"On White Privilege"

[Ana the Ist]

Okay, put it that way if you like.

-- A2SG, your bias, you're allowed to define it however you like....

Lol I feel that's an accurate unbiased description.

 

[A2SG]

Appropriately vague.

Kinda the point. It's a broad issue.

Of what?

The world around me. Our society.

Racial bias? How would you observe that?

Any number of ways. I've offered a few examples here and there.

Why should I consider your observations over my own?

Who said you should?

Are you trying to contend that there is no racial bias in this country, that there is no inequality due to race? If not, I'm not sure of your point. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I disagree. It's absolutely essential to understand the problem.

Okay. When you understand it, let me know, okay?

It's seems you've missed the point. With your possibility being no more likely than mine, we'll need to find a cause to understand how to proceed correctly.

Or we could proceed anyway, and try to see if we can improve things. It's been working, so far.

Compare the status of different races today compared to, say the 1950s? And then, compared to, say, the 1850s. Have they improved?

If so, then we're headed in the right direction.

Even though we don't fully understand every cause behind the issue of racial bias and inequality. Imagine that!

Well, in the example of uncommon names having a less chance of being hired...I would say the easy solution would be to give your child more common names. Problem solved.

That's a solution, sure. And you've just illustrated white privilege in the process. To succeed in this country, the more "white" your name sounds, the better your chances.

The privilege of being white, extended to those who can pretend to be white, just long enough to get a job interview.

I don't see anything wrong with the presumptions in the example I gave. I don't think you can tell a black person it's wrong to relate more easily to black people or a white person to white people. It may be unfair...but it's not in any way wrong.

Which may be why I never claimed it was. Remember, I'm the one who isn't interested in assigning blame.

I think if your child is looking to t.v. for role models...you've got more problems than the color of the t.v. characters.

People find role models everywhere they look. TV offers a look into a world beyond your neighborhood, a larger picture of the society in which you live. If that larger picture doesn't include people like you (or only includes very few)...what does that say about your place in society?

It would seem that conscious manipulation of it then is an attempt for us to reflect it. Something I'm not crazy about.

Um, what other way is there to manipulate it? Do you think pop culture happens without people creating it? Art, writing, TV, movies, etc. It's all created by individuals, who are part of the culture they're writing about. We create it, and we're defined by it as well.

Just one example or a list of names?

Dude, you're killin' me here! What, you're not a fan of Idris Elba?

Suppose they recast the Cosby show with an all white family. Would that attempt to defy tradition be progress in your mind? Or is it only when white traditions are defied that it's progress?

Well, I guess that would depend....what about a TV show featuring an affluent, all-white family defies tradition, exactly?

Am I wrong? Any law enforcement experience? Any resources at your disposal which can aid the fight against terrorism?

Come on, dude, you've been relying on assumptions all this time, why stop now?

Doesn't really answer the question.

You asked in what way it was deeper than just race, I went deeper than race. How did that not answer the question?

Did you mean to ask a different question? I'm all ears.

So you think that a girl comes to the police and says a white guy named Matt raped her...the police think "no way! He's white!"

Is that what I said?

But when a girl says a black guy named Tayshaun raped her, they say, "let's get that (racial slur)!"

Is that about it?

If that's what I said. If it isn't....then no.

Tell ya what, why not go by what I said instead, mmmkay?

How do you propose we do that?

It was your idea...you tell me.

Well you can ask them for starters...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/28/blacks-whites-police/

There's lots more if you're interested.

I'll check it out. Give me time, though.

That's interesting. What part of the public do you suppose they are trying to relate to with those particular promotional choices?

I dunno...whatever part of the public they need to relate to. You know the business better than I do.

How do you suppose that this promotional strategy (hiring according to race and gender instead of say...ability) would impact any group that employs it?

No idea, I'm not the one doing it. Ask the people doing it, they're in a better position to tell you why than I am. As I said, I'm only able to guess.

That's an interesting idea...even a distinct possibility of skewed numbers if it weren't for the fact that there's actually more whites in poverty than blacks.

By actual numbers, or percentage?

So clearly this wouldn't be applicable except for very very few specific examples. There are millions more whites without powerful family connections than blacks.

True. Keep in mind, no one ever said every white person is privlieged. That's not what white privilege means.

