions allow you to ignore the reality your racism perpetuates. Just as the young lady points out so well in her cartoon.

        • richardstarr

          You keep adding the words “over powder”.
          They wanted increased penalties for crack, period.
          The fact that it made it worse than for cocaine was irrelevant in their eyes.

          It only became important because of racists like yourself that thought there
          was a conspiracy going on.

          As to “unnamed black civic groups”, you can refer to the links I provided
          previously, including articles in Ebony magazine, for the specifics.

          He cosponsored the law and knew its contents.
          Are your really expecting anyone to believe that the cosponsors of the bill did
          not know what was in the bill? This was not some multi-thousand page bill.

          The only racist here is YOU. The only lies here are yours.

          You keep repeating the same lame crap hoping that it will magically make it
          true. The only way your revisionist history works is if the majority of the CBC
          were just puppets for “the man”.

          • Von Bailey

            Again, you ignore your own words to lie. I simply keep bringing up your own words and you can’t defend them with facts. Where is the quote that says that the CBC verifies your claim? It doesn’t exist. It’s just so because you said so and then ended the sentence with “PERIOD”. As if that makes it true.

            I’m not going to go digging through a three page article trying to find something you claim exists. If you read the article and it exists then you should be able to quote from it and cite it. You don’t for whatever reason. Maybe because nothing you’ve presented has backed your word and a desperately, maybe a vague reference like you gave, hopefully saves your credibility.

            You calling me a racist is simply projection. It’s the new fad among racist to cast the word back as if it means something to someone who isn’t really a racist. I call you a racist and tell you why. You call me a racist like a child throwing a name back at someone who called them a name.

            You haven’t demonstrated a thing I’ve said is a lie. I have, however, demonstrated that your claim that the CBC “insisted” that there be harsher penalties for crack over powder, and then defining where this was demonstrated by using the 1986 Drug Law as the example not be based in fact. The fact is there is a public record of a very powerful white politician who had a motivation and means to do the same thing is irrelevant because it makes a mockery of your racist assumptions. You ignoring the public record and insisting that your self serving interpretation of some votes are right (not a CBC vote, but a House vote in which some of the CBC voted NO) is simply pathetically lying.

            I keep repeating the same thing because I am referring to the same thing. Your original lie. I’m not going to switch to allow you to change the subject to something more general so that you can save face. You lied when you said that the CBC backed harsher sentences for crack over powder. You have a serious lack of integrity for insisting that your lie is true without a shred of evidence to back it up.

            None of this surprises me. I live in America where white racists act as you do on a daily basis. Less now than say, 20 years ago, but it still happens. You’re a perfect example.

            • richardstarr

              You keep repeating the same b.s.
              They voted to increase the penalty of crack, period.
              It’s only you that attempt to make it appear that it was a conscience decision to
              do it “over” cocaine, while I simply believe they did not care until racists like yourself
              started complaining.

              There was a law they cosponsored, it did what it did, but you want to claim they did
              not want it to do what it did because it does not fit your world view.
              I don’t need a quote, I see their record. “You” would have to produce a quote
              that shows that the bill deviated from what they cosponsored to prove your point.

              I call you a racist because you are a racist. Period.
              16 of 19 cosponsored it, the vast majority of them. You can’t even prove a single
              one voted against it because it was a voice vote.

              The difference between the past and today is people are more aware that racists
              like yourself call others racist to get their way, but more people are willing to examine
              the underlying facts now instead of just taking it at face value.

            • Von Bailey

              You didn’t originally say that “they voted to increase penalty of crack”, you originally said the the Congressional Black Congress specifically insisted that crack cocaine have harsher penalties. You then quoted a specific law which was supposed to prove it. The fact that you run from your original words, the ones that I called a lie, is telling. The fact that you don’t acknowledge that your original statement was wrong is telling. And its telling things about you.

              Now you make the ridiculous argument that I must find some quote that disproves your assumption. Your “assumption” presumes that every politician agreed with every aspect of every bill they ever sponsored. Or that these agreed with every aspect of every bill they’ve ever sponsored. An assumption that is patently false, well, unless you’ve got something your imagination thinks proves this assumption as factual. You don’t, because it’s not.

              You don’t see obvious problem with your assumption because it underpins your whole argument and without it everything you’ve said is obviously wrong. But, as behavioral habits manifest, you’ve resorted to denial instead of dealing with the fact that you’ve been wrong about what you’ve believed about this for some time. Let alone, being in a dialog with someone in a public forum where it was demonstrated. Can’t be an easy pill to swallow. I would sympathize, but I’m sure you have multiple levels of denial to deal with it.

