Last weekend, my housemate and I were mugged at gunpoint while walking home from Dupont Circle. The entire incident lasted under a minute, as I was forced to the floor, handed over my phone and was patted down.
And yet, when a reporter asked whether I was surprised that this happened in Georgetown, I immediately answered: “Not at all.” It was so clear to me that we live in the most privileged neighborhood within a city that has historically been, and continues to be, harshly unequal. While we aren’t often confronted by this stark reality west of Rock Creek Park, the economic inequality is very real.
Year after year, Washington, D.C., is ranked among the most unequal cities in the country, with the wealthiest 5 percent earning an estimated 54 times more than the poorest 20 percent. According to the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, just under 20 percent of D.C. residents live below the poverty line.
What has been most startling to me, even more so than the incident itself, have been the reactions I’ve gotten. I kept hearing “thugs,” “criminals” and “bad people.” While I understand why one might jump to that conclusion, I don’t think this is fair.
Not once did I consider our attackers to be “bad people.” I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay. They wanted my stuff, not me. While I don’t know what exactly they needed the money for, I do know that I’ve never once had to think about going out on a Saturday night to mug people. I had never before seen a gun, let alone known where to get one. The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine.
I come from a solidly middle-class family, and, with relatives in Mexico City, certainly don’t consider myself entirely shielded from poverty. And yet I’d venture to guess that our attackers have had to experience things I’ve never dreamed of. When I struggled in school, I had parents who willingly sat down with me and helped me work through it. When I have a problem, I have countless people who I can turn to for solid advice.
When I walk around at 2 a.m., nobody looks at me suspiciously, and police don’t ask me any questions. I wonder if our attackers could say the same.
Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as “thugs?” It’s precisely this kind of “otherization” that fuels the problem.
Young people who willingly or unwillingly go down this road have been dealt a bad hand. While speaking with a D.C. police officer after the incident, he explained that he too had come from difficult circumstances, and yet had made the decision not to get involved in crime. This is a very fair point — we all make decisions. Yet I’ve never had to decide whether or not to steal from people. We’re all capable of good and bad, but it’s a whole lot easier for me to choose good than it may be for them to.
If we ever want opportunistic crime to end, we should look at ourselves first. Simply amplifying police presence will not solve the issue. Police protect us by keeping those “bad people” out of our neighborhood, and I’m grateful for it. And yet, I realize it’s self-serving and doesn’t actually fix anything.
When we play along with a system that fuels this kind of desperation, we can’t be surprised when we’re touched by it. Maybe these two kids are caught, and this recent crime wave dies down, but it will return because the demand is still there, and the supply is still here. We have a lot, and plenty of opportunities to make even more. They have very little, and few opportunities to make ends meet.
The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world, and thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past. As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.
Oliver Friedfeld is a senior in the School of Foreign Service.
” Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.” That is a truly incredible statement. Victim-blaming at its worst. You are actually trying to justify the thugs who pointed a gun at you and robbed you. No; it’s not your fault you were mugged. You were mugged because a couple of thugs thought that they could get an easy payday and saw you as an easy target precisely because of your so-called “privilege”. I suppose if you were murdered you’d blame yourself for that, too. Pathetic.
AGREE.
Nick and Chuck and anyone else who believes your crap.
All who agree with this liberal way of thinking are dumb as rocks too. I was born and raised in the South Bronx during the great depression prior to WWII. We were dirt poor. We didn’t have Social Service privileges and assistance that’s available now as food stamps, subsistence, etc.. Yes there were thefts by some to augment living, but by in large there were very, very few if any crimes against the person. Muggings never occurred. So many shared, and did work whenever possible, like shining shoes, odd jobs as shoveling coal, cleaning houses, sweeping sidewalks, etc. It was depression during DEPRESSION. Nickels and pennies were in the pockets. and nearly everyone had grocers who kept a balance due from customers. There were no credit cards. Doctors were paid with things, favors, etc. not necessarily cash. Crimes against the person are inexcusable. It’s drugs that are a big factor now. The Penal Law then was so much stronger then as a Cop could shoot to kill if he had reason to believe a felony was being committed. So now we should get comfortable with muggings and break-ins? Dumb ASS suggestion!
I think you need to re-read their comments.
I think there are many things wrong with your article, but I will only focus on one sentence: “I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me.”
1) You were harmed by being compelled by force to lay down, defenseless.
2) Armed robbery is an inherently dangerous felony. The gun could have gone off by accident, your friend could have resisted and been shot, police could have arrived and the thugs shoot you as a reaction to a new threat, or they could have shot the cops in an effort to flee. While I am extremely thankful you are okay, a person who purposefully places another human in a foreseeable position of death or grave bodily harm is a bad person.
3) The objectively reasonable person would not trust a person with a gun to his head. E.g., how do you think the criminals would have responded to a single police officer who arrived without backup? Would they have shot her or submitted without a fight to her authority knowing it would lead them to spend many years in prison?
Yes Oliver, your friendly child muggers are the real victims and I’m not surprised that you are able to take that concept to the absurd because after all, you are a sociology major.
And rapists are the real victims of rape, not the raped.
Personally I’m not thankful he is ok. I think we need to let Darwin take care of the kind of liberal idiocy this “educated” moron is spewing. It is truly an astonishing amount of stupidity in one little article.
Mike, any chance you are running in 2016…you have my vote!!!!!!!!!!!
YES! Liberal idiocy is excusing violence as a form of self expression..unless they don’t like the demographic of the person doing the expressing.
Absolutely correct. Perhaps next time the gene pool will be more fortunate.
Sounds like he is suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome. His attitude towards a couple of thugs defies reason!
Wow! You people believe in evolution? How does that sit with your bearded wizard in the sky?
GWU,
please use “he” to identify a person of unknown gender, or learn to understand muggings (and rapes and murders and gulags).
A person of unknown gender is never to be referred to as “he” nor “she” nor “they” — one writes “the person,” or if one must use a pronoun, the proper pronoun is “s/he.”
Stephen –
As someone who has been writing professionally over 40 years, my only comment is “gack!”
I love how college kids want to be the spelling or grammar police with their PC language de jeur. Writing is about communicating; communicating is about flow. Nothing stops flow faster than running into a silly “s/he”. True, I use it as a joke now and then, but I don’t think you were joking.
I have a feeling you rarely joke because, darn it, baby seals are dying out there and you need to hashtag to save them!
Um…no. The general pronoun is still “he,” or if the sentence structure may allow, “it” or “they.” “S/he” does not exist in the actual real world. This is a joke. Stephen, you either work in (i) academia, or (b) Burger King. LOL.
I would go with “It” rather than he, she or they.
(Gender neutral) “He” identifies a person of unknown SEX. And also learn to understand muggings (and rapes and murders and gulags).
“I suppose if you were murdered you’d blame yourself for that, too.”
Hard to do it when you’re dead.
But your answer highlights a huge problem with this article, namely that if we justify a violent attack because of “lack of privilege”, why shouldn’t we justify other attacks?
I don’t think that the author of the article would have the gall to tell “you deserved it, because you’re privileged” to another person who was a victim of armed robbery. Nor (at least I hope) would he justify other crimes with the “lack of privilege” excuse.
“In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay.”
This is what got me, and it’s one of the most fundamental misconceptions of Progressives (this attitude is pervasive in current US foreign policy).
Those muggers view you as prey. If they heard you say something like the above quote, they would sneer at your weakness. But If it somehow makes you feel better about your helplessness, go ahead and pity the muggers. It won’t matter to them, either way.
Progressive thinking vs conservative thinking
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You’re walking down a
deserted street with your wife
and two small children.
Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife
comes around the corner,
locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities,
raises the knife, and charges at you…
You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
Progressive Answer:
* Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!
* What is a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP?
* Does the man look poor or oppressed?
* Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling?
* Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
* Could we run away?
* What does my wife think?
* What about the kids?
* Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
* What does the law say about this situation?
* Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
* Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
* Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me?
* Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
* If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
* Should I call 9-1-1?
* Why is this street so deserted?
* We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.
* Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior?
* I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
* This is all so confusing!
Conservative Answer:
Bang
Satire at its finest. Hilarious. But,disturbing in so many ways as these are the kind if people we have working in the government who have our safety in their hands.
Exactly.
Truly disturbing is he probably developed this perversion of reality at Georgetown!
Brilliant
Thank you for Perspective Alert.
Ugg, you know what, I think this kid is a fool for giving these thugs a pass, however, it never fails when some “conservative” comes along and brings up….TERRORISTS.
Now, I am actually a conservative myself, I’m just not one of those who goes around thinking there’s some Arab boogeyman hiding around every corner, you’re as bad as the Marxists who think there’s some KKK member always lurking, ready to kill some poor black person.
Thousands of people are killed everyday in America by illegal aliens, gang members, car wrecks, home invasions, poor diet, etc, yet you actually believe terrorists are the thing to worry about.
“yet you actually believe terrorists are the thing to worry about.” …. tell that to the 3000 men, women, children, and infants who were murdered by terrorist on sept 11, 2001.
In the satire above there was no mention of race, creed or color. I think it would be fair to describe any person wielding a knife while screaming and running towards you as a “terrorist”. Why do you see Islamaphobic / xenophobic motifs where they are not?
He never said anything about Arab terrorists. That was you. Racist.
Only the religious left couldn’t see the bang coming. Or even conceive it was an option.
Yes, Pappy.
Almost genius… except that a progressive wouldn’t be carrying in the first place so replace that very telling column with the sounds of a family being slaughtered.
Also- the phrase “progressive thinking” is an oxymoron.
Brilliant!
You are exactly right.
That is a REAL American reply, brilliant,!
Love from UK
I’m sure to be lower status than this gentleman. Does that mean I have the social right to rummage through his stuff? ’cause, that’d be cool.
Right on!!!! Whats next Its your fault that the drunk driver crossed the road and hit you after all we drink too. Or the Rapist is justified because the girls wear sexy cloths these days
As a member of the Class of 1990, I am disgusted by Mr. Friedfeld’s article.
He is a disgrace to any man or woman who has ever attended Georgetown.
I will be withholding any future donations until he is expelled.
Sadly he was taught this at Georgetown, like most other so called institutions of higher learning, its just a liberal indoctrination center. Whoever indoctrinated this lad to think this idiotic rubbish, should be tarred, feathered and run out of the country on a rail. Brainwashed by the anti-American, Caucasian hating cult of liberalism, this kid needs to be deprogrammed ASAP.
Whoa that’s a bit much. You are demanding that the University expel a student who has committed no offense against another student or the honor code? N.B. I think this article is idiotic.
You mean the same way liberals are screaming to fire and completely destroy Elizabeth Lauten for posting a personal opinion on a private Facebook account? A bit much maybe?
I hope that there are a lot of young people who are the total opposite of this wuss.
Steve, Navy vet in Pittsburgh
You can find them in the military for the most part.
Niko, is this kid and his fellows had fought WWII — we’d all be speaking German or Japanese. Except for the Jews among us, of course — they’d all be dead.
…and the world would be a reasonable place.
Because of this kid and his fellows we are losing a war and we will all be speaking Spanish.
It may have escaped some of you, but this is not simple Victim-blaming. The writer, by blaming himself for the attack, deliberately assumes control over the event and by extension removes the issue of choice from the mugger – who, after all, could not help doing what he did. This is at once supreme arrogance and rationalization in the same breath. The assumption at bottom is that the writer has complete control over his reality, and that only he decides what happens through his choices. None of the rest of us rise to the level of choice unless he decides, and then only if our decisions please him.
What a arrogant individual. Of course, this arrogance, as many have noted, has been taken to its logical conclusion and the writer of this pieces reads as though he has been knocking back stupid pills. But trust me when I say that, in the world of the egoist, this all makes perfect sense. That it might lead to the writer’s own eventual extinction is just part of the price a swollen ego will pay – better to rule in hell than serve in heaven, as Milton wrote.
Spot on! The same arrogance could imply the opposite if society’s norms were different. The enlightened individual telling the masses what to think. Basic Marxism.
Please just send me your address to assist my need to equalize my personal situation with yours. After all Christmas is coming and I’m a bit low right now.
This yuppy wasn’t robbed. He’s clearly lying. And the part about having never seen a gun or knowing where to acquire one is most unbelievable. This guy, a college student (Isn’t he supposed to be educated?), is clearly insulting his reader’s intelligence with these statements.
Pathetic is that there are some who just don’t get it. The victim is not blaming her/himself. S/he simply isn’t blaming those who mugged him/her and suggesting that if we lived in a more egalitarian society there would be neither mugger nor victim.
Stephen –
Finally a voice of reason. Every other commenter employed the archetypes of gender conformity to assume that Oliver chose to identify as a male. This continues the brutal imposition of the male/female dichotomy so typical of insensitive Americans.
While I expect nothing better from Neanderthal conservatives, I do expect liberals to respect that Oliver may chose to identify as masculine, feminine, bisexual, or fremish.
Your use of “s/he” in spite of the traditional identification of the author as “Oliver” speaks to your deep understanding of gender politics and sensibilities.
Or your lack of reading comprehension skills. I’m not clear which.
As to the idea that Oliver was commenting that in a more egalitarian society there would be no mugger or victim, that’s simply childish balderdash. I fear you don’t know the meaning of the word “egalitarian” – this robbery had nothing to do with the inherent value of the parties in life but their financial, cultural and moral situations.
Little historical reminder – the Declaration of Independence is very egalitarian (“All men are created equal”) but it doesn’t guarantee all will end up with equal outcomes in life.
Mame : You’re obviously both highly educated and impressed with yourself, but you disappoint when you generalize about conservatives by labeling them.
Mame? Are we doing classic musical comedy now? Labeling conservatives? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with a rhetorical device known as “sarcasm.” I happen to be one of those “Neanderthal conservatives” which I believe should have been apparent if you had bothered to read the whole comment.
Brilliant! At first, I was gagging a little, but I read your comment to the end.
Arthur is clearly a male – fairly easy to determine from a quick Google search – so why the masturbatury clench to make this gender neutral? “Her/Himself”? “S/he”? LOL. Good luck getting a job outside of academia.
