|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: White Privilege | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Cat Sci.
Cat Sci writes: And when privileged just means 'not-deprived' then it has lost its meaning. quote: -Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Some would agree, some wouldn't. Sounds like fairly strong evidence for its existence.
But the problem would still arise during the interview phase, no? I'm afraid I can't solve the problem of workplace privilege in two policies Seriously though, this is better than not getting an interview. You might consider separating the interviewer from the final decision maker in some cases, for instance. One of the advantages to an interview is how well documented they are. It's easier to see an employer who is being biased during interviews than when they are just ignoring CVs. If we can't build a fair system, then we'll have to an unfair one. Who should we be unfair to?A race which has been the victims of centuries of outrages for the profit of another race. Or the race who enriched themselves on the enforced labour, rape and murders of the former race? I don't mean feel bad for someone who doesn't get a job because they are a minority That's awful.Unless you don't feel bad if the situation was reversed and a white person was denied a job for a less qualified black person. Then it's probably wrong headed, but less awful at least. I mean is it supposed to mean that I am supposed to feel bad for BEING white and should I debase myself because of it? No. This is what spoiled brats say. You are supposed to feel bad that other people are getting shit on. It's called empathy.
Because that is what seems to be implicit in it, as if I am corroborating or contributing towards it just because I happen to be a white male. And when you said that the last time, I made it explicit that this was not the case.
If I am culpable, then I am deserving of blame for it. How am I culpable? By not doing anything to better the situation? I am not saying you are culpable. If you think you are, feel free to tell me how. I simply said that you were potentially jointly culpable. I can't know your role, but given your history with the evangelical church, I'm sure your past voting may earn you culpability, but my point wasn't that you ARE culpable. It's that you should be aware you may be culpable and bare this in mind when making decisions in your day. It isn't sufficient, but if we all do it it can hopefully improve the situation.
I know this is not the intended goal of yours, but that sounds really patronizing and demeaning to minorities. It's patronizing and demeaning to point out that white people have more power to effect white culture than black people? How?
The best way to ensure inclusion towards a society is to fully immerse in it. Black people have been fully immersed in white society longer than America has existed.
What do I mean? Not all minorities are treated with disdain. Yes, this is why it's called racism
Asians or Indians may actually benefit because of their race, as there seems to be a presumption that people belonging to this minority are generally perceived as hard workers who contribute to economic strength and stability. The point is, the door swings both ways. No, the point is that on the whole the door swings wider open for white people than the other ways.
Is this all due to White Privilege or are these people capable of making judgments based on their own experiences? No no no. That's just racism. Racial Privilege is gaining advantage from a general racism in your culture. Members of the Nazi Party had clear privilege over Jewish communists in Germany in the 30s and 40s. In the USAWhite people tend to get jobs over equally qualified minorities. White people tend to avoid criminal conviction and/or harsh sentencing compared with equally guilty minorities. White people tend have much more relaxed and controlled police encounters. White people can walk through more neighbourhoods without causing panic in the law abiding locals. Just to reel off some that are on top of my memory. These are privileges other races don't have, corner cases aside. Analyzing what privileges other races may have looks mean spirited and racist at this point. Why? Because we're white and throwing stones in our glass house filled with crystalware lined with nitro-glycerine. Let's get our own house in order. If African-Americans need to settle matters of privileges with Vietnamese-Americans I say they can handle that without European-American interference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes: If we can't build a fair system, then we'll have to an unfair one. I agree: pragmatism often requires us to accept that inequality is real and solutions are always imperfect.
