Vanderbilt University sociologist says white privilege still exist and riots prove it

[Bill the Cat]

Source: http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/04/28/capturing-racism-high-definition/26515991/

Evidence proving that race and racism are meaningful is increasingly easy to find. We see it right here and right now. There is no need to recall Whites Only signage or sheet-clad KKK members. The facts show white people acting routinely to harm, demean, and damage black and brown people. The facts explain the lofty levels of frustration and despair among black and brown youth.

Evidence consists of protests and riots, such as what happened last night in Baltimore in response to the mysterious death of Freddie Gray while he was in police custody. Something is awry—people of color don't protest and riot out of boredom. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that "a riot is the language of the unheard."

Evidence consists of Oklahoma University fraternity and sorority members singing joyfully about the exclusion and lynching of black bodies. Supposedly, the song was taught to them and may connect back to the Confederate-identified white men who founded the fraternity.

Evidence consists of text and email messages exchanged between corporate executives, among police officers sworn to serve and protect the public, and by public servants and elected officials.

Evidence consists of graphic videos showing the willful killings (assassinations?) of unarmed black men in non-felonious interactions with police officers.







Litigation and Intent

Considering the white Oklahoma University fraternity and sorority members, the accused have retained an attorney. They are upset about being labeled racists. I imagine the defense's arguments will mirror comments made by the youth's parents (to paraphrase): Johnny is a good boy. There is no hate in his heart. He made a horrible (but not that horrible) mistake. He is young and didn't know any better.

To those specific parents and others like them, consider the following a public service announcement:


•Your child's behavior is racist and it's your fault (mostly).
•You never intentionally read children's books with main characters of color, but you raised Sarah to appreciate diversity.
•You lived in a residentially segregated neighborhood, and thought that fact sent no implicit messages to Evan.
•You chose to worship in a church or synagogue where Katey was surrounded by white people, and she understood that way of life to be normal.
•You choose the best schools for Chase, but never considered the fact that those schools were racially homogenous.
•You talked to Isabelle about poverty but implied that all poor people are black and it's their own fault.
•You let grandma say n***** at Thanksgiving in front of Elizabeth because grandma is old and doesn't know any better.
•You told a racially insensitive joke in front of Liam, condoning symbolic violence.

The take-home message here applies to every person exposed to the disturbing videos, and text and emails showing the significance of race and racism. The issue is not about any white person's heart or motivations or intent. Those things are hidden from sight. It's about their actions—which let me remind you—speak louder than their words.

The bottom line is that it's everyday whites making everyday choices that lock in and protect white privilege [ https://www.isr.umich.edu/home/diver...-privilege.pdf ].



The New Paparazzi

This piece should be read as a call to action. Black and brown (and empathetic or doubting) whites—grab your cell phones. Turn on the video camera. Or grab your GoPro.

For people of color, record the discourteous way co-workers or service industry workers or police officers treat you. Record your friends talking about the indignities and micro-aggressions you as a person of color, for example, face in all- or mostly-white spaces. If you happen to identify as white, then record Uncle Roy talking at a private family gathering about the good old days when blacks knew their place (what sociologists call backstage racism). Record how pleasant your interactions are with police officers doing routine traffic stops. Record whether and how the conversation changes when people of color enter the room.

Then let's all post our videos. We can add our videos to the growing archive.

Posting our videos, among other things, will confirm that race and racism still matter. It will demonstrate that white privilege is real (and real in its consequences). It will provide evidence that black and brown people do not experience the everyday world in ways similar to whites.

Revelation

Despite stories that people of color tell repeatedly about institutional inequality, recent evidence of police brutality shocked many people. Those shocked individuals had minimized the contemporary significance of race and racism in U.S. society.

Just imagine if the only evidence of race and racism's impact was the stories that people of color tell—few whites would be moved to action. But we can now capture racist behavior and its impact on society in high definition. As such, it's been a revelation to many whites. And that is a good thing because there can be no revolution without revelation.