Well, Europe obviously isn’t “egalitarian” enough, since muggings occur there as well. How “egalitarian” do you (or Oliver) imagine a society must be for muggings not to occur? And how much damage are you prepared to do to our economic engine in order to achieve an end that could be better achieved by simply punishing muggers more severely where they usually start learning their trade — in school.
I thought I was the only person who got that out of the piece. Nice to know I am not, that my critical thinking skills were working.
Duchess –
Actually, neither your critical thinking skills nor your vocabulary skills are working. “Egalitarian” within the social context (and as normally used) refers to the intrinsic worth of people, and has no place in this discussion. The equality of the three persons’ worth – the two muggers and Oliver – is not a factor here. To claim that a “more egalitarian society” would eliminate the existence of muggers and victim is nonsensical.
If you wish to enter into the area of egalitarian economics, you need to declare whether you are a Keynesian or a free market economist like Milton Friedman. Since I suspect you are unfamiliar with the complexities of these schools of thought in economics, I believe that you are vaguely thinking some form of economic justice, down with the 1%, corporations suck, yadda yadda.
Even under a Keynesian system that tries to achieve somewhat similar financial outcomes through government control (as opposed to a free market approach where freedom of opportunity is championed) you have inequality. There will always be people who have more than others. Surely your egalitarian society does not involve everyone having exactly the same amount of income, the same houses, the same clothes, the same stuff. The guy who works at Wendy’s will not earn the same thing as the airline pilot or the brain surgeon. I hope. So there will always be some people with more than others – and thus envy. There will always be those who will covet what others have. There will always be theft. There will always be mugging.
Even in the most perfect society. The only place where there is no mugger and victim is in the utopias that exist in the minds of liberal theorists who imagine what the world would be like if hey could control everybody’s lives.
The writer is an idiot. There’s not really any other way to explain it. He’s attempting to use the incident to portray himself as some sort of superior intellectual using economic inequality as premise. The irony is he simply shows himself to be completely out of touch with reality.
Sympathizing with armed robbers and justifying their behavior based on their lack of income is moronic at best.
Wow. This was a disheartening read to say the least. This young man has no idea how insanely elitist he sounds. Would be interesting to hear how his views change once he’s been out in the real world.
He’s a senior in the School of Foreign Service, and will likely use his privileged connections to get a job in government. He’s not going out to the real world.
I am convinced that the “robbery” never happened.
After a weekend of exhaustive research, I have found NO evidence to support Mr. Friedfeld’s story.
Well, soitenly! Why would he have reported it?
Another point to mention here- these two thugs (there, I said it) could very easily have blown away these two college students on their way out the door. In fact, it happens all the time. And while the victim thinks he can sympathize with them robbing people, I would ask him the question, “if you were poor and desperate with few options, would you point a gun or a knife at someone to get their stuff?” Would you be wiling to kill, as these people often do, to get their stuff?
I think the jist if this was to look at it from a different angle. I’ve been robbed at gunpoint by african american teens, I myself am Afro native american that lives in actual northwest dc too and not the surrounding areas .. it was not a good feeling. I still think about the day and imagine if I had a gun.. but then I feel messed up thinking.. how would I feel had I shot them and killed them. Yes some of the stuff in the article can make one upset cus most ppl just see that if threatened in a situation then defense by all means is necessary. I get it and I’m not mad at that thought. One of the purposes of the article can also be.. pushing to change the economic climate and doin what can b done to help that .. it’s always easy to blame the others but barely do we look at the other side. It’s gotten so bad that.. cus I see bronx ny after wwWhatever feels strongly about theft.. some ppl feel it’s the only way to make ends meet. Not saying they are right for what they did IN NO WAY IS IT JUSTIFIABLE but for some ppl it’s gotten that bad. Sharing is just something not thought of when ur hiding that there food insecurity from ppl around u to avoid feeling less than what u already feel about yourself. I could go on but .. it wouldn’t matter this post is from 2014
“When I walk around at 2 a.m., nobody looks at me suspiciously, and police don’t ask me questions. I wonder if our attackers could say the same.”
I’m assuming you’re not robbing people at gunpoint at 2 a.m. That usually warrants some police suspicion.
My thoughts exactly!!!!! I think that was the worst statement in the entire article.
It’s not too often that you see someone victim-blame himself.
Even if violently mugging innocent bystanders really were the only way for these criminals to put food on their families’ tables (which it isn’t, and I’d bet that much or even all of the money they stole from you went to drugs or alcohol rather than towards helping starving oppressed children eat bread), that still doesn’t make it okay to mug anyone. Ever.
Does he victim blame rape victims as well?
Sounds like he thinks women should get used to being raped, you know, look at themselves and their suggestive clothing.
Exactly. This story has to be a gag. No one is this ridiculous.
Strong Stockholm syndrome.
Or Daddy Issues?
>What has been most startling to me, even more so than the incident itself, have been the reactions I’ve gotten. I kept hearing “thugs,” “criminals” and “bad people.” While I understand why one might jump to that conclusion, I don’t think this is fair.<<
Would it be okay in the author's mind to call them thugs if they had actually shot him?
I feel like smacking Oliver in the head and screaming at him “Son, it’s time to STOP drinking soy milk!”
This guy(?) has some serious issues.
Or just a lie. There is NO police report.
Ok great–you got some college students to read your spiel about income inequality while also criticizing the very same audience for somehow letting all thefts in D.C. happen. Now what? You ended with some vague suggestion to somehow eradicate poverty. People are already aware of this. How does this help in any way?
Great perspective on a complex issue. I wonder where opportunity exists for more dialogue and breaking down some of the othering (on both sides of inequality in the city) to work towards diminishing crime, and ultimately the need for it. Moving beyond the “us” and “them” is an important first step and seeing people as people. It doesn’t condone actions, just refrains from demonizing our neighbors before trying to get to know more about them.
Rachel Day it’s okay to demonize folks who rob people at gunpoint.
Yes, just so. And one is not demonizing when one observes demonic behavior.
It is never okay to demonize people. One may denounce behavior, but there is no need to degrade a person (a real being) into a demon (a thing of imagined being).
So you’re saying Sarah Palin deserves an apology.
Boom. That just happened.
Breathtaking fairydust from Rachel here.
But I think she got in every single buzzword from her Peace Studies 1 course that she took second semester freshman year. You know, the course where everyone got an “A” except for those five people who didn’t write a final paper and had to settle for an “A-“.
@Rachel – you and Oliver are clear examples of one of the reasons why America is on a downward trajectory. You both are totally pathetic with the white/class guilt nonsense that the left has pushed down American’s throats. No white can do or say anything without being labeled racist or white supremacist (see Guliani’s recent foray). It’s high time that there is a huge backlash against PC BS, Critical Race Theory, disparate impact, and microaggressions. Just tell these race baiting poverty pimps to eff off. You know, it IS OK to eat tacos on Cinco de Mayo. It’s not cultural appropriation if you wear clothes that a different ethnicity wears.
This is the kind of thinking that would give a pass to the nazis for murdering 5 million jewish people. After all the germans said they felt there was an economical rift between the working man and the bankers and buisness owners who were privileged because of their wealth and status. Well the nazis did start as the German Socialist Workers Party. Not far off from the Democrat Progressive Party. Godwin can suck it, because its the same. The brown shirts cheaked their privalage and see what happened, the world burned.
Exactly, the problem is too little dialogue. If we only had more dialogue and understanding, the world would be peaceful and we would live as one.
Those of us in the real world have to acknowledge factors such as substance abuse, the breakdown of the family, crime, and contempt for education that have wreaked havoc on the District.
No sane person aspires to raise a family surrounded by dangerous and dysfunctional people and regularly pay a premium to stay as far away from them as possible. That’s why Georgetown is Georgetown and Anacostia is Anacostia. Once upon a time, even college students understood that.
It’s not “us or them” until “them” make it that way.
Not the best of time to attempt dialog with a thug who is pointing a gun at you. Perhaps you should go to a midnight basketball game with a wad of cash in your new Mercedes and leave the keys in it and unlocked with a note in it saying help yourself it is insured. everyone will then be happy.
These weren’t his neighbors, Rachel, they were his muggers, i.e., his predators. Sure, they’re people, but inequality has little to nothing to do with their actions, any more than they had to do with the actions of Bernie Madoff or Ken Lay. And trust me, they did not see Oliver as “people” they saw him as prey, which he certainly is.
As that cop tried to tell Oliver, even people from deprived circumstances have decisions to make. You dishonor the cop who made good ones, and ironically, you dehumanize the muggers by denying their essential humanity when you deny their power of decision-making. Despite what you think, they are NOT helpless pieces of driftwood tossed by waves of circumstance onto the rocky shores of reality. They really ARE people — bad people.
Rachel, You are spot on. The writer does a service to all those who would read her/him. Unfortunately, too many people here aren’t reading her/his decency nor her/his prospective. They are criticizing her/him for having a heart, a mind, and an understanding that the world isn’t black and white but rather full of gray. Too bad not every one has the grey matter to understand that simple reality. And there I am committing the same sin I of which I am critical: seeing others as other than fully human.
Oliver is a male. A guy. Male. Not in question. Ergo “He/His/Him.” In written English, the masculine is still “he/his/him”, whether you choose to accept this or not. The “enlightened” Germans, French and Spanish, at last check (although my studies are a decade off), have yet to change this either.
“And there I am committing the same sin I of which I am critical: seeing others as other than fully human.”
I’m pretty sure being a smug & condescending is a sin too.
Look, evil exists (even if you’re an atheist). And fully human people are capable of incredible evil. It’s his/her/it’s prerogative to blame it on privilege, global warming or whatever.
I hope your moral preening serves you well in whatever safe cocoon you make for yourself.
Maybe you should invite the muggers to your house so that they can alleviate you of your white guilt. Liberals never fail to amaze me with their intense idiocy. These are CRIMINALS who should be dealt with, not encouraged.
You’re right. I think you should ask to spend a few private hours with Dayton Leroy Rogers or Edmund Kemper. You definitely wouldn’t want any of those nasty, biased prison guards around; after all, they insist on dividing the prison into us versus them and if they heard screams they might choose to disrupt this great meeting of the minds.
You’re trying to make two ends meet where they simply can’t. Criminal activity cannot be justified to the extent where more privileged individuals should just “accept” sporadic criminal behavior. Our privileges didn’t just fall from the sky, many of us worked to achieve what we now have at Georgetown. By no means should anyone assume that our benefits grant others the ability to perform injustice acts. As someone noted above, you’re showing a great amount of sympathy to these thugs, which is theoretically known as “Stockholm Syndrome.” No matter what situation you are dealt in life, choosing to do good is always an available option. While I can respect your great writing aesthetics, I simply cannot agree with this article and I recommend you re-read it with more open mind.
In a way, you are de-humanizing these criminals even as you write about how we need to consider their human nature. Humans have free will, yet you act as if they had no choice but to rob you. The vast majority of poor people choose not to rob people; these criminals used their free will to threaten your life with a deadly weapon for a few bucks, and in doing so not only placed you and your friend in fear, but everyone in the neighborhood who has to wonder if they’re next. That is inexcusable no matter what their life circumstances and they should go to jail for a long time.
Also, you don’t know what was in their head. If you had made one false move, they could have shot and killed you and your friend. It happens all the time.
Well said
Very well put. Thanks for writing exactly what I was thinking!
One of the worse things about the New Left is that it de-humanizes the people it claims to “protect”. They’re no longer adult people with rights and responsibilities, they’re simply puppies that must be cuddled no matter what they do.
These days, those who are quickest to cry “racist” are generally paternally racist themselves. This descriptor fits MOST of what you’ve deemed the “New Left.”
Concluding that this is self victim blaming may make the point for the author of this article – look a bit deeper than two guys got mugged. He was asking for perspective so that this incident wouldn’t contribute to the “us and them” look at our society. He wasn’t giving the muggers a pass at all – just noting that the quick dismissing of these “bad guys” perpetuates the divide between people in our city.
I am perfectly fine with having and “us” and “them”, with “us” being law abiding citizens and “them” being criminals. I feel sorry for the student who wrote this. How in hell does one get to place of such self-loathing that one feels they deserve criminal acts perpetrated upon themselves? This isn’t about unfairly judging someone because of skin color or gender–this is about judging someone as a bad person because they are willing to hold another person at gunpoint and steal their money! If you find that unreasonable, exactly what type of justice system do you propose? Should courts let people go because, “apart from that one time you killed a bunch of people, you’re basically a nice person and besides, it wasn’t your fault you went on a shooting rampage because you didn’t feel you were loved enough as a child, so it’s all good.”
Good luck with that.
Ron, he most certainly was contributing to the “us vs them” attitude, e.g. we, them, our:
> “Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.”
The only divide between the author and his muggers is that: he is unwilling to commit armed robbery and the others are.
Yes, and we call that divide a prison.
I read this piece differently than previous commentators. I do not see the writer condoning violence against innocent people as much as trying to make sense of additional factors besides mere greed that may contribute to someone making such a bad choice.
THANK YOU KATHY. I don’t think people really understand what he was trying to convey in this article. Just shows the level of privilege many students have and how it blinds them.
” Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them.” The “I can hardly blame them” entirely revokes and excuses those from a rougher time who engage in crime of any responsibility for their actions. While the decision is easier in our cases, the decision is still the case in theirs; they aren’t choosing to shoplift or steal from some non-personal business, but instead to threaten the life of a fellow human being as a tool of coercion.
Perhaps the author had a wonderfully eye-opening experience with these two men, but having friends in Georgetown who have been violently mugged and severely injured by this sort of activity, we need to certainly understand what conditions are at play that enable this activity to be so prevalent, but we cannot excuse it as permissible. I think addressing long term issues of economic inequality and addressing the present safety of Georgetown residents need not be mutually exclusive options.
I think the comments show that people with common sense believe that is is wrong to hold other people at gunpoint and rob them. Knowing right from wrong has nothing to do with “privilege”, unless you are asserting that people who commit such acts don’t know they are wrong, which is obviously not the case.
