White Privilege

Phat writes:

quote:

---

I believe that people should be chosen strictly based on ability. Why not leave names and other data that identifies a cultural racial profile and judge workers entirely on merit?

---

That's a lovely idea that is impossible to achieve. You don't interact with "merit." The people in your office don't leave their names and "other data" at the door. Your resume doesn't merely list "neutral" data. Which college did you go to? Hmmm..."historically black." What did you major in? "Male dominated." That internship you did with Lambda Legal? "Gay."And then, of course, you come in for an interview and any pretense of "neutrality" and "anonymity" goes out the window.And should you actually get the job, you now have to deal with the myriad ways in which the reality of who you are is going to be used against you.Being white, male, Christian, straight, etc. doesn't mean you're going to have a perfect life. There are poor whites, poor men, poor Christians, poor straights. But even those who are poor are better off if they are white, male, Christian, straight.The idea that your parents "worked hard," while probably true so far as it goes, ignores all the benefits they received for being part of the majority. Privilege is not a magic wand. You don't get to wave it say, "I'm Elmer J. Fudd. Where's my mansion and yacht?"But few people will question you for why you have a mansion and a yacht. Do you really deny "driving while black" as a real thing?From 2008 to 2013, would it surprise you to learn that not a single unarmed white person was shot by the cops in New York City? How many times do we have to hear about the cops allowing a white person who is actually brandishing a weapon and shooting at the cops to be taken in without any gunfire on the part of the police while them immediately shooting black people for simply holding a toy gun in a toy store that sells toy guns before we consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, white people are not treated the same way as black people?

quote:

---

I don't feel that my generation should be punished due to the sins of our forefathers

---

What makes you think the sins aren't yours?Edited by Rrhain, : Combining responses to two posts into one.

Tangle writes:

quote:

---

As soon as you label an entire class of people - based in this case only on the colour of their skin - with an negative value, you are being divisive. And, racist.

---

Logical error: False equivalency.You are arguing that the fight against racism is racist because it makes racists uncomfortable to be identified as racists.

quote:

---

It's not a privilege to walk down a street unassailed by the state - it's a right.

---

You ignore the fact that you have the privilege of not having to worry about it. Plenty of non-white people walk down the street unassailed by the state. But they wonder whether or not this is the time that lucky streak will end. Even when things are going well, you are always waiting for the other shoe to drop.

quote:

---

The solution is not to condemn those that don't suffer the oppression

---

You are not being condemned for having the privilege.You are being condemned for refusing to acknowledge that reality and getting defensive when it is pointed out.Let's try another tack: "You didn't build that." So many people got upset over that idea (a massive misquote) since they thought it meant that they didn't work hard to achieve their success.Instead, it was pointing out all the benefits and assistance that was given that allowed that success to happen. Sure, your business is successful, but it does not exist in a vacuum. You didn't build the roads that lead up to it. You didn't build the electrical generators that supply the power or the water filtration plants and sewer systems that manage the water. You didn't build the schools that educated you, the banks that funded you, or the inherited money you acquired. Indeed, you worked for your success...with a lot of help. And it is telling when someone gets upset over having that pointed out or denies that he was the beneficiary of that help.Privilege works the same way: As a member of the dominant culture, you have the luxury of having assistance from others that you would not receive were you not so. Nobody blames anybody for being born into the dominant culture or having such privilege thrust upon you.Denying that it exists and getting defensive when it is demonstrated, on the other hand....

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are arguing that the fight against racism is racist because it makes racists uncomfortable to be identified as racists.

---

I am doing no such thing. I am arguing that calling all white people privileged is as racist as calling all black people lazy or whatever stereotypical slander you can think of.

