If You Believe in White Privilege

[Steve Petersen]

White Male Privilege Squandered On Job At Best Buy

 

[Ana the Ist]

The GI Bill was mostly only available to whites - or rather (AFAIK), it was mainly only whites who could take advantage of the perks, like college education and subsidized home loans.

Well at least with that I suppose one could try to come up with a number...you figure out how many whites took advantage of that, how much wealth it created on average...

Then figure out the toll WW2 would've had on the average white soldier (PTSD rates, which they didn't even know how to treat, alcoholism, suicide, etc)...then try to put a dollar amount on that. Subtract the second number from the first...

You might even end up with a positive dollar amount.

To be clear, I'm not saying white privilege isn't real...it is...but like most kinds of privileges, it doesn't translate easily into a dollar amount. In the few cases that one can argue it does...like back when only whites could get a bank loan....those bank loans will still need to be profitable for the person taking out the loan over 50% of the time before a claim that "whites today have disproportionate wealth because of white privilege back in the day" is even worth considering.

 

[Ana the Ist]

White Male Privilege Squandered On Job At Best Buy

My favorite part...

"At press time, the man born into the world’s most affluent and privileged socioeconomic group was spending his 15-minute break silently consuming a sleeve of Donettes purchased out of a vending machine."

Good satire always has an element of truth.

 

[LoAmmi]

The GI Bill was mostly only available to whites - or rather (AFAIK), it was mainly only whites who could take advantage of the perks, like college education and subsidized home loans.

No, I recently attended a speech where a woman was remembered. She joined the military and became part of the only all-women, all-black company in WWII. They sorted mail in the European theater. She was able to use the GI bill to gain a college education and eventually became an educator. Was a fantastic story.

 

[LoAmmi]

To be clear, I'm not saying white privilege isn't real...it is...but like most kinds of privileges, it doesn't translate easily into a dollar amount. In the few cases that one can argue it does...like back when only whites could get a bank loan....those bank loans will still need to be profitable for the person taking out the loan over 50% of the time before a claim that "whites today have disproportionate wealth because of white privilege back in the day" is even worth considering.

I agree that putting a dollar amount on it is not really possible. An example I come back to a lot is that it is harder for a person with an ethnic name to find a job than someone with a more standard name. I don't even think it's a conscious thing on the part of those looking at resumes. We just have a natural tendency to be leery of things that are different.

So, is it possible that because I have a normal name in society I might have been selected for my current job over an equally (or more qualified) candidate with a more ethnic name? Sure, it's possible. Does that mean I should attribute my entire salary toward privilege? Not really.

From what I've been told by black friends, privilege shows itself when I don't have to worry about my name being at the top of the resume or worry about being scrutinized more during my interview due to the color of my skin. It never was supposed to mean whites get a free ride. Anybody saying that is, frankly, misusing the idea.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree that putting a dollar amount on it is not really possible. An example I come back to a lot is that it is harder for a person with an ethnic name to find a job than someone with a more standard name. I don't even think it's a conscious thing on the part of those looking at resumes. We just have a natural tendency to be leery of things that are different.

So, is it possible that because I have a normal name in society I might have been selected for my current job over an equally (or more qualified) candidate with a more ethnic name? Sure, it's possible. Does that mean I should attribute my entire salary toward privilege? Not really.

From what I've been told by black friends, privilege shows itself when I don't have to worry about my name being at the top of the resume or worry about being scrutinized more during my interview due to the color of my skin. It never was supposed to mean whites get a free ride. Anybody saying that is, frankly, misusing the idea.

It's the most common example I've seen as well Lo....I think it's because it's easy to understand. When you think about it though...does the fact that you had to send out twice as many resumes for the same number of interviews as someone else mean you'll be less financially successful than them?

Of course not, it could be that you get the better job, work harder, and make more money. There's no real way of knowing...

When you see white privilege brought up though...it's as if it's an explanation of everything different about the lives of whites and non-whites. It's as if everyone wants everyone to know how hard their lives have been....so they can give themselves a big pat on the back for it. That, or justify their racism.