No Crystal, I can read and comprehend just fine…and what he is saying is straight up white privilege on his part and no responsibility for the mugger’s actions on their part because he grew up “not poor”. I blame the criminals every time because it was their choice to commit a crime…not my choice to be a victim…although unlike Oliver, I take precautions to make sure I’m not a helpless victim. You can bet I wouldn’t have taken that mugging with out a fight.
You are aware that most victims of violent crime are not from privileged backgrounds and live no where near million dollar houses?
They are waitresses and retail clerks who have to walk home alone at night, and others who in their wildest dreams couldn’t imagine being affluent enough to attend a four year state school, let alone Georgetown.
I think you all need to get out more.
Behavior is never random. All actions are the result of “factors.” Even if a “bad behavior” is committed by a “bad person,” you can pass the buck and blame their “badness” on something or someone else.
Armed robbery is inexcusable. I don’t care about your circumstances if armed robbery is the path you choose.
So those “additional factors” would then make it OK to rob/mug/attack someone? If it’s not the evil “greed” that all you libs hate and the mugger says “well, I was robbing him to feed the homeless on my street” – that makes it OK? What the hell is wrong with this way of thinking? To you all, greed appears to be the worst crime someone could commit – not mugging someone at gunpoint. I thought you all hated guns? So it’s ok in this situation? Cause, after all, the mugger is just another human trying to make his way through life, even if it’s breaking the law. Who am I to judge? Ya’ll would be singing a different tune if this happened to you or your loved ones. It’s easy to sit on your high-horses, judging all of us who think this drivel from the author is appalling.
So the next time I am mugged – should I try to get to know my mugger? “Hey pal, I know you’ve got a gun to me and my family but I want to get to know YOU. What makes YOU tick – ya know? If you are greedy, then I will damn your behavior but if you just need to feed your family – then go right ahead and take everything I’ve got!”
No. Just…..No. Anyone is beyond bat-shit crazy that even remotely agrees with this author.
Kudos to the author of this article. I think a lot of people will dismiss this article and this incredibly insightful author, which is really a shame. This article is important, and a great starting point to thinking about our personal privledges.
Care to enlighten us how in any way this article is important or insightful? I would hope the masses, as you suggest, would dismiss this article for the drivel that it is.
+1,000,000!
This article is important, albeit in a different way than is mentioned. To wit: this article perfectly illustrates disregard for personal responsibility when viewed in the dim light of political correctness. To argue the points made herein would be a waste of time – any objective thinker can flesh them out in an instant.
As a response to the above by ‘Danny’, I would simply say that freedom from violence and mayhem are inherent, and beyond ‘personal privledge (sic)’.
I know, right? Sort of like how that time I was raped, I really should have thought about how my privileged brought it upon me. Not how much I hated my Rapist. Because that’s othering. And othering is bad.
I’m throwing the BS flag on this one. Oliver is a silly twit who’s lucky to be alive. Hey, Oliver — I’m feelin’ oppressed today. If I give you an address, will you mail me your credit cards?
“Maybe these two kids are caught, and this recent crime wave dies down, but it will return because the demand is still there, and the supply is still here.”
Oliver, you are in the SFS, so I understand that you have taken at least 4 economics courses at Georgetown. As such, you probably know that your iPhone was not part of any supply of iPhones on the market; had you not felt a gun at your temple, I’d hazard a guess that you wouldn’t have just given it away to these young men for free. What happened here was a blatant disregard for your property rights. All this experience likely taught these young men was that your property rights, and the property rights of others, really don’t matter as long as you have a gun.
Given the tone of this article, I imagine having a $600 phone ripped from your hands was not an enormous deal to you. Perhaps I underestimate your compassion. In any case, if these kids are going to someday turn their lives around, they, too, have to trust that the goods they buy with their hard-earned cash won’t be ripped from their hands. For some, losing a phone means an inconvenient trip to AT&T; for others, it means months of scraping by to save up for a new one (and THEN an inconvenient trip to AT&T – which might cost them a day’s work or even a job).
I appreciate that you have taken steps to forgive those who have harmed you. I appreciate that you have approached this trial with compassion and empathy. However, I think your arguments here are a little misguided. Gordon Tullock can expand on my points: https://cameroneconomics.com/tullock%201967.pdf
(My apologies if you are the owner of a Samsung or Android phone. If so, please re-read the comment accordingly. Point still stands).
Your point here is a good one regarding considering the economic resources of those who are “victim” to crime in the city, and maybe even a better point about crime in neighborhoods surrounding college campuses.
When given the choice, people desperate for resources, or those who might have been socialized at a young age (maybe by being victims of crime themselves) to see stealing as a fact of life, choose to steal from those they are more confident will have money, nicer phones, and will be able to replace them more easily. While this makes more “economic sense” as you point out, it also points out how the “us” and “them” creates and is furthered by these acts and our responses to them.
Maybe seeing this “exchange of phone” as an economic event and not a human one is the problem, maybe seeing it as an event with people on either end of it with humanity that’s value extends beyond their participation in the economy, you can begin to solve issues, not throw away people and their worth as a person for one act (or multiple) acts they commit.
What?
Sorry, Rachel. Criminals and wilding youth have repeatedly explained that they target people that seem like easy victims. Most of the time they are just having fun, like gamblers. So if you really wish to walk in their shoes (or yours again) — hey, human, you were made to go out and get them.
This is satire, right?.. I’m really hoping this is satire.
Lol..I know right?
> “[They] choose to steal from those they are more confident will have money, nicer phones, and will be able to replace them more easily. While this makes more “economic sense” as you point out, it also points out how the “us” and “them” creates and is furthered by these acts and our responses to them.”
It sounds like the criminals – not us victims/potential victims – are the ones categorizing people into “us” and “them.” They are the ones making assumptions about us and our likelihood of being able to afford a new phone or wallet or whatever else. They’re initiating force and “otherization” whereas we are just reacting to it.
Is this satire, or are we actively seeking out the deepest depths of stupidity at Georgetown?
Not satire. Sadly.
Another fine example of how stupid most of Georgetown’s liberal students are.
This is the most ridiculous opinion piece I have ever read, and the fact that it comes from a Georgetown student speaks volumes. Yes, I attend Georgetown University. In fact, I strove tirelessly to get here. You, Oliver, may think of my enrollment at Georgetown as a privilege, but I know it to be a privilege that stems from my own hard work and discipline. How is my enrollment at Georgetown keeping your muggers from finding work? From studying and performing well in school? From dedicating themselves to healthy activities such as sport or volunteerism? It is not.
Oliver, I’m afraid you are very, very wrong. Perhaps you feel guilty that your muggers couldn’t revel in the solidly middle-class upbringing you had. Perhaps you don’t feel you deserve to be at Georgetown, having parents who willingly sat down and helped you through your adolescent struggles. The police officer who aided you after your attack is absolutely correct. If you don’t believe a privileged Georgetown student such as myself, take it from someone who was once in a similar position as your muggers.
This isn’t an issue of privilege. It isn’t even an issue of haves versus have nots. It is a sociocultural issue that educates disadvantaged youth to take the easy route, the route of crime and assault, rather than the hard route that is education and responsibility. The cold, hard truth is that these young criminals could have attended an institution like Georgetown if they chose to. They could have been been productive members of society: teachers, firefighters, and policemen. Their choice was to rob you at gunpoint, not because of a stranger’s privilege, but because that is what they were raised to believe is fair and just. Yes, their situation is deplorable, and America has a long way to go in terms of economic development, yet not your existence nor mine is to blame.
On a side note, your notion that we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins is simply shameful. To paraphrase Ann Richards, Oliver I believe you were born with a silver foot in your mouth.
“The cold, hard truth is that these young criminals could have attended an institution like Georgetown if they chose to. They could have been been productive members of society: teachers, firefighters, and policemen. Their choice was to rob you at gunpoint, not because of a stranger’s privilege, but because that is what they were raised to believe is fair and just.”
Actually, the cold hard truth “A” is that your comment is all sorts of naive. If attending Georgetown, and becoming a teacher or firefighter was so easy, a whole lot more people would be doing it. Expecting people to attain the same outcome when they have been given the worst possible opportunities is unfair and simply naive. Also, I fail to see where in the article the writer claimed that you or himself, because of your privileges, were to blame for these muggers’ situation. He simply wrote about people’s circumstances and their actions not being a clean cut indicator of whether or not they are “bad people” or “thugs”.
Lovely, you misread the article and my comment I’m afraid.
What may seem naive to you is the real world, plain and simple. I never said becoming a teacher or a firefighter was easy. In fact, I said the opposite. Educating yourself and assuming responsibility for your actions is hard. What was easy was to rob Oliver and his housemate of their possessions, at gunpoint no less.
I do not expect people to attain the same outcome when they have been given the worst possible opportunities, although it is certainly possible and happens every day. Nevertheless, I certainly do not expect my personal property to be stolen and my life put at risk for their sake.
No, Oliver never claimed that anyone’s privileges were to blame for the muggers’ situation. It was I who stated neither my privilege nor the author’s is responsible for the reprehensible actions of these young men.
These young men have been taught, trained even, to steal from Oliver because he is a privileged Georgetown student and to steal from him is fair. No one deserves to experience the fear that Oliver and his housemate experienced. What is truly frightening, however, is that Oliver seems to have bought into this idea of fairness!
Oliver did not simply write about people’s circumstances and their actions not being a clean cut indicator of whether or not they are bad people or thugs. He suggested I become comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. The actions of his muggers are indeed inexcusable and should never be tolerated. While Oliver can hardly blame them, I myself will never be comfortable with the idea of crime and lawlessness.
One thing is for certain: for every one person on this comment section needing a privilege check, there are two who are in desperate need of a reality check.
There is a big difference between selling drugs and choosing to violently prey on other human beings.
“He simply wrote about people’s circumstances and their actions not being a clean cut indicator of whether or not they are “bad people” or “thugs”.”
A huge majority of “unprivileged” people still choose not to rob people at gunpoint. if you think that “lack of privilege” excuses criminal activities, that you “can hardly blame” the muggers, like the author of this article seems to do, you are actually being patronizing and offensive against the wide majority of people who lack privilege, have an extremely hard life, and yet manage not to rob people at gunpoint.
What this article does is slander the “unprivileged” people as potential criminals in a very condescending and patronizing way.
“The cold, hard truth is that these young criminals could have attended an institution like Georgetown if they chose to.” With what money? Georgetown is EXPENSIVE and not everyone can afford it. Scholarships don’t just fall from the sky and student debt is so crippling it can ruin lives. So no, they couldn’t just go off and attend college. College is a privilege.
Also, I really think that this article isn’t condoning violence at all. I think the author is simply stating that he’s aware of the privilege he has to never have to worry about missing a meal. Sometimes following the law means going hungry. Sometimes people are under so much pressure that they feel they have to rob somebody just to make it to the next day. Does that condone them? NO! But I think it means that we really need to have a talk about the economic imbalance in this country, which often forces people into this ind of situation: break the law or starve. INSTEAD of brushing them off with “they could have tried harder” or “they’re criminals,” how about we examine what has put them into their dire situation in the first place.
Do I think this article could have been written better? Yes. But I think you’re missing the point and I invite you to try to understand your privilege before you judge other people who live a totally different life from you.
Allison, Georgetown is expensive for students whose families can afford to pay its tuition, but plenty of people here do receive substantial financial aid (including me). A friend of mine (from a low-income family) has a complete need-based scholarship and does not pay anything towards tuition. It is definitely possible for those who work hard and aim high in life to succeed, whether at Georgetown or elsewhere.
First, you’re assuming that these criminals mugged the author in order to avoid starvation. That is unlikely. Second, saying “I can hardly blame them” is the very definition of condoning their actions. Oh, it’s not their fault that they pointed a gun at me and committed violence in order to steal my phone! It’s my fault for being white.
“Sometimes following the law means going hungry.”
Elaborate on how a non-law abiding citizen robbing an individual at gunpoint for an iphone relates to going hungry at night. .
Y’all are merely defending your friend who wrote an incredibly flawed opinion based article.
Allison, listen to Joe and Niko.
Georgetown is expensive. Ask the thousands of students whose families pay full tuition, a tremendous expense for most. College is indeed a privilege for those who are willing to work diligently for it. Nearly half of our student population receives some form of grant aid; for many qualifying students tuition is nearly paid in full. Out of all the factors that make Georgetown a difficult university to attend, money or lack thereof is not one of them. I suggest you take a look at the Office of Student Financial Services if you have not already, and read on the numerous opportunities offered to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. An acceptance from Georgetown is challenging for everybody, but attending Georgetown is impossible for no one.
Hunger in America is a completely separate issue. I can guarantee you, however, that these thieves were not starving. How? Men simply do not wander Dupont Circle in the very early morning, stealing cell phones and other personal property at gunpoint, in order to put food on the table. We can only imagine what these young men used the money for, but most of us can agree that it isn’t as rosy as you make it out to be.
If you really believe people in America have no choice but to steal from others or go hungry then you haven’t done your research. There is absolutely no reason for anyone in this country to go hungry and they don’t–unless they chose to trade their SNAP benefits for something else and choose not to go to a food bank or soup kitchen.
Do you see a lot of starving people in this country? Do you see anyone starving? We have instead an obesity epidemic, which is particularly pronounced among the poor.
It’s easy to make the Le Miserable argument that people have to make a choice between following the law or going hungry, but it is simply not true in America. Check out the stats. Being a Georgetown student I’m sure you know proper research methods but I will offer a reminder to check original source material as there is a whole heck of a lot of spin going on that the actual numbers don’t support (1 in 5 children in America are NOT going hungry, as you will see if you look at the actual USDA results and methodology).
