"On White Privilege"

[nightflight]

As concerns race in particular, do you mean by this that non-white groups don't want to live in societies that are free of racial/ethnic stratification? If so, I'd really like to know where that idea comes from, because it seems like looking around the world, most of what you see are examples of the opposite. Not being content with being second class citizens on account of their ethnicity/race is what inspired the Berber Spring movement in North Africa, the SPLA in Sudan, the Eritrean liberation movement, the Zapatistas/ELZN in Mexico, and so on. So it would seem that they very much want equal societies, which would certainly make sense after such a long time under the thumb of states that sought to crush them (even in places where they are the numerical majority, as in the case of the Imazighen in Morocco, where it was only in 2011 after many years of struggle that the country's language laws were changed to place Tamazight alongside Arabic as one of the official languages of the country).

Groups look out for their own. That's been the way it is for thousands of years, and that's the way it will keep on being. White progressives pleasure themselves with the thought that they are angels, going against the grain of human experience, lifting us all up to a higher plane.

I say, "lol, really?"

 

[Ana the Ist]

As concerns race in particular, do you mean by this that non-white groups don't want to live in societies that are free of racial/ethnic stratification? If so, I'd really like to know where that idea comes from, because it seems like looking around the world, most of what you see are examples of the opposite. Not being content with being second class citizens on account of their ethnicity/race is what inspired the Berber Spring movement in North Africa, the SPLA in Sudan, the Eritrean liberation movement, the Zapatistas/ELZN in Mexico, and so on. So it would seem that they very much want equal societies, which would certainly make sense after such a long time under the thumb of states that sought to crush them (even in places where they are the numerical majority, as in the case of the Imazighen in Morocco, where it was only in 2011 after many years of struggle that the country's language laws were changed to place Tamazight alongside Arabic as one of the official languages of the country).

Is that the way you see it? I've been to places in the U.S. where whites are the minority...and frankly, I didn't feel privileged. I learned at a young age that being white in the wrong neighborhood is reason enough to be victimized. I've been beaten up for being white in a predominantly black community.

 

[nightflight]

You can't tell us to deny what we see, what we hear, what we remember, what we know. It doesn't work with all of us.

 

[dzheremi]

Groups look out for their own. That's been the way it is for thousands of years, and that's the way it will keep on being. White progressives pleasure themselves with the thought that they are angels, going against the grain of human experience, lifting us all up to a higher plane.

I say, "lol, really?"

Eh...maybe it's like that in an American context (I don't agree, but I think it's easier to make that argument if you have a particular type of Western liberal in mind), but I just don't see things that starkly. In fact, I don't think you need to stop looking out for your own to start looking out for others. Many groups that have otherwise very divergent views on things may come together if they see it as in the interest of the societies in which they both have to live. For instance, I don't see any stereotypical 'white liberals' (or white people period) among these Coptic (native Egyptian) youth arguing for the rights of atheists and Baha'i people before the Egyptian constitutional committee:

If I looked at the world as you seem to, I would say that these young people are being too idealistic and naive to be arguing this sort of thing in this venue, and furthermore possibly endangering their own community by arguing that the privilege extended to them (which they have by virtue of being recognized as an official religious group in that same constitution, while those they are arguing for are not) ought to be extended to everyone or to no one, since for only the Christians, Jews, and Muslims to have those rights is unacceptable.

Another way to look at it, however, would be to say that these Coptic people would know, by virtue of the low status they have within the context of their society (which is designed with a kind of 'Arab Muslim' default in a similar way that America has a 'white Christian' default, with the exception that in Egypt this superiority is explicitly written into the law code in other parts of the constitution and other laws), how terrible it is to be discriminated against and simply not wish it upon others.

That is not the same as the USA, where most of the white liberals you are talking about don't have such experience, but certainly the same fundamental ethic of not wanting to see others mistreated and marginalized is something the can cross any color, ethnic, religious, gender, or linguistic barrier. If that's not so then why is arguably the most diverse society in the world (the USA) also the one that blathers on so much about equality and freedom and all that? Are we just lying to ourselves and ultimately really tribal-minded people not any less than those societies organized around different ideological goals? (I for one think we may be being less than honest about that goal too, but not because of tribal sorts of issues, but because of money...America may have lofty goals and words to harangue others with, but it is also true that we will sell American assets to the Saudis to keep oil and money changing hands despite the fact that Saudi Arabia officially hates everything we claim to stand for.)