              Your evidence that I’m a racist appears to be the same reason your lies about the CBC and crack were true: because you can type the word “period”. Has nothing to do with facts, information, or anything I said besides accusing you of it; just because you say so emphatically. That’s pathetic.

              I don’t have to prove any of of the CBC didn’t vote for it individually. You made the claim that the group did something, not the individuals. The group didn’t do anything close to what you claim. You lied about it and apparently lack the integrity to admit it.

            • richardstarr


              You didn’t originally say that “they voted to increase penalty of
              crack”, you originally said the the Congressional Black Congress
              specifically insisted that crack cocaine have harsher penalties.

              Yes, harsher penalties than it already HAD, not in comparison to anything else.
              The law specifically INCREASED the penalty, making it harsher than it was.
              Is your English comprehension that low?

              You make the claim they did not want the penalties to be harsher, despite all evidence
              to the contrary. Provide proof. I can show the cosponsored the law, what do you have?

              Sponsorship of a bill directly implies one’s wholehearted support, as opposed to merely voting for it. That the whole point of being a cosponsor, its to go on record and take credit for the bill. The idea that they are cosponsors, yet did not actually
              support the bill, is beyond stupid.

              You keep trying to deflect, but the truth is, you make your assumptions based on race. You are a racist by assuming motivations of groups based on their race.

              Your continued intransigence in this area merely provide more evidence of this.

              You ignore the evidence, refuse to provide evidence to support your position, and
              make assumptions solely on the race of the participants. You are a racist.

            • Von Bailey

              Your pathetic attempt at rewriting what you said does not change the fact that you have nothing that demonstrates that either. Where’s the evidence that they CBC, as a group, insisted on harsher penalties for crack cocaine? There isn’t any. You’re still a liar no matter how you parse your words.

              “You make the claim they did not want the penalties to be harsher, despite all evidence to the contrary.”

              I said no such thing. I claim there is no evidence that they specifically wanted harsher penalties for crack over powder. That’s not the same as saying they didn’t want harsher penalties. If the harsher penalties were the same across the board, no discrepancies between crack and powder, I don’t see a reason to object to them, nor do I see a reason the CBC would have objected. I also don’t see a reason why they would have “insisted” on them either way; something you’ve not proven but continue to lie about. But then if you don’t rewrite what I said then you’d have nothing to attack me with so I understand how you would have to continue lying.

              Now you claim the CBC as a group “directly implied” their “insistence”? Really? You honestly have no idea how pathetic that sounds? How do you “imply insistence”? You’re just going deeper into ridiculous rationales to hold onto ridiculous points.

              I haven’t deflected anything. I’ve stayed on point, your lie about what the CBC did. You’ve lied about it and found NO evidence to support it. You just believe found something that you claim implies it and somehow I’m the one deflecting. Typical racist projection. When you provide evidence instead of your assumptions about what other people, that you don’t know, and their intent, instead of your assumptions about their intent, I will pay attention to it. Until then your racist assumptions are not evidence except to other racists, which probably explains why you accept it so easily. It also explains why I will continue to expose it for the lie that it is. :)

            • richardstarr

              How many times were you dropped on your head as child?

              They cosponsored the law, the effect of the law was what it was.
              The only way your concept works is if they are puppets or stupid.

              There were black civic groups, their core constituency, that were demonstrating
              and asking for action and they acted. You don’t like the results and are attempting to disassociate them from their involvement.

              You continue to project your racism on others. You call anyone who challenges your world view a racist or a liar, but fail to produce anything to support your claims.
              So, put up of shut up.

            • Von Bailey

              Who is “they”? You specifically said that the CBC insisted on harsher penalties, but you keep referencing individuals as if you don’t understand the difference between an individual act and a group act.

              You reference “black civic groups” but cannot actually name one. I know it might surprise a racist, but black people actually name their groups to differentiate them from others. Your inability to give the name of one implies you’re just making things up as you did with your lies about the CBC.

              Calling you a racist and a liar is not calling anyone who challenges me a racist and a liar. That’s as ridiculous as the rest of your comments. You really seem to have a problem differentiating individuals from groups; another trait of racists.