Modulous writes: Who should we be unfair to?A race which has been the victims of centuries of outrages for the profit of another race. Or the race who enriched themselves on the enforced labour, rape and murders of the former race? This is where you lose me a little bit. You didn't describe the two races in terms of their physical or mental characteristics, but in terms of what they did or what was done to them. Aren't you loading the question with racial guilt by describing White people in terms of the bad things historical White people have done?-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Why "privilege" though? Do you have a preferred word? I mean, the word has been used in this fashion since the turn of the 20th Century... would you prefer another term used at the time, 'the wages of whiteness'? Here is a more modern take from the 1980s:
quote: WHITE PRIVILEGE AND MALE PRIVILEGE: A Personal Account of Coming to SeeCorrespondences Through Work in Women's Studies (1988), By Peggy McIntosh This privilege stuff just doesn't make any sense. Peron A being deprived doesn't mean Person B is privileged. I disagree. And right, but irrelevant. Person A being deprived of something in favour of Person B because Person B has something Person A does not would be an example of Person B's privilege in relation to Person A. This doesn't have to be anybody's *fault*. If Person B was rich, he would have the privileges of excellent healthcare, education, contacts with successful mentors and potential investors etc. If Person B was white, he may have had the privilege of not being treated with a instinctive suspicion that he's 'trouble'. If Person B was male, and as he has had the privilege to be referred to by the default English pronoun he seems to be, he doesn't have to worry about pregnancy, employers attitudes to mothers of young children, whether wearing a certain outfit will be retrospectively judged to have been 'asking for it' or on the other hand, prudish or unladylike/unfeminine. If Person B was two legged he has the privilege of basic unaided motility and the privilege of being able to negotiate stairs. A privilege one or no legged individuals acutely feel but two legged individuals take for granted. Having one ear at school is likely to result in mocking and bullying. To have a quiet high school life would be considered a privilege to such an individual. and so on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
This is where you lose me a little bit. You didn't describe the two races in terms of their physical or mental characteristics, but in terms of what they did or what was done to them. Aren't you loading the question with racial guilt by describing White people in terms of the bad things historical White people have done? Yeah, you seem hopelessly lost from what I was talking about. Sorry if that was my fault. But what do the physical and mental characteristics of any race have to do with a moral question of social equity? I can only hope this is a misunderstanding. I will press on as if it were not... In the USA black people are poorer. This is due to a number of factors, but one factor is that there has been much smaller window of opportunity for black families to accrue wealth, and they don't get to enslave people as a means to doing it. Today, they are still losing out on getting work to white people. For the most part, this is thought to be lots of little unconscious behaviours adding up to a problem. There are some cases of overt racism still,. unfortunately. The history that many African-Americans share in common is still reverberating through to today. I think this history is of important consideration if we have decided to be deliberately unfair to one particular race moving forwards. Whatever considerations you may think are important when deciding which race should lose out in a fairly minor way - I can't see how the fact that African-Americans have a higher average body mass, better spatial reasoning or whatever would have any impact on our decision at all. Here's another argument. If white people are systematically discriminated against until such time as white people wouldn't systematically discriminate against others -then we have a nice alignment of interest and incentive. We want to stop being discriminated against. In order to do that, we have to stop being discriminatory. It's beautiful in a way. Alternatively, we agree instead to discriminate against black people. Cos, you know, what can they do - am I right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I can't help but laugh at the white people who are using black people to show other white people how they themselves are the ones who really are the supreme white people I'm glad someone else spotted exactly what I did... "You're too weak and pathetic to do this on your own!" "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes: Yeah, you seem hopelessly lost from what I was talking about. Sorry if that was my fault. No, I think you followed me close enough. Perhaps I can help clarify a little bit:
Modulous writes: But what do the physical and mental characteristics of any race have to do with a moral question of social equity? I thought the general context of the conversation was "who gets the job?" To me, it seems the prejudicial treatment of certain races has more to do with perception of their physical and mental characteristics, and less to do with the historical record of racial entitlements and deprivations. It seems like racial inequality usually stems from misconceptions about competency or conduct, rather than on a historical narrative of racial entitlements. The end goal of any anti-discrimination policy should be to train people away from their misconceptions. That involves addressing the actual characteristics of actual people. The solution you propose seems to be to instead train people into a different misconception about reversing historical entitlements and deprivations as a form of social justice. Am I making sense?-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I thought the general context of the conversation was "who gets the job?" To me, it seems the prejudicial treatment of certain races has more to do with perception of their physical and mental characteristics, and less to do with the historical record of racial entitlements and deprivations. The question was about policy. If we cannot use tricks like blind CV reviews or whatnot then we have to go with an unfair system. By default, the system is unfair to black people and always has been. So if we get to choose - which race should we systematically disadvantage? Should institute Affirmative Action type policies and disadvantage white people or should we leave things be to the disadvantage black people? We have two people, both alike in qualification, from fair Verona where we lay our scene. From old drudge to new job interview. Where the colour of skin makes administrative hands unclean. From forth the loins of these two great races a pair of star crossed job seekers take their seats. All physical and mental characteristics match up where necessary with the job description. Should we err towards hiring the black guy or the white guy as a general policy? In a system that is consciously being racially unfair. Which is the kind of system I'm discussing here. Not celebrating, or advocating. Just saying if we can't have a fair one, it'll have to unfair - so how do we want that unfairness to manifest - if we could choose?
The end goal of any anti-discrimination policy should be to train people away from their misconceptions. That involves addressing the actual characteristics of actual people. Yes, my preferred solution involves acknowledging human weakness and devising strategies to work around this, including this kind of training. This kind of training exists, and it doesn't seem to be sufficient alone though.
The solution you propose seems to be to instead train people into a different misconception about reversing historical entitlements and deprivations as a form of social justice. That's not my solution. My solution was
quote: That was it really. Hyro was being a negative nancy about trying to modify our system to be fair. So I said your options seem to be to have an unfair system. I asked him who we should be being unfair to. It's not my position. We either try and come up with methods to move us closer to fairness and employ them soon, or instead of a scalpel we pull out the hammer. The question is, can the privileged white folk stand to say 'if a race is to be disadvantaged systematically, and if we have a choice in which race, it should be the white race'.? So which is it - do we try to acknowledge white privilege and take reasonable measures to overcome it? Or do we dispute white privilege and argue against any proposed changes? The latter puts us into a position where we can empirically confirm black people are losing out. I want Hyro to say, given he doesn't think overcoming bias is possible, then if he could choose a system going forwards. Would it be one where the blacks are disadvantaged or whites? By not saying anything, he opts for the default of having blacks be disadvantaged. I don't think he can explicitly say that this is the outcome he desires. So hopefully he'll see that he eithera) Consider positive methods to minimize the effects of privilege b) Throws black people under the bus, possibly regretting saying something like 'I don't... feel bad for someone who doesn't get a job because they are a minority' c) Throws white people under the bus Realizing that arguing for b) is arguing that the historical oppressors get to stay on top. This is a bit...racist. Probably something hyro will want to avoid if he wants to argue he is not jointly culpable in maintaining white privilege as he would quite literally just argued for it. arguing for c) is against everything white people stand for. Even the lovely hippy liberal types. So he has to opt for a) and rather than just pooh-poohing methods of mitigation or amelioration, instead of sounding skeptical about the existence of white privilege he try to imagine some methods of his own and together maybe we can come to an agreement over how we could lessen white privilege. Sometimes explaining a rhetorical strategy is much more work than just letting it play out
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Sounds like fairly strong evidence for its existence. You asked for an anecdote, so that's what I provided.
Seriously though, this is better than not getting an interview. I actually agree with this.
No. This is what spoiled brats say. You are supposed to feel bad that other people are getting shit on. It's called empathy. Or maybe it's spoiled brats making unreasonable demands to elicit White Guilt. It's called extreme patronage.
It's patronizing and demeaning to point out that white people have more power to effect white culture than black people? Because it implies that they are consummate victims who need to be rescued.
