Privilege
There has been quite a lot of talk about privilege for some time now and what should be done with it. It has been argued that it should be dismantled so everyone can get the same chances at life. Some have gone as far as denouncing it, citing that the idea of privilege only exists for the white, straight, male. I believe that is important to consider every point of view when talking about this reccuring issue.
Firstly, I firmly oppose the idea that of those who have it, for any reason really, should let go of it. The reason for this is that I see privilege as a truly powerful tool that may very well change the tide when it is harnessed in a way that can create a positive impact. Take, for example, a 100 meter race, in which the first one who crosses the line gets $100. Initially, everyone is standing on the same starting line, however, just before the race starts, those who have privilege (money, race, gender, etc...) get a head start. We have then created our first gap for no apparent reason other than privilege. We are not discussing how was the privilege acquired, some just have it. Now, this is one of the sources of much discussion. If someone gets a head start based on something they had nothing to do with, I would reasonably cry injustice.
Now, consider this. Those who get the headstart may very well be slow and lose against their opponents. It is true that they still have an advantage, but this does not determine the winner. Everyone wants to win the $100, and some may have to run less. But we have not determined who the fastest runners are. For all we know, the individuals standing on the same, unprivileged starting line, may be faster and thus, win. This is where I inject my question: What if me, a privileged and slow individual, trade $50 with anyone that teaches me how to run faster and win? I still have my privilege, I am not renouncing it, but now I am using it as a tool from which someone else may benefit.
The other 2 ways that I can see this issue being solved is to renounce privilege (in which we all stand on the same line and may the best win the $100) or to let the other groups have the privilege.
This is a repost!
Firstly, I firmly oppose the idea that of those who have it, for any reason really, should let go of it. The reason for this is that I see privilege as a truly powerful tool that may very well change the tide when it is harnessed in a way that can create a positive impact. Take, for example, a 100 meter race, in which the first one who crosses the line gets $100. Initially, everyone is standing on the same starting line, however, just before the race starts, those who have privilege (money, race, gender, etc...) get a head start. We have then created our first gap for no apparent reason other than privilege. We are not discussing how was the privilege acquired, some just have it. Now, this is one of the sources of much discussion. If someone gets a head start based on something they had nothing to do with, I would reasonably cry injustice.
Now, consider this. Those who get the headstart may very well be slow and lose against their opponents. It is true that they still have an advantage, but this does not determine the winner. Everyone wants to win the $100, and some may have to run less. But we have not determined who the fastest runners are. For all we know, the individuals standing on the same, unprivileged starting line, may be faster and thus, win. This is where I inject my question: What if me, a privileged and slow individual, trade $50 with anyone that teaches me how to run faster and win? I still have my privilege, I am not renouncing it, but now I am using it as a tool from which someone else may benefit.
The other 2 ways that I can see this issue being solved is to renounce privilege (in which we all stand on the same line and may the best win the $100) or to let the other groups have the privilege.
This is a repost!
Comments (675)
Trickling down on the unprivileged... That'll work.
Sure, and we can keep adding qualifiers here: Were these cis white men disabled? Were they trauma victims? Were they ugly? Did they come from single parent households?
There's bound to be at least one thing about everyone that qualifies as "oppressed" the question is whether you take that oppression and make it a part of your identity.
Actually, the question is more whether others take that oppression and make it a part of your identity
USA! USA!
Let's do neither, sound good?
That wasn't my point, but in any case do you think the disabled don't suffer systemic discrimination? Honestly, I think ugly people suffer a great deal of discrimination - is it systemic? Who knows, but it surely happens.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
So you wish to perpetrate the myth that everyone suffers some form of oppression, and when called on that obvious fallacy you fall back on the pretence that all we need to do is play nice.
Systematic discrimination against people with a disability takes the form of stairs. Removing that discrimination requires that you remove the stairs.
Doing nothing will not suffice.
I'm saying that the vast majority - maybe all, I don't know - have at least one attribute which qualifies as "unprivileged." I'm not falling back on anything; I fully own this premise and I'll stand by it.
Come on, you can do better. We're mostly talking about employment discrimination here - basically, employers not hiring disabled or ugly people because they see them as too big a burden or unfit for the position due to their disability. Of course the stairs are an obstacle and accommodations need to be made, but when we're tlaking about discrimination we're talking about discrimination mostly in the workplace involving employment and promotions, but also fair general treatment.
In order to have privilege one must first be privileged, or in other words, someone must grant him a special right or immunity. If someone doesn’t grant him a special right or immunity, he is not privileged, and therefor has no privilege. The problem is not necessarily those who receive privilege, but those who grant it.
You might be; talking about employment; that you can ignore issues apart from those you list is your privilege. You get to pretend that the stairs are not the issue.
Others are not so fortunate.
The point here cuts to the bullshit of the OP. You will not recognise your privilege; it must be pointed out by those who do not share it.
It's not just about suffering, it's likely systemic discrimination as is the case with the ugly.
Quoting GTTRPNK
When I hear "the system intentionally built..." I want to ask who made this system? Who can I point my finger at and condemn? What exactly is being talked about here? Capitalism? The legal system? War on Drugs? Policing in general? These are all different things, not one cohesive system. Please specify.
How 'merican of you...?
OP started off saying this was the topic, so idk where else I'm supposed to go with it.
You said "Systematic discrimination against people with a disability takes the form of stairs." This is just wrong because it totally neglects the bigger picture which is the human element to it - the actual stigma held by people around disability. For example, the employer's impression of what people with disabilities are capable of or the potential costs involved to employing them.
For whatever reason you're also just defining "people with disabilities" to people who have trouble with mobility, also.
Stairs are not systemically ableist.
Are drive thrus systemically ableist for people who stutter or have difficulty speaking? How about just any speaking situation whatsoever? Are hills systemically ableist? Should the entire world just be thrown to the flames?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Bullshit. In the technical sense, of course. But you are perhaps beginning to think...
I like how you didn't address the rest of my questions because it would have led you to conclude that that basically everything on the planet is ableist.
Saying that stairs are not systematical ableist is... well, astounding in its lack of thought.
Stairs present an obstacle to a certain group of disabled people making them ableist, so is any man-made thing or human convention or practice that presents an obstacle to a certain group of disabled people also ableist?
That's how privilege works.
Quoting Banno
True.
Quoting Banno
Also true.
Quoting Banno
Yes, having the ability to walk is absolutely a privilege. A lot of people don't notice it.
The thing about disability is that it's not only about people with mobility issues... it involves everything from mental disabilities to speech disabilities to emotional ones... all I'm asking for you is to keep flushing out your logic. Your basic logic seems to be "Well, if X (with X being something in society) is easier for those who don't suffer from some disability (let's call that disability Y) then it's ableist." Just formulate your basic logic, please.
By the way, upwards ramps also favor certain body types. Actually, so do normal flat surfaces.
It is relevant because if someone does not privilege you, you are not privileged. So it is not only unjust to call people who are not privileged “privileged”, it is stupid.
That is a good point, you pull people up not push people down for them to stand on.
I think its a worthwhile distinction to break “privilege” down here. There are different kinds of privilege, and I think there are a few different uses of the term being discussed. For example, what you said above might not seem so sensible if you consider privilege gained by immoral means. Then we would want the person of privilege to lose it...like a politician or other leader. For that matter, what about people who earned privilege? Im not sure it makes sense to always grant an under privileged equal privilege if they arent Earning that privilege...but then that's two senses of the word privilege being used isnt it?
So I think that might be leading to some disagreement.
"People confuse privilege with reward earned through effort."
Basically yeah, why would someone have invented the polio vaccine, the steam engine, the lightbulb, or the computer if they could just sit around all day. One should be careful in the pursuit of equality not to devalue human effort entirely.
You shouldn't confuse your own selfish laziness for the state of all people.
Basically, yeah. Again this is more of a historic injustice thread so I wouldn't have been so blunt.
Unless you're vocalizing a presumption about me? I'm a religious philosopher. You can give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. But if you teach a man to fish... Poseidon might show up and invite you to party in Atlantis.
Anyway it's just human nature. Sometimes out of intelligence, sometimes out of laziness. You learn to work or invent something that works more efficiently... your time and efforts are maximized. And so will those of others. I mean, come on, is anyone who uses something that's not a virtual Rube Goldberg machine foolish or lazy?
Why is it mainly academics politicians and left wing students who espouse this rhethoric with zero explanatory power?
If you believe in big govt and capitalism then you full well
should know that rich elites keep privilege and capital between themselves whilst allowing enough freedom for the non elites to be happy enough to contribute to the rigged economy and give enough support to allow govts to continue their pilfering.
Rather than direct your ire and virtue signalling at unpriviledged ordinary folk who dont agree with your ideology and branding people privileged purely on racial identity why not actually address the cause of poverty?
Im really talking about any kind of privilege really. However, it is true that the conversation has strayed. Let us refocuse in another example. Take this heavy rain season. Some individuals are glad to have rain and enjoy the weather. Some are having their houses flooded. Now, knowing that the second statement is true, are we then allowed to enjoy the weather and the rain, while taking notice of those affected and reaching out to help, or should we not be able to enjoy the rain because some are not?
The privilege is granted to those who want to enjoy the rain, while those who are having their houses flooded have none.
I do not understand. Is that good or bad?
Chances are someone will always be privileged if by that is meant "better off" than others. But I don't think that's a topic for serious discussion. What might be interesting to consider is the fact that there are certain folk who aren't merely better off than others, but remarkably better off than others, and are as a rule given preference, rights and benefits not granted others, especially by those in authority, for reasons unrelated to their merit, virtue, worthiness or any other reason which might arguably make them deserving of privilege.
I don't think any reasonable person can maintain that there are no such people, nor can I think of any reasonable basis for the claim that this is as it should be. I think it's very unlikely that those who are so privileged will use their privileged position to benefit others (beyond their friends and family) to any significant extent, though there may be some small number of them who will make an effort to do so.
For me, then, what should be addressed is the question--What can/should be done to change this state of affairs? It's not at all an easy question to answer, but should be addressed unless we're content to let it continue.
How can the weather (or in another example, stairs) grant privilege? These sorts of objects cannot grant anything, let alone special rights and privileges. Further, I think it’s fine to say life is tough for those who get flooded, but it makes no sense to derive from that the quality of life or “privilege” from those who don’t.
So, you, a slow runner, keep track of the guy who does not have your advantage but still almost beats you, and give him $ 50,-- you wouldn't have had without your headstart so he can teach you how to run faster, and so that in the next race, he'll have an eaven harder time catching up. He may get bitter, and since he now has $ 50,-- his motivation to run hard drops a little. However, all the others will race each other (not you), so the fastest of them can have $ 50,-- from you. You get $ 50,-- with each race, and expand your advantage, until you're good enough that your investment is just a charity holdover to flaunt your status, with lots of guys behind you to think: "That should have been me."
That's not a solution; that's the problem.
That was a step up from what I had in mind, thats for sure. Yeah, I understand what you are saying and it really is the problem. But focus on only one race, one game if you like game theory. It is a fact that I have a headstart and that I am initially slow. Eliminating my headstart can only be done by me right? This indeed leads to everyone having the same opportunity. However, if I do it, I will lose the race because I do not have the same abilities that the others may have. So why would I let go of my advantage, in which not only me but another individual can benefit from, in the first place?
I'm not sure how to deal with that example, though. Sharing the cash is a stop-gap measure at best, and flaunting your priviledge at worst.
A few other things:
Quoting Alejandro
Generally, no, you can't eliminate your head start. It's baked into the system. In your example, you can walk back to the starting line, sure. In real life, you can't stop being a male, white, or straight.
And if you hadn't said what I quoted right now, I'd probably not have realised it but: the headstart you get isn't your priviledge. You get the headstart because of your (unnamed) privileadge (I'm guessing it's shoe size, am I right?).
Quoting Alejandro
Right. Now you're underpriviledged, and the headstart is "affirmative action". You're doing the right thing by investing in your skills. Affirmative action will cease once you catch up (or so the theory goes). Except it's only one race, so it's pretty pointless to invest. (And anyway, it's your example. You could have been an excellent runner with a headstart, who can afford to take it easy.)
Finally, if it's only one race, and you're slow (and thus underpriviledged), and you don't get a headstart, that's all right, too, since one of the winners might give you 50 dollar to teach him you're expertise.
It's not about one race. It's never about one race. It's about a repeated and systematic pattern across many, many races. So I don't really know what to say about solution, other than it doesn't change much (and in some cases it might be better to keep the money so you're not the well-meaning but cluesless guy who rubs salt into a sore wound by offering a trifle).
Eh, I'm not sure that's quite right. I'm having second thoughts. It's mostly a terminology problem, but I'm pretty sure priviledge is attached to a factor, but it's not quite the individual advantage either.
(What's the etiquette for such a case, where I have amendments to make, and I'm still the last post. Editing my post? Quoting myself?)
I'm not privileged as I see it, but I do recognize others are having their rights violated. It's not a privilege to be treated as an equal with dignity and respect. It's a right, which is precisely why we refer to them as civil rights and not civil privileges .
There is an Australian television show called "Q and A" in which various experts are placed before a live audience, to answer questions. In one memorable episode a young white male audience member in a private school uniform insisted that he was not privileged; his claim was that he and his family had earned their position.
He was laughed down. An entirely suitable rebuttal, I think.
The interesting thing about the advantages that are labeled "privileges" is that those poor souls who suffer privilege are pretty much unawares. Hence the utility of the "stairs" example given earlier, which shows that it is necessary to take the perspective of an other in order to recognise one's privilege.
The role of discussions of privilege is not in deciding what can or should be done to change this state of affairs. It is in seeing one's position from the perspective of the other, and so recognising that there are changes that need to be made.
Well said.
Give the nature of the beliefs of far too many here in our Glorious Union regarding their "rights" and the nature of "tyranny," I fear that intelligent discussion may no longer be possible, and that the last thing many Americans want to do is see anything from the perspective of anyone different from themselves in the slightest respect.
Well said.
Often the claim of “privilege” is used as a cudgel or snarl word rather than an accurate description of one’s standing, especially when it is used in an accusatory fashion against a race or gender or class, no matter the lives of the flesh and blood human beings it is meant to describe. Then it becomes routine prejudice and bigotry. Like you said, one’s standing or upbringing does not preclude him from recognizing injustice or the violation of another’s rights.
The way I see it, virtually everybody is privileged in some ways and un-privileged in others. Many feminists today pride themselves on being "intersectional" which really just means they consider a number of factors that extend well outside of race - class, gender, disability, and we can even go further with that - looks, health, hair, etc.
I definitely consider myself privileged in some ways and unprivileged in others. Thankfully I don't have any serious health issues and I don't live everyday in chronic pain (I know people who do.) This is absolutely a privilege; some people are just born with terrible ailments which cause them pain throughout their lives.
I have no problem admitting privilege in certain regards and non-privilege in others. Someone calling me "privileged" as an insult always rings hollow. You can call them privileged right back even if they're black and poor and female.
Without making a person the groups they belong to, it is nearly impossible to see any benefit to this approach.
How refer to "groups" then? Or, perhaps, there are no groups, or the word "groups" cannot be used?
How do you know that he and his family hadn't earned their position? Had he been black, would he have been similarly laughed down? I don't ask that rhetorically, but it's a real question. I can't imagine that every prep school kid was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
You really think so? I believe that if the approach is correct, as in those who do not have the privilege ask to work together instead of demanding to strip the privilege of others, a lot could be accomplished
Agreed. To assume that something was granted instead of earned only damages the cause of having everyone to have the same opportunities
They may think themselves better-by-way-of-skin color than middle class blacks, but nobody--white or black--would consider them "privileged" or would want too much contact with them.
Real privilege requires wealth--either wealth in hand or wealth in usable heritage. A monk may have taken a vow of poverty, but he has access to a great store of cultural wealth. An indigent person, minimum 5th generation of poverty, like as not has a access to a far poorer store of cultural wealth. Real wealth, usually gained in the dirty pits of wealth accumulation, provides the power to project privilege. No wealth, no projection of high status.
Getting wealth is a game with a stacked deck. Major accumulation usually requires access to capital, or requires useful inventiveness. Bill Gates, for instance, had both--else he would not have become a titan of software. It takes privilege to gain access to capital. To paraphrase scripture: Those with privilege get more privilege. Those without privilege lose what little they thought they had.
Consider the enormously rich. The so-called 1%. That presumably will include those with assets worth a billion U.S. dollars or more. According to Forbes, there are about 2100 of them. That presumably also includes those worth mere millions; perhaps that would make the percentage figure larger. I mean those that possess wealth far beyond what they or their families need to live very comfortable lives indeed.
With few exceptions, they show no sign of sharing their wealth voluntarily. Rather, they accumulate even more. They have so much more than they could reasonably need that I think it would be appropriate to consider them similar to gluttons and hoarders; people from whom little is to be expected but they will continue to accumulate and consume more and more resources and think themselves right to do so. Perhaps I'm too cynical.
Lege - law.
So if it is the case, for example, that having black skin is in practice reasonable grounds for suspicion, whereas white skin is not so treated, that is an example of law operating differently according to the person, and that would constitute white privilege in the same way that a citizen of Rome had the privilege of appeal to the Emperor whereas the non-citizen did not.
The notion that simply because the state pays lip-service to equal rights there cannot be in practice any privilege is laughable. As is the notion that poor people cannot have privilege.
Roman citizenship was extended to all free men in the Empire by the Emperor Caracalla (best known for his baths constructed in Rome) in 212 C.E., by the way. Fun fact.
But not slaves, so it remains a system of privilege. Oh the irony of your pedantic and irrelevant historical diversion. Never mind understanding what's going on right now, as long as we get the ancient history right.
Oh the self-righteousness of your pharisiacal and peevish response, your High and Mightiness!
And if they had, that relieves them of their privilege?
I've got a little privilege here, got by luck, got by effort, got by the good graces of low-cost state university education, got by immigrants, got by the subjugation of a few aboriginal peoples.
Celebrate my privilege a little? Sure. Give it up? Nah.
How to refer to the groups of race, gender and sexual orientation? They're characteristics and relatively meaningless ones at that. Their meaning, their importance, opinions on them, a responsibility given to them, issues blamed on them, all of it is senseless. There's not much that you can reasonably say about a person based on their skin colour and I don't think races mean much at all in any context.
Groups are really difficult because characterising them is very subjective and the leftist characterisation is particularly malicious. It promotes the senseless discrimination I despise and there's no payoff.
Serious question here...
Would any one of you like to be treated in the exact same way as blacks are known to be treated by police and the criminal justice system in the United States of America?
One of the benefits of having some sort of privilege (wealth, education, good environment, etc.) is that one isn't subject to the worst indignities available. It isn't my privilege that is wrong; it's the way the criminal justice system treats blacks that is wrong.
I'm not so wealthy, so white, so educated, and from so good an environment that I haven't gotten the crappy end of the stick on more than a few occasions. I think I have a pretty good grasp of how blacks have been subjected to not only the criminal justice system. Further, I have a pretty good understanding of how black poverty and disadvantage has been engineered and maintained by contemporary (20th century) systems of real estate, banking, city zoning, urban "renewal" (negro removal), education, and so on.
The "white privilege" of working class/middle class people like me (and a couple hundred million other white folks) isn't the cause of discrimination against black people; it's the relative result. it isn't white privilege that puts more than 1 in 4 black men in prison (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at current levels of incarceration a black male in the United States today has greater than a 1 in 4 chance of going to prison during his lifetime, while a Hispanic male has a 1 in 6 chance and a white male has a 1 in 23 chance of serving time).
The coordinated 'management' or 'control' of black people grows out of the logic of slavery and post-civil war suppression and exploitation of blacks.
Over time the consequence was a black population that was deemed essential to industry (off and on) but personally irresponsible and dangerous.
All that was engineered. It didn't happen by accident. Who did it? The usual suspects: powerful ruling class operators who had and have the capacity to write housing policy (back in the 1930s and following), for example, that was as much about race as it was about square footage and construction codes. It was no accident that whites were sent to new housing in the suburbs, and that blacks were sent to new rental high rises in the city. The policy was to keep the races separate. Putting blacks in even quality rental housing helped insure their lack of wealth later on.
It was no accident that housing segregation increased after WWII. The federal government coordinated segregation by financing policy and housing codes. State, federal and local planners, zoning boards, city councils, county governments, and states followed suit. So did real estate companies, banks, S & Ls, construction companies, developers, et al.
It is stupid for us white folks to beat ourselves over their heads for having "white privilege". Our "privilege" is just people's misfortune. If white folks want to do something useful, we can at least try to change the way this fucking society works, and stop nattering about our dubious "privilege".
There was a certain ironic intent behind the word.
That's not a serious question, it's a dishonest one.
Questions aren't the sort of thing that can be honest or dishonest. It's a serious question. Do you have some issue answering it?
Yes, why don't you spell out for me what your question is trying to insinuate?
Would you want to get treated the way blacks in America have been and still are, in many ways, being treated?
That's pretty much the same question I just refused to answer.
Do you not know how blacks have been historically treated?
I am aware.
I'm getting a sense of frustration about the topic coming from your words. No one's asking for white people to beat themselves over the head. Rather, what's being asked for is for everyone to do everything in their power in order to stop the racial injustice towards black people whenever and however we can. Coming from an openly proud and outspoken gay man like yourself, certainly you share much common ground with anyone who has been treated horribly as a result of public norms that did not accept you as you are because of that. I know you can relate to unjust discrimination on many different levels than me.
So we both know of some problems regarding how blacks have been treated throughout American history. Surely we're also both aware of how other minorities(aside from white males) have been treated here as well. We agree that no one should be subject to such treatment and grave injustice.
As you well know, white privilege is the result of policy meant to benefit whites. A large part of which meant keeping blacks from being able to freely and publicly intermingle between whites, talk to whites, befriend and/or love whites, etc. This was done under the auspices of freedom of choice and liberty. The freedom to choose the kind of people one wants to be around. In fact, that sentiment of separation ran(and still currently runs) so deep as to be shared through different individual family and/or community members throughout generations in such a way that any individual family member thought and/or believed to be 'too close' to any particular black person would find themselves ostracized from the family as a direct result from breaking with/from the accepted norm. Such belief persists in practice.
We agree that something needs done.
American society is evolving in that it's changing, bit by bit, into a more representative form of government. Slowly but surely. Acknowledging that the rules governing the American people were always written only by those with the power to do so is one step we need to take. The overwhelming majority of those folk, at one time, were racist. They nearly all held beliefs surrounding the intentional devaluation of black people based upon nothing aside from the fact that they were black. As before, many held up their own rights of freedom and liberty to value/devalue whatever and whomever they so choose. In the United States, so it is strongly believed, one is free to think and believe whatever they so choose. Acknowledging the fact that the policies enacted by those kinds of racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic, violent, people have had seriously harmful effects/affect upon those not white, not male, not American 'enough', not heterosexual, not 'us'(in their minds) is yet another step in the direction of the right kinds of change.
Here's a suggested course of practical action/application...
When a presiding federal judge first enters the courtroom, sees a black man sitting in the counsel's chair, and immediately assumes that he is the defendant, despite his being appropriately dressed, then it is clear that the system in place includes judges who think the worst about someone simply because the color of their skin is black. When that same black man finds himself arguing in front of the Supreme Court due to his legal acumen/skill, we can also most certainly know that we have judges who are utterly incapable of making fair, impartial, and/or sound judgments about a black man(most likely blacks in general). Such a person is unfit to wield such tremendous power over black people.
Such a person cannot be granted the power to influence and/or outright determine the fate of any black man, ever again.
Yes. Yes indeed...
Let us change the way society works. Illuminating the deep-seated injustices is a step in the right direction. You've helped do this with your last post. Acquiring knowledge of white privilege requires discussion. What we do with it is another matter altogether. The need to shed light upon the racially charged hateful parts of American history, including the systemic racism imbedded into the criminal justice/law enforcement institutions remains until there are no racists. misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic people left in power.
Not all whites are racist. Not all racists are white. White privilege warrants careful and attentive discussion, not disdain for it's mention.
Your point of view doesn't have a monopoly on sympathy towards the oppressed or hatred towards unfairness. You are not in a position to question my sympathies towards the victims of systemic racism, I believe your purpose is insidious.
I know of no solution to systemic racism that benefits from the concept of privilege, you have no moral highground, you just have an ineffectual approach and that's me being kind.
What's so bad about the question? It's not an implied accusation, like when asking someone if they still beat their wife and kids.
We do agree that racial and legal injustices towards blacks were/are commonplace and need to be corrected, right?
Using butchered statistics bogus history and myths to create a problem when there isnt one. There are lots of low income white people who have nowhere near the lifestyle of a middle class black person. Are those black people privileged? Should they be aware and give back some of their privilege to white low income youths?
The whole thing Is hypocrisy and identity politics so already rich folks can try to further their political aims.
I dont trust folks who base every discussion on victim and identity politics,or rich celebs, politicians, the middle class and academics talking about oppression.
Oppression is primarily to do with economics and class.
And if your rich and middle class and support the elites and corporate capitalism then your arguments stand on thin air and hypocrisy.
This assumes the work of evil manipulative geniuses. A better explanation is that whites simply chose to move.
If I committed crime, no.
The question isn't an implied accusation? Then it is simply a terrible question, it is like asking "would you like to be harassed and unfairly imprisoned?"
Like walking black at night, possessing a counterfeit twenty dollar bill, or lying asleep in bed?
The "conspiracy" was entirely open and well documented.
There is ample public documentation; this isn't the work of your conspiratorial evil geniuses, unless you were referencing southern Democrats who, in the 1930s and 1940s, burdened housing law and policy with explicit racial restrictions. These same extra ++ conservative senators also moved to keep domestic and agricultural workers (largely black people) from coverage by Social Security.
The significance of housing discrimination plays out in the many aspects of life that is heavily influenced by housing policy -- education, for example, and wealth. The white families that bought new housing in the 1930s-1960s in the suburbs were able to use their growing housing equity to further improve their and their children's lives.
Blacks housed in new rental housing (those big high rise housing projects in Chicago, St. Louis, and other cities) were, of course, unable to accumulate equity. The high rises were generally neglected by the responsible city/county agencies, so... they gradually fell apart. [Some cities took good care of their high rises, and they are still going strong.] The Pruitt (for blacks) Igo (for whites) project in St. Louis deteriorated unusually fast -- not because of poor construction, but because of predation by metal recovery gangs (who ripped out working plumbing, resulting in floods in the building), and the usual gang warfare. The blacks who moved into the buildings thought they were really good housing, and LIKED their units. Still, the implementation of Minoru Yamasaki's design was poor. (Yamasaki also designed the World Trade Center I and II.)
Any of these books will explain much to you:
What's evident in the replies to this thread, again, is that the privileged do not understand their privilege.
Seems to me as folk won't listen to the other.
Truth vs Framing vs Interpretation, it is not a matter of listening, recognising and understanding. Leftist wrap themselves in their sympathies, compassion, indignation and knowledge and are satisfied that what they are saying is both righteous and true, good enough. However, it's not, those things do not justify any kind of framing and any kind of interpretation nor any kind of solution that you see fit. Of course, when I say you, I mean the ideology you subscribe to.
I don't doubt that you can defend your sympathies, compassion, indignation and that you know more or less the facts surrounding the issues you want to talk about. What I would like to hear is a defence of your framing and interpretation, that is "privilege" because that's actually what needs to be defended. OP can say people should "renounce privilege" like a moron but perhaps someone here can actually give a compelling argument for why it is important for people to understand their privilege and why thinking about things in this way is important or useful?
Someone... not sure who it was now... made the observation that so many of these discussions come down to trying to convince someone that they should care for someone else.
Quoting Judaka
Case in point.
Pity, I thought you could do better.
Quoting Judaka
That's pretty much the antithesis of the OP.
In a knutshell, recognising one's privilege is itself virtuous. More so if it leads to action, and hence to flourishing.
Err true, it is the antithesis of OP, I got confused between posters.
What kind of argument is that Banno, the conceptualisation of privilege is good because recognising one's privilege is virtuous?
It's what folk call an ethical argument. Ethical arguments are about what we should do.
I'm interested to hear this argument, I've yet to.
No, it quite clearly isn't going anywhere, virtuous things are virtuous end of story.
I haven’t seen one. In fact I think the only difference between claiming one’s privilege and claiming one’s supremacy is a guilty conscience.
Racial, sexual, cultural, etc.
I'm not responding to defend Banno and I'm not too familiar with how the concept of privilege is used in left wing circles, but it seems to me that the idea in and of itself isn't too bad. There's never been a doubt to me that people are privileged or unprivileged in various ways and I'd say that virtually everyone is privileged in some ways and unprivileged in others.
There is no great revelation to be had by knowing the conceptualisation of privilege in so far as people are born with advantages over others. This is absolutely obvious, however, that is not what privilege is about. Privilege cannot be separated from leftwing identity politics and this much is obvious. When I read you, I imagine you may be talking about intelligence, attractiveness, access to resources, talents, etc. It doesn't matter how or why you have these things but that you do and since it is very human to value these things, it'd be an odd case for someone to not want them.
If all privilege was saying was that some individuals are born into better circumstances than others then who can argue with that? Even if you want to conceptualise that within a country, who can argue with that?
Privilege does not do this and has absolutely no interest in privileges that do not fit into leftist identity politics theory. The narrative is that your privilege is based on your gender, sexual orientation and race. Your race is advantaged or disadvantaged based on which races were historically oppressors vs oppressed. Men oppressed women, whites oppressed everyone, cis straight oppressed other.
Your experience in this world is shaped by your gender, sexual orientation and race. A white person recognising their privilege is about acknowledging how other races have it worse and so on. What's wrong with this conceptualisation? Let me start off by saying that this is an issue of framing and interpretation.
Systemic racism exists, statistics show wealth has been deeply affected by historical racism, statistics show you have better chances to be privileged as a white person than black or Hispanic. I am not arguing against these statistics. However, privilege is a warped framing with no nuance or depth, it characterises history through the oppression of groups over other groups. It is not simply saying "racism, hatred of homosexuality and sexism are wrong".
It is absolutely asking you to see individuals by the groups they belong to and in this case that is by their race, sexual orientation and gender. Which to my mind is completely fucked up, the parallels with racism and sexism are easy to make. It condemns the privileges of the advantaged groups as proceeds of a racist and sexist society. For white people would not have more if this were not true, women would be paid as much as men if this were not true.
The benefits to recognising you have been benefited by historical racism are very hard to see. What step they are in the plan to end racism is not something that can be seen, it isn't there. All I see is the encouragement of taking note of someone's race/gender/sexual orientation and making assumptions about them, their experience and their "history". It is more about hating the rich than helping the poor.
Unnuanced, vindictive and entirely unhelpful to the struggle to end racism or sexism. Yet those who argue hide behind their intent to end racism and sexism, that's their defence of it.
Yes, and there's also the social part to it - how these biological traits or other unearned traits are treated in society.
Quoting Judaka
I get it - you don't need to argue against leftwing formulations of identity politics or privilege
with me because I'm not on the left.
Quoting Judaka
I agree - but what if we expanded this list? That's why I was saying earlier that the idea of privilege isn't in and of itself a leftist fantasy, and interestingly a trait can be a privilege in one circumstance and not in another. Identifying people purely through the lenses of race, sex, and sexuality is obviously stupid and I think we both agree so we can drop this point.
I actually did go to a presentation on intersectionalism last year and to their credit the speakers did extend beyond race, sex, and sexuality. Often class is brought in (always interesting to hear about, because with class often comes culture) and the speakers did touch on physical traits and the expectations that come along with those. It was genuinely interesting to hear how these identities intersected. Whether we like it or not, we often categorize those around us by these superficial traits and we refine this conception as we get to know that person more.
Obviously this is an unhealthy framing of things but if the idea of privilege is understood as an unearned advantage or a perk makes sense then we should probably address it and not cover our eyes and call it liberal bullsh*t.
I think there's some interesting conversation to be had here when we expand the idea of privilege. I also think while someone having X privilege is an overall benefit, there may very well be downsides or extra baggage associated with it.
Is being muscular and athletic a privilege?
Sounds like a lot of jealousy on some peoples part.
The will to power of misfits and Elitists.
Theres a whole heap of priviledge being exercised at the moment in the name of "covid". And this comes from politicians and big business owners who are of every race sex and creed. But from what class?
Its ludicrous to divorce privilege from wealth from the mega rich.
Maybe Obama Hillary and the Saudi leadership are oppressed minorities due to this SJW logic!!!!.
Just virtue signalling from misfits and middle class zealots.
This division of people into fixed rigid "groups" and narrow "identities" is itself Discrimination and Prejudice.
But then that's exactly what politicians and populists want. And the elites are laughing at the stupidity of the so called "educated" and "intellectual".
Politics=privilege=Class= mythical "Identity". Or maybe you dont want to see this obvious truth.
It's important not to get trapped in the language here, yes the leftist framing of privilege uses the word privilege but it's not talking about what you are. The only similarity between the leftist identity politics framing of privilege and yours is that the word is applicable to both. I am not preaching to you but contextualising for you what we're talking about. When Banno asks you to "understand your privilege" he's not talking about your attractiveness or intelligence and he's not trying to, he is specifically talking about your race/gender/sexual orientation under the leftist identity politics framework. He has no interest in asking you to "check your intelligence privilege" and they have no interest in expanding the narrative, neither do I because I don't like the framing to begin with.
Now I'm sure some of the left takes interest in other privileges but there wasn't anything useful about it when it was applied here and there isn't anything useful about it applied elsewhere.
What people completely fail to understand is that the issue here is NOT the truth, everyone knows that people are born with different levels of intelligence, attractiveness and wealth. It's about characterising these characteristics, are they blessings, privileges, are they just part of who you are and what are the implications for someone who has these characteristics within each framing? Do people have a responsibility due to their wealth? That's part of what is being discussed here.
Another part is emphasis, we are creating a characterisation of your personal characteristics and putting a spotlight on it. Something everyone already knew, like that it's better to be attractive but maybe it becomes part of someone's day to day thinking when it wasn't before. Maybe someone who was happy with how they looked becomes increasingly self-conscious.
What is the benefit in sorting people into privileged and unprivileged categories? I only see spite, jealousy, discrimination, self-esteem issues, self-confidence issues and the like.
If someone wants to be proud of their intelligence or attractiveness, let them be, what's the point in insisting that it's a special privilege of theirs? It is just part of who they are anyway, it does in fact belong to them and there's nothing malicious about it.
If you want to look at how society treats characteristics then that's different, there could be improvements to be made there. Like how we are becoming increasingly superficial due to dating apps where you make a decision purely based on looks.
Once again, the actual claims being made when people are talking about privilege are not necessarily incorrect. I didn't need the facts to be made in an argument about privilege to know about them but I'm not going to argue against them, I don't dislike them, it's actually totally irrelevant. I accept that systemic racism exists but that doesn't mean I accept the concept of white privilege - because it's a terrible, insidious framing. The characterisation is not justified simply because part of the argument has unquestionable facts. This really extends to the entire conceptualisation of privilege except in perhaps the most extreme of cases such as children of the uber-rich.
Quoting Judaka
I understand how the thinking can be toxic - we shouldn't be going around thinking about how someone is privileged and another person is a victim... again, since we're both more on the right we can cut out the leftist bashing.... What I'm interested in here is truth.
Quoting Judaka
This is a question that is worth being discussed. Personally, I don't think someone having privilege entails that they need to share it or that they're guilty in some way. We're probably on the same page with this.
Pride is a completely separate issue and I don't want to get into a different topic. It isn't even about insisting - verbally or through some other medium - that the person in question has a special privilege. It's simply about acknowledgment if we want to stay faithful that we're pursuing truth here (this is a philosophy forum.) I think, strictly speaking, intelligent and beautiful people do have a privilege in those regards. Average looking and people with average intelligence also have privilege, but not as much as the elites. Even if you took a special ed class you could still discuss who has privilege within that context - it's all relative.
We don't need to draw implications from this, imo. If we put on our "anti privilege" hats and start attacking all forms of privilege we might as well just be living in Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" universe.
Quoting Judaka
I don't spend a lot of time in leftist circles... whatever they do is up to them. I'm not interested in defending whatever Banno is arguing or whatever.... the way that I've framed the idea of privilege makes sense to me and it's certainly interesting to explore the idea further and hopefully we can avoid overly toxic framings of the issue. Sure, it's often psychologically burdensome to look at the ways you're unprivileged, but I find it fascinating to listen to other people talk about the ways their identities intersect because it allows us a window into another world.
EDIT: One more thought for the road - the ability to dispassionately approach a topic is likely a privilege. If someone is, say, a rape survivor they're probably not going to approach the subject of sexual assault from however a textbook or studies convey the info.... the subject is going to be invariably colored through their own experiences and emotional processing of that. In that sense, the study of philosophy - i.e. a dispassionate and objectively rational approach to the world or truth - is likely a privilege on certain topics. If your own experience with a subject is so personal and therefore emotional you're not really doing philosophy in the traditional sense, you're more like writing a memoir.
I don't consider myself to be on the right. I have different opinions on different things and who I happen to agree with is not usually of interest to me.
Privilege is not a pursuit of the truth, privilege is not a truth, it is a framing and interpretation issue. Privilege does not exist in the real world, it is something we create as a characterisation of things that exist in the real world. It is a category, a group of physical attributes or social circumstances that constitute some kind of special right or benefit.
If we never used the word privilege in this context again, in what way would the "pursuit of truth" be hampered?
We can analyse the effects of intelligence and attractiveness, we do, in fact, but they're separate things, nothing is really gained by throwing them into a "privileges" category. You are treating the characterisation like it's an unpleasant truth that I want to sweep under the rug but calling every desirable attribute a privilege is so far away from a "pursuit of the truth" that you're simply kidding yourself. It is a philosophical position, an insidious interpretation of desirable characteristics that I can write on and on about all of the ways in which it promotes negativity.
I am not interested in hiding from unpleasant truths but I am also not interested in accepting unpleasant interpretations, framing or emphasises. I am sorry to rebuke you when it seems you are trying to agree with me but how can you say that categorising privileges is a pursuit of the truth?
Quoting Judaka
All I mean by privilege is something that is an unearned advantage in some regard. The central idea behind it is that it's unearned - some have it, some don't.
Quoting Judaka
All privilege is about is recognizing unearned advantages. A beautiful model likely put in a ton of work to become a model - dieting, fasting, working out, surgeries, etc. etc. but the fact of the matter is none of this would have really mattered if she had been born with vastly different genetics or she had a terrible skin condition or was raised poor and couldn't get proper nutrition which had long lasting impacts. Where the model is now (with her incredible beauty) may have been years of hard work, but it seems dishonest to me to completely remove luck from the equation. I'm not saying everything is a privilege, I'm just asking you to acknowledge the things behind success or better treatment which are outside of our control.
People aren't just different - they're different in ways that clearly beneficial to some group and not beneficial to another. That's the point behind privilege. The context often matters, though.
Intelligence and beauty are the result of both hard work but also nature favoring you in some way. Money doesn't hurt either.
Quoting Judaka
It's fine, I'm not demanding that you agree with me. I hope I've made my stance a little clearer with this post. If you don't like the word "privilege" you can just use "unearned advantage."
Intelligence and Beauty are Innate essential talents of human beings.
You cannot not Express your Intelligence because others are less intelligent or ugly. Some people can work for ever at basketball and will never be decent. Others can pick up a ball and master the basics very quick. You cannot eliminate these innate differences and its foolish to legislate or pontificate this as some unearned privilege.
Inequality of Wealth is the problem,and this is caused by coercive govt and capitalism. Politicians want you to focus on this nonsense so you bicker and virtue signal,whilst ignoring the cause of inequality,human greed.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You are totally missing the point, @Asif shows he is not missing the point and countered your characterisation with a characterisation of his own. You, on the other hand, are trying to make this into a truth issue. You're explaining to me that people are born with differences and we can rank these differences by how advantageous they seem like I'm trying to argue against that.
I have told you, this is not an issue about what the truth is, it's an issue of framing and interpretation. Just like Banno, you want to validate the framing by the fact that what you're saying is true but that's not actually a justification that explains why you choose this framing over the others... because there are many options and none of them are disputing the facts.
Again, technically speaking, white privilege isn't saying anything untrue - the statistics back up most of the claims being made. How we look at attractiveness and intelligence is changed when we describe it or even refer to it as an "unearned advantage" and in this way your framing becomes a philosophical position.
All that is clear to me is that you don't realise that and you believe you are kind of just stating facts when you're not. You're simply showing that you cannot tell the difference between facts and characterisations, interpretations and framing.
I feel a lot of errors and sleights of hand are due to folks implicitly thinking we are all blank slates and that with some "social engineering "everyone will be on a level playing field. Talent cannot be manufactured.
And unearned privilege comes from the ultra rich. Which is a product of ruthless elite capitalism.
Do you have an alternative framing that you'd like to present?
Quoting Judaka
I'm not saying that beauty or intelligence is entirely privilege, but there's a part of it that is.
Ultimately this means that there can be no sufficient evidence for any "philosophical position" to be true. Which is plausible, considering reasoning is fallible. If there's a strict distinction between facts and interpretations thereof, anyway. If the distinction is relaxed; as it behaves in practice; there are more and less reasonable things to conclude from the same evidence. And whether any particular claim is more or less reasonable given evidence depends on the claim and the evidence.
As a generic condition of reasoning it applies regardless of political opinion, and it is very disingenuous that you selectively reference one type of opinion haver whenever you bring it up.
Well said, it is not common for me to find someone who understands this.
Are you not commenting on me bringing this up with someone who self-describes as being on the right? Not only that but I can easily find unrelated posts where I bring this up if you want me to. What type of opinion haver are you talking about? What do you think it means for me to bring it up?
What I have said does not invalidate the conceptualisation of white privilege, which is what I assume you're responding to me for. The reason I bring it up more often in this kind of conversation is that as you and I have to some extent have already realised, our understanding of social issues in America is very similar, the facts of the topic. So how else can I explain to you where our disagreement lies when I've already said that I accept your version of the facts if I don't bring up how those same facts don't justify your interpretations, characterisations and framing? It is not possible for me to do so, I am forced to bring it up.
Edit: Give me a break Fdrake, the topic is about the leftist framing of privilege which includes white privilege it's not unreasonable for me to use that as an example.
I don't really have any similar alternative framing to offer because I don't want to present any such framing for these things. They are physical attributes, part of who you are, I believe the individual should make up their own mind and there is no need to present a framing that encourages any kind of impression, I am not trying to say what you are. I was really only looking to hear a defence for the framing that others were presenting rather than just being told that I'm lacking in some way for not understanding.
Alright, well, I've made my case. I understand it might be psychologically healthier for someone to ignore the idea of privilege and the idea can certainly be used in toxic ways as we both realize, but I think on a fundamental level reality needs to be acknowledged. It's not about politics - everyone immediately realizes the privilege of a tall, good-looking man versus a guy who's like 5'4 even if he's decent looking. IMO, simply describing that as a "difference" doesn't quite do it justice given the difference in treatment between these two men.
These differences aren't always physical either - being a native English speaker is definitely a privilege in today's work environment.