And I think you are missing a far more viable point and invite you to try to understand the truth of your so called “privilege” from your ivory tower where you apparently look mostly down on others. It is condescending and contemptible to think that people less formally educated than you and those with far less money have less morality and weaker character and are thus more likely to commit violence. Countless poor people in this world have more wisdom, character, courage and moral fiber than countless numbers of supposedly “educated” people who happen to have more money. Attaining an education at the best university in the world is no guarantee of wisdom of superiority of ethics and by no means does it automatically confer character. Sadly, violence of all types are committed in this world by a wide range of people and evil, like good, comes from all kinds of people of various backgrounds. Stop stereotyping poor people and those of less “privilege” as somehow being incapable of knowing right from wrong.
Absolutely spot on! Thank you!!!!!!
Hey Oliver, don’t let these other commenters get you down. It’s very commendable to think critically about life, rather than just sail through it using comfortable assumptions and categories. You’re clearly not excusing the act of mugging in this piece; you’re asking us to think about those who mugged you as more than just “muggers,” “thugs,” or “criminals.” I respect that.
I think granting the offenders social consideration outside the realm of “muggers,” “thugs,” and “criminals” is inappropriate. By putting the blame on society, as opposed to the individual, the author is not only trying to explain the act, but indeed attempting to excuse it: “Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege…to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?'” The author is not condemning the young men to a label for a clearly criminal act, so he must be excusing them from it. You might say, “but he’s excusing them from the label, not the act itself blah blah” and this would be appropriate if the label was based on some stereotype or subjective judgement. However, there were clearly agents making a conscious choice to perform a (criminal) act. So then, it must be society’s fault for labeling because it perpetuates inequality, and that causes criminal action? No. Here, the action precipitated the label, so if we are to put blame on the label we must also put blame on the action. I’m not sure why society must bear the burden of bad choices. Even if inequality really is at fault, the muggers should not be seen under a different light than what they are, or we (at the very least) risk the excuse of their crime. We’re not making assumptions here, these people were in fact “muggers” and “criminals,” and there is evidence of action to support. So let’s call a spade a spade and move on.
Wolves, sheep and sheepdogs. Nothing wrong with being a sheep, but eventually the wolves will get you.
Very true.
If these men robbed your mother at gunpoint, I doubt you would have the same view. These two men made the decision to rob you, they are at fault. Stop this ridiculous shaming of those who worked hard and made good decisions in their life that has brought you to write this article.
+1,000,000!
I really wished people would think about this before replying with such close minded comments. The article is simply pointing out the often easily dismissed, and much bigger socio-economic disparities that cause these incidents. It didn’t strike me that he was blaming himself at all for the incident. He is simply saying that he understands the circumstances that led to it, which as a society we should all pay more attention to.
I don’t think anyone here would disagree with the your statement that “socio-economic disparities” exist. They clearly do. Yet, myself and others challenge your assumption that these societal conditions “cause these incidents.” In your attempt to explain why people from disadvantaged backgrounds would engage in criminal activity,you disempower them–removing their capacity to make decisions for themselves. Anyone who claims that they had no other choice has clearly never interacted with those individuals who took a different path in spite of the incredible challenges they faced in their life. Don’t render these honest men and women, who work so hard and achieve so much, as mindless drones.
P.S. — By categorically dismissing everyone who disagrees with the author as “close minded,” you are shutting yourself off from different perspectives and engaging in the exact behavior you accuse others of exhibiting.
Suggesting that criminals choose to be criminals is as ridiculous as to suggest that people born in the United States choose to speak English. It is not a choice, if you are born in an English environment you will speak English no matter what. If you are born in a criminal environment you will be a criminal no matter what. There is no such thing as choice or free will, people react to their environment in predictable ways like how water changes shape to fill whatever container it is in.
If someone “chooses a different path” it’s because they got help. Maybe a teacher, family member or social worker noticed them and gave them the support they needed.
If socio-economic disparities cause “these incidents” what caused Bernie Madoff’s thefts? Do you or Oliver “understand the circumstances” that let to that?
Yours and the authors contempt of Capitalism is the real issue , Liberals can not stand our Capitalistic system and attempt to undermine it at any opportunity. This is what college professors are teaching these days.
You are simply a liberal idiot.
I see that after $227k you leaned to express your view well but I wonder if you have leaned anything. You view is supported by serval assumptions and inferences that may or not be true. I comend you sanguine outlook but more than likely it isn’t supported by reality. A lot could have gone wrong. Your lucky to still be alive. Equality isn’t mesured by how much “stuff” someone has. Your perspective reminds me of John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” The world needs dreamers. I wonder if Lennon was thinking of fairness as he bled out.
No number of societal disadvantages justifies threatening to take the life of another human being.
Well said
People writing about privilege, you are deeply confused. Privilege is not something that can come from “hard work and discipline” or something that you can earn. Rather, it is a status assigned by society based on your race, class, gender, and ability among other factors. The otherization that Oliver highlights in his article, occurs just when people fail to recognize the privilege implicit to their perceptions of others.
“White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”
https://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
Are you mad? Society does not assign ability to anyone.
Whose job was it to assign me my status based on my race, class, gender and other abilities? What governmental body does that? How can I get a job working to assign priviledge classifications to people in the US? Where can I check my priviledge score as a white-native american Zen Buddist transgender physically challenged former Army veteran? I cant seem to find my priviledge score on my drivers licence. It must be pretty low since I have to wait 6 months to get health care at the VA.
If leftists can’t justify their existence by coming up with ridiculous theories and, subsequently, brainwashing the young, then they would be out of a job. Privilege is just one of their scams.
I’m sort of wondering… if he was forced to the floor during the course of a mugging while presumably outdoors walking home… does the campus feature landscaping that includes hardwood flooring or are the grounds carpeted?
Sorry, I forgot that we lived in India where we are forbidden from stepping outside of our social castes. I guess i’ll just go back to a middle-class lifestyle instead of completing a dual performance degree in the fine arts. After all, that’s for people with money and privilege, right?
Robbing someone at gunpoint is criminal. We have laws in our society that punish people for stealing another person’s property with the threat of lethal force and rightly so. As much as I would love to imagine myself with Bruce Lee abilities to kick ass if I were attacked, I realize I would react similarly to Oliver and his housemate that night – calmly follow directions.
With that being said, I want to address the general sentiments of the earlier comments. Arguing that the author gives his muggers a free pass and suggests that we get used to occasional break-ins because of our privilege is incorrect and misses the point of this piece. Instead of casting the incident in the traditional light of attacker versus victim, he challenges us, his peers, to consider what happened to him in a greater social context as opposed to seeing it as just a stand-alone occurrence to depict his attackers as stereotypical thugs.
Yes, his attackers could have chosen a different path as some have pointed out. Yet, they chose to threaten our peers with lethal force. It’s easy to cast them as bad, disruptive people who are wasting their lives, violating our property rights, and causing unrest. But for a moment, what if we were to actually see them as humans? What if we allowed ourselves to step back from our sense of reality to comprehend someone else’s? Would we then see them and ourselves in different light? Possibly and that’s worth a conversation.
Despite the implicit claims that people are somehow not viewing these criminals a human beings, I have not seen any evidence that such a state exists. But to go with your argument for the moment, just what are you proposing? That if they have had hardships, then we should excuse their behavior and allow them to rob people at gunpoint?
If you are proposing that we understand why people chose lives of crime and attempt to fix those problems I am with you. Sadly, though, there seems to be tremendous resistance to addressing the known causes of crime among disadvantaged people, to wit, lack of fathers in the homes, lack of respect for education, lack of a moral code that teaches right from wrong, and lack of taking personal responsibility for one’s choices.
It is precisely because they are human that we condemn their actions. If they were animals, if they acted only on instinct, then they would be blameless. You don’t condemn a scorpion for stinging, you might kill it because it threatened your life, but you wouldn’t condemn it. It’s just doing what comes naturally.
These are human beings who made a decision to take another human being’s property with the threat of lethal force. One wrong moment and the writer would have been dead.
It is because they are human that we condemn their actions. It is token liberals, like the writer, who attribute their actions to their socio-economic status, or to their race, that deny them their humanity, who attribute to them the status of animals.
“But for a moment, what if we were to actually see them as humans? What if we allowed ourselves to step back from our sense of reality to comprehend someone else’s? Would we then see them and ourselves in different light?”
By all means ‘step back from your sense of reality’ and go spend a few days and nights in the hood with these humans, I’m sure you’ll see them and yourself in a different light.
Well see that’s the problem, isn’t it? The original article and your comment robs the muggers of humanity by declaring them incapable of independent agency because of Politically Correct categorization via Privilege. In short, the article relies on Paternalistic Racism to render the muggers as incapable of anything other than the role they played, and reveling in its condescending ‘understanding’ of the role they have been assigned. They have been declared a blameless prop, with no responsibility for their actions.
Instead they should be viewed as independent agents, completely capable of choice, thus fully responsible for their acts and as such worthy of nothing more then condemnation.
The author has a right to be secure from violence regardless of his privilege or economic status. Full stop. The individuals who chose to engage in violence are responsible for their acts, not society. Not Privilege. Not Racism. Not Social Justice.
The individual – whom is now a criminal by choice and action.
Very well said.
We do see them as human beings, which is why this behavior is unacceptable. Unless they lack capacity by reason of a mental defect, they are rational beings capable of considering options and making choices. They chose the wrong thing. Show me at least one person in this world that hasn’t suffered some sort of hardship? Hardship is often subjective and relative and an excuse to criminal behavior in narrow, carefully defined circumstances which do not seem to be present here.
Those who would not hold them accountable are those that don’t see them as human because they see them as lacking rationality, like for example when we see a lion attack – we don’t fault him because we don’t give him credit for rational thought since he isn’t human.
im loling so hard at this article, since when did georgetown go full tumblr-mode? you people who write this drivel are truly lost.
“Verily I have often laughed at weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.”
Alright Oliver, you are not only flaccid and irrational, but an embarrassment to our student body. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Every reader of this piece is now dumber.
And to The Hoya, how could you ever publish anything of this sort. I am disappointed.
In your argument, the action is justifiable given that the attackers don’t have what you have and merely want an opportunity to experience it, because the system has kept them down. I don’t have it, but I want it, and since no one is going to just give it to me and it’s someone else’s fault I don’t have it, don’t be surprised or hold it against me if I take it.
Maybe I can use that same logic in my next rape defense. I don’t have a vagina to use, but I want to experience a vagina, and no one will freely give me a vagina to use, so it should not be a surprise and you can’t hold it against me if I take your vagina and use it.
Riiiiight… An attack is an attack is an attack. Quit letting others not be responsible for their choices and actions.
This article is actually nauseating. MANY instances of violent crime (muggings, or the break ins that you recommend we “learn to live with”) do not end the way yours did (whether in physical injury, sexual assault, or even death). To suggest that Georgetown students, by virtue of being Georgetown students, should somehow accept that they deserve to be victims of crime, is a disgusting form of victim blaming. This logic is no better than the “she was asking for it” narrative that is all to prevalent in our society. Furthermore, you have managed to completely obscure the very real issue of socioeconomic inequality in DC with your completely incoherent train of thought.
Friedfield was indeed born of privilege – and the naiveté and stupidity of his sheltered and propagandized education is showing. His mugging was NOT an “economic issue.” He was very likely mugged by drug addicts, looking for money for their next fix – not by a modern Jean Valjean looking to buy bread for his children. Congratulations Oliver – your money is probably fueling drug-gang executions in Mexico or Guatemala.
He has swallowed the simplistic, “progressive” proto-marxist pap that somehow, all the world needs is more “redistribution” (guided by enlightened and angelic progressive leaders) and all social ills will disappear. In fact, all this leftist clap-trap, as we know, only brings more maldistribution, more social-ills and more crime.
Finally, Friedfield doesn’t understand that he is actually slandering “the poor.” In his world – they are not individual moral actors who can freely choose good and evil, but are crime-committing robots, programmed by their physical needs, too stupid and brutal to know the consequences of their choices.
“Finally, Friedfield doesn’t understand that he is actually slandering “the poor.” In his world – they are not individual moral actors who can freely choose good and evil, but are crime-committing robots, programmed by their physical needs, too stupid and brutal to know the consequences of their choices.The soft bigotry of low expectations.”
The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.
The worst thing about the sentiment expressed by the writer is that it inevitably leads to the conclusion that he’ll accept the victimization of others too if they’re privileged like him.
Any acquaintance of this person now knows that he can never be trusted. Any damage or injury to his “privileged” friends will be dismissed.
My advice to any of his friends would be to cut him loose before he sells you out the way he sells himself out.
“We’re all capable of good and bad, but it’s a whole lot easier for me to choose good than it may be for them to.” This statement is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong. So privilege/wealth/a Georgetown education makes it is easier to choose good?
As someone who disagrees with the majority of this speech, I do have to say, yes, absolutely having the opportunities and wealth provided by Georgetown makes it easier to defer from criminal activities than in a case of greater impetus/necessity.
That depends upon what the person wants. You are talking about the will to resist temptation. I will grant that if you are literally starving, it will be harder to resist stealing food than if you are not hungry. Apart from that, all else is equal. A rich person with no moral compass can give in to his/her temptations to swindle clients out of money just as a poor person give in to temptation to steal from others to get more stuff.
Too bad your $60,000 a year education has not provided you with any common sense!!!
Oliver,
I want to thank you so very much for writing this insightful and important article. When I was in my sophomore year at Georgetown, I too, was robbed of my cell phone at gunpoint. I reacted very much the same way that you did to the incident afterwards.
It’s easy to write off those children who had robbed me, only 14, 15 and 16, as “thugs”, menaces to society that deserve to be put away. No, I never thought that about my attackers. It was the first time I really had to take a step back, reflect, and question the kind of world we live in and how the system had failed these young boys.