Once again, see above. Last I checked, which was before writing this post...19 million whites under the poverty line and 7-8 million blacks. This wouldn't account for the numbers we see...

So you're saying blacks living in poverty are more likely to be arrested, even though there are fewer of them than whites living in poverty?

Hmm....that sounds rather unequal to me, doesn't it sound unequal to you?

Hmmmm...must be something else...

Or it could be exactly what I've been talking about.

But hey, when you've figured out the definitive cause, let me know, okay?

Fire has multiple causes.

Maybe on occasion, but usually, only one thing causes a single fire. And for the most part, it can be figured out definitively.

Causes for racial bias and inequality are far less definitive, or solvable by physical science.

But making them aware of these biases will?

For some individuals, nothing will ever change their point of view. But if more of us start to, the old, prejudiced ways of thinking pass into history, where they belong.

Just out of curiosity...suppose all of human history for blacks and whites were reversed. Blacks came from northern Europe, for example, and whites came from Africa.

Do you think any of our history would change for this one alteration? Would whites now be in the position of blacks and vice versa?

Probably. After all, biologically, there's no significant difference except for skin color. What we call "race" isn't a biological difference at all, it's a social difference. Skin color comes from how close a population is from the equator, not from any definitive biological difference.

To answer that I'd have to know how you would strive for it and what the end result you seek is.

By trying to create a better system of equality of opportunity among those of different races; toward the end result of leaving our society better off than we found it.

Haven't seen it since grade school...sorry.

Watch it sometime (or better yet, read the book). And try to imagine the same trial today, in a 21st century courthouse.

Again...I'd have to know where it is you want us to go.

Forward.

Well here's the thing. Let's say that the starting point for race relations in this nation was pretty bad. Whites had a terrible view of blacks...and likewise, blacks had an awful view of whites. That's a fair, if general description, isn't it?

Let's suppose that all the progress has really only happened in one direction...the white view of blacks. We've worked, created laws, created policies, etc etc...to change the white view of blacks.

Will we ever succeed in this golden utopia of equality without striving to change the black view of whites? Or can it succeed by only changing the views of whites towards blacks?

As a nation...I think we've made great strides in one direction, and very few in the other.

Why do you say that? How has the way black people view white people gotten worse since, say, when white people held them as slaves?

-- A2SG, hard to see how we've gotten lower than that nadir.....

 

[rturner76]

Clearly not...

While it does use empirical methods some of the time, it doesn't ever result in cause-effect observations like you might see in physics or biology...or even economics or psychology...

In other words, it's mostly guesswork. It's more of a school of study than a science.

If you disagree though, feel free to give me one hard provable fact about the way large groups of people interact.

Here is an example of how large groups ofpeople interact through the lens of sociology especially note the bold part

"Over time, most sociologists have come to use what Robert K. Merton (1949) called theories of the middle range. These are theories that include a limited number of interrelated concepts from which one may derive hypotheses that can be investigated through empirical research. An example from Merton‘s own writings is that of reference group theory"

In other words sociological hypothesis can be proven with empirical data.

"Social institutions are general patterns of norms that define behavior in social relationships. Institutions define how people ought to behave and legitimate the sanctions applied to behavior. Contract is a good example of a social institution: as an institution, it consists of quite general norms that regulate entry into and the consequences of contractual agreements; it prescribes neither who shall enter into such agreements nor—within certain institutionally defined limits—what the agreements shall contain. Finally, social structure, or social morphology, is the integration and stabilization of social interaction through an organization of statuses and roles, such as age, sex, or class. "

I can see why you don't like sociology. If we admit that we adhere to social interaction based on societal statuses and roles, this could include race as a matter of class then we have the possibility of white privilege as one of the historically prevalent factors as it has related to class in this country. This sociologically provable fact would be inconvenient when attempting to dispute the notion of white privilege.

I'm glad sociology was brought up because it seems to me a sociological issue with a sociological answer

 

[Paidiske]

Well, in the example of uncommon names having a less chance of being hired...I would say the easy solution would be to give your child more common names. Problem solved.

Alright. Let's run a little experiment on this. Take, say, the top five most popular names for boys and girls in the U.S.A. this year.