In any case that's just how I see things - I know I could become bitter if I were to focus on the areas where I'm not privileged and envy those with privilege - but I have better things to do. I accept reality as best I can and try to work on myself while acknowledging the world is just patently unfair. We pursue our best selves and our goals even in the face of this reality. It wouldn't even matter if we were in the most idyllic version of a socialist utopia - difference is implicit in humanity, and from that - inequality and unfairness.
I would rather just appreciate different peoples talents rather than just talk about difference being inequality in some unjust unfair way.
Sure there are obstacles,there is elitism and economic inequality. But then it comes down to what you regard as success. Lots of money or freedom,personal development and a happy family.
I really there is far too much victimhood and pessimism rather than a positive go get em approach. On a practical level you cant expect govt or society to spoon feed every less talented or pessimistic person.
I don't believe we should ignore the truth for our psychological wellbeing and I don't fail to recognise that there are consequences for these things that are deeply unfair and unfortunate. I think attractiveness can be one of the most unfair things and it just seems to matter in so many contexts and often times there's really nothing you can do about it. Being the beneficiary of this versus having it as your impediment is a huge difference. I am less ignorant of this than I am hyperaware of it.
It doesn't seem like it is making much of a difference for you, whether you call it a privilege or something else. I feel attractiveness is really in a league of its own though, it's easy to paint a really bleak picture there though for some it's a bit controversial. So I am probably on your side here even though I was giving you a hard time.
To say nothing of civil servants.
I really think a lot of people have been brought up to feel unnatractive. I mean this in a general way not just in a romantic manner. I have a male friend,6ft,PhD, fluent in chinese,punjabi,English,working scientist,very intelligent happily married children who most people would say was very handsome yet due to a bad upbringing hes not confident in considering himself handsome and he has problems with self esteem. Attitude and psychology counts for everything.
I like how you think Asif, true, it is not more important to be attractive than everything else, many things matter more. Being attractive carries many benefits but it's mostly to do with how people treat you, your dating life, some various other advantages. I think it will matter more or less depending on what kind of life you live. There is not much we can do about it but it doesn't hurt to be aware.
Well, the dynamic in the argument is for "privilege is a useful category in discourse" and "privilege is not a useful category in discourse". An argument strategy that highlights the fallibility of all opinion which uses data doesn't really address the issue in question.
Quoting Judaka
If we agree on all the facts, then the correlation between "identity politics issues" (race, gender, disability) and economic ones (class) is absolutely there! Addressing inequalities in the identity register addresses them in the economic one to the extent their correlation is causal.
I read a good example of this today regarding snow clearing in Sweden. It used to be that snow clearing was mostly devoted to peak hours road traffic by cars - which is (and the statistics show it) by and large a form of travel that men do for work. Men travel less in other ways, too.
But a super majority of injuries and serious injuries didn't even occur on the prioritised clearing areas - which is strange, as they're supposed to be tuned to injury prevention. This opens up the question of whether it's an optimal allocation of resources. Someone came along and highlighted the gender disparity in planning - the news went apeshit about left identity politics. So then there were focus groups and research done to look at how travel differences break down by gender, and how slipping injury breaks down by gender.
Lo and behold, the data revealed that men and women in Sweden had very different travel needs, and greater emphasis needed to be placed on women's travel needs to optimise the allocation of snow clearing effort. Women "trip-chain" and go on "care trips" much more when travelling, these include walking and short car trips much more than the daily commute by car. It was then better optimized given this data, the number of injuries went way down, and it even saved public money as the predicted public health care costs from prevented slipping injuries dwarfed the public roadcare maintenance costs! The investment had a great fiscal multiplier. The snow clearing was optimised for the wrong kind of trip, which disproportionately effected women! The awareness of privilege was required for this improvement, and people still laughed it off as identity politics and virtue signalling and posturing and whatever.
So it wasn't simply a discursive intervention, it was an economic one. Imagine how much better we could do if policy was optimised by recognition of privilege (like gender disparity), then subsequent analysis and intervention used those insights. It's like making the "search space" for an optimisation problem better, you will only get improvements.
I would rather appreciate people's talents too, Asif. I'd rather sit down and have a beer with someone who's very talented in some field and just enjoy a chat with them. We can talk about whatever, it doesn't matter, all I am saying here is that privilege exists.
For instance, I play chess. I've been playing chess since I was around 5 and I'm a fairly competitive player. However, regardless of how much I or a billion other people were to practice, we will simply never be as good as people whose minds work in extraordinary ways which allow them visualize and assess positions 5 or 10 moves down the line. Again, I don't spend all my time going around and complaining about that, I just want to say that it's there. Similarly, there are people who are intellectually disabled and there's nothing they did to deserve that it's just life.
As to talented people to call it privileged seems totally wrong. And talent in one field doesn't always mean talent in every field. In sports a lot of times a more intelligent champion beats the more specifically talented champ.
It doesn't really matter what I consider intellectually disabled and I don't see what you're getting at here by asking me this. Like would it really matter if I said an IQ of under 80? 70? 65?
Quoting Asif
Intellectually disabled people can't hold the vast majority of jobs. I know someone who's intellectually disabled (IQ of around 65) and the vast majority of jobs are beyond his capability. The military won't even accept people with an IQ under 80 to use as cannon fodder. I'm not talking about people who are a little slower than average.
If we forget terminology then sure, I agree with what you're saying. I believe there are differences between men and women and taking these into account is only logical.
Well, some certainly do not. Some do. Thus, I'd temper the claim above while generally agreeing with it.
What's been clear here... from my vantage point anyway, is that for some reason or other, some folk hereabouts find it very troubling to openly talk about the completely unacceptable residual affects/effects of racists writing laws... systemic racism. It's not as of it is a big secret. Hence the earlier question that Judaka approached as if it was an attack on them personally, was actually aimed at the problem. It's cuts directly to the heart of the matter at hand.
We all know that being treated like that(like American black people by some of those in power) is wrong. No one of us would want to be treated like that. If it is impermissible for another to treat us like that. If we do not wish to be treated as such, then, if we care about the society we live in, we ought wish the same for our fellow black citizens, community members, family members, friends, and/or loved ones. If we will not, do not, and/or refuse to acknowledge the historical problems of racism in America, we are a part of the problem today, regardless of whether or not we are racist.
If we want to correct the issues...
We do not deliberately portray blacks in the most negative light simply because they are kneeling in peaceful protest of what we all know is happening. Peaceful demonstration is a protected American's right; a means to voice grievances. There can be no form of punishment.
Quoting Judaka
There are many white people who agree that racism is wrong but do not understand the extent of it's historical consequences. There are many white people who feel personally attacked by the notion of white privilege. There are many who attack whites because they have benefitted from a system largely governed by rules written by racists.
Understanding white privilege corrects all these misgivings and results in solidarity.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us
Read my posts on this page.
Yeah, call it whatever. If you're not comfortable calling it privilege then I don't really care.
Attraction does matter, I agree.... I don't know if I would say that it's in a league of its own though. By "attraction" I'm referring more to the physical part of it. Part of the reason why so many people understand the "privilege" (or whatever you want to call it) of being attractive is that it's basically universal - everyone falls somewhere on the attraction scale. If you want to talk about attraction I'm happy to hear your thoughts on it.
There's a billion things we don't think about though, and that's a privilege. For instance, I started watching a streamer with tourettes syndrome lately and it's allowed me to familiarize myself a little more with that reality. Tourettes is a neurological condition and there's no real reason my brain couldn't have been like that and I can imagine it would have been extremely difficult and scary to not control what comes out of your mouth. Thankfully, I don't have to worry about that. That's privilege.
That page was completely absent of any particular posts clearly attributed to Judaka.
There were none. So...
Do black lives matter to you?
I thought you didn't want to call every positive physical attribute a privilege? I think Asif is right when he says intelligent people shouldn't be made to feel guilty and less intelligent people shouldn't be made out to be less than intelligent people. It's like you think privilege is just this totally neutral, meaningless word.
You say there's no real reason your brain couldn't have been like that but well, that's probably not true. You are not a pre-existing consciousness who inhabited a random body, unless your parents had the genetic proclivity for it then I'm not sure if it's possible for you to have had Tourettes. I think you are you, if your parents didn't have you, then you're not around. The whole "what if I was born as.." is just an imaginative exercise.
Seems to me that you say "oh I wouldn't like to have Tourettes, better throw that into the privilege pile" and that's you being honest and truthful. Actually, it's a complicated philosophical position - whether you put much thought into it or not. Yet you just kind of say "its the truth!'" as if you're just calling it how it is. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, I don't like the idea of separating people into privileged and unprivileged categories. So far, you've stuck to your guns and just said that privilege is the truth but it's really a choice and if that choice causes harm and brings about nothing good then to me, that is a very important - maybe even the most important consideration.
Really? I guess it did for me and I thought maybe it would be the same for others, go back to the link and read page 24.
Read enough to be pleasantly surprised...
Struggle to grasp how you've arrived at the belief that discussions of "white privilege" are not helpful.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8870/on-racial-essentialism
Here's a nice thread discussing some of those reasons. In this thread, I have been discussing the importance of framing. You don't get to choose an infinite number of framings, you only get to pick a few. White people are people, black people are people, I do not like white privilege because I want to abandon the importance of race. I don't want people to discriminate based on race for any reason, I want people to be seen for their individual self, personal merits and flaws. I don't want people to be seen as components of the groups they belong to.
Poor black people are poor people and I believe there is a great moral importance in addressing wealth inequality, it's sad to see how little is done in the US, relative to what is possible.
The mass incarceration is wrong, the prison sentences are messed up, police brutality needs to be addressed, racial profiling needs to be condemned and so on. We probably agree on all of the specific problems that need to be fixed.
As I said before, white privilege is not technically saying anything incorrect but I fail to see how it is helpful whatsoever in any way. Nowhere in what we both agree needs to be fixed, is there ever a requirement for the conceptualisation of "white privilege", I think it actually makes things harder to fix. You would meet a lot less resistance to your ideas if you dropped the white privilege garbage.
You encourage group-based thinking, you perpetuate the importance of race, you aren't alone but I am not singling you out, I condemn it where I see it. The way you talk, quite frankly, I hate it. The way you talk about "white" people, it disgusts me. I have asked for just an attempt of a defence of it and I just get called ignorant, part of the problem, uncaring and whatever else. I really struggle to grasp how you believe the conceptualisation of "white privilege" is helpful whatsoever, I only see it as harmful. Why don't you give explaining it a go without relying on presumptions of my ignorance and moral shallowness?
What have I said that leads you to believe that I've made any conclusions about you as a person, aside from noting that the idea of "white privilege" seems extremely offensive to you?
How is it harmful?
I agree with Judaka on the need to not regard people as races or cohesive groups but as individuals.
Real inequality is economic and this is maintained by Plutocracy. How about mega rich privilege? Because the govt actually do constitute a real group of wealth and elitism composed of various sexes and colours.
Then call it something else, I don't care. The gist is that it's an unearned advantage - it's something you don't need to worry about. Would it be okay with you if we didn't call it privilege and just called it something beneficial that you didn't earn through hard work? Maybe call it a perk? Unearned advantage? Maybe even just "lucky." Like "I'm lucky that I don't...."
EDIT: It's definitely not about making you feel guilty either. For instance, if you don't have chronic pain you have a "privilege" or a "perk" or whatever you want to call it - but nobody is saying that people without chronic pain should feel guilty for not having it - that's ridiculous. Nor is the implication that people without chronic pain should drink bleach and damage their organs in order to have it and be "equal."
With class we can do something about it (as class doesn't mean caste): there is social mobility. We also understand the importance of fair wealth distribution especially through wage income. Promoting race to be the most important issue is not only an accusation racism, but also something people cannot do anything about once we start categorizing them by race. And even if in the case of the US there is a valid point in reminding that discrimination under law ended just 60 years ago or so, the narrative then is fixated in things like racial quotas, compensations based on family heritage, promotion of various issues through the lens of race. Treating people as individuals is seen as naivety or some kind of disguised racism itself.
Coming from country were people of color make 1,34% of the population, has no history of slavery and colonization, I can still observe similar societal problems than are discussed in the US narrative. It's not white privilege (as the vast majority of people are "white"), it's simple upper class and upper middle class privilege. It's not only that the wealthy have even here better schools, better services, better job opportunities, it's also things like lifestyle and attitudes. Your family background, your parents education and income does matter. Crime goes in hand with this: those who commit crimes in Finland, half of them have an income below 10 000 euros, whereas the average income is 29 500 euros. Many of those who commit crimes come from families that have been on welfare for a long time. Both the political left and right do understand and agree on the problem even if they obviously differ just on what would be the cure.
And in the end, the insistence on race and white privilege simply divides poor people by race and creates tension inside a group that has so much in common to fight for. It genuinely benefits those prospering from the present when people are divided by another way than being rich or poor.
All you have done so far is respond to my critique of white privilege by reiterating that black people have been/are unfairly treated and asking me whether black lives matter. You say that there's nothing to that, I disagree, to me, it says a lot. It is like saying "oh wow you don't think white privilege is a good conceptualisation? Do you not realise that black people are mistreated or do you just not care?" It is just a bullshit response which puts words in my mouth.
To go in-depth of what makes white privilege so wrong I will talk about some of the many issues.
You say some white people feel attacked by the conceptualisation of white privilege and attacked is too strong a word but the implications aren't pleasant either. If we conceptualise life as a game or competition, white people have an unfair advantage summed up as white privilege, when a white person succeeds you want them to remember "btw you had an unfair advantage" which is a particularly unpleasant response to whenever a white person finds success. It is not unreasonable at all that people find the idea of white privilege unpleasant, not because it's true but because it genuinely is unpleasant and would be for anyone.
White privilege covers nearly all of a person's life, your job, your education, your neighbourhood, your social interactions, the opportunities you get, your wealth and so on. Not only have you made nearly every aspect of life a race issue but you are characterising peoples' lives by their race. When you make race the central and most important aspect of someone's life, you emphasise that the correct way for a person to identify themselves and others is through their race.
There are strong, unifying humanitarian approaches to the problems that we both recognise, that don't alienate people based on their views on race, that don't emphasise the importance of race and that allow for more participation and allow us to focus on real issues. I really don't want to go through every single problem with white privilege when you have barely said anything but there's way more than just this, it's really one of the worst framings I know of.
You say you are promoting solidarity but open your eyes, this is a divisive framing, pitting races against each other and dividing people on views on race.
@ssu & @Asif agree
I've said this time and again how are poor white people privileged compared to upper class black people?
I see this politically correct terminology as a deliberate tactic by parties and govts to cause friction and to garner votes based on falsehoods.
People must be treated as Individuals and free speech respected. First principle of Liberty and civilisation.
I don't even know what we're talking about anymore because you before said you didn't want to call just any desirable attribute a privilege but now you are calling the lack of an undesirable attribute a privilege and so I assume anything goes now. It doesn't matter what you call it, you are focusing on this "unearned" conceptualisation but seeing as most of these things are literally unearnable, it seems redundant.
I think Asif is right in saying that you are in a sense by asking intelligent people to view their intelligence as an unearned advantage, you are asking for things like guilt and shame. Let us go back to OP's example of the "race of life" where people get headstarts due to their privileges. When someone does well in the race, it feels like the first thing I want to know is "well where did they start?" How much of an advantage did they receive? And if someone did receive a huge advantage and now they're proud of a good placing, what a prick. Of course, you did well, you have all these unearned advantages.
Is it ethical to feel "blessed" or "gratitude" for unearned advantages? Doesn't that sound stupid? "I feel grateful for how much more advantaged I am over everyone else". You have turned a characteristic into an advantage, you are creating a narrative. In some circumstances, you could make an argument for this. Dating, for example, I am sympathetic here because it is inherently competitive and being attractive is an advantage, period. Your characterisation seems apt here, you are not creating competition, it already existed.
Let me briefly touch on your suggestion of "lucky", this is not something I would give you grief over but you have to see how different this is compared to "unearned advantage". There is no competition, there is no hierarchy, there is only gratitude, it is a very positive perspective and I can't really find fault in it. I still don't see why we need to group these things, what you are trying to achieve.
It's really bizarre how an Individuals positive qualities are regarded as some kind of unfairness or based on an arbitrary group definition.
I once had a Nietzschean leftist tell me " not everyone is as self assured as you". And he revelled in the fact that he could be try to be a spokesman for the less self assured.
Nothing to do with empathy or equality but all to do with him being an elite saviour.
The elites want this narrative as reinforces their narrative of saviourhood and keeps folks divided for political purposes.
Folks need to take responsibility for their own success and stop blame shifting.
Any desirable attribute is not a privilege, for instance take a professional football player. The hard work & sacrifice he's put into it isn't privilege... what's privilege is the genetics behind that or that his parents could afford football camp. Privilege is about things you don't control. If it's positive and outside of your control, yes, it could be considered a privilege. Even the absence of a negative could be considered a privilege - that's why I'm saying the modern discourse about privilege - if we're being honest with it - should be expanded tremendously. That is - if we want to work within this framework.
Quoting Judaka
I don't mean for it to come across that way just like I'm not asking people who are not in chronic pain to feel guilty about that. I consider it a privilege that I'm not in chronic pain, but again it would seem ridiculous to suggest that people without chronic pain should feel guilty about not having it. I don't personally feel guilty for not having a billion different disorders. It would be like guilty overload.
Quoting Judaka
Someone is still praiseworthy for turning, say, a $1 million into $5 million - it's an excellent job, but I think we'd both agree this is different from someone reaching $5 million who started out with $10. I'm not here to belittle those who were born into privilege and stayed in privilege, but someone who overcame a legitimate obstacle to achieve is super praiseworthy. There's something special about that (I deal a lot in the disability community, by the way so that's my frame of reference.)
Quoting Judaka
Yep, generally speaking attractiveness is an advantage although there may be cases where it isn't. Similarly, being born into wealth or having intelligence (intelligence is largely genetic, by the way) is generally an advantage, although not always. You won't be capable of holding anything beyond an entry level position with an IQ of less than 80. They won't even let you into the military.
Quoting Judaka
You can have gratitude, I have no problem with that. I can accept the gratitude line of thought. Personally, I just find the concept of privilege more interesting to explore because it has more of a social element to it. You can reject the framing of privilege all you want, but that's basically how discourse is going around today so.... if you're going to engage with a left-winger it's gonna be difficult if you just reject their concepts entirely, but each to his own.
The language you use has implications outside of the control of your intent, yet nobody has the final say on what the consequences of your language are. So you can say things like "you can have gratitude" but to a large extent, you lose control over that. Most people don't take "unearned advantages" within competitive contexts well at all. Can you not see how being grateful for intelligence (a blessing) and being grateful for intelligence (an unearned advantage) are different? One is virtuous and one is nearly ill-intentioned, that's my interpretation at least.
The interplay between privileges could very well undermine the entire purpose of the conceptualisation and I think this would happen. You point out how going from $1m to 5m is different than going from $10 to 5m and I agree, I think most people would agree but in this example, you haven't acknowledged any other privileges besides wealth. I think the introduction of other privileges could create any narrative - given including all of the privileges is impractical due to how many there (and because it mightn't be convenient for the narrative we are trying to make).
What bothers me most of all is that for you, the justification is truth, while I am here trying to consider the pros and cons of the framing. How would it be used, by whom and for what? I arrive at unpleasant answers. I believe that your dedication to truth is misplaced here, for your characterisation of the truth has its own consequences and because of this, we can easily see that your characterisation is something separate from the truth. Hence we must evaluate your characterisation through different means than by whether it is true. This equally applies to framing.
Generally speaking, I prefer to look at these kinds of things on a case-by-case basis and how they affect the individual. In your case, I see no problems, your conceptualisation of things isn't causing you any undue negative feelings, it's not getting in the way of positive feelings and there are no effects that I can interpret as negative. If your framing operated only as it operates through you then I might not have an issue with it but that is not my expectation.
I don't really care what everyone else is thinking or doing and convincing others of anything usually requires status, authority, them having a certain perception of you, something. Convincing someone who has no reason to believe you except because they accept your logic, you rarely see it.
The post that followed this opening is the first critique of white privilege, from you, that I've seen. I'm still struggling to understand why you are replying with such underlying discontent about me personally. I'm not attacking you. I recognize that the notion of "white privilege" is used, quite unjustly, as an attack. I do not condone such use.
That said, the post deserves more of my attention. I appreciate it, because it seems that there's much to work with, and you may be surprised to know that there remains much agreement. Some of the issues ought be further unpacked. As you well know, the topic is nuanced... quite so.
I'm working on a more appropriate and in depth reply, because I think you've offered a good start...
:wink:
Why do we build stairs instead of ramps? Well, they are cheaper, they take up less space. They are convenient.
Stairs were not invented in order to exclude folk. But it is what happened.
So how will you react to this? Seems to me that you have a choice.
You might simply acknowledge that stairs prevent some folk from doing things that you do.
Or you might deny the obvious, or claim it unimportant, belittle those affected, distance yourself from responsibility, twist it so that it becomes about you, bury it in arguments about other things, put up more walls and barriers so that you don't feel uncomfortable.
It's up to you.
And who identifies "privilege", the govt academics and leftists? No thanks,the idea of rich elites dictating categories of humans Is hypocritical and extremely discriminatory. An appeal to emotion by elites....
You donating your next pay packet to lifts banno?
And do you get that what you're saying, if I understand correctly, is racist and dehumanizing?
Also, given that you believe guilt is transferable between people of a common skin colour, are you then willing to serve prison time for a stranger's crimes?
...or you might ignore the facts and instead attack me.
I have noticed a trend with you Banno, you do this in many of the arguments you make. You take a small set of facts or reasonable points and use them to create a highly specific narrative. You are either highly adept at creating a manipulative framing or oblivious to the importance of framing, I am starting to believe it is the former. Your characterisations and interpretations aren't facts, your blurring of these differences is manipulative.
Quoting Banno
If we just look at the actual facts, there is not much controversy here, I don't think many people are going to deny this. You are aware of that, yet when we look at the narrative, it turns very dark, very quickly. The "obvious" privilege which is not a fact, being denied, makes you just this terrible, selfish, bigoted person. This is not the first time I've seen this from you, nor will it be the last. This makes for good politics but mediocre philosophy.
Interpretation? So the able bodied gain no advantage by being able to access buildings unavailable to others?
No; that stairs exclude some folk is a fact, not an interpretation.
Quoting Judaka
That's not something I have said. That you feel the need to augment my post in order to criticise it is interesting. I don't want you to feel guilty, I want you to recognise the need for ramps.
And again, the critique here is directed at me, not at the point I have made. But then, as soon as privilege is mentioned, folk become oddly defensive. That's curious.
It is a characterisation of what it means to be able to use the stairs, which is why when you said that "You might simply acknowledge that stairs prevent some folk from doing things that you do" I described it as a fact, even though it's pretty much the same point.
Characterisations are not facts, that you are once again trying to conflate your interpretation with the fact is again, manipulative. Evaluating your characterisation is a separate discussion, calling something a privilege has various implications that you are not unaware of. Even creating a discussion about how stairs create privilege is your prerogative and not simply a neutral discussion about stairs. It's so silly, what you're trying to do here, why can't you just acknowledge your prerogative instead of pretending like you're just dispassionately stating some facts. It is so dishonest.
It's obvious your agenda when you talk about privilege.
It's not a neutral word. And your low key dispassion and feigned curiosity is totally disingenuous. Judaka described you well.
You are A politician not a philosopher. To be a philosopher
requires honesty.
I do not know who he is trying to fool, his political prerogatives are obvious but he feigns ignorance and continues to confuse fact with opinion, honest inquiry with hostility and aggression.
Quoting Banno
It is my characterisation of what you have said, which I think is defensible. I don't know why you are trying to play dumb. Belittling people, twisting the misfortune of others so it "becomes about you", those are nasty things Banno, you knew that, that's why you said them.
Yes, I wonder why people respond to "facts" as hostility and aggression? Very curious indeed, I wonder who is in the wrong here.
Where? What did I say that was hostile or aggressive?
Quote me.
What have you said that wasn't hostile or aggressive?
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Besides the pernicious ideology you peddle and all of its unpleasantness, you yourself have done nothing but put a target on any who might take the option of disagreeing with you. It is character assassination, the options are "agree with me or something is wrong with you". You characterise differing opinions as belonging to the privileged who ignore the other, the selfish, the ignorant and lacking a moral compass.
There is also just a lack of any honest debate from you, what I've quoted is a majority of your contribution in this thread.
to which is so important for everybody to access?
Most public buildings I know have ramps and lifts anyway.
Yours is the typical political sophistry. Blow up and highlight a simple specific issue then categorise and shame anyone who disagrees with your crass generalisations and political ideology.
It's like charities that try to shame people into donating .
@Judaka Its expressly obvious how banno operates yet even with all these quotes you highlighted he will try to weasel his way out,obfuscate and make others seem in the wrong.
Typical gaslighting nonsense. I really enjoy his posts as they highlight the psychology of the sophist the ideologue the politically correct dogmatists.
Banno did not have sexual relations with that woman!!!!
If only banno knew my skin color and economics,His arguments about "privilege" would then be self refuting.
But I can live with that.
Then virtue signalling to finish.
Ah,honesty,would that people valued that!
When did the discussion ever become about what @Banno can or can't live with? Was that something of interest to you?
Perhaps we could look for places of agreement. I suspect that we both disagree with the OP's suggestion that privilege should be renounced.
Do you think we might agree that it is not a bad thing to acknowledge privilege?
Okay.
Finding agreement is easy Banno, you will find that on this forum I have argued for dramatically increased economic redistribution, argued against racism and discrimination, I am anti-Trump, I am against the mass incarceration. I believe the US has a lot to learn from some of these Scandinavian countries, that's the future of capitalism and if it isn't then it will be a dystopia where countries keep getting richer but that wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. We probably want many of the same changes.
I am not the person you have made me out to be, let's start with that, so I can avoid a pointless line of inquiry.
When you talk about privilege we need to separate facts from interpretation, interpretation from the consequences of those interpretations. If you can't do that, we cannot actually discuss this together, since that's where the disagreement lies. In a sense, by how I have acknowledged economic inequality, the existence of systemic racism, the statistics which show inequity between the races, that some disabled people can't use stairs, I have already acknowledged this aspect of privilege. If that is all you want to hear then that's that, I acknowledge reality.
Privilege is a narrative about this reality, it is not as simple as agreeing to the above. There are so many ways to characterise the injustices about our world and of all the ways, acknowledging the privilege of straight white men might be one of the worst. You are playing into the very injustices that we are both angry about. Economic issues, social issues, these are due to the American political system being a disaster, past iterations were openly racist and sexist and now Trump, Trump of all people is president. Do I think some rich white kid using the "white privilege" framing is going to do anything about that? No.
Actually, the leftist approach to dealing with these issues is so counterintuitive and nonsensical that I cannot even begin to imagine how many people like me, have been turned off by it. The ideology is so identity-orientated, it's so prejudicial, it's so angry and hostile. By acknowledging privilege, it means that someone is getting themselves into that, I've seen it enough to know that's a fair assessment. My disagreement lies in matters beyond the privilege, it's about the ideology behind it and how privilege is characterised in fanciful and aggressive ways.
Quoting Judaka
I had not noticed this in your writing. I appreciate your saying so.
We agree that some folk have an advantage, but you are objecting to the use of the word privilege here; that you see this word as part of a framing of the various problems that is itself problematic: Quoting Judaka
The anger and hostility felt, say, by marginalised Blacks, will not be removed by re-framing the question. Nor is that anger the merely the result of a selective interpretation of the facts. It would be disingenuous to suppose that those who are disadvantaged, on recognising their disadvantage, would or even should not react with anger and hostility.
So I wonder, if these issues were framed in terms other than of privilege, would the anger disappear? And I think the answer is obvious.
There's much more to be said here, but I will leave that for after your reply to this post. Small steps.
Quoting Banno
That is a good summary of my position. I would only caution against trying to equate the narrative of privilege with reality, I do not wish to conflate interpretations and narratives with facts.
Quoting Banno
There is injustice and so there should be anger. I don't want people to tolerate injustice, that's how it continues. Hostility and aggression are perhaps, topics to revisit but the main issue here is what people should be angry about versus what privilege encourages people to be angry about. What re-framing should be trying to achieve is to emphasise the moral importance of combatting injustice without creating unnecessary tension between people. Characterising injustice in contemporary terms as opposed to being embittered about the past. The mass incarceration of blacks is happening right now, people shouldn't be thanking their lucky stars to not be black, they should be challenging how such an unjust system can exist in the supposed leader of the free world.
American exceptionalism and patriotism are obstacles to productive change, the American dream which characterises the poor as lazy and the rich as deserving, treating drugs as a crime issue instead of a health issue. Actual perspectives causing real problems, just examples, there's a long list.
I'm not saying nobody is tackling the real issues, they are but the conceptualisation of privilege is a complete distraction. There is no place for the real issues, which get drowned out, in a sea of anger towards inequity between the races, of which almost nothing can be done. Privilege isn't merely a neutral, ineffective framing, it is a distraction, it divides people senselessly, it emphasises the importance of your race and the race of others, encourages discrimination and anger towards identity groups.
The ideal framing would challenge the injustices where it hurts, without dividing people based on their race but uniting them. Encouraging discussion about issues that can be resolved as opposed to how advantaged or disadvantaged the race you were born as is.
An interesting read.
The problem, then, is that some folk get upset when folk point out that they are better off than some other folk. Inevitably, the remedy will involve the removal of this edge. As you say, Quoting Judaka
An ungracious reply might suggest that the solution necessitates those who are better off to "suck it up".
Quoting Judaka
Yeah, well, that's quite problematic. But let's leave that to one side for now.
There is basically no step in the process of ending the advantages that you are talking about that fits anything like the description of "recognising your privilege". The focus shouldn't be on deleting these advantages in the first place. Where inequity between the races is a result of the past, it is due to past injustice allowing only people of certain races to prosper and wealth travels down the family line, the towns, the cities and so on. Where inequity between the races is being perpetuated, that is real racism, real oppression, real problems that need to be dealt with.
Most of those who are "better off" are still peons in the political apparatus, what are you hoping to achieve by asking for shame, guilt or to have them acknowledge their privilege? There are two aspects to why privilege is a poor conceptualisation, the first is that it doesn't actually help in any way and the second is that it is harmful in many ways. If it was helpful in some ways and then hurtful in others, we could talk about whether "better off should suck it up" but I've yet to hear anyone defend it. That's the issue.
I would much prefer it to not talk about the differences between narratives and facts and focus on the outcomes of the conceptualisation and evaluate these outcomes. I can't do that, however, because the only counterargument I've ever heard is that the narrative is the truth and there is no need to explain why the truth should be known by people. If you stand by the argument that your narrative is in fact, merely the truth and you shouldn't have to defend it then the discussion can only become about why that isn't the case. To explain how you have arranged the facts in such a way, characterised them in such a way, interpreted them in such a way, that it creates a highly specific narrative and whether you make this narrative is something you can choose.
So... seeing that the bloke with a walking frame can't get into the building, but that I can, is not pat of replacing the steps with a ramp? Maybe. But perhaps noticing, as you happily hop up and down the stairs, that there is someone who cannot join you...that might be a part of solving the problem. Recognising that there is a problem has to be a step on the way to solving that problem, If your attention is never drawn to the chap with the walking frame, you will never notice that it's an issue. Hence, Quoting Banno
So if I leave the first line out of that post, do you agree with it?
If all you want to do is promote awareness of how a lack of ramps is deeply inconvenient to people who can't use stairs then surely, you can do that without the privilege conceptualisation. "We need more ramps" people ask why you say "some people can't use stairs and it's not fair or practical for them", done. The rest is about political capital, can you convince people that this is an important issue, that they should care. The able-bodied privilege angle, you surely can't think that's a good idea. Your plan to convince people to help is to guilt and shame them? Tell them that they're ignorant of these issues because of their able-bodied privilege? Like, you tell me.
Quoting Banno
Agree with what? Agree how?
Are you trying to describe a problem neutrally? Then it fails. Are you trying to describe the problem in a way that makes people want to help? No, surely not. Are you trying to describe the problem in a passive-aggressive, obnoxious way? Then yes, it is good.
Why do we build stairs instead of ramps? Well, they are cheaper, they take up less space. They are convenient.
Stairs were not invented in order to exclude folk. But it is what happened.
So how will you react to this? Seems to me that you have a choice. We need more ramps.
Please consider the people who aren't able to use stairs and what a big difference having ramps would make for them.
Thank you.
Getting rid of the privilege is good but I don't see any reason to talk about able-bodied people, the injustice here is how disabled people are neglected with regards to stairs. How do you explain the need for explaining that the alternative to agreeing with you is for people to be ignorant, uncaring and selfish?
Yeah, ok; I'm stuck on the bit where the reason we shouldn't use the word "privilege" because it pisses off the privileged. But I will try to take on board your point that pissing off the privileged does not help get them on side.
Let me be clear, I agree with what you have said but that is not a fair description of my opposition to the privilege framing. I have not described it as an insidious, pernicious framing simply because I am just worried that you are wasting political capital.
Quoting Banno
I don't think that was "the" reason? If you are going to paraphrase my argument like that then I don't think restating what I've already said will do me any good. I will say, you are adept at creating the narratives that suit you, it is a talent.
I agree with what you're saying about the stairs. The ability to use the stairs is a privilege. The ability to walk unimpeded is also a privilege. Even if stairs were no longer a thing, privilege still exists for those who can walk normally in a world where walking is still important. Even if the entire world were a flat, even surface those who can walk comfortably certainly still have privilege. Do you disagree?
I'm thinking, given @Judaka's replies, that talk of privilege is not about convincing the privileged of their responsibility so much as building solidarity amongst the underprivileged.
Carlos doesn't see privilege as "being about" anything than the truth, naive as it sounds. At least he is capable of articulating an argument for it though, you on the other hand... Solidarity amongst the underprivileged? How much thought did you put into that and did that thought come after you were adopted by the leftist pathology or before?
You speak for Carlos?
I spoke with Carlos, that conversation is here on this thread.
I have no problem with building solidarity among the underprivileged, the problem is when (or if) it descends into a kind of provincialism... all in all though a totally worthy and fine goal.
But my own observation, especially over the last ten years or so, is that considerable progress has been made by identifying the intersection of various advocacy groups.
Some use it as a weapon, but that does not mean that it's not good to talk about it. Some folk run stop signs too.
Norway? Or Sweden?
Oh, New Zealand! Of course!
Yes, only socialists would treat people fairly and equally. Thank God nobody does that here in His Favorite Country!
I am ready to receive reparations from all the tall and handsome people in this world, for I have been the victim of much injustice!
OR are you avoiding something?
No, and neither is skin color or sex.
Height privilege is absolutely a thing, especially among men. Taller men are privileged.
In my mind though the existence of a privilege doesn't imply reparations though.
What does it imply, then?
That's a good question. Acknowledgment would be a good first step. I don't know exactly what it implies but the fact that it exists means it should probably be acknowledged and we can go from there in regard to the individual trait we're talking about (race, class, physical difference, disability, etc.)
This is clearly an emotionally charged topic. It's best for white privilege to be clearly defined, because it seems that many people hereabouts and elsewhere have differing thought, beliefs, emotions, and subsequent ideas regarding it. The mere invocation of the term "white privilege" can instantly and completely change one's emotional state of mind, and that holds good for whites and non whites alike.
This is good. There is something very real going on here. We need to poke and prod these disturbances. We need to unpack all of the offenses. We need to parse all these subtleties out. We need to listen to one another.
So, what exactly are we picking out of this world to the exclusion of all else when we say "white privilege"? What exactly are we referring to such that everyone involved can know - as precisely as possible - what we're all talking about?
White privilege is the direct, demonstrable, and inevitable result of systemic and/or institutional racism. Put simply, it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is the injury because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. The negative effects/affects that racist people, policies, belief systems, and social practices created remain extant in American society. They continue to directly impact the lives and livelihoods of the people that they were originally designed to discriminate against.
In this very real sense, the American system is not broken. To quite the contrary, it is still working to this day exactly as it was initially designed to work long ago. White privilege is but one part of the proof. White privilege affords whites the ability to avoid what blacks have to live through and think about day after day. Acknowledging the unjust suffering of blacks because of their race alone, acknowledging the lack of equal opportunity, acknowledging the everyday obstacles that blacks remain faced with to this very day because they are black, acknowledging the sheer lack of adequate representation in the American system is to acknowledge the plight of black Americans. Standing up and fighting for them and with them is to honor our black brothers and sisters.
Honoring them goes a long way towards building a movement to end racism. Ending the prevalence of racism and xenophobia(closely related) cannot and will not happen peacefully without the help of white people. Becoming aware of white privilege is one step towards acquiring knowledge of the current residual effects/affects of historical racism that remain extant in the American system to this very day.
Quoting Judaka
The questions posed above are actually very relevant questions to be asking. However, it's not very helpful to begin introducing "rich versus poor" with a nuanced assessment and/or analysis of white privilege. Not all blacks are poor and not all whites are rich. While there is tremendous overlap between these considerations, until white privilege is better understood, it only adds unnecessary confusion to introduce "rich versus poor".
White privilege can result in one's being rich, but even the poorest of whites do not have to suffer the results of racist policies and practices. That is the white privilege in it's most basic 'form'. That is how it is instantiated.
Quoting Judaka
Effectively ending racism requires understanding both it's motivations and it's effects/affects.
White privilege is an effect/affect of racism.
Effectively ending racism requires understanding white privilege.
Not suffering from racist policies and practices does not guarantee a white individual's success, even if it does make things a bit easier. Convincing a white individual who has worked very hard to be successful to stand alongside non whites and fight racist practices is much more difficult to do if they are actually being attacked because they are white.
Some white people do have to work hard to become successful, particularly those born into much less fortunate socio-economic circumstances. While such people do not have to deal with racism and it's practices like non whites do, we cannot deny them their own personal dignity and expect for them to remain willing and able to stand up for and fight alongside non whites. If they feel like non whites are attacking them personally because of the fact that they are white, it is very hard to convince them that those non whites are not racist, regardless of whether or not they actually are.
Such frameworks using white privilege do not promote the kind of cohesion that's necessary for ending racism. It does little to create solidarity between people of different races to stand up and fight for one another. In fact, it can have quite the opposite affect/effect. It can lessen the desire to stand up for and fight alongside those who suffer from racism, because it ends up feeling like those people are fighting against the white individual because they are white.
There are many white people who openly say and actually believe that racism is not acceptable and it ought be removed from American society. Some of these white people come from areas in the country where there is very little ethnic and/or racial diversity, so they have had little to no personal experience and/or interactions with non whites. Rural America in particular simply does not have the degree of diversity that is common in the larger cities, particularly along the coastlines. Not everyone in these areas holds strong and clear racist belief against non whites, even if they come from a community where those remain in practice. They see racism when it's undeniably open and public, they know it's wrong, but they do not recognize the subtlety of white privilege. That takes someone else to show them in a manner that they're open and able to understand, which does not include personal attacks because they are white, as well as a white who is capable of listening to another's plight because they are not. It takes mutual respect.
The history of systemic and institutional racism was not in all American history books. So many white Americans are clueless regarding it, even if they know that racism is still prevalent, and they openly admonish it. However, many of the common misconceptions born of racism still pervade American society, and such people are constantly being bombarded by different soundbites, misleading statements and statistics all of which further perpetuate false belief about non whites(blacks in particular). Those different misleading notions are used to deny that racism still effects/affects our society.
These aforementioned people have been and remain key to turning the tide in favor of ending racism. Appealing to these people's sensibility is key as well. It takes mutual respect. So many already know racism is wrong. However many times when non whites begin talking in terms of "white people" they are guilty of the exact same gross overgeneralization fallacy that underlies white racist mentality about non whites. Multiplying the error does not serve to correct the underlying problems. Rather, it further reinforces deep seated racist beliefs rather than helping to defuse them.
Putting white privilege to good use as a means to help end systemic racism takes mutual respect of the participants in the discussion about racism and it's effects/affects. Shedding light on white privilege does not require attacking whites because of it.
Talking about white privilege is required in order to understand the effects/affects of racism. The removal of white privilege would effectively be and/or signal the end of racism. That does not require taking anything away from white people. It requires cultivating a society where white privilege no longer exists because no one suffers the effects/affects and/or injuries stemming from racism.
You've articulated this very clearly. A fine job.
Nice posts Creativesoul, I was looking for someone to attempt to defend the white privilege framing and finally, someone did. I have to admit, I wasn't expecting to see it but I'm pleasantly surprised. Perhaps the other thread wasn't useless after all? Particularly your post after the first is what I was looking for.
I accept the separation between how the white privilege conceptualisation can be applied. Banno mocks people and asks them to check their privilege, you are looking for a serious and respectful discussion on how racism functions. All of the instances where white privilege is used to be anti-white, to be disrespectful and hateful, are misuses and anything can be misused.
I have complained about the unpleasant consequences of calling something a "privilege" but it's an unpleasant reality and so here it might be appropriate, so let's put that aside as well. First, I'll give my comments on what you've written. then I'll write some sort of overall.
Quoting creativesoul
I agree, it is an emotionally charged topic, it is one where a single misstep can draw out strong emotions. Much of your response has characterised white privilege as mostly a tool for educating people on how racism functions. To look objectively at how systemic racism clearly creates a "white privilege" and this is backed up by too many experiences, too many statistics, it's just the obvious logical conclusion. What I want to do is not only separate the facts being characterised by white privilege, which I mostly see as being true but also the importance of educating people about these facts from the term white privilege.
One of the reasons is simply because we're dealing with such a difficult topic, a term which invokes a race "white privilege" possibly already makes it inappropriate. I would have as much an issue with it as if "black unluckiness" or "coloured misfortune". I really have to challenge whether "white privilege" is a good name for something which is merely supposed to educate people and whether we shouldn't try to sidestep the inevitable controversy.
Quoting creativesoul
As I said previously, we do not get to choose an infinite number of framings, we only get the chance to choose a handful. At some point, they get in the way of another. Systemic racism clearly discriminates based on race, it's in the name, one of the most controversial approaches to racism is to conceptualise white people as the beneficiaries of systemic racism. The very term "white privilege" implicitly contextualises systemic racism as a positive thing for white people, that's what a privilege is.
A lot of what you're talking about is a hard sell, "not being harassed by police" is not a white privilege, being harassed by police is a terrible and scary thing that happens disproportionately to coloured people. Wouldn't it be easier for "white people" to stand up against injustice than to their own privilege? Is conceptualizing that as a white privilege even a reasonable thing to do?
Shouldn't any mention of the injustice focus on the causes of the injustice? How much should white people even be involved in a conversation about how coloured people are disproportionately harassed by police?
Quoting creativesoul
I am not sure that the term "white privilege" honours black people. It's clearly a concept centred around the "white" experience. Which is another criticism, I am not saying I want a concept centred around the "black" experience because I don't think the correct way to talk about racism as being through race.
Quoting creativesoul
I hope you can see that my criticism is really directed at the choices made by people as opposed to the underlying facts. I am not preaching ignorance.
Quoting creativesoul
I am not convinced that the perpetuators of the white privilege framing are mostly non-white but I agree with the general sentiment.