We must document the significance of race and racism before we can address it. Make it routine to collect evidence that allows us to address it. Otherwise, we are bound to run in circles debating whether a problem exists, while things get worse.

Tony Brown is associate chair of sociology at Vanderbilt University. Brown studies racism and racism's impact on society.

© Copyright Original Source

The Unfiltered Patriot commented on this by saying:

Source: http://unfilteredpatriot.com/blame-it-on-the-whites-says-professor/

It’s funny that Brown would condemn white parents for self-segregation while driving the wedge of division ever deeper. If an end to homogeneity is key to getting past our racial hurdles, then op-eds like his only worsen the problem. In fact, sociology itself is part of the problem, removing the individual from the equation. There are only groups. Categories. You’re black, white, Hispanic, male, female, gay, straight. And do you know that people in your category are being held down? Do you know that merely by belonging to your category, you are oppressing others?

How depressing to go through your one life only thinking of yourself as part of one of these groups. Liberals not only believe that people are born gay, they believe that people are born into a predetermined life. Sure, chaos theory demands that the occasional anomaly will defy their categorization, but those aberrant data points can be safely thrown out. The trends are the only things that matter. The statistics. Who cares about you?

Looking at the world this way, they think the only solution is to fundamentally change the system. Blacks can only get ahead if whites stop being racist. If Uncle Roy stops telling those offensive jokes at Thanksgiving. If the government finally plays Robin Hood the way it needs to. Steal from the rich and give to the disadvantaged. Turn the whole thing upside down. That’s not too much to ask, is it?

© Copyright Original Source

[fm93]

Bill, you didn't explicitly comment on these yourself, so pardon me for asking, but do you really believe that The Unfiltered Patriot's representation is anywhere close to being accurate?

I can't believe I have to clarify this, but having been so often attacked by certain commenters of a certain political persuasion here, I want to reiterate that I am really trying to have a constructive discussion here, and so I would appreciate it if you responded to these plainly and seriously, without any snark.

There are only groups. Categories. You’re black, white, Hispanic, male, female, gay, straight.

Do you really believe that the entire field of sociology can be boiled down to this?

And do you know that people in your category are being held down? Do you know that merely by belonging to your category, you are oppressing others?

Do you believe this is really Professor Brown's position? That "merely by being white, you're oppressing others?" I, for one, have never seen anyone argue this, and I'm fairly confident that no one seriously believes that. So are you confident that The Unfiltered Patriot has correctly represented Brown, or are you open to the possibility that they have egregiously misunderstood what he means by white privilege?

How depressing to go through your one life only thinking of yourself as part of one of these groups.

Do you believe that TUP has sufficient evidence that anyone literally "goes through life ONLY thinking of themselves as part of one of those groups?" That this is actually true, and not a grossly narrow characterization that TUP is engaging in while ironically accusing Professor Brown of doing that?

Liberals not only believe that people are born gay, they believe that people are born into a predetermined life. Sure, chaos theory demands that the occasional anomaly will defy their categorization, but those aberrant data points can be safely thrown out. The trends are the only things that matter. The statistics. Who cares about you?

It's true that many liberal folks (as well as non-liberal folks) believe that some people are born gay (or more precisely, born with a brain that will eventually manifest same-sex attraction), but from where does it follow that liberals believe "people are born into a predetermined life," whatever TUP means by that?

Looking at the world this way, they think the only solution is to fundamentally change the system.

This is indeed a widespread belief in non-conservative circles, yes, but...

Blacks can only get ahead if whites stop being racist.

Have you ever heard anyone say that the ONLY way black people can get ahead is if white people stop being racist? Or that white people need to be consciously and explicitly racist to prevent large numbers of black people from advancing? Isn't the common liberal position more that social systems and institutions function in a way that produces effects that disproportionately affect people of color?

And on that note, do you believe that even if large numbers of black people can get ahead in spite of racism, it would certainly help if racism was significantly reduced?

If the government finally plays Robin Hood the way it needs to. Steal from the rich and give to the disadvantaged.

