Thoughts on White Privilege

[NatMorton]

I don't see how you can deny colorism and by light skinned people being seen as "better" it naturally gives them an advantage. For centuries in this country the whole system and society favored white people and it's not just something that fades away because other people had to literally fight for their right to belong and finally somewhat won. Yes, those middle-class white parents might feel less than privileged because their kids can't get "minority" scholarships but perhaps they should motivate their child to look for other opportunities and still prestigious colleges and not become resentful and teach that child a victim mentality.

I didn't "deny" anything I said it was a bad political strategy.

 

[j brown's body]

A "white privilege" post on the UK got me thinking about it here in the US. Putting aside whether "white privilege" as defined by the social justice warriors is a real construct, it must be said that politically, it's a really bad tactic.

First off, "privilege" smacks of the "you didn't build this" meme we also heard from the likes of Sen. Warren. A tip, if you're trying to win over people who believe they've had to work for what they have (and most folks do feel this way), don't start off by telling them that their effort has been an illusion and imply all was accomplished with the ease that only special privilege can bestow.

Second, it is critically important for any political message to hit its target audience. Think about this: who is going to be convinced and change their attitude as a result of a good "white privilege" scolding? I'm sure the WP line sells well among the self-styled cultural elites who live in places like Boston or NYC's upper east side, but these are not the people voting for candidates like Trump. They're already voting for the kinds of candidates social justice zealots favor, so the hectoring on them is wasted.

So how about the Trump voters? Let's look at his base. Do you think the one-time factory foreman in the Rust Belt who's now working two part-time, low skill jobs for less money is feeling particularly "privileged" about his skin color? Or maybe the middle class parents whose kid has the wrong skin color for the minority set-aside scholarship and thus must go to a less expensive, less prestigious college, are feeling like they're catching a ride on white coattails? Tell these folks they're "privileged" and I suspect their first reaction would be "up yours." Again, not a winning strategy.

No, I think the "white privilege" campaign isn't about winning hearts and minds but instead serves a very different purpose. It's the same purpose that drives much of progressive policy making. That purpose is to make those who advocate for social justice feel good about themselves, More importantly, to feel superior to those who do not think as they do. Stripped of its euphemisms and social justice jargon, the white privilege argument goes like this "I believe in white privilege. I am enlightened. You do not, so you must be a racist. I am therefore better than you."

Meanwhile, the factors that, you know, actually drive poverty regardless of race -- out-of-wedlock births, low high school graduation rates -- continue to plague the African American community more severely than any other demographic with all too predictable results. Maybe, just maybe, we'd be better focusing on the problems we know exist and that we know will, if addressed, improve the lives of our fellow citizens and then see where we are on "privilege."

You are correct. Racism has always won more votes in this country than anti-racism.

It's more about examining the facts and improving life than about winning votes.

I suppose making an ethical stance based on the facts could make someone feel superior, but it's quite a stretch to claim it's the motivation.

It's kind of ironic since racism has superiority baked into it.

 

[Spock]

In this context I'm not the one defining it. Here's one from Google search, and I think it's consistent with how most social justice warriors would define it:

You use a term to capture your disapproval and yet do not have the ability to define it? Then, you make assertions about what you claim others believe?
Explain why you cannot define the term and how you know what "most" other people think.

... if you think there's a better definition, let me know what you think it is.

Understanding terms critical to your argument is your responsibility.

 

[Master Debator]

When you're ready for a serious discussion, let me know.

You let us know. You had the defintion and still were crying about black out of wedlock births. What does that have to do with whether or not white people and white culture have exploited and discriminated against black and brown people for their own socioeconomic advantages?

 

[daeler]

No just, no, but that is the focus of the OP.

Trying to nail down what type of discussion you are looking for.

The OP was kind of multitasking.

In that vein, I used to think the idea of white privilege was crazy. I struggled a lot to get where I am. I was bullied in high school and middle school. I had so many money issues after graduation that the idea that I had any kind of privilege was ridiculous.