Quoting creativesoul
Sure, that's a fair distinction and I certainly prefer your proposed usage of white privilege in comparison to what you've criticised and I believe your criticisms are relevant.
Quoting creativesoul
I agree although I don't agree with the white/non-white distinction here, anyone can talk incorrectly about "white people" in this way.
Quoting creativesoul
The solutions to ending white privilege are necessarily race-based, where most of the problems with systemic racism are legal, cultural and economic. What kind of response to systemic racism are you hoping for? Of course, we call out racism when we see it but besides that, what are you trying to achieve?
What I seek is the dissolution of the importance of race, to view the major problems faced by black Americans as problems faced by people, while condemning racism where it is seen. We need to challenge how poverty is dealt within the US, how crime is handled, how the justice system functions, practices of policing, the lack of economic redistribution and so on. I see these responses as being more direct and practical responses to the problems faced disproportionately by black Americans but without adding the controversy of race. Even if everyone agreed with white privilege, you'd have to do these things anyway to actually do something productive.
Is the white privilege framing just detracting from more humanitarian, justice-based narratives which sidestep the controversy of race and promote humanitarian ideals? After someone acknowledges white privilege, they're still hopelessly uneducated on what to do about it. Even just one of the aforementioned issues is complex enough, by the time you've diluted them all into the concept of white privilege, they're just miniatures of the actual problems, interpreted through the lens of race. I want to minimise the relevance of race to systemic racism - because I think that mirrors the race-based perspectives that we describe as being racist.
I just don't think you can correctly condemn racism while still addressing people based on their whiteness. That's the whole problem with racism to begin with, you shouldn't care about whether someone is white or black yet people do and the result is immoral, unjust, stupid and wrong.
Overall, I can see that you are capable of presenting a defence of the usefulness of the white privilege framing and that's what I wanted to see.
I thought I'd make it clear because others have complained about "removing race" from racism and how that doesn't make sense. The idea is to see racist people as being racist people, to view racism like any other kind of crime or injustice. Let racists care about your skin colour, I care about people being treated fairly and treating others fairly. In short, I don't see race as being a crucial issue in racism, the real concern is dismantling racist policies, institutions, belief systems and so on.
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words. There's still a long way to go. I barely touched on the offense aspect. I'm still quite uncertain whether or not there is a mutual understanding... shared meaning... regarding the referent of "white privilege". I'm inclined to think otherwise given Judaka's response. To quite the contrary, there are some clear indications that we're still not talking about the same thing(s).
Are you an American citizen?
No, Australian.
That's not surprising given that privilege is subjective. One person's privilege is another person's taboo. We all don't value the same things, so what you consider a privilege, I might not.
After all, when groups of people distinguish themselves from others by focusing on skin color, as if what they value is different than what others with a different skin color value, then privilege becomes something different for each group.
The irony is the only way to “remove white privilege” is to believe the same as the racist, except to discriminate “positively”. First you must believe that your skin color offers you some sort of advantage, that a dark skin color offers disadvantage, then treat people accordingly. All this talk about how whites are better off and have an upper hand because they are white reeks to me of white supremacy. It’s no wonder that people reject it out of hand.
I would first make the observation that the discussion has been somewhat handcuffed by the OP's choice of the word privilege to stage the question. It definitely muddied the waters. Still, I think ultimately some good points found their way to the surface.
I think everyone seems to agree that the outcomes of racist thinking are undesirable, so no need to continue beating that horse.
The remaining point of interest here is the conversation over an appropriate way to frame a response to "racism".
I'm going to proceed based on those characterizations of the points expressed above - i'm sure someone will let me know if I've badly missed the point. :D
My problem with the first position is that I think it improperly places the focus on some perceived misconduct by a given group (all white people), instead of placing the focus where it should be, on the targeted misconduct AGAINST a different group (people of color). In other words, the movement must and should be BLACK Lives Matter, not WHITE Lives Don't Matter As Much As You Think They Do, which is the subtext of this need to make white privilege a conspicuous part of this discussion.
The problem is NOT that white people have generally safe(r) neighborhoods, more access to education and higher paying jobs, and a general lack of suspicion directed at them as they go about their daily lives. The problem IS that people of color shouldn't have less of those things for the simple reason that they are people of color. Systemic racism doesn't spring from the general public's attitude that white people deserve to have advantages (taking out the case of white supremacists, who are just awful people), it springs from a deep seated fear that has been woven into the culture over a long period of time with varying degrees of intent and aimed at people of color. Calling attention to that phenomenon and actively trying to root it out is placing the focus on the problem - trying to shame people for a state of affairs that they did not create and in most cases are not even conscious of is not.
That brings us to the second position - that the problem here is the insistence on lumping people into these categories, and that talking about White privilege or Black lives mattering is just a reinforcement of the conditions that one is supposedly trying to overcome. I think this idea (once it was finally made clear several pages in) is a fantastic one and a worthy aspiration. The plain fact is that "race" does not exist in any scientific way, it is just a social/political construct. It is in our best interest to attempt to edit this construct out of our culture. I agree with this. However, it falls short in two ways:
TL;DR
I agree with those that say insisting on recognizing "white privilege" is not useful or helpful to solving the larger issue. The problem is not (for example) that I went to college and I'm white. The problem is (for example) that sometimes cops seem to kill people because they're black.
However, I disagree that the reason to avoid thoughts of "white privilege" is because it reinforces the concept of race and of dividing people into categories. People do that and will continue to do so in the near future. The real reason to avoid white privilege in this discussion is because it's not a helpful concept if the goal is the "end of racism".
Quoting Pro Hominem
I do agree and have argued similarly to the rest of your points, just to make clear that my opposition to the white privilege framing isn't just because reinforces the importance of race. So the rest of your post, I agree with but obviously, you have highlighted this disagreement so I'll respond.
The white privilege framing isn't responsible for nor is alone responsible for holding up the importance of race, it's a small piece of what does that and so let's avoid hyperbole. My condemnation of this aspect of the framing is a component of my stance against emphasising the importance of race, which I consider to be a more important issue than whether people talk about white privilege or not. So I condemn it wherever I see it and you have to start somewhere.
Increasing the minimum wage won't solve economic inequality but it's not reasonable to counter doing it by saying that because it's a step in the right direction. Same applies here.
Imagine we had a different term which focused on the real issues, which is not how white people are doing well but how black people aren't by the same standards, "black underprivileged" or whatever. The term targets racial inequity, can the solution to racial inequity be anything but organised around race? Conversations about reparations for slavery? Policies which discriminate based on race? Prioritising help based on race?
If it's talking about more than just racial inequity, but like creativesoul says, how black Americans have to deal with racists, they have to deal with microaggressions or whatever else. It's not just about noticing race, it's about giving a meaning to race which allows you to prejudice against people based on race. Right now, you can discriminate based on white privilege, creativesoul condemns it but that's a logical outcome of thinking this way and we've seen others go that route.
I'm not going to go through it all but based on white privilege (I don't think a black-focused term would solve this) we have so many people thinking about so many race-based solutions. You can't be blind to how politically divisive it's already been, you can't think it's going to stop anytime soon. I don't just disagree with it on a moral level, it's just politically impractical and it leads to ridiculous solutions being validated. It interferes with a justice-based humanitarian message which doesn't mention race and therefore can't be disagreed with based on your opinions on race. Which just makes things simpler.
Let me briefly address BLM, I think the message of BLM (rather than the organisation) is fair. Why? Because they are talking about discrimination against black Americans, which you can't do without talking about the blackness of the black Americans being targetted. The solution requires talking about it and the same thing applies to racial inequity. The difference here is that I am happy to directly address police brutality towards black Americans but I am not happy to directly address racial inequity.
Way back, I entered this conversation with the example of stairs privileging the ambulatory. I chose that example with care, because of what it shows about privilege.
Privilege is not often intentional. Stairs are a cheap, quick way into a building, and were not built with the exclusion of certain people in mind. But that was the result.
Fixing the problem will cost money.
Fixing the problem will cause inconvenience.
The result will be the removal of an encumbrance, and hence have long term benefits for everyone.
Importantly, the first step in removing this encumbrance is to recognise it. No one pulls out a set of stairs on a whim. Recognising the issue involves seeing the issue from the point of view of someone who has quite a different experience to oneself. Recognising the issue involves recognising one's privilege. That is, privilege should be pointed out.
That's pretty much the point I wished to make. @Judaka's responses struck me as tangential, since they seemed to me to place the emphasis on the privileged; hence my vexation. It's as if someone were to advocate research into artificial limbs instead of replacing steps with ramps, so that the ambulatory would not have to put up with a minor inconvenience.
I parodied Judaka's position as that we should not call out privilege because it will upset the privileged. I think that remains accurate.
I do not think privilege can be removed. I do think that we can recognise it and mitigate against it, for the common good.
I would like to thank Judaka for his responses, which have caused me to tighten and rethink my position.
Pro Hominem, I would point out that while race has no scientific grounding, there are cultural differences that are of great import. The generic flaw in liberalism is that in seeking to treat everyone as equals it inadvertently seeks to minimises these cultural differences. In the end this looks like white males arguing that the solution to the world's problems is for everyone to act more like white males.
Such differences are to be celebrated, not eradicated.
Disappointing that your openly expressed gratitude was accompanied by such a short-lived acceptance. Typically, when we say that we accept that there are a plurality of ways that white privilege can be applied, if we are genuine in our curiosity about this new and novel application, we will set aside our own preconceived notion and adopt the new way, if for no other reason than to better understand what is meant by the foreign framework.
You asserted acceptance, but failed to continue to use the term in the way that I explicitly set out. By the time you got to the end of the long reply, the beginning of which is quoted above, you'd completely forgotten and/or neglected the remarkable differences between what "white privilege" meant to you, and what it means to me. The following is a prima facie example in support of this charge of forgetfulness and/or neglect.
Quoting Judaka
I've never said that "not being harassed by police" is a white privilege. Given that brute fact, what are those quotes doing besides quoting something I did not say. Since I did not say it, I'm cetainly not trying to 'sell' it.
Not being harassed by police because your non white is a white privilege. That's not something I'm trying to sell either. Rather, as always, I'm doing this completely free of charge. Good for goodness' sake.
The injury that systemic racism has had, and continues to have, upon non whites is not a mere conceptualization. Those are actual. Whether or not we correctly conceive of them depends upon whether or not we have access to the existence thereof. These injuries continue to happen everyday, and they are precisely what white individuals do not have to deal with on a day to day basis, because they are white.
The only way for a white person to learn about those actual effects/affects is to listen to someone who has.
Hence, the following...
Quoting Judaka
Is completely disjointed, at best...
Your having gone to college and being white is not white privilege. White privilege is the negative effects/affects of systemic racism that you do not suffer from because you're white.
"White privilege" is extremely useful for helping an otherwise unknowing, but generally caring, white individual to have a much better understanding of the residual ongoing affects/effects of systemic racism.
Noticing that cops sometimes seem to kill pople because they are black is virtually unavoidable at this point in time. That's a problem, to be sure. The bigger problem lies in the fact that it's taken so long for enough white people to seem to care. The much bigger problems reside just below the surface, so to speak, but immediately spill over to this very day. They do so on such quick notice. The deeper problems are shown by the fact that so many white people are somehow personally offended by the following three words...
Black Lives Matter
First, there is a scientific grounding of race.
Second, cultural differences aren't important when hiring someone or giving them a raise.
Third, what is the difference between acting human vs. acting black or white? What does it even mean to act black or white? It seems to me that putting people in boxes is what is racist. I guess for you, acting black is voting Democrat and acting white is voting Republucan?
Effectively ending racism requires understanding both it's motivations and it's effects/affects.
White privilege is an effect/affect of racism.
Effectively ending racism requires understanding white privilege.
Curious then... Which premiss are you're objecting to, and what grounds the objection?
Just as a matter of rational principle, it most assuredly doesn't. In order to end something one only need know its causes. There's no inherent necessity to know its effects. Eliminating the cause of a thing will eliminate the the thing, regardless of whether one is even aware of the effects.
Premise after premise of yours, I disagree with. It's not just that I'm interested in less race-based solutions but that I see your race-based framing as being unreasonable and at times simply incorrect.
Quoting creativesoul
I disagree with it all, I accept you don't see it that way but I thought that's where the discussion was. Now, I accept a response like Banno's where he has basically said, he doesn't find my reasoning compelling, his answer is better and he's satisfied with that conclusion. Most debates are going to more or less end that way and I always expect that conclusion.
I have broadened my understanding of the different ways in which white privilege is being applied and defended. Not a useless conversation.
The differences in our perspective are great enough that despite agreeing in the reality of systemic racism and the moral importance of resolving the issues it caused, I am as fearful of what you might propose based on your framing as I am of inaction. Where you see black people, I see people, where you see inequity, I see poverty. The injustice here doesn't need to be described in racial terms and I think that's our fundamental disagreement.
This is exactly the problem with the concept. You can only define it in the negative. White privilege is not privilege at all. It is the ABSENCE of being treated unfairly because one is non-white. To put this another way, no one (who isn't themselves a racist of a different type) wants to END white privilege. They want people of color to no longer be mistreated or have different standards applied to them. "White privilege" as you are describing will disappear when everyone is just treated fairly.
Using the term "white privilege" has the practical effect of irritating or offending some people who feel targeted or just lumped in unfairly. It has no corresponding utility or benefit in race conversations to offset this.
If it is pointed out to a white person that a black person was treated badly in a situation that both experienced, say a job interview or an encounter with a police officer, the proper response for the white person is not "I feel guilty and terrible that I was treated well", it is "I feel terrible that you were treated poorly", and hopefully they could agree to work together to try to change that in the future.
It is not necessary or helpful to demonize all white people for being white in order to try to improve conditions for people who are non-white.
Defend this statement.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Defend this statement.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Stay on topic, please.
Ok, this is getting bogged down in your specific example and straying from the topic quite a bit, but since it has been posted about several times I feel like I will weigh in.
The stairs analogy doesn't really work. Stairs are an object, a piece of technology. They have different levels of utility to different individuals based on a range of factors like age, weight, leg strength, cardio-vascular health, etc. One is not "privileged" to be able to use them, one simply does or does not based on need and ability. A person who knows how to chop firewood with an axe safely is not "axe privileged" they just have the ability to do an activity that uses a particular piece of technology. Some people aren't strong enough to lift the axe, some would just be in danger of chopping off their foot. Trying to use the concept of "privilege" to describe this state of affairs is not useful. It adds unnecessary baggage to the conversation.
Nonetheless, the US had this conversation some decades ago and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA has resulted in all sorts of effects, some very unintended, but most frequently encountered by most people in the built environment. Every public building in the US has wheelchair access and handicapped parking spaces. The only exceptions are buildings that predate the law - however those buildings MUST be brought into compliance if they are upgraded or renovated in any way. The burden falls on the owner of the property. This has resulted (over the subsequent decades) in many small businesses being closed because they could not afford to comply with the regulations, contributing bit by bit to the big box Walmartification of our society.
The guidelines for handicapped parking spaces have also increased the area of parking lots which impacts groundwater penetration and has a range of undesirable effects, all so these spaces can sit empty most of the time. Or at least they used to, but now they play a key role in enabling the obesity epidemic in this country by rewarding people with weight problems all the good parking spots. Once again, visit any Walmart to see this in full effect.
Long story short, the right way to view this problem IS to focus on artificial limbs or other enabling technologies (as you mentioned), since they can be employed by the individual disabled person at the time of need, instead of making the case that the rest of us are "able-body-privileged" and therefore we should all suffer negative consequences to level the field at the low bar instead of the high one.
And that brings me back to the unhelpfulness of the "white privilege" concept. It denotes that the problem is some people being treated well, as opposed to the real problem which is some people being treated poorly.
Well, perhaps this holds perfectly good with simple physical and/or material things. It's far less applicable to that which is not. Racism is not a simple physical thing. It's quite a bit more nuanced than that Isaac.
First and foremost, in order to effectively end something, we would first need to know what exactly we were trying to end. At least, if putting an end to that something was the goal. Identifying racism in it's most basic form is a crucial first step so as to be able to properly and/or correctly recognize it along with it's effects/affects 'in the wild'.
Racism is the practiced devaluation of an entire group of people based upon the color of their skin(race) alone. Racism eats, lives, and breathes in the thoughts and subsequent actions of those practicing such belief. Ending racism would require ending racist belief, which brings us to the inherent inadequacy of your suggested method of approach. There is no clear cut readily identifiable single cause for racist belief. That is where the rational principle you've proposed fails.
That's disappointing too. Either you're lying now, or you lied earlier, or you're just contradicting yourself. No matter which is the actual case, it ends in incoherency.
Quoting Judaka
Good, this is certainly part of the goal here. Do you find any single sense of "white privilege" more well-grounded than any other?
Quoting Judaka
Poverty exists in communities and/or societies where no one in poverty suffers from systemic racism. What you see is based upon conflating distinctly different things, I'm afraid. However, we may have more than enough agreement between us to move the conversation forward. Perhaps it will help ease your fears...
Reparations.
What would you like to see done?
Not sure what you think I'm lying about, I have always been open and upfront about my contempt for the framing. If I agreed that white privilege was necessary, if I agreed that white privilege was an important marker, then my opposition makes no sense.
Quoting creativesoul
I would agree that it is important to demonstrate the existence of systemic racism and part of that is by pointing out how imbalanced certain statistics are between the races. In the context where you're faced with someone who is denying systemic racism, the disparities you call white privilege need to be pointed out.
Quoting creativesoul
I am sympathetic here, you are coming from a similar position to me but with a different approach. I know that general views on racism can be a little simple, it can be frustrating. If people think that racism is just verbally insulting someone then you do need to show that it's more complicated than that. So I see the aspect of white privilege as a means to have people think more deeply about what racism is to be a stronger component of the framing.
Quoting creativesoul
I think poverty is actually one of the biggest and most relevant aspects of systemic racism - because money represents a lot. Education, health, quality of life, power, freedom, dignity - there's a lot that comes just from having money and the fact is that black Americans are disgustingly poor in comparison to white Americans.
Nonetheless, I am totally against the idea of reparations. Because it's race-based. Fdrake made the point when I brought this up that because black Americans are disproportionately poor, they would be disproportionately benefited by economic redistribution and thus, when I argue for economic redistribution but against race-based economic redistribution, the distinction is a bit redundant. Nonetheless, I think it is important to stay away from race-based solutions and treat people based on more important distinctions than race - such as their economics.
It's not an analogy. It is an example. The disenfranchisement caused to non-ambulatory people is real. But thanks, by denying that this is a problem you have reinforce my view that privilege cannot be easily recognised by the privileged.
Quoting Banno
This remains unaddressed.
There are a couple of points that need to be made here...
First, it's not a 'problem with the concept' at all. It is a distinguishing feature, and a very very useful one when implemented in the 'right' ways. White privilege is best understood in terms of what white individuals do not suffer from(what they are exempt from). That is precisely what privilege is. Please allow me to elaborate a bit, for it seems necessary...
Being born white in America comes along with also being exempt from the liability of being non white. That is, even by legal definition(if the reader cares enough to actually look), what "privilege" is most commonly used to refer to. So, it is most certainly a privilege. That particular privilege exempts only whites. No non whites are exempt from the liabilities of being so. Hence, "white privilege" is perfectly understandable, perfectly sensible, and it's quite useful for increasing an individual's understanding and/or knowledge regarding the effects/affects of racism that continue to pervade American society to this day.
Quoting Pro Hominem
This makes no sense at all. It suggests that the only people who want to end white privilege are themselves racist of a different type(whatever that's supposed to mean). There is something or other seriously wrong with a few of the basic ideas/notions and/or (mis)conceptions that you're working from/with. Either way, on it's face, the sentence above is false. It conflicts with the actual circumstances described below.
I want to end white privilege. I do not devalue another simply because they are not white. I do not value another simply because that are not white. I do not devalue another simply because they are white. I do not value another simply because they are white. I am not alone.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Again, there are a couple of points to be made here as well...
The first statement is true. Some people experience irritation and/or are offended. However, it does not follow that all people do. However, the last statement only follows from the first, if all people did. They do not. So, it's an invalid conclusion for one, and actually false as well.
The sheer amount of otherwise reasonable, but innocently unaware white people, that have had their worldview expanded for the better by having discussions of white privilege is growing exponentially. The benefit of understanding white privilege is increased empathy. That is particularly true regarding those who are capable of caring about non white people, even if they personally know few if any, but are otherwise reasonable people.
Quoting Pro Hominem
I actually agree with this, as it is written. What does that have to do with white privilege?
So if I edit the word analogy to be the word example, will you address the whole remainder of my post?
And no. By denying your "example" I've held out an articulation of why your "example" is not an accurate depiction of the problem at all. Can you use chopsticks? Are people who can use chopsticks "chopstick privileged?" Should they support broad legislation to uplift those poor souls who don't share their privilege, and meanwhile publicly flagellate themselves to show how sorry they are for the unintentional but undeniable advantage in eating rice in a world without forks? This is nonsense.
Everyone who can walk a flight of stairs does not need to spend any time thinking about the fact that there are some who can't. There is no injustice to being able to walk.It is unfortunate that some can't walk, and there is a time and place to show concern and/or provide assistance to those people, but there is absolutely no rational argument to be made that everyone should walk around every day feeling bad that their legs work.
The same goes for being white. I do not need to be shamed for being white in order to know that it matters to me that people of color are being unfairly treated by a society that I am a part of. Those two things are not correlated and are definitely not causal.
Fucksake.
Yes, you don't see the problem. Repeating that you don't see the problem does not help.
Go talk to @creativesoul. He may have more patience than I.
Quoting Banno
Just like streetlightx, anti-racist but racist, talking in this way is racist, how can you be blind to that? If someone came and started talking about how "black males act" would you accept that?
But he won't be any less wrong.
Ah, there's the brilliance of your argument in a knutshell.
It is an exact statement of the actual meaning of the concept of white privilege. That is what is has to do with it.
You've literally just agreed that it is more effectual for people to be focused on uplifting people who are being oppressed than to be focused on shaming bystanders who are not actively participating in the oppression. You should agree with this because it's obviously true. Making people aware of oppression is not helped by trying to make the case that those people are wrong because they live in a world where oppression exists but they don't happen to be the object of it.
I see the problem quite clearly. I've expressed it repeatedly in a lot of detail. You have chosen to ignore it. What else can I do?
You think that using stairs is somehow a crime against people who can't use stairs, and that able-bodied people should feel ashamed of their "ability" to do so. I think that's devoid of any merit whatsoever and I've explained why repeatedly. Why not answer the points I've raised? I mean, CAN you use chopsticks?
I mean I did already think you were a racist so it's a certainty that I'm biased against you but I am always open to being corrected.
X -> S
S is undesirable.
X has no benefits.
Not X is more desirable than X
Yep, that's valid. You may want to argue over the degree of truth for premise 3, which is clearly where we differ, but don't even try to claim I'm being illogical.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Step back a moment and pause to reflect on this...
I use "white privilege" as it was taught to me by non whites. I draw correlations between "white privilege" and the actual negative effects/affects(personal injury) that systemic racism has had and continues to have upon non white individuals. We language users who employ "white privilege" in such a way are not saying that white people should feel guilty. We are most certainly not demonizing white people when discussing white privilege.
Discussions about white privilege can be focused upon uplifting people who are being oppressed. Discussion about white privilege do not require shaming bystanders who are not actually voluntarily participating in the oppression. Discussions of white privilege do not require trying to make the case that whites are somehow 'wrong' by virtue of benefitting from systemic racism.
What's 'wrong', if you insist upon talking like this, is not acknowledging that whites born in America are exempt from the liabilities of being non white in America.
I completely understand what you're saying. I swear. Let me see if I can reframe this so we can get somewhere.
I say that BLM is the way to go. It highlights the problem of detrimental treatment of people of color.
You say white privilege is the way to go. It highlights the preferential treatment that people get just for being white. Hopefully nothing thus far is controversial. I'll proceed to the next step.
I would like to see everyone treated the way (you say all) white people are treated. I don't see this as a privilege, I see it as the baseline treatment for human dignity. I see focusing on the treatment of people of color as being below this standard is the best way to argue that their treatment should be brought up to it.
Quoting creativesoul
This implies that you want to see the "preferential" treatment of whites removed. If you follow this logic, that means everyone would be exposed to the current treatment of people of color because that is the baseline against which the "privilege" is determined. Effectively, NO Lives Matter.
It comes down to your starting (or ending) point. Either "white" treatment is the baseline, and we would like to see all people receive it, or "white" treatment is a privilege, and no one should expect it. I wholeheartedly prefer the former, and oppose the latter. What I'm getting at here is there is a subtext to "white privilege" that you may not be considering.
I suppose I'm discounting the third option of radical black power, which is white people should be abused and there should be black privilege. I don't think you're advocating this, but it is not excluded by your "white privilege" narrative.
Ok, a few things.
First, I'm quite confident that about this subject we have way more in common than not.
What I see this disagreement to be about is the language used to describe certain things, and the possible effect of that language. (We have been using a lot of absolutes and broad generalizations thus far, so I will continue that way, please don't take that as part of my argument - if we want to get into the nuances, we can do that later.)
Let's say there are two groups in this conversation, whites and non-whites. We'll start with the whites. Let's say we can classify whites in one of 3 ways:
1. Aware of the plight of non-whites and sensitive to it or actively working to change it. "Woke" as the kids say, but I despise that term for the same reason I don't like "white privilege".
2. People in the middle. Clueless, uninformed, apathetic, whatever. Not hostile, but not involved.
3. Actual racists. I realize this is a broad category with divisions, but lets simplify for now.
Of the 3 groups, let's imagine how they would each respond to having the "white privilege" terminology used in reference to them personally:
1. A range from totally accepting and eager to talk about it as a badge of "wokeness" to willing to accept it as a feature of the system they are trying to change. Also, people like me who think you're going about this the wrong way, but understand why you're doing it.
2. A range from confused to irritated to angry. Very few people are going to just immediately be all, "oh my god, you're so right! I can't believe I didn't know this about myself!"
3. Enraged, because they vary from being the victims of an unfortunate cultural background to just being awful people.
If we want change, it's group 2 we need to worry about. These people are the swing voters. You are much more likely to get them to become members of group 1 by appealing to their sense of injustice or basic humanity in the vein of George Floyd-like examples that help them see how bad things are. Find common ground with them. It is a higher risk angle to come at them with, "you just don't see this because you've been privileged your whole life." It puts them on the defensive. Can even make them feel like maybe they aren't "allowed" to be upset or protest because they aren't a real part of it. You can scoff, but being told you can't understand because you're white happens all the time and turns a lot of people off.
I guess I keep coming back to the framing and the effect it has on the audience. It's like you are selling pest control door to door and you focus on how dirty the person's house is instead of how invasive the bugs are. That's not a great analogy, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying.
Ok, part 2. Let's think about how and why the non-white community uses this term. It is classic speech of the oppressed, not dissimilar from the politics of the n-word. Within the oppressed group, you turn their words and symbols back at them. It is understandable why a non-white person would characterize it as a privilege to be white - from the position of the oppressed, they have to imagine what it would be like to not be oppressed. Their language reflects that. There is a certain level of resentment encoded in the language as well. None of this actually helps them to diminish the oppression itself. To the audience in group 2 above it can sound like anything from a threat of sorts to sour grapes.
Bottom line, if I'm crafting the movement for racial equality, I'm staying away from slogans and symbols that reinforce a black vs. white paradigm and going all in on equality, solidarity, and cooperation. Thus, BLM, not "white privilege".
I do not necessarily think that you are lying. I do think that given the facts that - you've claimed to agree with some of my premisses, and also claimed to disagree with all of my premisses - it is the case that you've either said something that you do not believe, or you've arrived at self-contradiction by holding conflicting beliefs about the utility of "white privilege"(which speaks to the premisses I've used here).
You've claimed both that you agree with my premisses(certain statements as written), and that you disagree with all of my premisses. Those two claims are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. The one is the negation of the other. If the former is true, the latter is not, and vice-versa.
We do still seem to agree on much. Some of that agreement could be rendered in simple basic statements. We would both agree that they were true. Then, they could be used as premisses that we would also both agree on. But I digress...
If you earlier believed that talking about white privilege was not necessary or helpful for ending systemic racism, but have since come to believe otherwise, then continuing to maintain the broad-based opposition to "white privilege" makes no sense. Better to incorporate this new understanding regarding the previously unknown(and much better) way to talk about white privilege(use "white privilege"). That move to incorporate requires no longer believing that no use of "white privilege" is helpful andor useful for helping to end systemic racism.
Some more agreement that seemed to prove helpful could(and should) definitely be further unpacked later. It barely touches upon the offense aspects. Those effects/affects from some uses(talk) of "white privilege" are important to properly understand.
I readily agree that some people talk in terms of white privilege that includes attacking whites. I readily agree that some people use "white privilege" in ways that are counterproductive. I do not readily agree with the implicit presupposition that that's the only way to use "white privilege". Such applications of "white privilege" are to be denounced, but we ought not simply denounce all uses of "white privilege" simply because some uses fail miserably. It does not follow from the fact that some people use "white privilege" in unproductive and/or counterproductive ways that all notions and/or uses of "white privilege" are equally unproductive and/or counterproductive. They are most certainly not.
The only way for a white individual American to become aware of the extent of that which they are exempt from experiencing and/or suffering as a result of being white is to seek counsel from those who are not. If non whites use the notion of "white privilege" as a means to denigrate and/or devalue an individual simply because they are white, then they are doing an injustice to their own cause, if that cause is to end racism. Such talk further perpetuates racist beliefs. It is actually a practice thereof. The practice of devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin(race) alone is racism. "White privilege" can be used to do exactly that.
Quoting Judaka
Good.
So, even here it seems to me that you, as an intellectual, are faced with a choice to make. There's a need for a refinement of your own belief system about white privilege. There are some good uses for "white privilege", as you've pointed out directly above. You are clearly aware of this since we've talked, but were not prior to. So, you were a bit mistaken earlier when you thought otherwise. Best to update your worldview, which is virtuous and honorable in and of itself, or you've arrived at facing self-contradiction(you're faced with conflicting beliefs about the utility of "white privilege").
Some uses of "white privilege" are not guilty of the things that you and I both agree are counterproductive.
Quoting Judaka
So, then it seems that even here, you've begun to realize that some use of "white privilege" does indeed have some utility(good use).
I believe that you believe that you completely understand what I'm saying. I, however, do not share the belief that you do, because there are some things you've written that prove otherwise.
We are close, though, it seems in our aim.
Quoting creativesoul
Hm, well I agree with some of your criticisms of white privilege and I believe your approach to white privilege is better than say, Banno's but considering I despise that approach, it's still less than ideal to me. Obviously I prefer to see people being respectful and wanting to have a mature conversation, I prefer it if you're not being anti-white and so on.
Unfortunately, all I can say is that I understand a bit better where you're coming from, I can understand your objective and I respect your objective but I still disagree that white privilege is helpful, I think it's harmful.
I would be more sympathetic to something like "black underprivileged" for the reasons that @Pro Hominem has given. To educate people on the more complicated aspects of systemic racism. At best, white privilege is a bad version of black underprivileged and I dislike both on the basis that I want the focus to be on the perpetrators and victims as individuals, systems, laws rather than races.
I think that the best I can do here is what I've done - which is to try to show that I do understand a little bit of why you are arguing for the white privilege framing, since you seemed upset that you'd been misrepresented. I think everything pro hominem is saying is correct, on top of my objections on the basis of minimalising the importance of race. Not every debate needs to end in capitulation for it to be worthwhile, I think that you and I are not going to be able to agree on this topic.
All I can say is that it's good to be reminded that many of the people pushing white privilege are well-intentioned, I hope you will be able to convince those who do appreciate the framing to use it in the way you've described because I believe that is better than what I usually see.
Cheers.
I am a bit disappointed though, because we barely scratched the surface regarding the offense that some feel at the very mention of "white privilege". Unpacking that offense was key for me to realize that not all talk of "white privilege" warranted being offended. In other words, unpacking my own offense - by talking to those who use the term "white privilege" as I've set out here - was part and parcel to understanding my own misunderstanding...
Couldn't put it better myself.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Imagine thinking acknowledging privilege amounts to demonization.
As the Crash Test Dummies' lyric has it: "Who put whitey in the Whitehouse? You did, baby, you did..."
I got absolutely mad when I married into a family of some prosperity, and found out that ALL do seek careers with money and usefulness as prio 23. "What do you want to do with your life" is the name of the game.
I've been living in this for a few decades now, but I cannot handle it. Philosophically and psychologically. What SHOULD really count as a Fair Race?. What I should want to do is to invent a truth detector really working and throw random people into it and find out if there is a thing as a true moral on this. Or if just everyone believes what is best for them in the throwness they are in.
My personal feeling - don't know if I'm true to even myself goes - OK one should not be a racist, but how about a Spiece-ist. Humanist in the true sense of the word? What makes a human valuable, as in worthy of goods like comfort, time to think, economic independence, and well Ferraris, yachts and stuff?
The thing that separates us from monkeys, parrots, trees and stones, that has given us a mean lifetime far longer than what is "natural" for us, as well as a comfortable life - is intelligence and stuff in that area. Things you get good grades for in school.
Privilege to me seems to be when people try to shortcut this and gets goods without the proper contribution to mean lifetime, if one pushes it a little. So parents (mothers) should avoid "trying to do the best for their kids" in ways that makes a mediocre getting hybris. Kids should enter a school that is the same for everyone and the ones inventing new energy sources and manages to cure cancers should drive the Ferraris....
Well, thats when I try to plug the lie detector into my brain but I probably lie to myself. But I think the concept of a lie detector would be an interesting ones to ge some answers to questions in this area.
Its a very poor example. Privilege would be you getting to use the elevator while I have to use the stairs. Stairs is not a privilege. The elevator is.
What privilege do I have that Oprah Winfrey doesn't have? And would you agree that Oprah has privileges that I don't have?
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-churchgoer-punched-philadelphia-alter-20200824-wsi3hpkzcbcc7fykso2zscatja-story.html
Do I have the privilege of being able to punch Oprah in the face and get away with it?
BTW, what is privilege and is it the same for everyone? For instance, what would a Buddhist monk consider to be privilege?
What about the express lanes on an interstate highway? Those that have the resources can pay the toll to use the express lanes everyday and have a privilege, but what happens when there is an accident in the express lanes and not in the other lanes? The express lane loses its privileged status. So privilege is subjective and can no longer be a privilege under certain circumstances.
Imagine complaining about white privilege and then voting for Joe Biden. Hypocrisy.
In this case is absolutely is, because the so-called "privilege" is not privilege at all. Are human rights Rights, or are they human Privileges? Because the only thing being described by the use of the term "white privilege" is simply the observance of basic human rights - rights that protect against social and physical harm, discrimination, and disenfranchisement, to name a few. Describing them as "privileges" implies that they are beyond what one should expect to receive in society instead of within what should be expected from society. For the hundredth time - THE PROBLEM IS NOT SOME PEOPLE BEING TREATED APPROPRIATELY, THE PROBLEM IS SOME PEOPLE BEING TREATED INAPPROPRIATELY.
Given that "white privilege" completely fails to describe the problem - placing focus on the things that are working correctly instead of the things that are broken - why would we use this terminology?
@creativesoul has said that (s)he is using this term in an effort to create awareness among whites (at least I think that's what (s)he's saying, (s)he maintains that I don't understand at all). I have argued that it is likely to create as much resentment among whites as it creates awareness. So why hold onto it?
If I'm being cynical, I would say the term is one of jealousy. It is the oppressed expressing anger in an unfocused way at those they perceive as not oppressed. They are certainly entitled to their anger, but adopting that anger when it's not yours by experience is not constructive and often does not feel very genuine. The fact that I perceive the original coining of this phrase to come from a (justified) sense of bitterness and anger is why I call it demonization.
Totally agree. "Privilege" is an exceptional advantage possessed by only a few. Being born into great wealth creates privilege. Having the power to influence government or legal proceedings in your favor is privilege. Being exempt from laws that others must follow because of who you or your family are is privilege.
Walking down the street (or up a flight of steps *sigh*) without being harassed is a basic right that all people should enjoy. If we start lumping that in with actual privilege then we are raising the spectre that it can be quickly taken away like any other privilege.
Lol. i think the issue here is that YOU don't seem to understand what you're saying. Words have meanings. You can't just make them whatever you want. You use the term "white privilege" but you are really referring to racist mistreatment of non-whites. You believe that explaining the racist mistreatment to uninformed white people using the term "white privilege" is effective because it somehow makes them understand it in a way that say, watching George Floyd be murdered on video doesn't.
Unfortunately, neither of the words you're using actually describes what you're talking about.
Being treated humanely and fairly is NOT a privilege. It is the baseline Right that everyone should expect to be afforded by society.
Also, being white has nothing to do with it. There are white people who experience police brutality and public suspicion. There are non-white people who do not. It is a simplistic over-generalization.
When you combine these two words together in this way, you reinforce a characterization of the issue that sees it as "white vs black". You will never convince me that is not harmful and counterproductive. BLM is MLK. White Privilege is Malcolm X. It is an issue of messaging.
But 'the problem' is not white privilege, but the fact of it being unacknowledged in situations where it ought to be. As far as your purely nominal disagreement, it simply seems that irony is lost on you, and that if a white person feels 'resentment' at the term, then I'd venture that's exactly when the term is the most appropriate.
White people just don't like being racially marked. They think being so is only meant for others. This kind of hysterical reaction over nomination is exemplary of that.
Wow. It took me several minutes to swallow all the words you're trying to put in my mouth. Please don't think for a minute that you have any idea what I personally think or feel about anything. In other words, your entire post is fallacious.
If you have actually read anything I've written, you would see that my objection to the term lies in its implicit and erroneous meaning. It does not describe what it purports to describe. It is a lie. @creativesoul has suggested that it is a well-intentioned lie (sometimes), but it is still a lie.
You actually wrote a sentence about what all "white people don't like", and you are lecturing me about irony?
For the record, I am not the least bit personally resentful of the term white privilege. I know what is being said and why. I argue against it because it is inaccurate and counterproductive.
Not at all. As creative noted, the dissonance between what ought to be a state of 'normalcy' and it having count as a privilege is precisely the point of the term. It draws its critical power from precisely the uneasy collapse of the two. To not treat normality as privilege - given the current state of things - is to miss the point. Which is what you are doing.
If the term is inaccurate, it is, as it were, an ontological inaccuracy, one that ought to be remedied at the level of action, not language. The goal being to make it nonsensical, which it currently, sadly, is not.
Thus is an entirely reasonable premise, but if you want that change to take place then the critical power has to be realised, not just theoretical. It's not enough that it ought to have that power, it needs to actually have it, and that's an empirical matter. It either will or will not result in the necessary change and its success will depend not on the poetic justice of a powerful literary device, but on the actual psychological effect it has on groups who need to enact change.
I don't think such evidence is yet in.
No. The phrase is a framing device. It draws attention to a feature a reality. That's all. It won't 'result' in anything unless people act with it. And I didn't say it 'ought' to have anything. It already has its critical power insofar as one can recognize how fucked up it is that normalcy can count as a privilege. Pro's only mistake is to think this is a problem with the use of language, and not with the world itself.
That's fair enough, but I think its naïve to think the term in current public discourse is being used the same way as it came out of critical theory. Once a term gains any momentum outside of the field within which it was a technical term it gains both meaning and intent, and, more importantly consequences.
It doesn't properly or effectively address the social consequences of the term's use to just point to its origin. Unless you think it's not being used in any way other than a framing device, then you'd maybe be able to just dismiss fears about its misuse as right-wing bogeyman-making, but personally I don't think you could make that case.
Ah, I see. As far s I know, it dies have such an origin in critical theory, so I presumed that was your point of reference. More interesting though, if you still get that original critical meaning from its everyday use.
Quoting StreetlightX
Unsurprisingly, my interest started with the popularised Erin Cooley study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, which was premised on the assumption of white privilege being used to increase awareness and promote action. The study was specifically on the impact such approaches have on assumptions about poverty where it did indeed seem that talk of 'white privilege' promulgated 'lazy and feckless' tropes in regard to poor whites, and even generated an increased use of individualist language regardless of race (ie, talk of privilege merely ressurects ideas of assessing achievement by comparison with origin rather than as a indicator of it).
Maybe its just the rather limited circles I move in.
So you're admitting that the term does not accurately describe what it says it does. You are asserting that its non-descriptiveness, its falsehood is exactly the point of the term. You are unable to answer to the logic of my argument so you have reverted to illogical poetry in response. You are peddling a lie when the truth would actually serve you better.
It seems you are trying to make the case that it is impossible to convince a person of the reality of systemic racism without convincing them of this privilege. I totally disagree. I do not believe that white privilege exists. I am supremely confident in the existence of both individual and institutional racism, and its many areas of impact beyond criminal justice, including housing, employment, education, and many more.
So, since it is completely possible to understand the institutionalized framework of racial oppression without resorting to the use of this admittedly non-descriptive term, I ask again, what value does it have? Shock value? No thanks. I'll stick with accuracy.
Yep.
Here's a pop article that might be of interest:
Learning About Privilege
The reaction fo the white student has parallels in this thread.
The checklist mention can be found in White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.
From that checklist:
Talking about privilege makes the privileged uncomfortable. That is not sufficient reason not to talk about privilege.
The Erin Cooley article:
This is indeed an interesting point. @Isaac, presumably you do not think this sufficient reason not to talk in terms of privilege?
Thank you for providing some authoritative input here. This subject is not really my area, in this case I'm more concerned with the bastardization of language.
Nevertheless, if I'm understanding your summary correctly, there is evidence in an academic study that the use of the term has the unintended consequence of reinforcing some negative stereotypes? So here we have evidence of the potentially harmful nature of the term.
I'll offer some more. this from an interview with Brian Lowery, PhD, a Stanford professor who studies racial issues and for the record is a person of color. He is defending the concept of white privilege in this interview.
He begins by describing the responses he most often sees to the suggestion of white privilege, which he describes as denial and distance. In other, words he is saying that a typical response is negative disbelief, which is what I have been saying all along and some of you seem to want to just gloss over. This goes to the point that it carries a negative connotation and a burden of proof with its intended audience, which I argue is not offset by any gain distinguishable from simply using the terms racial inequality or systemic racism, which do not impact the same audience in the same way.
What I find most interesting is later in the interview he is asked how he discusses this with his Stanford students:
In other words, he begins by acknowledging his students are privileged, but there is no racial dimension to that because they are privileged by resources, not whiteness (presumably many of them are not white). In fact, he omits the racial element of the conversation entirely. Why? Because as he goes on to demonstrate, the real conversation is about feeling a sense of civic responsibility and the consequences of one's actions. But still, why omit race? Because by doing so, he doesn't "find a lot of resistance".
This man is a proponent of white privilege and more deeply versed in this subject than any of us, but he is (presumably unintentionally) admitting that if one really wants the audience to listen, it is better to avoid that approach.
I realize this is an isolated case, but at least we are seeing some evidence here, and it does not bode well for the utility of "white privilege" versus the difficulties it creates in messaging.
