"On White Privilege"

[Rick Otto]

I realising I'm answering a question with another question, but that can very ea'sily be flipped around. What is the expense of dropping a harmful framework? I am literally suggesting only that we change an idea. There is no resource cost in that, simply that people let go of their sacred cows and their need to selectively browbeat groups they blame for all their problems. There might be a personal cost in that if nothing else.

Sorry about my late edits.
Great question. I get it.
How would you address the problem if you were black?

 

[Gadarene]

Maybe I'm more forgiving because I am a bigger hypocrite.

I don't see that. Personally, it's the hypocrisy that gets me in these discussions, which is why I try and remain as personally consistent as I can. Not sure why it bugs me so much. A hangover from my Christian days, perhaps. Christ was quite admirably critical of hypocrisy among people who should have known better.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't see that. Personally, it's the hypocrisy that gets me in these discussions, which is why I try and remain as personally consistent as I can. Not sure why it bugs me so much. A hangover from my Christian days, perhaps. Christ was quite admirably critical of hypocrisy among people who should have known better.

Thank you.

 

[Gadarene]

Sorry about my late edits.
Great question. I get it.
How would you address the problem if you were black?

Focus on specifics - I wouldn't even mention stuff like sticking plaster tones as it just proves a monumental distraction due to the First World Problem level of complaint that it is.

As I said to the poster earlier when we were discussing feminism, using the privilege concept to analyse systems is one thing, using it to prescribe behaviour seems to be what leads people into dodgy territory. Keep it descriptive, not prescriptive.

I also wouldn't use revisionist definitions of concepts like "racism" where it cannot be applied to nonwhites, as that will just get the backs up of the white people that need to be convinced.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Everybody else being dirty does not excuse us, but I sympathize.
Excuse me, I can't grasp what you mean that it " is political ideology". It sounds like you are using the term political ideology as if it in itself, a bad thing. Maybe you are meaning it like it is a good thing, but too much of it is a bad thing.

You seem to acknowledge it exists, but want to excuse it because everybody does it. What am I missing in your perspective?

Minorities are oppressed - sometimes daily - since before the creation of the States. So, it comes off as ludicrous and disingenuous how people seem to think we live in a sociopolitical or socioeconomic golden age where racism doesn't exist, and it is considered blasphemy for bringing up history that is applicable to this day.

There are many white people that "get it," and are OVER IT. Not in the flippant sense, but because they actually understand the injustices around them - and they don't deny its existence - they don't need to post and talk about it every second. They don't get their feelingsite hurt everytime they find someone who doesn't like them.

They don't feel the need to post a thread every time BLM breathes the wrong way, or when the KKK lights a barbecue. They can move on, and *build relationships through understanding - transcending the boundaries of race into the realm of personage. They dont have to focus on the past because they understand and acknowledge the past. Unfortunately, some of those people feel ashamed to be as vocal as others because of the backlash against them. A white person who understands real race relations and inequality, and speaks on it (even so much as to reproof their own "race") is considered a "destructively progressive, liberal push-over, race baiting, [insert racial slur here] loving, socialist immoralists" by their "own people." But, there are enough that say something; it isn't their fight anyway. And yet, the ones that know this still don't treat it like a game. They don't cry, "no win" if what they do doesn't please 100% of their target audience. And, they don't expect pats on the backs as if they are the great white hope, nor do they do it simply to have minority friends as props. At least, the people I keep in company don't do that.

The entire situation is like someone in a room complaining about a compound fracture. Part of the room sees the broken arm, and asks if the person needs help. Some make slings, and some get ointment, while some call 911. Meanwhile, another group of people tell the person with a broken arm to be greatful and get over it because s/he still has eyes, and another arm - going even further as to say they are tired of hearing the constant complaining despite not doing anything to help the situation.

 

[Gadarene]

Minorities are oppressed - sometimes daily - since before the creation of the States. So, it comes off as ludicrous and disingenuous how people seem to think we live in a sociopolitical or socioeconomic golden age where racism doesn't exist, and it is considered blasphemy for bringing up history that is applicable to this day.

Why? Pakicetus spent some time rhapsodising that progress has been made when it comes to equality. Why sneer at those who think that a little more progress than that has been made?

