If You Believe in White Privilege

[tall73]

I assume you've heard of implicit bias?

Yes.

Do you assert that every person is afraid around black people? Because they are not.

I have not argued that people have no biases. I have argued that a method that leaves you still afraid of black people for no reason is not a working method.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Yes.

Do you assert that every person is afraid around black people? Because they are not.

I have not asserted that.

My turn: do you assert that you have no implicit bias whatsoever, based on race?

I have not argued that people have no biases. I have argued that a method that leaves you still afraid of black people for no reason is not a working method.

Great. This thread is still about white privilege, right?

 

[jayem]

I've been very fortunate. I was able to get medical training and had a 40+ year career in health care. It provided a good income and a fairly high net worth. But many more factors than race were involved. I had good, supportive parents who never pushed me, but still expected academic success. (Though they could only provide partial financial support. Like most middle-class students, I had loans.) I had good teachers. And I had a good brain that could absorb, retain, and recall facts easily. And I had the motivation to put in the time and hard work. Which is crucially important in medical education. So like any experiment where multiple factors are in play, one has to control all the variables in order to gauge the effect of any one in particular. In my case, I'd have to imagine if everything in my history was the same, except that I was black instead of white. I'd like to think the outcome would be at least 75% the same. But this is purely a guess.

 

[tall73]

I have not asserted that.

No, which is why I asked.

My turn: do you assert that you have no implicit bias whatsoever, based on race?

That is hard to say. I am sure I could take a test that is hard to reproduce results the same way the second time to find out. But when people talk about bias in regards to being afraid of people, they know whether they are or not.

If I did find I had a bias, what should my response be? This is not an academic question for me. I was raised by racist parents who were themselves raised by racist parents. I rejected their world view, and accepted the view I learned of God that all people were created by Him, and He sent His Son to die for all people.

When my parents express their thinking I challenge it. If I were ever to register their thinking in my own thoughts, I would challenge it as well. But I do not find that this process of thinking should last forever. If my mind is transformed to a different view, I don't have to constantly deal with the old view. That is not an instantaneous process, but it should not last forever either.

Great. This thread is still about white privilege, right?

Of course it is. And the whole point of talking about white privilege is what? To try to address thinking patterns? To realize an advantage one had?

But the term is not actually doing just that. It is labeling a whole group, the same way that racists labeled a whole group before. And if it is not contributing to removing racist thinking, but may even be causing a reaction among whites, then it may not be helpful if your goal is to remove racist thinking.

 

[tall73]

To put it another way, if the group in the majority is the one that is contributing primarily to the disadvantage of a group in the minority, then any hoped for solutions to this should address the thinking of the group in the majority in a way that is most likely to get good results.

Saying that someone has privilege will probably be about as effective as telling someone who was born into a well to do family that they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. It is a derogatory way of saying they contributed nothing to their own success. It is more likely to make them defensive than reflective. They had no control over the family they were born into.

But they do have control over their own actions and how they treat people.

 

[PeachyKeane]

No, which is why I asked.



That is hard to say. I am sure I could take a test that is hard to reproduce results the same way the second time to find out. But when people talk about bias in regards to being afraid of people, they know whether they are or not.

If I did find I had a bias, what should my response be? This is not an academic question for me. I was raised by racist parents who were themselves raised by racist parents. I rejected their world view, and accepted the view I learned of God that all people were created by Him, and He sent His Son to die for all people.

When my parents express their thinking I challenge it. If I were ever to register their thinking in my own thoughts, I would challenge it as well. But I do not find that this process of thinking should last forever. If my mind is transformed to a different view, I don't have to constantly deal with the old view. That is not an instantaneous process, but it should not last forever either.



Of course it is. And the whole point of talking about white privilege is what? To try to address thinking patterns? To realize an advantage one had?

But the term is not actually doing just that. It is labeling a whole group, the same way that racists labeled a whole group before. And if it is not contributing to removing racist thinking, but may even be causing a reaction among whites, then it may not be helpful if your goal is to remove racist thinking.