Noah (Origin, Hebrew)
Liam (Origin, Irish)
Mason (Origin, English)
Ethan (Origin, Hebrew)
Michael (Origin, Hebrew)

Emma (Origin, German)
Olivia (Origin, English)
Sophia (Origin, Greek)
Isabella (Latinised form of a Hebrew name)
Ava (Anglicised form of a Hebrew name)

So, just on that survey, if you've got an English or European or Hebrew background, you've got names there that represent your culture and heritage.

But if your advice to people outside that culture and heritage is, just pick a name like that, then there are no names that represent your culture and heritage. So straight away you have to choose between, say, giving a name that might have been passed down in the family, that might have been held by generations of blessed memory, that might represent your native language or significant historical figures in your culture or religion... and a name which is likely to be advantageous in the job market.

And that is why we talk about it as an expression of white privilege. Because you shouldn't have to choose between a family name and a name which might get you a job (to put it in really basic terms).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here is an example of how large groups ofpeople interact through the lens of sociology especially note the bold part

"Over time, most sociologists have come to use what Robert K. Merton (1949) called theories of the middle range. These are theories that include a limited number of interrelated concepts from which one may derive hypotheses that can be investigated through empirical research. An example from Merton‘s own writings is that of reference group theory"

In other words sociological hypothesis can be proven with empirical data.

Actually, that's not what that statement says...

What Merton is saying is that we can only empirically investigate concepts that are rather limited in scope and range.

For example, we can empirically prove that blacks get pulled over more than whites...but limiting our studies along certain ranges (what he likes to call a middle range). What this means to you is that, for example, if we can control for other factors...we can probably show "empirically" that blacks get pulled over more than whites.

Something that we wouldn't be able to show though, is that this is due to racism or bias in some way.

Were you interested in me talking about the rest of your quotes? Because I don't see that they're particularly useful for this conversation.

"Social institutions are general patterns of norms that define behavior in social relationships. Institutions define how people ought to behave and legitimate the sanctions applied to behavior. Contract is a good example of a social institution: as an institution, it consists of quite general norms that regulate entry into and the consequences of contractual agreements; it prescribes neither who shall enter into such agreements nor—within certain institutionally defined limits—what the agreements shall contain. Finally, social structure, or social morphology, is the integration and stabilization of social interaction through an organization of statuses and roles, such as age, sex, or class. "

I can see why you don't like sociology. If we admit that we adhere to social interaction based on societal statuses and roles, this could include race as a matter of class then we have the possibility of white privilege as one of the historically prevalent factors as it has related to class in this country. This sociologically provable fact would be inconvenient when attempting to dispute the notion of white privilege.

I'm glad sociology was brought up because it seems to me a sociological issue with a sociological answer

 

[Ana the Ist]

Alright. Let's run a little experiment on this. Take, say, the top five most popular names for boys and girls in the U.S.A. this year.

Noah (Origin, Hebrew)
Liam (Origin, Irish)
Mason (Origin, English)
Ethan (Origin, Hebrew)
Michael (Origin, Hebrew)

Emma (Origin, German)
Olivia (Origin, English)
Sophia (Origin, Greek)
Isabella (Latinised form of a Hebrew name)
Ava (Anglicised form of a Hebrew name)

So, just on that survey, if you've got an English or European or Hebrew background, you've got names there that represent your culture and heritage.

But if your advice to people outside that culture and heritage is, just pick a name like that, then there are no names that represent your culture and heritage. So straight away you have to choose between, say, giving a name that might have been passed down in the family, that might have been held by generations of blessed memory, that might represent your native language or significant historical figures in your culture or religion... and a name which is likely to be advantageous in the job market.

And that is why we talk about it as an expression of white privilege. Because you shouldn't have to choose between a family name and a name which might get you a job (to put it in really basic terms).

Actually, I'm in a nation where our last names are family names. We're discussing first names...

Moreover, I was asked for a solution to a problem. I've presented a solution haven't I?

Finally, my name, like so many names here...has multiple spellings. That's because the original spelling of my name is unusual. Why would you suppose that people would do such a thing? To fit in? Possibly.

Or it could be that they simply got a point where finding a job was more important to them than changing society.

At what point do we draw a line and say, "I'm sorry, we're not going to change society for you anymore...at this point you'll have to change for society?"

 

[Ana the Ist]

Alright. Let's run a little experiment on this. Take, say, the top five most popular names for boys and girls in the U.S.A. this year.