In the USA White people tend to get jobs over equally qualified minorities. White people tend to avoid criminal conviction and/or harsh sentencing compared with equally guilty minorities. White people tend have much more relaxed and controlled police encounters. White people can walk through more neighbourhoods without causing panic in the law abiding locals. The same could be said everywhere since there is an unconscious, tribalistic tendency to gravitate towards things you know. If I were a foreigner somewhere, I might face the same adversities that you are insisting that I should feel bad about. Only, I still wouldn't feel bad about it because on some level, I would expect it.
Analyzing what privileges other races may have looks mean spirited and racist at this point. Why? Because we're white and throwing stones in our glass house filled with crystalware lined with nitro-glycerine. Let's get our own house in order. If African-Americans need to settle matters of privileges with Vietnamese-Americans I say they can handle that without European-American interference. You're missing the point entirely. In the United States, it's no mystery that Anglo-Americans are by and large considered racist towards African-Americans. But Asian-Americans, Latin Americans, etc also have issues with African-Americans. Who then is the common denominator in the equation? The point is that this glass ceiling that some are insistent is foisted upon African-Americans may actually be foisted upon themselves. Not everything can be explained away by White Privilege. With the same breath that you denounce American and British culture for their perceived racism, you forget that they have also offered the most inclusive, most culturally diverse society on the entire planet. Of all the countries on the planet, Canada, the US, the UK, France, Sweden and Germany are undoubtedly the most inclusive, most culturally diverse countries on the planet. So, if it's the teeming cesspool of racism, how is that the case? "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
You asked for an anecdote, so that's what I provided. And I said it provided strong evidence for the existence of white privilege.
Or maybe it's spoiled brats making unreasonable demands to elicit White Guilt. Yes maybe. I have made no unreasonable demands nor attempted to elicit white guilt, but maybe they are spoiled brats. This is definitely something a spoiled person could say:
quote: In response to
quote: I mean, is it really so monstrous of me to suggest that humans being treated unfairly in a way that impacts their lives to a significant degree is something we should all agree is bad, and we should feel bad that this seems interwoven into our present culture. I said 'bad'. I explicitly said "There was nothing in my text that suggests you should feel responsible.", but you seem to want to whine about how I am trying to make you feel guilty. I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE YOU FEEL GUILTYNOR AM I STATING YOU ARE GUILTY ANY GUILT YOU DO HAPPEN TO FEEL IS NOT MY DOING Jeeez, you white guys can be sensitive about white guilt, neh?
Because it implies that they are consummate victims who need to be rescued. But victims of racism are victims. Of racism. It's right their in their description as a group. I don't see anything that implies 'rescue' in my statement. Let me remove all subtlety from my sentence. People who suffer from the effects of white privilege are generally not white. Those non-white people, by virtue of not having white privilege, have less power to influence white culture than you, a white man, does. Indeed, if every single black person wanted white culture to change really really badly....well history has proven it isn't enough. So yes, we need to be responsible for our own culture. And finally on this point. You missed out that this was based on the conditional.
quote: If they can't. If black people are able to stop white people from being racist without any cooperation from white people, then I'm cool with that. I just don't think that's realistic, do you? Do you think that saying that 10% are unlikely to change the culture of the 85% on their own is demeaning to the 10%?
The same could be said everywhere since there is an unconscious, tribalistic tendency to gravitate towards things you know You aren't everywhere. You are in the USA. Where white privilege, the topic of this thread, reigns supreme. So let's not start pointing overseas and saying 'but they do it too...the black man be as guilty as me guvnor!' Such attempts to distract from the mess we have left in our own back garden looks a little pitiable.
If I were a foreigner somewhere, I might face the same adversities that you are insisting that I should feel bad about. You don't think adversities are bad? Are we both using the same language protocol here? And why are we talking about foreigners all of a sudden? African-Americans are not foreigners on US soil. No more than European-Americans are anyway.