I did the exact opposite of that. I 'admitted' that the term captures something quite real about our state of affairs, in which normalcy has acquired a sense of privilege. At stake is not 'accuracy' or falsehood but normativity. What is currently a state of affairs should be otherwise. Once that is so, then the term will no longer have purchace. That is currently not the case.
Interesting. On paper, the term ought to do the exact opposite of this - insofar as privilege is a social relation and speaks precisely to supera-individual factors that shape behaviour. Perhaps there's a degree to which the term is simply too complex, with rife misunderstandings that have colored its use in ways detrimental. On the other hand that also strikes me as elitist bullshit, and that its misunderstanding can be attributed to it being a favourite target of conservative identity politics, which toxifies everything it touches.
In any case, as a term which simply marks the sad situation in which normalcy has indeed become a case of privilege, I believe it still has purchace, and rather uncontroversially so.
Again, you just skip the parts you don't like, don't you? He literally said "What white people don't like is..." in a conversation about racism. That is, actually, ironic. But maybe you're more into the Alannis Morrissette definition. That would dovetail well with your belief that words have no meaning except that which you want them to at the present moment.
Quoting Banno
Yes, I can Google also. Pop Psy? Seriously? That article is a glorified Facebook post. It's like something you would read in an undergrad logic textbook as an example of fallacious writing.
This checklist....wow. It is certainly an artifact from the 70's. Many of the things it describes are things that are very much in the public consciousness today. If anything, it serves to offer some hope that at least when it comes to the easier aspects of discrimination, some progress has, in fact, been made in the last few decades.
Bottom line, it describes discrimination, it just phrases it in the negative. Interestingly, there is white bias embedded within its very construction, because it assumes that the reader is white, and that their experience is the same. It completely misses the point that if you were to read this in any setting where there is a majority and minority group, it would be just as true for those groups even if none of them are white. If a Hutu were writing this in Rwanda in the 90s, would we say the Hutus had "white privilege?" Of course, some things on the list (affirmative action employers, for example) wouldn't have even existed for any Rwandan, so should we say black Americans have "black privilege", since they have things that some other people do not? Once again, we run up against the fact that "white privilege" does not actually describe what we are trying to talk about. Perfectly good alternatives are out there. Use them.
Quoting Banno
Here you go, the fallacy laid bare. Apparently not all white people benefit from "white privilege". Shocker. Who could have seen that a blanket generalization might fail close inspection? It's fine, though. I'm sure you will ignore that this shows a reinforcement of intersected racist/classist prejudices, because to do otherwise would be to confront the truth.
It does not have purchase. I reject it completely and I am sympathetic to its goals. If by purchase, you mean it galvanizes the message of those on the right who are trying to convince middle class whites that they are being reversely discriminated against, then yes, it has purchase.
You talk of normativity. We have a moment here where the broader public is aware and focused on the issue of racial discrimination and your first instinct is to tell them they are the problem? I hope you're not a salesman, you will certainly starve. This moment calls for solidarity and inclusiveness, for getting maximum buy in on making all the headway we can before the election takes over the public mind. If we do it right, this could carry into and through the election.
But no, you would rather spend the time trying to explain a triple negative to people. Inspiring.
What this should have said:
"Interesting. In the face of these facts, it seems my position is not as strong as I thought it was. Perhaps I should consider reinterpreting with this new information."
What it said:
"Interesting. It appeared for a second I might be wrong. Nah, I'll just hide behind jargon and blame a conservative conspiracy."
You're just fucking wrong. Why won't you see it?
You don't seem to realize this, but you are terrible at philosophy. Like, horrible.
I lack argument? Your longest post is 7 sentences. You have not articulated a coherent position of any kind except "white privilege because reasons". Conversely I have supplied you with reams of argument along multiple tacks. I've questioned your (non-)position linguistically, conceptually, based on outcomes (with evidence), and using plain old common sense. Of course, none of this has any effect because you are apparently a hollow pedant with no real case to make. Keep talking about white privilege, bozo. You will have no positive impact on improving racial discrimination until you change.
Yes, blame. It doesn't matter that you think the words have some magical meaning that only your towering intellect can comprehend. What matters is what the audience hears. And what they hear is you blaming them. You can hide behind all your talk of conflating nonsensical interpretations with creating normativities for action, but it will be just as futile as trying to make that sentence into something other than inane noise.
Guy. If you're so right and he's so wrong why do you feel the need to insult and degrade everybody who disagrees with you? It's just toxic dude. You're doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing, to a tee. Insulting the "audience" if they have opposing views and not having any positive impact until you change.
You can think you're right as strongly as you wish, meanwhile others will still disagree with you. Instead of pointing out why they may be mistaken, you choose to berate and insult them endlessly. You don't sound happy. At all. Frankly, I'd rather be "wrong" in your eyes than miserable and oppressively toxic to just about everybody else.
Right. So you're choosing to no longer agree to all we've agreed upon(changing your mind) because you now see where those agreements have led?
If you admit that some use of "white privilege" is necessary(which is precisely what happens when you grant my framework), you'd have to reconsider and appropriately amend your pre-existing belief that no use of "white privilege" is.
You've already agreed to that, haven't you?
Most importantly we mustn't read too much into the results from a single un-replicated study. There were methodological issues (there always are!) and we'd need to see some of those ironed out before drawing anything like a meaningful conclusion. The hypothesis being tested was one drawn from previous literature, however, so it's not an entirely unexpected result, but still, I wouldn't rush to any conclusions just yet. I only mentioned the paper in response to @StreetlightX's question about where my understanding of the current use of the term comes from, not by way of advocating it's results.
Hypothetically though, I would be inclined to moderate language use within a certain political campaigns on the basis of this kind of response, yes. I don't see much advantage in being self-defeatingly precious about the original intent, nor even the theoretical power of a term if there's good evidence it's not helping your cause.
The BLM movement is not like the struggle of the proletariat. The propertied class own something which they have a strong desire to own, they have a strong desire to keep it that way and necessarily exploit the workers to do so, there's a clear line of competing interests. No moderation of language or conciliatory tactic is going to work here, it's a proper fight.
The fight against systemic racism, however, is different. I see it as mostly the exact same fight (the exploitation merely taking the form of racial disparity), but partly a fight against ignorance - the ignorance of the fact that it is the same fight. In the former case there should be solidarity with the white poor and rhetoric which weakens their position is harmful. In the latter case there's potential supporters not yet brought to the cause, the battle lines are not yet drawn, rhetoric which serves to distance people who could potentially be supporters is, again, self-defeating.
All this is, I emphasise, hypothetical. I don't consider the evidence either way to be strong enough. The point I was making to Streelight was only that it becomes an empirical matter. 'White Privilege' is a term used with calculated intent, it's not a vent of frustration like the riots were, I think what works matters here more than it does in more visceral responses to oppression.
Yeah, but not everyone is going to put the work in to interpreting it. That's the difference between a technical term and one out 'in the wild', you CNT guarantee an intelligent or even sympathetic reading of it.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yes, I'd be inclined to agree, that doesn't mean it's advisable to keep lobbing them material. That right-wing punditry toxifies everything is nit in itself a reason to throw one's hands up and say "we might as well not give it any thought". Some things they will find easier targets than others.
Quoting StreetlightX
As I said to banno, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to judge yet. I don't doubt there's some purchase to it, but when it comes down to it, I don't think this is the real debate here and it was perhaps wrong of me to even raise the issue as a strategic one. Social media has made politics too superficial, last month we had actual riots fighting oppression, talk of 'white privilege' is just bourgeois dinner-table chatter by comparison.
So as a result of your post I've been reading a bit on the history of the word in this context. There's an interesting interview with McIntosh at The Origins of “Privilege”. She talks about being able to see patterns and systems in social life as well as caring about individual experiences in order to understand how privilege works. That rings true for me. I hadn't thought about my own privilege until I found myself working in a team of mostly aboriginal folk and learned their stories. Even then, it took months to sink in, to be able to see my experiences through the lens of the advantages I had simply because of my race, to understand how differences in experience are moulded systematically to the advantage of some and disadvantage of others.
That read took me to Checking My Privilege: Character As The Basis Of Privilege. A sad read. Sure, not "everything I’ve done with my life can be credited to the racist patriarchy holding my hand throughout my years of education and eventually guiding me into Princeton" - but it had a part in it. And sure, "Behind every success, large or small, there is a story, and it isn’t always told by sex or skin color"; but often it is. Understanding the role that systematic privilege played in one's own experiences is just too hard for some.
Anyway, thanks for pointing me in that direction.
I don't disagree, but that's kind of the point, no? That one is able to talk about one's privilege in a critical way is precisely, a mark of it. It no doubt accounts for the fact that people like Pro are so violently offended over what seems to be, at best, a nominative injustice. In my experience, the people most liable to actually talk about 'white privilege' tend to be those who have nothing to say other than to whine about it. A perfect kind of bourgeois black hole.
Quoting Isaac
That it toxifies everything is all the more reason to be clear about our terms and not cede ground to them. More thought, not less.
But there is Naomi Zack, which draws a distinction between white privilege and white privilege discourse, which I think looks valuable,
Privilege is a side issue. Perhaps we coudl find agreement at least on that.
The basic go to is Lord, Ross, and Lepper's 1979 'Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence' which basically invented the idea of people re-enforcing their system-justification in the face of evidence which dis-confirms it. There's a lot of work done on what's called 'resistance' in sociology (meaning the failure to engage with challenges to assumption) primarily as a study of students within courses design to do just that. Mike Cole at UEL a few years ago produced a seminal study on this. Unsurprisingly students on such courses (I think he studies both race and gender studies) generally showed more sympathetic language use and policy leanings than before the courses, but he noted the opposite effect with a minority of 'resistant' students. It depends on your target audience. There's also a paper (not out yet) which claims to show positive relationships between perspective taking and system justification behaviour - so people who are shown other perspectives tend to justify existing systems less. Again this is generally positive as far as 'white privilege' discourse is concerned, but again the effect was switched around when system justification preceded the perspective-taking.
I think the important thing seems to be whether the challenge is framed as perspective-taking or as misinformation correcting. Whilst a few people can still be resistant to the effects perspective-taking, it's by and large a positive thing in reducing system justification, but if people see it as misinformation correcting then there's substantially more resistance among those who might be negatively affected by the change in systemic beliefs. If talk of 'white privilege' is to have any effect (and, as Streetlight rightly pointed out, there's no reason why it should, it stands fine as a critique on its own), then it will be mediated, I think, by the extent to which it's used as a perspective-taking exercise, which sounds very much the way your first article sees it, and indeed your own experience.
Quoting Banno
Yes, I think The Naomi Zack article could even go further. The fact that white people have paths open to them which people of colour do not have have is a privilege and that cannot really be denied, and shouldn't be lost in any talk of the effect of 'white privilege' discourse, but any attempt to broadcast or use that undeniable fact in political society becomes discourse, we cannot avoid it and we cannot be mindless to its consequences.
Possibly. I suppose, again, it depends on the circles one moves in. I do agree though that 'check your privilege' can have this meta-function which is "how are you even able to sit there and discuss it rather than be compelled to respond to it?" In a sense though, this can be said of both sides of the bourgeois debate. I think what it does is highlights the fact that the 'subjects' of the conversation are often not the ones having it, they're the ones dealing with the oppression of which they are the victims. This disconnect is a problem because it removes the hook that the discourse initially had back into the reality of the situation is claims to be about, and discussion removed from any attachment to lived reality can end up castles in the air, a distraction from what really needs doing.
I hadn't thought of it like that. I suppose I was initially more thinking about building solidarity with those who should be united (white poor, black poor) than about opposing right-wing rhetoric, but I think in this latter respect, you're right. Not conceding ground is the only way to respond. Anything less buys into the the myth that their critiques are anything other than shallow grasping at straws. It's difficult though because the two aims conflict here. I don't want to give ground to conservative mud-slinging, but I do have legitimate concerns about resurrecting any language which lends support to a kind of rugged individualism that should have died with Hoover. we shouldn't be listing one's starting privileges and judging one's achievements accordingly, we should be looking at achievements as a whole and inferring the existence of starting privileges from any inequality we find there.
Apply this same logic to talking about men and women in a way that makes a trans person uncomfortable. Its nice to see that you've come around to realizing another's hurt feelings isn't a privilege to silence someone else.
The problem though is that if you havent properly defined "privilege". So your use of the term isn't making me uncomfortable, rather it makes me think that you are confused and don't know what you're taking about.
I think you've misunderstood my responses to you, what I wanted to acknowledge is that not everything about the white privilege framing is just senseless. That you are trying to use it to help educate people on an important issue. To summarise, in the 20th-century racism was in-your-face overt, that isn't how racism functions anymore, it's unilaterally condemned by almost everyone. Yet systemic racism persists, how do you explain that if people aren't seeing that 20th-century racism anymore? If they're convinced systemic racism is over and done with because they only understand systemic racism through what they know happened in the 20th century. A possible answer to that is the white privilege framing.
By acknowledging the need for adaptation in describing racism, I have not acquiesced on any of my previous points. It's a dreadful approach which only makes sense if you subscribe to left-wing identity politics. Even though your brand of white privilege specifically condemns a lot of what I dislike about it, it's nonetheless fundamentally the same.
Racism is no longer about racial superiority, it's about prejudice, it's about giving a race qualities based on things like statistics and experience and using those descriptions to inform yourself about individuals who belong to that group. Suspecting black people might be criminals because they're more likely to be, stereotyping and discriminating. What is worst of all is that many of these stereotypes aren't factually incorrect, just like white privilege. The thinking is the same, justified by the same validity and that's why you're able to argue for things like reparations, something you can't do without discriminating based on race.
We're not even talking about the "whiteness" being discriminated on by perpetrators of systemic racism but the literal "whiteness" of white people. Race can't be less than the most important thing, provided you just put every aspect of a person's life into a race-based framing, it doesn't matter that sometimes it's not being false. When you put the specific emphasise and its conclusions on trial, it fails in every way for me. When someone mentions white privilege, I wait for the inevitable slip up, the comment which talks about a race as a living, thinking entity, the comments which show how much they care about someone's race and sadly, they rarely fail to come.
I have spent quite some time in this thread now and really, I've said all I've had to say twice over. The white privilege framing says "white people are privileged" and leaves you to figure out how and why and people come up with some pretty crazy stuff. It doesn't educate at all, it's a framing that emphasises the importance of race and little more.
It can become this, but you're probably right about circles. Like @Banno, my experience of the use of the term 'privilege' is that it tends to come about in the context of acknowledging disparate experiences. To take a banal example, I grew up in an environment in which reading and self-education was placed at a premium. When I was younger, I used to scoff at those who, say, made silly grammar mistakes or were unfamiliar with classic authors and the like. Now I recognize that's just classist bullshit for the most part, and that to expect, a priori, that others should be as versed in the kinds of things I was lucky enough to have been versed in is utter shite.
At no point here is there any question of guilt or blame or shame or insult. At stake is instead a tempering of what I ought to consider 'normal' and the ways in which that modifies my own behaviour. Acknowledging privilege here isn't about some kind of Maoist self-denunciating ritual - it's quite the opposite: a contextualizing and broadening of behavioural vocabulary. As you said, it's not about achievement - it's about starting points. This is how I understand invocations of privilege. There's nothing academic about it. It's just a certain humility and openness with respect to human interaction.
Your position is based on the ultimate separation between the reality of systemic racism and the existence of white privilege. Yet, it is quite common now to define systemic racism as a set of
institutional practises that function to favour certain racial groups over others:
"Solid Ground defines Institutional Racism as “the systematic distribution of resources, power and opportunity in our society to the benefit of people who are white and the exclusion of people of color.” Present-day racism was built on a long history of racially distributed resources and ideas that shape our view of ourselves and others. It is a hierarchical system that comes with a broad range of policies and institutions that keep it in place."
https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/institutionalracism.pdf
The definition states that systemic racism is the practice to disadvantage communities of colour in favour of people who are white. Therefore, both notions are essentially interrelated.
Moderators, feel free to delete this comment. It's not on topic anyway. Of course, you should probably delete Outlander's open letter as well for the same reasons. Thanks.
I understand that this is common, but that doesn't make it correct. It was once common to use the word "Negro", but that would hardly be seen as correct today. It had/developed a negative connotation and fell out of public use. I'm arguing the same here. The phrase "white privilege" is like its inverse. My hope is that it will fall out of use as racist (it is inherently, explicitly racist) and it creates antagonism, which is the opposite of what anyone hoping for racial equity should want.
Quoting Number2018
This is a very strange definition to me. It is clearly phrased to make racism about creating benefits with no mention of detriments? So, for example, the continued criminalization of marijuana that is used implicitly and explicitly as a vehicle of mass-incarceration for Black Americans is not covered by this definition. Along with all the rest of the distortions in the criminal justice system, housing codes, etc. I mean, I suppose you could argue that housing codes create de facto segregation that could be described as a "benefit to whites", but that implies the premise "all whites value segregation" which is obviously false. Sorry, it's hard not to fall down a well when there is so much buried in the word choices here.
Where this really loses traction for me is in the part I've emphasized. Systematic racism is maintained for the perceived benefit of racists and elites, not all whites. To the extent that ordinary middle-class whites receive a "benefit" from it, it is a byproduct (although I still say characterizing freedom from abuse as a benefit or privilege and not a norm that all should expect and receive is a terrible conceptual precedent to set).
All this language may seem important in an academic setting, but it fails when deployed in the real world, as some evidence showed in earlier posts. It's very ivory tower to not be able to understand why a white person who grew up poor but managed to get a little education and a decent job would get upset when you tell them how privileged they are. In their mind, you are invalidating anything they've done themselves and who would want to feel that way? You can dismiss their feelings all you want, but don't act surprised when they keep voting Republican and nothing gets better.
I acknowledge that there is inequity between both the opportunities and outcomes of generally all whites versus generally all blacks. I'm just suggesting that strategically, this approach may turn off more "middle-ground" people than it converts to the cause. I think some data has been presented to suggest I might be correct, but if someone can demonstrate the efficacy of the "white privilege" concept as a vehicle for positive social change, then I'm on board. Ultimately, the goal is the destruction of race (not culture) as a meaningful category in public thought. I support anything that moves us in that direction.
I'm trying to start over in the relevant strain of this conversation...
I agree with most of what you're saying, just not with the unfortunate name you're giving it. It's like coming up with a delicious new flavor of ice cream, then naming it "child abuse". Ok, it's not like that at all, but maybe you see what I mean? :D
If you want to have internal conversations with your circle where you've all agreed on a particular meaning for this phrase then you absolutely should - that is a benefit of the flexibility that language has. I would caution you that when you carry the same language outside that venue the understandings of that term are going to vary widely, as will the reactions (and some if not many of them will be negative). This is the detriment of the flexibility that language has. Because of this, I doubt its value in open discourse with anyone not already schooled in racial theory.
In addition to what I see as its dubious utility, I think it reinforces racial stereotypes and is itself an example of systemic racism. "The experience of being black in America" is not saying the same thing as "the experience of being non-white in America". People don't say they were pulled over for being non-white. They say they were pulled over for "driving while black." Their blackness is essential to their experience, not their non-whiteness. There are other non-white groups that do not receive the level of discrimination that falls to blacks. There are non-white groups that tend to demonstrate as much discrimination toward blacks as some whites do. This is not a white/black issue. It is an issue of discriminatory treatment directed very specifically at black people. To characterize that as a "white" phenomenon is incorrect, and more importantly just perpetuates a racist viewing of society.
Finally, there are examples that the "privilege" exists for non-whites in some places. In some areas on the West Coast, Asians are entrenched in the ranks of the "privileged". They have equal or even greater access to capital, higher representation in elite educational circles, and can be found living in the poshest zip codes. There may be some racist feeling toward them from some whites, but they are in a position to ignore it. It doesn't affect them unless they choose to have it do so. Are they experiencing "white privilege?" Or does it become "Asian privilege?"
The worst feature of this term is that it is itself racist. It draws the wrong conclusion from the black experience, which is that the adversary is white people. If white people would just stop taking advantage of them, things would improve. The people that are taking advantage of them might be mostly white, but not all of them are, and not all white people are taking advantage of them. To see the world in this black/white dialectic reinforces the very condition that we are trying to change.
I know you and those you say you use these terms with don't "mean" any of this, but the words do have this "meaning".
Quoting creativesoul
I don't think you're saying that I do not acknowledge that there are broad and pervasive differences between the experiences of white and black people in America. If you are, I can assure you that I do (and I have on multiple occasions during this conversation). I don't agree with oversimplifying it to simply a white/non-white calculus. I don't even agree with the assertion that the experiences of all "whites" are identical and can be lumped together as such. That is definitionally racist thought - determining conclusions based on the sole criterion of race.
This post is way too long, but I want to stress something if you're still reading. I believe we agree on all the important things here. In any movement there is the danger that counterproductive ideas and strategies will creep in to even the most well-intentioned messages. It is my opinion that "white privilege" is a somewhat counter-productive idea nesting in the absolutely correct and vital push for the end of racism. It's not fatal or anything, but it's not helping. That is my opinion. You do not share my opinion, and that's fine. We don't have to agree on everything. Thanks for the dialogue, I hope I've at least given you an opportunity to think critically about your position, even if only to figure out why I'm wrong. Cheers.
I think that makes sense. It's not quite my experience of the term's use, but I do think we can put that down to our respective fields or social circles. A small amount of my work is with people who've had a pretty shit deal in life, I've never really 'checked my privilege' and it hasn't prevented me from doing my job (I don't think), but maybe it's a valuable exercise in humility.
Very well put. I think we've all had our say, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. In the end we are reaching for the same conclusion, just discrepancies what path to take to get there.
The above is almost acceptable, as it is written. I would remove the implied uncertainty accompanying the use of "ish". I would continue by properly accounting for situations where a white individual suffers because they were/are believed to be non white. That results in a much stronger claim.
When you further critiqued the above, you went sorely astray...
Quoting Pro Hominem
The rest of that post, beginning with the falsehood quoted immediately above, is based upon a gross misunderstanding. One cannot properly critique that which is not understood. Trust me when I kindly say that you're misunderstanding. What follows below is clear undeniable prima facie evidence thereof.
Talking about all of the different negative effects/affects that non whites suffer because they are non white does not place focus upon some perceived misconduct of all white people.
Quoting Pro Hominem
The above is a textbook example of how to employ and argue against a strawman. None of what you're arguing against above is what I've claimed. Nor does any of it follow from what I've claimed
Quoting Pro Hominem
That's neither, what I said, nor does it always/necessarily follow from what I said. Unfortunately, too much of what followed the seven sentences in the above quote was based upon a gross (mis)understanding put on display by the last in the group.
:meh:
When you return, if you'd still care to tease out some subtleties by responding to what I've actually written, and what follows from that(the above most certainly doesn't), may I suggest that you scroll back through this thread paying particularly close attention to the clear unambiguous definition that I offered earlier for "white privilege"? That would go a long way with me, because doing so could help us to complete a bridge(of sorts) of mutual understanding. The sheer amount of misunderstanding that has shown itself(from my vantage point anyway) is immense. Your initial objection was met with valid rebuttal, and everything went askew from there it seems.
Many(all but one, I think) of the 'objections' that followed and claimed to be about that definition were not even based upon it. That's a problem, and I'm not interested in pointing out each and every time that that occurred. All one needs to do, if they are so inclined, is to compare the actual definition I offered to each and every subsequent use of "white privilege" that you offered afterwards. The disconnect becomes quite clear.
You've made it abundantly clear that you do not believe that talking in terms of "white privilege" is helpful for accruing additional support(particularly from potentially malleable white people) for the cause of redressing systemic racism. As you've noted, that seems to be where our disagrement is. There have been some fair points in support of your view made by several different participants. Isaac has even offered an expert opinion on the potential and/or actual negative effects/affects that talking in terms of "white privilege" can result in, the like of which could possibly be a negative personal conclusion about poor white people based upon the idea that they had not taken advantage of the privilege that they've had since birth. I've actually witnessed that very same sort of conversation as it was happening.
Poor whites very often equate privilege with wealth. That is a source of offense at the use of "white privilege" as well. There's much to be unpacked. I ask only that you - at the very least - look into the box I've presented.
This is exactly what I've been trying to communicate. Like, exactly. However @Isaac, reading between the lines gives me an impression that you don't find merit in what I've been saying. Can you please explain to me how you see my assertions differing from the information you've presented here? My tone here is sincere, not argumentative.
Quoting Isaac
Even here, your thoughts correlate to mine. The fault I see is not in the idea itself, the fact that there are vastly different conditions for living that are based largely (when not entirely) on race. That is obvious. The issue I'm raising is what happens when you begin to try to deliver that information into the public discourse, which has to be done in some way if change is going to happen. The information you've provided demonstrates that the form of that message is perhaps even more important that its substance, in terms of being accepted and perhaps acted upon by the audience. Have I missed something?
Noted. I am doing so. My intent was never to mischaracterize your position. I have no interest in attacking straw men. To the extent it appeared I was doing so, it is because I believe that in a certain context, your position as I understood it led to certain conclusions, and I was proceeding from those conclusions. I will reread your initial position and proceed more slowly.
If possible, could you let me know which page it was on? I'd ask you to quote it, but I don't want to give the impression of laziness. :)
How can you tell if someone who extremely dislikes the concept of white privilege is doing so for system justification/self palliative reasons or not? I'm not saying don't be critical of it, I'm saying that the very idea inspires so much vitriol in some people and pages and pages of text. Often, after the pages and pages the person who says they hate the concept of white privilege actually agrees with all of the substantive content it criticises, but feels either personally attacked by it or that (generic white person) will be turned off by it. Projecting personal discomfort onto the absent other, maybe. Regardless, they dislike the present because of the package. Complicity should never feel comfortable, and self flagellating doesn't make any difference.
I've got a personal wager that people who get super animated about it being a hard sell to some white people to begin with more often than not are duckspeaking system justification in an academic dialect. But that's neither here not there I suppose.
Is this what you were directing me to? I found it on page 7 for anyone interested. It is part of a much longer post, so I don't want to fail to include anything essential or take something out of context. Is this sufficient?
That's it.
:smile:
Perhaps, but belief it or not, some people are actually concerned with precision in the words they use. Like, don't try to convince me by manipulating the meaning of words, just give me accurate facts and let me decide.
I appreciate you being here.
The information I've presented shows that there is limited and as yet un-replicated experimental support for the idea that the term might have undesirable consequences in specific circumstances. I do have reservations about its use, but as the Xi paper shows (and as Streetlight and Banno have corroborated anecdotally), it clearly does have some positive impact in other circumstances. I've not followed your posts closely, but it seems you might possibly be more condemnatory of the net use than I am? My concern is mostly about the use of the term to distract from the real issues, which I see as the systemic necessity for an oppressed underclass. Where it's not used for that purpose, I've no issue with it.
The point @StreetlightX made about how it is necessary to respond to the toxifying of discourse by being firm about the meaning of terms is important here. If there is some use to the term, and also some risk, we need to take care not to allow right-wing exaggeration of that risk diminish the use. I've not personally found much use, and I have academically seen some misuse, but I'm not about to dismiss people's experiences of having been positively affected by the concept.
Very kind of you to say so.
1. I'm not able to see how anything you said here relates to the quoted text. Were you just using that as a convenient way to direct this message at me? That seems disingenuous and overtly hostile, but perhaps I've misunderstood your intent. Either way, I'll proceed.
2. I've never said I hated anything. My response to the subject matter has not been emotional, and I've never appealed to emotion in making my arguments. Perhaps this minor slight is a piece of your master plan to discredit me?
3. Yes, here we go. I'm projecting. I'm personally offended by the term. Blah, blah, etc. I guess if you can't confront the argument, there's always ad hominem attacks to fall back on. "I don't like Al Gore, therefore climate change isn't happening." Rock solid reasoning here.
4. How shall we determine the outcome of your wager? And what do I get when I win?
5. In no way do I feel personally targeted or in the least defensive about "white privilege". I have raised 3 critiques of it:
If you have something relevant to say about those assertions, please do. If not, please just leave me alone. You and others like you are just exasperating.
PS - you said "duckspeaking" and your name is drake. That's hilarious. Well done.
I see that there has been some misunderstanding. Patience and genuine desire to understand one another will go a long way. I appreciate all the effort of those so engaged, yourself included. Have you been reading Isaac's recent additions?
"White privilege" when used in the best way, puts a white in the shoes of non whites...
Is that what's meant - or close at least - to perspective-taking?
Yes, that's exactly it. Perspective taking generally increases empathy and sympathy and makes system justification less likely. The exception seems to be when the context of the perspective taking exercise is system-criticism itself. If the experiment is set up deliberately to examine some system, the perspective-taking seems to have the opposite effect. It's possible that this is simply the effect of prior beliefs on belief-updating, but as yet I don't think that's been established. People tend to view ambiguous information as more confirmatory of prior beliefs if they consider those beliefs to be under challenge than if they don't. That may explain the effect, but as I say, it's not been replicated yet.
I think the vitriol stems from “white privilege” being a sweeping and unjust generalization upon people with lighter skin colors, in this case the projections of Peggy McIntosh upon an amorphous, abstract group of people rather than a thoughtful analysis of flesh and blood individuals. I can imagine other such generalizations made about other skin colors, and I think it is safe to say there would be some warranted vitriol, and rightly so.
For me it’s a hard sell because it’s a racialist and racist concept, and not much more than that.
Quoting Isaac
I acknowledge that we are working with a very small sample size of real information. Of the things you have presented from a clinical(?) setting, it seems that the preponderance at least indicate that there may be detriment to the use of the term in a general setting, but that it can be constructive with a more sophisticated audience or a more sophisticated presentation. Would you say that I have characterized that accurately?
Yes, I have been questioning its use, maybe some would say I have gone as far as condemning, but I haven't intended to. That's why I'm still here discussing. I share your concern that it may be nothing more than a distraction. I have phrased this by saying I think it lacks utility to foster change, and that it misses the point. I think we are saying most of the same things there, but I invite you to distinguish, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
Quoting Isaac
Is it possible that this cuts both ways? In other words, is it possible that someone committed to the idea on the left could exaggerate its utility and turn a blind eye to the risk? In my experience, people who are already sympathetic to notions of racial justice seem accepting of the term, and those who are not respond somewhat aggressively to it. If it were only that, it might be a sort of litmus test for where an individual stands, but my concern is for the people in the middle, and although it seems hard to imagine sometimes, there are a lot of those people. Moving those people in the direction of positive change should be the goal, and based upon my own experience, as well as the information you've provided from some (admittedly limited) formal settings, there is at least reason for concern that "white privilege" as a label for this idea is potentially working against that goal.
I'm not asking you point blank to say you agree with me, but do you see any flaw in my reasoning?
In strict logical terms, however, this is a fallacy - appeal to emotion (pity). I would also note that this type of argument is explicitly forbidden in legal proceedings because it is so often misleading and prejudicial.
I will admit that in ordinary social settings it can be persuasive, but it is still a play on the person's emotions, and not an appeal to their reason. If all you're trying to do is indoctrinate someone, it can work, but that person won't be able to effectively articulate their beliefs without further education. This is basically what Fox News spends all its time doing.
Ok, I understand what you are saying. I believe that the effect you are describing is real. Please keep that in mind - I am not saying that the effects of what you are describing don't exist.
Here are my concerns:
1. I see this as inexact. Specifically overbroad. It assumes that the experiences of all white people are more or less the same, it assumes that the experiences of all non-white people are more or less the same, and it assumes that the experiences of whites and non-whites are mutually exclusive - one cannot have the experience of the other. I think that individual experiences of racial prejudice are usually much more specific than this - one is mistreated for being black, or latin, or asian, etc - as opposed to the generalization of non-white. But that is in the realm of individual racism. In terms of systemic oppression, I think it is far more complicated than this model, which glaringly excludes economic factors and ignores that on the broadest scale, race is simply a tool of the oppression, not its object.
2. This statement is in itself racist, and supports a racially derived view of the world. I mean racist here in the sense of prioritizing race above all other factors, not in the KKK sense of the word. As I said above, the history of racism is not only about race. It is about power and property, and someone needing to be the scapegoat so the powerful and the rich could remain so. That is why the system continues even though we've reached a point where most people would never even consider being casually racist in public. The priesthood needs the masses to turn on each other so they pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
3. It's a hard sell. The people you need to get on board to effect positive change are the middle ground people who don't feel strongly one way or the other about race. These people are the balance in elections and they turn protests into movements. Since (statistically) most of them are white, why go at them with something that calls them out right from the beginning? I'm speaking in very practical terms here, but the only formal information we've had supplied here (by @Isaac) suggests that the results may not be what you are hoping for. Sure, it's not conclusive, but it's worth considering. In this sense, it comes down to the fact that I don't believe that it is necessary to convince someone of the verisimilitude of the term "white privilege" to convince them that they should care about racial oppression and support changing it.
@creativesoul Ok, I'm not sure I spoke as clearly as I wanted to, but at least I've given a framework for my position. I've highlighted the pieces of 1 and 3 that seem to me to be points of difference. 2 explains itslef. Is there anything here you find worth discussing?
That quacked me up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me the main thing you dislike about white privilege is that you believe the phrase has essentialist connotations. As in, stating that there is a character entailed by a person's colour. A kind of prejudice by oversimplification. Moreover, you find white privilege unhelpful as a term insofar as it may suggest a universal character of oppression based on not being white - which, problematically, isn't sensitive to ethnicity or local context.
Both of these are instances of the term "white privilege" being judged by its possible interpretations. I agree that they are possible connotations. Just like some people felt excluded by "Black Lives Matter" the name for not being verbatim "All Lives Matter".
That fits into the context of considering the term "white privilege" as somewhere between an organising concept of discourse + activism + solidarity and as an anti-racist propaganda tool. I think if you understand, which you seem to, the realities associated with white privilege (the legacy of European settler colonialism and its justifying ideologies + the economic and cultural means of reproduction of its effects), the utility of the term for you is spent. The concept no longer functions for you in a Kangaroo court of reason, the question remains of evaluating its status as a brick through a window.
I agree it is unspecific and very broad, I agree that someone seeing "white privilege" by itself as an adequate description of the mechanisms that perpetuate white privilege is intellectually lazy. But it's a framing device, it opens a space for a kind of discussion that is still very necessary, and it suggests essentially the right collection of ideas: ( a ) the legacy of settler colonialism and its racism advantages whites relative to PoCs ( b ) it's a "privilege", not a guarantee - systemic+statistical/population based rather than an iron law, it's not "white success guarantee", ( c ) it's agent neutral, it doesn't say who or what does it or how - broad enough to be applicable to apartheid and other legalised racisms, systemic+institutional effects like in hiring and health outcomes... And finally ( d ) it emotionally resonates enough to provoke discussion.
I don't think you could ask for a better two word propaganda tool. The costs associated with the analytic imprecision actually show up as gains in transmissibility and scope. It's even very very accurate for a slogan.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
In context, what have you decided?
Quoting Pro Hominem
You may insist that your understanding is correct, appropriate, making sense, and you may bring the best arguments in favour of your version. However, in our environment, public discourse's agenda and content are not shaped due to academic or intellectual discussion. It is primarily formed and controlled by the coherent actions of the media, the leading groups of political, cultural, academic elites, corporations, and the most active political activists. Only the singular conjuncture of the acute political and ideological struggle could bring such heterogeneous forces together to impose the discussion of the "white privilege" as a vehicle for social change.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Quoting Pro Hominem
It is the only factual basis for claiming a causal correlation between institutional racism and white privilege. Likely, given the complexity of the contemporary society, it is impossible to show that there is a kind of cause and effect relation here. Yet, there is almost no need for such research. The processes of the creation of dominant public opinion utilize facts and researches as secondary and subordinate means.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Probably, the different groups that promote the "white privilege" concept as the urgent object of the public debate have different intentions and aspirations. Likely, some of them strive for positive social change (by the way, it is the very arguable concept itself). Others want to bring the maximum possible change, to disbalance the homeostasis of the existing social system, and then manage and control the spectrum of accelerating processes.
That's interesting. I guess one reading of it is causal, like "I am privileged /because/ I'm white" - so someone who did not feel privileged might go a bit nuts over that- one of the guys on the Partially Examined Life was pretty vexed by it since he grew up poor. My initial reaction to the term (about a decade ago now?) was a surprising amount of hostility to it, at the intersection of the stereotypical reasons from Working Class White Brit + Leftist - "it's the working class that matters most" + "white supremacy is a subprocess of the class antagonism" + "this is individualist liberal identity politics" .
While I can agree with all three of those things still (though in a different way now), I do remember feeling very accused by the idea of white privilege, and my mind was definitely doing some ego defence mechanism bullshit with those three ideas. I was not happy with my complicity in it, which influenced the strength I rejected the idea with. Warding off guilt using anger. If you asked me at the time I would not have been able to admit that the idea made me extremely uncomfortable, I would've justified my emotions using those leftist tropes.
Wish I would've heard of Akala back then:
I re-read the denials.
I re-read white middle class cis hetro males begging that the word "privilege" not be used because it upsets them.
I noted the lack of presence of a black voice, or of a disabled voice, or of a gay voice.
If that characterisation of the discussion pisses you off, perhaps you might take pause and consider why a word so offends you.
I think it's time to go join the riot.
Honestly, you are new here but it's not just this thread. StreetlightX and Banno are horrible, they're racist, they engage in ad hominem, they are the definition of ideologically possessed and if you call them out on anything, they just continue with their smug self-assurance, they'll happily misrepresent people, discriminate against people based on race/sex/sexual orientation, as see you above.
You say we are trying to accomplish the same thing but I disagree, I think what I want is worlds apart from most people who want to talk about white privilege. My condemnation of racism necessarily means not discriminating based on race in exactly the same way that the white privilege framing does. I can't even do it another way. Once you allow using statistics to prejudice against racial groups, you are no longer capable of condemning racism. The line between doing that and the white privilege is so small, I'm not sure it even exists. What banno and streetlightx are condemning isn't racism, their condemnation is orientated around oppressor/victim narratives based on leftist identity political theory. That's why the criticisms of virtue signalling become so valid. It doesn't make any sense to do that unless you are motivated by helping the underdog.
There is no shortage of race-based discrimination going on in this thread but if you're doing it towards the privileged classes then no foul. That doesn't represent what I want to achieve at all, I think the far left is extremely dangerous and not to be considered a convenient ally when fighting for social change. The standard brand of racism is going to die out, I'm convinced of that but what it gets replaced with might end up being just as bad.
Justify your claim that what I have written is racist.
What is racism to you? What I find sad is that creativesoul argues that the white privilege framing is necessary to understand racism, meanwhile, it is the foundation for your discrimination. I am very interested @creativesoul what do you think about Banno's comments, is this something you support?
I think your views of racism are outdated, or simply wrong, you have informed yourself about the individual using your prejudices against a racial group. You specifically noted the race, sexual orientation and sexual identity of individuals and used your feelings about how you think people of that race, sexual orientation and sexual identity usually behave to discriminate against the individual. There is no other justification for your comments, only that.
Quoting Judaka
That will not do. You have made an accusation:
Quoting Judaka
Present your notion of racism and explain why what I have written is racist, or rescind the accusation.
This is what you did in our debate about privilege, I wrote a lot and you said "I don't see why we should care about the feelings of the privileged" as if to suggest that was the crux of my argument. Parody? No, that's your style of argumentation.
My previous post contained all I needed to say, any insufficiency from your perspective is ignorance about how racism functions from mine.
Again, either present your notion of racism and explain why what I have written is racist, or rescind the accusation.
Quoting StreetlightX
Hey,
I appreciate the more even tone of this message. We certainly have points of difference that might be explored, but I'm feeling a little punched out about this topic. I've made my position clear (in bullet points, no less) and I think my reasoning has some merit although there are clearly those who disagree. I certainly feel confident that my position is not way off base or essentially wrong in any way.
Apologies if I'm shortchanging you by not responding fully, but it feels like I would just be retreading what I've already said.
I'm sure we can spar on another thread sometime soon. :)
Cheers
It seemed liked you almost agreed with me in a way here, but don't worry, I won't tell anyone. :D
I know that this notion of white privilege will continue to get pushed by the high-educated left, and my thoughts are of no consequence to that. I'm just saying that I think there are better alternatives. But maybe the struggle is more important than the goal.
But I've repeatedly said I don't want to talk about white privilege. I've raised the same point that you have, which is that it serves to reinforce racial categories (among my other criticisms). I thought maybe at least one person agreed with me to some degree...No?
Oh well
PS - As annoying as they are, you might stop feeding the trolls. They go away if you ignore them.
Thank you. Few things are as deeply pleasurable, on a philosophy forum, as being called a Troll by one's interlocutors.
Here's the intellectual ancestor of Trolls such as we:
Ugly bastard, ain't he?
Again, present your notion of privilege so that I might actually be uncomfortable with how your using it.
Quoting Judaka
I do agree, what I meant was that the white privilege framing results in different outcomes being prioritised, different methods of tackling systemic racism becoming legitimate and different means of identifying progress. I don't consider myself to be closely aligned in my goals to most of these other posters at all. Only in recognising systemic racism and objecting to it, past that, there's more disagreement than agreement.
You mean like having to deal with a lack of fathers in the home and high rate of black-on-black crime?
As if whites don't have problems that non-whites don't have to deal with.
According to this:
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics
...blacks commit more than their fair share of hate crimes, which can only mean that non-blacks experience more than their fair share of being victims of hate crimes committed by blacks.
Asked twice, you have failed to present your notion of racism and explain why what I have written is racist. Nor have you rescinded the accusation.
This merely repeats the accusation, without showing where I am supposed to have done this.
The conclusion is that your accusation is unsupported.
Judaka did respond with the following, which goes some way to ticking those boxes:
Quoting Judaka
I happen to disagree that it follows that you're racist, Banno, but Judaka did try to justify it.
Besides the whole oppressor/victim narrative, what differences are there between the way you discriminate against people based on their whiteness and how others may discriminate against others based on their blackness? What's the logical difference? You want to be very careful about giving validity to the idea that you can use statistics, anecdotes, feelings about a race to inform yourself about or characterise an individual. Because it may even be true that white people are more likely to dislike the white privilege framing for bad reasons but once you start using that to characterise disagreement with the framing as a result of their race, you aren't really much different or really any different from what you're supposedly condemning.
Why can't one characterise black people as criminals if they're disproportionately more likely to be if you can characterise white people as being merely offended about white privilege just because they're disproportionately more likely to be? You tell me the difference.
As I said, that repeats the accusation without adding any support. Repeating the accusation is not a justification.
I am the primary carer for a person with a disability, a wheelchair user. I entered this conversation with that perspective, in response to a thoughtless opening post. I used the example of stairs because I have personal experience with the frustration caused by the built environment excluding certain people because of their disability.
At one stage I asked folk to consider stairs as a form of privilege... Quoting Banno
That's exactly what @Judaka and @Pro Hominem have done. See for example @Pro Hominem simply dismissing the issue in this post.
@Isaac's contribution led me to The Origins of “Privilege”, and especially the discussion of "nice" people. I'm sure @Judaka and @Pro Hominem are nice people. That is irrelevant. It does not prevent them from participating - explicitly or inadvertently - in oppressing others.