  • Von Bailey

    However,
    you didn’t say anything about “support” you said the group “insisted”.
    Again you’re changing what you said to accommodate lying. No where in
    your pathetic attempt does a single black person say, “So we need
    harsher penalties on crack.” Not a single person. Just your assumptions
    based on comments that don’t say what you claimed they “insisted” on.
    Your pathetic attempt to ignore that using your logic 285 white
    democrats voted for it too. Were they also insisting on harsher
    penalties or was it just the black people who need you to interpret what
    they were doing?

    Wanting something done about crack is not the same thing as insisting on harsher penalties for one drug over another. You could want drug counseling, you could want PSAs detailing the dangers of drugs, there are plenty of things to do about drugs than put people in jail longer. You keep insisting that your assumptions are facts. Nothing supports that in the least, but you insist on it. Just like a racist when their racist assumptions are proven wrong, you go into denial.

    I
    don’t have to provide anything. I say that they didn’t insist on higher
    penalties for crack and there is nothing that contradicts that except
    your assumptions. How do you provide evidence that someone or an
    organization didn’t say they insist on something? You can’t. The burden
    is on you to support what you say they did insist on. You can’t so like
    a person desperately grasping for an argument, you attempt to switch
    your burden onto me. Still pathetic, but you are persistent.

    • richardstarr

      Are you just too stupid and stubborn to admit you are wrong?

      Black organizations scream about crack, black politicians cosponsor a bill
      that raises the penalty on crack, but somehow they did not really want to do that.

      When you cosponsor a bill that does something its reasonable to assume that, since you are so proud about the law that you want to be associated with it if it goes to a voice vote, that they wanted it do what it did. How are you unable to connect this?

      The question is not whether or not white people supported this endeavor, but whether
      or not the CBC did. You keep insisting they did not want harsher penalties and have
      yet to produce a single shred of evidence to support it, because you can’t.

      The EFFECT of the law was the penalties were increased and made harsher than
      other drugs. If they wanted ALL drugs to have increased penalties, then they would
      have written the law to do it. Show an amendment from the CBC attempting, and
      failing, to get this done and you might have an iota of credibility to your blithering.

      It’s only your desperate attempt to hold on to your racist world view that black politicians could not have done what they done and somehow only the white votes
      for it count.

      Produce evidence or shut up.

      • Von Bailey

        The question is whether or not you lied when you said that the CBC insisted on harsher penalties. They didn’t insist on anything of the sort. To insist something is not to be a co-sponsor along with over 300 other people. Insistence isn’t implied by voting on something. Insistence isn’t because you can type the word “period” at the end of a sentence.

        Perhaps you should look up words before you ignorantly use them.

        • richardstarr

          Harsher : Comparative form of harsh. More severe.

          They wanted more severe penalties than the penalties than it currently had.
          The cosponsored and passed a law that had this effect.
          You are attempting to say the did NOT want this, when they obviously did.

          • Von Bailey

            You simply get more pitiful and all to hold onto a lie. Defining one of the words in a lie doesn’t mitigate the lie; it’s still a lie. You don’t have the cbc, a black organization or a single black person saying they wanted “more severe penalties” for crack. Just your assumptions and insistence that you are right.

            So it’s still nothing but a lie.

            • richardstarr

              How are you this dense?

              They wanted to increase the penalty for crack, they cosponsored a law that did it,
              it passed, end of story. You have produced nothing to show those who cosponsored
              the bill, and could have removed their names at any time if they no longer agreed with it, were opposed to it.

              You can’t, because they didn’t. They “spoke” by cosponsoring it, they “spoke” by voting. If this bill had passed in a more recent era, the whole shebang would be online. Just because they don’t have a press release printed out using the exact phrasing that you want to see does not mean that their actions were not intentional.

              And I’ve given you a link to a newspaper article discussing 60 predominantly black churches marching about crack. Or do you think a black church does not count as
              a black organization.

              Produce evidence or shut up.

            • Von Bailey

              So because you cannot provide a shred of evidence to back up your claim and must use your assumptions, I’m dense? Wow. You project your shortcomings like breathing.

              You lied. You provided nothing to back up your lies and then started telling me that I needed to disprove your lies instead of you having to supply a single person to back up your lies. You’re right because you say so. I’m a racist because you said so. The only evidence you provide is your word and it’s not back up by anything except gross assumptions.

              You really are pathetic. You want me to “shut up”? Stop lying.