I'll respond to the rest of this in a bit. For now, if calling out racism causes more racism, should non-whites just go along to get along?

 

[tall73]

I'll respond to the rest of this in a bit. For now, if calling out racism causes more racism, should non-whites just go along to get along?

Calling out racism is not the same as attributing racism to all members of a particular group, or saying that all members of a particular group benefit from racism.

I call out racist actions or comments. I do not attribute them to people who have not expressed such.

Nor would I call the ability to live without being judged on the basis of race a privilege. I would call it a right of all people that is too often violated.

 

[tall73]

There are definitely racists out there. And they are not sitting around wondering if they are racist. They are not taking surveys to see if they have any bias they missed. They talk about it, encourage it, make jokes about it, and are quite open about it.

I have seen some of them change. But they certainly don't change by saying they are privileged. They would often agree with you and go on to say all the ways they think other races are inferior.

That is what we have to deal with, far more than a successful white person who rightly recognizes they didn't have to face what others did.

 

[RDKirk]

Sorry, but the racist knows they are racist. They are not really cluelessly passing these folks by.

That's not true, more often than not today.

This is something we were discovering happening in the military by the 90s. We supervisors determined that we did have unconscious biases that crept in to the way we rated and mentored our subordinates.

This could be something like at performance review time, Sergeant Jimmy Smith remembers that Airman Jane Doe calls in sick every 28 days, but doesn't remember that Airman Mike Jackson comes in late the Monday after every payday.

It happens. And it's tough to spot and weed out, because when Sergeant Smith mentions "a problem with reliability" in Airman Does' performance report, she can't object that he's wrong, but if he doesn't mention the same issue in Airman Jackson's report...Jackson isn't going to complain.

 

[tall73]

That's not true, more often than not today.

This is something we were discovering happening in the military by the 90s. We supervisor determined that we did have unconscious biases that crept in to the way we rated and mentored our subordinates.

This could be something like at performance review time, Sergeant Jimmy Smith remembers that Airman Jane Doe calls in sick every 28 days, but doesn't remember that Airman Mike Jackson comes in late the Monday after every payday.

It happens.

In the scenario you gave that could happen with any two service people, regardless of race. You may have some reason you remember the shortcomings of one more than the other.

But if it is racially motivated, you don't think the person knows that?

Being aware that we need to document any actions that we will hold against someone's employment is common practice, regardless of race, because of this fact. It should always be necessary to evaluate based on factual data.

The added element of possible racial discrimination makes it all the more necessary to go by factual data.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Calling out racism is not the same as attributing racism to all members of a particular group, or saying that all members of a particular group benefit from racism.

Okay. You feel that white privilege attributes racism to all white people?

I call out racist actions or comments. I do not attribute them to people who have not expressed such.

Have you considered that not all racism is explicit?

Nor would I call the ability to live without being judged on the basis of race a privilege. I would call it a right of all people that is too often violated.

Well, for the sake of the thread, let's call it a privilege. Just so we stick with the terms in the OP.

 

[tall73]

Okay. You feel that white privilege attributes racism to all white people?

I think that the way the term is used attributes benefits to all white people that are not perks or privileges, but are what should be a right for all.

However, I also think that nearly every conversation I have been in when discussing it, the notion that went along with it was that whether people realize it or not they are all acting in racist ways. And that their privilege entailed not only being free from discrimination, but being blissfully unaware of all the ways they were discriminating.

That seems to be what has been asserted in this thread so far as well.

Have you considered that not all racism is explicit?

I will need you to spell that out to understand what you are asking. But until discrimination is performed, there is not much I could say about it. I do not read people's thoughts.

Well, for the sake of the thread, let's call it a privilege. Just so we stick with the terms in the OP.

If we went by the terms in the OP you still wouldn't be posting. No thanks. I will not refer to the notion that people should not be discriminated against as a privilege. People should not be discriminated against, and being free from it should not be the perk but the norm. And those who have that condition now, to whatever degree they have it, should not be resented for it.