Noah (Origin, Hebrew)
Liam (Origin, Irish)
Mason (Origin, English)
Ethan (Origin, Hebrew)
Michael (Origin, Hebrew)

Emma (Origin, German)
Olivia (Origin, English)
Sophia (Origin, Greek)
Isabella (Latinised form of a Hebrew name)
Ava (Anglicised form of a Hebrew name)

So, just on that survey, if you've got an English or European or Hebrew background, you've got names there that represent your culture and heritage.

But if your advice to people outside that culture and heritage is, just pick a name like that, then there are no names that represent your culture and heritage. So straight away you have to choose between, say, giving a name that might have been passed down in the family, that might have been held by generations of blessed memory, that might represent your native language or significant historical figures in your culture or religion... and a name which is likely to be advantageous in the job market.

And that is why we talk about it as an expression of white privilege. Because you shouldn't have to choose between a family name and a name which might get you a job (to put it in really basic terms).

Did you say you were from Australia?

 

[Paidiske]

Moreover, I was asked for a solution to a problem. I've presented a solution haven't I?

I'm just demonstrating that your proposed solution has other associated problems. Do you think we could come up with a solution which did not? Which, perhaps, didn't involve indulging bias against uncommon names?

At what point do we draw a line and say, "I'm sorry, we're not going to change society for you anymore...at this point you'll have to change for society?"

I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure than when it comes to dealing with racial inequality, we aren't anywhere near the point at which that would be equitable.

And yes, I am now living in Australia (although originally from South Africa).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm just demonstrating that your proposed solution has other associated problems. Do you think we could come up with a solution which did not? Which, perhaps, didn't involve indulging bias against uncommon names?



I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure than when it comes to dealing with racial inequality, we aren't anywhere near the point at which that would be equitable.

And yes, I am now living in Australia (although originally from South Africa).

Here's a list of banned baby names in Australia...


http://www.2dayfm.com.au/scoopla/li...ames-for-2015-will-make-you-rofl-lol-and-smh/

Do you agree with this? Because frankly, I don't. I think you should be able to name your child as you please.

What I don't agree with is the notion that you have the right to demand everyone else change and accept your choice of names as "normal".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm just demonstrating that your proposed solution has other associated problems. Do you think we could come up with a solution which did not? Which, perhaps, didn't involve indulging bias against uncommon names?



I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure than when it comes to dealing with racial inequality, we aren't anywhere near the point at which that would be equitable.

And yes, I am now living in Australia (although originally from South Africa).

There's actually a child in this nation named...North West. No joke.

Does little North West have the right to demand that no one laugh at his/her name? How about that they be given a job?

 

[Paidiske]

I don't particularly have a problem with the government preventing parents from registering vulgar or blasphemous or otherwise problematic names as legal names for their children, no.

But that's not what we're talking about in terms of what's "normal." Take the name Phuc; a perfectly normal Vietnamese name with a long history and proud tradition. If we were to ban that because it's not "normal" and looks as if it ought to sound like a vulgar word, that would be a problem. Or indeed if we were to refrain from hiring someone with that name because it doesn't fit the corporate image, that would be a problem.

When we take a very very narrow slice of culture and declare that "normal" and everything else "abnormal," and demand that the abnormal become normal to be treated with basic decency, that's exactly what we're talking about as white privilege, and saying it needs to change.

Why is Emma inherently a better name than Phuc?

 

[A2SG]

Finally, my name, like so many names here...has multiple spellings. That's because the original spelling of my name is unusual. Why would you suppose that people would do such a thing? To fit in? Possibly.

Or it could be that they simply got a point where finding a job was more important to them than changing society.

Many jews, for example, did exactly that to prevent being discriminated against, and to assimilate into society better. And for the most part, it worked.

But that option isn't available for black people. They can't "pass" for white by changing their name, so as solutions go, it's limited.

At what point do we draw a line and say, "I'm sorry, we're not going to change society for you anymore...at this point you'll have to change for society?"

Who is "we"? And who are "we" not changing society for?

Think about this for a moment....

If you're assuming white people are in charge of what changes are made to society, that they can change, or not change, as they see fit...and everyone else has to abide by that decision.....

That, my friend, is white privilege in a nutshell.

It's also an illusion.

The fact is, all of us make up society. White people don't change society alone, nor can they stop society from changing around them. Sure, they can try...but for every historical example of white people trying to stop society from changing, you'll see them failing in the end.