---

And there. You did it again. The fight against racism is somehow racist because it makes racists uncomfortable to be identified as racists.Racism is based upon power. Now indeed, since you seem to need to have spelled out explicitly, not all situations have power in the hands of white people. Power is based upon structural forms and depending upon who is around and what the situation is, what power exists due to race can change.But in general, in the American society, white people have more power than non-white people. And thus, "all white people" are privileged. Privilege is not a magic wand. When you make an illegal U-turn, it's not like you can can tell the cop, "Hey, I'm white," and have him let you off with a warning. But if you are white, the cop is more likely to let you off with a warning than if you aren't.That's privilege.And it extends to all white people in this society.

quote:

---

You also say I'm being defensive.

---

Well, you are. It doesn't matter if your defensiveness is personal or not. You're being defensive about the establishment of privilege as a real thing.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could consider that I'm simply arguing a fair position.

---

That would require a fair position to be your argument. This is another example of your defensiveness.

quote:

---

My argument is that this is no reason to abuse sectors of society that aren't oppressed in this way.

---

And has been pointed out to you, recognizing privilege is not "abuse." To get defensive, as you are, about having that privilege recognized is the issue.

quote:

---

It is an argument for those that are better off to do something about it.

---

And the first step is to recognize the existence of privilege and to check it. The first step is to not get defensive when someone points it out. The first step is to stop claiming "abuse."Yes, all white people.

Tangle writes:

quote:

---

Whites are not privileged. Some whites enjoy the rights that all people are supposed to have. As do some blacks.

---

Incorrect. The fact remains that no matter how much success a black person has, he's still black and will be treated as black.Do you know the story of Bryan Stevenson? He's a black lawyer who, when sitting in his car outside of his apartment listening to the radio, had a SWAT unit called on him, pulling a gun on him, and an officer shouting, "Move and I'll blow your head off."And this was Atlanta, not exactly known for having a small black community.The neighbors came out during this and started telling the cops to search him for things that had been stolen. Which they did. And when it was over, them having found nothing in their illegal search, he asked for an apology and rather than getting one, was told that he was lucky that he didn't have anything on him "this time."So no, not "some blacks." No matter how successful you may be, you are still black and will still be treated as black. There's always another shoe to drop at some point.From 2008 to 2013, not a single unarmed white person was shot by the cops in New York City.When white people are brandishing weapons and shooting at police officers during a car chase, they somehow manage to get captured without getting shot.For you to then claim that "whites are not privileged" is to deny reality. It is an insult to a whole class of people to imply that they aren't being suppressed by society just because they aren't white.

quote:

---

My argument is that you cannot slander a whole sector of the population by calling them 'privileged' - in the negative way that is intended

---

And that's where you fail and where your defensiveness is showing.It isn't "negative." The problem is not being white in a white society. It's refusing to recognize the reality of what that means and how it has affected you and how it colors your view of the world and what you expect of others. It's very much akin to the Libertarian foolishness. Remember Hobby Lobby? A common refrain among Libertarians was to say, "If you don't like the benefits you get at your job, find another job." That assumes that there are an infinite number of employers offering an infinite number of jobs with an infinite array of benefits packages and the only reason why you don't have the one that suits your needs is because you're too lazy to find it.That's a view that smacks of privilege. It's an argument made by someone who has a decent job with decent benefits who doesn't live in an area where there aren't any jobs let alone one with decent benefits and sufficient pay to live on.Nobody thinks it is "negative" to have a good job with good benefits. But what is "negative" is to ignore the reality that no, you didn't build that; despite the work you did put in, you were still handed a significant portion of that specifically and precisely because of your race.All white people. This country was built upon race and we haven't overcome it yet. A person born today is still benefitting from the legacy of racism that has led up to this point. When your parents go looking for a school for you, they're going to try and find the best one they can. But that school was not built in a vacuum. It, too, has benefited from the racism of our culture and how money is spent.This isn't the child's fault or even the parents' fault. Nobody is blaming them for trying to do the best that they can given the world they actually live in. It is not a "negative" that they are doing so.Denying the reality of that situation, however.....