There are many white people that "get it," and are OVER IT. Not in the flippant sense, but because they actually understand the injustices around them - and they don't deny its existence - they don't need to post and talk about it every second. They don't get their feelingsite hurt everytime they find someone who doesn't like them.

Which is ironic given that this is what minorities do all the time.

They don't feel the need to post a thread every time BLM breathes the wrong way, or when the KKK lights a barbecue.

Or when a two-bit mom-and-pop bakery doesn't want to serve gay people. Oh wait, no, people flip their lids over that, like so many other individual cases of macro- and microaggressions. Seems a bit odd to expect people to not hold equality activists to the same standards they hold other people to.

Perhaps people react to inegalitarian behaviour on the part of groups like BLM because BLM spends so much of their time preaching to others as to what correct egalitarian behaviour should be? If they don't want to be held accountable, either they need to stop screwing up or they need to stop preaching. Pick one.

 

[Rick Otto]

Minorities are oppressed - sometimes daily - since before the creation of the States. So, it comes off as ludicrous and disingenuous how people seem to think we live in a sociopolitical or socioeconomic golden age where racism doesn't exist, and it is considered blasphemy for bringing up history that is applicable to this day.

There are many white people that "get it," and are OVER IT. Not in the flippant sense, but because they actually understand the injustices around them - and they don't deny its existence - they don't need to post and talk about it every second. They don't get their feelingsite hurt everytime they find someone who doesn't like them.

They don't feel the need to post a thread every time BLM breathes the wrong way, or when the KKK lights a barbecue. They can move on, and *build relationships through understanding - transcending the boundaries of race into the realm of personage. They dont have to focus on the past because they understand and acknowledge the past. Unfortunately, some of those people feel ashamed to be as vocal as others because of the backlash against them. A white person who understands real race relations and inequality, and speaks on it (even so much as to reproof their own "race") is considered a "destructively progressive, liberal push-over, race baiting, [insert racial slur here] loving, socialist immoralists" by their "own people." But, there are enough that say something; it isn't their fight anyway. And yet, the ones that know this still don't treat it like a game. They don't cry, "no win" if what they do doesn't please 100% of their target audience. And, they don't expect pats on the backs as if they are the great white hope, nor do they do it simply to have minority friends as props. At least, the people I keep in company don't do that.

The entire situation is like someone in a room complaining about a compound fracture. Part of the room sees the broken arm, and asks if the person needs help. Some make slings, and some get ointment, while some call 911. Meanwhile, another group of people tell the person with a broken arm to be greatful and get over it because s/he still has eyes, and another arm - going even further as to say they are tired of hearing the constant complaining despite not doing anything to help the situation.

You said a mouth full.
I don't think this guy is completely unsympathetic, but to be effective, we have to respect the fact he doesn't know in experience what it's like on your level. It can't really be explained.
I asked a black janitor what the worst words he had to describe white people. He said "peckerwood". It didn't have any impact on me. I didn't feel insulted. I looked it up and it was explained as woodpeckers being annoyingly noisy, not a genital reference ( which I never thought of until just now).
I'm not sure what that observation means, but another one was that I never hear racist jokes about white people. I figured that one out, though... the subject isn't funny to constant victims.
Not even the ones that make racism the butt, because the wounds are fresh daily.
What can I do?

 

[Gadarene]

You said a mouth full.
I don't think this guy is completely unsympathetic, but to be effective, we have to respect the fact he doesn't know in experience what it's like on your level. It can't really be explained.
I asked a black janitor what the worst words he had to describe white people. He said "peckerwood". It didn't have any impact on me. I didn't feel insulted. I looked it up and it was explained as woodpeckers being annoyingly noisy, not a genital reference ( which I never thought of until just now).
I'm not sure what that observation means, but another one was that I never hear racist jokes about white people. I figured that one out, though... the subject isn't funny to constant victims.
Not even the ones that make racism the butt, because the wounds are fresh daily.
What can I do?

Well, no Rick, I do get that such things like racist jokes are offensive to SOME members of minorities. I accept that that offence exists and is generated by such things.

I also have experienced plenty of minorities who react to them the way you do to racial slurs. They shrug it off and get on with their lives.

Which subset of the minority experience am I supposed to respect here? One would have me take offence at what they take offence with, and others would recommend an admirable resilience. Aren't people who claim that such things are inherently offensive to a particular minority disregarding the experience of those in that minority who don't find those things offensive?