Do you really believe it's fair and accurate to portray the government as stealing from the rich?


I ask all this in part because of what I saw in one of your other threads--"Where are the protests?" In it, you asked why people weren't protesting after some black men allegedly killed a white police officer. That bothered me, because the VERY POINT of all those protests in Baltimore and other cities was that the residents perceived that some cops murdered innocent citizens and that the justice system would fail the community and allow the cops to get away with murder. Obviously there wouldn't be a need to protest if the justice system was operating correctly, such as in the case of your other OP. But the fact that you didn't seem to realize this frustrated me--after all those terrible riots and protests, people STILL don't even understand WHY those folks were protesting? I genuinely want to promote understanding and harmony, and I saw here that The Unfiltered Patriot was launching into a critique of a position that it didn't even seem to understand. I'm sure you can agree that there will be no true unity and togetherness unless people on different sides first accurately grasp what the other side is actually saying.

[Bill the Cat]

Bill, you didn't explicitly comment on these yourself, so pardon me for asking, but do you really believe that The Unfiltered Patriot's representation is anywhere close to being accurate?

I think it was a bit sensationalist, but there were good points among the sensationalism.

I can't believe I have to clarify this, but having been so often attacked by certain commenters of a certain political persuasion here, I want to reiterate that I am really trying to have a constructive discussion here, and so I would appreciate it if you responded to these plainly and seriously, without any snark.

No problem.

Do you really believe that the entire field of sociology can be boiled down to this?

To be quite frank, yes. Sociologists are not concerned with the individual. They are focused on group trends and statistics.

Do you believe this is really Professor Brown's position? That "merely by being white, you're oppressing others?" I, for one, have never seen anyone argue this, and I'm fairly confident that no one seriously believes that. So are you confident that The Unfiltered Patriot has correctly represented Brown, or are you open to the possibility that they have egregiously misunderstood what he means by white privilege?

Brown said point blank: "The bottom line is that it's everyday whites making everyday choices that lock in and protect white privilege". I think that's a fair summary of what he believes us "everyday whites" do just by being white and making choices (which we all do).

Do you believe that TUP has sufficient evidence that anyone literally "goes through life ONLY thinking of themselves as part of one of those groups?" That this is actually true, and not a grossly narrow characterization that TUP is engaging in while ironically accusing Professor Brown of doing that?

I listen to a talk show every day from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM by a former litigator for the NAACP and the Urban League, and I hear his callers and the language they use. They are members of the "Black Community" interested in things that will benefit "black businesses", "Black colleges" and "Black churches". Do you see a pattern? They are black before they are anything else. So, yes. I do hear people going through life only thinking of themselves as part of a particular group.

It's true that many liberal folks (as well as non-liberal folks) believe that some people are born gay (or more precisely, born with a brain that will eventually manifest same-sex attraction), but from where does it follow that liberals believe "people are born into a predetermined life," whatever TUP means by that?

Meaning that people are born to remain in poverty and must be taken care of from cradle to grave by the government. I think that is sensationalist, but unfortunately it does happen. But what he means by that statement was that he perceives the liberals talking about groups while conservatives talk about individuals. And to a certain degree, I can see that.

This is indeed a widespread belief in non-conservative circles, yes, but...

If you love something, why would you want to fundamentally change it? Just curious. Not trying to be hateful, but it's the way I see this comment.

Have you ever heard anyone say that the ONLY way black people can get ahead is if white people stop being racist?

More than I can stand, yes. You know the old statement "being held down by the man"

Or that white people need to be consciously and explicitly racist to prevent large numbers of black people from advancing?

Unfortunately, yes. I've heard that too.

Isn't the common liberal position more that social systems and institutions function in a way that produces effects that disproportionately affect people of color?

Yes, but it's inaccurate. There are more whites on welfare than blacks or Hispanics. But that's for another thread, I think.

And on that note, do you believe that even if large numbers of black people can get ahead in spite of racism, it would certainly help if racism was significantly reduced?