-- A2SG, and for any current attempts still in progress....well, wait and see.....

 

[A2SG]

There's actually a child in this nation named...North West. No joke.

Does little North West have the right to demand that no one laugh at his/her name? How about that they be given a job?

He has rich parents, he'll be fine.

-- A2SG, on the other hand, had he been born to poor parents, then he might have a problem.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't particularly have a problem with the government preventing parents from registering vulgar or blasphemous or otherwise problematic names as legal names for their children, no.

But that's not what we're talking about in terms of what's "normal." Take the name Phuc; a perfectly normal Vietnamese name with a long history and proud tradition. If we were to ban that because it's not "normal" and looks as if it ought to sound like a vulgar word, that would be a problem. Or indeed if we were to refrain from hiring someone with that name because it doesn't fit the corporate image, that would be a problem.

When we take a very very narrow slice of culture and declare that "normal" and everything else "abnormal," and demand that the abnormal become normal to be treated with basic decency, that's exactly what we're talking about as white privilege, and saying it needs to change.

Why is Emma inherently a better name than Phuc?

Well who decides what is normal then? Because a lot...and I do mean a lot....of the names we're discussing here have absolutely zero tradition behind them? They may be literally made up on the spot for the purpose of sounding different.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Many jews, for example, did exactly that to prevent being discriminated against, and to assimilate into society better. And for the most part, it worked.

But that option isn't available for black people. They can't "pass" for white by changing their name, so as solutions go, it's limited.

I wouldn't know my friend Marcus Lanier was black by just his name...would you?

Who is "we"? And who are "we" not changing society for?

We as in "society". Changing for the individual who is crying about their name...saying that we all need to change.

I'll just disregard the rest of your statement since its assumed nonsense.

Think about this for a moment....

If you're assuming white people are in charge of what changes are made to society, that they can change, or not change, as they see fit...and everyone else has to abide by that decision.....

That, my friend, is white privilege in a nutshell.

It's also an illusion.

The fact is, all of us make up society. White people don't change society alone, nor can they stop society from changing around them. Sure, they can try...but for every historical example of white people trying to stop society from changing, you'll see them failing in the end.

-- A2SG, and for any current attempts still in progress....well, wait and see.....

 

[Paidiske]

Why is the question of normality relevant? Provided it's a legal name, why should it matter whether anyone thinks a name is normal or not?

That's really the argument I'm making; how common or "normal" a name is shouldn't determine how the person with the name is treated!

 

[Ana the Ist]

He has rich parents, he'll be fine.

-- A2SG, on the other hand, had he been born to poor parents, then he might have a problem.....

Wonderful. Assume he has poor parents and answer the questions. Does he have a right to demand such things?

 

[A2SG]

I wouldn't know my friend Marcus Lanier was black by just his name...would you?

Nope. But once he came in for an interview, it'd be hard to hide.

Which is why I say that, as a solution, it's limited.

We as in "society".

Right. And who decides what changes are made to society, and which aren't?

When you said this: "I'm sorry, we're not going to change society for you anymore...at this point you'll have to change for society?"

Who is talking to whom?

Changing for the individual who is crying about their name...saying that we all need to change.

But why would that individual need to change his name? What would he be changing it to?

I'll just disregard the rest of your statement since its assumed nonsense.

I wish you wouldn't....because it isn't nonsense at all.

These are the preconceptions and assumptions I've been talking about all along. When we talk about names...what makes one name more preferred on a job application than another? The name isn't a job requirement, you're not being hired based on the name....so why does one matter over another?

What makes one name more "acceptable" and more "hireable" than another?

-- A2SG, this is a real issue, it isn't nonsense.....

 

[A2SG]

Wonderful. Assume he has poor parents and answer the questions. Does he have a right to demand such things?

Why not?

I get that names do make a difference in a lot of cases....but should they? Are you trying to argue that a silly or unusual name makes someone unqualified for a job? If not...what are you arguing?

-- A2SG, why should you assume Boaty McBoatface isn't a qualified and competent accountant?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why is the question of normality relevant? Provided it's a legal name, why should it matter whether anyone thinks a name is normal or not?

What's illegal about "Bonghead"

That's really the argument I'm making; how common or "normal" a name is shouldn't determine how the person with the name is treated!

See above.