"On White Privilege"

[rturner76]

You must have stopped reading at the fourth or fifth paragraph.

Second, there are a host of privileges that dwarf “white privilege.” A huge one is Two-Parent Privilege. If you are raised by a father and mother, you enter adulthood with more privileges than anyone else in American society, irrespective of race, ethnicity, or sex. That’s why the poverty rate among two-parent black families is only 7 percent. Compare that with a 22 percent poverty rate among whites in single-parent homes. Obviously the two-parent home is the decisive “privilege.”

Exactly.

Another “privilege,” if one wants to use that term, that dwarfs “white privilege” is Asian privilege. Asian Americans do better than white Americans in school, on IQ tests, on credit scores, and on other positive measures. In fact, according to recent data from the Federal Reserve, Asians are about to surpass whites as the wealthiest group of Americans. Will the Left soon complain about Asian privilege?

Yep.

And the biggest privilege of all is American privilege. Unless you or your family make some big mistakes, the greatest privilege of all is to be an American. That’s why much of the world wants to live in America.

Preach! If America is so terrible, why do so many want to come here? People of all races make tremendous effort to live in the United States.

We must be doing something right!

You must have stopped reading at the fourth or fifth paragraph.

Second, there are a host of privileges that dwarf “white privilege.” A huge one is Two-Parent Privilege. If you are raised by a father and mother, you enter adulthood with more privileges than anyone else in American society, irrespective of race, ethnicity, or sex. That’s why the poverty rate among two-parent black families is only 7 percent. Compare that with a 22 percent poverty rate among whites in single-parent homes. Obviously the two-parent home is the decisive “privilege.”

Exactly.

Another “privilege,” if one wants to use that term, that dwarfs “white privilege” is Asian privilege. Asian Americans do better than white Americans in school, on IQ tests, on credit scores, and on other positive measures. In fact, according to recent data from the Federal Reserve, Asians are about to surpass whites as the wealthiest group of Americans. Will the Left soon complain about Asian privilege?

Yep.

And the biggest privilege of all is American privilege. Unless you or your family make some big mistakes, the greatest privilege of all is to be an American. That’s why much of the world wants to live in America.

Preach! If America is so terrible, why do so many want to come here? People of all races make tremendous effort to live in the United States.

We must be doing something right!

What you just posted,is that what I missed? I did only see the one peregrah I was commenting on about the suicide rates

 

[nightflight]

What you just posted,is that what I missed? I did only see the one peregrah I was commenting on about the suicide rates

Gotcha, I just posted part of the article; I'm always scared of getting mod-spanked for posting too much and possibly violating copyright stuff.

 

[tatteredsoul]

I would honest say tattoos are more of a contemporary issue related to privilege rather than earrings. You can take earrings out. However, there are clear prejudices against certain people who wear earrings and have tattoos.

But as I have said, earrings were a Mediterranean-Central/East African-Persian thing. It was fashionable, but also for bartering and buying things. Many people wore their wealth on their bodies - especially people who move and travel often. A couple of gold earrings, and a silver nose ring could buy you a good meal, a place to stay, a couple of nice suits/clothes and even transportation.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I would honest say tattoos are more of a contemporary issue related to privilege rather than earrings. You can take earrings out. However, there are clear prejudices against certain people who wear earrings and have tattoos.

But as I have said, earrings were a Mediterranean-Central/East African-Persian thing. It was fashionable, but also for bartering and buying things. Many people wore their wealth on their bodies - especially people who move and travel often. A couple of gold earrings, and a silver nose ring could buy you a good meal, a place to stay, a couple of nice suits/clothes and even transportation.

Traditionally also a sailor's gold earring was supposed to pay for his funeral if he died away from his home port. But I'm sure more men with earrings today don't think in such somber terms!

While years ago tattoos and piercings on a man were associated sometimes with bikers; and tattoos also with men in the navy; I think that today an even larger proportion of women in the military get tattooed than men in the military do; and today a huge proportion of military wives expect to become tattooed. I don't know this in some way may relate to the idea of privilege; maybe more to the idea of expectation, instead.