But I also ran into an ordeal while in the south that gave me a starting point. While in the army I was in a platoon that was 80% black, one of my friends in that platoon and I stopped for cigs, I bought mine and saw him get told they were out of whatever he wanted. I started to get angry but he just pulled me out and said don't bother.

a couple years ago I started thinking about that kind of thing, how white people can take many ordinary things for granted while black people or anyone of color has to worry about literally every interaction they have.

That is my idea of "White Privilege". When politicians talk about the idea I look for those that have the same thought process as someone I will listen to.

 

[Spock]

Trying to nail down what type of discussion you are looking for.

The OP was kind of multitasking.

In that vein, I used to think the idea of white privilege was crazy. I struggled a lot to get where I am. I was bullied in high school and middle school. I had so many money issues after graduation that the idea that I had any kind of privilege was ridiculous.

But I also ran into an ordeal while in the south that gave me a starting point. While in the army I was in a platoon that was 80% black, one of my friends in that platoon and I stopped for cigs, I bought mine and saw him get told they were out of whatever he wanted. I started to get angry but he just pulled me out and said don't bother.

a couple years ago I started thinking about that kind of thing, how white people can take many ordinary things for granted while black people or anyone of color has to worry about literally every interaction they have.

That is my idea of "White Privilege". When politicians talk about the idea I look for those that have the same thought process as someone I will listen to.

There are racial advantages that are unrelated to personal life events.
The issue is best understood by comparison between equivalent lifes.
Rich black individuals still face a stronger headwind than white individuals with equivalent wealth.
By its very nature, race confers a certain amount of advantage or disadvantage, all other factors equal.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Two things can be true at once.

By the numbers, which is what this is ultimately about by looking across entire demographic data sets, "white privilege" does exist socioeconomically. And, at the same time without upsetting the definition, not everyone white will experience "white privilege."

I will stipulate that how politics has messed about with the term has resulted in a sort of weaponization and negative consequences with concepts like DEI applied. And that ultimately brings me to my point. It is not that current political trends and election results is rejection of the concept of white privilege, it was more a rejection of the political response to white privilege.

That is a very different conversation than some slap in the face alignment to "you did not build this" type rhetoric.

Besides, I would argue how DEI ended up applied resulted in enough negative attitude that the response we are seeing was predictable. You cannot tell everyone they are wrong and inherently prejudiced, then win them over.

 

[Gozaburo]

Meanwhile, the factors that, you know, actually drive poverty regardless of race -- out-of-wedlock births, low high school graduation rates -- continue to plague the African American community more severely than any other demographic with all too predictable results. Maybe, just maybe, we'd be better focusing on the problems we know exist and that we know will, if addressed, improve the lives of our fellow citizens and then see where we are on "privilege."

Yeah so this kind of demonstrates you don't understand the proposition of the other side. Few insist that single moms and graduation rates are not bad, rather that the higher rates of single motherhood and graduation rates are either entirely or mostly attributable to historical discrimination and institutional disadvantages which white people did not / do not face.

So the question is this: are all (or most) inequalities attributable to historical circumstance or are they attributable to some other factor(s)?

I would presume you don't argue at the level of your interlocutor because it seems to me there is only one alternative to historical circumstance - which is innate difference - and I assume you find that position unpalatable or difficult to defend.

 

[vanceen]

The main problem with the concept of white privilege is that it turns things upside down.

Where there is racial prejudice and unfair treatment of people because of their color, that is the problem. The problem is not that some people aren't discriminated against ("privileged"), but that some people are.

In @daeler's story above, the problem was that his friend was treated badly. The problem was not that he was treated fairly.

Aren't we more likely to root out prejudice and unfairness by focusing on actual prejudice and injustice, rather than focusing on the fact that some people have to worry about it less than some others?

 

[NatMorton]

You use a term to capture your disapproval and yet do not have the ability to define it? Then, you make assertions about what you claim others believe?
Explain why you cannot define the term and how you know what "most" other people think.

