White Privilege

It's not so much that it's offensive - though it is - it's because it's used to imply that an entire section of society are deliberately oppressing another section of society simply because of the colour of their skin, something that in other situations would be called wrongful and blatant discrimination/racism. Er, no Phat, blacks DO have a higher encaceration rate than whites - there is a large disparity between blacks and whites in prison. It looks very like institutionalised racism. Partly. But I do not accept that it's a privilege to be able to walk through a shopping mall without being followed by security; that's a right. Those that don't have that right are discriminated against. The labels don't help, they hinder. Label an entire class of society in negative ways and you're likely to get a negative result. We need to get passed this simplistic blame game.

This demonstrates exactly what I'm trying to say.When you use the term 'white privilege' you are saying that all white people are deliberately attempting to keep all black people down - it's implicit in its use.Saying such a thing is untrue, divisive and insulting. It's also racist and if it's continued to be used in this way it will alienate and result in the opposite of what we all want to happen which is to help those that are plainly disadvantaged by their colour.

Except that you explain in the analogy that that is EXACTLY what it actually means when it is being used. It's a white put down. Let's have one last go at it. And please note that pople generally do not recognise bias and racism in themselves.This is what you said in response to the no-leg/both legs analagy - my emphasis. The implication is that the white man is deliberately keeping the black man down - which I say is a racist slander that can only harm society as a whole by labelling all white people as oppressors.On your second point, I agree that it is not a negative to have access to the rights that are supposed to be available to all and have said so many times - to which you've previously disagreed, implying that white people are overprivileged, not that blacks are disadvantaged compared to them.Please have the last word, I've repeated myself too much to no avail, 'there's none so blind as wil not see.'

'fraid, I've had enough, it's a simple enough point I'm trying to make but obviously failing.The phrase 'white privilege' is a blanket term applied to all white people. It is not used in a positive way - it infers an oppression of the black by the white and it comes from an age of active bigotry and prejudice where different rights were granted to different classes of people - that has thankfully passed. We now have equal rights but not necessarily equal access to them.It may be the case that that is not what is actually meant - if what is meant is that on average blacks are disadvantaged compared to white people then that is what needs to be said.

{sigh} something normally available to all can not be a privilege.

...particularly when they prove you to be dead flat wrong.

Cockwomble

I'm impressed by your self-knowledge ;-) As requested:

Right, so it's a privilege to have two legs.How about oxygen, is it a privelge to be able to breath?

No it's not; privilege is a word with a meaning. You're misusing the word - hence the disagreement.People with two legs are not privileged, they're entirely to be expected - two legs is the normal condition for people.It's therefore not the case that people with two legs are privileged but it is the case that people without two legs are disadvantaged.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.