We should resent those who are actually taking steps to deprive others of it, or are acting in a way that is discriminatory.

Methods can be designed to try to weed out unintended bias. But that is for things beyond just race as well. I don't think talking about white privilege is one of the methods to help weed out actual discrimination.

 

[iluvatar5150]

In the scenario you gave that could happen with any two service people, regardless of race. You may have some reason you remember the shortcomings of one more than the other.

But if it is racially motivated, you don't think the person knows that?

Being aware that we need to document any actions that we will hold against someone's employment is common practice, regardless of race, because of this fact. It should always be necessary to evaluate based on factual data.

The added element of possible racial discrimination makes it all the more necessary to go by factual data.

No, a lot of times they don't know.

Along with trying out for a pro sports team, auditioning for an orchestra ought to be one of the most egalitarian pursuits in the professional world. There is no financial incentive for the orchestra to discriminate on anything other than playing ability. After all, the audience wants the performance they can get and aside from featured soloists, the conductor, and maybe the first chair violinist, the rest of the players are virtually anonymous as far as the audience is concerned - so it's not like they would really be turned off by "the wrong sorts of folks" playing in their orchestra. And liberal artsy types like those who run orchestras are at least supposed to support work opportunities for minorities (in theory, right?).

And yet, orchestras kept hiring disproportionate numbers of men... until... they started using blind auditions where the applicants performed behind a screen, without shoes (so you couldn't identify gender by footwear). Magically, the numbers of women getting hired starting shooting up.

Even well-intentioned people can harbor biases they don't see or won't admit. And then plenty of people with ill intent may not even be able to reconcile with the realities of their views. I've had conversation with folks on this board claiming that they weren't racist - they just thought it was better if whites and blacks didn't mix, for their own sake.

 

[PeachyKeane]

I think that the way the term is used attributes benefits to all white people that are not perks or privileges, but are what should be a right for all.

It should be. Is it a reality?

However, I also think that nearly every conversation I have been in when discussing it, the notion that went along with it was that whether people realize it or not they are all acting in racist ways. And that their privilege entailed not only being free from discrimination, but being blissfully unaware of all the ways they were discriminating.

That seems to be what has been asserted in this thread so far as well.

That's not how I recognize it, nor how I'm using it. Shall we set that aside for now?

I will need you to spell that out to understand what you are asking.

Not all racism is based on cognitive thought. Some is unconscious, automatic, or unintentional.

If we went by the terms in the OP you still wouldn't be posting. No thanks. I will not refer to the notion that people should not be discriminated against as a privilege. People should not be discriminated against, and being free from it should not be the perk but the norm. And those who have that condition now, to whatever degree they have it, should not be resented for it, but should be viewed as the first step toward everyone having it.

You kind of had me until the end. It's kind of hard not to resent a group that has what you want. Especially when the forces that prevent you from getting it, are part of that group.

 

[tall73]

No, a lot of times they don't know.

Along with trying out for a pro sports team, auditioning for an orchestra ought to be one of the most egalitarian pursuits in the professional world. There is no financial incentive for the orchestra to discriminate on anything other than playing ability. After all, the audience wants the performance they can get and aside from featured soloists, the conductor, and maybe the first chair violinist, the rest of the players are virtually anonymous as far as the audience is concerned - so it's not like they would really be turned off by "the wrong sorts of folks" playing in their orchestra. And liberal artsy types like those who run orchestras are at least supposed to support work opportunities for minorities (in theory, right?).

And yet, orchestras kept hiring disproportionate numbers of men... until... they started using blind auditions where the applicants performed behind a screen, without shoes (so you couldn't identify gender by footwear). Magically, the numbers of women getting hired starting shooting up.

Even well-intentioned people can harbor biases they don't see or won't admit.

I think that is a clear example of bias.

But you cannot actually know if it was intentional before or not, or if it was based on some factor other than gender. They had no way to do it intentionally now even if they wanted to, once they could not see the person.