            • richardstarr

              Good lord you are pathetic.
              I’ve presented evidence, you just choose to ignore it because its not in a form
              you want. I’m not about to dig through the congressional records to give you your
              sound bite. Their vote shows what they wanted. Their cosponsor ship shows they
              approved. And you’ve shown you will do anything to avoid dealing with reality.
              I’ve given quotes from Rangel including his later regrets, and you ignore it.
              You don’t like the conclusion, so you ignore the evidence.

              Provide evidence, or shut up. All you do is continue to blather on providing
              nothing of substance.

            • Von Bailey

              If providing sites that don’t make your point is evidence to you, then I can see how you would believe you’ve provided evidence. Like some other concepts you don’t seem to understand that evidence is supposed to support your argument. Nothing that you’ve presented demonstrates your statement, “The laws against crack, a form of cocaine, were increased due to the insistence of congressional black caucus to deal with the crisis in the inner cities.”

              You like looking up words. Look up “insistence”. You will not find the words “co_sponsored” or “voted” anywhere in the definition. They insisted on nothing of the sort. You lied when you said they insisted on harsher penalties. You simply don’t have the integrity to admit it.

            • richardstarr

              You continue to ignore the facts in front of your face.
              The entire purpose of cosponsoring a bill is to take credit for it.
              The law was written because the members wanted it to do what it did.
              This is not a case of a missing comma or word that allows it to be interpreted
              as being other than it is.

              You provide nothing to counter what I have given you.
              Provide evidence or shut up.

            • Von Bailey

              Another lie.

              I have given you alternative reasons why members of the CBC would have voted for the bill besides harsher penalties. The only reason, in your arguments, for them to have voted for the bill is the harsher penalties, totally ignoring that there were other aspects in the bill that they could have found favorable and simply compromised. Accepting that would make your original comment obviously untrue, so you won’t accept it.

              You have provided NOTHING that demonstrates “insistence” for “harsher penalties” on the part of the CBC as a group as your initial comment stated. So you are continuing to insist that your lie be counted as true. Pathetic and childish, but racists do that all the time.

            • richardstarr

              You’ve given an alternate “theory”, but nothing to back it up.
              They COSPONSORED the bill, not just voted for it.
              You continue to ignore that fact. Cosponsoring is an endorsement of the whole,
              unlike a vote which may be a reluctant acceptance/compromise.

              And yes, you are a pathetic childish racist.

            • Von Bailey

              You didn’t say that they “endorsed” the bill, you said that they were “insistent” on “harsher penalties”. Look up the word “insist” again. It doesn’t mean “endorse”.

              My “alternate theory” is simply more plausible than yours. You are claiming that they wanted harsher penalties and I am claiming that they wanted help in their communities in the form of treatment centers and eduction. Only a racist would assume that they were so stupid as to want the punishment of their own community instead of the help offered. But again, without the racist assumptions you make, your argument falls apart and your lie is exposed.

            • richardstarr

              They are cosponsors. If they were unhappy with it, they would not have been.

              Charles Rangel, the founder of the CBC, has over the course of his career consistently
              called for harsher penalties on drugs. He eventually stated that he regretted the disparity that he had voted for.

              The harsher penalties were put into place to discourage the illegal activities as well
              as remove those people harming their communities. Only a racist like yourself would
              assume that the mere act of jailing such a criminal “harms” the community simply because it turns out that the criminal happens to share your skin color.

            • Von Bailey

              I’m sure that they are thrilled that you put words in their mouths to prove your points when you can’t find them saying what you need. Either that, or they would notice what a racist you are to believe that you speak for them in a way that makes them sound incredibly stupid.

              Charlie Rangel is not the founder of the CBC, he was a founding member, but he was not the founder. You chose to ignore the other founders in order to give your lie more weight. He is credited with naming it, but he was a junior congressman at the time. If he didn’t have the backing of established black congress persons at the time, nobody would have paid any attention to him. Your lack of knowledge regarding black history is profound.

              Only a racist would assume that the problem was ONLY in communities where people were of a certain color of skin. It didn’t come to America as crack. It had to be supplied by the other people who were bringing it into the country in a powdered form before it became crack. Why wouldn’t the CBC also want the people who are bringing the crack into the country to be sold to their neighborhoods also punished? Or don’t you think they were bright enough to know it had to come from somewhere before it was in their congressional districts? There isn’t a single logical reason why the CBC would want harsher penalties for criminals in their neighborhoods and not the people supplying the criminals in their neighborhoods. Your arguments are ridiculous, as usual.