Understanding terms critical to your argument is your responsibility.

Try reading the OP. How I define it is irrelevant to the discussion. I have provided a definition in this thread that is consistent with how its supporters would define it. That is what's relevant.

 

[NatMorton]

You let us know. You had the defintion and still were crying about black out of wedlock births. What does that have to do with whether or not white people and white culture have exploited and discriminated against black and brown people for their own socioeconomic advantages?

It doesn't have anything to do with how blacks have been exploited, nor was it meant to.

Why are you struggling with this?

 

[NatMorton]

Trying to nail down what type of discussion you are looking for.

The OP was kind of multitasking.

In that vein, I used to think the idea of white privilege was crazy. I struggled a lot to get where I am. I was bullied in high school and middle school. I had so many money issues after graduation that the idea that I had any kind of privilege was ridiculous.

But I also ran into an ordeal while in the south that gave me a starting point. While in the army I was in a platoon that was 80% black, one of my friends in that platoon and I stopped for cigs, I bought mine and saw him get told they were out of whatever he wanted. I started to get angry but he just pulled me out and said don't bother.

a couple years ago I started thinking about that kind of thing, how white people can take many ordinary things for granted while black people or anyone of color has to worry about literally every interaction they have.

That is my idea of "White Privilege". When politicians talk about the idea I look for those that have the same thought process as someone I will listen to.

You, like many here, are itching to get into a debate on how real white privilege is. That is not the point of the OP.

 

[NatMorton]

Yeah so this kind of demonstrates you don't understand the proposition of the other side. Few insist that single moms and graduation rates are not bad, rather that the higher rates of single motherhood and graduation rates are either entirely or mostly attributable to historical discrimination and institutional disadvantages which white people did not / do not face.

So the question is this: are all (or most) inequalities attributable to historical circumstance or are they attributable to some other factor(s)?

I would presume you don't argue at the level of your interlocutor because it seems to me there is only one alternative to historical circumstance - which is innate difference - and I assume you find that position unpalatable or difficult to defend.

Is it your assertion that those factors (high school graduation rates, single parenthood when young) have no meaningful bearing on poverty rates?

 

[Spock]

Try reading the OP. How I define it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Without YOUR definiton, no one can know what you are trying to communicate.

I have provided a definition in this thread that is consistent with how its supporters would define it. That is what's relevant.

Explain how you know how other people define it especially as you don't know how to define the term yourself.

 

[daeler]

There are racial advantages that are unrelated to personal life events.

A careful reading of what I posted would point out that the personal experience was one that pushed the thoughts on what those advantages might be. It wasn't solely focused on just that thing, it was pointing out how they changed my midset.

The issue is best understood by comparison between equivalent lifes.
Rich black individuals still face a stronger headwind than white individuals with equivalent wealth.
By its very nature, race confers a certain amount of advantage or disadvantage, all other factors equal.

 

[daeler]

You, like many here, are itching to get into a debate on how real white privilege is. That is not the point of the OP.

Well I asked what the point was, as your OP was kind of all over the place. you don't like where my post was you could have ignored it or read the first statement and clarified what type of discussion you are looking for.

 

[daeler]

The main problem with the concept of white privilege is that it turns things upside down.

Where there is racial prejudice and unfair treatment of people because of their color, that is the problem. The problem is not that some people aren't discriminated against ("privileged"), but that some people are.

In @daeler's story above, the problem was that his friend was treated badly. The problem was not that he was treated fairly.

Aren't we more likely to root out prejudice and unfairness by focusing on actual prejudice and injustice, rather than focusing on the fact that some people have to worry about it less than some others?

I think the point of white privilege discussions is as a starting point, it helps to understand the difference in how the races are treated. Most people have no idea how the other half lives.

 

[Gozaburo]

Is it your assertion that those factors (high school graduation rates, single parenthood when young) have no meaningful bearing on poverty rates?