As I said earlier, why is it expected that everyone has to walk a mile in the shoes of the easiest offended of a given group? I can think of no faster way to weaken society. Why don't instead the easiest offended grow up a little? Why don't they try and walk in the shoes of those who have the strength and tenacity to treat things with a sense of proportion?

The other reason I have no time for "that's offensive!" in these discussions is that when it comes to what *I* am offended by, no-one gives a crap. If it wasn't abundantly clear, I find the privilege conceit and how it is used incredibly offensive.

Do you see me crying that no-one should use it simply because it offends me?

No, you don't - and even if it wasn't a personal principle of mine that offence should not stop free expression of ideas, no matter how ridiculous, there would be little practical reason for me to make a song and dance about what I am offended by. No-one cares. I'm a white guy complaining about the party line on racism and sexism. My feelings on them are automatically ignored. What offences get taken seriously is completely arbitrary and inconsistent.

 

[rturner76]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ation-ignored-by-policy-warns-Ucas-chief.html

Again, this simply does not fit into the notion of whites can't be disadvantaged. You can only prop up notions of privilege by cherry-picking the issues that you use to conclude privilege exists.

How is that cherry picking when Housing, education, criminal justice, medical, employment, etc. are major areas of life not trivial details. If these things ar affected,your quality of life are affected. If these things are not fair you feel it in your every day life. Also because white privilege exists doesn't mean individual whites don't have it hard. Like whites born in poverty or born with a disability or other factors can make it harder fr an individual. Just like a black person can overcome white privilege and go to college,own a business or be a college professor or whatever they want to be. White privilege doesn't hold people down like blatant racism, it just makes less obstacles for white males in general. In a general way white males get to runmost of the system that is in place and therefore have an easier time fitting in the system.

 

[dzheremi]

Why? Pakicetus spent some time rhapsodising that progress has been made when it comes to equality. Why sneer at those who think that a little more progress than that has been made?

Isn't there a difference between recognizing that progress has been made and using the fact that progress has been made to try to shut down or ridicule those who try to make even more progress because "things aren't bad now/everybody's equal" or whatever -- that point having been made by several people in this thread who use it as a justification to say that they're basically sick of hearing minorities talking about any of this stuff anymore...

 

[Gadarene]

How is that cherry picking when Housing, education, criminal justice, medical, employment, etc. are major areas of life not trivial details.

I never said they were trivial, but the fact remains that you are cherry-picking those areas nonetheless. Claiming your framework is selective is in no way a statement that a given set of inequalities are trivial things.

If these things ar affected,your quality of life are affected. If these things are not fair you feel it in your every day life. Also because white privilege exists doesn't mean individual whites don't have it hard. Like whites born in poverty or born with a disability or other factors can make it harder fr an individual.

Did you even read what I posted? I realise it's the UK, but the white privilege concept is used here too. The group least likely to go on to higher education here is poor white men. This is a problem along racial (and gender and class) lines at an institutional level. The head of the college admissions service in the UK (UCAS) admits as such.

How does that fit in to the framework you are talking about here?

I'll give you a hint - it doesn't. The white privilege framework you are describing is inadequate for addressing racial inequality because it is incapable of comprehending that such things exist, never mind what causes them or how to deal with them.

Just like a black person can overcome white privilege and go to college,own a business or be a college professor or whatever they want to be. White privilege doesn't hold people down like blatant racism, it just makes less obstacles for white males in general. In a general way white males get to runmost of the system that is in place and therefore have an easier time fitting in the system.

That would explain why white men are failing in the education system and why men have increasing suicide rates. Must be because of all that privilege they have.

 

[tatteredsoul]

What can I do?

Bend down and lick our respective minority books!

But seriously, it seems that part of the culture of ignorance of the problems is because people expect that minorities will demand something like my facetious first sentence. With all due respect, it isn't your fight; we don't need you (and I hope you understand what that means.) But, if you are ignorant and dismissive of the blatantly obvious (at least to the people who have to live it ever second,) then you are part of the problem - which means you are in the fight whether you want to be or not.