If you think about it...if white privilege isn't really useful for describing our current social/economic situation....then why ever being it up? To remind people that they caught some breaks in their lives? Or is it to denigrate people because they caught some breaks in their lives?

 

[LoAmmi]

It's the most common example I've seen as well Lo....I think it's because it's easy to understand. When you think about it though...does the fact that you had to send out twice as many resumes for the same number of interviews as someone else mean you'll be less financially successful than them?

Of course not, it could be that you get the better job, work harder, and make more money. There's no real way of knowing...

When you see white privilege brought up though...it's as if it's an explanation of everything different about the lives of whites and non-whites. It's as if everyone wants everyone to know how hard their lives have been....so they can give themselves a big pat on the back for it. That, or justify their racism.

If you think about it...if white privilege isn't really useful for describing our current social/economic situation....then why ever being it up? To remind people that they caught some breaks in their lives? Or is it to denigrate people because they caught some breaks in their lives?

I think it depends on how it's being used and what's being said. If it's being used to knock someone down who got an education, got a good job, got promotions, and became successful then it is bad. The circumstances of an individual are too hard to pin on anything. I think my career is a series of very lucky breaks that were only available because of my education and work ethic. I'm quite serious when I say that I tended to meet the right people at the right time. These people were able to give me an in for jobs that I can't imagine I would have gotten without that in. I fully recognize that someone could have identical education and work ethic and be stuck in the same job I had early in my career. Is it privilege? Maybe, maybe not.

But when we look at society as a whole, it can be useful. If you are a hiring manager, maybe if you understand what it is you won't dismiss a resume with an ethnic name. Maybe you won't hold a black candidate to a higher standard. You might recognize you have some of these things in yourself and actively work to change thing.

In my opinion, a real discussion of privilege is about pushing toward large societal changes so that groups of people don't experience a lack of opportunities due to circumstances outside of their control. I mean, in an ideal world, the name of a person shouldn't have that much to do with what careers are available, right? We should work toward that world even if it's impossible.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think it depends on how it's being used and what's being said. If it's being used to knock someone down who got an education, got a good job, got promotions, and became successful then it is bad. The circumstances of an individual are too hard to pin on anything. I think my career is a series of very lucky breaks that were only available because of my education and work ethic. I'm quite serious when I say that I tended to meet the right people at the right time. These people were able to give me an in for jobs that I can't imagine I would have gotten without that in. I fully recognize that someone could have identical education and work ethic and be stuck in the same job I had early in my career. Is it privilege? Maybe, maybe not.

But when we look at society as a whole, it can be useful. If you are a hiring manager, maybe if you understand what it is you won't dismiss a resume with an ethnic name. Maybe you won't hold a black candidate to a higher standard. You might recognize you have some of these things in yourself and actively work to change thing.

In my opinion, a real discussion of privilege is about pushing toward large societal changes so that groups of people don't experience a lack of opportunities due to circumstances outside of their control. I mean, in an ideal world, the name of a person shouldn't have that much to do with what careers are available, right? We should work toward that world even if it's impossible.

It's hard for me to see personally. I'm not rejecting it outright, mind you, but I've had people on here tell me they think white privilege accounts for 80-90% of the difference in wealth between whites and non-whites. I think maybe its 0.5-5%...and I feel like that's a generous figure. It's like when you tell conservatives to guess what percent of our GDP we give to other nations as foreign aid.....and you get guesses of 10-20%.

My dad had three brothers....they all had the same start, the same dirt poor parents, the same redneck backwoods nowhere town. My mother is from almost the same circumstances.

Of my dad and his three brothers....1 is a destitute alcoholic living mainly on welfare, with one foot in the grave. Another became a teacher...married another teacher....and lived a lower-middle to middle class life in the suburbs. My dad did several things before becoming a federal agent and he's lived a squarely middle class life half in the city....half in the suburbs. Then there's the youngest one who kept going to school...worked 90-100 hour weeks at his first real job....took some big risks....and retired at 45 a multimillionaire. Then came out of retirement for several more million....like 5-6 more times. This guy retired like 5 times before he was 55....mainly because he wanted to just enjoy his life but people kept offering him more and more money to run their businesses for a year or two.