Racism can be reduced if we stop treating people less as groups and more as individuals. When we engage in group-think, we stereotype based on how we perceive the majority of the group behave. I really have a problem with that. Idiots and geniuses come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Brushing everyone with a broad brush hides our individual talents and forces the truly exceptional to be categorized with those who aren't. When we can value an individual for their abilities instead of being forced to consider them by a category, we can truly make some exceptional progress toward freedom.

Do you really believe it's fair and accurate to portray the government as stealing from the rich?

When we look at things like inheritance tax, yes. For example, my in-laws came from dirt poor beginnings, and I mean DIRT poor. They worked, scrimped and saved, invested, and were taxed through it all for their income and investments. Now that they are nearing the end of life (Both are almost 80), they have amassed a good fortune. When they pass and leave their estate to my wife, whatever is above the maximum will be taxed at 54% according to their investment banker. For what? Dying and leaving their estate to my wife?

I ask all this in part because of what I saw in one of your other threads--"Where are the protests?" In it, you asked why people weren't protesting after some black men allegedly killed a white police officer. That bothered me, because the VERY POINT of all those protests in Baltimore and other cities was that the residents perceived that some cops murdered innocent citizens and that the justice system would fail the community and allow the cops to get away with murder.

Were the hash tag #BlackLivesMatter not so prevalent in these riots, I'd say you had a point, but it is. The main reason for people to participate in the protest was that the victim was black. Again, a category. Not that they individually were criminals, but that they were "unarmed black men". Too many people can't get past categorizing themselves and others to see the merit or non-merit of the individual. And it's frequently hypocritical when the same thing happens to someone outside of their group (or the group they have chosen to be offended for in some cases) and that person is suddenly and conspicuously absent or not outraged.

Obviously there wouldn't be a need to protest if the justice system was operating correctly, such as in the case of your other OP.

The justice system operated correctly in Ferguson and in Baltimore. Some of the outrage was not over justice in those places. It was over the race of the victim.

But the fact that you didn't seem to realize this frustrated me--after all those terrible riots and protests, people STILL don't even understand WHY those folks were protesting?

There were protests and then there were riots. Far fewer protesters and far more rioters.

I genuinely want to promote understanding and harmony, and I saw here that The Unfiltered Patriot was launching into a critique of a position that it didn't even seem to understand. I'm sure you can agree that there will be no true unity and togetherness unless people on different sides first accurately grasp what the other side is actually saying.

There won't be unity or togetherness as long as we categorize people into "blacks" "browns" and "whites". Grasping the other side's platform is inconsequential as long as it remains an "us" vs. "them" mentality. When we can be, to quote Dr. King, "not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Dr. King got it. I get it. Others need to get it. It's not about "us" and "them", it's about "you" and "me". I will respect you until you give me a reason not to. regardless of what group you claim to be in. We are all the human race, and we need to live like it.

[Teallaura]

You destroy your own neighborhood because white people allegedly don't like you and that's the fault of white people? Self fulfilling prophesy, anyone?

[Mountain Man]

People say I'm privileged, and maybe I am. But the funny thing is, the harder I work, the more privileged I get.

[fm93]

To be quite frank, yes. Sociologists are not concerned with the individual. They are focused on group trends and statistics.

Certainly group trends and statistics are major emphases of sociological study, but TUP makes it sound as if sociology ignores individuals altogether, which I don't believe is a fair assessment. Groups, after all, are ultimately nothing more than the sum of its individual people.

Brown said point blank: "The bottom line is that it's everyday whites making everyday choices that lock in and protect white privilege". I think that's a fair summary of what he believes us "everyday whites" do just by being white and making choices (which we all do).

Hold on. He talked about making choices, but where did he mention "being white" anywhere? I don't see that. What I do see is that he's saying "people who are white are making everyday choices that effectually lock in white privilege," but that's quite a far cry from "just by being white, you're oppressing people."