 

[John Davidson]

That is exactly what white privilege teaches you. Because there are measures in place to stop corporations from hiring exclusively white male executives, somehow the advantage is now given to the applicant of color. First of all it doesn't work like that. The system is set up so that all persons of color and all women who are qualified are not passed over for a white man who is unqualified. Second, even within that system, the white candidate can expect a higher rate of employment head to head against a person of color. There is no rule book that says you have to hire so and so many people of color per hundred. The rules just beg the question,out of 100 jobs and you got all these people of color applying for them you weren't able to find one single person of color that was qualified or no women? That's what those rules are there to prevent. Some companies take it upon themselves to actively seek out a diverse workforce especially if they serve a diverse population. Even then they don't turn people away for being white. They just give others an equal shot.

See, many whites feel that giving a person of color a shot at a job they also want is taking away from them because they are white but in truth they are just giving someone an equal chance at "your"job" or "your" promotion This mentality is white privilege all the way

Not my experience. When I worked for Albertsons white males were being passed over for women and other ethnicities even when the white males were much more qualified.

The upper management was graded in their review for promoting diversity so qualified white males would be passed over in order that the management could support this agenda.

 

[nightflight]

"African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.

She points to the second column.

“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”

The last column draws gasps.

Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.

“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says."

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-asian-race-tutoring-20150222-story.html

Who has privilege here?

 

[dzheremi]

Well for one thing, and I mean no disrespect I have had black friends with "black sounding names and have no issue, but the problem is that some black sounding names can be hard to pronounce. As for white people not having to "deal with it" the culture is such that it is not as if white people could not choose to name their child such a name it is that they do not. This is not privilwge it is simply that they choose to name kids things that people ( for the most part) know how to say, but any race can choose to name their kid or kids whatever they choose.

If white people can learn to pronounce Tchaikovsky and Brzezinski and so on, then they can learn to pronounce Jamal or Aisha or whatever.

Geez.

 

[SummerMadness]

How are you comparing race to people's hands? I asks because the fact is that most people are right-handed has NOTHING to do with privilege. It has to do with since MOST people need things for their right hand then of course that is what people are going to sell. Like literally WELL over half the world's population is right handed, so why would they make and try to sell much left-handed things?

Why should they make and sell left-handed items? Because there are left-handed people that will buy and use them. I think you're mistaking what privilege is. Privilege denotes the advantages afforded to certain groups in society. For instance, the society is privileged toward people that can walk, and until the law demanded it, people in wheelchairs did not have equal access). There was a time when a person in a wheelchair had to worry about whether they would be able to go to certain places. A person who is able to walk did not have to think about this. We're talking about the privilege involved here. There are many privileges that white people have not because they are racist, but because of social norms that are in part because of past racism.

Handedness privilege is not about whether right-handed people are actively oppressing left-handed people, it simply points out that due to the world being mostly right-handed, it is advantageous to be right-handed. This does not mean that left-handed people cannot succeed or adjust, but the adjustment is required to perform at the same level. When you use a credit card reader in a store, it conforms to right-handed people; for a left-handed person to use the card reader, they must either switch to their non-dominant hand or reorient their hand. "Of course it's made for right-handed people!" That's not the point, the point is that for a right-handed person, they are privileged because they were born into the dominant group, thus never have to consider or change how they do things because of their handedness.

They are band-aids what should they do sell band-aids to match skin tone? That is not the purpose of a band-aid it is not face- make up.

Flesh colored band-aids are not racist, but when choosing to name the color, the makers did not consider skin tones that were darker as "flesh-colored." It ignores the fact that flesh has many tones to it, but standardized to a light skin tone. When you're using crayons as a child, darker skin students will realize flesh isn't meant to describe their flesh. It's not about whether intent was racist, but that a white person using such crayons will not experience such a scenario.

Flesh tone:

You may argue that it's not a big deal, but how many of these "not a big deal" things do you think people of color encounter? There is a cumulative effect here, no one thing impedes progress, but all together, it makes a difference. I've never met a black person that has complained about band-aids, but many of us know, "flesh means white." White people will never have that eperience. What about pale people? What about tan people? You can be ridiculous if you want, but the point about band-aids was to highlight something rather simple that favors white for no reason. Really, there shouldn't be a flesh color, that ascribes tone to a crayon or band-aid.