Recognising the personal advantages one has obtained as a result of systemic issues is a way for nice people to discover their part in systemic oppression. Understanding that one is privileged is one way to start change.
Recognising that one is privileged is a beginning.
Perhaps @Judaka is too young or sheltered to understand how offensive his accusation is. It might have been to his advantage to consider what he thinks racism is, and to then specify why he thinks what I said was racist.
For the most part this forum is light entertainment. Occasionally important issues are discussed. This is an important issue - as is evidenced by both the passion of those involved and the headlines in todays news.
That' my friend, is pretty much the whole of what I have to say on the issue. I will refrain from further comment on this unfortunate thread unless provoked.
Thanks.
Your opinions about me are convenient for you because they allow you to dismiss me and my opinions. Just as you tried to do by talking about my race. On one hand you complain about heavy-handed comments and on the other, you deliver your own. I am not sure what is worse, being a racist or belittling the disabled and twisting it so it becomes about me, hard choice.
I appreciate creativesoul at least trying to defend the white privilege framing, as far as I think, you are out of your depth on this topic. The way you've responded to either me or @Pro Hominem has been things such as ad hominem, straw-manning, mocking with "yawn" and so on. You still don't seem to appreciate that what you are doing is offering a framing, using contentious language, it's just facts for you.
Moreover, the hypocrisy, in how you decided to characterise our statements based on a prejudice you have against "white people", in a topic like this - it's astounding. I would not accuse you of something so disgraceful if I didn't believe it was warranted. I think you made a good choice in not answering my question, I hope it was because you recognised it would be difficult to justify your behaviour and not actually because of these reasons you've given to leave.
I don't think the evidence goes that far. It could still be the other way around (the negative effects are the smaller, more specific group, and the positive effects generalise). There's nothing that I know of to tell us about the size of the group likely to be negatively affected by the term, only that the existence of such a group can be inferred from the experimental results.
The same goes for the possibility of the left being blind to the political harm the term might do. I think it's relevant to consider (hence my entry to this discussion, to point out that it's function in discourse is an empirical matter), but merely considering it does not at this stage lead to a conclusion that it is of net detriment to any political aims, only that there is an issue we need to be aware of when deliberately considering political rhetoric.
There's a difference between having an emotionally driven interpersonal conversation and a deliberately thought out political campaign. Only the latter need really consider the net political effect of using the term, in the former there should be no reason at all why people can't contextualise enough to see what the other person is probably trying to say regardless of any ambiguity or connotations.
Quoting Pro Hominem
I do share your concern about distraction, but I have not yet reached the conclusion that this is because the phrase lacks the utility to foster change, it may or may not. My thoughts about the psychological object of much of this distraction would be well off-topic and probably of little interest to most, but it would be of no consequence whether the phrase had utility or not. For example, I think the phrase 'Me Too' had incredibly powerful utility to foster change, I still think the conversation held in association with it was largely a bourgeois distraction. I don't know if I'm taking the quote out of context, but...
Quoting Banno
...would be more useful, I think.
Why on earth would you premiss judgement of any act of discrimination with "besides the whole oppressor/victim narrative"? The oppression is literally the whole point. No-one is politically concerned about the technical accuracy of the statistical inferences. No-one is politically concerned with the occasional ignoring of outliers for rhetorical ease. We're not equally offended about classing all blacks as criminals as we would be about classing all ginger people as freckly, because you'd have to be some kind of heartless robot to see those two errors in homogeneity bias as equally problematic.
We frequently use group identifiers to summarise a range of disparate opinion and even in doing so ignore outliers and minority dissonance. Whether we do so to oppress (or maintain oppression) or not is entirely the point.
Suitable provocation.
Where did I talk about your race?
Justify your claim.
Sure, the level of moral severity differs, arguably, between examples of racism. I am not equating racism to other kinds of prejudice. If I can demonstrate racism towards "privileged" racial groups, would you counter that they are privileged?
Quoting Isaac
The difference between this and bigotry is when you use an individual's belonging to a group to characterise their opinions and prejudice against them.
There is no problem with saying that black Americans are disproportionately criminal in an appropriate context but there is a problem with using that fact to discriminate against individual black Americans. It isn't wrong just because it oppresses people. It violates all rules of decency and fairness. Your objection to it can't be solely based on how it is used to oppress people?
Quoting Banno
Perhaps you are not referring to my denials, or Asif's (who isn't white) or anyone but just @Pro Hominem but it doesn't make much difference.
That's it? Laughable.
Enough.
I can't imagine what you think a more egregious example might be but okay.
Yes, of course. As I thought I'd made clear in my previous post, no one cares about trivial attribution errors. Racism is about the oppression of people by attributing racial generalisations. It is not just attributing racial generalisations.
Besides which, no such thing has even taken place here. At no point in time did banno or streetlight say anything which even attributed views or characteristics to people based on their race. The comment you quoted says nothing more than that there are white middle class cis hetro males who beg that the word "privilege" not be used because it upsets them. There's not even a hint of an accusation that they do so because they're white middle class cis hetro males (and that's what all such people do).
True, streetlightx hasn't said anything racist in this thread but my statements there were not based on just this thread. I think it is appropriate to point out that your definition of racism, which necessitates oppression is not one that I agree with and I have never used the word with that definition in mind.
The quote does not say that there "are" people like that who do that, the quote says that posters here who formulated perfectly coherent criticism of the white privilege framing are just white middle class cis hetro males who beg that the word "privilege" not be used because it upsets them. I believe pro hominem is the poster being referred to here. He clearly says that he re-read posters in this thread and is characterising those posters with his comments.
There exists a definition of racism which is a) the most common definition, and b) extremely offensive if one is accused of it. You're either ignorant of this (in which case you need to educate yourself before posting about such a subject), or you know this but used the term anyway. Either a cheap political stunt to promote your idiosyncratic use, or a ploy to deliver the offense one meaning carries whilst only suffering the burden of proof the other does. Reprehensible either way.
Quoting Judaka
Yep. So no racism there even by your own definition.
In any case, it's no accident that certain posters here get so incredibly offended when either racially, sexually, or economically marked. They find it an affront to their iNdIVIDuAlITy and a denial of their InTrInSiC SeLf WoRtH. There's no greater horror to these snowflakes than being construed as social or cultural agents who don't, in fact, occupy a position of pristine universality. Being marked in any such way is only ever for Others. Do it instead to these beings of pure, skinless, reason, and they'll lose their comprehensive shit.
What about sexism is that also based on oppression? Or specism, classism, ageism, or really any of the isms which refer to discrimination based on identity?
Also, when you say most common, where is it the most common? Do all dictionaries define it as you do? What authority defines it only as you do that makes it a question of ignorance for me to not share yours?
:brow:
That's odd. I'm made up of sooo many different ones.
It doesn't matter what I have decided for the point that was being discussed.
The point is that words are being used in a way that is not typical so as to elicit the correct moral response. I'd rather have an accurate description and let people make up their own minds, that is all.
It offends me, not because I can't handle the label privileged put on me, but because it is deemed necessary to spoonfeed me the correct behaviour by manipulating the meaning of words.... it insults my intelligence.
To add to that, it's also offending to constantly be told what it is you are offended about, even after explicitly stating that that is not the case.... as if your self-reported experience doesn't matter because you have to be some self-deluding idiot that can only be saying these things to justify his abject moral character.
Does that seem like a fair complaint to you?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Moral instruction can be distasteful when the values+perspectives to be imputed go against something in you, yeah. Which of your experiences does the concept of "privilege" go against?
It's just not what word means, like we know what the word table means and when and where it is applicable. This has nothing to do with morality.
And no this kind of moral instruction is distasteful, not because it goes against something in me, but because it assumes that i'm in need of moral instruction in the first place... and more importantly because of the way one thinks it should be instructed, by manipulating the meaning of words. Or perhaps more specifically, the context is framed in such a way so that the desired moral behavior naturally follows.
Can't you see that this is the same mechanism that religions use to indoctrinate people... because they are stupid and can't be trusted to make up their own minds?
So the concept of privilege isn't contrary to any of your experiences. You simply feel it is patronising.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
So focus on the facts: do you find anything factually wrong with what material conditions accounts using the concept seeks to highlight? Privileges of able body and mind, race+ethnicity, income, gender...
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I'm sorry that the idea that other people may be able to teach you things that have a shot of making the world, and you, better offends you so much. Are we so different that you only believe what you believe based on reason and no sentiment is involved? I doubt it, we are talking about your personal feelings of offence, not about the realities associated with privilege.
In this context, yes. Are you really only just getting this?
Quoting Judaka
I didn't say it was a question of ignorance for you to not share mine. I said it was a question of ignorance to not be aware of it and the impact your use of the term would therefore have. Are we not literally talking about that exact issue with the term 'privilege'?
My dictionary has 'privilege' meaning
I'm struggling to see how it is so obvious that its use in 'white privilege' is "just not what word means". Its meaning seems quite congruent to me, it's saying that freedom from certain types of oppression and restriction, the opening of certain opportunities is an advantage which white people have.
Being able to go about one's daily business with a lower chance of being arrested or shot by your own police force in certain parts of America is an advantage afforded to white people simply because they're white is it not?
That's right there in the dictionary definition. I'm not sure what your objection on semantic grounds is.
If you're upsetting a group of people that share the same skin color, then does that not qualify as oppressing them?
If you're not talking about taking away from whites, rather than simply enforcing the non-discriminatory laws that we currently have, then I don't see a problem, or any reason for whites to be upset.
The issue that is being described is characteristic of every nation that has a minority vs. majority population. The majority is represented more than the minority. The solution isn't to ensure that the minority has equal representation to the majority as that would be giving the minority a privilege in giving more weight to individuals' voices in that minority group compared to individual voices in the majority group, and there is likely more diversity in the majority group than the minority.
The solution is simply to ensure that our non-discriminatory laws are being enforced and to ensure that all minority groups are represented proportionately relative to their proportion of the population. When I watch TV, it seems to me that blacks and gays are now being over-represented, as if they are a larger percentage of the population than they actually are.
No worries. I'm under no illusions that I can convince you to change your mind about the term! At some point over the years all the discussions about it became essentially the same discussion to me. The usual reasons of "it's a bad slogan because it's divisive/pejorative", "it's a simple emotional appeal, where's the logic?", "it draws attention away from more important issues" have been around for a long time, I used to even staunchly believe the last one! So forgive me for not responding to your articulation of the points, for me at this point it's effectively an abstract structure. People super uncomfortable with the claim get more uncomfortable when the discomfort is pointed out, and super duper uncomfortable if it's psychologised. I've never had success with reason, I've sometimes got people to think using reason laced with emotional appeals. The same happened to me; what cajoled me out of the bunker I'd built with critical thought was getting fucking owned by an off the cuff comment made by a talented feminist.
I actually really like how uncomfortable it can make people; discomfort invites study and refutation from a certain kind of mind, and intellectually+emotionally engaging with the mechanisms of privilege for that curious and empathetic kind of mind is an opportunity for self discovery. Finding out where and how you fit into history and the current moment. Sand, oysters, pearls, etc.
I just hope that the dawning awareness of our own complicity that such an engagement produces also produces allies and collaborators - that righteous anger agitating towards greater freedom is all too often condemned as mere irrational sentiment. Being "possessed by an idea" as @Judaka put it; I like that, a haunting by reason and compassion. Let us hope it is a poltergeist.
For the first at least -- don't remember reading anything about the others -- this is a thing with philosophy as an academic discipline isn't it? I recall seeing numbers that philosophy departments are even more male and more white than other academic disciplines, even than other academic disciplines (like some of the hard sciences) that have widely publicized and discussed disparities. (The whole "girls aren't good at math" thing.) Philosophy departments are off the scale.
Now, I also recall stumbling onto a website where women philosophy students presented horror stories of the hostility they faced, the direct unabashed harassment, that led them to flee the field. I'm not familiar with anything similar for people of color, but it wouldn't surprise me.
But on top of direct discrimination, another explanation occurred to me: bright young intellectuals of color (etc.) have probably been choosing other fields -- mostly in the social sciences I'm guessing -- where work on race and gender is somewhat more mainstream, and where they see lots of work on those issues that excites them and they want to be part of. I have no data on this -- it's a "just so story".
And that leaves philosophy departments mostly to students not as focused on race and gender issues. And one reason to be less focused on race and gender issues is because you can be. The everyday way of describing that sort of situation is to say that you have the "luxury" to spend your time thinking about epistemology and metaphysics because you are not constantly forced by your social interactions to be aware of your race and your gender.
The field of philosophy, as an academic discipline, is traditionally anathema to this type of discourse, and there's a reason behind it. Traditionally philosophy, and also science, are predicated on the notions that anyone can make an argument - doesn't matter the background - and that argument is to be judged on its own merits.
On the other hand, if we're talking about racial/gender/ableist etc. privilege this type of dialogue necessarily values certain types of voices over others, and not necessarily unfairly. If I'm a disabled person - which I am - I'm extremely suspicious of a non-disabled person who claims to speak to my experience. I can say with confidence that it takes years and years for a non-disabled person to really understand - assuming they ever do - the disability. I personally only see this level of understanding in experts who have worked in the field for decades.
Even within a certain disability community the question of who gets the voice and who gets the representation is a pertinent one. We're not a monolith. We'll tend to share certain general perspectives but our opinions about the disorder/disability can vary very widely.
Reminded me of this:
No, I disagree with you. I think that your position is inherently controversial and inconsistent. First, you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism. The notion implies the institutional, systemic discrimination of a particular group of people. They are targeted and singled out as a specific community of colour.
Further, 'institutional' means the function of society's various institutions. They are culturally contextual; they are embedded in the social fabric and conventional everyday practises. It is the function of society as a whole. One may not be a racist consciously, but as a member of society, one unintentionally takes part in the discriminatory practices and benefits from their outcomes. Next, since one has not been discriminated, but has been benefited, as a member of the majority of the unjust and oppressing society, one necessarily bears responsibility for the beneficiary results of discriminatory practices. Even if you point out to the group of poor white people, it could be countered that in general, they would not have experienced the same obstacles as non-whites to achieve better financial or educational conditions.
Consequently, we come to the "white privilege" concept. You cannot embrace the notion of institutional racism and, at the same time, argue that "white privilege" is counterproductive and unnecessarily.
You're going from 'advantage', 'right', 'favour' in the definitions to 'freedom from oppression' in your description, how is that not a shift in meaning?
Anyway the meaning of the word becomes quite clear if you look at its etymology, privi lege... private law. A law is generally applicable to everybody without exception. Privi leges then are private laws or rights that specifically only apply to certain individuals or small groups. The majority of whites don't have privileges in that sense... so it's just not accurate to say they do.
The thing you are looking to describe with the concept privilege is not contrary to my experience. The concept however don't correspond with the thing that your are looking to describe. And yes, it does feel patronizing that you seem to think that this slight of hand with the meaning of the concept is necessary for me to adjust my behaviour.
No, as I said above, I don't disagree that the phenomenon that your are looking describe is a thing. I just don't agree with the terminology being used.
Yeah I don't exactly come here to receive moral instruction, but to have conversations with people about all things broadly philosophical. And ideally I can learn some things from that, yes... but is it that unreasonable to expect that we let people decide for themselves on a philosophy board?
Very valuable points, thank you.
That's pretty funny, and I'm not going to go anywhere the issues raised in that story.
If you want to have a serious debate about whether your definition is standard, I'd be more than happy have it. It is not an argument you are going to have success in unless you care to appeal to some kind of authority. Your definition is barely coherent, race transcends any political structure, the white race doesn't belong to any country nor the black race to only America. The "power" structure behind racism would make being racist in a multinational forum such as this very difficult. Banno, streetlight, myself, we're not even American. The power structures that you're talking about - we don't even have access to them. A black American has far more resources in the political structure in America than any of us. Calling Banno a racist because he "oppresses" who? Black Americans?
Your definition would make the principal factor not the nature of the logic being used but the effect that it has and whether it oppressed someone. Which I'll tell you, is a very controversial word to be applying to a random citizen of a country. I was not unaware of your definition, which I always considered to be an ideological one based on leftist identity politics theory. Even on this forum, however, which is almost an ideological hub, I would have no pains finding more example of people here using my definition than yours.
Your logic of my "plan" makes no sense either, I made it clear from the start that I was calling Banno due to his comments about white people, whom by your ideologically informed definition, is a nonsense way to call someone a racist to begin with.
Systemic racism has far stronger connotations to oppression, at least that is clearly defined to be contained within a singular political structure.
Regardless of the definition of racism, your personal belief may be that "no one cares" about what I accused Banno of. Once again, I am worried for you, you don't have any idea that what you're talking about. Outside of the extreme left, people absolutely care. I care too and I don't give a shit whether Banno is "oppressing" someone or not. His comments were egregious examples of discrimination based on race, I'm embarrassed for him and angry at him for making such comments.
Quoting Isaac
Yes, and I would feel comfortable disagreeing with a definition for privilege that you gave, regardless of how confident you sounded while saying how right yours was. It as likely, however, for me to stop using my definition of racism as it is for you to stop using yours. Which like I said, I am very happy to have a debate about which one is more common.
I think the direction you were taking the discussion about privilege was a good one and I'd be more than happy to have a similar debate about our definitions for racism. I see your definition as emphasising the importance of race, different rules apply to you based solely on your race and knowing your white privilege seems necessary, even just for knowing whether you're being racist or not. I'd likely be far more sympathetic to the white privilege framing if I agreed with your definition of racism. Of course, that would mean giving up the idea of being colour blind and judging peoples ideas on their merits rather than their identity.
"White privilege" can be effectively used to shed light upon each and every injury suffered by non white individuals because they are non white. White people avoid suffering such injury because they are not non white. That exemption from liability, that immunity... is white privilege. This holds good regardless of any further particular discrimination.
Names assume nothing. They are not the sort of thing capable of doing so.
Semantic quibbles such as charges of "inexact" and "specifically overbroad" simply will not do here. They are just plain wrong on their face. All black, latin, and asians are non white.
Beside that, the very attempt to further discriminate between non whites is - in and of itself - prioritizing further discriminating based upon race. That renders you guilty of doing precisely and exactly what you're arguing against below.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Aside from the special pleading, hypocrisy, self-contradiction, and/or double standard being employed here...
Statements are not the sort of things that are capable of devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin(race) alone.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Perhaps for people who do not draw and maintain the actual and meaningful distinction between being racist and talking about race. Seems that such individuals abound.
When one actually takes the time to fill in(properly understand what is meant by) "white privilege" they do so solely by virtue of taking into account injury sustained because one is non white. The sheer quantity of actual events is daunting, to put it mildly. To compare this to the sheer amount of misunderstanding and deliberate misinformation pervading Fox news is very insulting to many of those who you claim to share a goal with. With friends like that... who needs enemies?
Yet another performative contradiction...
By the way BLM also does exactly what you're arguing against doing on the one hand... I'm failing to see a coherent(lacking self-contradiction) position when I closely examine your language use.
I've not read all of Banno's comments here. What I know about Banno is that he is very good at keeping things as simple as they can possibly be in order to make his point. If his point is that privileged people can take offense at being called "privileged", then it's made as soon as one who is privileged takes offense at being called "privileged".
I don't think that was his point and I'm not sure what made you think it was.
I'm not sure who or what you're referring to. Care to fill me in, so I know?
If you're talking about Banno, then I would have to do a review of your conversation with him...
I am not asking you to comment on his comments to me. If a white person disagrees with the white privilege framing, is it fair to characterise them as "begging for the term not to be used because it offends them" regardless of what they say? Isn't that kind of discrimination something you told me the framing wasn't about?
We are seeing the unpleasantness of the white privilege framing rear its ugly head. Why wouldn't people oppose the term with ambassadors like @Banno demonstrating their own brand of racial discrimination while advocating for it? It's the same as usual, the same people who use the term inevitably demonstrate what makes it problematic.
Injury sustained by individuals because they were non white took place long before the name "white privilege" was first coined. They continue happening even as we speak. White people are exempt from such injury. In this very real sense...
"White privilege" simply picks out and further describes the exemption from such injuries. White privilege is extant in today's modern world as a result of a long standing system of public policies aimed at increasing the flourishing of white people and oppressing non whites. It is the result of systemic racism that we all know about.
Perhaps Banno is beside himself that people would be offended at this?
I find nothing in Banno's comments here that warrants calling him a racist. He is admittedly a grumpy old goat and a dick at times... that ought not be used by you as a means to continue being offended by a name.
"White privilege" is a name.
I've been in your shoes, on the other side of a debate with Banno. Had I allowed my personal offense stemming from his comments about me personally to cloud my judgment about something that was not about me personally, I would have missed so so many very good points that he is capable of making... I've learned a lot from Banno over the past decade or so. He's pissed me off a number of times...
That takes it a bit farther than I would. Being offended by talk of "white privilege" is very shaky ground for denouncing it. People use "white privilege" as a weapon to belittle and/or attack someone. Such people are not using it in the way that I find best. With that in mind, it does not make much sense to denounce all uses based upon those, for those uses do not get it right to begin with.
It seems that much of the objections you came into this discussion with involve what you've called "leftist identity politics". You draw a direct correlation between "white privilege" and leftist identity politics. I'm assuming that you reject "identity politics" and perhaps a large part of your personal distaste for "white privilege" is based upon the strongly held belief that it is a kind of, or typical of, such leftist politics...
Is that about right(pardon the pun)?
Using the term "white privilege" doesn't give you a monopoly over opposition towards racism, you realise that right? There is no use trying to tell me "oh, didn't you realise this happens to non-whites, now you're finally beginning to understand" don't be deluded. I condemn it regardless of the skin colour of the person who does it and regardless of the skin colour it's being done to.
Yes, yes, I am well aware of simple you think the white privilege framing is. Banno is openly discriminating against white people using his prejudices and you're cool with it. It is pointless for me to look for common ground with someone like that. The exact same logic is applied but based on your race, Isaac may refrain from calling it actual racism, I can't look for common ground with someone who thinks like that.
There's really nobody in this thread who I disagree with who seems to have a similar condemnation of racism. The interpretative relevance of race is something to be maintained, the individual is to be understood through their identity.
Leftist identity politics just helps explain why certain people are so focused on race/sex/sexual orientation. Why the oppressor/victim narrative so central to understanding history for certain people. To understand the rules followed by certain people about how you can/should talk to or talk about someone from a "marginalised group". If you wrongly think that someone is coming to these conclusions on their own, by thinking honestly, then you miss the point. It's ideological possession, how else can you describe it? It is not natural for thinkers to have such similarities and such focuses in such specific contexts.
The white privilege framing starts to make sense when you buy into these narratives, the unfairness faced by marginalised groups needs to be addressed and the culprit is white people or as Banno says, "straight cis white males". Spend enough time on this forum and maybe you start to believe that's just the only way to think. It's another, new brand of discrimination and when using it, the white privilege framing doesn't sound so bad. I mean you can't even be racist to white people so what is the problem.
Anyway, I don't think I've made any progress with you since my first comments, we're back to "omg, you don't realise there's racism?!" I was interested to see if you actually applied what you preached but besides seeing you don't, I have not much interest in continuing a conversation.
Well, I thought we were having an ongoing one. However, you've just (mis)attributed a slew of different ideas, sayings, emotions, and beliefs to me that actually came directly from, and live inside of... you. That reply is chock full of things that I've never said. You vehemently describe attitudes, beliefs, and all sorts of other thoughts that I do not have, nor have I expressed here...
I can only tell you that you've misunderstood.
If white privilege is to be viewed as a fact, and one denies facts, can it be called anything but ignorance? What else can I conclude but what I have?
Of course. Never believed otherwise. Have no idea why you felt the need to ask me such a question...
Quoting Judaka
Again, what makes you think that that description of my approach towards you is accurate? Those words have not been written here by me about you.
Quoting Judaka
That's not an accurate depiction of my attitude. In fact, I'm not even sure what makes you think that he's openly discriminating against white people. Discriminating against white people is to devalue and/or hold the fact that someone is white against them. That's simply not taking place Judaka.
Quoting Judaka
I've not mentioned any of these other things you're railing against. In fact, I suspect I'd join you in railing against at least a few of them. The way that I use "white privilege" makes perfect sense all by itself.
Set those notions aside...
The immunity from being injured because one is non white is something that only whites have. That's just the brute fact of the matter. Actually, that could use a bit of further qualification, because there are cases where white individuals have suffered harm from being mistaken as non white. However, those exceptions actually prove the rule, and trust me, it takes little to convince those whites that white privilege is real.
Quoting Judaka
Here again is something that is not true. I've not said, nor do I support it's being said. Yet it's being used as though I have? That idea works from an emaciated notion of racism. Not all whites are racist. Not all racists are white.
Racism is devaluing another group of people because of the color of their skin(race) alone.
Quoting Judaka
Here again, you're arguing with your own imagination; against your own thoughts about what mine are. Problem is that the words you use are neither the one's I have used nor ones that I would.
Perhaps. I ran into this issue with you earlier where you asked me if I wanted to be treated like black people are known to be treated by police and you said this was an innocent question with no implications. Which is not an easy thing to believe but I supposed it was the truth. I'll accept I've misinterpreted you. However, Banno is clearly holding pro hominem's whiteness against him, he is clearly devaluing pro hominem by insinuating that he is not capable of giving an honest moral opposition to the white privilege framing, he must be just upset about having his privileged called out. I do not know why you say that is not taking place, I am really surprised to have seen such an overt example and in this thread no less, if this isn't discrimination then I don't know what is.
It was not about you personally. Had I known at that time that you were not an American citizen, I may not have asked you.
That question is actually the most brilliant segue that I've ever heard leading into substantive conversations about otherwise non racist white individual's continued complicity in maintaining systemic racism simply by virtue of their non action, keeping quiet, and/or turning away from the injury suffered because one is non white.
That portion of the topic can be very offensive, particularly if one is already overly sensitive and feels as though they are being attacked. Everything begins looking like a nail. However, it's not about that at all. It's about the particular residual negative effects/affects that systemic racism has had upon white individuals. There was once a time when standing up for blacks could have horrible negative personal effects/affects. It could get one killed by those in power just for doing so, and did. That time has long since passed.
Turning away from the atrocities in plain sight is no longer tolerable or even possible. Now, the description and/or reporting upon the actual events has as much or more influence than the actual events themselves, particularly with those not directly involved.
Quoting Judaka
"White privilege" is a name.
Is self defeating and self refuting. The term "leftist" is itself identity politics. I abhor such oversimplifications of political concerns. That's a big part of the problem in the States, on both sides.
"White privilege" stands on it's own merit. It neither relies upon nor need to rely upon such gross oversimplifications. Offhandedly dismissing all use of "white privilege" due to being believed to be connected with "the left" is itself identity politics at it's worst. It perpetuates closed mindedness. A refusal to actually listen because it's from someone on "the left". The operative presupposition is that anyone on the left is wrong because they're on the left. The same goes for such generalizations about the right.
Can we talk reparations yet?
Leftist identity politics is just a name, right? That's how things work, give names... Don't complain about my clearly biased framing, it's just a name.
I've written page after page of criticisms towards the white privilege framing, I'm not "offhandedly dismissing" it because of a connection the left.
I've said pretty much all I have to say on reparations, I am all for economic redistribution but not by race and not done by acknowledging racial histories.
But, what other reason have you given for dismissing my use???
Quoting Judaka
Here, you've acknowledged some utility for my use of "white privilege". You clearly recognize the difference between some uses... yet, at the end... somehow... still hold on to the false idea that it only makes sense if one subscribes to identity politics.
You do not subscribe to left wing identity politics, and yet my use made sense to you.
What is fundamentally the same?
Do you realize that that is not at all what I was saying?
The bit about "white privilege" being a name was not flippant. That's important. The name picks out something that existed in it's entirety prior to the name being first used. What "white privilege" is used to pick out differs, and knowledge of what's being picked out is knowledge of all the different senses/meanings of the term. They are not all compatible with one another. Yet you claim that they're all fundamentally the same... which is false.
I don't think I said that white privilege can only be understood using the leftist identity politics ideology but it's no coincidence that posters like streetlightx, banno, fdrake are here defending the term, posters who I would call extreme left. I don't know about Isaac but certainly the way he talks, it seems very likely he's in a similar boat. I don't think I've ever tried to use the term against you because I haven't seen that it be warranted.
What I still don't like about your approach
(1) Emphasises the importance of race
(2) Contextualises systemic racism as a benefit for white Americans (privilege)
(3) Creates a simplified "non-white" experience which factors in nothing but race
(4) Divides people on important social issues such as economic redistribution by opinions on race issues
(5) Competes with a justice-based, humanitarian narrative which I'd prefer
(6) Legitimises race-based solutions to systemic racism and racial inequity
For the time being, I am prepared to say, the aspects of the framing you've criticised, I won't bring up. However, I am not entirely convinced that we won't see:
(7) White privilege being used to discriminate against the "white" experience and characterising white success in light of their advantages
(8) The privilege framing having an effect on causing things such as "white guilt", shame and so on.
I am not going to assure you that I've listed all of my objections but the list is already pretty substantive.
Quoting creativesoul
I'm not sure why you think that matters but I don't.
Quoting creativesoul
Hmm, it depends on what is meant by "fundamental" right? When I say that, I am sure what I mean is not the same as what you would mean if you said it.
"Only one person or group of people" - the syntax of this indicates a group of relatively limited size and uses the examples of wealth or position as opposed to large scale qualifiers like race or gender.
"A peculiar benefit" - again, peculiar here indicates something out of the ordinary. An isolated or unusual case. "Whiteness" is not a peculiar trait, it is exceedingly common. Both of these definitions clearly imply a limited scope. If a benefit is granted to a huge group of people, a category of people, the term used would likely be a "right", not a privilege.
I wasn't going to keep posting, but here I am again... I'm not sure I would have replied to someone other than you. If you want to take issue with the efficacy or impact of the term, I'll grant that the jury may still be out on that. The fact that the term is a misnomer is not in question, however. It is not an accurate description. Period.
The accurate way to describe what people like creative say they are talking about is that there are human rights, and the rights of white people are generally observed but the rights of blacks are quite frequently not. This is racial discrimination, and when we see its prevalence in our culture, we acknowledge that the racism is systemic.
Human rights are not privileges because people are supposed to have them. If anyone is denied them, ever, that is wrong. If it is done on the basis of race, then that is a specific strain of this wrong behavior. The most certain way to prevent these particular abuses is to educate people away from viewing the world through the lens of race. "White privilege" explicitly reinforces that race-bound view of the world and perpetuates the most necessary condition of racist thought, the very concept of race itself.
Quoting Judaka
You certainly did. I quoted you by clicking on your avatar and perusing the comments icon. That's a nice feature of this site. The statement was false at the time and remains so. You're the proof. You understand and do not use leftist identity politics. You falsify the claim.
Quoting Judaka
It matters because we're comparing/contrasting all of the different uses of "white privilege", and that's a unique aspect of each one; what - exactly - is being picked out.
Quoting Judaka
Not exactly. "Fundamental" is different than "fundamentally". Sure though, it depends upon what counts as being fundamentally the same. Here's the catch though...
Neither you nor I determine that.
The term had sense long before either of us ever learned to use it. All uses of "white privilege" are not fundamentally the same, and that much is easily understood by anyone and everyone capable of previously understanding that the same name can refer to different things.
You ought know by now what I'm using the name to refer to. You ought know by now that others use it to refer to things other than what I'm referring to. Thus, they are not fundamentally the same aside from consisting of the same marks and being names.
Agreed. It's a name. Names are not descriptions.
I suppose I could have been more precise in my language, I think most of the support for the white privilege framing comes from the same people who peddle leftwing identity politics and it's easy to understand why. I accept that you are not arguing from the position of that ideology and anything I said in the past to the contrary, I acquiesce.
Quoting creativesoul
All iterations of white privilege framing are framings and I won't accept a justification of "its a name". I accept that you have your own brand and I'm happy to respond to it but I think the major differences between you and someone like banno, isn't the actual framing itself, it's about how you act. Most of what I see as being different is that you have different intentions, different rules, different goals.
Names matter, I don't even know why I'm having this conversation. If I decided to call you sillysoul instead of creativesoul and you thought "hm Judaka, I guess he prefers to call me sillysoul, guess its just a name so whatever" without thinking there's any meaning behind me calling you sillysoul then I guess your new nickname would seem very appropriate wouldn't it? My objection has a lot to do with the name you've chosen, having exactly the same understanding with a new name would make me a lot happier and I don't think there's any way to convince me to think otherwise.
Overall, I have done my best to show that I recognise there are differences between your concept and others of the same name, to acknowledge your intentions and motivations, to show I understand the logic behind why the framing is a good idea. I just think there are things we can disagree on where I can understand and respect your decision and things I can disagree with and be really upset about and critical of your approach.
I do.
Quoting Number2018
No, it reflects that the concept of race and attitudes or beliefs about specific racial groups are woven into the fabric of our culture and its institutions. Racial discrimination is any action that follows from these embedded ideas. Do not conflate the racist ideas in the system with the individual acts of discrimination. Not all members of a culture must adhere to every one of that culture's constituent beliefs. It is possible to be American and not be racist, even though American culture is rife with racist attitudes and symbols. On the whole, the culture may be racist, but not every member of the culture participates in or is responsible for that racism. Many reject it. I do.
Quoting Number2018
I don't see why any of this MUST BE true. If you are riding in a bus, and the bus runs over a person crossing the street, do you bear responsibility for that event because you are a beneficiary of the bus ride?
Are you responsible for George Floyd's death? Are you responsible for Trump's stormtroopers firing on peaceful protesters?
How much benefit do you need to get to be a beneficiary? I (and most other people in this country, including blacks and members of other minority groups) benefit from the security and stability of this country's institutions and services. On some occasions, individuals receive less of the benefit of those institutions than is normal and expected. Sometimes that's because of race. When that happens is everyone else in the country responsible? Or only the white people?
What if you are the only white kid in a minority community and you are routinely discriminated against? Do you still have white privilege? Are you responsible for your own discrimination?
@creativesoul has tried to articulate a formulation of white privilege that avoids placing blame and is meant to make people aware of differences in treatment through this lens. I can understand the intent, I just don't think it's the best way to go about ending racism (and may actually reinforce a race based view of society). What you are suggesting is far worse. If you think it is appropriate to make every white person "responsible" for every racist act that occurs in this country, you need to think some more. That is facially unjust. Also, extremely racist.
Quoting Number2018
Sure you can. If you've been reading this thread, you've already seen me do it several times. Institutional racism is about ideologies of race permeating our cultural institutions. I don't believe that introducing another idea that relies on race-based generalizations is an effective (or even rational) way to combat those ideologies.
It is not. It is highly descriptive. Steve is a name. If you stop calling it white privilege and call it Steve, that would remediate a lot of my objections. But you won't do that because you have specifically chosen to use these words to describe what you are talking about.
You believe that a privilege accrues to all white people by virtue of their whiteness. You call that phenomenon "white privilege". It could hardly be a more explicit attempt to be descriptive. Or a more explicitly racist concept.
Let's say I hand you a red brick. You say, "what's this?" I say, "red brick." You say, "why did you hand me a red brick?"
Let's say I hand you a red brick. You say, "what's this?" I say, "Sergio." You say, "why did you name this red brick Sergio?"
See the difference?
Just out of curiosity, do you have the impression that I am made personally uncomfortable by the term? Or are you speaking to the larger suggestion that it causes discomfort in some people?
I think you know that's not how it's used. It's not just about the law, though there absolutely is a component of privilege associated with the law; apartheid, Jim Crow, the Windrush scandal... Another aspect - unwarranted police violence splits along racial lines, and it's almost impossible to prosecute them successfully for it - by design.
Quoting Pro Hominem
I get the impression that you get offended by the term. Perhaps it was a misreading, but I found your prose in this thread had a wounded narrative voice. Albeit a wound dressed with abstractions. Analysis written with the urgency of a deep felt wound, defending yourself from the (alleged) accusations inherent in the idea. I imagine that you feel scared because you believe if it's true that makes you racist and complicit in oppression and there's not much you can do to change it.
Yes I know privilege is not used only to refer to the law, it wasn't my intention to imply that, though I can see you could interpret what I wrote in that way, I could have been more clear. The important part is that it's a (positive) exception for an individual or small group to some kind of norm, legal or otherwise.
Although some whites no doubt have privileges in that sense, that's not really what we mean with the concept 'white privilege'. What I think the concept seeks to point to mostly, is discrimination of other groups... i.e. (negative) exceptions to the norm for non-white groups.
You might argue that this is essentially the same, because in the effects a negative exception for one group ultimately also amounts to a positive exception for another group. But I don't think that argument really holds up, the fact that some things have similar effects doesn't imply they have the same meaning.
And I think the difference in meaning matters, among other things for how we are going handle the problem. You typically revoke or take away privileges whereas you try to prevent and forbid discrimination etc... I don't think it makes much sense to say for instance that we should revoke the privilege of "freedom from oppression".
It's just confusing to speak about it in this way. It's hard enough as it is without these subtle shifts in meaning for political or moral purposes.
That's a reasonable question.
1. If my rights are not violated, but another's are, is that properly described as a benefit I receive that the other does not?
I think you say "no" here. (I'm inclined to think it's a dumb question, "semantics" in the pejorative sense.)
Let's suppose instead there's something we'd agree to call a benefit on the table, like getting to work on time by being on the bus that some other guy isn't on because the bus left early.
2. If I receive a benefit, or have the opportunity to receive a benefit, through the actions of others not through my own, that another does not, am I responsible for that person being denied that benefit or that opportunity?
Again, I think you say "no", because of course you're not responsible for anyone's actions but your own. So far as it goes, I agree.
But now suppose, as you board the bus, the bus driver decides to leave a few minutes early so that you, one of his favorite regulars, still get to work on time, despite this morning's traffic.
3. If I receive a benefit, or have the opportunity to receive a benefit, and this benefit or opportunity is derived at least in part from others, not I, denying another that benefit or opportunity, am I responsible for that person being denied that benefit or that opportunity?
Again, not your responsibility, right? There may be some injustice here, but it's one you may not even be aware of, much less one you have brought about through your own actions.
What if the bus driver does tell you what he's doing?
4. If I receive a benefit, or have the opportunity to receive a benefit, and this benefit or opportunity is derived at least in part from others, not I, denying another that benefit or opportunity, but with my knowledge and consent, am I responsible for that person being denied that benefit or that opportunity?
That's different, isn't it? You're not the bus driver, and it's not your decision; it's possible the bus driver is so settled in his choice that he wouldn't even listen if you tried to talk him into waiting until the scheduled departure time. Who knows?
But does whatever responsibility you have here derive from the benefit you are to receive? Isn't this just a matter of knowingly allowing injustice? Imagine an old-timer, waiting for a different bus, noticing the driver closing the doors and getting ready to pull out. He might rap on the door with his cane and say, "Hey! You're not supposed to leave for two more minutes!" Are you in a different position just because you, unlike the bystander, will benefit from the driver's unjust action? Even if that action is undertaken specifically to benefit you?
Supposing everyone aware of an injustice has at least some duty to oppose it, do you have a greater duty if you happen to benefit from that injustice?
Consider the range of action available to you and the bystander: the old man can complain, but will likely be ignored; you could demand to be let off the bus, thus mooting the driver's intention to grant you a benefit at the (potential) cost to another. By knowingly accepting the benefit, you do something no bystander does, and you endorse the driver's decision.
If that analysis is right, your duty does not derive from your receiving a benefit, but the form it takes, what specific actions you might be obligated to undertake, might.
I haven't addressed whether you are in fact obligated to do more than a bystander, but it seems clear that you can, so there is at least a question here raised for the beneficiary of injustice that is not raised for everyone.
I appreciate your continuing to engage with me here, especially given the depth that your heels were dug in when our exchanges began. Had your understanding of systemic racism not been so well articulated, I would not have even bothered talking much with you regarding this topic. Because it was, I had a very hard time understanding how you had arrived at such deeply held convictions against the use of "white privilege". I think that we've both come quite a ways in understanding of one another.
Here's why I keep bringing up the fact that "white privilege" is just a name used by different people to refer to different stuff...
Knowing that much ought temper the offensiveness of it's very mention/invocation. Knowing that much is cause for paying particularly careful attention to exactly how it's being used, what it's referring to and/or picking out, in addition to the overall attitude and/or demeanor of the speaker themselves - rather than immediately discounting it's use based upon the unsavory ones. Knowing that "white privilege" has more than one use ought compel one to further discriminate between the uses.
It's going to be used again and again, and it only makes sense for those of us who want to see it used to effect/affect positive change to show how it can as well as showing how it does not, because it can do both. We show it's positive use by using it to pick out injuries that non white individuals suffer from as a result of being non white, and nothing else. Srap just detailed one of many nuanced instances of this without ever mentioning "white privilege". We do this by condemning it's being used in counterproductive ways. We insist that it be used in the former way by refusing to allow another to change what's being referred to and/or picked out. We remain vigilant in our consistent terminological use, and in doing so are well prepared for arguing against those other uses(which has yet to have been actually performed here as a result of the opponents' resistance to acknowledge the different uses).
This is particularly applicable for conversation with people who have watched and/or heard it's being used as a weapon to belittle, berate, and/or minimize a particular white individual's personal accomplishments in American society, or even worse - by my lights - to berate poor whites for a lack of successful accomplishment(given the "three hundred year head start"). Some people do in fact use the term "white privilege" for such purposes. Some major media outlets highlight and focus solely upon the worst case examples without ever comparing or contrasting those with the better ones. White individuals who've been attacked in such a way will tend to remember that attack and all that it entailed with each successive mention of "white privilege", and quite understandably so if it's the only exposure they've had to it.
However, not everyone uses "white privilege" to pick out the same things, Some do use it as a means to degrade white people because they are white. That is racism. Devaluing all white people because they are white is racist belief practiced in the exact same way that devaluing all black people because they are black is. Neither is acceptable or helpful if our goal is to end racism and it's residual effects/affects(systemic racism). Neither is acceptable or helpful if our goal is to generally improving racial relations, which is part and parcel for gaining members in the ever-growing ever-expanding coalition against the residual effects/affects of systemic racism.
Could you imagine yourself engaging another who uses "white privilege" as a means for devaluing a successful white individual if you were armed with the ability to fully grant the existence of white privilege as the immunity from any and all injuries sustained by non white individuals because they are non white? Could you imagine yourself defending and/or advocating my use of "white privilege"?
It's never a good sign when an interlocutor insists upon telling me what I believe, despite my explicitly saying otherwise.
If "white privilege" counts as being an explicitly racist concept on your view, then I suggest you clearly explain to me what you mean by "racist", because I would be more than willing to wager that you're working from an utterly inadequate criterion. If "white privilege" counts as being racist, then the scope of your notion is much too broad, anything would count as such. Tell me, what does it take? Talking about race? Mentioning race? Using "white"?
Here's what I do mean to say...
"White" is the name given to particular a group of people(typically of European ancestry) due to the color of their skin(fair complexion lack of melanin). "White" picks out such people. "Privilege" is the name given to an exemption from duty or liability granted as a special benefit, advantage, or favor. "White privilege" refers to the injuries and/or liability of being non white that whites are exempt from as a result of being white.