I listen to a talk show every day from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM by a former litigator for the NAACP and the Urban League, and I hear his callers and the language they use. They are members of the "Black Community" interested in things that will benefit "black businesses", "Black colleges" and "Black churches". Do you see a pattern? They are black before they are anything else. So, yes. I do hear people going through life only thinking of themselves as part of a particular group.

I see. But here, you seem to have missed part of the historical dynamic--things like "black colleges" and "black churches" and "black businesses" exist in large part because historically speaking, people who were black tended to be excluded from the "mainstream" generic colleges, churches and businesses. Many black people think of themselves in that way because years of segregation and discrimination drilled into them the message that skin color mattered to such an extent that those who weren't white were separate.

Meaning that people are born to remain in poverty and must be taken care of from cradle to grave by the government.

Interesting. Every liberal I know believes that government welfare ought to only be a temporary fix, and that the ultimate goal is to become self-sufficient as quickly as possible.

But what he means by that statement was that he perceives the liberals talking about groups while conservatives talk about individuals. And to a certain degree, I can see that.

This statement sounds as if a person must choose between one or the other. But surely you agree that that's not the case--rather, what's needed is balance. You don't want to talk so much about groups that you end up overlooking individuals. At the same time, however, you don't want to focus so closely on the individual that you miss what's going on overall with the group. Individual people aren't automatically defined by characteristics of a group that they belong to, but neither do individual people exist in a vacuum.

If you love something, why would you want to fundamentally change it? Just curious. Not trying to be hateful, but it's the way I see this comment.

Not entirely sure what you're referring to by "love something"--what is being loved?

More than I can stand, yes. You know the old statement "being held down by the man"

Okay. I think the issue I had with the rhetoric in that piece is that I see a lot of people acting like black people are all "using racism as an excuse or crutch" for their poor condition. The problems with that belief are that 1) it implies that racism is never a possible factor (and I hardly believe we're warranted in concluding that), and 2) it's blatant broad-brushing and oversimplifying things. Some poor black people might feel defeated and believe that they'll never be able to overcome because racism will always prevent them, but that doesn't seem to me like "they're using it as an excuse to be lazy and not ever work hard."

Yes, but it's inaccurate. There are more whites on welfare than blacks or Hispanics. But that's for another thread, I think.

I'm not sure about that. This source claims that there's a slightly higher percentage of welfare recipients who happen to be black than white, which means that there are slightly more black welfare recipients than white welfare recipients. And in more general terms, this table from the US Census website reports that the percentage of all black Americans who live below poverty is almost three times higher than the percentage of all white non-hispanic Americans who live below poverty (27.2 to 9.7).

Racism can be reduced if we stop treating people less as groups and more as individuals.

Perhaps, but as noted above, where does one find the balance?

When we engage in group-think, we stereotype based on how we perceive the majority of the group behave. I really have a problem with that. Idiots and geniuses come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Brushing everyone with a broad brush hides our individual talents and forces the truly exceptional to be categorized with those who aren't. When we can value an individual for their abilities instead of being forced to consider them by a category, we can truly make some exceptional progress toward freedom.

I'm sorry--this is too vague for me to be confident that we're talking about the same thing on this point. Do you have any specific examples of what you mean by this?

When we look at things like inheritance tax, yes. For example, my in-laws came from dirt poor beginnings, and I mean DIRT poor. They worked, scrimped and saved, invested, and were taxed through it all for their income and investments. Now that they are nearing the end of life (Both are almost 80), they have amassed a good fortune. When they pass and leave their estate to my wife, whatever is above the maximum will be taxed at 54% according to their investment banker. For what? Dying and leaving their estate to my wife?