Skimming the hateful and ignorant comments that followed this article was something else that made me incredibly saddened by the members of our Georgetown community. So, with the hopes of educating your critics, I want to help address some of the arguments that they’ve brought up:
(1) This is not victim-blaming. No, you didn’t ask to be mugged. Nobody asks or deserves to be mugged, raped, or assaulted. It is never the personal fault of the victim. And from my reading of the article, I had never gotten the impression that you personally blamed yourself for or even remotely suggested that you deserved to have the crime that was committed against you. It was the robber’s choice to point that gun at you that night, but it is inequality in society that was responsible for those choices. No child is born and thinks “when I grow up, I want to become a criminal”. Their circumstances push them into that state of thinking. Whether they are born into this type of family, grow up in these types of environments where they are not afforded the proper education and are neglected by their community, lack guidance and opportunities to be taught otherwise, or most likely the combination of all of that, this is not their fault. I can bet you that not one of these young men who had mugged you and I were ever told “you are worth it and there is better out there for you, let me help you find a way out”. On the other hand, you did not choose to be born into white-middle-class-male privilege. In an ideal society, whether you are born Black, White, Asian, Latino, Native American, etc., male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, shouldn’t make a difference in the opportunities you are afforded, how you are treated at convenient stores, have people think they can sexually harass you on the street, nor be the target of hate-crimes, but absolutely it does. This is a pervasive issue in society and there is nothing more detrimental to addressing it than thinking that it isn’t an issue but isolated incidents of some “thugs”. They made this choice because everything in their immediate world suggested that it was the best one. When an incident like this happens, it is easy to get angry and place blame. I commend you for being able to recognize that. Just because you are not placing blame on the criminal does not mean you are placing blame on the victim. People can keep saying “these are criminals, throw them in prison”, but crime continues to exist and this solution is reactive and not preventative, crime will continue to exist until we address the root of it. Thank you for recognizing that.
(2) Attacking your writing or your exposition. I’m not going to take too much time on this elementary logical fallacy (see “ad hominem”). People can have as many opinions as they want about how you presented this argument but at the base of it, it is a very necessary reflection. It is not how you presented it that is impressive, but the fact that you are ABLE to reflect on it this way. Coming from the privilege that you do, it is very easy to be sheltered and ignorant about the complex and uncomfortable conversation of what white-middle-class privilege means in America. For those who have tried to emasculate you for your opinion and not placing blame on the criminals, I would like to see how they would have acted in your situation. Maybe they would have whipped out their powerful boners and slapped some sense into those boys. Maybe they would have used their money and power to put these boys into prison. Maybe that would have made them feel “manly”. It is an embarrassment to our community that Hoyas continue to think like this. I am so incredibly proud to stand by you as a fellow Hoya who can understand what it means to embody “men and women for others”, because now that you understand this, perhaps one day you can bring more awareness to the under-funded conditions of inner city schools, support for more youth programs, and legislature that rehabilitates these children and prevents circumstances where crime is a likely option. Those who are ignorant can continue blaming children for their circumstances, waving around their penises, and making no difference.
Thank you for being brave enough to share your story and point-of-view. This is the type of conversation that will make a difference for society.
Cheers and hoya saxa,
Kimberly
I’m glad that you and the author of the article have the “privilege” of telling everyone else that “we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins”. Believe it or not, other victims of crime actually suffer as a result and thus do not have the luxury of telling a violent criminal that ““you are worth it and there is better out there for you, let me help you find a way out””. You’ve already helped them with several hundred dollars’ worth of your personal belongings and you have the audacity to imply that we owe them even more for their troubles.
> Maybe they would have whipped out their powerful boners and slapped some sense into those boys. Maybe they would have used their money and power to put these boys into prison. Maybe that would have made them feel “manly”. It is an embarrassment to our community that Hoyas continue to think like this.
Are you seriously suggesting that the only justification you can think of for our wanting to punish violent criminals is because we innocent victims want to “feel ‘manly'”?! Do you really think that’s the only basis we have for wanting the police to arrest individuals that are menacing members of our community? It’s certainly not just men that see armed muggings as a problem either (and no, we don’t want to “slap [them] with [our] powerful boners”) – in fact, I would very surprised to hear that women were totally okay with being attacked by a group of violent criminals at night. Muggers are a serious threat to the safety of any person in our community, including yourself and the author. Even if you do acquiesce and give up your property, you are still entirely at the mercy of demonstrably violent strangers who, with even an accidental twitch of the finger, could very easily end your life.
Aside from all that, the premise of this whole discussion is absurd. Would it still be okay if the muggers had attacked a student who turned out to be lower-class himself? Or would his inherent privilege of being a Georgetown student still make it understandable, even if he himself faced the same challenges as the muggers but chose to work hard and attend a great university with the help of financial aid and scholarships rather than hold up innocent victims on the street? The author also totally dismisses the police officer’s story about his own life and his rise above his unfortunate starting position to become a respectable officer of the law, with a real job helping real people. The officer himself faced the same choice of whether or not to commit violent crimes for drug money, and he made the right decision. Why does the author ignore his choice (and the choices of all of those hardworking students from low-income families) and concentrate on supporting the decisions of the muggers to commit a violent crime? The two of you both seem to be under the impression that socioeconomically-disadvantaged individuals cannot make the choice to rise above their circumstances and make the moral (and legal) choice. You write that “It was the robber’s choice to point that gun at you that night, but it is inequality in society that was responsible for those choices,” saying that while the mugger himself “chose” to commit the crime, he was not responsible for his choice. If you cannot be held responsible for your choices and your actions, then you are not making choices at all – you are simply following a linear path. The police officer and all of the students at Georgetown who have come from socioeconomically-disadvantaged backgrounds, however, prove this theory laughably false. People – even poor people – DO have choices and usually DO make the right ones. It is incredibly patronizing to suggest that muggings are excusable because poor people don’t have the privileged luxury of being moral.
>So, with the hopes of educating your critics
Sadly I doubt you’ll allow me to educate you while you wallow in your smug condescension, so I’ll just keep “waving around my penis” (along with the millions of women who agree with me, though that could be difficult for them) instead. If that’s all you get out of this exchange, unfortunately I suppose that’s a choice you have made (or have you?).
by enabling them, they’ll continue. If you correct them, they have a chance. It really comes down to their poor parenting they received. If poor was an excuse why are most poor not criminals? they have CHOICE in their actions.
His circumstances may not be (entirely) his fault, but his poor choices are. You should really consider how your condoning these kinds of poor choices contributes to and reinforces the circustances young people, like the robber in this story, face.
You should have worn that helmet. Head injuries are serious and can lead to long term problems with cognitive ability. But thanks for alerting everyone else to a serious medical issue.
I hate to break your little rose-colored bubble Kimberly, but Oliver crying about his privilege after being robbed isn’t going to stop the under-funded conditions of inner city schools, lead to more support for youth programs, and create legislature that rehabilitates these children and prevents circumstances where crime is the only option.
It’s only going to make Oliver feel better about his brainwashed views on life.
Get a clue! No amount of “discussion” or “raising awareness” is going to end the cycle of poverty! It’s self-congratulatory nonsense and YOU KNOW IT! You and Oliver and the rest of your illiberals shouldn’t be patting yourselves on the back for posting these essay long replies like you’re changing the world or some BS; you should hand your heads in shame and shut up – unless you have any REAL solutions to the problem of muggings and other criminal activies.
Deja –
Decades of failed Great Society programs like what you propose have had just the opposite effect – why keep proposing more failed programs? After school programs don’t save kids, intact nuclear families do.
You want results? Try these “illiberal” programs:
1. Reform welfare to reward two-parent homes, limit time on welfare, require proof of job search.
2. Re-institute work rules Republicans forced Clinton to adopt that Obama removed.
3. Break Union stranglehold on schools by instituting voucher systems in all school districts with underperforming schools.
4. Streamline charter school registration and formation, making available empty government buildings for low rent.
5. Give principals authority to fire teachers for poor performance and reward teachers for good performance.
6. Minimize bureaucracy and spend money on creating jobs like CCC or WPA for infrastructure; in places like SF they spend $80-90k a year per homeless person but homeless still eat garbage and live in filth. But plenty of bureaucrats have jobs that pay well.
7. Reduce crushing regulatory burden (including Obamacare) on businesses allowing them to grow and hire more people, creating more jobs.
8. Control illegal immigration that lowers wages and floods market with low-skilled workers that take jobs traditionally performed by youth and unskilled and lower-educated people (often the minorities who then resort to crime).
The problem is that each of these solutions go against strong Democratic political supporters – public sector unions, immigration groups – so will never happen. If you minimize the number of people dependent on the government you also minimize the Democratic voter base who reliably vote for more free stuff.
So don’t expect real change. You won’t see any “Black leaders” carrying on campaigns against entitlements that destroy the Black family. You see, like here, calls for government “fixes” after the fact to repair what the lack of a strong family causes.
And we don’t send violent criminals to prison to “feel manly”. We send violent criminals to prison because it’s a fundamental role of government to punish violent criminals.
nice fresh perspective, but condoning violent mugging is entirely inappropriate. I had a couple friends who were mugged on 35th and N street, one had his nose pretty badly messed up; no one will deny these systemic inequalities need to be addressed, but approval of crime and violence is nowhere near conducive to a solution.
Oliver, look at the lively conversation your piece has started! The comments section has been so eyeopening for me (as I am sure it has been for you). It seems that some Georgetown students do not understand white privilege, classism, racism and other forms of structural oppression. And I do not have the energy (nor is it my job) to unpack all of these concepts. I would encourage all the commenters/readers who question your argument to do some actual RESEARCH rather than making useless remarks about your writing style/word choice. Here are some good reads to get you started:
‘White Privilege, Male Privilege” Peggy McIntosh
“White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” McIntosh
“The New Jim Crow” Michelle Alexander
“I would encourage all the commenters/readers who question your argument to do some actual RESEARCH rather than making useless remarks about your writing style/word choice.”
And I’d encourage you to get out in the real world. You sound like you’re currently in college. It may take years of living before you abandon the fairytales that college professors use to foward their worldview. If you’re black you may never let go of some of these fairytales because it would require you to face some uncomfortable truths about the black community. It’s blacks themselves, not white privilege, who are responsible for the pathologies within the black community.
Your racism is showing, dear Verne.
“people are individuals and should be treated liek individuals”
“haha you’re racism is soooo obvious”
Some of us understand those ideas perfectly well, but we recognize that that’s all they are: ideas. This whole concept of “privilege” (socioeconomic in this case – and despite your assumptions, the author never said that the attackers were black) is an intellectual framework for looking at the world, developed by some professors in recent years. It is NOT some immutable law of the universe that exists in a tangible way and was just discovered by these professors and now must be disseminated across the land. I certainly don’t mean this as a criticism of all non-STEM fields (I’m not even in a STEM field at all), but I do mean to rebuke your suggestion that those of us who disagree with your analysis of an event should “do some actual RESEARCH” (which you followed with a smug list of books with which we should “educate” ourselves), as if the only possible reason for disagreeing with you is not understanding the terms you’re using. Whether or not you buy into the idea of “white privilege” has nothing to do with how “educated” you are on the subject, and, more importantly, even those who recognize the existence of white privilege don’t have to believe that it absolves violent criminals of blame for their actions. In fact, I’d imagine that the majority of people who do buy into the idea of “white privilege” (explicitly or otherwise) would still disagree with the message of this article. I would be among them.
Actually, Oliver strikes me as a raging racist. By not assigning these individuals the same free will and responsibility for their actions he gives himself, he makes them less than him.
This entire article is a justification of why he is better than his attackers and dehumanizing them.
At least the commenters that want them justly punished are giving them the credit they deserve.
Also, by encouraging this attitude you are allowing this behavior to continue.
Anyone who points a gun at another human is dehumanizing them. The make their fellow humans prey. They need to be punished to learn better.
If you won’t teach them this, you are failing them.
All your privilege theory is just another way to hold them down, by excusing behavior that you wouldn’t excuse from those you see as privileged. You are the ones assigning privilege, not those to whom you assign that label.
Excellent and devastating response. Of course some sophomore will be along shortly to play the card, or give you a post-Marxian reading list to show you the error of your ways.
“It seems that some Georgetown students do not understand white privilege, classism, racism and other forms of structural oppression.”
No, Kim, actually, it seems that you don’t understand that some people are just violent or damaged and it has nothing to do with any of the -isms that your professor taught you and you’re currently parroting. Newsflash: There are violent thugs who get their kicks out of mugging people and there are drug addicts looking to rob people to get money to score a hit. Both of these possible explanations for why Oliver got mugged are more likley than the intellectually bankrupt oppressed minority argument used to explain away minority pathologies in general and Oliver’s mugging in particular.
Verne, I will not respond to the racist, ageist etc assumptions you have made about my life and my experiences. You don’t know me. That aside, your comment illustrates exactly the point I was trying to make. Some people do not understand structural oppression! Oppression does not just affect minorities (Sexism, Apartheid, Slavery in many Latin American countries). Yes, there are, as you said, violent and damaged people but to label their actions as random and unexplainable seems more “intellectually bankrupt” to me. One thing I have learned from being brainwashed by academics is to analyze, look beyond the surface and tackle underlying issues. That is not easy and yes it is controversial but if you would take a look at the literature and the empirical evidence, with an open mind, I am sure you would find it to be relevant and stimulating. This would lead to a far more fruitful discussion, than your unsubstantiated claims, about me, the Black community (whatever that means), minorities (whatever that means), individuals with drug addictions and people with criminal records…
Your post hasn’t illustrated anything. you simply claim that you can have a more fruitful discussion by parroting the grievance-based, pseudo-intellectualism that gets you high marks from your professors.
You have not demonstrated an open mind. You’ve only demonstrated that you’ve swallowed PC culture whole and can repeat ‘check your privilege’ and ‘micro-agression’ on command.
Humans have free will and choice, no matter what their circumstances. When they break the laws we have agreed upon as a society, the ‘structural oppression’ you pedal is no excuse.
The reason most people ‘don’t understand’ your concept of structural oppression is that it is a luxury item. A way for you to pose as ‘speaking truth to power’ with no risk of repercussions. You know your imagined ‘patriarchy’ will pat you on the head and say, aww a ‘social justice warrior’, how cute.
It’s all an imagined construct for you to try and secure unearned power over people who will give it to you if you only inflict enough false guilt on them.
Which is why we have people like poor Oliver, who has been (re)educated into thinking he owes his attackers something. The only thing his attackers are owed is punishment for their illegal actions.