 

[Paidiske]

I'm with dzheremi on this one.

I was born in apartheid-era South Africa. South Africa no longer has apartheid. It is not perfect, not at all, but progress has been made in structuring it as a just society.

So I believe in the possibility of progress, not because I am naive but because I have watched it play out.

 

[nightflight]

snip

I may be seeing things through an American skew; I still thing white progressives are liars and are evil. I would like to think there is an ultimate goodness, but I doubt it.

 

[nightflight]

I'm with dzheremi on this one.

I was born in apartheid-era South Africa. South Africa no longer has apartheid. It is not perfect, not at all, but progress has been made in structuring it as a just society.

So I believe in the possibility of progress, not because I am naive but because I have watched it play out.

Really? What's the crime situation in SA? What's the rape stats, the murder stats?

 

[Paidiske]

Really? What's the crime situation in SA? What's the rape stats, the murder stats?

Oh, I know that both of those stats are bad (I no longer live there, but I still have family there). But at least those things are not state-sanctioned.

But you know what? They weren't great before either. A great deal of crime went unreported, because what was the point? The police weren't going to act unless it suited them.

So which is better? An apartheid state with (arguably) a lower crime rate? Or a non-apartheid state with (arguably) a higher crime rate? Oddly enough, only some bitter whites seem to think the current state of affairs is worse!

So why would anyone see the dismantling of apartheid by "progressives" as evil? I'm honestly not seeing the angst here. Why be so opposed to people wanting to make the world better, even if you think they will never be able to succeed?

 

[dzheremi]

Is that the way you see it? I've been to places in the U.S. where whites are the minority...and frankly, I didn't feel privileged. I learned at a young age that being white in the wrong neighborhood is reason enough to be victimized. I've been beaten up for being white in a predominantly black community.

This is sounding an awful lot like "A bad thing happened to me, so I'm not privileged." I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way, since we're talking about structural inequality that is the result of a system from which you inherently benefit as a white person, not whether or not white people are ever beaten up by black people for being white in the wrong neighborhood.

Y'know, there are homeless white people who have it a lot harder than even moderately successful black people, or even just black people who are not homeless. But the point is that at a structural level, U.S. society is structured around white people. The very fact that we had posts in this thread already about how white people won't learn 'black' names unless they have to says something to me about who is valued and who is not: If you happen to have a boss with such a recognizably black name, then sure you'll have to learn their particular name, but if you don't, you won't have to (the implication being that you therefore won't). So even something as fundamental as having people know your name and use it appropriately therefore becomes a kind of 'privilege' that black people have to earn because, gosh darn, their names are so weird, why should anyone have to be encumbered by learning them unless it's absolutely, positively necessary?

Meanwhile every white person is...whatever their name is, no matter what the context or who they are. Because white names aren't an 'issue' (cultural or otherwise) for my fellow white people. We don't bat an eye at Stieg Larsson being a best-selling author, or reject the idea of Orrin Hatch being taken seriously as a senator despite the fact that his name sounds like what you'd name a pressure valve on a Civil War-era submarine. I've never had anyone of any ethnicity tell me that my name was 'weird', and even the people I know who can't pronounce it because they didn't grow up speaking English still try to, and will even apologize (without me asking them to) if they know they're not getting it right. And I'm a nobody. I didn't have to earn this because it's just part of being a person...a white person in a society that structurally favors white people.

 

[nightflight]

Oh, I know that both of those stats are bad (I no longer live there, but I still have family there). But at least those things are not state-sanctioned.

They don't need to be.

But you know what? They weren't great before either. A great deal of crime went unreported, because what was the point? The police weren't going to act unless it suited them.

So which is better? An apartheid state with (arguably) a lower crime rate? Or a non-apartheid state with (arguably) a higher crime rate? Oddly enough, only some bitter whites seem to think the current state of affairs is worse!

It would seem so I guess to a twenty year old white who had nothing to do with anything of the past.

So why would anyone see the dismantling of apartheid by "progressives" as evil? I'm honestly not seeing the angst here. Why be so opposed to people wanting to make the world better, even if you think they will never be able to succeed?

Would you support getting the whites out if it could be shown they were in danger?

 

[Paidiske]

It would seem so I guess to a twenty year old white who had nothing to do with anything of the past.