So what part in this did white privilege play? I dunno. I would think it's entirety negligible. Why? Because it's hard to explain that wide of a variety of results without explaining the choices they made...the opportunities they took...and who made the most of them, and who squandered them. They had far more affect on their lives than any "privilege".

 

[LoAmmi]

It's hard for me to see personally. I'm not rejecting it outright, mind you, but I've had people on here tell me they think white privilege accounts for 80-90% of the difference in wealth between whites and non-whites. I think maybe its 0.5-5%...and I feel like that's a generous figure. It's like when you tell conservatives to guess what percent of our GDP we give to other nations as foreign aid.....and you get guesses of 10-20%.

My dad had three brothers....they all had the same start, the same dirt poor parents, the same redneck backwoods nowhere town. My mother is from almost the same circumstances.

Of my dad and his three brothers....1 is a destitute alcoholic living mainly on welfare, with one foot in the grave. Another became a teacher...married another teacher....and lived a lower-middle to middle class life in the suburbs. My dad did several things before becoming a federal agent and he's lived a squarely middle class life half in the city....half in the suburbs. Then there's the youngest one who kept going to school...worked 90-100 hour weeks at his first real job....took some big risks....and retired at 45 a multimillionaire. Then came out of retirement for several more million....like 5-6 more times. This guy retired like 5 times before he was 55....mainly because he wanted to just enjoy his life but people kept offering him more and more money to run their businesses for a year or two.

So what part in this did white privilege play? I dunno. I would think it's entirety negligible. Why? Because it's hard to explain that wide of a variety of results without explaining the choices they made...the opportunities they took...and who made the most of them, and who squandered them. They had far more affect on their lives than any "privilege".

The argument would be that they never had to worry about their resume being rejected out of hand, getting stopped by the police statistically more because of the color of their skin, and so on. You are looking at it the wrong way. I think it's common how a lot of people look at the argument, but it isn't correct.

 

[Allandavid]

Is that some sort of regional expression?

Quite possibly...Australo-English I guess...

 

[tall73]

Probably not. The demographics are such that it's easy to get satisfactory labor even while discriminating. At least for another couple of decades.

Well it is possible that that they could get satisfactory employees, but a lot of business run with a slim margin.

In any case, I am not sure developing the notion of privilege for every white person will wind up resulting in good will or better employment selections. It tends to drive identity politics on both sides.

 

[tall73]

I think it depends on how it's being used and what's being said. If it's being used to knock someone down who got an education, got a good job, got promotions, and became successful then it is bad. The circumstances of an individual are too hard to pin on anything. I think my career is a series of very lucky breaks that were only available because of my education and work ethic. I'm quite serious when I say that I tended to meet the right people at the right time. These people were able to give me an in for jobs that I can't imagine I would have gotten without that in. I fully recognize that someone could have identical education and work ethic and be stuck in the same job I had early in my career. Is it privilege? Maybe, maybe not.

But when we look at society as a whole, it can be useful. If you are a hiring manager, maybe if you understand what it is you won't dismiss a resume with an ethnic name. Maybe you won't hold a black candidate to a higher standard. You might recognize you have some of these things in yourself and actively work to change thing.

In my opinion, a real discussion of privilege is about pushing toward large societal changes so that groups of people don't experience a lack of opportunities due to circumstances outside of their control. I mean, in an ideal world, the name of a person shouldn't have that much to do with what careers are available, right? We should work toward that world even if it's impossible.

But if it is really about discrimination then call it that. Discrimination is something we can identify, something that is illegal, something we can choose to not participate in or sanction. If you are intentionally bypassing a candidate based on race that is something society rejects as immoral.