Your insistence here to keep arguing about these things is beyond me. The quoted terms are names. The rest further describes the names. That's how language works. It's a bit too pretentious for you to tell me what I mean and/or believe, especially after ignoring/neglecting the valid criticism I offered.
Yeah. You seem to think that names only refer to people(or perhaps that only proper nouns are names?). Names pick something out of this world to the exclusion of all else. Not just people have names. The red brick has a name too. "Red brick" is the name we've given to red bricks. "Red brick" is not a red brick. Houses are made of red bricks, not "red bricks". When I name the object I want you to hand me, if it is a red brick, I call it by it's name. "Hand me a red brick".
"White privilege" is a name that refers to the immunity that all white individuals have from suffering injury because one is non white. Below are explicit descriptions of white privilege.
Whites do not get red bricks thrown at them for being too close in proximity to a white racist. Whites do not suffer from lynchings because they are black. Whites do not get stopped for walking black at night. Whites do not need to carefully explain to their teenage and/or young adult children how to not appear threatening to the police despite their physical stature. Whites do not have to deal with the sheer difficulty of hailing a taxi when one is black. Whites do not have the harshest sentences thrown at them for misdemeanor crimes. Whites do not have laws written for the explicit purposes of making them criminals as a means to continue to benefit from free slave labor. Whites do not get profiled as a criminal simply for being white. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Whites are exempt from the liabilities of being non white in America.
Let's tackle these first...
They are all true. They are all necessary.
Becoming increasingly aware of the effects/affects and injury that systemic racism has had and still has upon non whites(blacks in particular) requires talking about experiences that non whites share - as a result of being non white - that whites do not. The only way for an otherwise unknowing white individual to even become aware of that is for them to listen to non whites describe their own personal experiences. As soon as a white individual becomes aware of just some of all the different difficulties, injustices, and/or other injury based upon racial discrimination that non whites have to deal with on a daily basis, it's not hard at all to see that being white in America is better than not, in those specific regards. There is most certainly a benefit to being white in America.
White racism is the devaluation of an entire group of people because they are not white. The United States of America was founded and formed by mostly white racists. The result was/is systemic and/or institutional racism. White privilege is a result of that. To capture all of the relevant racial discriminatory practices that resulted in all of the different experiences of those who suffered from white racism, the "non white" term works best for it can be used to pick out each and every one.
In order to grasp all of this, an emphasis is placed upon race, as it must be because it's of pivotal importance to understand race-based issues. There is no valuation of someone because of race. I think that that's what you're arguing against. I would agree. I do not value or devalue someone because of the color of their skin. So, what's wrong with realizing the pivotal importance that race plays in identifying residual effects/affects of systemic racism? There is no other way.
The last statement strikes me as too strong(maybe too broad a brushstroke)...
It is not my position. I tried to reconstruct the implied consequences of the concept of institutional
(systemic) racism. Here is the exact example:
"Systemic racism is forms of oppression and privilege that affects almost every aspect of our society...The white majority often preserve and perpetuate this racism unconsciously through Complicity and Complacency. Racism Complicity: To consciously or unconsciously support, contribute or benefit from racism or racist systems. Racism Complacency: To support racism and racist systems by not challenging it."
https://saultonline.com/2020/06/letter-systemic-racism/
It is not my position. I tried to show the important flaw in your line of argument against “white privilege”. You embrace the notion of institutional (systemic) racism, but you do not recognize
how the newest conceptualization of this framework implies “white privilege” as one of its necessary consequences. It probably occurs because your understanding of institutional racism is different from the latest and more conventional one.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Compare your concept with this one:
"“Today most people in the US and Canada negatively affected by racism are affected by systemic (also called institutional or structural) racism. Systemic racism is forms of oppression and privilege that affects almost every aspect of our society, our laws, institutions, schools, justice system, media, culture, economy, housing and everyday interactions. This form of racism, although often more harmful in the long term than explicit racism, is less understood or even recognized by the white majority, who often preserve and perpetuate this racism unconsciously through Complicity and Complacency. Racism Complicity: To consciously or unconsciously support, contribute or benefit from racism or racist systems. Racism Complacency: To support racism and racist systems by not challenging it.”
https://saultonline.com/2020/06/letter-systemic-racism/
This definition of systemic (institutional) racism implies “white privilege”. It supposes the racial character of the society as a whole and collective responsibility of the majority. You cannot counter it by bringing countless counterexamples.
Quoting Pro Hominem
According to the logic of collective responsibility, yes. Unless I did not resist the existing system of administering the transportation system or did not participate in campaigns of public awareness about unsafe conditions, etc.- I am complicit in the accident. We cannot find the presumption of innocence here; instead, there is the presumption of guilt. Once again, it is not my position, it is my reconstruction (and deconstruction) of the newest perspective on racism. In principle, since we do not control the proliferated production, circulation, and a widespread understanding and significance of “institutional (systemic) racism”, any thoughtless use of the concept increases a risk of being inconsistent and controversial. The new definition of racism makes the refutation of “white privilege” almost impossible.
It seems to me that that account is an oversimplification based upon a couple of false equivalencies. Supporting X is not equivalent to not challenging X.
Complicity requires knowledge of that which one is an accomplice to and the intent to be an accomplice. Typically it is some illegal action and/or wrongdoing. Typically speaking many white people - particularly those lacking close relationships with non whites - are not aware of the everyday struggles that non whites suffer simply for being non white. White privilege is a benefit that many(perhaps most poor) whites do not realize that they have. To say that they are complicit in systemic racism is problematic to say the very least. To say that they are responsible for something that was otherwise completely out of their control, is wrong-minded to say the least. There are much better approaches.
you are right. But let's look at a more elaborate definition:
Systemic racism obtains when a system(s) function (regardless of explicit rules) to favour certain racial groups over others. It doesn't require overt individual racists (though it may protect and even reward them) nor does it necessarily require any conscious acts of racism at all (and obversely you could have conscious acts of racism in a system where no systemic racism exists, only rather than being performative of the system, they would be antithetical to it). Systems are culturally contextual, they're embedded in cultures and how they function depends on their relationship to the culture they're in. So, often it's what the system allows rather than what the system demands that's important. E.g. if you've got a justice or policing system embedded in a culture that's only recently emerged from the acceptance of explicitly institutionalised racism, you need extremely strong safeguards to avoid the continuance of implicit racism in whatever ostensibly non-racist institutions are substituted. Not having those safeguards in place means the explicit racism of before doesn't just disappear but finds footholds in the new institutions and festers there looking for opportunities to express itself.
Systemic racism occurs in all areas of social life, policing, housing, education etc. And again, it's not primarily about explicitly racist acts or explicitly racist policies or legislation but how things work in practice to disadvantage communities of color."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us/p5
According to this definition, many people do not publicly exhibit or privately express any recognizable features of racist behaviour or racist beliefs and consider themselves non-racist, tolerant, and multicultural. They do not perform any conscious acts of racism. Yet, some of them are regularly involved in professional activities that could be qualified as maintaining systemic racism according to the above definition (cops, journalists, politicians, etc.) Therefore, individuals may exercise acts of systemic racism unbeknownst to themselves, or even contrary to their intentions, if alignments of power or culture subtly orient their actions. Should these people bear a kind of responsibility?
Also, as the result of recent debates, they have a lot of opportunities to learn about implicit consequences of their practices.
Quoting creativesoul
To talk incredibly simply, systemic racism discriminates against the "blackness" of a black American, we want to hear about how this happened from the victim because it helps us to better understand the issue. Is that victim a nameless black American? Are they representative of every black American? No, we listen to a person with a name, a story, a personality, someone was trying to live their life and had to deal with injustice because of a stupid reason like racism.
There is no non-white experience, each non-white person has their own experience and each individual has their own story. When someone has a story to tell pertinent to racism, whether it be as a witness, perpetrator or victim, it's always the story of an individual.
I'm not saying you don't see black Americans as individuals but if we're going to look at the terminology you're using, it clearly divides between white and black rather than victim, witness and perpetrator. The key issue for me is that when you divide on white and black, it legitimises making assumptions about people based on skin colour. It reinforces the idea that because I know that you're white or black, I know more about you as a person.
People should be rejecting the notion of dividing people based on race in these incredibly important issues, not reinforcing and legitimising it.
Quoting creativesoul
Much of the average black American's woes are economics, they make up a disenfranchised economic class which is constantly exploited and rarely given a helping hand. It actually doesn't matter whether you're black or white, making your way up in capitalism is rare and doesn't happen to many people. Sadly, you are more or less forced to choose your narrative.
Is the average black American a victim of American capitalism or a victim of systemic racism? Of course, the answer is both but even if you removed the latter, would anything really change? Would the average black American start to gain the means to economic privilege and achieve the American dream? No, he would not. He would still struggle to move into a different economic class, just like all who occupy the bottom economic class.
It's about competing narratives, it's about what actually needs to be done to challenge the status quo. Rather than reinforcing the racial differences as a result of an unspecified problem, we should challenge the actual issues themselves. When you talk about "white privilege" and I accept it, now we only just begin to talk about what I want to talk about. You are really only talking about getting people onside and educated. What are they actually educated about though? What are they onside with? You've gained a totally useless, hapless ally who doesn't know the first thing about what needs to be done to change things.
Actually the "white privilege" narrative doesn't only not help people to know how to change things, it instructs them on how to make things worse. It reinforces the importance of race, legitimises prejudice, leaves people to figure out the causes, characterises an injustice as a privilege for whatever reason.
I'm really excited to see a thread here about "challenging the mass incarceration", I think, that's something I want to see done, I am a huge supporter. It's so much better than reading about "white privilege" which is a totally useless conversation about characterisations, framing, interpretations, narrative and just a lot of not-actually-doing-anything useless bullshit.
Ha! Ok, we are even. I told you a joke, and you made me laugh, although I don't think you meant to.
Is there any way it would be enough for me to simply say you are completely incorrect? Could you then engage my perfectly rational arguments without having to resort to ad hominem projections? Or are you going to demand my bona fides and waste a lot of time before we get back to the actual point of the conversation, which is the general poverty of the term white privilege as a tool to help end racism?
Up to you.
Quoting creativesoul
I am not "insist[ing] on telling you what you believe", nor do I think you can make the case you have said otherwise. Here are your own words. I was merely paraphrasing them for brevity and simplicity.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Which part of this is so incongruent with your position that you feel I've done you a grave injustice? This statement wasn't intended to be the least bit controversial. I believe(d) it was a simplified. but correct statement of the case you've been presenting all along. If I I've offended you, it was not my intent.
You have previously in this thread made the case that being offended by things is good and we should try to understand why we are offended. Perhaps this is an opportunity to follow your own advice?
fdrake is just doing exactly what makes the criticism of the framing correct, by showing that those who see the world through it, are in fact most prone to race-based discrimination. How can something producing such an effect possibly counter racism?
White privilege isn't something people have by having white skin. Privilege isn't a merit/value they attain by a fact of having white skin, it's a material relation of different sorts of bodies within a culture. It is something the bodies of our society do. Whites do NOT have privilege because they have white skin. They have privilege because material conditions of society act to give groups of white people systematic advantages.
Privilege is describing the fact our society acts in certain ways towards people, it is not suggesting people attain advantage simply by having a skin colour.
Why is the idea an important piece of countering racism? It's recognition of systematic advantage people of cetain bodies have over others in a racist society.
When we pretend discrimination has nothing to do with the ways in which our bodies are identified, classified and treated, we miss the ways in which those bodies of a group are treated by society. We start making ignorant dismissals of systematic racial issues as simply some other force (e.g. crime), and ignore that a racial disparities are actually formed by a material condition of a certain body (e.g. a black body) itself. That's to say, racisms are not just defined by people intentionally acting to hurt or exclude a racial group, but also just by a mere fact which places a racial group in some kind of social disparity to others.
Please no racism on this forum, it is not appropriate.
I was not engaging in any sort of racism.
I was descirbing how there are bodies, which are identified and related to through racial or ethnic identities, which are subject to different systematic conditions in our society.
I was kidding but when you respond to me, admonishing me for not realising that white skin doesn't have special properties, it shows you just didn't read what I have been saying, therefore, I don't understand why you "responded" to me.
I'm saying that because it appears you are treating white privilege as though it were a judgment determined on the basis of someone having white skin.
Both myself and pro hominem acknowledge the reality of systemic racism and have always been talking about the white privilege concept within the context of the social, economic, political, judicial landscape of the US. Your comments only show that you haven't made an effort, you don't need to read the whole thread to participate but it is not good for you to make assumptions about me and my position.
Oh I know that very well (my point was you were calling "White privilege" a racism when it was not, rather than you were denying systematic racism occurred), which leads me to the next point: how can you deny white privilege when it is a literal description of what the given social relationship entails: that society is doing things which give white people systematic advantages at the expense of black people.
I'm not making assumptions about your position. My point is it doesn't make sense given what you would seem to agree with about social relations. In other words: you are unwillingly to call a spade a spade, out of concern for hurting white people by having their culture as identified as racist.
You are making assumptions though because you misrepresented me yet again, I am not denying the facts characterised by white privilege. As I said, you don't need to read the thread but instead of addressing me with whys, you addressed me with "this is your position and its wrong" when that's not my position. So what's the point of it? We just play this game until you finally say something valid?
That's because I have read the thread up till now. I've got enough information to describe what your positions are doing.
My point was never that you were denying facts of systematic racism, only that you were rejecting its factual connection to the concept of white privilege. You say accept systematic racism, but how does this fit with a denial of the description of the material condition, that white people have systematic advantages at the expense of non-white people (i.e. "white privilege")? This material condition, referenced/named "white privilege", entails the systematic racism you free is there.
If you assent to the systematic racism, you agree there is the social phenomena which others are identifying with the words "white privilege".
If you read the whole thread then your bizarre questions and comments become even stranger. It's impossible to believe actually.
There is no denial of the "material condition" and I do agree with the truth of the social phenomena that others are identifying with the words white privilege.
If that is true, what is wrong with white privilege? How is it a mistake or untrue?
Eh, you asked me:
And I answered yes and gave you a reason why.
You had previously stated you would not engage with me on the substantive content because:
Quoting Pro Hominem
it would be retreading ground you felt you had already covered.
I wrote a lot of polemical stuff at you, in my mind it's only fair to explain what motivated me to do it!
Quoting Judaka
Oh, you got me. I was pretty lazy in my responses to @Pro Hominem - writing them as I did while being a bald white wearing a black t-shirt. If I put a bit more effort in and wore the steel-toed black boots as well that would've deffo upped my White Power creds.
The provocative remark that I'm "more prone to race-based discrimination" based on my support for the term "white privilege" is mostly unsubstantiated - do you really expect people who use the term to be more racist than people who do not use the term?
The only way I see that this makes sense is the series of equivocations:
Racist = uses racial categories in arguments = can think about people in terms of races.
I put it to you that there is no way to talk about racism and not be racist under that series of equivocations. That's pretty pernicious, as if indeed there are unique societal dynamics that involve race causally, race is a useful analytic category. For instance; a study on racially motivated hate crimes becomes racist for making race a factor in the analysis, irrelevant of the fact race places a causal role in the crime.
On a systemic level, the causality concept changes from billiard balls (if A then B is guaranteed) to comparisons based on what's analysed (here race) holding all else as equal as possible in the background. Billiard ball causality is uniquely determinative, systemic causality is strongly determinative. If there is a disparity in that sense based on race, it's reasonable to infer that race plays a strongly determinative role in that situation.
I'm sure you know that race plays a causal role in the following circumstances:
(1) Police violence - even if you control for economic+demographic variables, PoCs are at way more risk. @StreetlightX posted a paper a while back that established this (tagging for citation); summarised, whites are at comparable risks to PoCs for police violence in poor communities, PoCs are at higher risk everywhere else. It's not just a class thing.
(2) Sentencing rates and sentence severity for criminal activity strongly track race (I could find a citation for this if you demand one); if you're a PoC, you're both more likely to be sentenced and more likely to receive a harsher sentence if sentenced.
There's also the historical angle of white supremacist terrorism; Tulsa and Rosewood weren't attacked for being poor, they were attacked for being dangerous to the interests of the white race in America - simply by being prosperous communities of colour.
Those are things that are implausible to reduce to the class distinction. Race plays a causal role.
It might be a stupid conception of race that facilitates it, but regardless of how stupid an idea is, it still plays a role when people and systems act under its influence. So long as there are social+economic dynamics that are strongly determined by race, race will remain a useful analytic category. It's a shitty thing to have to make sense of some things on those terms, but those are the breaks.
Edit: so in that context of talking about race still being necessary, how does white privilege as a concept fit in? The disadvantages and history split along white/PoC lines, whites accruing relative advantages and avoiding risks, PoCs accruing relative disadvantages and being more exposed to risks. That it's whites that accrue the benefits is signified by "white" and that it's talking about relative advantages/relative risk reduction over a broad range of things is signified by "privilege", it contains the direction of advantage and gestures towards the character of those advantages. I can't think of a better two word summary of the effect, can you?
Quoting Judaka
It's a sign of courage that complicity is uncomfortable. Not that being uncomfortable because of complicity, by itself, does much at all.
I don't think one can criticise white privilege without stipulating some aims or goals to establish what is at stake here. Firstly, the term "white privilege" is not a literal description of the social phenomena I agreed to, it is a characterisation and a framing by which one understands and describes society. As opposed to asking "does white privilege accurately describe reality" the question is "what does the white privilege description of reality produce?"
What are the various implications and consequences of a person using "white privilege" to understand society? If your answer is, nothing and it's just a name and it just describes reality then that would be when you and I started to disagree.
The second disagreement is whether the facts we're characterising are fairly characterised by the term "white privilege". I take issue with both words "white" and "privilege" and have talked at length as to why. Briefly, it shifts the focus away from the actual injustices taking place, which is systemic racism and instead puts the focus on those who aren't directly affected by systemic racism - white Americans. I don't believe that the correct way to understand systemic racism is how white people are avoiding problems or getting a leg up. The aim here is not to have white Americans experiencing self-loathing nor for people to view "white success" with anger or frustration. It is actually very hard to see what is constructive about this focus on "white privilege". It's not about protecting white culture (?) or white people, it's about asking what do you want people to focus on and why isn't it the actual racism or racist policies? Or at least the victims?
As for calling being exempt from racism a privilege, I disagree with it and once again, why is the focus here? If we accept that many white Americans find systemic racism to be abhorrent and detestable, why insist it's their privilege? Say a naive white American reflects on this and starts to inform themselves about all the ways in which they're privileged due to their whiteness. If we have any sympathy towards this individual or any plan for them, this is wrong. What we want is for this individual to realise how systemic racism works and, to ask, "how can such an unjust thing happen in the supposed greatest country on Earth? Why is nobody doing anything about it?" That's how I want them to get educated and involved.
When you describe the problem of systemic racism as white privilege, aren't you just arming those who might disagree with you with the means of your own destruction? When you are trying to convince someone of systemic racism, is the best way to explain to them how their whole life, their whole experience, is a result of how society has handed them all these privileges due to their whiteness? Is it effective? Or ethical? To do it that way?
Even after they agree with you, "yes, you're right, I'm so privileged" says the white American, a previously ignorant person is now convinced of systemic racism through the lens of white privilege. Which means what? They remain totally ignorant about systemic racism! Because it was never something that can be understood by looking at interactions between the government and white society, that's the one place it's actually absent.
What I want is to see a framing for systemic racism that brings attention to the various injustices which constitute systemic racism. To ask the individual, no matter your skin colour, is this right? Or good for the country? To encourage discussion about changes that would actually help improve the situation. Rather than leaving people to their own devices to conceptualise systemic racism through the lens of white privilege.
The last thing I'll bring up is whether you want to have every problem in society described as a race problem. There is both white and black poverty in America and a valid question is, should we view the two differently? Yes, there are historical reasons for why there is greater poverty among black Americans but nowadays, poverty functions the same for people of either race and the US government does the bare minimum to help regardless of your race. The term white privilege may not be helpful here, it creates unhelpful divisions between people of either race, rather than merely describing them.
My contribution to this thread has been talking about these issues and more and my basis for rejecting "white privilege" has always been to ask these kinds of questions and arriving at answers that make me conclude, we would simply be much better off describing and framing the conversation differently.
Dunno why this is so hard to grasp.
Quoting fdrake
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/police-killings-black-white-poverty
I'm not entirely disagreeing. I'm warning that you seem to be placing the cart ahead of the horse.
Complicity and complacency are different things in and of themselves. Both require awareness of wrongdoing if one is to be held liable and/or responsible for being either. The account you've presented judges a group of people who are oblivious to the extent of systemic racism as if they were not oblivious.
Understanding and/or becoming aware of white privilege requires knowing about enough of the situations that non whites deal with because they are not white. White privilege is the exemption from just these sorts of specific circumstances and/or situations. Those situations are only thought about when a non white individual tells their own story. Until then, the white individual cannot know about all of the injustices that they are themselves immune to.
So, I disagree with characterizing such broad-based innocent ignorance as if it were not.
However...
After one becomes aware of the wrongdoing they can also become a willing and knowing accomplice of continued wrongdoing. However, at that time they are not yet willing accomplices to any wrongdoing, for let us not forget that they have just became aware of the wrongdoing. So, an otherwise unknowing white individual becomes aware of the residual effects/affects of racism that still pervade American society to this day.
What personal responsibility do they have? That ought be established by the amount of power they have to influence and/or effect change.
Quoting fdrake
What?
Quoting fdrake
I couldn't possibly substantiate my claim, it's anecdotal and a weak claim but I certainly believe it is more likely that a person who uses the term white privilege to be more prone to making assumptions based on race.
Apparently defining racism is a controversial topic in this thread, what is your definition of racism? Isaac claims that it requires oppression, while I would say any race-based discrimination is racism, that's the definition I'm working on.
Quoting fdrake
Wouldn't that make those who use the white privilege framing necessarily racist rather than "more prone"? Since white privilege is the argument that "you, white person, are privileged". I'm not going to call merely describing reality while identifying people by their races is racist, I do that and have done it many times this thread.
An argument like "white people are disproportionately more likely to be offended by the concept of white privilege", I mean, I totally agree. Who wouldn't? It's just obvious. Like saying people who listen to rap are more likely to be offended by saying "rap is awful". The issue is when you use that understanding to inform yourself about the individual. I will just repost what I said to Banno.
Quoting Judaka
There are many reasons I think people who like the term white privilege are more likely to be racist but the main one is simply that the term is very race-orientated. It calls out being white in the US as a privilege and what I see people doing is using the idea of white privilege to presume the privilege of somebody who is white. Which gives you a lot to work with, a lot of assumptions that you can make about someone simply for being white.
And you do all this without placing importance upon the color of their skin too?
Seriously dude.
Yeah...
The exemption and/or immunity from the injustice(s) is the privilege.
You're making less and less sense as we go along. Focusing upon economic redistribution will not correct mass incarceration of blacks.
You're the only one returning over and over to focus upon characterizations, framing, interpretations, and narratives... I would love to talk about actual events. You seem to want to avoid them.
Strawman.
Quoting creativesoul
What is important was the discrimination they were subjected to rather than the colour of their skin. That's all we're trying to learn about. Of course, their skin colour made it possible but skin colour shouldn't be the focus. The focus should be perpetrator (cause) and victim.
Quoting creativesoul
I didn't draw a connection between those two things.
Quoting creativesoul
It's a silly oversimplification which wasn't attempting to do anything but demonstrate a point.
Quoting creativesoul
I am not saying I want people to talk about the actual events in this thread, which is about the white privilege framing. I am just pointing out that white privilege is a distraction that detracts from real issues.
Insincerity offends me.
You're both all over the place. Perhaps I'll make fun of both of you by simply holding your own words next to one another and watch the squirming begin...
It seems there's been more than enough rope given...
Tell me some stories of how you, your friends, your family, and/or any of your loved ones have suffered racial discrimination...
Understanding white privilege requires understanding actual events.
Real? Pfft!
You're in quite the mood today.
Focusing upon the mass incarceration of BLACKS is to focus - in part - upon skin color.
:roll:
By your own definition... it's rather inconvenient... that you're guilty of all you rail against... when it's convenient...
Insincerity offends me.
Quoting Judaka
I am saying that you are the one doing the stuff which you say is useless... You are the one talking about characterizations, framing, interpretations, and narratives. You are the one that keeps focusing upon those things. You are the one.
Insincerity offends me.
Tell me some stories of how you, your friends, your family, and/or any of your loved ones have suffered racial discrimination...
What do you know about suffering from racial discrimination?
I decided to use an exaggerated form of you insinuating that I was racist (more likely to be racist!) to satirise your insinuation that I was (more likely to be) racist. I took a few signifiers I have that are associated with white supremacist terrorists (skinhead blackshirts with steel-toed boots) and highlighted them, along with allying myself with the use of "white privilege" as a concept. I could explain the joke more.
Quoting Judaka
Making assumptions based on race; depends a lot of how it's done, no? Is it in intellectual act of critique which highlights socio-economic-legal disparities ("privileges")? In this context assumptions based on race are neutral on the metaphysics of race [hide=*](eg, essentialism+naturalism vs constructionism)[/hide]; it doesn't have to matter what race is for the purposes of showing what it does. You don't hold any opinions of any individual, you hold opinions of a population based on disparities that the population has been shown to face.
That is much different, I hope is clear, from holding a negative opinion or treating someone badly in a manner rooted in their race.
Quoting Judaka
In my head I distinguish between racial prejudices and systemic racism. Though the two interlink systemically.
A discriminatory prejudice is a negative judgement of a person that results in holding an unsubstantiated negative opinion of their character, capacities, and possible behaviours causally derived from an agent's recognition of (or assignment to!) their membership in a group, and then possibly treating them differently based upon that opinion. A racial prejudice is a discriminatory prejudice where the group assignment mechanism is race. This is a reduction of person to how they are racialized at the same time as an act of racialization.
By systemic discrimination I understand a socio-economic mechanism that increases the chances of negative outcomes for members of a group [hide=*](irrelevant of the mechanism of group formation/membership)[/hide] based upon their membership of that group. In other words, when belonging to the group is strongly determinative of the increased chances of negative outcomes relative to non-group members. IE, when the disparity in relative risk is not dependent upon what you do, but is strongly dependent on what group you are assigned to. Systemic racism is systemic discrimination that is strongly determined by race.
In a system that is discriminatory against a group, discriminatory prejudices against that group become more likely. If risks (eg, economic, criminal) are associated with group membership societally, the belief that explains those risks on an individual level in terms of group membership becomes more likely. Eg: "disabled people are scroungers", the black "welfare queen" stereotype. An agent's negative judgement by embodying the group assignment mechanism is different from explaining the group membership by the assignment mechanism; eg, highlighting racialisation vs racialising someone, talking about racial profiling vs racial profiling someone.
Inversely, if a person in a system acts in a manner that engenders a negative outcome upon someone based on their group assignment (eg, a hate crime, a prejudicial hiring decision, calling refugees dying in Mediterranian "cockroaches"), it engenders a systemic discrimination in that system to the extent they have determinative power over it (the extent to which an individual's actions are systemically causal). If you found a country weaponising racial prejudice, the prejudice of the founders shows up in systemic racism against their target groups of prejudice. This is a good reason to demand higher standards from politicians and lawmakers than ordinary people; their prejudices and lack of attention show up as prejudices and lack of attention in policy, law and individual outcomes so affected.
Quoting Judaka
I think this is the equivocation I wrote about above; talking about the group assignment mechanism and its associated effects (highlighting racialisation and systemic racism) vs embodying the group assignment mechanism (racialising someone and having a racist prejudice).
What utter nonsense!
Racial discrimination is all about the color of one's skin. You cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing upon it. You cannot focus upon it without focusing upon skin color. Focusing upon skin color does not make one racist. Devaluing someone based upon skin color does.
Quoting Judaka
I'm not against calling people black and white, I've done that throughout this thread.
Quoting creativesoul
Racial discrimination is all about discrimination, skin colour is just the thing being discriminated against. You asked me for my experience with it, I don't have a personal story but I have Chinese friends who I've seen deal with it. Yes, I'm aware my friend is Chinese but that's not the problem, the issue is the person who is saying racist remarks to my friend. My friend could be Chinese, Filipino, Mexican, Russian - it doesn't matter. I don't actually see why it matters at all that my friend is Chinese and not some other ethnicity. I don't understand how this is even about him, he didn't do anything except meet the wrong people.
I really just don't understand why you're saying this.
What matters is that they are a body (with a skin colour) which is treated with respect, given a place on a society, etc., so it's not a simple matter of ignoring race.
It's not good enough to say, "Race never matters, ignore it and just think about other things". If there are people of a certain skin colour who are treated badly in a society, it is an act upon them, upon their body, with its skin colour.
The equitable society cannot just ignore bodies different skin colour, as if it didn't matter where they occurred or they were treated. They have to understand a body of any skin colour is to be respected, understood to belong, treated justly, etc.
It must actively understand each individual, with their skin colour, is valued and belongs. It is not colorblind. It gets up and pronounces each person belongs in their own skin: a society in which White, Black, Asian, etc., such that it matters how each of those bodies is treated by society.
Quoting fdrake
Yes, I know others have called white privilege a racist term but I don't believe that is fair. The name aside, you are merely describing reality to the best of your ability and I agree that that way includes talking about race. As I said, using the white privilege framing doesn't make you a "racial discriminator" (are we not using the word racist here?).
Quoting fdrake
Excellent, thanks.
Quoting fdrake
I wasn't expecting this response but since you gave it, I am interested, do you account for historical explanations? For example, if we eradicated all forms of systemic racism in the US (magically, instantly) but black Americans are still disproportionately poor (not changed), would that be a problem for you?
Quoting fdrake
I mostly agree. Another topic I'm interested in is examining the consequences of being attractive versus being unattractive in the modern era. I think that just as someone who thinks about this topic a lot, the chances of me prejudicing against someone based on their looks simply skyrockets. Of course, I am not aiming to do that but when someone is not thinking about looks in this analytical way and to the degree that I have, they are just simply less likely to prejudice on it. Though I am not saying nobody should talk about race or attractiveness and challenge what kind of impact it has on society.
I think besides just talking about it a lot, it's how you talk about it and for me, systemic racism should focus on the act of discrimination as opposed to differences between the races. It's kind of unavoidable to talk about the attractiveness of the person because that's the subject but here, we are not aiming to talk about blackness or whiteness, we are aiming to talk about racism. I am against talking about racism in terms like "white privilege" because the focus is not on the cause, it's on a race. The consequences of talking about race and focusing on race are increased chances of being racist, increased likelihood of race becoming interpretatively relevant (used to understand) for people. That's what I believe at least.
The economic disparity is one of the major examples of systematic racism. If it has not been eliminated, all forms of systematic racism have not been ended.
Thank you for responding to that so I didn't have to.
I didn't say anything about people. I said a brick's name was Sergio. Names are arbitrary titles given to specific instances of things. But that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the people who catalog what our words mean based on how they are used:
name
/n?m/
noun
1. a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to.
"my name is Parsons, John Parsons"
so,
Quoting creativesoul
...is not correct. It is an attempt to describe the phenomenon, using those specific words.
If it were really nothing more than a name, why would you fight so hard against changing it? We've all agreed that it is broadly irritating when deployed against people who are not privy to academic discussions of race. You see that as a feature, I see it as a bug.
If you could name it anything, why would you choose something that makes large numbers of people instantly denounce it upon its utterance, unless you felt that label had specific descriptive powers? Maybe the working title was "Final Solution", but then "White Privilege" was settled on as being slightly less controversial?
You can't have it both ways. Either (A) the words "white privilege" mean what they say they mean and were specifically chosen to convey those ideas (the facts support this entirely), or (B) "white privilege" is just an arbitrary "name", and it has no meaning, and you shouldn't care or be surprised when people tell you it's a stupid name.
If you choose option A, then you need to confront my arguments that it fails as a description because it falsely attempts to create a privilege in an overly broad and poorly defined case, instead of focusing on the real detriment in a different case. It also fails as an attempt to combat racism because it reinforces concepts of race that are artificial and need to be wiped out entirely, not perpetuated by created new ways to use (weaponize?) them.
If you choose option B, then you need to change the name to something better. I suggest "systemic racism".
There is no such thing as an "act of systemic racism". Systemic racism is system-wide, by definition. It is not contained in specific instances, it is perpetually present by virtue of the system in which it lives. Acts of racism are interpersonal, not systemic. You argument holds true if you make this distinction, but fails if you do not.
People engaged in discrete acts of interpersonal racism absolutely bear responsibility for those acts. There is no such thing as systemic responsibility. The results of enforcing such a concept would be laughably insane.
Aside from complicity, how would you describe the following thing MLK highlights:
?
For me there's a distinction between complicity - what I think MLK diagnoses as the system justifying behaviour of the "white moderate" in a different vocabulary - and collaboration, like the FBI's actions against black civil rights movements in COINTELPRO + within Garvey's movement. Complicity's "The wrong life cannot be lived rightly" vs collaboration's being an agent that works to promote or sustain the unjust conditions of life.
You're trying to create a distinction where there is no difference. Accomplice and collaborator mean more or less the same thing. Both require direct, knowledgeable involvement in a previously determined illegal act. Neither of them apply in this case, as even @creativesoul has been telling you.
If complicity and collaboration in an injustice both require that that injustice is illegal, it becomes impossible to be complicit with or collaborate in the execution of an unjust law; since by definition it is legal.
Edit, example: So something like Operation Legacy, in which administrative agents of the British Empire destroyed their meticulous internal documentation of Britain's human rights violations [hide=*](including using concentration camps, forced sterilisations, using rape as a form of torture...)[/hide] in order to avoid something like the Nuremburg Trials happening to Britain... Perfectly legal. So impossible to be complicit in; despite all those turning a blind eye, and all those failing to sequester documents; and impossible to collaborate with; despite people burning down archive buildings. If someone who literally burned incriminating documents to stop the British Empire being held to account legally for its crimes in an international tribunal is not a collaborator in the crimes of Empire, I don't know what remains of the meaning of the term.
Ok, this is the crux of the miscommunication. This is absolutely not what Judaka and I are saying. I would say it's a straw man, but I think you think this is what you're actually arguing against.
We are saying:
Racist = personally defines or categorizes people by the color of their skin, according to a made up concept called "race"
Racist =/= being able to understand, describe, and discuss the fact that (most) people think this way, resulting in a range of undesirable effects
Thus, there is a difference between recognizing the "mass incarceration of blacks" as a real problem based on a range of factors (which include defining people as "black" in the first place), and using a statement like "black power" or "white privilege" which indicates a personally held belief that all people are members of these distinct "races".
There are, of course, nuances to this. I dislike the reinforcement of the concept of "blackness" that "Black Lives Matter" implies, but I recognize that in this moment that language is necessary, I think the message and the goals of this movement are obviously beneficial, and the benefits of this framing far outweigh the detriment of its reinforcement of the race concept.
That said, I believe (and I think Judaka believes, but it's not my place to say so) that the ultimate goal is to stop using these terms at all. There is no need nor benefit to referring to people as black or white in the way that we do. I realize terms like "dark-skinned" or "pale-skinned" may have utility as descriptive terms, similar to saying someone has black hair or green eyes, but we must stop using these words "black" and "white" unless we can collectively understand we are not describing ANYTHING beyond the color of their skin.
As long as we continue to employ the language and symbolism of the race-based view of the world, we will never live in a "post-racist" world. This is my concern with most anything that uses the "black" or "white" labels. If every one of us just stopped believing those terms correlated to something real in the world, racism would immediately disappear. That is what the end of racism looks like.
Yes, this is correct. You must campaign for the changing of the law. Or, in the inverse, if one cannot be charged with a crime or be held liable for a behavior, then one can also not be held as an accomplice to that crime or behavior.
Oh absolutely; there will be no need to use race categories to call a spade a spade here after systemic racism has been abolished. Until then, insofar as a system is systemically racist, it requires a vocabulary to describe the mechanisms of its systemic racism in order to address them. It's a cart and horse thing; systemic racism is doing all the pulling, not how we speak about race. What would abolish the need to use race as a concept is the end of systemic racism - the only reason it seems plausible that abolishing the vocabulary of race would end systemic racism are that how people think and socio-economic conditions relate to each other. No one's going to get more free by everyone agreeing to use words differently in isolation, and so long as systemic racism exists it will engender racial stereotyping and other prejudices.
I see this as a much different discussion than on what race is - an interlinking collection of categories that is re/produced by a process of racialization. It's not just words. If someone's going to believe that a person is gonna be lazy because they're black, that's nowhere near using race categories to describe systemic discrimination that's rooted in how those categories propagate+sustain themselves over time and people!
Magically abolish racial categorisation in language alone, there would still be systemic racism, and it won't be long after that until racial stereotypes crop up.
I am tentatively agreeing with this. I think it's correct, but it's very broad so reserving the right to re-examine. This is me agreeing with you.
Quoting creativesoul
To finish this syllogism, "therefore you cannot correct racial discrimination without focusing on skin color." I would argue this is false. This is certainly one of the key points of difference in our arguments. I would say that "focusing on skin color" is the very root of the problem of racial discrimination. If the goal is the end of racism, life in a post-racist world, then skin color must become a non-issue, not a focus.
If however, one perceives the situation as a "race war" or believes that the distinction between "white" people and "black" people is a real thing that cannot be discarded, then I guess you are trapped in this cycle until one group exterminates the other. I believe this scenario is demonstrably false, but even if I thought it might be true I'd fight against it because I see it as a horribly evil thing.
You seem to have referenced having a daily personal stake in acts of racial discrimination, so perhaps your insistence is born of the moment. I have been in that same circumstance, but I am not anymore. Perhaps I have the luxury of the long view from my perspective, but that isn't satisfying from your perspective.
I'd like to reiterate what I said several pages back - I think we want the same things. If you identify with my "post-race" scenario, then we are in agreement, and are just in different places on a similar path. If you agree with the "race war" or "race is real" formulation, however, then that would explain why it is so difficult to reach any accord here.
Since you have accused me repeatedly of trying to put words in your mouth, I'll let you speak for yourself on this matter. If you think about the "solution" to systemic racism, what does that look like in your mind?
So racism is inevitable? I could not more vehemently disagree.
Your straw man formulations are wearing thin as well. I am not saying "If people could not say the word 'black', then racism would end." That's just stupid. I'm saying it is possible to conceive of a world in which people do not infer anything about others based on their skin tone, but it is necessary to stop labeling people based on skin tone before that can happen.
This is a long term view, by the way. Systemic racism is still very real, but it has been diminishing for the last few decades. If we continue that trend, eventually it will be necessary to jettison the vocabulary of race. Why not start on that now?
Immunity is a thing. Exemption is a thing.
Oh no. That's not what I meant at all. I simply meant that how we talk about race isn't the primary means by which systemic racism re/produces itself - in my view the primary means are economic and legal (function of the enforcement of law rather than letter of the law). Say when Glasgow Council decided to tackle the systemic risk of knife crime, they didn't intervene on how people spoke about each other, they treated it as a public health and education issue; effectively increasing the social capital of the target communities to address the conditions that lead to knife crime being more commonplace in those areas. They did not and could not stop anyone referring to community members as neds or schemies, but they could address the disadvantages that increased the risk of knife crime for the targets of the words.
"Defund the Police" from the BLM protests wants a similar shift in strategic focus; public health over punishment, prevention through addressing the economic issues that lead to higher crime rates over the punitive treatment of the symptoms of those issues. The focus on socio-economy over discourse is instructive.
Quoting Pro Hominem
In a time where "Black Lives Matter" is an effective rallying slogan, and "white privilege" as a concept is forcing us to discuss systemic racism like this, it is still completely necessary. Why start jettisoning the vocabulary that will be needed to address the issues while they're still a huge thing? And why does this difficult deconstructive labour of race concepts have to be done in the same breath as the problem naming slogan of "white privilege"? Different problems, different strategies.
Straw manning again. I did not say that vocabulary was sufficient to end racism. I said it was a factor. Obviously addressing the conditions that support the racist fiction is a bigger factor. I would never say otherwise, and have in fact said that I don't think the "white privilege" framing is somehow fatal to progress in race issues - I just think it's unproductive.
Quoting fdrake
I'm taking the second part first because it dovetails with my comments above. To say that "white privilege" is a "necessary" concept is pure fiction. It is not "forcing" us to discuss anything. I am going round and round with you people because it amuses me to do so and it just helps that I think you're wrong about this. I am perfectly aware of institutional and systemic racism and have a solid grasp of the problems associated with racist law enforcement policies and practices, and I have reached all these conclusions and understandings without any help from this "white privilege" nonsense. It is in no way necessary to understand or even be aware of that terminology in order to be aware of the systemic nature of racism in this country (sorry if an American bias is present there - I acknowledge it and it doesn't change my point).
As for Black Lives Matter, I have already expressed my support for it because of its obviously beneficial effects and clear goals. I oppose white privilege for its lack of both.
...and you've decided to "name" those things "white privilege?"
Seriously, what are you saying? That's incoherent.
No worries.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Quoting Pro Hominem
What would you replace "white privilege" with? I'm genuinely curious, not asking in a "gotcha" way. Or if you don't agree that the role that concept plays in discourse still needs to be played, why not?
:brow:
That's totally coherent. It's exactly what I've been saying all along. It also dovetails nicely with the standard dictionary definitions/most common use of the term "privilege". I suggest you re-examine my words with that in mind...
Well. Do it.
Systemic racism. The concept includes everything that you are trying to say with white privilege with the exception of trying to make it intentionally confrontational and controversial. I understand that those that employ it think the confrontational aspect is a useful thing, but I do not. I think it breeds resistance and resentment.
Every language user who has ever used the terms "black", "white", "asian", or "multi-racial" is racist according to that criterion for what counts as being racist.
Racism:
X is bad
You are X
You are bad
Post racism:
There is no X.
Your formulation (white privilege):
Y says X is bad
some people are X
Y is bad
:brow:
You are intentionally ignoring the nuances here. It is possible to use the terms without believing in their descriptive power. I can talk about God without believing that it exists. I can understand what other people mean when they use a term and use that term to interact with them without believing the term is well founded. I don't like using the word black, but I do sometimes because it means something in common usage. I prefer "people of color" because it is less charged and less overbroad, but it is still problematically inexact (and reeks of PC-ness). Ideally I wouldn't have to use this at all because people would stop seeing themselves and others this way and just treat each person as they found them. I do this, so I know it's possible.
Accounting malpractices won't do.
Quoting Pro Hominem
I simply showed the inherent inadequacy of the notion you're working from, as it was stated... verbatim...
These are called syllogisms. They are meant to make it easier to judge the logic of an argument by removing a lot of the words that allow for misinterpretation. Believe me, the logic of your argument actually got better when I simplified it that way.
This is so common... Funny thing...
All my black friends, family members and loved ones throughout my entire life have called themselves "black". "African American" is used by those who feel strongly about keeping their roots in mind, particularly in the late 80's and since. Even then, none of them have ever had any problem with being black or called "black" or categorized as "black", aside from being subject to injury by white racists. That's certainly a problem with being black, not being called "black".