But Asian-Americans, Latin Americans, etc also have issues with African-Americans. So did Ghandi. Isn't this pointless?
The point is that this glass ceiling that some are insistent is foisted upon African-Americans may actually be foisted upon themselves. It might be. But 'Latinos hate blacks' is not evidence for this. You had better have a fucking fine argument to back this up, or you get tossed into the 'oblivious racist' discard pile in my mind. They did it to themselves. Cos they is lazy, I suppose?
Not everything can be explained away by White Privilege. You seem to be carrying some baggage from another discussion into this one. It's the only explanation. I've never implied everything can be explained by white privilege. I have asserted white privilege exists.And stated we should work to overcome it. That's really about it. I've given some examples here and there. You raised doubts about white privilegeDismissed attempts to overcome it and then made up a load of stuff to get upset about regarding me trying to induce white guilt in you. I put it to you:a) We try and overcome the problem of privilege using deliberate and thought out methods b) We discriminate against black people b) We discriminate against white people What do you choose?
With the same breath that you denounce American and British culture for their perceived racism I haven't denounced any nation for perceived racism. I don't think I've even brought up British culture. You seem to be making things up. Both cultures have white privileges.
Of all the countries on the planet, Canada, the US, the UK, France, Sweden and Germany are undoubtedly the most inclusive, most culturally diverse countries on the planet. So, if it's the teeming cesspool of racism, how is that the case? I didn't claim them to be teeming cesspools of racism so the paradox doesn't need resolving. You are just making this up too. Just because white people are privileged doesn't mean the culture is a teeming cesspool of racism. The privileges of white people is very often unconscious and unthinkingly enjoyed. As a previous post said, it could be a simple privilege like 'I can enjoy the company of others of my race and culture easily' or something complex like 'I don't have to teach my young children about institutional racism so they might have a chance to protect themselves when they are out of sight'. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
First, this is very lengthy, so I will attempt to truncate it. If you feel that I neglected any critical aspects of your argument, please put them forward and I will address it.
is it really so monstrous of me to suggest that humans being treated unfairly in a way that impacts their lives to a significant degree is something we should all agree is bad, and we should feel bad that this seems interwoven into our present culture. I said 'bad'. I explicitly said "There was nothing in my text that suggests you should feel responsible.", but you seem to want to whine about how I am trying to make you feel guilty. The terms White Privilege and White Guilt are often thrown around synonymously. If this was not your intent, then my apologies. But I'm not making up these terms.
People who suffer from the effects of white privilege are generally not white. Those non-white people, by virtue of not having white privilege, have less power to influence white culture than you, a white man, does. I strenuously disagree with that. People are generally based on their individual merits, not their race. You may be familiar with the term, "White Trash," to denote unsophisticated, uneducated white people who live on the margins of society. I doubt that they would be selected for any job (outside of Walmart) over a sophisticated, educated black candidate. There also seems to be a difference in causative reasons for how we arrive from A to B. Some may look at the statistics of black unemployment and see it as evidence of pervasive racism. Others may look at the same statistics and conclude that it is evidence of cultural disparities which foster self-destructive behavior. Saner minds would probably rightly conclude that both are potential reasons, but that without looking at it on a case by case basis, we really cannot definitively determine the exact cause.
You aren't everywhere. You are in the USA. Where white privilege, the topic of this thread, reigns supreme. So let's not start pointing overseas and saying 'but they do it too...the black man be as guilty as me guvnor!' Such attempts to distract from the mess we have left in our own back garden looks a little pitiable. It is a demonstration that tribal behavior (which is essentially what racism really is) exists everywhere! Ask the thousands of white homeless people we come across every year how that "privilege" is working out for them. More could be said of how decent parenting better facilitates you for success than the color of your skin. A black woman raised in a loving home is probably ten thousand times better prepared for the world than a white man who came from a broken home.