Would you support getting the whites out if it could be shown they were in danger?

So a white who never lived under apartheid can't develop some historical perspective? You're not giving them much credit.

What do you mean about "getting the whites out"? Do you mean, if they were being physically threatened, do I think other countries should accept them as refugees? If it came to that, sure, same as for everyone else of every other race and country. Not sure what your point is?

 

[A2SG]

I still thing white progressives are liars and are evil.

Wow.

-- A2SG, bet you think we kick puppies for sport too.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is sounding an awful lot like "A bad thing happened to me, so I'm not privileged." I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way, since we're talking about structural inequality that is the result of a system from which you inherently benefit as a white person, not whether or not white people are ever beaten up by black people for being white in the wrong neighborhood.

No...you missed the point entirely. I was pointing out that there are places, probably found in every major city, where my white privilege ends and black privilege begins. I could also give you examples of how in the great American southwest...I noticed my white privilege disappeared and latino privilege begins. I don't really see what you're talking about with your examples of religious minorities in Egypt...this is a discussion about racial privilege, not religious. Ever been to Japan? I promise if you're not Japanese...you don't have any privileges. It's really the same just about everywhere you go...and there are many many places in the U.S. where I'm the minority.

Y'know, there are homeless white people who have it a lot harder than even moderately successful black people, or even just black people who are not homeless. But the point is that at a structural level, U.S. society is structured around white people. The very fact that we had posts in this thread already about how white people won't learn 'black' names unless they have to says something to me about who is valued and who is not: If you happen to have a boss with such a recognizably black name, then sure you'll have to learn their particular name, but if you don't, you won't have to (the implication being that you therefore won't). So even something as fundamental as having people know your name and use it appropriately therefore becomes a kind of 'privilege' that black people have to earn because, gosh darn, their names are so weird, why should anyone have to be encumbered by learning them unless it's absolutely, positively necessary?

I'll readily admit it...I spend no time learning how to pronounce unusual names. That has zero to do with race though...there are plenty of names of my own Irish ethnicity that I don't have the slightest idea how to pronounce.

Meanwhile every white person is...whatever their name is, no matter what the context or who they are.

This is where you're wrong...context absolutely matters. Do you think that I really stand a chance of getting a job cutting hair in a barber shop in Harlem? Even if I'm more skilled than a similar black applicant?

Because white names aren't an 'issue' (cultural or otherwise) for my fellow white people. We don't bat an eye at Stieg Larsson being a best-selling author, or reject the idea of Orrin Hatch being taken seriously as a senator despite the fact that his name sounds like what you'd name a pressure valve on a Civil War-era submarine. I've never had anyone of any ethnicity tell me that my name was 'weird', and even the people I know who can't pronounce it because they didn't grow up speaking English still try to, and will even apologize (without me asking them to) if they know they're not getting it right. And I'm a nobody. I didn't have to earn this because it's just part of being a person...a white person in a society that structurally favors white people.

The truth is there are lots of situations where our society puts me at a disadvantage for being white. One of them is this very conversation. I can imagine right now you're on the other side of that screen shaking your head because I've merely suggested that my whiteness might be a disadvantage in some situations. It's not a topic I get to discuss and get taken seriously...because I'm white. So for me...these problems are mine, they're the facts of life, and I have to learn to deal with them.

 

[The Cadet]

Life is not fair.

You're right, it isn't. Does this mean we should stop trying to make it better? Life wasn't fair 200 years ago, when your skin color was the difference between being a citizen with rights and being property. Should we have just accepted that as the way things are, and not tried to make things more fair? Because lemme tell you - the world is definitely a better place due to the fact that people said, "This is ridiculous, this has got to change" and made things more fair.

Isn't this whole notion of "white privilege" based on the idea that white people have done something wrong and need to atone for it?

No. I have neurotypical privilege over my friend Nahum. I didn't do anything to gain this privilege, he didn't do anything to give it to me, neither of us can do anything about the fact that he is autistic, nobody is at fault here. This does not negate this privilege. Do not conflate "responsibility" with "fault".

Groups look out for their own.

Why should anyone consider "has the same skin color as me" to be their group?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're right, it isn't. Does this mean we should stop trying to make it better? Life wasn't fair 200 years ago, when your skin color was the difference between being a citizen with rights and being property. Should we have just accepted that as the way things are, and not tried to make things more fair? Because lemme tell you - the world is definitely a better place due to the fact that people said, "This is ridiculous, this has got to change" and made things more fair.