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

Don't worry, I tire of being patronised very quickly.

---

Good. Then perhaps you'll quickly stop being defensive.

quote:

---

Being white does not equal being racist.

---

Nobody said it did.Being white in this society does mean, however, that you are a beneficiary of white privilege. This is the part you keep failing to recognize and claim is somehow a "negative" to recognize.

quote:

---

Classifying all white people as racist, is racist. It's not a hard thing to undestand. A blaket statement claiming that white people are racist, is, by definition a racist statement.

---

How fortunate that nobody did that. Do you really not understand the difference between being the beneficiary of racism and actively continuing that racism? That someone else is holding an umbrella over your head doesn't mean you are trying to get anybody else wet. But to deny that the umbrella exists, that you are benefitting from it, and then to get defensive when someone points out that the umbrella is there is a problem.Indeed, it is not a hard thing to understand. That is why you're getting so much pushback.Talk about patronizing.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

You and others here use the term 'white priviledge' to negatively label an entire class of people indiscriminately based entirely and only on the colour of their skin

---

Incorrect. You keep claiming "negative" when that simply isn't true.Privilege isn't a magic wand that you wield to benefit yourself. It's something that others bestow upon you. You don't get to tell the cop, "I'm white," and then get the cop to only give you a warning rather than shoot you. But if you are white, you are more likely to have the former happen than the latter.What is negative is to deny that such this is the case. What is negative is to get defensive when this reality is pointed out.

quote:

---

Great swathes of white American society are disadvantaged

---

Indeed. As I directly stated to you, privilege isn't a magic wand. You don't get to wave it and say, "I'm Elmer J. Fudd," and suddenly become a millionaire who owns a mansion and a yacht. Of course there are disadvantaged white people.But they are privileged compared to disadvantaged non-white people.Privilege doesn't mean your life is perfect. It means that your life is likely to be better than someone in the same situation who doesn't have your privilege. Poor white people don't have political parties calling them "welfare queens" in order to win elections, for example. You are trying to say that because there are successful black people, that means there is no privilege; that because there are poor white people, this means they aren't privileged. Nobody is saying that all white people have it better than all non-white people.It's that if you have two people who are in the same situation, the privileged person will likely have a better outcome than the non-privileged person. Not because the privileged person is deliberately trying to keep the non-privileged person down but because society is set up to give the privileged person more help, the benefit of the doubt, the break. A black person is more likely to be stopped, more likely to be questioned, more likely to be detained, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged, more likely to be prosecuted, more likely to be tried, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to receive a harsher sentence than a white person. That doesn't mean there aren't any white people in prison. It's that if you're white, the system is going to treat you better than if you're black.Your continued attempt to deny this is divisive and a continuance of the racial difference problem that we see. It dismisses the lives of those who aren't part of the dominant culture and pretends that their experiences don't count.

xongsmith writes:

quote:

---

Maybe "privilege" has a distant connotation to the Queen of France saying "let them eat cake" for some of us?

---

But that is a side effect of privilege: You often don't realize you have it due to the systemic nature of the privilege and you end up viewing the world through that lens of your privilege. If you live in a world where there is bread and cake and muffins and more, it can be difficult to comprehend that there are people that don't have that. The problem isn't that someone is rich. It's when someone who is rich acts as if someone who is not rich has the same abilities as they do. As the cliche goes, the fish doesn't see the water it swims in.That's where the phrase, "check your privilege," comes from. Nobody faults anybody for having privilege. It's refusing to recognize it that is the fault. It's why the "#AllLivesMatter" backlash is the problem: It isn't that white people don't have problems. It's that black lives have different problems that need to be addressed directly in order to have them fixed and to sidetrack and distract from that focus will ensure that they never get fixed. The problems of white people are rarely because they are white. Black people have the same problems and racism on top of them. To focus only on the commonalities is to ignore the racism which means it will never get better because the racism makes the common problems worse.As an example: The War on Drugs has exploded our prison population. And yet, despite the fact that white people and black people have similar levels of drug use, black people are more likely to be convicted and will be sentenced more harshly. Dismantling the War on Drugs is a good thing, but it doesn't solve the racism inherent in the justice system independent of the War on Drugs which means black people will still have worse outcomes when they come into contact with the justice system.