Are we both using the same language protocol here? And why are we talking about foreigners all of a sudden. African-Americans are not foreigners on US soil. No more than European-Americans are anyway. I am demonstrating how foreigners are often better able to be successful in America than African-Americans who are natives. The point is that if White Privilege affects minorities, then how is that these foreigners are so successful in a place so patently racist? Obviously it is not racism, that's why. There are obviously other factors at play.
It might be. But 'Latinos hate blacks' is not evidence for this. You had better have a fucking fine argument to back this up, or you get tossed into the 'oblivious racist' discard pile in my mind. If other cultures are reporting similar experiences then can it really be racism against blacks (could it be the other way around, in other words), and more to the point, can it be specific to White Privilege? You first stated, "minorities." You slowly shifted the focus to "blacks" after I demonstrated that other non-whites were actually, per capita, MORE successful than even whites. So where's the White Privilege in that? I'm not making things up nearly as much as you are shifting the goalpost.
I put it to you: a) We try and overcome the problem of privilege using deliberate and thought out methods b) We discriminate against black people b) We discriminate against white people What do you choose? The point I am trying to get across is that White Privilege is either non-existent Social Justice Warrior nonsense or massively overstated and/or is used as a catch-all excuse to explain other sociological factors. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I strenuously disagree with that. People are generally based on their individual merits, not their race. My statement does not exclude your second sentence here. But do you honestly think that a person of equal status but who is black has more power to change how white people think and behave than a white person? This isn't a racist thing. It's just obvious. A person in a cultural environment has more control over their own culture than an outsider. You aren't utterly powerless, but I bet your attempts to change black culture will be marred with setbacks that wouldn't occur to someone who was the same as you but who was black. I'd suggest you try, but trying to strongarm another race into changing to your liking is a sensitive subject and you may get hurt.
You may be familiar with the term, "White Trash," to denote unsophisticated, uneducated white people who live on the margins of society. I doubt that they would be selected for any job (outside of Walmart) over a sophisticated, educated black candidate. Which is why we've been talking about equally qualified candidates who differ only in their race. Like when we send two identical CVs to companies, one with a name on it that implies a black candidate and one which implies a white one and the 'white guy' (he doesn't exist) gets more interview requests than the black guy.
There also seems to be a difference in causative reasons for how we arrive from A to B. Some may look at the statistics of black unemployment and see it as evidence of pervasive racism. Others may look at the same statistics and conclude that it is evidence of cultural disparities which foster self-destructive behavior. Saner minds would probably rightly conclude that both are potential reasons, but that without looking at it on a case by case basis, we really cannot definitively determine the exact cause. Or we could erase all differences except race (such as the studies discussed above) and watch black people still do worse. It's easier, and more informative, than asking every single person for all of their experiences.
It is a demonstration that tribal behavior (which is essentially what racism really is) exists everywhere! But this isn't in dispute, nor is it on topic.
Ask the thousands of white homeless people we come across every year how that "privilege" is working out for them. I'm going to make a bet that white people are made homeless less often than black people in very similar financial situations. I'm going to bet that it is easier to be a white homeless man than a black homeless woman.
A black woman raised in a loving home is probably ten thousand times better prepared for the world than a white man who came from a broken home. Agreed, the numbers may be off, but yes basically.
I am demonstrating how foreigners are often better able to be successful in America than African-Americans who are natives. The point is that if White Privilege affects minorities, then how is that these foreigners are so successful in a place so patently racist? Obviously it is not racism, that's why. There are obviously other factors at play. We're talking privilege not racism. If foreigners have privilege over black people as well as white people this just means the situation is worse. But we're talking about white privilege not foreigners who are wealthy enough to move country, smart enough to get into colleges etc.
If other cultures are reporting similar experiences then can it really be racism against blacks (could it be the other way around, in other words), and more to the point, can it be specific to White Privilege? It's not the other way around, that's obvious. I don't know what your question means. This is a complex and messy world. I'm not proposing that white privilege is the only thing that affects human relationships.