Black pride. Black power. Black Lives Matter.
My argument was given back on page seven, I think. I've given several since. I do not believe you. Use my words, and I'll gladly respond in kind.
Not speaking about you personally at all, but it is entirely possible for those things to both be true of someone.
I have family, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. They all lack a racial dimension to me. I don't use these signifiers when I identify anyone internally. Personally, I don't have a filter labeled "race" when I consider other people.
If you categorize, differentiate, or single people out for their skin tone, that is racist thinking. You realize that you're having the same reaction you're so proud of inflicting with your "white privilege" formulation, right? You feel offended because someone is accusing you of a thing you're sure you haven't done.
I didn't say I don't like using it because I thought anyone was offended by it or because no one else uses it. Just the opposite. I said I don't like it because too many people use it to create a category of thought that is contributory to racist behavior.
I acknowledge that it is used by "black" people to describe themselves, and I have used it in their company. I don't think the word is taboo in and of itself. I just don't want people to go to this well of self-categorizing or making generalizations based on this concept. It perpetuates it, and that same mindset is reflected in the bigot, he is just attaching different meanings to the same generalization.
We've tried that already. It didn't work.
Quoting Pro Hominem
Can we look at this, please? I'm not laying a trap, I'm curious to know what outcomes you are hoping for. What does the "equitable" system look like? If there were no more problems of disadvantage or hate crimes, if police treated everyone the same way, if racial slurs and discriminatory encounters disappeared, how would people behave? Do you see a world in which people of all skin tones are evenly populated across schools and neighborhoods, or are there still "black communities" and "white communities?" Is there still a distinct "black culture?" Do people still talk about "black people" and "white people" or do they just talk about "people?"
You don't have to use my questions if you don't want to. I just want to know what you think success ultimately looks like.
Notions of "racism" and "white privilege" and "systemic racism" that are utterly inadequate for discriminating between racists and non racists(the irony), just plain wrong and/or ignorant by sheer will alone(refusal to carefully consider what's been actually written), and conflating systemic racism with one of it's many bi-products(white privilege).
I've already answered that question as well... again, on page seven(I think). Perhaps eight...
Quoting Pro Hominem
Probably, you are right: the term act indicates a kind of juridical responsibility. So, let's replace the "act of systemic racism" with "unintentionally and/or unconsciously taking part in or supporting systemic racism practices." (Once again, as I wrote you, it does not work with your apprehension of institutional racism) Since we are talking about the unconscious dimension of activities, the analogy of psychoanalyses may fit here. A neurotic person systematically takes part in behavioural patterns that she is not aware of their hidden meaning. Yet, from the psychoanalytical perspective, the truth of the situation and treatment are known and achievable.
Similarly, the systemic racism framework supposes that people unconsciously, and maybe contrary to their intentions, participate in various practices having racist consequences. Indeed, they cannot be responsible for their activities. But they can be (ought to be) enlightened or educated to become aware of the truth. The same rationale may be applied to people who are not aware of their "white privilege." Again, please do not take it as my own position.
They are perfectly adequate, you just don't like the outcomes. I define racism as using the concept of race to define, categorize, or judge people. Without race, there can be no racists. Race is a construct that didn't even exist 500 years ago. We don't have to use it. If people choose to, then I would call that racist in a clear, definitional way.
You have defined racists as "white people who discriminate against colored people." This is a very radicalized view of racism. Only whites can be racist because racists are bad people, and the oppressed cannot ever be wrong about anything. You cannot see the irony contained in this line of thinking: "there are 2 kinds of people who are wrong - racists and white people." Mike Myers made this joke in Austin Powers 3 in a slightly different context. Here it's less funny. Saying "all white people are X" is an inherently racist proposition because it is based on judging a group of people entirely on the basis of race. That is so obviously true if you have any fidelity to the English language itself. If you don't, then why do you talk to people at all?
Quoting creativesoul
Back at ya. I've demonstrated your shortcomings on logical, linguistic, and practical grounds over and over. You don't want to believe me. Ok, don't. It doesn't change how logic works, what words mean, or whether its a good idea to employ a strategy that specifically seeks to alienate white people at a moment in history where many of them are starting to take your side in the conversation...
Quoting creativesoul
Systemic racism is an observable fact. White privilege is an argumentative construct. One exists, the other is a tactic (I've explained many times why I think it's a bad tactic, but that won't stop any of you from continuing to use it). I've acknowledged that some white people have benefited from racial attitudes and laws in all sorts of ways, and that that is a problem that must be addressed. I do not think that you can support the idea that all white people at all times are benefiting in any calculable way from the oppression of black people. I don't even think you can satisfactorily define who exactly all these "white" people are. You refuse to confront any of this. You just think it's a good idea because it makes white people mad when you say it to them. Good luck with that. You are perpetuating the system.
So where do I fit in? I am fully conscious of systemic racism, but I do not support its practices. Yet I am white. What now?
It is a challenging question. Probably, it is a false choice between “being white” and “being fully conscious of systemic racism.” We need to avoid a trap of the imposed choices between fixed, rigid, and normative identifications. One of the functions of power is to reduce the complexity of our social reality to the easily recognizable obviousnesses.
So one can be white, be conscious of systemic racism, and be in opposition to it? If that is true, whither "white privilege?" If I denounce any claim to it and actively work against it, how is it properly applied to me?
Your point about reducing complex problems to simple formulations may be especially apt in this case.
All your consideration is based on the racial premise of skin colour as the most fundamental socio-economic distinction and operator. How can we know that non-white deal with various situations exclusively because they are non-white, and white are exempted just because they are white? One faces complex socio-economic situations, oversimplifies them, then transforms them into mere facts, and finally converts the descriptive truths into the ultimate prescriptive judgements. After all, the final truth has a binding ethical dimension. But who decides that we must accept this truth? Likely, one of the other dimensions is a political will and the intensive enforcement of this will. What if somebody disagrees with one of the stages of the operative process? For example, for a Marxist, the founding social dichotomy is not racial, but the working class and capitalists' opposition.
Quoting creativesoul
Actually, you indirectly agree that here is a kind of ‘potential complicity.’ If one unintentionally takes part in systemic racism practices and/or benefit from them, to make it evident, and to make one aware of the wrongdoing or benefiting from “white privilege,” there is the program to develop the process of the enlightenment: the universal truth of systemic racism and white privilege should become widely available, it should become the integral part of the academic curriculum, sportive events, entertainment, the media narratives, etc. After such reinforcement, any dissent, disagreement, or the pretext of being unaware would become nonsensical and almost impossible.
You’re safe to use adjectives to describe human beings. But races are a taxonomy. So when we start to classify them as members in this taxonomy, we’ve employed the racialist worldview to aid in our judgement of human beings. Once we drop the racialist worldview from our thinking we should have no problem using better foundations.
@Banno gave a worked example using "stairs" for able-bodied privilege at the start of the thread, then linked an essay later in this () post. gave a long explanation. If this question is rooted in a failure of understanding, one of the essays Banno linked has a checklist of ways white privilege works on a day to day individual level (as a manifestation of systemic racism).
Are you....joking?
If your answer in any way relies on Banno's asinine stairs analogy that he thinks is an example, then we can just stop. I thought you were starting to explore this a little more and realize this simplistic view of a complex problem might be insufficient.
Instead, you went "stairs."
My soul died a little when I read that. You should be ashamed, if you're able to.
Quoting Pro Hominem
I mostly agree with your points in this thread but I don't think you can challenge the idea of white privilege on this front. It is like saying that if you disagree there should be an "attractiveness privilege" but you are extremely attractive, nobody should argue that you have an attractiveness privilege. Of course, it doesn't work like that, the fact remains that you receive the various social benefits (among other kinds) of being attractive - whether you think it's immoral that you do or not.
By the way pro hominem, what is your answer to this?
Quoting Judaka
It's not about me. It's about the reductio ad absurdum that your criterion inevitably leads to.
If we grant your definition/conception/criterion/notion of racist, then it only follows that everyone who has ever used "black", "white", "asian", and/or "multi-racial" was/is racist.
No. I have not.
As I said... refusal to pay careful attention to what has been written.
Prior to proper(valid) critique comes understanding that which is being critiqued. Thus far, you have not even managed to get the basics of my position correct. You've been furiously arguing with your own imagination...
...and yes, there are shortcomings.
You'll have to do better than that.
Oh and while the 'real issues' are elsewhere, and 'white privilege' is 'just a distraction', the only energy these wankers can endlessly expend is precisely on the very topic that, it just so happens, affects them.
Using this as an insult you only show your ignorance of the Guadalcanal Diary version.
Sorry it took a while. I wanted to reply earlier, but it slipped my mind...
I would readily agree that complicity and collaboration are certainly different. The difference is perhaps in the amount/degree of knowing and deliberate participation, and as you've duly noted, working for the goal of further promoting or sustaining the unjust conditions(wrongdoing). There are currently actors, it seems pretty clear to me, that are intentionally and deliberately misleading the public about much of it. These people are collaborators.
My earlier objection to the complicity charge revolved around unjustly charging whites who are not even aware of the extent of injury that has resulted from systemic racism.
I do think... with a fair amount of conviction... that once one becomes aware of the facts when blacks are not treated equally under the law, they can no longer be thought of as innocent. However, I would urge that the expectation placed upon each individual regarding what they ought do, would be commensurate with their ability to effect/affect change. A public official is held to a much higher standard than a poor rural white person living in the rust belt.
Both ought do what they can when they can.
You're like a communist who talks about the issues of capitalism to criticise critics of your ideology. The flaws of society don't justify the flaws in your ideology. You keep prattling on about how bad things are like it's a coherent justification for your approach and when that doesn't work, you just get upset and start acting tough. Your approach is the same on everything of yours I read and considering you have 6k posts, that's an awful lot of the same thing. I get a kick out of reading it though, please continue.
Maybe you can continue plastering me with labels while whining about how you hate identity politics so much.
Again...
For the umpteenth time, do yourself a favor and at least get it right to start with before you begin critiquing it. Perhaps then you'll be able to see for yourself that "white privilege" refers to the immunity and/or exemption from the liabilities of being non white in America.
White privilege(the immunity and/or exemption from the liabilities of being non white in America) existed in it's entirety prior to it's namesake, "white privilege". Either argumentative constructs exist in their entirety prior to the language they consist of(which is absurd), or white privilege is not an argumentative construct.
I didn't take that personally. Why would I? In fact, it is by virtue of knowing that I am not racist, in addition to knowing that there are many historical figures who are also not, that I can also know that your notion is sorely lacking in it's ability to be used to draw and maintain the actual distinction between those who devalue another based upon the color of their skin alone, and those who do not.
The irony of the earlier attempts to argue against white privilege based upon the purported grounds of being useless and/or counterproductive...
Why am I even continuing to bother?
The casual readers' sake.
You do realize that one can know the biological shortcomings of race as a purported biological category, yet still proceed to meaningfully categorize a group of individuals based upon skin color, and continue doing so without ever devaluing them based upon skin color...
Right?
You also realize that using those terms is not even necessary for devaluing someone based upon their skin color...
Right?
So...
Your suggested method would change nothing but the language being used. The racism would remain, and would be even harder to address than it already is. Those consequences do not surprise me. You would make such a suggestion... given the boot licking Trump apologist you are. That plan would work great to further perpetuate racism.
"Flagged for low post quality. Moved to the lounge."
How many times does it need to be said before you understand?
The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not. That is always the case. Regardless of individual particular circumstances, if you are white, you are exempt.
I'm beginning to think that there may be a reading comprehension issue at hand.
I missed this. Would have rather spent my time on this than what I have today.
:smile:
That's a very good question. I appreciate the attention it took.
Unfortunately it deserves more attention than I can give it at the moment, but it will be first on the agenda upon my return. The rest of that post will be given it's just due as well.
:up:
Don't you think this is very convoluted way of talking? Why not just say that the problem is that non-whites are being discriminated and oppressed?
You know, it does kinda raise the question why one goes through all the trouble of framing it in that way if there is a more simple and straightforward way of phrasing it.
Not at all...
Talking about white privilege opens the door for otherwise unknowing and/or unaware(but perfectly capable) white people to much better understand the extent of the problems. It sheds light upon the otherwise unknown reality. It leads to empathy where there could be none prior. It demands attention considerably more than just saying that we have a racial discrimination problem...
... wouldn't ya say?
:brow:
I dunno, I think different people will react differently, as is evident from these threads I think. Some will maybe react in that way, some will be offended, others will just misunderstand it... I think it's hard to say what the effect will be and if it will be a good one. I generally prefer just plainly stating what is going on, it think clarity has it own merits. For one, it's harder to deny that there is a problem if it's crystal clear...
What's unclear about that?
I'm not talking about that sentence, although I do think the way I said it is more clear, but it's about the concept of white privilege. This is already an explanation you have to give for white privilege.
Let's just say I don't like politics, and it has adverse effect on me when people try to infuse their language so as to elicit some effect from me. Maybe I'm weird.
:point: :strong:
With regards to what anyone can do, here is something that's been on my mind.
Let's say you're generally a woke person in terms of systemic racism. You've read stuff that clearly establishes that it's a thing, and that it shows up everywhere. Literally everywhere, poverty gaps, pay gaps, hiring gaps, healthcare gaps, job-with-benefits gaps, precarious vs stable employment gaps, police murders, rates of kids drowning in swimming pools.... [hide=*]And even then that's still domestic! There's the whole European-Imperial history in play[/hide].
Let's say you're also aware that systems which are systemically racist also promote (and do not effectively punish/render invisible) racial prejudice against the oppressed group. And you know that racial prejudice is a more complicated mental construct than just being a binary between white supremacist terrorist and tolerant liberal; like where does the hiring gap for equally good CVs come from if there's no way for managers to embody a mechanism of systemic racism? Implicit stereotypes have to play a role. And it makes absolutely no sense to say that someone learns that mechanism the instant they're in a hiring role. So you also know that implicit stereotypes are both a relevant vector of oppression; contributing to the hostility of public spaces, differences in how the oppressed group are treated; and they are fucking everywhere. So panvasive that internalised racism is a thing - like Christians the world over praying to the miracle of a milky white ethnically Palestinian Jesus.
So why not in me? Why not in you? Are we not people affected by the structures we live in? It's one thing to be aware of these things as an intellectual construct, it's another to view your own actions and thoughts under their auspices. That is something that anyone can attempt, so they should attempt it. It's easy to put all the racism "over there" into abstract societal mechanisms, but if "the personal is political" everyone has to do the difficult work of self transformation - to try and be the kind of individual whose thoughts and actions challenge the psychic manifestations of systemic racism. And no, I don't think it's "enough" - emotional labour of that sort is doubtlessly of less importance than social projects, but because we all can, we all should. I think that goes double for the privileged groups like we whites - if we want to live in a world absent systemic discrimination, we should try not to be its racist grandparents.
In relationship to the topic, I think that's what "white privilege" taps into, why it gets so offensive. It doesn't just highlight that whites are beneficiaries of systemic racism, it highlights that the psychic (and other individual embodied) manifestations of systemic racism are there too. It's difficult to stop an ego-defense mechanism when you don't realise that's what it is, and trying to stop it is supposed to be painful. Part of system justification is emotional homeostasis. But how painful struggle is has never touched its moral status; if you can, you should. Are we really to believe that whites are so fragile that our reluctance to do this work is because it is impossible? I doubt it.
This IS ambiguous.
There are several ways to read it, if you have English comprehension skills of grade five equivalent or higher:
The benefit of a white American is that s/he is not white.
The benefit of a white American is the immunity from injury because s/he is not immune from injury.
In either case the ONE IS NOT refers to the only humans mentioned in the sentence, White Americans. It also uses the conjugated form of the verb BE in a negation, so it negates either one of the conjugated forms of the verb BE. One such previous is BEING (White American), the other is the BEING injured. The IS THE IMMUNITY is not the antecedent of ONE IS NOT because ONE is a personal pronoun, it referst to a human being, and immunity and exemption are not human beings.
The sentence in effect negates itself, and is not only convoluted, but it is nonsensical as well. It statest the absurd, by invoking the reduction of absurdum, and the author insists that he had made a point. Whereas in effect his sentence structre is, after removing the ambiguity of the unspecified reference between a choice of two separate antecedents, somewhat equivalent to:
My car is green because it is not.
My son is tall because he is not.
ETC.
1. There exists a system that at least intends to divide people according to a criterion it calls "race".
2. That system marks some members of our society as "black" and some as "white".
3. This system legitimizes violating the human rights of those marked as "black" but not of those marked as "white".
4. The system also legitimizes various sorts of unfair or inequitable treatment of those marked as "black" but not of those marked as "white".
I do not believe there is any disagreement here on (1)-(4).
The disagreement is on how to answer the question Qui bono?
One answer comes from something like critical theory, which I can clumsily attempt:
There are others around here who could do a much better job of that than I did.
But there is alternative answer, and this is my similarly clumsy attempt:
The first answer involves some pretty heavy theoretical commitments and I think, generally speaking, either you buy this sort of thing or you don't. It's a lot of work to find a middle path that finds some genuine insight here while preserving a commitment to Enlightenment ideas of rights and democracy and so on.
The second answer has a very different problem: it's not quite an answer at all, at least not directly. If we made the question Qui bono in diebus nostris?, "Who benefits right now? today?", where is the answer? Are we to trace generational wealth back to slave-owners? Do you count as a beneficiary of systemic racism if and only if your family tree includes slave-owners and if and only if some of the advantage you enjoy relative to others is due to the preservation over time of some of their wealth and power? How do we even approach such questions?
We could instead claim that no one really benefits at all from this system, not any more. Racists, who mistakenly believe an ideology originally created to protect wealth and political power, continue to maintain and enforce the system whether or not they even benefit from it in any tangible way. The current system is thus in some ways just an accident, a pointless holdover from an earlier time of injustice that at least made sense in its own pernicious terms, but today is just stupid and needlessly cruel.
It's just hard to see how to square this second take with the gap between black and white household wealth, the disproportionate incarceration of black men, the various achievement gaps in education and employment and health and, well, everything, between blacks and whites. In short, the second version (of the second answer) is perhaps a reasonable view on racism but has nothing to say about systemic racism. At least nothing I can see. So we're forced back to what look like pretty intractable questions about generational wealth and power, privilege and responsibility.
If we're not going to plump for the critical-theory-type view -- and of course some of us are -- we need something that at least answers the questions it answers.
You can superficially categorize people, sure, but here we are applying zero-sum thinking to outmoded taxonomies. Perverted racialist, and I would argue white supremacist, thinking is occurring here.
I have taken the Harvard implicit bias test, at least the one on race -- I assume everyone here has -- and got more or less exactly the result I expected: as a white man of my age who grew up where and how I did, I have a slight but noticeable implicit bias in favor of whites and against blacks. I already knew that -- though I'm not really sure how.
So now what? I'm not sure eradicating my bias is on the table, though I believe my children have less bias than I do and their children will have less than they do. I have even heard psychologists argue that "sensitivity training" of the sort businesses and schools and other institutions pay experts to provide is worse than pointless: not only does it not reduce implicit bias, it tends to make people defensive, resistant to self-examination, and thus less likely to modify their behavior.
Monitoring my own behavior is what I've opted for. I have decided -- rightly or wrongly I'm not sure -- that racism is acting upon bias, whether implicit or explicit, explicit bias is a failure of the intellectual conscience, but implicit bias you just have to live with, make the effort not to act upon it, be open to recognizing when you have, and improve. Not so different from dealing with other cognitive biases really, except that other people may pay a price for your failings.
All to say, the point about stereotypes and their cultural effect is well taken, but there is a public layer we can readily address, a personal layer we can straightforwardly address, and a further personal layer that we must accept as a process we are responsible for managing throughout our lives.
Explicit vs implicit complicity?
:grin:
...is Woke Privilege a thing on PF? Is there a structural disadvantaging of other views that some entitled posters find it uncomfortable to confront?
There is a through-line from the practice of chattel slavery in America to contemporary systemic racism. One side of that the story has this form: blacks were oppressed like this, and then like this, and then like this, and nowadays they're oppressed like this. The people involved in this thread seem mostly to agree on that part. What they don't agree on is the other side of the story. Are there any oppressors in this story? Were there in the past but no longer?
I told a story about injustice earlier in this thread that had four characters: a victim, a perpetrator, a beneficiary, and a bystander. Some people get to choose their role and some don't. Do we call that freedom to choose a privilege?
My results suggested “a slight automatic preference for African Americans over European Americans”. Shouldn’t implicit bias force me to unknowingly favor my own category over another?
Having said that I don't see exactly how your response is related to what I wrote.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
If only some people get to choose anything then that would count as a privelege, no?
Should it be concluded from (1) - (4) that the society of the US is segregational and racist?
Read the stuff on the website. I think the answer is twofold (though I'm no expert):
There are of course some issues and some methodological questions here -- it's science -- but some of this stuff is addressed there.
Is that a semantics question? That is, are you trying to decide whether those points are constitutive of being a "segregational and racist" society, so that by knowing those points to hold we can conclude the label properly applies?
Or would the label you are asking about result from a different sort of inference? That is, those points holding allows you to conclude something more, so that knowing this label applies allows you to say something besides (1)-(4). In which case, I don't know, because I'm not still not sure what you're asking.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
It is really quite amazing, how few people on this thread have actually even attempted to deal with the problems that I've brought up. You don't want to discuss the effectiveness of the framing, the ethics of it, the fairness of it. That's fine, puts you in the majority.
All I can say to your response is that you aren't really dealing with the logic of racism, you seem to just want a certain outcome because of its beauty but there are significant disagreements here. First, let me clarify that my goal is not to say "race never matters" but ask "to what degree do we want race to matter?" and to create some clear rules. For me, this means never characterising or describing problems in terms of race unless absolutely necessary, avoid characterising issues in racial terms unless absolutely necessary and never inform yourself about an individual based on their race.
With systemic racism, we agree, that's an area where it is absolutely necessary to talk in racial terms but where that line is drawn from it being necessary to unhelpful is something of a disagreement. "White privilege" crosses a line, it creates divisions rather than merely describes them, it leads to race-based thinking rather than merely describing the race-based thinking of others and it emphasises the importance of race in areas where it isn't appropriate.
When you argue that economic redistribution should aim to achieve racial equity in terms of outcome, you are talking about the state recognising your right to economic privileges based on your race. At this point, It is clear that you are not logically opposed to systemic racism by how it discriminates on race. What you are opposed to is the oppression of a race of people by the state. The way to help make amends for that is to help that race to catch up by giving them economic privileges.
As far as I am concerned, you are not arguing against systemic racism being wrong for the same reasons as me. You are not saying it's ridiculous to discriminate on race in any, least of all, the most important areas such as who occupies positions of power, which "races" have access to wealth and so on. I don't consider such a thinker to be at all aligned with myself at all.
Then consider the matter of reparations, here one is arguing that by virtue of your race, you have a separate history from other Americans, you can be evaluated differently by your race and the correct identification for yourself is your race. Again, the concern here is how this race has been treated horrifically in the past and you want to make it up to (the race of people) who were subjected to past injustices. When one thinks this way, they emphasise the importance of race as something which defines the individual. What they are against isn't race-based discrimination, they are against discrimination which leads to outcomes of oppression and hatred.
This is all relevant for the term "white privilege" because perhaps you were never opposed to giving people important identities based on race which are fine to use to treat people differently in the first place - even if it leads to unpleasant consequences for people. I am free to treat you differently based on your race, you are only opposed to certain outcomes of my treatment. Therefore instances of "black pride" or something are good because feeling pride in yourself is good while "white supremacy" is wrong because feeling superior and devaluing others is wrong.
I am not saying that your position is incoherent but it isn't really anything similar to what I want, which is to devalue the importance of race across the board in any context that it can be done. The solution to "white privilege" for me is to change the policies and institutions which are responsible for perpetuating undesirable outcomes based on race. I am not interested in dismantling a majority of the "white privileges" because I am not interested in assessing outcomes based on race. I am only interested in dismantling the systems which discriminate based on race and unfairly impose, oppress and otherwise negatively impact people based on their race.
I did make a few assumptions here but it would take more than for you to merely deny them for me to rescind them. If I am wrong then please explain how.
Not "theorized" , more of a general observation; I was just highlighting what I think is true of most people; that they are most comfortable with what they are familiar with, with what they understand without having to make any special effort.
I have some thoughts but I'm going to mull it over and let other people talk. Also reading Peggy McIntosh's white privilege papers that more or less started this whole thing.
Looks interesting!
I'm paid by the hour, so I wouldn't know.
To be clear:My publicly expressed considerations in this thread are not exhaustive of my overall consideration(s) regarding American racism and it's manifestation(s), which includes systemic racism and it's effects/affects, only but one of which, is white privilege. Nor does this thread reflect the breadth of considerations regarding redress.
With that in mind...
This thread is about privilege. It has evolved to be about a specific kind, aka white privilege. Given that my focus has been exclusively upon the exemption and/or immunity from being injured as a result of being non white that all white Americans share, regardless of individual particular circumstances, skin color is quite relevant. White privilege is a result of white racists authoring American public policy from birth of the nation itself through today(it could be easily argued). More specifically, white privilege is a consequence of systemic racism, and systemic racism is a consequence of white racist world-views and public policies based upon those world-views. The white racist world-views and/or belief systems are the origen.
These racist belief systems are perpetuated by oral/written tradition and/or language use and begin accumulating during language acquisition itself. These racist beliefs can 'run very deep', and often do. They transcend generations. The difficulty of driving a spade beneath such belief systems, so as to be able to turn them over and expose them to open air, varies according to the particular white individual and the real life personal exposure and/or interaction with members of the group being devalued by the community that that particular white individual is born into. However, I do not want to stray too far off topic here. I just wanted to say that there is much more to the story than what's been written here by the likes of me.
Quoting Number2018
We can start by listening to those who deal with being non white on a daily basis, and then just giving it a little bit, just a little bit, more thought.
Do you know any white people who have ever been called "a chink"? "Hong Kong Fooey"? "Jap"? "Chineeder"? "Egg Foo Yung?" "Gook?" Etc. Do you know any white women who've been compared countless times to Yoko Ono solely because they were Asian and involved with a white man?
That's just a very short list right off the top of my head regarding negative, unbecoming, rude, unpleasant, and downright ignorant stereotypical racist language use that pervades America to this day, particularly regarding Asians. That ought suffice, but we could develop a much more exhaustive and/or inclusive list, if we need to.
Do we?
:brow:
Quoting Number2018
We work from different linguistic frameworks. I would not put things that way. An example would help me to understand what you're saying.
Quoting Number2018
Agreed, hesitantly. The intensive enforcement part causes me pause. There are most certainly other considerations to American racial problems than the color of one's skin.
Quoting Number2018
Ah, I think I see what you're getting at now. I do not think that the color of one's skin(white and non white) is the founding social dichotomy. I also do not agree with the either/or characterization in popular American discourse regarding capitalism vs. socialism or communism. It's not nearly so simple as that.
Quoting Number2018
I'm hesitant to agree completely here, but I wholly support the idea of a well-informed American electorate. Unfortunately, that is quite simply not the case. I do think that that is by design as well as coincidental.
What about being white makes the moral responsibility to challenge systemic racism greater than having a different skin colour? Why is the onus on being white here at all? If you're going to say that it's because of power, wealth, political influence, social influence and so on, why not actually put an onus on the actual possession of the things which lead to your actions having greater consequences and therefore there being a greater imperative for you to do something?
Secondly, being the beneficiary here doesn't usually actually give you the ability to do something about it precisely because most of the time, you aren't actually even a beneficiary but rather just someone who is not targeted for disadvantages. Most of the time you aren't going to even be aware of it, even if you're aware of the reality. How can you tell if you got a job easier due to your skin colour? Specifically, you, as opposed to just "people generally of your race"? When is it ever the right time to stand up and say "no, you are just giving me a free pass here because I'm white" or "you wouldn't be so generous if I wasn't white"? Overt racism already gets obliterated, you can lose everything if you're caught.
What single instance can you point out that for a white person who has (not may) have been benefited by systemic racism or a lack of racism towards them where they should have stood up and done something but didn't? Perpetrator, victim, bystander, does it really change based on whether you are a beneficiary or not?
Even the differences of police treatment of races is an unbelievably difficult topic, few instances by themselves can be proved to be racist. We look at George Floyd case and the main reason that people say it's a part of systemic racism is because of the statistics. Elijah McClain, it's the same problem, you look at the individual incident and even though it's obviously ridiculously bad police work, did racism play a factor? It's part of a bigger picture but the individual case alone doesn't prove that. Even the most egregious examples of systemic racism within recent history, just by the facts alone, you would struggle to be certain of racism.
What we're already seeing from people who use the term "white privilege" is the results of it being obviously near-impossible to actually look at someone's actions and know with absolute certainty (they will deny it) that racial motivation was at play. Which means that in order to challenge systemic racism in your day-to-day you have to assume racism took place even though you are severely lacking in any hard evidence. It is so easy to be called racist in today's society because of that problem.
A rich white kid may acknowledge white privilege but that doesn't actually mean that he benefited from white privilege - you haven't proved that and you don't know that. We are just making yet more assumptions based on statistics. I think you are severely overestimating the framings usefulness, the concept will just create a generation of lost and confused individuals who know systemic racism exists but are woefully unprepared and uneducated on what to do about it.
Quoting creativesoul
I know you're done talking to me but I have been considering the differences between your definition of white privilege and others and realised I may have really underestimated how different the two are. I am actually prepared to say that there is a white privilege by your definition. Where if I am a teacher in a class and gave homework to half my students but excluded the rest from having to do homework as some sort of special privilege, I think that's correct. I am going to backtrack quite a bit on what I saying to you, I think almost all of my criticism towards you is invalid, I think I really misunderstood your position here, sorry.
EDIT: I am not supporting that your version of white privilege is actually helpful. I am just saying that it's fair use. Not really trying to rebegin a debate but just to say that I think a lot of my criticism of your idea was invalid.
Same! Being a white from the UK predictably had my implicit biases be pretty strong against Muslims and blacks.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I don't think it's possible to eradicate it, I think it's possible to try and mitigate it where it matters. I wish that there was a magical anti-racist technology of self that stopped me from having those blindspots and conditioned associations. But I doubt one could ever exist, outside of living in a society that does not have constant racist propaganda, xenophobic immigration policies and the socio-economic disparities that give the pretence of objectivity to naturalising/essentialising thought+behavioural patterns - ie in a society where race matters less, we will make it matter less.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I've gone for much the same option. I'm not sure what else there is to do other than study, self examine, talk to people. I think it matters most to put in extra effort into being less prejudicial when the action will have tangible consequences; for me that's been who I answer/ask questions from/to in a seminar, grading something which isn't anonymised, or when designing an experiment trying to incorporate flags/checks for if the phenomenon in question has a demographic aspect to it (admittedly almost impossible with student based "convenience sampling").
Going back to the more general privilege concept the thread is about, I think there's a similar psychic debt when trying to navigate a romantic relationship - though if the privileged are already pretty uncomfortable with dealing with how they embody the mechanisms of systemic discrimination in public, trying to propagate the discussion into the bedroom is going to be even worse!
As polemical as I am with you, I have a lot of respect for this attitude. :up:
Quoting fdrake
I had never heard of it. I got "a moderate automatic preference for African Americans over European Americans". Does this mean I'm in the clear? Or do I need to work on eliminating this bias? I thought I hated all Americans equally.
It could have been because I didn't like the look of one of the white guys. I don't even know the guy but already I don't like him :roll:
Quoting fdrake
I don't think it's possible to eliminate biases across the board, but the dimensions of bias vary, and I see no reason why "racial" bias can't be pretty much eliminated, while other biases remain common (fat/thin, tall/short, etc), largely because I think racism and its underlying biases are not transhistorical.
From a quick google search, the test seems to be very controversial. As far as I can tell, this Vox article seems to do a good job of describing the debate.
Without delving very deeply into this, I suppose my instinctive position might be closer to Judaka's than to yours. It looks to me like the focus on personal bias, while maybe not without value, is part of a tendency to essentialize racism, which in turn seems to encourage a kind of essentialism of race itself. This is vague, I know. I don't know if I'm going to get into it. Really I'm here just to show that I'm more woke than you guys. :wink:
I don't really like the implicit bias tests, I don't think they have much ecological validity in estimating the effects of racism; how similar are manifestations of racial prejudice to binning a black face into a "bad/white people" tag?. Nevertheless, I believe something like it makes sense to explain hiring disparities for equal cvs etc... I see no way to explain these two things conjoined without an implicit stereotype construct (1) that people aren't racist in general with their actions and words but (2) there are disparities like the hiring one for equal CVs.
Quoting jamalrob
I should have been more precise. By saying "impossible to eliminate", I meant within the context of a society that's systemically racist. I don't intend to naturalise personal prejudices and implicit stereotypes; I intended to portray them as hard to circumvent entirely in a systemically racist society. Hard to mitigate partially? I doubt it. Hard to entirely remove the psychic influence of racialisation in a society that is systemically racist? I definitely think so.
I do find it plausible that the binning-by-reflexive-associations would be predictive in some circumstances though; whenever reflexive associations like that make a difference. Maybe in ascribing a frame to an article or CV based on reading gendered names at the top acting as a prime- like studies done on male privilege in hiring and peformance reviews and promotion etc - signifiers of gender changing how the same information is interpreted. I imagine that race has an analogous mechanism.
Can't say that I blame you.
Weird like me. I used to abhor politics. I thought that all politicians lie and will say whatever they need to say to get elected. I used to flippantly dismiss any campaign promises, because they never seemed to be kept. I believed for a very long time that my vote did not matter. What that candidate campaigned on and/or said did not really matter. Etc. I do not believe much differently now.
Political speech is supposed to elicit a response. That is it's very purpose. Generally speaking, a citizen's response is supposed to be to vote for the candidate that the citizen thinks will do what needs to be done to improve the nation, including that particular person's life and/or livelihood. Since the advent of cable 'news' channels(early eighties?), there have been concerted attempts to change the way American society thinks about the societal problems America is faced with. Mainly, what those problems are. Social media has only multiplied this.
I still do not like politics. The reason I've decided to become more active is because I just want the problems to be identified, and unfortunately America's partisan system has failed horribly as it is. That's another matter altogether and an entire subject matter in and of itself. Systemic racism is but one of those problems. Division of America is another, related issue, that is intentional and helps perpetuate the system's subsistence.
Mea culpa. Add "white" on the end. Interesting that you arrived at all these possible translations without ever hitting on that one! If you've been reading the thread, well...
I accept, appreciate, and value this. Now I do not 'feel' that it was all for naught. I'm glad I could help you to better understand what some people(like me) are getting at when they talk about white privilege.
I think there's some value in treating bias as a necessary but not sufficient condition for racism.
A few years ago I explained the idea of "systemic racism" to my son like this: suppose a loan officer has a very slight bias against blacks that he is unaware of and it hardly ever makes a difference, but every once in a while he denies a loan application that he shouldn't; imagine thousands of guys like that reviewing thousands of applications at thousands of banks over decades, and you get as a result blacks as a group starting fewer business, buying fewer homes, etc.
And I want to say that if that story isn't stupid, and if we reserve the word "racist" to mean someone who harbors explicit bias or who regularly (something between "often" and "always") acts on an implicit bias, then I don't see the loan officers in my story as racists, even though those acts are racist. That would make systemic racism largely a system of racists acts without there being, or at least not necessarily being, a large number of racists performing those acts.
But that also looks pretty self-serving. I get to say the system is racist without having to call out any but the real bad hombres as racists, and I'm certainly not one of those. All that's needed to get back on track is to deny this:
Stated plainly like that, it looks pretty fucking dubious, but I think something a lot like that can easily slip into how we interpret the story I told above about systemic racism. And because the system is described as the cumulative effect of pretty small, and for each individual perhaps quite infrequent, acts, one of my loan officers could say
Of course that's "pretty small" relative to the aggregate of such acts -- for the person who can't start a business or buy a home, it's pretty big; and "small", again, only because that aggregate effect on society is so big. So there are ways to deny responsibility or to accept but minimize it.
If we then look at loans to white applicants as a proportion of loans approved (or of applicants, or of the population at large), we'll find that as a group whites get a bigger slice of the loan pie than they should. There is a "group benefit" even if each individual applicant is only receiving fair and not in any way special treatment. By comparing relative advantage at the group level to the aggregate of absolute advantage at the individual level (stipulated to be none), we get a result that is mildly paradoxical -- but no more than a racist system with no racists in it.
McIntosh's claim is that a white loan applicant actually experiences being a member of the group that does disproportionately well. (Here's the link again.)
Spitballing here.
I think that's a pretty nice framing of it. I think there are a two interacting layers to the phenomenon. Say we're dealing with a situation in which privilege operates where a person X has some judgement of a person Y.
Layer 1:
(1) How is Y assigned to a be a member of a demographic class based on X's interaction with Y? I think there're three components:
(1a) The population level expectations (norms) that classify Y into their demographic class based on their relevant characteristics to demographic classes.
(1b) The population level assignment mechanisms (also norms) that associate those relevant characteristics to the demographic classes.
(1c) The individual level inheritance-with-modification of the population level expectations (implicit biases), mediating the relationships with the (1a) and (1b) mechanisms based on exposure + personal experience+history.
I don't think it's the case that individuals regurgitate population level norms and codes of conduct without change, I rather think that the norms in (1a) and (1b) form a prior that influence people's observed behaviour by reference to expected/normal conduct. A prior that can be reinforced through exposure to it. In a flowchart form - "society presents me with these associations" -> "I modify them through my personal experience and level of engagement with the norms" -> "I behave in some way".
To me Layer 1 is racialisation, how Y gets put into a racial category based on X's background and the history of construction of racial classes. I think (1a) and (1b) are typified by population level conflict over narrative in news, law and policy. All an arbitrary individual has access to at all times are control of their exposure, personal experience and what they do with their time. I could do as much mental judo and research as I like before grading, could it ever counterbalance Katie Hopkins calling the refugees dying in the Mediterranean "cockroaches" in a major news outlet? Doubt it, it's a question of reach and scope. That raises obvious tactical questions.
Layer 2:
(2) How are the demographic classes associated with negative characteristics? I think there are three components:
(2a) The socio-economic-legal mechanisms that stratify advantage and disadvantage in a way that distribute over the demographic classes.
(2b) The mechanisms that broadcast the stratification in (2a).
(2c) The narrative devices that are re/produced that engender interpreting the outcomes of these population level disadvantages (conviction rates, hiring differences...) in a manner that occludes their systemic character ("Anyone can make it if they try hard enough", "black people are lazy", "the disabled just don't want to work", "everyone has felt sad sometimes", "just lean in"...). Blame narratives, over emphasising the individual, being convinced that "your experiences" are in fact universal... These can be present in any (2b) broadcast or Layer 1 racialisation phenomenon.
To me Layer 2 is a base-superstructure dynamic in (2a) and (2b) - though (2b) can be critical, mere reporting, system justification or attempt to amplify prejudices; so the necessity of systemic criticism will persist as long as systemic discrimination does. (2b) and (2c) form a complex with (1a) and (1b), tying system justification and its narrative devices together with process of racialisation [hide=*](and other implicit stereotype inducing procedures like for gender and disability)[/hide] - unsurprising, as that was a strong strategic purpose of racialisation for Empire. [hide=*]Depending on how much critical theory kool aid you've drank, the continued denial of women's agency for free reproductive labour in nuclear family households fits in there too (along with the patriarchal nuclear family bollocks).[/hide] I think the overall function of the complex between (2c) and Layer 1 is the continual manufacture of consent.
More obvious tactical questions; of special note here I think is that challenging system justifying devices intellectually is one way diminishing the impact of (2c) in that scheme in an attempt to resist the complex. As a corollary of the scheme, being super convinced intellectual acts that highlight race are ultimately racist confuses critical exposure and resisting the narrative devices in (2c) with being negatively influenced by the complex of norms in Layer 1. Between a psychic act that resists racial prejudice in general and one that embodies it in specific.
I think to be privileged, in terms of the above scheme, is not characterised by acting negatively to the unprivileged; that reproduces privilege and is a component part of systemic racism; to be privileged in some way is to be a member of the category that receives advantages and avoids disadvantages associated with that membership. It can't be 'denounced', it can only 'fail to apply', but you can try and mitigate how much you reproduce the conditions that perpetuate the advantage - through personal effort and activism.
@Pro Hominem, maybe this addresses your accusations too.
:up:
Basic.
But this is exactly what's at issue: are 'is white' and 'benefits from systemic racism' equivalent (in whatever sense)?
If we look at instances where whites and blacks compete directly (hiring, matriculation, etc) for a scarce resource, whatever data you can marshal won't convince someone who has an example of reverse discrimination to lean on.
What's more, if, say, the hiring manager acts out of bias, then you can still argue it's someone else acting badly that we need to worry about, not the white applicant's obliviousness. (At bottom this just says if there were no racist acts, no one would benefit from them.)
We could argue that the standard of fairness is wrong: that instead of some ideal we could look at how people are actually treated and then ask, 'Are you treated better than average? Then you're receiving a benefit.' I'm not sure how convincing it is.
None of is anything like what Peggy McIntosh was up to. The idea is, roughly, that whites learn how to behave as members of the dominant group, to have certain expectations, etc., without ever being told that these behaviors, expectations, etc. are underwritten by their group's racial dominance. A lot of it has to do with the world at large identifying you as white, seeing you as a member of the dominant group, without you doing anything, without you even being aware that the world treats you a particular way that recognizes your race. The attitudes and behaviors you think are just normal are in fact reserved for white people.
I'm still thinking through it...
Pure thought question here. What if the following were true:
1. There exists a system that at least intends to divide people according to a criterion it calls "race".
2. That system marks some members of our society as "black" and some as "white".
3. This system legitimizes separating those marked "black" from those marked as "white" whenever and wherever possible.
4. The system also rigorously enforces fair and equitable treatment of those marked as "black" and those marked "white".
Again, this is a hypothetical, I realize these things are not accurate. Given the above statements, would we classify that system as "racist?"
How exactly are we to read (3)? Are we talking about mandating and enforcing separation?
In general, are you wondering whether it's possible for a system to be racist against everyone?
I was totally on board with all of it until here. It was like the photo negative of Billy Madison shouting "Knibb High football rules!" at the end of his Industrial Revolution speech. I am happy that there is some recognition of the subtlety of what I've been saying all along, so I give you credit for a well crafted post.
So let's not lose the ground we've gained and fall back to pointlessly trading jabs, ok?
These are the issues as I see them:
1. "the category" here means "all white people, everywhere, all the time". If you say yes, I think it's ludicrously overbroad. If you say no, then you are going to have to limit its compass somehow and there's a whole mess of considerations to doing that. Either way, just throwing out "white" here seems a bit lazy.
2. "receives advantages and avoids disadvantages" - When? How much? How often? Is segregation from people of color to be considered an advantage? Because I sure as hell don't consider it one. I send my kids to a magnet school in part because of its diversity. I don't want them completely surrounded by the children of basic middle class assholes who look like them, but with whom I want them to have nothing in common. In other words, you have to be really careful with this "advantage"/"disadvantage" system you are invoking. The case for the disadvantages is much stronger and more obvious than the case for advantages. To the extent there are "advantages", they appear more easily in connection with discreet acts of racism than with passive enjoyment of anything.