Part of the problem as I see it Cadet, is these discussions don't ever include the "how to fix it" part. It's just an endless attack on whites in an attempt to shame them.

I can see the obvious solutions for things like an "ethnic products" section of a grocery store...but how could you possibly fix the problem of not getting a job interview?

 

[The Cadet]

Part of the problem as I see it Cadet, is these discussions don't ever include the "how to fix it" part. It's just an endless attack on whites in an attempt to shame them.

The first step in fixing a problem is recognizing the problem. A lot of racism is subconscious - we don't notice it, we don't pay attention to it, but nonetheless it's there. Ask the people who wouldn't hire black-sounding names if they were aware of this bias, and I'm willing to bet 99% of them would honestly claim that they had no idea it was going on. And you can see how many people here don't even see these things as a problem.

I don't have a solution. But the first step is ensuring that people actually understand what's going on.

 

[A2SG]

Part of the problem as I see it Cadet, is these discussions don't ever include the "how to fix it" part. It's just an endless attack on whites in an attempt to shame them.

Maybe, just possibly, we should look at this not as an "attack" but as a way to see the problem first.

Because once we see the problem, then we can address it. If we can't even agree that there is a problem, how can we find a solution to it?

I can see the obvious solutions for things like an "ethnic products" section of a grocery store...but how could you possibly fix the problem of not getting a job interview?

"Hmm....here are two job applications, one from someone named John, another from someone named Malik. My first instinct is to hire John because the name is more familiar...but thinking about it further, that doesn't mean John is more qualified, does it? Before I go ahead with my first instinct, let me check this other guy's application. Hey, look, he has more experience than John does....."

-- A2SG, ladies and gentlemen, presenting the A2SG players! Take a bow....

 

[pakicetus]

Ask the people who wouldn't hire black-sounding names if they were aware of this bias, and I'm willing to bet 99% of them would honestly claim that they had no idea it was going on.

My guess is, a lot of them would honestly deny it. But a lot of them would also say things like "life isn't fair, get over it" or "birds of a feather flock together" or "the blacks shouldn't whine and moan about discrimination; they should overcome it through their own sweat and tears" or accuse you of fostering "tension" and "division" to disrupt "harmony in race relations." If they were honest about it, a large percentage would say "who wants to hire ghetto trash?" (which is basically what the more polished responses amount to). Conscious racism isn't actually so uncommon. In 2008, a third of Americans admitted to being "troubled" about Obama's race.

 

[Paidiske]

The truth is there are lots of situations where our society puts me at a disadvantage for being white.

I will grant you that even I have had the occasional experience in which my ethnicity has put me at a disadvantage (notice here I don't say my whiteness, but I mean the fact that my background is predominantly non-Anglo European).

However, I realise that on balance, most of the time, I am advantaged over people who are not white. On balance I am advantaged over people who do not speak English. On balance I am advantaged over people who are not citizens where I live. And so forth. It's about the big picture, not each and every tiny detail.

Part of the problem as I see it Cadet, is these discussions don't ever include the "how to fix it" part. It's just an endless attack on whites in an attempt to shame them.

I'm not interested in attacking and shaming whites. I'm interested in diverting funds from the black hole of a defence budget into better public health measures. Into better early intervention for disadvantaged people, and for better educational access and programmes. Into creating employment opportunities (that don't ultimately result in war and further entrenching suffering). I've got a "how to fix it" list as long as my arm!

But why would I expect anyone to get behind any of those measures, unless I can demonstrate that there is a need for improvement?

 

[Paidiske]

"Hmm....here are two job applications, one from someone named John, another from someone named Malik. My first instinct is to hire John because the name is more familiar...but thinking about it further, that doesn't mean John is more qualified, does it? Before I go ahead with my first instinct, let me check this other guy's application. Hey, look, he has more experience than John does....."

One suggestion I've heard (would probably only work for large companies) is that when applications come in for a job, the education and experience section should be passed on to be examined, while the names/sex/birth date-type biographical data should be replaced by a number. So that when applications are assessed, they really are only looking at merit. Then when they've chosen interviewees on that information, the number can be matched back up to the biographical data.