            • richardstarr

              This organization was renamed the Congressional Black Caucus in February 1971 on the motion of Charles B. Rangel of New York. Founding members of the caucus were Shirley Chisholm, William L. Clay Sr., George W. Collins, John Conyers, Ronald Dellums, Augustus F. Hawkins, Ralph Metcalfe, Parren Mitchell, Robert Nix, Charles Rangel, Louis Stokes, and Washington D.C. Delegate Walter Fauntroy.


              I’ve been mentioning Rangel because he happens to be the most outspoken of the anti-drug people during that period. Why you would believe anyone thought he was the sole founder from my postings is beyond me.

              So you are saying the black church leaders I quoted above as stating the problem was much worse in their community is racist?

              How quickly you forget the quote.
              “As devastating as drugs may be in the white community, they are 10 times worse in the black community”
              Seems they were mostly concerned about the criminals and the impact on THEIR
              community. Whether or not they pressed for higher penalties on “outsiders” is
              unknown to me. But you certainly have yet to produce a quote showing it was
              attempted and rejected.

              You can dodge and weave in your attempt to deceive, but in the end you have still
              produced nothing to back your statements.

              Put up or shut up.

            • Von Bailey

              Impressive, you can use Google and cut and paste. Does it mean that you were aware of that prior to Goggling it. Not in the least and your comments have demonstrated your lack of previous knowledge of who they are and what they’ve done.

              You’ve been mentioning Rangel because he’s the only member on the CBC that you can find that says anything at all on the subject and without him your desperate attempts at putting some substance to your lie falls apart. But even that has no substance, because you can’t find a single time where he does what you claimed, insisted on harsher penalties for crack.

              No, I’m calling you a racist, but your penchant for projection and denial won’t let you see that.

              Interesting quote. So where’s the part where they say, “So make harsher penalties for crack.” It’s not there because it was never said by anyone in the black community and thus your original claim that it was insisted by the CBC is a lie.

              I don’t have to provide anything to show it was “attempted and rejected” because I never said it either was done. You are the one who claimed something happened and haven’t been able to provide a shred of evidence to support it. I’ve simply been pointing out you lied. To prove I’m wrong, all you need to do is provide something from the CBC insisting on harsher penalties for crack, as you claimed. You can’t do that either. So you lied.

              Keep going. I couldn’t care less. This is taking hardly any effort at all.

            • richardstarr

              I lived through the era, I remember it, I google to provide things for you and
              any other person that might find it of interest, and who desires more 3rd party
              information.

              I mention Rangel because he is the most outspoken person and has readily
              discussed his connection with this issue. I’d ask him directly about this, but
              his office only replies to people from his district. So, I’m going to post on his
              Facebook page in the hopes of a response since you refuse to make any
              effort yourself.

              You have provided no evidence to support your case because it does not exist.
              You refuse to accept cosponsorship for the proof it is of endorsing the bill.
              Frankly, your lack of effort is consistent with this entire subject.

            • Von Bailey

              I lived through it as a black man who was paying attention to what black people were doing and saying about it. That’s how I know you’re lying. There wasn’t a single black person in a leadership position calling for harsher sentencing for one drug over another.

              Rangel was the most outspoken BLACK person on the subject and even he never said anything about harsher penalties for crack. Demonstrating even more that you lied as even the most outspoken black person on the subject of dealing with the subject never insisted on harsher penalties for crack. I have no reason to go looking for something I know Randel never said. It’s your word that is dependent on what you claim he said, not mine.

              You keep saying I need to present evidence that you are a liar instead of simply pointing out that what you say are lies. That’s silly. If you don’t provide evidence to back up your lies I certainly don’t have to provide any that you are lying, it’s obvious.

            • richardstarr

              You keep saying “one drug over another”.
              Considering that drugs are and for the most part have been treated different than
              each other from the start just makes you seem stupid.
              EX: An oz of weed never had the same penalty as an oz of meth.

              Whether the CBC intended from the start to also increase the penalties of regular cocaine too, that’s not what the law the endorsed and passed did.
              Crack was the problem they were addressing with this law and the law resulted in harsher penalties for crack than the penalties that it had before.

              Thing is, there is no evidence that they also wanted to increase the penalty for cocaine at the time this bill was passed. No speeches made of bills proposed at that time.
              That came later on.

              You don’t go looking because you don’t really believe you will find something to back you up.

            • Von Bailey

              Given that you know that “one drug over another” means crack over powder, your comment is at best, disingenuous. There is no difference besides how you use one over the other. Until a powerful white politician made it an issue because a basketball player died who was supposed to be going to his favorite basketball team they had the same punishment. All this is documented in the public record, contrary to your fantasies.

              Since I never said anything about the CBC increasing penalties for powdered cocaine, your right, it doesn’t matter. It’s apparently a dodge by you to obfuscate the fact that you claimed that they insisted on harsher penalties and they never did anything of the kind. I never said that they wanted to increase the penalty of any drug so I don’t need to provide evidence that they did. YOU claimed that the CBC insisted that crack cocaine get harsher penalties, so you have the burden to prove your words aren’t the lies I say they are.

              Like your self serving comments about the intentions of the CBC and Charlie Rangel, you now assume you have the ability to tell me why I don’t go looking for evidence to support your lies. It’s beyond you that it’s simply because it makes no sense to go looking for evidence that someone is lying when they can’t provide a shred of evidence that they are telling the truth.

  • Ariel Armaita

    The concept is sound. But the name of this phenomenon is racist as well as a bigoted term in and of itself. It has been shown that this occurs even intra-racially within any given race. And it should be referred to as “Lighter Skin Tone Privilege”.

    I am being serious. I am sure that a lot of individuals who actually use the term will not see the reason why it is a bigoted term just as much as there are those who do not even seem to be able to grasp the concept of it.

    And just because you desire to target a Caucasian audience and awaken them to the existence of this phenomenon as well as to get them to become aware of the implications does not make the term less bigoted or valid as well.

  • Dave

    I am white, yet the color of my skin has NEVER done me any favors!

  • John Ryan

    could u please donate to the united white collage fund, oh no u cant it would be against the dam law!! This bull crap about white rights is very insulting. I’ve been turned away for jobs because some black guy with less experience had to be hired to fill a quota. so what about that black privilege that were not allowed to mention cause if we do were called racist. WAKE THE HELL UP this is about your gov going wild and forcing ALL people to submit, submit, submit and there’s no hope if you don’t stop pointing your finger at each other.

  • gravemiind

    You’re forgetting a key element to the story. Not everyone is equal. If you seriously think black people are the same as white people, you are wrong and stupid. We evolved differently for a reason. White people benefited more from problem solving skills in the colder areas and black people benefited from increased athleticism on the deserts and plains of Africa. If you tell me I’m wrong and everyone is the same then you are what is wrong with the world.

    • Dragoon

      Actually it has been proven genetically that we all came from Africa thus the same race, we adapted to our surroundings and that’s all there is to it nothing more and nothing less.

  • Dragoon

    One could also go with money privilege which crosses both skin color line and we see this with those that have the money get away with a lot of things.

    OJ got away with murdering two people why?
    because he had money

    And then there are a lot of white skinned people who got away with crimes, not because of the color of their skin but because they had money.

    I bet you anything poor or middle class whites murdered two people like OJ and they go to jail and most likely a needle in the arm because they couldn’t afford a lawyer like he could.

    If a rich person regardless of skin color raped a woman regardless of skin color they would have a high chance of getting away with it because they could afford the best defense money could buy.

    so I am really getting tired of the white Vs. black arguments because as more blacks are getting ricer the more we see them getting away with crimes a normal black/white skinned person would not.

    I hate nether white nor black for I am figuratively speaking color blind as I see not black or white but grey, I don’t give a damn if someone is rich or poor, black or white.

    you do the crime you should get punished for it.

    we are after all ONE race and skin color is just the Melton in our skin, nothing more nothing less.

    the moment people get that through their thick heads the better.

    we need to treat all things equally as one race

    After all we all hail from the same country as we all have the same genetic ancestor so we are all black regardless of what our skin color is today.

  • doomed

    Ah the old political correctness brainwashing.
    Yep always whitey to blame for every ones own shortcomings. Still got idiots I never harmed hating on me for what some British did 200 years ago solely because of my skin colour.

    I mean maybe this kid can do a cartoon on how self segregation and reverse racism works.

    Every race has hate and racism. What is really racist is when one skin type is always singled out, hated on for that colour and it is okay and legit.

    Now excuse me while I go find funds for a Caucasian only TV station and scholarships etc.
    Oh wait, having such things would be racist because white……..