And in that case, did talking about how all men are privileged help the problem, or instituting sound methods that help eliminate the possibility for bias, whatever might be the cause?

And then plenty of people with ill intent may not even be able to reconcile with the realities of their views. I've had conversation with folks on this board claiming that they weren't racist - they just thought it was better if whites and blacks didn't mix, for their own sake.

And if someone is saying that, I think we would both agree they are racist. But I am not sure I would assume they don't know it.

 

[tall73]

It should be. Is it a reality?

No, it is not reality. So talk about the things that cause things to fall short of the reality--discrimination. Don't make it sound like anyone who has managed to not be discriminated against is to be resented because they got a leg up. That is what we want for everyone.

 

[tall73]

Not all racism is based on cognitive thought. Some is unconscious, automatic, or unintentional.

And the solution is what? Methods to prevent it, and change of thinking, correct? But then if people do try to change their thinking and it is told to them it is never enough, they still have biases they must be on the alert for at every moment, what is the point? Then interactions can never be normal. We are fixated on race constantly.

If there is something I am doing that is discriminatory, sure, point it out. But if not, then focus on those who are doing something that is discriminatory.

You kind of had me until the end. It's kind of hard not to resent a group that has what you want. Especially when the forces that prevent you from getting it, are part of that group.

Part of being the key. Resent the ones keeping you from it, if that is how you view things. Resenting those who are free from much of the effects of discrimination should not be a cause of resentment, if they are not part of the ones causing your disadvantage.

I have had times where my health failed. I didn't resent the healthy. Now if someone had intentionally harmed my health, then I might be tempted to resent them, and from my personal perspective should try to forgive them.

 

[PeachyKeane]

No, it is not reality. So talk about the things that cause things to fall short of the reality--discrimination. Don't make it sound like anyone who has managed to not be discriminated against is to be resented because they got a leg up. That is what we want for everyone.

So why do you think some people got a leg up, and others didn't?

 

[PeachyKeane]

And the solution is what? Methods to prevent it, and change of thinking, correct? But then if people do try to change their thinking and it is told to them it is never enough, they still have biases they must be on the alert for at every moment, what is the point? Then interactions can never be normal. We are fixated on race constantly.

Again, you're thinking about cognitive or conscious thought. Being aware of those biases may change behavior, or lead to ways to keep that bias in check.

IAT Bias Test

If it helps, I score with slight preference of black people. Which is far better than I was 15 years ago.

If there is something I am doing that is discriminatory, sure, point it out. But if not, then focus on those who are doing something that is discriminatory.

That's the point. Neither of us may know about your bias. That might still cause decisions that hurt someone else.

And keep in mind that I'm using you as an example.

Part of being the key. Resent the ones keeping you from it, if that is how you view things. Resenting those who are free from much of the effects of discrimination should not be a cause of resentment, if they are not part of the ones causing your disadvantage.

I have had times where my health failed. I didn't resent the healthy. Now if someone had intentionally harmed my health, then I might be tempted to resent them, and from my personal perspective should try to forgive them.

What if you were ill because of the actions of the healthy people?

 

[tall73]

So why do you think some people got a leg up, and others didn't?

In general or in regards to race?

In general for all kinds of reasons. Your birth place, your IQ, your family income, the era of your birth, etc.

In race, because of discrimination. It is because some whites have acted to disadvantage others. And in the past in this country that was a whole bunch of whites doing so. And now, it is less so. In the past it was structural in the laws, and now we have tried to root that out of the laws.

There may be remnants still in the thinking of many, as has been pointed out. So devise mechanisms to eliminate the impact. But calling a whole group privileged doesn't solve the problem.

And a white child born in recent years had nothing to do with any of it. And they have the opportunity to see people as people, regardless of race. And that is what I want, for my children and all the others.

I do not see how it would be possible to put everyone on an even playing field from the start, in regards to many factors of life. But it is possible to not continue the actions that hold people back from here on out.