No. Remember:

Few insist that single moms and graduation rates are not bad,

But we're just talking about symptoms here. Why are these negative social pathologies so pervasive in the black community specifically? As I said, there seem to be two possible answers: innate difference or historical circumstance. If you reject historical circumstance - even partially - then you're saying innate differences exist. Is that your contention?

 

[Gardener]

Privilege is an individual construct, not group.

 

[StillBallin75]

The essence of this post can be boiled down to "whether or not white privilege is real (it blatantly is, and being unable or unwilling to see it is part of said privilege) it hurts my feelings when you point it out."

Hell the existence of the current administration - and the fact that Trump was elected TWICE - is peak white privilege. No administration this clownish evil, incompetent, and corrupt would have have taken power if weren't staffed by a bunch of white nationalists playing to dominant-group greivance politics.

Funny how the "facts hurt your feelings?" crowd is always low on facts, but high on ****ing vibes and feelings.

The reason white privilege bears constantly pointed it is precisely because our society is a hypocritical contradiction - claiming to stand for freedom, justice, and equality when from the beginning it has stood for white supremacy and capitalist excess.

And if you don't point out the problem you will stay on step 1 of AA forever and we cannot progress as a society. As it stands, because of white privilege, we are currently moving BACKWARDS as a society.

 

[Ikari]

White Privilege is always a difficult subject. There are a lot of people that don't understand what it refers to or how to combat it. Some people just get angry at the thought and refuse to consider many of the implications.

Yeah, we saw it when people tried to talk about and discuss systemic racism, we saw it in the fight against DEI policies and such. Some folk don't want to understand the socio-economic history and how things like White Privilege came to be. They see it as "attacking white people", when it's not that at heart. Some may rant on it in a way and use it to promote anti-white bigotry, but the discussion of what white privilege is and how we can be aware of it isn't fundamentally a bigoted concept.

But it's easier to dismiss by those wishing to keep inequality in the system by pretending it's some "anti-white" movement.

 

[j brown's body]

Yeah, we saw it when people tried to talk about and discuss systemic racism, we saw it in the fight against DEI policies and such. Some folk don't want to understand the socio-economic history and how things like White Privilege came to be. They see it as "attacking white people", when it's not that at heart. Some may rant on it in a way and use it to promote anti-white bigotry, but the discussion of what white privilege is and how we can be aware of it isn't fundamentally a bigoted concept.

But it's easier to dismiss by those wishing to keep inequality in the system by pretending it's some "anti-white" movement.

Unfortunately, white people don't understand that opposing racism frees them too.

 

[j brown's body]

Privilege is an individual construct, not group.

Indeed. whenever I drive around my town, I'm impressed by how white folks chose to buy and live in large homes with large yards while people of color chose to live in small homes with small yards.

There's just no accounting for personal preference.

 

[Gardener]

Indeed. whenever I drive around my town, I'm impressed by how white folks chose to buy and live in large homes with large yards while people of color chose to live in small homes with small yards.

There's just no accounting for personal preference.

Yes, you see all black people as failures in life.

I am not so primitive, myself.

 

[vanceen]

Privilege is an individual construct, not group.

There is a lot in what you said there.

In our dialogues about social groups we always talk about averages. And that is fine, if there are average differences they need looking at and questioning why the difference exists, and remedial action if possible and necessary.

But every average has a distribution around it. And every individual is just one point on that bell curve.

And as a matter of fact, those averages overlap a lot.

Group A might have an average income that is lower than Group B's. And yet, there are many people in Group A that have a higher income than the average of Group B. That's just how overlapping distributions work.

For example, one of the clearest average differences between the sexes is that men are on average more aggressive than women. But it would be stupid to think that means that the next man you meet will be an aggressive person, or that the next woman you meet will be non-aggressive. Averages are not very good predictors of future individual observations.

It is clear that African Americans on average have had a tougher time than whites on average. But it is still true, and important to remember, that there are many whites who have had a tougher time in life than the average African American, and many African American who have experienced advantages that the average white person has not had.

This is why it is problematic to let average statistics stand in as a proxy for every member of a group.