I see. My own life experiences have generally had me looking at the issue from another angle. I grew up in a fairly affluent suburb of a major city. Here in the suburbs, the public schools tend to rate as excellent, producing top-notch students and earning national awards and recognition. Many of them have excellent facilities with frequent renovations and come equipped with fancy interactive digital boards that fit OVER the traditional whiteboard in each classroom, even though the teachers never use them and most can't even figure out how to properly use them. Outside of academics, some schools in the area can even afford to have football stadiums that supposedly cost millions of dollars. Meanwhile, many public schools about an hour south in the city proper are in bad condition. They routinely rank among the worst schools in the nation, their facilities are in decaying condition, and the teachers need to cheat on standardized tests to allow students to move on. It has always seemed obvious to me that the affluent suburban schools don't need so much (especially the useless, completely ignored interactive digital boards and multi-million dollar football stadiums). That some of the what are clearly excess dollars really would be better spent on those poor, decaying inner-city schools. Yet some people in the affluent suburbs engage in rhetoric like "the government is STEALING our hard-earned dollars from us!" That, to me, seems like a gross and rather narrow-minded (if not a bit selfish) distortion.

Were the hash tag #BlackLivesMatter not so prevalent in these riots, I'd say you had a point, but it is. The main reason for people to participate in the protest was that the victim was black.

These answers are compatible. The city residents believed that some cops murdered innocent citizens and that the justice system would fail the community and allow the cops to get away with murder. Many of those people who were killed happened to be black, and so some residents conclude that black people are disproportionately more likely to be betrayed by the justice system than white people. This understandably would lead them to feel that the lives of black people in effect matter less than the lives of white people.

Again, a category. Not that they individually were criminals, but that they were "unarmed black men".

But in some cases, such as those of Walter Scott and Eric Garner, the victims didn't commit any serious crimes when they were apprehended and then killed at the hands of the police. And in the case of Michael Brown, people initially thought that all he'd done was steal some cigarillos, which indisputably isn't an offense grave enough to warrant death.

Too many people can't get past categorizing themselves and others to see the merit or non-merit of the individual. And it's frequently hypocritical when the same thing happens to someone outside of their group (or the group they have chosen to be offended for in some cases) and that person is suddenly and conspicuously absent or not outraged.

I can't comment on Sharpton and Jackson, whom you and a few others so frequently mention, but I do recall seeing many black folks condemn the shooters of Officers Ramos and Liu in New York.

The justice system operated correctly in Ferguson and in Baltimore. Some of the outrage was not over justice in those places. It was over the race of the victim.

Even if it could somehow be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was literally nothing else that Darren Wilson could have done and that he was perfectly justified in pulling the trigger as opposed to using non-lethal force, at the time of the protests the details were too vague and muddy to argue that. It very understandably appeared at that point in time that the justice system was not at all operating correctly.

There were protests and then there were riots. Far fewer protesters and far more rioters.

While looters most definitely should not be conflated with protesters and rioters, I see no reason why a distinction must be drawn with the latter two. Some rioters may have had ulterior motives, but it seems to me that many other rioters were doing so as a specific point for the protest.

There won't be unity or togetherness as long as we categorize people into "blacks" "browns" and "whites". Grasping the other side's platform is inconsequential as long as it remains an "us" vs. "them" mentality. When we can be, to quote Dr. King, "not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Dr. King got it. I get it. Others need to get it. It's not about "us" and "them", it's about "you" and "me". I will respect you until you give me a reason not to. regardless of what group you claim to be in. We are all the human race, and we need to live like it.

This is a nice-sounding speech, but it mustn't be forgotten that Dr. King also said "A riot is the language of the unheard"--and unfortunately, the fact of the matter appears to be that most of the unheard tend to be people of color. To interpret Dr. King's famous Dream speech as indicating that he wanted people to completely ignore the existence of race seems to be an unwarranted conclusion.

[Jedidiah]

You destroy your own neighborhood because white people allegedly don't like you and that's the fault of white people? Self fulfilling prophesy, anyone?

Extreme over simplification, but basically accurate. And whites are to blame for all the black on black murder in the "hoods."

[fm93]

You destroy your own neighborhood because white people allegedly don't like you and that's the fault of white people?

People protested and rioted because they believed that the justice system had or would betray them, not just "because white people don't like them." And I believe the proper response to seeing such protests and riots should be to honestly try and figure out why those people are so angry, not merely dismiss them and use it as an excuse to dislike them.