You make them out to be some kind of nobel savages that require you to analyze the world for them and win them justice by brining down a bunch of imaginary oppressors.
You and the writer do them great injustice by treating them as inferiors and expecting so little of them. They deserve, as our equals, to be held responsible for their illegal behavior.
Georgetown owes Oliver a refund and his self-respect back.
+1000
It seems like the writer of this piece and a lot of the commenters that support him are making assumptions about the muggers in this example. That they are “structurally oppressed,” that they “had to entertain the thought” of getting a gun to mug people in order to survive. Maybe they were stealing your stuff to buy beer, or drugs, or more guns. Maybe they work during the day and mug at night for electronics and credit cards. You assume this was a crime borne out of inequality and need, but there is nothing to say it wasn’t born out of greed or something else.
MAYBE a lot of things, but the bottom line is that they are violent criminals and you are lucky you escaped unscathed. People have been killed in the area you were walking in incidents not unlike yours:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/09/AR2006070900215.html
The people who did rob you are violent and should be arrested because they are a threat to everyone. No crime is OK.
“I come from a solidly middle-class family…” and “Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege… paying for a $60,000 education…”
Looks like someone is confused by the definition of “middle class”…
Next time, just use the internet if you need support with terms! Google can clarify most any and all confusion.
Middle class families MAKE 60,000 dollars a year. Check your class privilege, please and thank you.
So being middle class is a class priviledge? Why are you categorizing people by having them check priviledge boxes? Do I have to check my religion, language, intelligence, attractiveness, popularity privilidge now as well? So if anyone is different in any way its a priviledge. Here’s something you all miss, if you are reading this article check your “being in America priviledge in 2014”. 99.9% of all people who have ever lived on this planet have not had as good as you bunch of whiners.
No, I think you misunderstood… I think Mo agrees with you, and was just being sarcastic. That’s how I read it.
You should probably at least check your spelling.
Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I’m sympathetic to what Oliver’s saying but let us not be confused about the meaning of middle class.
Oliver
My experience was a little different. I was standing on a Chicago EL platform inebriated after knocking back a few pints with my mates and was confronted by two black thugs in hoodies that were also a bit younger than me. They proceed to beat me almost to death breaking 3 ribs, shattering my left eye socket and rupturing an eardrum. I was only saved from being pushed onto the tracks below when another group of riders came up the platform and started recording the beating on their cell phones. The two thugs who did this were bad people and their problems with life had nothing to do with me. I now have diminished hearing in one ear and permanently blurred vision in one eye. Did I deserve this because I was born to a union steel worker? Do I still have to check the white priviledge box now even after the beating.
I think you are confused about right and wrong and personal responsibility. Your robbers are completely responsible for their actions. For you to marginalize that is to infantilize your attackers. When you get beaten up like I did will you be saying to yourself “yeah I totally deserve this and these guys arent bad people” while you roll around in pain in your own blood. Good luck with that.
Reminder to you, dear William, and any future commenters that “privilege” does not include the letter “d”.
I’m just looking out for everyone.
Also, yes, William, the idea of white privilege is that you have it forever.
^ Way to be compassionate and sympathetic, Mo. Apparently, the only people deserving of sympathy are the underprivileged ones.
Said it elsewhere on this thread and I’ll say it again – the REAL racism/classism is holding people of certain races/classes to lower moral standards. Understanding that there are cultural elements and underlying causes at play are one thing – but dismissing someone’s downright terrifying and life-threatening experience in the name of social justice is against the very justice you’re trying to fight for.
William, I am so so sorry for what you’ve experienced.
I would have pulled out my concealed carry firearm and shot them in the face.
Not in DC you wouldn’t. And that is the foundation of the problem…
You’re right! Killing the muggers would definitely solve the problem!!!! What a critical thinker!
Oh
Wait….
…………………
The guy who teaches this “white privilege” stuff, teaches a course at Harvard Online, HarvardX. The guy is a white guy from Pasadena, the most elite white privilege city in Los Angeles, just a few miles from Occidental College, where another White elitist went to college. You can watch the course online for free. I heard a couple of his lectures and burst out laughing. The guy is a communist – the guy who got mugged is also a communist – and doubtful he ever got mugged, because believe me, a mugging usually shakes you up pretty bad. Everytime you are mugged, there is a chance you’re going to die. This guy knows nothing about being mugged or about life on the street. If he really wants to cleanse himself of white privilege, go move into the projects and get to know everybody. I’m sure they’ll be thrilled.
I worked hard to get into a good university. I studied, worked to earn spending money, and now I’ve graduated. I have a decent job and I pay taxes. Those thugs have done none of the above. Now tell me again why they are entitled to hurt innocent people. I’m waiting for your reply.
So this is what a $60,000 a year education at Georgetown gets you. Sounds like Georgetown has been “mugging” you for years. No wonder a couple of thugs robbing you on the street doesn’t phase you in the least..
Oliver:
I am much older than you and I have grown up in a different era of time. I see life through a different set of lenses than you do. I suppose that’s why, after reading your article, I do not understand much of what you’ve said. It makes no sense to me. What I do know, however, is had you been shot or beaten into unconsciousness and lived in a wheelchair the rest of your life paralyzed from the waist down, you would not have even attempted to write this article. But, because that didn’t happen, you are now privileged to write and roam about the country. Yes, you are privileged only because a catastrophic event didn’t happen to you. Had one occurred, your mental, emotional and physical well being would have taken a turn that you never would have imagined. I’ve seen tragedy in my lifetime and no one who has ever lived through such an event is ever the same. I dare say that you would not have blamed such a tragedy on something you call “white privilege”.
It is fascinating indeed that you have made an attempt to ask your readers to see life through the eyes of other people who accosted you. To see them as a victim of society all caused by something I can’t explain and understand, something called “white privilege”. I admit, I don’t really know what it is.
Oliver, what you have shown me is your lack of understanding. Not only of society in general, but of who you are, what your destiny is, what your purpose in life is. If “white privilege” is such a societal demon as you claim, then it is only fair to ask you what you have done to solve the problem. Your article makes no mention of any life application on your part, it only tries to blame others. I suggest that you be willing to give up your life style and go live with those who suffer from the deadly effects of “white privilege”. Move in with your attackers and reeducate them into your new way of life and enlightenment. Live their life. Stop your privileged education. Be one of them.
Please don’t think that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ve gone to other countries and lived with the poor, the destitute and the hopeless. If you aren’t willing to become like one of them, you’re only empty words. Until you are willing to give up your privileged way of life, Oliver, and demonstrate what you’ve written, you’re just a sounding gong banging in the wind. Don’t demonstrate how to be a hypocrite…show others you know what you’re talking about.
“….I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand.”
Here’s an idea. Drop of out of Georgetown, go to a state school that costs less than half the $60,000 cost of Georgetown, give the $30,000 saved to the poor kids you feel so badly about so they won’ t have to rob you or others. Win win!
I was driving a 1974 Chevy til 1993. That year a bought a used, but looked new, Volvo wagon. It was first decent car I had in my life. I got out of work my first day driving it, one of my two jobs, and the back window had been punched in. I was devastated. The author may have white privilege, myself, I had white work your ass of for everything. Don’t drag working whites into your privilege, call it rich privilege and leave me and my calloused hands out of your guilt.
Oliver perhaps you can do more to help the disadvantaged youth who really had no choice but to mug you. How about sharing your other possessions which were not available during your encounter. How about your lovers contribution. You can and should do more.
Holy cra…someone please take Oliver’s keyboard away from him. This kind of idiocy should not be allowed to exist.
Hyperbole aside, after spending a few years in the real world Mr. Friedfeld will have a radically different outlook. Unless of course he gets himself killed doing something insanely stupid, which is not all that unlikely.
And that’s what Ayn Rand called “the sanction of the victim”.
This is the most obnoxious, sanctimonious loads of crap I’ve ever read. Seriously, if you’re this guilt ridden, dropout of school,
Go live in the hood, and assuage that mental illness. Or just shoot yourself in the head.
White liberals are mentally ill.
Could you be a bigger idiot??? Is that possible? You’re a perfect representative of Generation Wuss. Unreal. I weep for the future.
In so many ways, it’s a shame that they didn’t beat the daylights out of this young fool. I say that because, as a student in the School of Foreign Service, he may very well someday bring this astonishing level of foolishness into the service of our nation. If being mugged in reality doesn’t qualify for him as being mugged by reality, then keep him far, far away from any responsibility.
A friend of mine remarks that going to Georgetown U. was kind of depressing since half of the cabdrivers in Georgetown wanted to hear how their favorite professors were still doing.
Yeah, your friend made that up out of thin air
Dear fellow White article writer:
You are sad and I pity you. Here’s why: being poor does not exempt one from law or basic civility just because they cannot afford whatever it is they desire . No. You are practicing on full display the bigotry of low expectation, you really do not believe they are capable of more than hood rat behavior, and you believe they shouldn’t be held accountable because of that.
I’m sure in the cushy little well funded world you reside in , this kind of thinking makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. I live in reality, and so do most people. Be the change you want, sir. Give away all YOUR money and belongings. Do it, then come back and write this kind of article. Oh wait, you won’t. Spare us all the vomit inducing moral vanity. Thanks.
Mr. Friedfeld’s position perpetuates criminal behavior and assures that the criminals he enountered will go on to exact additional crimes against other innocent victims. His lack of awareness for his surroundings and his subsequent capitulation emboldens the criminals. But let’s face the truth here…Mr. Friefeld’s article is his way of coping with his fears and cowardice. It’s his cheap excuse as he wrestles with the fact the he did not fight back and it is his way of coping with his low standing in Darwin’s continuum. Naivete is bliss until reality comes knocking! Marche ou creve, mon vieux.
“I kept hearing “thugs,” “criminals” and “bad people.” While I understand why one might jump to that conclusion, I don’t think this is fair.”
Criminal (noun): a person who has committed a crime.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you say that “otherization” is the problem yet you went on for paragraphs talking about how they are the Other.
he’s enabling them to continue, he might was well just wait for them now because he’s a huge ignorant target. Starts with the parents, most poor people aren’t criminals, it’s no excuse.
funny but this same idiot and his supporters somehow do NOT understand conservatives, lol. how strange.
Bahahah, this is like The Onion! However, this is better because it’s real.
What a lovely world this would be if savage animals only preyed upon savage animal enablers. I’d have no problem with imbeciles who believe they have Black Immunity only mugging imbeciles who believe they have White Privilege. Truly made for each other.
Indisputable proof that a School of Foreign Service diploma is utterly worthless.
Talk about full on Stockholm Syndrome.
One word comes to mind when reading Oliver’s editorial. Unfortunately, it is too obscene to print here but it frequently is used in the conjunction with “cat”
My family and I have been profoundly impacted by several violent crimes. My brother’s mother-in-law was murdered in a fatal mugging. The mugger pushed my brother’s mother-in-law backwards while trying to rip the purse from her arm. She fell backwards and hit her head, and died shortly afterwards. As someone who has been profoundly impacted by crime, I find this article beyond insulting. In fact I think this article borders on the obscene, and is a direct and personal insult to crime victims everywhere.
The “author” of this self-loathing, racial hit-piece is pathetic. It’s not the “thug’s fault.” “It’s my fault…because I was born white…and my great-great-grandfather was mean to his great-great-grandfather.” “It’s my fault because these pieces of worthless human debris think that hard work and dedication to bettering one’s self” is for suckas. “I would be happy to lay down my life so that they can steal my money and electronics.”
Explain to me for one moment…where this sort of stupid comes from? You have to ask yourself…what sort of insipid, moronic asshats teach this sort of mind-numbing BS–and worse yet, who actually believes them? These thugs are just that. They are thugs. Scumbags. Period. They are about as capable of changing themselves as you are of changing your DNA. They believe in preying upon the weak. They believe in handouts from the government. They believe in instant gratification at the expense of others. They don’t respect the rule of law or the law of the land. They expect handouts from this day…until the day that they die.
This pathetic, hand-wringing example of self-loathing is a clear example of what too much marijuana as an undergrad will do to you. I’m still betting that the author still lives in his parents’ basement and honestly believes that Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown were innocent victims. Simply wow.
Nailed it…
This is disgusting and morally repugnant.
“…to condemn these young men as thugs … fuels the problem [muggings]”
You have a vague notion that muggings are somehow “fueled” by condemnation of muggings? It would be interesting to see you try and connect the dots there. To hand over your money and write an article saying it’s all okay, that actually “fuels” the problem.
If only there were some sort of federal/state/city program available for these poor youths to take advantage of. Just one. Why has no one in government ever proposed or created one simple program with the intent of ending economic inequality? Is it that hard? We really need our political class to stand up and fight for the creation of government funded programs that will end economic inequality. Oliver, you should run for office on a platform of helping the poor. It hasn’t been done before and you sound like just the right guy to actually get elected fighting for the disadvantaged. It’s hard getting elected promising people things, and the media will surely laugh at you for it. But if we can just get a program funded, just one, we can begin to fight a war on poverty. War on Poverty!! There you go, that could be your campaign theme? Why has no one thought of this before?
Oh my that was great .. kuddos
Jeff –
There *are* programs for these youths to take advantage of. They are called public schools and higher institutions of learning.
They prepare people like Oliver to be targets for these young men.
I suspect that Oliver will be out on the street soon with a new phone and pocket full of cash, perhaps with several similarly-equipped friends eager for a similar experience, to provide these disadvantaged youths with more opportunities to interact with Oliver and give him insights and experiences into his role in oppressing the masses.
You should immediately File a police report as Georgetown has clearly robbed you, too.
Oliver, Shame on you. And shame on this publication for permitting such racist thoughts. You are saying that people of color who are criminals — like the ones that mugged you — can’t help themselves because they are different (i.e., “inferior.”) Shame on you.
Believe it or not, and despite your insistence of inferiority, people of color are completely capable of restraining themselves from criminal conduct.
Oliver got one thing right. Oliver is a smug self righteous ass who deserved to be mugged.