You first stated, "minorities." You slowly shifted the focus to "blacks" after I demonstrated that other non-whites were actually, per capita, MORE successful than even whites. So where's the White Privilege in that? Assertion is not demonstration. And if you think you have identified something that IS NOT white privilege then it isn't on topic is it? In general, in white countries having an 'ethnic' name does you worse on getting job interviews. That was what I said, and this is something that has been studied, I'm sure I can find you some papers if you doubt this. Since we've been talking about the USA - the main area where white privilege rears its head is in white/black relationships. So focussing on other areas seems less useful.
I'm not making things up nearly as much as you are shifting the goalpost. Here is the goalpost White people have privileges not afforded other races.This includes applying for jobs. Maybe Asians have privileges not afforded white people. That isn't the topic though. We're talking about white privilege. Maybe in one specific sphere you can't find it. Applying to be a basketball player? Black privilege may rear its head. Want to get a grant to go to uni, maybe there is an Asian privilege. But society as a whole, white privilege is the dominant racial privilege. In the USA wealth is probably the biggest privilege factor.
The point I am trying to get across is that White Privilege is either non-existent Social Justice Warrior nonsense or massively overstated and/or is used as a catch-all excuse to explain other sociological factors. Here are 46 examples from the 1980s: Message 169 Your initial point was actually 'assuming white privilege exists what do we do about it?' and that was what my question you are avoiding answering here was addressing. If you think that saying words such as 'assuming' is meant to convey 'that White Privilege is either non-existent Social Justice Warrior nonsense or massively overstated and/or is used as a catch-all excuse to explain other sociological factors. ' then actually you succeeded. In that I guessed your thoughts from your hedging approach to the question. But I couldn't argue direct to that point because you didn't directly make it. Do you dispute that Odewale Gbonka's CV is more likely to passed over in favour of Jonathan Thompson's even if the contents and layout of the CV are identical? And further - if you get turned down for a job, for most jobs you apply for you have the privilege of not worrying 'is it because of my race?'. Even if it wasn't because of their race, living with that anxiety is something most white people are privileged to not worry about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Why "privilege" though? Do you have a preferred word? I mean, the word has been used in this fashion since the turn of the 20th Century... would you prefer another term used at the time, 'the wages of whiteness'? Does that answer my question?
Person A being deprived of something in favour of Person B because Person B has something Person A does not would be an example of Person B's privilege in relation to Person A. So it's only a privilege when I'm getting something in lieu of someone else?
Having one ear at school is likely to result in mocking and bullying. To have a quiet high school life would be considered a privilege to such an individual. So I'm privileged because someone else considers me to be? This is all very convoluted and under-handed. Why not just say that Person A is disadvantaged?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
It's a privilege that can be taken away at a moment's notice, like any other privilege.
People with two legs are not privileged, they're entirely to be expected - two legs is the normal condition for people. Tangle writes:
Coins have two sides. Having an advantage taken away from you - or not being given an advantage in the first place - is what makes you disadvantaged. Can you really not see the similarity between privileged and advantaged?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Does that answer my question? Yes I did. The word 'privilege', like all terminology, was in competition with other terms. Privilege became the standard word to use in the natural selection process that is human discourse. Like how language works generally. You definitely didn't answer my question.
So it's only a privilege when I'm getting something in lieu of someone else? You could look up what the word means.
quote: So I'm privileged because someone else considers me to be? This is all very convoluted and under-handed. It's not convoluted. It's simple. In the example you would have been granted an immunity from one ear related bullying and jibes at high school. You have a privilege that most have, but some do not.
Why not just say that Person A is disadvantaged? Because that's not how English works. In English I can talk about person A's status: disadvantaged. Or person B's. 'Advantaged' is clumsy. Privileged is perfectly cromulent and works well, is in common use, and is a technical term in an academic profession.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024