People say I'm privileged, and maybe I am. But the funny thing is, the harder I work, the more privileged I get.

But...the very idea of privilege is that it's something the recipient didn't do anything to earn.

Extreme over simplification, but basically accurate. And whites are to blame for all the black on black murder in the "hoods."

Not accurate, and certainly no one has seriously said that white people are directly to blame for black-on-black murder.

[Mountain Man]

Extreme over simplification, but basically accurate. And whites are to blame for all the black on black murder in the "hoods."

Or what about the fact that more whites are killed every year by police than blacks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ty-d/?page=all

[Mountain Man]

But...the very idea of privilege is that it's something the recipient didn't do anything to earn.

Ah, so you picked up on my intended irony. Well done.

Every time I hear about people complaining about "white privilege", I'm reminded of a black woman I worked with years ago. She wasn't very good at her job, but that didn't stop her from overestimating her abilities. Every time a white coworker who was more skilled and diligent received a raise or promotion while she stayed stuck in the same position with the same pay, she of course blamed it on racism instead of looking at what she could do to improve herself as an employee so that she, too, could advance in her career.

[Bill the Cat]

Not accurate, and certainly no one has seriously said that white people are directly to blame for black-on-black murder.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...05-column.html

[Irate Canadian]

People protested and rioted because they believed that the justice system had or would betray them, not just "because white people don't like them." And I believe the proper response to seeing such protests and riots should be to honestly try and figure out why those people are so angry, not merely dismiss them and use it as an excuse to dislike them.

Agreed, however, I just wished they would self-police a lot more. If more movements among the people got the people who were in it for material gains/thievery/ out, then these movements would have a better chance of not being dismissed with the excuse of "because white people don't like them."

[Teallaura]

People protested and rioted because they believed that the justice system had or would betray them, not just "because white people don't like them." And I believe the proper response to seeing such protests and riots should be to honestly try and figure out why those people are so angry, not merely dismiss them and use it as an excuse to dislike them.
...

No, they rioted in their own neighborhoods and looted multiple businesses. The issue isn't why they are so angry - they were pretty vocal on that point. The issue is why the heck they are destroying their own neighborhoods which only hurts their own people.

And the OP article was pretty clear on the 'it's because of racism' thing - so yeah, 'white people don't like you' (untrue though it may be) is a fair wording.

Rioting gets a lot of air time - but few tangible results. King understood that very well - and his protests were among the most effective in history. If you (general) are just pitching a hissy fit don't expect any good to come of it. If you are protesting a perceived wrong then do so in a manner that will right that wrong or prevent it in the future. Burning down your neighborhood only ensures that things will get worse.

[Teallaura]

Agreed, however, I just wished they would self-police a lot more. If more movements among the people got the people who were in it for material gains/thievery/ out, then these movements would have a better chance of not being dismissed with the excuse of "because white people don't like them."

It's not an excuse - it's what they told us. Racism isn't anything less or more than dislike, distaste or outright hatred for another race with little to no regard for the individual.

As long as they collectively behave irrationally, it SHOULD be dismissed. You can't draw meaningful answers about problems from crazies burning and looting - because it's not about any one thing. Some go nuts because they are angry; others because it's fun; others capitalize on the opportunity; others just get caught up in the mob mentality - even if you could find out what proportion was which you still wouldn't know anything more about how to address the real issues. Riots should be treated like the hissy fits they are and the excuse used to precipitate such fits should be examined on its own merit.

Riots are evidence that people would rather be angry than solve problems - so maybe we should treat them like tantrums before we throw Baby out with the bathwater. Riots look like dirty bathwater - the bigger they get, the easier it is to throw out the baby. Take out the baby and deal with it separately.

[Paprika]

But...the very idea of privilege is that it's something the recipient didn't do anything to earn.

The proper treatment would be to analyse class privilege rather than race privilege; class privilege is a near-universal phenomenon across societies and more accurate classification than 'race privilege', since it is patently obvious that there can be vast inequalities between people of the same race.