There’s a lot of betas in this world. The author of this is an omega.
Wonderful. Another Foreign Service Officer who essentially dislikes the country he wants to represent and wants to be paid to live in another country on the taxpayer’s dime while essentially hating those who fund his traitorious, though luxurious, lifestyle. He’ll fit in perfectly with the DoS.
This article is disgusting, and here’s why: Oliver’s cheerful application of situational ethics tells me that *he* would be on the other end of that gun and mugging people if he found himself down on his luck. He has rationalized criminal behavior in others, and would engage in the very same behavior himself. The Jesuits must be proud.
Amen!
Oliver needs to find a job at McDonald’s; the Foreign Service needs some normal people, not more nitwit loons. By his measure, nearly the entire population of the US was a criminal during the Great Depression. Self-righteous, ignorant and fool are the components of Liberalism, and he has them all.
“othering”. Seriously? They ARE criminals because they commited a crime, you nitwit. And a violent crime at that, hence “thug”.
Newsflash, he didn’t mug you because of “othering” (most ridiculous term ever, btw), he mugged you because he is poor and decided he had little other options. Instead of sniffing your own farts and “”opening a dialog to examine how “othering” has contributed to this situation”” maybe you aught to look at the real reason why he’s poor with no options. Look at how our social programs keep him poor.
As much as you feel enlightened and intelligent for your thesis here, YOU are part of his problem for enabling and condoning the forces (outside of his poor decisions) that are responsible for his circumstances.
You are a naive fool and a Mercedes Marxist in training. Your professors should be fired, an investigation should be started to root out the marxists gasbags running the departments at Georgetown, and you have no business working in any capacity for the people of the United States.
Clearly, you need further and more serious mugging to clear your kind of the mush you are vomiting out as projected policy.
Can I get your address? I need some money for Christmas presents.
Oliver, I agree with Charlie. You are currently being robbed.
I’m curious about you being thrown to the “floor.” Were you in a building?
You say robbed at gunpoint. How odd you can’t legally carry a weapon to protect yourself (read Emily Miller when you have time) but your assailant illegally did. Law not working?
My father (RIP) taught at Georgetown. I suspect Dad’s tachometer is redlining from your article. (That means spinning in his grave. Thought I’d explain because, well, you need it.)
Best,
Chris
Dear God, I live within sight of this institution – I hope this terminal mind rot ins’t catching!
If someone who commits violence against you isn’t a “thug,” what is he?
In his effort to appear as not a racist, he exposes his racism in the fact that he believes thug and black are synonymous. What’s truly disgusting is that he accuses the rest of us who do NOT see it that way as being the ones with racial bias. It is seriously troubling to me that these are the thoughts of someone who is an educated, rational adult.
They aren’t his thoughts. He just wants us to react…
In the same vein, he could have decided your girlfriend/spouse/significant other was better looking than his and decided to ‘take’ that as well. This was a simple little process for you to accept when it was of trivial value. What if it was something you deeply cared for?
Oliver, I wasn’t quite finished.
You wrote:
“The millennial generation is taking over the reins of the world, and thus we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past.”
Perhaps you should concentrate on the future and understand leadership and its responsibilities. Good luck in future endeavors, spending loads of time, effort and money righting the past. That has no value. It’s simply symbolism over substance.
Best,
Chris
Wow. The people who brainwashed you did a hell of a job. Good luck with that.
Oliver wrote,
“As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them.”
Oliver, it’s more symbolism v substance. Please define “real energy” and if you have time “collective challenges.”
I’m comfortable with you getting mugged as you’re comfortable with it. I’ll still blame the muggers. I’m not comfortable with my family and friends getting mugged.
Another reason to thank whatever God exists that I don’t live in ‘Murica. Things haven’t gotten so ridiculous where I am.
Yet.
How in the world did they know you had “white privilege”? Did they interview you or something? My white privilege came in the form of living in my car for a few months, then joining the military, then engaging in some lovely combat actions, then getting honorably discharged, going to college, and applying and getting a job, where I still make less than $100k a year in the DC area (not poor, but not wealthy either).
I love how you play out that the thugs are victims and somehow justified in their actions, because of some BS of “white privilege”, when in fact these thugs broke the law, and sorry to tell you, there are many white people who are rather poor and/or work their ass off to get where they at and making money now.
So what,these thugs instead of getting a job and getting a phone, you think we should just accept they still one? Only in your delusional mind is this ever acceptable. Those thugs should be locked away for a few years, as to never put anyone in danger.
Everyone who is white-skinned has white privilege. That’s why it’s called white privilege…
Believe it or not, even in your suffering, your experience of homelessness, your poverty, you had (and, might I add, continue to have) white privilege.
People of color don’t have that privilege. That’s how it works. That is how the system was built. It is called “systematic racism” (new term for you!).
How do you think you got that “less than 100K, more than not poor” job, by the way?
Here is a fun little article about white privilege. Hopefully it can put some things in perspective for you.
https://www.cirtl.net/files/PartI_CreatingAwareness_WhitePrivilegeUnpackingtheInvisibleKnapsack.pdf
It’s funny – there’s a lot wrong with Oliver’s article… but you managed to zero in on the one of the few things that was actually right! Congratulations!
“How do you think you got that “less than 100K, more than not poor” job, by the way?”
Why on Earth would you assume that he only got his job due to white privilege? You don’t believe that white people get hired due to their own merit?
If that’s not racism, I don’t know what is. Wow.
I love how folks like Mo keep trotting out the long-discredited “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” piece; I first came across it years ago on a university faculty “diversity commission” (many, many “Arghs!” were involved in that endeavor). I advise people with any interest in the subject to read it to understand how flimsy and unscientific the whole notion of “white priviledge (er, sorry Mo, “privilege”) is. It’s not terribly long or intellectually rigorous.
I actually did unpublished research to rebut it in 2007 for some committee work. It simply was not worth time publishing as serious work, although I did publish something on a site (Chronwatch.com) that is now defunct.
If you read the 50 points in “Unpacking” you will recognize that most are simply untrue in today’s world (i.e., “1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.”) Yet it is still pointed to as the definitive work on the subject of “white privilege” by the faithful, as we have seen here.
Common sense reflection shows that the first point, as most if not all, of “Unpacking” is untrue. The majority of Americans live in cities with racially and culturally diverse populations, and virtually every workplace is integrated. Classrooms are integrated. Sporting events are integrated. Streets are integrated. Restaurants are integrated. Mass transit is integrated. It would be very difficult to arrange to be in the company of only people of your race – unless, of course, you are unemployed and living in a subcultural island with little contact with the external society (“ghetto”) or are an invalid/shut-in. As such, this might well apply to other races and subcultures that have created niche societies within neighborhoods and where people have chosen to spend their time cut off from the larger society. This is not unique to America; travelers to other countries are familiar with such subcultural communities there (indeed, the word “ghetto” originated in Italy).
I divide my time now between our home in Arizona and my practice in the SF Bay Area. I am about as white as you can get, but I am in a racially-mixed marriage and have a racially-mixed child (how I used to love asking in diversity committee meetings, when my whiteness was raised to disqualify my opinion, “How many here are in mixed marriages, raise your hands? Anyone? Just me? Oh.”) My town in Arizona is more white by percent than my home in California, but even if I stay at home I cannot be in the company of people of my race most of the time. Where in America today is this possible? What percentage of the population lives where there is a majority of white folk where you can spend your days surrounded by pale skin?
You can go through each of the 50 points of “Unpacking” just like this. I actually contacted the publisher of “Highlights” magazine for kids and they sent me copies of all their magazines so I could go through and note the inclusion of minority children in pictures. Off the top of my head, I believe that they had minority kids represented from almost the first issue.
One of the points in “Unpacking” is particularly interesting given the presidency of Barack Obama: “23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.” The president, AG Eric Holder, and many other Democrats and pundits have claimed that any criticisms of the president’s policies were because of his skin color. Ironic that this is considered a indicator of “white privilege” in “Unpacking” yet now is reversed and is seen as racism AGAINST the government because the president is black.
So I agree with Mo that people should read “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” to understand how hollow and intellectually vacuous the concept of white privilege is.
Mo
So is there Asian priviledge and Latino priviledge? How is it possible that people move to this country with nothing and a generation later their children are graduating from college and working in jobs making more than $100,000?
You are just pointing out two types of people and it really it is indifferent to class, race, sex or religion: There are with 1) “motivated personally responsible to get ahead in this world priviledged” and 2) “not motivated to get ahead in this world just depend on others and complain about it priviledge”
Everyone living in this country has “USA Priviledge” and are part of the top 1% on this planet. The poorest US citizens have cable, cell phones, wide screen tv’s and internet. The average income of the rest of the world is about $1200 a year while the poverty level in the USA is defined as 23,383 for two adults and two children.
Capitalism and freedom in this country allows anyone with an ounce of motivation and personal responsibility to live a comfortable life even in poverty. If you disagree try living off the dole in Brazil for a while. You’ll book a ticket to the USA happy to check your USA Priviledge to get back in.
My dear William!
I suggest you read some Paolo Freire. You will learn about the American Dream you have so foolishly bought into and projected upon the people around you.
You have clearly demonstrated that your understanding of economics is rooted in utter horse sh*t. Poverty lines are based upon the amount it costs to live in a particular country. They vary, because it costs different amounts of money to live in different places. Write that down, dear boy, lest you forget.
Have you every interacted with a poor US citizen? The poorest US citizens are struggling to feed their children. They are not living large, as you seem to believe. Do you know how many grocery stores exist east of the Anacostia River? The poorest US family does not have a car. The poorest US family will pay to take a bus to buy milk at a convenience store, where there is mark-up that you will not experience at your local Safeway. You silly , silly fool.
Your assertion that living a comfortable life requires “an ounce of motivation and personal responsibility” is the most offensive thing I’ve heard today. Let’s say that you are born in an underserved American neighborhood. Your “ounce” of motivation is chewed up and spat out by systems that consistently fail you.
I would like you to embark on a bit of a reflective exercise. Who are the people in your life that enabled you to be here right now? What are the structures that enabled you to be here right now? Are there sources of social capital that you possess that you did not earn or work for? In terms of the sources of social capital that you supposedly “earned,” let’s revisit the first two questions. Did you really earn your current position? Do you deserve, more than anyone else, to be present? If you had grown up in an underserved American neighborhood, think about what your “normal” would be, what your fears would be, and what people would expect of you.
For the sake of my own sanity, I pray that I avoid the distinct displeasure of coming across your person.
I will not be thankful for your brash, offensive ignorance this holiday season, my dear poor misguided William.
Best,
Mo
Mo…you are an indoctrinated fool. How dare you label every individual under one flag based solely on the color of their skin! That’s racism. I’m sure you excuse yourself because your idiot professors told you that only those in power can be racist. Newsflash…they made that up to excuse their own racism. As an independent critical thinking individual, you’re free to ignore them. And how dare you demean another’s hard work….”How do you think you got that “less than 100K, more than not poor” job, by the way?” He did it himself, not because of any privilege. You too can succeed if you stop your racism and excusinig your apparent inadequacies on others, and embrace self-determination and hard work. But, I’m sure it’s easier to live in your fantasy land where white people are handed jobs and degrees without earning them, but that’s not reality. Grow up.
Dearest domo,
Please see my response to William. No one succeeds on their own. Your shamefully ignorant rhetoric (that absolutely reeks of your lack of experience with ANYONE who has less than you) is rhetoric of the oppressor, rhetoric used to justify oppression and maintain an unjust system.
I demean no one’s hard work, but let me assure you, that success is achieved by hard work combined with social and political structures that enable your success.
Best,
Mo
Mo –
While no one succeeds on their own, the gross societal structures that assist are available to all no matter race, color or creed in America – the cultural, economic and political structure (unfortunately being “fundamentally transformed” by the current president). The social structure is composed of a broader culture shared by all (but capable of being rejected) and subcultures. The basic subcultural subunit is the family. What liberals refuse to recognize when they spout the “you didn’t build this” and “it takes a village” memes is that the liberal “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” have undermined the family unit within certain Black subcultural loci (which Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned about in 1965). Rather than accept that their well-intentioned (and racist, but that is a theme for another day) attempts to help have destroyed the Black nuclear family and removed the support to enable Black youths to succeed. So to excuse lack of results due to this removal of an integral support element, they posit this invisible and unverifiable element of “white privilege.”
Your “white priviledge” 😉 shtick is tiresome. The intellectually vacuous who still pathetically point to “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” when each premise is so historically flawed in 2014 (as it was in 2009 when I first encountered it, as it was in 1988 when Peggy McIntosh first penned her tirade against white males) have to have an intellectual disconnect on par with the crowd in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” It is based, as is so much pseudo-sociology of the Left, on a flawed and incoherent understanding of history and people. It assumes so much, and betrays the bigotry and racism of the white author. Let’s look at this woman, Ms. McIntosh, you evidently hold in such esteem that you have asked people twice that I have seen in this comments thread to read her “seminal” work (is that sexist?).
Look at her second point. Her “Unpacking” works like a Jeff Foxworthy routine; if you find yourself agreeing with most of these points, you are the recipient of white privilege (and are probably a redneck to boot). But consider the dark racist underbelly of her statement itself, and what it reveals about Ms. McIntosh herself, not about the white privileged class she so despises:
“2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.”
“Trained to mistrust?” Gosh, don’t know about you, Peggy, but I wasn’t trained to distrust anyone. OK, that’s a lie. Carnies. Don’t trust carnies. And traveling vacuum salespeople. But that’s about it. What does it say about a person who broadly believes that all whites are trained to mistrust blacks? Where is her empirical data to back that claim? Where is her common sense? Where is the common sense of someone today citing this piece after Barack Obama was elected twice to the presidency? Yeah, whitey sure has been trained to distrust the Black man.
And what about the double standard here – whites have been “trained” to mistrust the “other”, but Blacks have “learned” to mistrust whites (my kind) – or me? How can Ms. McIntosh possibly know that? What is this associate director of the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women basing this claim on?
Can we begin to see the intellectual poverty of this “white privilege” foundational document?