Like you said about jokes being hackneyed for people who are oppressed daily, we really don't want to rehash things if there is a common understanding. But, we always get the blame when we bring it back up because.... say a man get choked to death on camera and the person doing it get away, or an unarmed man is shot dozens of times. We get accused of being race baiters and bringing up the past we are supposed to forget. Peoe don't forget the Holocaust. People don't forget 911 - in fact people are told to never forget. And yet, the skid mark of American History is demanded to be forgotten - despite the oppressed remnants walking the country this day.

Ignorance can't really be fixed or patched up from outside. Incredulity can't be pounded or seeded out; that is also internal. I have been all over the world and American (or even Western) prejudice, ignorance, bigotry and racism is a very unique entity. It's mystique is mainly founded on the fact that most don't even believe there is a problem.

I can respect someone more for telling me, "I don't like black/asian/latino/... people," because at least the person is (wo)man enough to tell me face to face. What I can't personally stand is people who swear there is no prejudiced, ignorant or bigoted bone in them - all the while doing incredibly prejudiced, bigoted and ignorant things whilst claiming social injustices and racism do not exist (or exist marginally in some remote vacuum.)

I am not the best person to determine a rally point for which things can progress for the better. I maintain being a philosophical and colloquial cynic; I don't think anything will ever be done for the better because overall "isms" generate too much money for certain people. My person solution for my personal self is expatriation - which I am.

 

[Gadarene]

Bend down and lick our respective minority books!

But seriously, it seems that part of the culture of ignorance of the problems is because people expect that minorities will demand something like my facetious first sentence. With all due respect, it isn't your fight; we don't need you (and I hope you understand what that means.) But, if you are ignorant and dismissive of the blatantly obvious (at least to the people who have to live it ever second,) then you are part of the problem - which means you are in the fight whether you want to be or not.

You don't need us....but you need us to agree with you. Cogent.

I can respect someone more for telling me, "I don't like black/asian/latino/... people," because at least the person is (wo)man enough to tell me face to face. What I can't personally stand is people who swear there is no prejudiced, ignorant or bigoted bone in them - all the while doing incredibly prejudiced, bigoted and ignorant things whilst claiming social injustices and racism do not exist (or exist marginally in some remote vacuum.)

Or maybe, just maybe - bear with me here - your allegations of racist behaviour on their part are....wrong?

I am not the best person to determine a rally point for which things can progress for the better. I maintain being a philosophical and colloquial cynic

well that's one way of putting it

 

[Sistrin]

That's the part I'm talking about.

If you have time to fret over the shade of bandages, you either a) aren't suffering from discrimination
or more likely b) you are focusing on meaningless petty things when you face real issues.

Quoted for truth. From reading the OP article I could easily swear my first wife wrote it. Bandaids and shampoo bottles are the type of social injustices she would get all weepy over.

 

[rturner76]

I never said they were trivial, but the fact remains that you are cherry-picking those areas nonetheless. Claiming your framework is selective is in no way a statement that a given set of inequalities are trivial things.



Did you even read what I posted? I realise it's the UK, but the white privilege concept is used here too. The group least likely to go on to higher education here is poor white men. This is a problem along racial (and gender and class) lines at an institutional level. The head of the college admissions service in the UK (UCAS) admits as such.

How does that fit in to the framework you are talking about here?

I'll give you a hint - it doesn't. The white privilege framework you are describing is inadequate for addressing racial inequality because it is incapable of comprehending that such things exist, never mind what causes them or how to deal with them.


That would explain why white men are failing in the education system and why men have increasing suicide rates. Must be because of all that privilege they have.

If it is true that the least likely people to go to college are poor white men, it does not mean white privilege does not exist. (nice cherry picking there) It means the most prevalent factor concerning who goes to college is economic status. It does not negate all the other inequalities in society that prop up whitemales as the most imortant people in our society.

Now elevated suicide rates also does not mean white privilege does not exist. IMO it is from elevated addiction rates and I'm not sure how race is tied to that though it could be some how.

 

[rturner76]

Quoted for truth. From reading the OP article I could easily swear my first wife wrote it. Bandaids and shampoo bottles are the type of social injustices she would get all weepy over.

You missed the point. THe point is what is made for whites is what is considered "normal" anything else is abnormal. Could you use Pink oil lotion and Ultra Sheen in your hair? Probably not.So if you went to a hotel and that's all there was you would probably complain am I right? Take it a step further it's all they have at the hotel shop also. Would you slighted in any way?