Tangle writes:

quote:

---

A man with both legs is not privileged amongst a group of veterans with no legs.

---

When the society in which he lives assumes that everybody has two legs, treats those who have two legs better, and cannot comprehend that there are members of society who don't have two legs, blaming them for not having two legs, and presuming that those who don't have two legs have only themselves to blame for their situation, then yes, a man with both legs is privileged.He's not going around deliberately trying to keep amputees down. He's simply benefitting from the better treatment he is receiving from the world around him. That isn't a negative.Denying that he is receiving that benefit is negative. Getting defensive when those benefits are pointed out is negative. Ignoring the lives of those who don't have legs is negative.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

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.

---

Incorrect. It doesn't mean that at all. That's why you keep failing. Despite having the term explicitly explained to you and shown how it is never used the way you claim it is, you continue to insist that it means something that it doesn't.Continuing to insist upon this untrue thing is divisive and insulting. It borders on racism for it denies the reality of those who aren't white and your continued obstinancy alienates those around you and results in the opposite of what it is you claim to be fighting for. After all, Jon is dismissing the entire BLM campaign over the actions of two individuals who aren't even related to BLM.If you dismiss the non-privileged people who are describing the reality of their situation, you are precisely the problem.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

Except that you explain in the analogy that that is EXACTLY what it actually means when it is being used.

---

Incorrect. I explain it exactly opposite to the way you claim.The existence of privilege is not a claim against the one who has the privilege. It is a claim against the society that creates it. Because even people who are not in the dominant group often help to sustain the privilege. Do you not know of the studies regarding how children view race? An array of identical cartoon people are shown to children, wearing the same thing and in the same pose, the only difference being the skin color ranging from very pale to very deep. They are then asked to indicate which one is the "most friendly" or "most naughty" or "most likely to help you" or "most likely to get in trouble."And across all races, children associate being lighter skinned with more positive traits and being darker skinned with more negative traits. Even black people have this vision of black people being not as worthy and it starts early.Again, this doesn't mean that any white person is actively trying to keep black people down. But it does mean that he lives in a world that is going to lift him up. To deny that reality is the problem because it means that it will never go away. By refusing to acknowledge the way society works, often through unconscious means, to perpetuate racism, you guarantee that racism will continue to flourish.

quote:

---

This is what you said in response to the no-leg/both legs analagy - my emphasis.

​

He's not going around deliberately trying to keep amputees down. He's simply benefitting from the better treatment he is receiving from the world around him. That isn't a negative.

The implication is that the white man is deliberately keeping the black man down

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? A direct statement that the white person is not doing something is an implication that he is?Privilege isn't something you wield over others. It's something that others place upon you. That's why it is not, cannot be a negative against the person who has it. You don't get to tell other people that you're white and demand that they treat you better. It's something they do all on their own. How can you possibly be at fault for the behaviour of other people? You didn't create the view in their mind about how white people are. You didn't make them consider you in another way. You didn't make them decide to treat you differently. But they still did. You are still being treated better because of your race.That isn't your fault.But to deny that reality is your fault. To get angry or upset because it's being pointed out is your fault.

quote:

---

which I say is a racist slander that can only harm society as a whole by labelling all white people as oppressors.

---

Then how fortunate that the only person who made that claim was you. The only person trying to insinuate that "white privilege" is a "racist slander" that "labels all white people as oppressors" is you.

quote:

---

I've repeated myself too much to no avail, 'there's none so blind as wil not see.'

---

Physician, heal thyself.