 

[dzheremi]

I wonder how many people saying "It's just a band-aid; you're complaining about nothing!" would suddenly be offended if they changed the name from "flesh colored" to "white people colored". I don't know, but I bet it would be more than none, given how upset some people get at having inherent privilege based on their skin color pointed out to them.

If white people don't like being reminded of their own whiteness in ways that make them uncomfortable, I wonder why it seems so difficult for some to understand the toll it takes on non-white people to live in a society where they are reminded constantly of how their own skin color doesn't fit the 'standard'. It's almost like white people find it unacceptable to feel for 0.5 seconds what non-white people have to deal with literally every day. Hmm.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Why should they make and sell left-handed items? Because there are left-handed people that will buy and use them. I think you're mistaking what privilege is. Privilege denotes the advantages afforded to certain groups in society. For instance, the society is privileged toward people that can walk, and until the law demanded it, people in wheelchairs did not have equal access). There was a time when a person in a wheelchair had to worry about whether they would be able to go to certain places. A person who is able to walk did not have to think about this. We're talking about the privilege involved here. There are many privileges that white people have not because they are racist, but because of social norms that are in part because of past racism.

Handedness privilege is not about whether right-handed people are actively oppressing left-handed people, it simply points out that due to the world being mostly right-handed, it is advantageous to be right-handed. This does not mean that left-handed people cannot succeed or adjust, but the adjustment is required to perform at the same level. When you use a credit card reader in a store, it conforms to right-handed people; for a left-handed person to use the card reader, they must either switch to their non-dominant hand or reorient their hand. "Of course it's made for right-handed people!" That's not the point, the point is that for a right-handed person, they are privileged because they were born into the dominant group, thus never have to consider or change how they do things because of their handedness.

Flesh colored band-aids are not racist, but when choosing to name the color, the makers did not consider skin tones that were darker as "flesh-colored." It ignores the fact that flesh has many tones to it, but standardized to a light skin tone. When you're using crayons as a child, darker skin students will realize flesh isn't meant to describe their flesh. It's not about whether intent was racist, but that a white person using such crayons will not experience such a scenario.

Flesh tone:

You may argue that it's not a big deal, but how many of these "not a big deal" things do you think people of color encounter? There is a cumulative effect here, no one thing impedes progress, but all together, it makes a difference. I've never met a black person that has complained about band-aids, but many of us know, "flesh means white." White people will never have that eperience. What about pale people? What about tan people? You can be ridiculous if you want, but the point about band-aids was to highlight something rather simple that favors white for no reason. Really, there shouldn't be a flesh color, that ascribes tone to a crayon or band-aid.

It's not the color of white.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Actually, band-aids come in clear which goes with any color of complexion.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Why should they make and sell left-handed items? Because there are left-handed people that will buy and use them. I think you're mistaking what privilege is. Privilege denotes the advantages afforded to certain groups in society. For instance, the society is privileged toward people that can walk, and until the law demanded it, people in wheelchairs did not have equal access). There was a time when a person in a wheelchair had to worry about whether they would be able to go to certain places. A person who is able to walk did not have to think about this. We're talking about the privilege involved here. There are many privileges that white people have not because they are racist, but because of social norms that are in part because of past racism.

Handedness privilege is not about whether right-handed people are actively oppressing left-handed people, it simply points out that due to the world being mostly right-handed, it is advantageous to be right-handed. This does not mean that left-handed people cannot succeed or adjust, but the adjustment is required to perform at the same level. When you use a credit card reader in a store, it conforms to right-handed people; for a left-handed person to use the card reader, they must either switch to their non-dominant hand or reorient their hand. "Of course it's made for right-handed people!" That's not the point, the point is that for a right-handed person, they are privileged because they were born into the dominant group, thus never have to consider or change how they do things because of their handedness.

Flesh colored band-aids are not racist, but when choosing to name the color, the makers did not consider skin tones that were darker as "flesh-colored." It ignores the fact that flesh has many tones to it, but standardized to a light skin tone. When you're using crayons as a child, darker skin students will realize flesh isn't meant to describe their flesh. It's not about whether intent was racist, but that a white person using such crayons will not experience such a scenario.

