White Privilege

Hi, Cat Sci.

quote:

---

"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

​

- Albert Einstein, I mean Obi-Wan Kenobi

---

Hi, Modulous. I agree: pragmatism often requires us to accept that inequality is real and solutions are always imperfect. 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?

Hi, Modulous. No, I think you followed me close enough. Perhaps I can help clarify a little bit: 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?

Hi, Modulous. Oops! I suppose I did overlook some of the context there. Sorry about that.I guess being a White guy has caused me to develop some latent sensitivities to the subject.At the risk of sounding even more like a White apologist, I'd like to delve a bit further into this topic.The original comment I responded to was this:

quote:

---

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?

---

The phraseology was clearly chosen to make it sound like being unfair to White people would in fact be... well, fair. You tried to appeal to a sense of fairness in a scenario where the explicit point was to be unfair. But, it's not actually fair: it's just unfairness crafted to look like justice; and it only looks like justice if you think White people should be held responsible for what other White people have done.I think this is what sparked my original knee-jerk reaction, but I couldn't figure out how to express it properly until now.If we're going to be racially unfair, it can't be predicated on trying to determine which race "deserves" the unfairness: it has to be based on more pragmatic principles. For example, if the USA chooses to be unfair to White people, we'd be effectively handicapping two-thirds of our population. That doesn't make a lot of sense from an economic or social perspective, even if the White people are willing to nominally submit to it.

Hi, Cat Sci. I imagine "privilege" is appealing as a term because it sounds like something Black people can't control and can't be held responsible for; just like "deprived" is appealing to you because it sounds like something White people can't control and can't be held responsible for.We all like the words that absolve us of responsibility. You're trying to force an objective frame of reference onto a Relativistic problem.From your frame of reference, they are "down there" (poor them).
From their frame of reference, you are "up there" (lucky you).

Hi, Cat Sci. That's funny: because I often get the impression that my participation is not particularly welcome. Of course, that may just be my inferiority complex talking.

Hi, Modulous. Well, I certainly don't disagree that you used the word "unfair." Personally, I won't: I'm a total coward. I take psychiatric medication to help me overcome my fear of social interactions: there's no way in hell I'm going to start a social revolution, even if I believed strongly in it (which, in this case, I don't). I respect the argument you've made, and I agree that it's a completely valid and legitimate argument. But I can't but feel like you just took 313 words to say pretty much the exact same thing I said, which is that you phrased it specifically to give the impression that being unfair to White people is fair (or fairer), for historical reasons. Yes, I suppose I neglected a lot of the specifics here. Hmm.Perhaps my overall argument can be reduced to little more than an objection to your rhetorical style. I'll need to think about it some more to decide if there's really anything else I object to.

Hi, Modulous. Yeah, I guess I understand that what you were doing was rather more nuanced than what I said, and it all makes sense.I think my ultimate disfavor with it stems from the fact that it was an emotional manipulation. I wanted to gloss the discussion with an air of pragmatism and logic, mainly because the emotions and politics are hazardous; but you were trying to force a confrontation with emotions. It made the whole thing very uncomfortable, which I suppose was the purpose you had in mind.In spite of all that, I'm still very uncomfortable relying on emotion to make this kind of decision. Life would be a lot easier if we all stopped pretending that French is a useful language. Interesting. You should use this in a Turing test sometime.Still, even after you explain it, I can't help but think that Hyro's (and my) objections were at least partially justified. I mean, from one example that you used on me: Since I think we're still talking about who gets the job/interview, presumably I should feel White Guilt if I was hired instead of an equally-qualified Black candidate.I feel like it's perfectly reasonable and appropriate to then ask, "If the employer instead hired the equally-qualified Black candidate, should he feel Black Guilt?"Is that just a standard defense? Or is it a legitimate and honest question being asked?I think I can work out on my own that we should assume a "race factor" in the equation. That is, we should assume that being Black holds people back in some ways, so that a Black candidate's credentials most likely underestimate their ability, but a White candidate's credentials will more accurately estimate their ability.But, if you that aspect of the reasoning isn't explained, interpreting it as an accusation seems like a rather logical conclusion.

The preceding was a list of comments people don't usually make when they understand the concept of a bell curve. When trying to discuss large groups of people, working with population averages is really the only valid approach one can take. This, on the other hand, is one of the truest things that has ever been spoken by a person who grew up speaking English and singing "The Little Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly."