I agree to an extent, particularly with the redneck argument, but a lot of these are political tribalism rather than racism. Take this argument, for example:
Quote:
|
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”
|
There is no conflict, as these views are being put only by certain sections of society: Republicans, and some political independents. Democrats mostly take the opposite view, that Obama has the experience to be a good President while Palin is inexperienced and would be a liability in office.
Similarly this argument
Quote:
|
White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.), and that's OK, and you're still cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.
|
is probably more to do with American anti-intellectualism than with race. It isn't that the people making this argument (well, not all of them) see Obama as inherently worse because of his race and despite his academic record, it's that they don't see academic achievement as relevant to how good a President someone will make. In some cases it may be influenced by racism, but generally I think my argument holds: Al Gore had a good academic record, and yet he still lost to Bush.
Yes, there is still racism in America (and probably everywhere else, too), and yes, there is still white privilege. But many of these issues are attributable to other factors.