Flesh tone:

You may argue that it's not a big deal, but how many of these "not a big deal" things do you think people of color encounter? There is a cumulative effect here, no one thing impedes progress, but all together, it makes a difference. I've never met a black person that has complained about band-aids, but many of us know, "flesh means white." White people will never have that eperience. What about pale people? What about tan people? You can be ridiculous if you want, but the point about band-aids was to highlight something rather simple that favors white for no reason. Really, there shouldn't be a flesh color, that ascribes tone to a crayon or band-aid.

 

[tatteredsoul]

I wonder how many people saying "It's just a band-aid; you're complaining about nothing!" would suddenly be offended if they changed the name from "flesh colored" to "white people colored". I don't know, but I bet it would be more than none, given how upset some people get at having inherent privilege based on their skin color pointed out to them.

If white people don't like being reminded of their own whiteness in ways that make them uncomfortable, I wonder why it seems so difficult for some to understand the toll it takes on non-white people to live in a society where they are reminded constantly of how their own skin color doesn't fit the 'standard'. It's almost like white people find it unacceptable to feel for 0.5 seconds what non-white people have to deal with literally every day. Hmm.

Exactly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not fair some people were born ugly and some were born beautiful. I called this "Beautiful privilege" Can we all agree beautiful privilege exist? Let make it simpler can we all agree life is not fair and stop pretend it will ever be or you will drive yourself nuts?

This is a good point...psychology has shown that the "halo effect" causes people to automatically trust /like beautiful people more.

I don't have any solutions for this...but I think it's really important everyone acknowledges it. Especially the beautiful people.

 

[nightflight]

I wonder how many people saying "It's just a band-aid; you're complaining about nothing!" would suddenly be offended if they changed the name from "flesh colored" to "white people colored". I don't know, but I bet it would be more than none, given how upset some people get at having inherent privilege based on their skin color pointed out to them.

A hypothetical? Really?

If white people don't like being reminded of their own whiteness in ways that make them uncomfortable, I wonder why it seems so difficult for some to understand the toll it takes on non-white people to live in a society where they are reminded constantly of how their own skin color doesn't fit the 'standard'. It's almost like white people find it unacceptable to feel for 0.5 seconds what non-white people have to deal with literally every day. Hmm.

Yet everyone seems to want to come here, from all over the world. Weird.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't believe the point of the band aid thing is that it's racist, but that it displays privilege. White people get to have flesh colored band aids that actually reflect the color of their flesh (generally speaking). Not everyone gets that, it's a privilege. Just like if everyone gets a tshirt, but you get a special one that has your name on it. It's a privilege, something not everyone gets.

Its just like when we study history: we get to see the accomplishments of white christian men, and we study how white christian men shaped history. Then, if we have time for an elective, we can also study women's history or black history. The official, standard, default version of history being the history of your people, that's a privilege: not everyone gets that.

-- A2SG, it's something so pervasive and obvious, you literally can't see it unless you're the one not getting the privilege....

I don't know if that's exactly fair....I studied world history at the college level and it's largely about China, India, and other advanced civilizations like Rome and Egypt. It's not until the Renaissance that it starts to be more European based...and for good reason. It's hard to explain what is going on in the world without discussing the nations that adopted colonialism/imperialism.

It's not that one couldn't discuss what was going on in Africa or South America...but it wouldn't give you a very good picture of the world and how civilization was growing.

 

[rturner76]

Not my experience. When I worked for Albertsons white males were being passed over for women and other ethnicities even when the white males were much more qualified.

The upper management was graded in their review for promoting diversity so qualified white males would be passed over in order that the management could support this agenda.

I did mention that individual companies may choose to have a policy of diversifying their staff usually to reflect the community they serve,however this is not mandated by any government agency. I would be curious to see what the ethnicity was of the upper management of the company. Not that it would matter, just curious.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I suggest reading the whole article (below) it is only one short page
http://www.tolerance.org/article/racism-and-white-privilege

Excerpted from White Anti-Racist Activism: A Personal Roadmap by Jennifer R. Holladay, M.S. (Crandall, Dostie & Douglass Books, Inc., 2000) and published in the magazine Teaching Tolerance, a project by The Southern Poverty Law Canter

"On White Privilege
White skin privilege is not something that white people necessarily do, create or enjoy on purpose. Unlike the more overt individual and institutional manifestations of racism described above, white skin privilege is a transparent preference for whiteness that saturates our society. White skin privilege serves several functions. First, it provides white people with “perks” that we do not earn and that people of color do not enjoy. Second, it creates real advantages for us. White people are immune to a lot of challenges. Finally, white privilege shapes the world in which we live — the way that we navigate and interact with one another and with the world."