Saying someone is privileged so we should stigmatize them is not helpful. We should not call what white people experience--lack of discrimination on the basis of race--privilege. We should call that the way things should be. According to our values everyone should have that situation. Those who are being discriminated against are being disadvantaged. Those who are committing acts of discrimination are the problem, not some inherent quality of whiteness.

 

[VirOptimus]

Reading this board one would think that white christians are the most under-priviliged and most repressed class in the US.

That its the most powerful and wealthy group has no effect on socio-economics as there is at least on black friend who has made it. /sarcasm/

 

[Kentonio]

It's hard for me to see personally. I'm not rejecting it outright, mind you, but I've had people on here tell me they think white privilege accounts for 80-90% of the difference in wealth between whites and non-whites. I think maybe its 0.5-5%...and I feel like that's a generous figure. It's like when you tell conservatives to guess what percent of our GDP we give to other nations as foreign aid.....and you get guesses of 10-20%.

My dad had three brothers....they all had the same start, the same dirt poor parents, the same redneck backwoods nowhere town. My mother is from almost the same circumstances.

Of my dad and his three brothers....1 is a destitute alcoholic living mainly on welfare, with one foot in the grave. Another became a teacher...married another teacher....and lived a lower-middle to middle class life in the suburbs. My dad did several things before becoming a federal agent and he's lived a squarely middle class life half in the city....half in the suburbs. Then there's the youngest one who kept going to school...worked 90-100 hour weeks at his first real job....took some big risks....and retired at 45 a multimillionaire. Then came out of retirement for several more million....like 5-6 more times. This guy retired like 5 times before he was 55....mainly because he wanted to just enjoy his life but people kept offering him more and more money to run their businesses for a year or two.

So what part in this did white privilege play? I dunno. I would think it's entirety negligible. Why? Because it's hard to explain that wide of a variety of results without explaining the choices they made...the opportunities they took...and who made the most of them, and who squandered them. They had far more affect on their lives than any "privilege".

I might help if you think of it as a barrier (not a wall) for people who aren’t white, rather than a direct aid to white people. It’s not an insurmountable barrier, working hard and persisting can still get you where you want to be, but it’s a barrier that an equally skilled white person doesn’t have to climb over. They still have all the other barriers of wealth, class, upbringing etc, but it’s just one additional hurdle.

 

[mama2one]

"Experts define White privilege as a combination of exclusive standards and opinions that are supported by Whites in a way that continually reinforces social distance between groups on the basis of power, access, advantage, majority status, control, choice, autonomy, authority, possessions, wealth, opportunity, materialistic acquisition, connection, access, preferential treatment, entitlement, and social standing (Hays & Chang, 2003; Manning & Baruth, 2009)."
Vang, C. T. (2010). An educational psychology of methods in multicultural education. New York: Peter Lang. pp. 36 and 37. ISBN 978-1-4331-0790-0.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No, I recently attended a speech where a woman was remembered. She joined the military and became part of the only all-women, all-black company in WWII. They sorted mail in the European theater. She was able to use the GI bill to gain a college education and eventually became an educator. Was a fantastic story.

To clarify: my understanding is that it wasn't so much that the GI Bill benefits weren't available to blacks, but that the institutions that provided the services that the GI Bill paid for (e.g. banks & colleges) would refuse to serve blacks. No, the denial wasn't universal (there were black colleges, after all), but it was common.

 

[trunks2k]

To clarify: my understanding is that it wasn't so much that the GI Bill benefits weren't available to blacks, but that the institutions that provided the services that the GI Bill paid for (e.g. banks & colleges) would refuse to serve blacks. No, the denial wasn't universal (there were black colleges, after all), but it was common.

Especially when it came to housing. Blacks had a much tougher time buying houses in the post-war era than whites did. While the GI bill enabled a large amount of whites to buy houses in the exploding suburbs, blacks were specifically excluded from that and had a hard time getting the loans to buy houses in their own neighborhoods.

Blacks missed out on one of the biggest gains in wealth. Was it impossible for every black person to buy a house and they ALL missed out? No, but it was waaaaaaaaaaaay harder for them than whites.