Moving on.
“3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.”
Now, I hope most people look at that and scratch their heads. Remember, this is from an article originally written in 1988. Not 1958. Not 1968. 1988. And proudly and authoritatively pointed to by Mr. Mo today in 2014.
This is not a nuanced argument that might leave some room for discussion, regarding possible factors in some markets with some lenders (and loan officers) relating to qualifications for loans and red lining and such. Most studies I am aware of in the area of housing show that when factors such as employment, collateral, job history, credit score, etc. are balanced, race and ethnicity are not a factor in qualification. Ms. McIntosh appears to assume these factors are not in play (I suspect this level of analysis is beyond her).
No, what she says is that if you have the money (cash or qualified loan) you must be white privileged if you can rent or buy anywhere you can afford. Let’s look at the converse – you cannot be certain you can buy anywhere you want unless you are white.
Soooo… Georgetown is pretty lily white. A little over 85% white. How did those 14%+ non-whites sneak in? My theory is that they had the money and bought/rented homes and apartments. No one told them they couldn’t in one of the most exclusive places to live in America.
Beverly Hills, CA. About 89% white. Somehow about 11% of non-whites were allowed to buy or rent homes there without “white privilege.” Mill Valley, CA, where I practice, pretty white place, 89% white, but 11% non-whites are still able to rent or buy if they can afford it.
Aha! The small numbers prove that not everyone who wants to can move there because of skin color, right? Sorry, I’m playin’ witcha. Notice anything? These are all liberal bastions. Go up the road from Mill Valley to Vacaville one county over and whites drop to 66%. A lot fewer liberals in Vacaville, a lot less money. A lot more minorities. Hmmmm.
The point is that people with common sense know that a Black orthodontist with good credit and money in the bank can buy any house she or he can afford anywhere they want today. They won’t have any flaming lower-case t’s in their yard (for you South Park fans). It is not white privilege, it is money privilege. It used to be called “the American Dream.” Now it’s called elusive for most everyone.
“6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.”
Again, for anyone who as paid attention for the last decade or three, the answer to this is that whether you are Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic or Asian or whatever flavor of the wondrous variety of humanity, you can find yourself in the media. For grins I just flipped through the first fifty channels of the TV. Counting voices on cartoons (with three kids and three grandkids I *know* cartoon voice actors, so don’t play the voice prejudice card on me!), discounting animal documentaries (“behold the wondrous penguin”), and animated soap bubbles, 35 out of 45 had non-white actors in the five seconds I allowed myself to view each channel. See how I sacrifice for you?
Again, it defies common sense to claim that only whites get to see their race widely represented in the media. OK, the hosts of MSNBC are predominantly white makes, I get that. But in those fifty channels I surfed, three were in Spanish, one was BET, and two had black comedies (not BET). That’s at a random moment I got up and turned the TV on. Hardly scientific, but enough to make my point.
Advertisers and casting directors want to use people of color. One of my clients was from Iran. He had two beautiful young granddaughters who were sought after by advertisers because their almond skin and exotic features could be taken for a number of races. I dare say that if you pick up any clothing ad you will find a veritable Colors of Benetton potpourri of races and many of those unidentifiable “What race is she?” models who could be any race – handy!.
For years now each movie or TV group of friends had to have a Black, a Hispanic and a White kid (as did gangs). Bosses had to be Black; judges usually were Black and a woman. In the 1970s, movies and TV shows often used a Black in an authority figure but kept the role as a minor one, in effect saying, “Look, the Captain is Black, see how progressive we are, now let’s focus on the two white cops.” Now we expect that roles are given with a nod to racial diversity as part of the plot structure (in “Psych”, the racial diversity gave plot twists that would not have been there is both friends had been black or white).
We see an interesting social evolutionary comparison in the re-imagining of the forced racial quotas of Gene Roddenberry’s original “Star Trek” series with the new movies; it no longer is a bold statement (such as Uhura’s kissing Kirk, the first scripted interracial kiss on TV), but simply an organic and natural thing, something we live with and experience in our lives. It’s hard to imagine how daring this was back in 1966.
This is why Ms. McIntosh’s point is so vacuous. Of course people of different races can see their races in print and TV. Maybe Samoans cannot see Samoans in the papers or on TV often, but do they really expect that? They represent .056% of our population. I suppose every time they see Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson they are getting their percentage worth.
One of the special super-secret, I’m smirking at you because you don’t get it things about “white privilege” believers is that it is so invidious and invisible and pervasive that you as a white person cannot see it or feel it or understand it. Only the white people who know it is there and point it out to you and lecture you about it can see it. Like the Emperor’s New Clothes, don’t you know. If you argue against it, it is because you are too stupid to see it. There is no science, no empirical data. There is no common sense, because you cannot apply common sense to these statements.
“Wait, how do you explain that you say Blacks cannot see images of themselves in the media but they can? How do you explain that you say Whites can live their lives only living with other Whites and not seeing other races when that is impossible unless they are shut-ins?”
Their answer?
“You’re White and stupid, so you just don’t understand. And you’re a racist. Hands up, don’t shoot!”
Thank you Lester (below) for breathing common sense into this conversation. The Invisible Knapsack is so outdated that I find it surprising that liberals continue to trot it out as if it still means something.
Thanks, Holly. This actually coaxed me out of my lethargy (and too much work in the real world, admittedly) and got me writing a little more in depth on the subject at https://wp.me/p4Q7xq-S.
One of the things that I find so frightening is that a) Oliver is apparently a senior and b) he is in the School of Foreign Service. People have been applying his logic to rape and murder; in his future vocation, he could be applying this to ISIS.
Mo Shmo says: “How do you think you got that ‘less than 100K, more than not poor’ job, by the way?”
I know plenty of non-white people that have “less than 100k, more than not poor” jobs.
How do *you* suppose those people got those jobs?
Right, and because it’s snowing at my house, the rest of the world isn’t getting warmer. Extrapolating anecdotal evidence to create a generalization–superb reasoning skills, Don.
You keep pushing this blather. It’s made up garbage that has no real meaning.
White privilege is a concept used to throw guilt at people to try and get them to give over to your demands.
Not going to happen.
When this kind of academic nonsense meets the real world, it becomes clear what a load of grievance-peddling fantasy it is.
everyone who believes in politically correct schwag like “white privilege” is either suffering from white guilt or an inferiority complex. “white privilege” is just the race industry’s way of saying, “If you’re white, you’re racist, no matter what you do or say.” it’s the stuff of tiny minds who can’t take responsibility for their own lives, just like you schmuck-o.
Mo.
“Everyone who is white, has white privilege”. Well, in the face that circular non-reasoning…
People of colour do have privilege, especially Asian Americans whose median household income eclipses that of every other group (Pew). That is, if you assume that having lots of money is being privileged (that’s a pretty damn good definition).
“Systemic racism” – look it up. Ok, it’s a shifting, nebulous term that can be capriciously applied to anything anywhere. “New term for you”. What hubristic, patronizing nonsense.
“even in your suffering, your experience of homelessness, your poverty, you had (and, might I add, continue to have) white privilege.”
Please tell that to the next Caucasian homeless person or prostitute you see. I’d like a report back please, in blog form. Thanks.
Yes white privilege exists but there’s no sound excuse for criminals to steal from anyone. Stop blathering on with this overly indoctrinated crap and your condescending links and whatever the heck you learned in some corrupt college classroom USE YOUR BRAIN MO! (whatever’s left of it)
Does Asian privilege exist, as statistically measured by outcomes?
Does Jewish privilege exist?
For white privilege to be a meaningful concept it must universally apply to all whites in the US equally. Are you prepared to make that argument?
Or are you saying that under some circumstances it is advantageous to be white in the US?
I would agree with that. And that under some circumstances it is advantageous to be a black man; if you become president, no one can even make jokes about you for a few years because of fear of being called racist. Now THAT is privilege!
It is also advantageous in some circumstances to be a pretty girl. In other circumstances that would be a deadly danger.
As a predictor of success in education and financially in life, being Asian might be seen as advantageous. If you apply to UC Berkeley it can be disadvantageous because of their quotas (too many Asians).
There are many opportunities open to minorities not open to whites. That is a form of privilege.
The poor while child in Appalachia who has a poor education, no money, no prospects, surely has no privileges greater than the black senator’s son in Georgetown who goes to Sidwell Friends and Harvard.
White privilege sounds like it could be a real thing but only if you don’t examine it too closely in the real world.
Mo, you speak in absolutes which are not logically applied. If all caucasians have privelege how does that explain the general poverty found in Appalachia, which is 95 percent caucasian? If “people of color” (a nasty racist term), do not have privelege, how does that explain Tiger Woods, Bill Cosby, Spike Lee, Patrice Motsepe, Barak Obama, Charles Rangel, Papa Doc Duvallier, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, OJ Simpson, Robert L. Johnson, Herman Cain, and Oprah Winfrey?
Oliver, you’re a racist tool and your expensive education has been entirely wasted. You were mugged because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and ran into the wrong people…thugs with no conscience who CHOSE to rob you because they are bad people. Good people don’t hold up people at gunpoint. Bad people do. It’s really that simple, and your attitude that it’s not the robbers’ fault is condescending at best and racist at worse, and a PERFECT example of limousine liberalism.
You (and everyone else on the planet) has ALWAYS had to choose whether or not to steal. Every time you go to a store and choose to pay for your items, you’re choosing not to steal.
“Otherization” is not a word.
Between you and the ridiculous Sandra Fluke, Georgetown students are really not looking too intelligent these days.
I smell a white male who has found “G”od!
Mo, my friend –
“I smell a white male who has found “G”od!” Why would you say that?
You make three assumptions because a writer expresses moral values that apparently differ from yours.
You evidently make these assumptions in a way that indicates you think that they negate Robin’s opinions (I make no assumptions about Robin’s sex). Do they?
Are you White? If so, does that negate your opinions? Does that negate Oliver Friedfeld’s opinions expressed above?
Are you a male? Does that negate your opinion? Does being male automatically negate all opinions? Does that negate Oliver Friedfeld’s opinions expressed above?
Do you believe in G_d? Does that negate your opinion? Does believing in G_d automatically negate all opinions? If Oliver Friedfeld’s believes in G_d does that negate his opinions expressed above?
If your answer to any of these questions is “Yes,” then you should really stop smirking and realize you are not nearly as clever as you think you are.
Right?
Happy Thanksgiving? Or is that some barbarous, chauvinistic, imperialistic ritual that you do not participate in? Have some tofurkey!
You should ask Georgetown for a refund for failed education. After reading this, it is easy to see that you qualify.
THEE most INSANE thing I have EVER read!!
Oliver, if the logic of your argument were applied to the issue of rape, then we would say that rape culture can be used to justify individual rapes and that “until we [change rape culture], we should get comfortable with sporadic [rapes] and [sexual assaults].”
And I’m assuming you wouldn’t agree with the logical conclusion of your argument as it is applied to the issue of rape.
Ok, well thanks for this gratuitous self congratulatory pat on your own back. I’m not going to call you any names or say you’re a bad person or anything because I don’t believe in internet trolls, and I’m sure you’re a good person but seriously, think dude? I’m a liberal and this article is barf worthy. I was attacked twice, once by two guys who grabbed me and held me down, and though I will never know what they actually wanted because some witnesses came by, I believed they wanted to do something sexually to me in some way, and another time, a man held a knife to my stomach. There is NOTHING fucking funny or ok with this. It is unacceptableable. I think you need to refocus whatever it is you were trying to get at with this article getting back to the Mike Brown case and redirecting the attention from your misguided self. Btw, since I don’t believe in internet trolls, my name is Jessie Richardson and you’re welcome to email me any time if you have a response. [email protected].
Everyone who actually believe this guy got mugged raise your hand………….no one?…………..I didn’t think so. Oliver Friedfeld gives Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass a run for their money. There’s a reason used care salesmen are trusted more than journalists.
If you have paid tuition, you have good standing to ask for a refund. What you have written is wrong on so many levels it is frankly disturbing.
Well you’re right, but not for the right reasons.
Anyone this stupid shouldn’t own a phone, or money, or do anything but sign up for a program where someone else takes care of them because they’re clearly never going to survive on their own.
So taking your money and phone and letting you clarify you’re incapable of being a rational human is good; at least you learn this now, and not after you decide you can fly and jump out a window… or wander in traffic looking for a clue.
This very silly column assumes that only rich people can afford moral agency, while poor people are but robots who can only do what their circumstances dictate. It is the sort of cocooned liberal condescension one might see Thurston Howell III spout on Gilligan’s Island, in his parody of the effete rich. It is far funnier when delivered with such earnesty.
Hang on, are you claiming minorities have free will and the ability to take independent action like a white person?
How RACIST are you? Every good non-racist knows minorities don’t have free will, and can only react and never have an independent thought or action.
Only white people have free will. You’re racist to think otherwise.
** Yes that’s a stupid argument, but oddly it explains the undefined premises of many liberal arguments quite accurately **
When I was at Northwestern, someone wrote a similarly reviled op ed piece for our paper. It was about how auditioning and turning down a callback for the “girl of the Big 10” edition of Playboy was super empowering to her. This is weirdly similar in terms of the tonedeafness only reserved for 20 year olds totally oblivious to the fact that they’re highlighting their privilege by trying to say how they’re better than it.
I am 45 years old and I, like the author, went to an elite university. Unlike the author, I have the advantage of maturity and real-world experience. Son, I hope that you grow up and realize how utterly ridiculous you sound now.
AMEN to that…I have been in Africa and Asia for the last 10 years, I have seen REAL poverty, inequality, Gov’t Corruption, Racism. Almost NO opportunity to improve your station in life in a lot of these countries. It’s not luck that All Americans have opportunities to improve their station in life, its our Political (Constitution, Bill of Rights, strong military) and Economic System (Free Market) that does it. Unfortunate that those institutions are being torn down
You’re white guilt personified. I’m sorry, but it seems to me your attitude denigrates underprivileged people who don’t become criminals.
In your case, education seems to breed stupidity.