 

[Gadarene]

If it is true that the least likely people to go to college are poor white men, it does not mean white privilege does not exist. (nice cherry picking there) It means the most prevalent factor concerning who goes to college is economic status. It does not negate all the other inequalities in society that prop up whitemales as the most imortant people in our society.

No, your take on white privilege is still nonsensical as this post of your shows. When presented with facts you assume it has nothing little to do with race, presumably you know better than the head of university admissions in the UK? That race is not the only factor involved does not mean it is not racial, as any intersectionalist will tell you.

And no, I'm not cherry picking. I've never said that white advantage doesn't exist, what I object to is the notion attached to the white privilege concept you are using that whites never have anything bad happen to them based on their race. It is simply at odds with reality.

Now elevated suicide rates also does not mean white privilege does not exist. IMO it is from elevated addiction rates and I'm not sure how race is tied to that though it could be some how.

But you do see how ridiculous it is to claim society is set up to benefit white men when there are institutional issues affecting them along racial and gendered lines, right? If it's set up to benefit white men, why are white men being disadvantaged by it?

 

[tatteredsoul]

Isn't there a difference between recognizing that progress has been made and using the fact that progress has been made to try to shut down or ridicule those who try to make even more progress because "things aren't bad now/everybody's equal" or whatever -- that point having been made by several people in this thread who use it as a justification to say that they're basically sick of hearing minorities talking about any of this stuff anymore...

There is, indeed a big difference.

 

[Ken-1122]

There are the facts...

Racial predatory loans fueled U.S. housing crisis: study

Payday loans, pawn shops, and check cashing services that charge those high fees and interest rates are just examples of business going where they can make the most money. people in rich neighborhoods will stay away from those places, people in poor neighborhoods will flock there because of their poor credit scores.

This is more about personal responsibility than anything else; if you are an adult, you should know what you can, and cannot afford. Nobody is forcing them to go there and take out those loans.

They're not receiving interviews, the study generated resumes and changed only the name, everything else was identical. Names perceived as "black-sounding" received less responses. "It could be..." does not apply.

Again, the study created identical profiles, with everything except difference in ethnicity, those perceived as black received less of a response.

I remember that article. I’m not saying these things don’t happen from time to time, I’m saying when you do get the interview, how you dress and present yourself does matter.

Most people accosted by stop and frisk policies do not have tattoos (why does that matter?) or clothing representing neighborhood gangs.

Gang tatoos and gang clothing matters because those clothes and tattoos can get you shot by rival gang members, and when they shoot you, they will often shoot those next to or around you in an effort to just kill you.

The policy has been demonstrated to yield little in uncovering wrongdoing and is driven by racial bias

Stop and frisk is in high crime neighborhoods. If crime in rich white neighborhoods were akin to the crime in some of the poor black neighborhoods, they would implement stop and frisk in the rich neighborhoods as well.

And that says nothing about whether racism will always remain, it will not.

Actually it does; the negative attitudes people have against others is a choice.

What does personal responsibility have to do with anything? When I am unjustifiably stopped by the police, what is my personal responsibility? When an African American experiences job and housing discrimination, what is their personal responsibility? You're right, there is a lot of personal responsibility needed, the personal responsibility of those perpetuating racist policies and attitudes.

*Personal responsibility is about not having children until you can afford them.
*Personal responsibility is about speaking, dressing, and presenting yourself in a professional manner and refusing to associate this with “acting white”
*Personal responsibility is about resisting the music, crowd, and culture that glamorizes a lifestyle that often results in death, or prison at a young age.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

By "thug life" do you mean gang culture? Or just crime in general?

There is a lifestyle that sees professional speech, professional dress, and presenting yourself in a professional manner as “acting white” or selling out. It is almost as if all the attributes that allows one to get ahead in this country is seen as acting white, and all the attributes that leads to prison is seen as acting black. Only Black people can change this.

I don't know, I don't see a lot of glamorising of either of those things, except perhaps in contexts where people are in poverty and desperate, and don't see alternatives. Would providing alternative pathways out of poverty and desperation take some of the shine off the "glamour"?

Progressives have been trying to provide alternative pathways out of poverty for over half a Century already. This is something the people involved need to fix.