 

[RDKirk]

But if it is really about discrimination then call it that. Discrimination is something we can identify, something that is illegal, something we can choose to not participate in or sanction. If you are intentionally bypassing a candidate based on race that is something society rejects as immoral.

I don't think society rejects racial discrimination. Not this society, not yet, not the society that is still controlled by Boomers and War Genners. There is a whole lot of virtue signalling going on, but the Boomers and the War Generations are still greatly motivated by racism. We'll have to die off before there can be clarity on the case with younger generations because we still run the country.

 

[RDKirk]

To clarify: my understanding is that it wasn't so much that the GI Bill benefits weren't available to blacks, but that the institutions that provided the services that the GI Bill paid for (e.g. banks & colleges) would refuse to serve blacks. No, the denial wasn't universal (there were black colleges, after all), but it was common.

There was a certain level of discrimination practiced getting GI Bill benefits, but it was the discrimination beyond that.

Going to a trade school didn't mean a black man was accepted into the trade unions. Getting a degree from a black college didn't mean a black man got a white-collar job. Having VA home loan benefits didn't mean a bank would give you a home loan, nor did it mean you could buy a house on the right side of the tracks.

 

[iluvatar5150]

At this point, it just looks like you're pointing at injustices done to other races and calling that "white privilege "...which can't be correct...

Whites have suffered all kinds of mistreatment from the government, or even other whites....and I'm guessing you don't call that "black privilege"? It's not as if the Germans rounded up 10 million blacks and systemically exterminated them...is that black privilege?

It's not as if my grandparents were Japanese....they didn't get put in internment camps or have the atom bomb dropped on them....is that white privilege as well?

It just seems like there's no difference between "white privilege" and discriminatory policies in our nation's past in your eyes.

If you and I were living in Germany and post-WW2 Germany had only ever kinda-sorta begrudgingly turned itself around with respect to attitudes towards Jews, then yes, I would expect that I would be the beneficiary of Gentile Privilege.

I don't know that singular or short-term events like the bomb and the internment camps can cause much in the way of multi-generational poverty like what we see in the African American community, but if we're going to look at Japan, it's my understanding that they have a fair amount of anti-Chinese bias. So, I would expect that there would be some amount of privilege in Japan enjoyed by folks who aren't Chinese.

Other regions have other dynamics. In the US, the biggest example of discrimination

So when you say "a good chunk" give me a percentage to work with...

To answer your question, I would have to be able to put a value on generations of family stability and reinforcement of the high correlation between hard work, choices, and outcomes. I have no idea how to make that calculation. Perhaps an economist or sociologist could, but I can't.

But if we want to make some crude estimates:

Let's assume that wealth is passed down perfectly from one generation to the next and that that wealth sees linear growth (neither of those is true btw). In that case, if my parents had been, say, half as wealthy due to their race, then I would be half as wealthy as I am today just because I started off with less.

But wealth doesn't grow linearly. It grows exponentially. So, their being half as wealthy could've led to my being, say, only one quarter as wealthy as I am now.

because the things you're talking about seem to have less to do with being white and more to do with the choices your grandparents made (and honestly, good for them for never being bankrupt or struggling with poverty).

So...out of 100% of the wealth they passed on to you...what percent would you call the fruits of their labor/decisions and what percent would you call "white privilege"?

Yes, my family has made a lot of good choices. But a lot of black families made good choices, too. The difference is that my family didn't have the benefits of those choices taken or blocked from them.

That doesn't create wealth for your family though....it's not as if some guy from the government showed up one day when your great grandfather went to work and handed every white guy a check for 200$ cuz they threw some of the local blacks in jail....right? White privilege is about unearned benefits...

So what's the unearned benefit that created this "decent chunk of wealth"?

White privilege is also about not suffering negative consequences related to the color of your skin.

Maybe...but my guess is that if we take a peek at dropout rates, that theory of yours won't hold up.

Unless you want to argue that whites are forcing black students to dropout of school at disproportionately higher rates than whites.

Forcing? No. Contributing to the underlying causes? Maybe.