A reply to nobody, setting out my own views.
On consideration, it seems to me that the notion of privilege (in the sense of privileged groups rather than individual privilege) is a decent rule of thumb to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable discrimination. In many cases the discrimination might no do more than counter-balance other discrimination, that may be going on quite unconsciously, which should make it pragmatically acceptable even if the motives behind it are less than pure.
But I am worried about the idea that it defines racism in any more general sense. Racism includes ideas of racial superiority, race hate, and racial prejudice. I don't think that, for instance a neo-Nazi would be any less of a racist if he were living in Israel, where Jews are arguably privileged. It's easy to think of other examples. Would a Japanese man who considers the Japanese race to be superior to all others cease to be a racist if he moved from Japan where he is privileged to a nation where he is not ? The idea makes no sense to me. It seems to me that ideas of racial superiority, race hate and racial prejudice should be considered racist regardless of privilege.
And the same should apply to any other -isms where prejudice and the like are involved, like sexism.
Following on from this, if racism includes racial prejudice then I think that the term should also be used to included discrimination based on racial prejudice. Which is why I regard privilege as only useful as a rule of thumb to determine acceptability. A pragmatic guideline, not a truth.
™ Version 4.2