    Black Pride gets you a pat on the back, White Pride makes you instantly a Nazi.
    I mean I can be proud of the part of me that is Asian Indian, but I must be ashamed for my Caucasian Ancestory.
    At this rate soon I shall have to start apologising tom myself and paying compensation for what the British did I guess.
    Because I can only be proud of my ancestry if it’s anything but white according to the world.

    Mankind, 1 step forward 10 steps backwards. Any wonder we’re stagnating as a species. How can we move forward as a species when we’re always living in the past?

    Any ways as this comic points out the differences between ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’ and not what they have in common the artist is a racist and a hypocrite because political correctness, that’s why! :p

  • Scott Randle

    As a white Caucasian male on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, I bristle when I hear the term “white privilege.” The word “privilege” conjures up images of upper crust jet-set society folks sipping mimosas on their yachts. It conjures up images of rich kids who have an overwhelming sense of entitlement that turns them into bullies in the halls of High Schools everywhere. It conjures up images of Ethan Couch, the Texas teen who stole beer from a Wal-Mart and then proceeded to drive while three times over the legal limit of intoxication, wound up killing four people, and got probation because his lawyer said he had “affluenza” – a condition in which being raised in privilege stunted his ability to tell right from wrong. It conjures up images of Wall Street Bankers who stole billions of dollars, crashed the economy, and walked away laughing. The word “privilege” conjures up images of George W. Bush committing heinous war crimes that would have made Heinrich Himmler proud and walking away to paint terrible pictures of cute dogs. It conjures up the image of the mustachioed guy from the Monopoly board game getting a blow job from a supermodel in a hot tub while chopping up lines of Peruvian flake.

    In short, the word privilege does not conjure up a picture of me.“Advantage” would be better. I have an advantage due to my white skin because the power structure in this country is dominated by Caucasians. But I don’t have privilege. I never have. People who are powerless don’t have privilege and I resent being told that I do. If I’m privileged, then where is my country club membership? Where is my “Get Out Of Jail Free” card? I don’t have that. The dude getting fellatio from a cover girl in a Jacuzzi while snorting coke has the “Get Out Of Jail Free” card. Not me.

    There are a few different definitions of privilege in dictionaries. I’d like to break those down, but first, you have to know that the Latin roots of the word “privilege” are Privi – Private and Lege – Law. People with privilege have their own “private law” that they follow and are not bound by the same rules as the rest of us. The first definition is:

    “A right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others.”

    While those who preach the gospel of “white privilege” use the argument that this definition can be used to argue that white people are given preferential treatment in a white dominated society, it is a misnomer. White people have the advantage of not being racially profiled or, if they are rich, not being treated rudely by a store clerk at Macys, the truth is that if I walk around a Macys in my “poor clothes” the store security guard is going to be watching me like a hawk. There are advantages to being white in a mostly white society. I am not denying that. But I’m not getting special treatment from the cops if they DO decide to harass me simply because I am white. I’ve been followed around stores before. (Due to having long hair, or once because I was dirty from landscaping all day.) Am I less likely to be randomly harassed by a cop because I am white? Sure. But that’s an advantage I have, not a privilege. I have the advantage of not being racially profiled. Once the cops DO get me in their sights, I am treated like the same piece of crap as any other person from the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum and then any “privilege” one might imagine me having goes right out the fu*king window.

    (Cont – )

  • Barabbas

    Well, case closed I guess. Clearly there is no other conceivable rational explanation for these powerful statistics – other than the biological/genetic one that actually accounts for them all, as well as the actual experiences of actual human beings whose common sense experiences with various ethnic groups reveals precisely why blacks are more likely to go to jail and less likely to become educated. But talking openly about such things would break people’s hearts.

  • ric

    gee I was having a good day now I am miserable

  • Eddie Valle

    Hey, even as of very recently, Jon Stewart could barely get Bill O’Reilly to admit white privilege exists. And he didn’t even totally admit it without getting his arm twisted pretty much. Ignorance is stubborn.

  • thinker5

    THIS PRECISELY SAYS IT ALL!!! Of course, there are those, who will try to EXPLAIN AWAY her message, because they either just do NOT get it, or are themselves in that area of america who are RACIST AS HELL AND STILL ARE TRYING TO SAY THEY AREN’T………(hello, richardstarr, you RACIST BUTTHOLE BASTARD)………

  • thomaspainelives

    Such magnificent stupidity should be rewarded, maybe by a free vacation to Liberia.