Can we finally agree that white privilege exists? Yes or No?

I have heard it said by some prominent people (Namely Talib Kwieli Green Artist and philosopher) that those who do not acknowledge white privilege are racist. Yes or No?

After reading the article...I can certainly agree that some of these things exist...others not so much. As has been shown with the band-aid example, they offer other skin tones. I don't think that "flesh-tone" is something inherently meant to be racist. If the color "flesh-tone" weren't called flesh-tone...what would you call it? It's not white, it's not pink, it's not salmon....do we even have another name for that particular color?

Another one is the notion that police are just following, pulling over, and generally harassing black people. Do blacks and other minorities encounter the police more frequently? Sure. Do blacks and minorities also more frequently inhabit poorer neighborhoods? Yup. Do poorer neighborhoods more frequently have instances of crime? You betcha. Do police tend to spread their limited resources where they're most effective? Probably.

When you consider those factors...why wouldn't you expect to see more blacks and minorities getting pulled over or otherwise encountering the police? I'm not saying racism is never a factor...but I am saying it's rather dumb to just assume it's a factor.

The problem of having your qualifications for your position of employment questioned is a direct result of blacks and minorities arguing about being underrepresented in authority/management/executive positions. As a response, women and minorities got promoted by their higher-ups in an attempt to avoid any accusations of discrimination. I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to ask for your race or sex to be considered as factors for advancement....and then turn around and complain that others wonder if they have been promoted because of their race or sex. You can't have it both ways.

So while some complaints in the article are legitimate...others appear to be utter nonsense based upon unproven assumptions.

 

[Paidiske]

Yet everyone seems to want to come here, from all over the world. Weird.

Depends where you're looking from. My parents chose to migrate to Australia rather than America. In Australia, "American" is practically an insult. Australia is keen that it should not become more like America (in healthcare, in education, in crime rates, in economics and so forth).

Lots of people do want to go to America. It's not the worst place on earth. But there are plenty of places and people who aspire to something quite different.

Our racial demographics and issues are different, so I can't make useful direct comparisons there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why should they make and sell left-handed items? Because there are left-handed people that will buy and use them. I think you're mistaking what privilege is. Privilege denotes the advantages afforded to certain groups in society. For instance, the society is privileged toward people that can walk, and until the law demanded it, people in wheelchairs did not have equal access). There was a time when a person in a wheelchair had to worry about whether they would be able to go to certain places. A person who is able to walk did not have to think about this. We're talking about the privilege involved here. There are many privileges that white people have not because they are racist, but because of social norms that are in part because of past racism.

Handedness privilege is not about whether right-handed people are actively oppressing left-handed people, it simply points out that due to the world being mostly right-handed, it is advantageous to be right-handed. This does not mean that left-handed people cannot succeed or adjust, but the adjustment is required to perform at the same level. When you use a credit card reader in a store, it conforms to right-handed people; for a left-handed person to use the card reader, they must either switch to their non-dominant hand or reorient their hand. "Of course it's made for right-handed people!" That's not the point, the point is that for a right-handed person, they are privileged because they were born into the dominant group, thus never have to consider or change how they do things because of their handedness.

Flesh colored band-aids are not racist, but when choosing to name the color, the makers did not consider skin tones that were darker as "flesh-colored." It ignores the fact that flesh has many tones to it, but standardized to a light skin tone. When you're using crayons as a child, darker skin students will realize flesh isn't meant to describe their flesh. It's not about whether intent was racist, but that a white person using such crayons will not experience such a scenario.

Flesh tone:

You may argue that it's not a big deal, but how many of these "not a big deal" things do you think people of color encounter? There is a cumulative effect here, no one thing impedes progress, but all together, it makes a difference. I've never met a black person that has complained about band-aids, but many of us know, "flesh means white." White people will never have that eperience. What about pale people? What about tan people? You can be ridiculous if you want, but the point about band-aids was to highlight something rather simple that favors white for no reason. Really, there shouldn't be a flesh color, that ascribes tone to a crayon or band-aid.

What would you call the flesh-tone color crayon Summer?