Indira Dammu blogs:
It’s not often that we get a perfect demonstration of white privilege and what it entails. Sure, we talk about it in classes but it’s a difficult concept to grasp. Here’s Tim Wise with a great piece on white privilege and how Sarah Palin benefits from it…
…
To be sure, Palin’s gender has led to unfair scrunity, particularly with regards to her ability to juggle both a career and motherhood. By the same token, however, her race has allowed to escape an even harsher examination.
Palin’s gender “unprivilege” is complicated in its own right. Consider this exchange, which is the first sign of feminism I have seen from the candidate:
The crowd liked McCain, but loved Palin. “You’re a hottie!” a young man near the front called out to her.
“What does that have to do with anything?” she answered with a smile.
here is the article referenced in the link:
http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/this-your-nation-white-privilege-updated
the IDS one pulls out some of Tim Wise’s compelling points. Wise’s original article contains a lot of stuff which is great, and some small amount of stuff which seems to equate “white privilege” with “right wing,” like this:
which seems to be more an issue of being a liberal, not being a black.
All in all though, an interesting read. i recommend the Wise one, there’s a lot more to it and a large comment section as well.
which seems to be more an issue of being a liberal, not being a black.
No, it’s pointing out that a level of knowledge (or rather, ignorance) about America’s history and founding documents that would be considered wholly unacceptable in a black candidate is OK in a white one. Obama has forgotten more about the Constitution than Palin ever will know, but she gets counted as a “real” American while he’s a stranger to this country.
There was a surprisingly good piece on HuffPost about Palin’s non-Standard English speech patterns being accepted as a sign that she’s a “real person,” but if Obama used Ebonics — my God, if he even used a hiphop-associated term like “shout out” at a debate — he would be politically ghettoized.
Basically, Wise’s theory of white privilege is about how black people are “born suspect,” while white people have a presumption of being good enough and smart enough without having to show any credentials.
PG, good comments here… Mike Huckabee and others can also say “yall” and its all folksy and good, but Obama couldn’t even use THAT word and have it taken the same way.
Also, interesting remark from Palin. Maybe after she hears that stuff ENOUGH, she will become radicalized???
Nah.
Thanks Daisy.
Incidentally, in some ways using the phrase “white privilege” may ignore how other racial groups can benefit. I discussed with the person who pointed out the HuffPost article to me that Bobby Jindal became successful in Louisiana politics once he learned to campaign like a bubba and not so much like a Rhodes Scholar. I think that Asians also tend to get exempted from negative assumptions about their intelligence — there are benefits to the “good at math & science” stereotype.
Because he is South Asian-American, Jindal initially was treated as an “Other” even though he was born in Baton Rouge, changed his name from Piyush to Bobby, changed his religion from Hinduism to Catholicism, identified as Republican even though his parents were Democrats, and pretty much did everything he could short of taking up chewing tobacco (which would undercut his big accomplishment of reforming Louisiana’s health care system) to fit in with the demographic of Louisiana voters. Even then, he had to start making shout-outs to LSU football and otherwise show that he was “just folks” and not an outsider before he could win a race. He was safe in doing so, however, because while a South Asian is going to be suspect for being Not One Of Us culturally, a South Asian usually won’t be suspect with regard to having the intellectual chops to do a task. There aren’t widespread stereotypes about South Asians in that regard, Quickiemart jokes aside.
PG,
to address the quote i cited, I think that most politicians who speak heavily about wanting to preserve the rights of terrorists are, have been, or will be branded as “mushy liberals” by their Republican opponents. I don’t think that is in any way limited to blacks.
Your own example was different than the quote. Your example makes more sense, though I am still not in complete agreement. It does not seem clear that a pro-god-country-and-republicans black candidate, running against a Democrat, wouldn’t get the same deference from the right wing as Palin is getting now.
And the fact that the left wing and/or media didn’t harp on that is because it the error constitutes (comparatively speaking) a relatively minor fault when measured against the rest of Palin’s errors. That the media elected to spend more time no the bridge to nowhere than it did on Palin’s knowledge of the history of the pledge of allegiance is no surprise. Heck, I detest Palin and I didn’t particularly care about the pledge thing one way or another; I’m too focused on her other faults.
while if you’re black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), you’re a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn’t fit to safeguard American institutions.
That’s the part of the quote I was addressing. “Dangerous” and not “fit to safeguard American institutions.”
“Mushy liberal” gets put on all national Democrats. Treating the candidate as himself dangerous to our institutions has been reserved for Obama.