Jon quotes CNS.Really? You expect us to take CNS seriously? A racist, sexist, homophobic source is where you're going to for intelligent analysis on discrimination?Let's take a look at what it brings up:* Black-on-black crime. How does black-on-black crime have any bearing on white cops killing black people? Let's ignore the fact that the subject itself is completely invalid (that somehow blacks are "more criminal" than whites...can you smell the racism?) I want to understand how even if it were true it is relevant. How does the action of blacks with regard to each other justify a white cop's killing of a black person?* Out-of-wedlock births. Again, what does this have to do with anything?* War on Poverty/affirmative action claims that black people have been recipients of undeserving welfare making them morally broken. It even claims that there is "black privilege" because of this.I love this quote: Hah! Look at the conversation we're having.So I have to ask again: What on earth were you thinking using CNS as a source?Edited by Rrhain, : Fixed a formatting issue.

Jon responds to me:

quote:

---

But about half the people participating in this thread are telling you that that's exactly what it means to them.

---

Just because two million people do a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing. We don't accept the false claims of creationists about what evolution means because they are wrong. They don't understand what it is or how it works, so why should we pretend that there is some "controversy"?I get that Tangle wants it to be a slur against white people, but the only person making it so is him.And then there's you, who tries to palm off a racist as some sort of legitimate source to consider with regard to race.

quote:

---

Can't you give it up for the sake of getting somewhere?

---

Strange, that's my argument to you. It is a very meaningful term, provokes quite a bit of thought, and solves actual problems so it really is a wonder why you're so upset over it.Can't you give up your obstinacy for the sake of getting somewhere? Your claims are trivially shown to be false by simple inspection. Remember, you're the one who is dismissing an entire movement based upon the actions of two people who aren't actually connected to the movement.As a friend of mine put it, if your outlook can be changed by someone talking to you for fifteen minutes, then it wasn't your outlook to begin with.So let's be honest: You never really had any respect for the Black Lives Matter movement.

...Edited by Rrhain, : Got posted twice somehow.

Jon responds to me:

quote:

---

A source for what?

​

I was just looking around for other opinions.

---

You went to a known racist, sexist, homophobic source looking for an "other opinion" about discrimination.And you didn't think you were going to get called out on it?Would you go to Answers in Genesis for an "other opinion" about evolution? The Discovery Institute? Did you even bother to read what you referenced?The fact that there are "other opinions" out there doesn't mean they are worth anything. You can't be that naive, can you?

Jon responds to me:

quote:

---

You care so little about the welfare of African Americans that you cannot give up your bimboisms so that you and people who agree with you can stop arguing about terminology and get to the issue of how to solve real problems. While you accuse everyone else of being petty, you yourself refuse to take the high road.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!Oh, that is just so precious. The irony is strong in you. You who have dismissed an entire movement who is actually working to improve the lives of black people all because you saw two people who weren't even connected to that movement do something that you didn't like, holding black people to an impossible standard, complaining about the terminology they used to express their life experience and you have the gall to complain that I am somehow the one at fault.You go to a site that is a cesspool of racism as a source of an "other opinion" about discrimination and you complain that you get called out on it?You are so glued to the term "white privilege" because you can't get past the fact that the people who came up with the concept and are fighting against it don't actually use it the way you wish they would. Going around pretending that you are somehow "above it" may help you sleep at night with dreams of holier-than-thou righteousness, but it doesn't get black people out of prison; it doesn't keep bullets out of bodies; it doesn't put kids in school.I looked at your new thread. You don't seem to have noticed that your first graph is immediately contradicted by your second graph. You don't seem to have noticed that black fathers are actually more involved and yet blacks still have worse outcomes. You have neglected to account for the systemic racism that puts black people into a position of having a broken home and then blame them for being in that situation.Of course, that falls into the gender essentialism falsehood that somehow it's the presence of a male parent that is the contributing factor.Fake response to real problems, typical racism.