3. "membership" - this is semantic, I'll grant, but doesn't this word imply awareness? Do we typically describe people as being members of something without their knowledge? Is it even appropriately applied in a circumstance where one cannot opt out of membership? I feel that there are problems of attribution here arising from oversimplifying something complex.
In other words, I think that whole many-layered framework you created is about the minimum level of discussion necessary to try to understand this phenomenon. A two word slogan, while "handy" for street use, doesn't do it justice.
Yes, but without any preferential treatment of any kind. Completely neutral.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Maybe. Or would it be racist against no one? What is essential in the meaning of the word "racist?"
Forced separation means whatever this is it's certainly not a just society.
I'm not sure how to get around that to answer the other question. Specifically, if white and black philosophers are not allowed to meet to exchange ideas, then both groups are impoverished.
Given that, I'm going to lean toward saying this society is racist. But I'm thinking now that what you're really after is detaching the use of racial categories from the conferring of advantage and disadvantage based on those categories. I think you need a different thought experiment for that.
If we look at point #1: first, the assertion is not categorical (at least intends to divide),differently from what is asserted in #2, 3, and 4. Next, # 1 does not state that "the system" divides all people into two groups. Therefore, we probably would not classify the system as racist. Yet, the next assertion is
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Actually, the mentioned consensus functions as an indicator of the conventional understanding of the system. Conventionally, it is understood as racist. It looks like @Srap Tasmaner wanted to avoid the explicit labelling, but cautiously enacted the 'racist' understanding. Maybe, I misenterpreted him/her. Anyway, probably, the general framing and context of contemporary public debates
fails similar attempts to avoid the direct stereotypic labelling.
I can tell you all I was really trying to do was give a very broad description of systemic racism, specifically because of @Pro Hominem's position: he accepts systemic racism but rejects white privilege. I thought maybe we could stop trying to convince him to accept something he already accepts.
But I've ended up writing far more about systemic racism, which failing annoys me.
Anyway it was not meant to be contentious at all, just a summary of what we agree on.
ADDED: If there's a difference between 1 and the others, it's only that I wanted to allow the system to be imperfect, miss corner cases, etc.
I've been arguing for it all along. The cause of the inequalities we are discussing is not addressed in this outcome-based labelling. Figuring who got what benefit when is not useful in addressing the underlying causes of racism, and probably serves to increase resentment, tribalism, and recrimination. I say this acknowledging that it is possible to disagree with my position, to say that the "white privilege" concept is useful for achieving "wokeness" in white people, and that that is a necessary condition of change. I don't happen to agree, although I want to see the end of racism just like someone arguing "white privilege" does.
I feel this way about religion as well. You're not going to talk people out of it. You have to conduct yourself as though it doesn't exist, hold people accountable who engage in bad behavior because of it, and push for education that will teach more people to see its falsehood. There is no silver bullet. Change takes time.
I do not understand if you talk directly to me, or this is just your rhetoric style. In the first case, almost all that you say is factually incorrect. In the second, you have constructed an imaginary white Other, possessing a set of crude features and straight forwarded attitudes. I think that this style is also the expression and consequence of the intensification of identity politics that we deal with in this thread. There is the identification's disbalance: one starts from self-identification, "I am white," then admits being against systemic racism, but does not like its consequence of "white privilege."
As @Pro Hominem wrote:
Quoting Pro Hominem
Various complicated solutions have been offered here to resolve a moral, cognitive or emotional dissonance. I want to provide another one. One of the latest achievements of gender politics (which is also identity politics!) was the appearance of individuals that have not to have a particular gender. So, in many countries, it become an institutional right. Paradoxically, due to identity politics' latest twist, we are necessarily obliged to have one of the two prescribed races. Does one have a right not to have a race?
Quoting Judaka
All of us are against racism. Yet, I think that the latest comprehensive definition of systemic racism has a few flaws. It often equips its proponents with the pretension for the possession of the ultimate universal truth of our society and the superior moral position. They oversimplify the complexity of our society and do not tolerate any dissent. So far, their primary achievement is the intensification of identity politics. As our recent history shows, the neoliberal capitalistic system has successfully incorporated various newly constructed identities.
Quoting Judaka
The framing (the medium) has a decisive role today in almost all vital social domains. This forum shows how dramatic communication between people has changed: compare ours with what took place 30-40 years ago. Judith Butler even proposes that the media should be the leading constitutive part of ‘the people.’
Was that a yes or a no? It looked like you took both sides.
Quoting Number2018
I mean that the general context organizes and directs our apprehension of this system as racist.
Thank you for your efforts. Many people here seem not to be able to distinguish one concept from the other, which I could easily turn into yet another criticism of the "white privilege" terminology. As if it is not possible to say, "racism exists in this country, and it's attitudes and effects still resonate in many institutions in a sometimes more, sometimes less overt way," without saying, "all white people benefit from this feature of these institutions." One does not logically demand the other.
Then, even if one were to do all the work to try to define "white privilege" in any exact way, what would even be the effect? How would these now aware white people behave satisfyingly? Should they stop attending college? Should they stop buying houses? Should they antagonize police officers into mistreating or even shooting them? If one is told they are benefiting from an insidious privilege, what else could they do but try to stop indulging in these benefits. But how, and to what end?
Not marked, marked inconsistently, etc. Think of one-drop laws: only applicable in official contexts with access to records, etc. The rest of the time, someone officially 'black' might pass as 'white'. That's the kind of thing I was leaving room for.
What does it mean that one is white? This identity has been changing
so rapidly over the last time. @Judaka has presented this image of an imaginary white:
Quoting Judaka
Likely, this identification's disbalance is expected now: one starts from self-identification, "I am white," then admits being against systemic racism, but does not like its consequence of "white privilege." It could create a moral or emotional dissonance. We should resist the current escalation of identity politics.Jordan Peterson offered one of the possible strategies: "Your identity is not clothing you wear, or the fashionable sexual preference or behaviour you adopt and flaunt, or the causes driving your activism, or your moral outrage at ideas that differ from yours. The continually expanded plethora of "identities" recently constructed and provided with legal status thus consist of empty terms." His thesis is that "traditional" identities have been created through continuous and long-term social construction; therefore, they have served as indispensable modes of social interactions and individual self-awareness.
Peterson aims to resist gender politics' intensification as the threat of the conventional social and individual order. It is one of the conservative lines of arguments. Another one is based on the juridical model, so that identities are derivatives of the Law, and "white privilege" is no more than exercizing a set of fundamental rights. Both strategies do not work against the latest revival of racial identity politics. The latest version of systemic racism incorporates the most archaic racial segregation as the essential premise and the final result of the complex social, economic, and cultural processes. Yet, our society is no more racial than it is a patriarchal society, class society or the spectacle's society. Our identities, and in particular racial identities, gender identities ("traditional" or not) are primarily not the derivatives of essential entities or the results of the long-term social construction and negotiation (social contract). They are moments of an open-ended, accelerating dynamics of the processes of individuation. In this context, one's whiteness, awareness of systemic racism, and the sense of discomfort due to "white privilege" could be considered synchronically enacted components of the newest transindividual "racial" arrangement. Sense of guilt, resentment and ressentiment are the secondary effects of the determinant affective register, generated by the various media. Please note that in most cases white people started experiencing the dissonance only after George Floyd death. We cannot ultimately eliminate our identities, but a proper apprehension of their production and function could help with our dissonance's situations.
.
I don't think we've talked about causes much at all. I'm not even sure what that looks like. To me -- and I'm willing to be educated -- "systemic racism" is in essence just a label for differential outcomes. I think of it as something like "in effect racist", deferring claims about why various institutions are in effect racist, whether it's deliberate, etc. If you look at, say, a small town in the Jim Crow South, where everybody who's anybody belongs to the Klan -- there's certainly systematic racism there but probably no systemic racism at all, as I use the term.
Do you have a different understanding? You seem to suggest that outcomes are not part of the discussion until somebody brings up "white privilege" and that's just not my view at all. Systemic racism is first and last a matter of differential outcomes.
Tua Cupa... :-)
Still won't work, because it becomes a nonsensical sentence, an absurd statement. If you add "white" on the end, your statement becomes:
The benefit of (being White) in America is the immunity form being injured because one is not White.
So the benefit of being White (by way of avoiding injury) comes from him being not White.
That is, a White person's advantage is that he is not White.
This is patently absurd.
(Incidentally, I have already covered this case in my first critical analysis of this statement of yours.)
:up:
Evidently we work from different criterions for what exactly counts as nonsense. That sentence is perfectly fine. If you think otherwise, then more power to you. You have that right, I suppose.
Well, no.
Sense is not a right. It is a cognitive quality that can be established with unambiguous judgement tools.
Yours I showed why it was nonsensical. You failed to show an error in my reasoning. If you still insist that yoru sentence was sensible, then your judgment is impaired.
So sorry. This is nothing personal. But for you to say "A white person is privileged because he is not white" is nonsensical. (I appreciate this was not an exact quote, but the semantic and syntactic details are of strict equivalence.) Furthermore, your insistence that your sentence made sense, despite the obvious analysis showing that it did not, points at deeper cognitive troubles you may encounter on a philosophy forum: not only are you incapable of seeing the difference between what's sensible and what's nonsense, but you insist that the nonsense is sensible even after a clear proof has been presented to the contrary.
Compare to...
The benefit of being white in America is the immunity and/or exemption from being injured because one is not white
Not the same.
Bugger off.
1. Some members of society suffer harm because they are not white.
2. Whites may of course suffer harm, but whatever harm they suffer cannot be down to them not being white, because they are.
We could even name the harm in (1) "harm-because-you're-not-white", and then we could say
3. White people don't suffer harm-because-you're-not-white.
2 and 3 would both be false if white people were regularly taken to be non-white and thus suffered abuse the perpetrator believed they were inflicting upon a non-white person.
Curiously, the United States does have some history of violence directed against "race traitors". This is a type of harm whites only inflict upon whites.
What a wonderful world.
For instance, McIntosh makes the point that "privilege" is a misleading term because it sounds purely positive, but white privilege is also the over empowering of members of the dominant race, and this is not a good thing, not good for non-whites obviously but also not good for those overprivileged. It's like having an overprotective parent: you are robbed of challenges which if faced would better you.
James Baldwin used to say things like this -- that racism imperils the soul of white America, of white Americans. That sense of danger is included in the idea of "white privilege". It's not about who gets all the good stuff; it's about being put in a position of power you should not be and then unknowingly projecting that power. This is not a recipe for righteousness.
Indeed, but the exceptions are too few and far between to worry about.
I think the sentence you quoted is worth thinking about a moment longer. Maybe not much longer, to be honest, but give it another few minutes, maybe something will come to you.
On page seven I offered an argument that now seems quite relevant.
Could you please revisit and directly address that argument in it's entirety upon your return?
Looks like incoherence and/or self contradiction that can only be overcome by invoking some para-consistent logic, denying bivalence, or excluded middle?
Never mind, I agree that your definition of white privilege is necessary, as a premise for understanding systemic racism and for measuring it. What I am against is not your definition of white privilege but the way in which people use your definition, some of those ways you specifically condemned and you talked about using it in none of the ways I have criticised. I am very biased against the term white privilege, I used my bias to critique you, rather than the actual argument you laid forth. I am wavering on whether the word "privilege" has the implications that I have argued, your use is fair use. You don't seem to be addressing the "whiteness" of people as I claimed but the "whiteness" being discriminated against by systemic racism. Something which can be condemned as a component of systemic racism by anyone.
There is no point in me trying to search for disagreement, I agree with the basic argument as laid out on page 7.
If only it were true that whites aren't injured because they are white. I already showed that blacks commit hate crimes at higher rates relative to their population. If you want to use statistics of blacks being arrested and shot at higher rates relative to their population as evidence of racism against blacks, then the same applies to the statistics that show blacks committing hate crimes at higher rates relative to their population - that blacks are racist too, and then you have to ask, is this talk of white privilege just another way for blacks to exhibit their racism?
No one is talking about how these preconceived notions that blacks and cops have of each other that are exhibited when they interact and then someone is a bit to aggressive or resistant with the other and one of them ends up dead. I mean think about you're preconceived notion of me and my ideas and how that affects how you interpret what I am saying right now.
The problem is, and I know you're smart enough to know, that you're cherry-picking statistics to push your political/religious agenda.
I get and can respect where you're coming from, but I went the other way. I used to believe in politics more, but have become progressively more distrusting of it since I had to deal with politicians professionally on a regular basis.
In the end I think my efforts to make a difference via politics would be largely wasted. I'd be just one more of a multitude of voices trying to out-scream eachother for that little bit of political influence. In short, I think I can have more of a positive effect if I focus on other things non-political.
:up:
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
This 'race traitor' notion underwrites some of the vigilante paramilitary motivations against peaceful white protestors. Earlier I briefly touched upon such belief practices. They are still in use.
Quoting Judaka
Ok. Cool. Although, I think "understanding" fits better than "measuring".
Quoting Judaka
There's still a tad of misunderstanding. I have not condemned any use like my own. I have objected to using "white privilege" as an attack directly upon, or as a means to belittle and/or berate all poor white people. I have argued against holding it against a white because they are white.
Bob is white. Bob is immune and/or exempt from liability of being non white in America. Bob is immune to being injured as result of not being white. Bob is oblivious to this immunity. What sense does it make for anyone to expect Bob to use knowledge that he has been spared these injuries to his own advantage if he is totally oblivious to and/or completely unaware of his immunity and/or exemption?
Here's how you can know whether or not a speaker is using the term like me...
Substitute all of that speaker's use(s) of "white privilege" with "immunity and/or exemption from the liability of being non white", and view the results. If what they wrote no longer makes much sense, then it's not an example of the way people use 'my' definition(scare-quotes intentional). To quite the contrary, it is a definition/criterion/notion/conception and/or idea of 'white privilege' that is incompatible to my own.
I am still wrapping my head around that and the post I pulled it from....
Without ever having invoked or used stats...
Weird sense of "cherry picking".
I've only been directly personally involved and/or engaged in politics with those elected for doing so at the county level during a gubernatorial campaign several years back. I was not impressed at all. The candidate being supported was the challenger to a sitting nationally very well known Republican governor. The challenger was a well kept attractive nobody basically who did not have a finger on the pulse of any of the underlying problems effecting/affecting those he was being tasked to represent. I asked him a couple of questions after his speech of which he had no clue how to respond. Then I asked if there was going to be a primary challenger/contest. Of course, he took offense, and laughed it off.
The county vice president(chair?) of the party was intrigued and pleasantly surprised by my interactions throughout the event there. I left quite unimpressed with the overall event on several levels....
The candidate got trounced five months later.
I think with the issue of the name out of the way, your argument is a matter-of-fact stating of reality which must be included in any sensible understanding of systemic racism. That is what I have agreed to and what I felt was mostly what you were saying on page 7. Most of my criticisms that I've argued for are to do with the various dangers of certain interpretations or appropriations of the concept. However, the concept itself, though I was arguing against it before, I accept. I see now that my frustrations were placed on the wrong premise, which you noticed and showed me.
I don't know if others that I would disagree with, would define white privilege differently than you, Banno did agree with your posts with no amendments after all. The issue was with how I was conflating white privilege with the various ways in which the white privilege concept can be interpreted and applied.
There is too much zero-sum thinking in McIntosh’s argument. The idea that racism against a dark-skinned person is a benefit to a light-skinned person is seemingly born from this bias. Comments such as “In proportion as my racial group was being made confident, comfortable and oblivious, other groups were likely being made unconfident, uncomfortable and alienated” is further evidence of this.
If this were true, it goes to follow that “decreases in perceived bias against Blacks over the past six decades are associated with increases in perceived bias against Whites”. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41613491?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).
But since zero-sum situations are rare the existence of “white privilege” can be seriously questioned. I cannot see it as being true that resources gained by light-skinned people are matched by a corresponding loss to dark-skinned people, just as decreases in the bias against dark-skinned people cannot be shown to lead to increases in bias against light-skinned people. I think the opposite is the case. Emancipation, civil rights, justice, have expanded in tandem with the expansion of wealth, safety freedom and opportunity of our fellow citizens.
To me, it would have made more sense to argue the opposite: that no one benefits from racism, that it is pernicious not only to the victims of it, but also to it’s self-proclaimed beneficiaries.
I guess this bottoms out in a question of who is white. And the kind of definition appropriate for white-ness. I think we're going to have to take the following features as premises:
(1) The colonial expansions that prefigured the modern world were more-or-less white skinned peoples invading more-or-less black skinned peoples.
(2) Even within the colonial powers, the category of whiteness is time varying - whether the Greeks, Italians and Irish counted as part of the white race was an issue. (can find citations if you want)
(3) The colonial expansions that prefigured the modern world still define power differentials today.
(4) Whether Jewish people (treated as an ethnicity) are white depends on who you ask and when for obvious reasons.
So "Who is white?" is answered differently depending on the historical period. There's also the question of how the idea of the white race entered discourse. It was a convenient strategic fiction for social control over "slave races" and consent laundering among the un-enslaved for that social control.
I think that complex of ambiguous status, historical variation and strategic convenience of whiteness is very well exemplified by the status of whether the Irish (celts who stereotypically have pale skin) are "really" white!
See also the context of the slur for white nigger - I believe what made the Irish white but not really white was their ambiguous status as embodying racial signifiers (Celtic pale skin stereotype) but being associated with a colonial diaspora and immigrant (mostly underclass) stereotypes.
In that regard whiteness has always been a strategic fiction to enable and justify exploitation and colonialism. So that's a potted history of it.
So in that context, asking for necessary and sufficient conditions as part of a definition for being white doesn't make too much sense; the concept is too fuzzy and was designed/emerged from a justification apparatus designed to create a fuzzy out group on the receiving end of exploitation. Whiteness as a concept annihilates historical differences for that purpose; it doesn't matter if your ancestors were Pharaohs, Moors or the citizens of the Iroquois League, what unites those is being a colonised out group.
These narratives have doubtlessly softened over time, but is still a big problem. Racial bias in hiring based on the racialisation of names on CVs (even when there's no other bias involved!) is sufficiently strong to show up in the aggregate. I'm sure you don't need convincing that this is a thing, but perhaps I can suggest that the kind of bias it highlights and the mechanisms consistent with it are commensurate with the privilege concept.
If all you need is a name to influence a decision like that, and since it is extremely implausible that such bias is a unique feature of names (skin, clothing - loads of racial signifiers) and also extremely implausible that the bias is learned immediately upon being made to make hiring decisions - what is a plausible explanation of these things? What renders them probable? What operates on an individual level, influences mental acts, and differentiates outcomes of judgements based on racial categories?
To me that seems to very much resemble the privilege construct. Negative outcomes of judgements and negative judgements being distributed preferentially along race lines. Perhaps you will balk at "preferentially" there for the same reason as @NOS4A2 does. And for that reason, in the context of hiring, I invite you to consider a game. There is only one winner of this game - one person can be hired for a position. You have two identical CVs, one is labelled with a name that engenders a higher evaluation of risks due to an implicit stereotype, one does not. If you want to make the rational choice there, you want to maximise the chances of having a good candidate based on your information. It does not matter that your information is biased; one person has a minor disadvantage the other person does not have, the dominant strategy [hide=*](in terms of the expected loss))[/hide] there based on the information is to choose the one with the best creds and no other risks. That's the one that the biased information sides with; the one who is not racilized as non-white. Frankie Boyle made a joke with essentially the same premise a decade or so ago regarding the LHC - very paraphrased: "If your child came to you and asked for a bike, you would consider it, if your child came to you and asked for a bike with a negligible chance of destroying the world by creating a black hole, you would not consider it at all". And indeed, that is the rational thing to do given that framing of the decision.
You might want to say - you can choose another framing for the decision, and with the LHC there was a risk analysis involved and the DESTROY THE WORLD WITH BLACK HOLE theory was bollocks IIRC, but consider that the only difference between the two CVs is the name. That's already a frame, you are not free to choose the frame in the setting above!
We could get into a discussion here about racial signifiers, but I will assume that what they are and how they work is pretty obvious; "they've got olive skin, can't be a native Brit!", do-rags, white voice, accents... Is Latisha or Samantha more likely to have black skin, ask your gut? What about Matthew or Muhammed? Gut says...
Regardless, racialising bullshit in place, you cannot get extra information at that stage. The biased data+interpretation process changes what the rational agent would conclude to maximise their business' expected gains from hiring.
Now imagine the same thing applied more generally; pick your life model. You have two choices, in both choices you can get the same outcomes, but in one choice the chances of the better outcomes is lowered by a higher exposure to costly scenarios. If you chose wrongly, I'd be more likely to beat you. We don't need to say which choice corresponds to which racial bin, it is obvious.
In terms of privilege, I'd like to draw a distinction between cost imposing behaviours and non-cost imposing behaviours. Within cost imposing behaviours, distinguish between direct cost imposing behaviours and indirect cost imposing behaviours. The hiring decision above is a cost imposing behaviour, in it an agent associates a cost with being non-white -it's also directly causal, one agent's state imposes a cost on another. If you buy into system-justification as a system perpetuating behaviour an individual can do, and if you buy into systemic racism's distributing risks unevenly over races, then any behaviour you do that perpetuates systemic racism takes part in imposing its risks - a small part, but a small part can be a big deal. It's an empirical and contextual matter there though; "how much does it really change?" will always be a difficult question. It could be a matter of alienating non-white students in a class, it could be a matter of beating an unarmed teenager to death - if you behave in ways that propagate into either of those phenomena, perhaps a small part of the cost is attributable to your influence. A behaviour which doesn't impose costs at all is probably quite hard to find; there's sin in the agricultural production that enables every loud bean fart. That's hyperbolic, the costs have completed themselves before the fart takes place, but you get what I mean, you don't have too look too far back in the enabling/productive mechanisms of farts to find systemic feedbacks that propagate into systemic discrimination.
This is where the idea of someone's responsibility (the morally obligatory amount) for self checking scaling to their power comes in - power here being understood as the ability to influence the average state of members of a population (institutional leverage, policy, law, codes of conduct...) - the degree to which someone's individual biases are risky to others depends upon the influence they have over others. Highlighting police - that's every neighbourhood they work in and the power over life and death. How much work here is obligatory looks to depend upon the severity of costs imposed, the number of people effected etc etc...
The minimal "amount" of such checking is probably much higher than none, if you want to live in a world without systemic discrimination, aiming to think the kind of thoughts and treat people as they would be in that utopia is probably a good goal. But I'd rather be a racist grandpa in heaven than hyperwoke in hell.
Could you expand upon this?
This is a good question. There is no adequate, simple, universally true answer that comes to my mind aside from personal experience. Given the matter at hand is of pivotal importance, I'm not content with such a simply put answer despite it's being as true as it is.
Since you asked...
To put it very mildly, I've actually given racism and it's many manifestations a considerable amount of time and attention throughout my life. But don't get me wrong here, it's not like I had much of a choice in the matter. Racism incarnate was loud, front, and center in my life from very early on. Suffice it for me to say that I learned how to cope with a dyed-in-the-wool generational racist, misogynistic xenophobe who had a strong propensity for violence, a very short fuse, and had not been able to come to acceptable terms with much at all in his own life prior to becoming a part of mine. The sheer amount of physical and mental damage that that man has caused while walking the face of the earth is astounding, but his ability to continue doing so now seems to be coming to an end.
Why not me?
I like to think that there are all sorts of different things that happened during my life that somehow all accumulated into(influenced) who I am today. Which is to say, who I've become. .
I spent life from the age of four through the high school years living amongst domestic terrorists(white racists) while having numerous hidden friendships throughout that time. In addition to explicit and implicit racism being a regular everyday part of my personal life, I've a few ongoing(long-lived) public and private conversation(s) with others about the sort of white racism that dominated many different community cultures throughout my life.
Here's what I understand about a racist belief system. They include fallacious belief about "black people". One readily available example of racism incarnate, that reeks havoc in young and old alike, is the belief that black people are lazy. That belief supports yet another; that's why they are poor. They won't work. Those yet others; what are they complaining about? They've no reason to complain if they would just go to work they would not be so poor(systemic justification?). Why ought anyone too lazy to work get something free... Etc. An all too familiar bullshit line of reasoning for devaluing an entire group of people based upon the color of their skin.
I more recently listened to a deeply disturbing narrative directed at BLM. It struck direct discord within every single fiber of my moral being. The 'line of reasoning' briefly described in the preceding paragraph was the rationalization underpinning condoning and/or assent to the idea of shooting BLM protestors from the tree tops with rifles. The idea of murdering BLM protestors was rationalized with that bullshit reasoning! Such internalized racist belief are operative in the sense that they largely govern and/or directly influence an individual's behaviour, typically when and if they find themselves in such circumstances, an they've developed such patterns in thought. These are the lands of self-fulfilling prophecy.
We all know the actual real life recent example. We all know what's happened and/or is still happening. These belief systems are fueled and perpetuated by openly avowed racists from the bottom to the top.
Quoting fdrake
Indeed we are. Why not me?
I know better. I know and love far too many non whites.
Then what evidence did you have for asserting this:
if not some statistics? If you don't have anything to back it up, like statistics, then your whole argument doesn't have a leg to stand on does it?
But then, what should we expect from those that are unwilling to remove their politically partisan glasses? We should expect them to behave like the fundamentally religious - cherry-picking information, conveniently forgetting things that they said before and contradicting themselves, etc. Its a wonder that people are still trying to engage you on this topic considering how intellectually dishonest you are.
Are all police racist? I say some are and some aren't. What effect does a black man's belief that all cops are racist have on their behavior when interacting with police, primarily with those cops that aren't racist? Wouldn't it be similar to the effect on a white person believing that all black men are criminals? Or are you saying that black men possess a privilege that enables them to act on preconceived notions and whites can't?
I'm going to try this again. You both claim:
Perhaps my usage of "systemic racism" is nonstandard, but I take it to refer to things like the Black-white wealth gap:
Quoting The Federal Reserve
In American society, as currently constituted, whites have one hell of a lot more money than Blacks!
You can support (1) by also claiming:
The total wealth of Americans is not a fixed number to be carved up like a pie; white households don't have higher net worth because non-white households have lower net worth. If it counts as evidence that our system is racist, it's not because there is white benefit here, but because there is non-white deprivation.
But at any given time, the total wealth of Americans is a fixed number. As it rises or falls, the amount by which it changes is also a fixed number. If you were king, distributing wealth as you please, in order to have a racist result, your only options are dividing up existing wealth unequally, or creating more wealth, perhaps by fiat, and dividing that up unequally.
The only way to be racist is to confer relative advantage and disadvantage. If you wanted a racist wealth gap, you would do it by taking the total wealth of Americans, giving 80% to whites, 10% to Hispanics and 10% to Blacks.
In case the conclusion still isn't clear: if you want to benefit A and not benefit B, you do that by taking from B and giving to A, or by giving A something but not giving it to B. Either way, you're conferring relative gain upon A.
Brilliant.
If I use stats, I'm cherry picking. If I do not use stats, my position is not well grounded.
Pathetic.
and now you're cherry-picking my posts and purposely misconstruing what I said. You're an exemplary example of what happens when sheep are incapable of thinking for themselves and why critical thinking, logic, and coding should be a required courses in grade and middle school. It appears that you skipped out or failed those classes.
Is what you've been doing in this thread critical thinking? Black-on-black crime, black American distrust of police, examples of rich black Americans subverting expectations, these were all true well back into the civil rights era. They're just nonsense things to be bringing up to disprove systemic racism.
What I find interesting about creativesoul's definition of white privilege is that he never actually stipulates what white privilege is insofar as actual statistics or concerns. Which means that you can agree with him regardless of whether you think white privilege is a tiny, insignificant benefit or something of dramatic importance.
He also doesn't stipulate that someone who benefits from white privilege is never going to run into problems as a result of their whiteness. He actually specifically mentions how white privilege can be used to be anti-white and he condemns that - he is not denying racism towards whiteness exists.
Quite frankly, you have only ever introduced statistics which support your argument. Where have you given a balanced account of this topic? Isn't this simply hypocrisy?
If they never actually stipulated what white privilege is then how can anyone agree or disagree with it? It doesn't follow that you could agree with it, as it is just as possible to disagree with it. All you are doing is putting words in their mouth so that you might agree with them or not.
This is just more examples of how yours and creativesoul's political arguments are like those made by the fundamentally religious. God is never properly defined so there can't be an instance of agreeing or disagreeing with its existence if its not properly defined. Political parties have adopted religious characteristics - an us. vs. them mentality, an abandoning of proper reasoning in favor of emotional reactions, and a lack of proper definitions that can be agreed on.
All you can do is put words in creativesoul's mouth so that you might agree with what you're saying they said but they never said because you also said they never stipulated what they are actually talking about. You're not agreeing with what creativesoul said. Your agreeing with your own interpretation of what they meant.
Quoting Judaka
If the statistics I showed supports what creativesoul said - that blacks can be racist and act on improperly ill-conceived notions, then why didn't creativesoul acknowledge that? This wouldn't be the first time that creativesoul agreed with someone from his side and disagreed with me even though I said the same thing. It's because they already have this preconceived notion about me and anything I say is wrong, even though it's what they said, or someone else said and they agreed with. It has become a waste of time to read anything that creativesoul writes because they are so inconsistent.
And, I haven't provided only stats. I provided thought-experiments and asked questions about it, none of which were addressed. It's about how the idea of systemic racism is exaggerated for racist purposes and how the idea can snowball and cause black men to be resistant to cops that aren't being racist, which can then result in them being shot and the non-racist cop is accused of being racist.
Quoting Judaka
What are you saying, that nothing has changed since the civil rights era? You have politicians like Biden making the same promises that they have been making for nearly 50 years, and blacks are still voting for them. It severely limits the power of your argument that white privilege is still a problem when they vote for the same people that are part of the problem. It makes it obvious that you aren't interested in justice, rather you are interested in pushing an agenda.
What about the high rate of broken families and absent fathers in the black community? That is something more recent, that wasn't the case before the civil rights movement and the authoritarian socialists "Democrats" had a had in creating with their government "hand-outs".
Quoting Harry Hindu
It was stipulated precisely what "white privilege is" conceptually, which is what is being agreed with. Just as if we agreed there is an intelligence privilege or attractiveness privilege, we can agree that there are benefits to being intelligent or attractive without agreeing on whether it's slightly beneficial or extremely beneficial, without agreeing on where it is beneficial or how. You can agree that it's beneficial to be intelligent in our society without me listing all of the contexts where I think being intelligent is beneficial.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It's more examples of how pathetic your refutations are, it's embarrassing to listen to you because you criticise the very behaviour you exhibit. That you paint yourself in a positive light despite this, only shows further your bias and dishonesty.
Quoting Harry Hindu
As far as I can tell, he doesn't appear to be giving you the time of day, that appears to be the reason why he's not acknowledging what you're saying as opposed to intellectual dishonesty.
Quoting creativesoul
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes, they were all silly and haven't I already addressed them?
Quoting Harry Hindu
That's certainly a serious problem, most of this discussion has been about such concerns. I was opposed to the term white privilege for similar reasons but the appropriation of the term by ill-intentioned goons is the problem, as opposed to the idea that white privilege exists. We can criticise interpretations, descriptions, appropriations, reactions and so on to the term without trying to deny systemic racism exists.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That's one hell of a paraphrase but no, you're a very honest and upstanding debater.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Just wow. This is you? That you even tie the two together demonstrates how much of an ideologue you are. "They"? Black Americans? Haha. What changes if they vote "correctly"? American democracy can barely even be called as such, what does it matter who "they" vote for?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes, a great part of this is due to drug-related problems which weren't around back then. The war on drugs is definitely not a good place to start to refute systemic racism.
Honestly, you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that you know me well, I've met plenty like you, give yourself a free pass because you're biased. Happy to judge but the first to complain about being judged, right? Creativesoul treats you differently because of whatever but, you would never treat me differently due to your own biases right? Of course not! Haha.
Page seven and eight Harry. seems to understand those words just fine. His defense here is a nice surprise. I'll discuss with you whatever you like so long as it's relevant to what I've written and what that entails. I suggest first setting your own preconceptions about that aside though, because I'm not inclined to argue against stuff that I've not said or doesn't follow from what I have.
I do this in my spare time, and that is currently in short supply. Make it count.
I've been accused of much, but that one does not happen very often at all. Perhaps after reading through page seven and eight to get a feel for what white privilege is, you could then go straight to the source by clicking on my avatar and perusing my comments.
Care to show these purported inconsistencies by quoting them and placing them beside one another?
This is all consistent with my position, probably reinforces it. I have said from the beginning that oversimplifying this to purely race without including the dimensions of wealth and class is an inaccurate framing of the issue. You correctly note that your data supports the conclusion of a disadvantaging of one group but does not clearly demonstrate a blanket "privilege" to another (much larger) group.
I would also point out that your data shows that no matter your race the ratio between mean and median net worths is in the 8:1 range, which is a great argument for massively uneven distribution of wealth among all Americans. In short, the ones "benefitting" from the system are the rich, not "all white people."
The best ways to address this are race-neutral, e.g. raising the minimum wage or first-time home buyer credits or student loan forgiveness. Such policies will disproportionately benefit minorities and assist them in wealth building over time. The policies should be paid for by taxes directed at the richest individuals and corporations, which is race-neutral but will disproportionately effect whites. Thus we address systemic racism without reinforcing categories of race and their attending stereotypes.
The major exception to all of this is the criminal justice system which remains in Jim Crow mode and must be fundamentally reworked since they don't seem inclined to address their behavior internally. This is the movement we are seeing right now and every decent person should do what they can to reinforce it.
You understand that in the last paragraph of mine you quoted I was speaking for the position I intended to refute in the paragraphs right after that, yes?
Also "blanket" is kind of a weasel word. Statistics don't show, don't expect to show, that every white household has more money than every black household.
Also this post is not about what I would call "white privilege" but about systemic racism.
All that said, I tend overwhelmingly to agree with your post, and with the approach to remediation you champion. (Baby bonds are also interesting.)
Thanks for coming back to this.
Yes, I understood that. I was saying that I think the analysis holds up right there. I think to go further is to stretch beyond what the data supports.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
This goes back to the argument that has perpetuated this thread for 21 pages and counting - the meaning behind the term "white privilege" and whether it refers to anything observable and/or useful. I have never denied that there is systemic racism - it is quite obviously real. I use the word "blanket" in criticism of "white privilege" which is too broad and poorly defined (among its other shortcomings I have enumerated repeatedly). I was using the economic statistics you provided to support the idea that racism is systemic, but to the extent anyone "benefits" from it one is better off looking at the wealth gap between the rich and everyone else than trying to imply some widespread benefit to all white people.
The fall back position has seemed to relocate itself into interpersonal racism (e.g., white people don't get harassed by police officers the way blacks do). I agree that there are differences in treatment of individuals on a large scale and that there is an undeniable racial element to this - but I don't think it logically can be joined up to the broad systemic scale to say "all white people are benefited by this." In fact, I think it detracts from real issues like the fact that white supremacists are gravitating toward jobs in law enforcement and those organizations are doing nothing to police their behaviors, allowing them to create horrifyingly racist institutional norms. The current demonstrations as embodied by ideas like "Black Lives Matter" keep the focus on this difficult problem without explicitly seeking to create "discomfort" among all white people, which I see as beside the point and counterproductive.
So tactically I agree with you, and I have my own reservations about how "privilege" plays into America's self improvement thing.
On the other hand, I think there are interesting things to say about positions of dominance people are unaware they hold. When I see a young man and a young woman at a coffee shop and the guy is talking 90% of the time, I think, "I used to be that asshat." (And there's data on speaking time in conversations between men and women.) I think that kind of thing is worth knowing about for so many reasons.
Totally agree. I think we can certainly argue for self-awareness and gender equality without having to resort to "male assholery" as a crucial element of the discussion. In my experience, most people are unaware of these inequalities when they engage in them. That's natural since it requires so much effort to stop seeing the world purely through one's own eyes. It's like George Carlin said, "our shit is stuff, but everyone else's shit is just shit." Finding ways to help people see these undesirable behaviors is a worthwhile exercise. Almost as much as learning to see them in ourselves.
To bring this full circle, there are racists. There are misogynists. Mostly though, there are people who live their lives in a culture that has these elements woven into it historically, and they personally don't intend to abuse the dignity of other people in a flagrant way. Call out the minority of people who are bigots, and build bridges to the rest.
I'm good with that. We agree on so much, I think the remaining differences are mostly semantic. If I have new thoughts I'll come back to this.
It was a good discussion and I look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the forum.
Cheers. When two people engage in civil discussion with thoughtful sincerity, they actually CAN come to an agreement.
I applaud your decorum. Quite rare and much appreciated.
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/05/claudia-rankine-by-white-privilege-i-mean-the-ability-to-stay-alive
That's nothing that raising the minimum wage won't fix... quit talking about race!
:roll:
This is sarcastic in tone... to be clear.
The question that interests me is, what part of the way others see me that differs from the way I see myself -- a difference I'm not even aware of -- is down to my race? What part of my behavior is enabled and encouraged (note) by awareness, on the part of others, of my race, when my race is the furthest thing from my mind?
Added: "or resented"? This paragraph is missing some stuff. It should also have a point about the way I see myself, my expectation about how the world will receive me, and that those expectations can be both due to my race and oblivious that I even have a race. Some of the world encourages this part of me; some of the world has just been putting up with it.
I think there's a strongish sense in which this is simply unknowable for an individual; people don't go around as a collection of parts but as wholes. Do you defer to that guy because he's your boss, because he's tall, fit, and well-dressed, because he's white, because he's well-spoken, because he makes more money than you, because he's a cis-gender male, because he's kind and reasonable, because he makes a point of being considerate of others and listening to other points of view, because he's unfailingly respectful?
What we can do is look for patterns in society at large and assume they apply to us just as much as they do to anyone else. And then try to act accordingly, despite never receiving the "giftie".
One of the markers of white privilege in an overwhelmingly racist society is, of course, the luxury of being able to have one's race being 'the furthest thing from one's mind'. For a great deal of others, the mark of one's race is just what one is reminded of at every point of social interaction, from the shopkeep who follows you around to the officer who shoots you multiple times in the back. For the racially marked, the issue isn't the 'unknowability' of how one's race determines their interactions with others, but the overwhelming, crushing, and often fatal knowability of it.
Part of the resistance to the discourse of white privilege is nothing more than the desire to maintain the blissful, bambi-like state in which one can go around wondering - as though some kind of intellectual exercise - but how does race affect me? What's that stuff got to do with me? For little bourgeois white boys who have been told their whole life that they're the masters of their own destiny, there's nothing more traumatic than the idea that their skin - something over which they have no control of - may in fact have played a role in the outcome of their lives. Hence the consistent desire to translate the terms of race into, say, the terms of economics, which are far more 'controllable', far more amenable to intellectual grappling than the sheer irrationality of being treated like a subhuman - and conversely, a proper human - because of a contingency of melanin.
Can you opt out of how your clothes look once you're in them? No.
You can't opt out of your skin colour, you're born in it. The idea is that by having a skin colour; something you have no control over [hide=*](horrific racial overtones of skin bleaching pills aside, a treatment for excessive melanin syndrome).[/hide], you will be racialised as non-white and be exposed to more risks - racial profiling etc. There are less direct signifiers of non-whiteness - names, voices, clothing...
If you want an awareness neutral concept of membership, think of it is set membership - you belong in a group whether you like it or not.
With regard to how one is racialised - what racial class you end up in and why - you don't have a choice in it. It's not like "becoming a goth", or much to do with self identification at all. Babies are racialised before they're born!
Quoting StreetlightX
"No, it doesn't have to make any sense, it's simply a norm. Norms are what make sense" - the economic aspects of systemic racism are a gateway drug to realising the following contradiction:
(1) It's completely unjustifiable (rationally and morally) to discriminate based on race - one's race should not influence the extent to which one is treated well or badly.
(2) It routinely does.
If the mechanisms of racism seem illogical, it's ultimately because they are. They're more norm than reason.
Acknowledging systemic racism doesn't mean treating the issues of black Americans as an issue with poverty. It means you acknowledge real institutional and social racism, you're simply strawmanning here. Now I expect that out of Banno and streetlightx, their posts consist of virtual signalling and more virtue signalling but do you seriously still not understand what you're arguing against here? How can someone acknowledge systemic racism but also deny there's a racial element to that? It is beyond strawman, it's just complete avoidance to deal with the actual criticism taking place here.
(1) Criminal Justice (Injustice)
No disagreement, we all see black Americans being disproportionately selected for undesirable outcomes and realise that because the problem is the "blackness" of black Americans, there is no sense in trying to prevent race-based solutions here. Sad for Streetlightx, of course, he wants to monopolise this but he can still virtue signal, it never made sense anyway no worries.
(2) Economic Inequality
This is probably the most contentious category, mostly for both political reasons and moral reasons, we are arguing that race-neutral solutions are more pragmatic here. Again, we condemn racial discrimination, that's the centrepiece of our position but outside of that, choosing who to lift out of poverty based on their race is a bad idea. It is a highly controversial, divisive and difficult to sell. It is immoral. If you need then don't think about this as black vs white, just by introducing Hispanic Americans, the situation becomes stupidly complex. How can you advocate for the US government to prioritise black Americans in poverty over Hispanic Americans in poverty solely because black Americans in poverty are black? Isn't that what reparations achieve? Assuming it actually selected only poor black Americans, that might not make sense though.
(3) Private Institutions / Citizens
Businesses and importantly businesses with important socio-economic responsibilities such as banks, real estate, the film industry, news reporting, universities and so on. Landlords, elected officials and so on. Basically acknowledging that power within society can be and is wielded to bring about disproportionately negative outcomes based on race. Again, racial discrimination is not acceptable, the problem is being recognised, is there a point of difference here?
(4) Social Racism
We agree that individuals are more likely to be selected for racism based on their skin colour, for insults specific to their skin colour. Again, the centrepiece of our position is about recognising and being against racial discrimination, you don't like it either, is there a difference? Whether it's stereotyping, insults, prejudice, bias or whatever.
(5) Governmental racism
Public institutions which again, disproportionately select either predominantly black American communities or black American individuals for negative outcomes in contexts besides criminal justice. Again, wow, again! It is racial discrimination, we acknowledge the problems and want to to see this kind of behaviour disincentivised or punished. We can look at the policies which lead to these outcomes and ask what needs to be changed. What's your complaint?
What exactly do you think you're arguing against? Genuinely interested to know. I am honestly worried because you say good things but you defend Banno when he is anti-white, you don't criticise streetlightx when he constructs a narrative about people based on their race. Do you see how logically inconsistent this is? Just give me the ability to do what banno and streetlightx do, I will create rock-solid justifications for real, overt racism against black Americans with no trouble. Yet we're supposed to pretend like what they're doing is justifiable? I really don't understand you because I would expect based on what you've written, not to be on board with this but it seems that in practice, you are.
Are you and I just focusing on different ends of a spectrum?
I'm supposing that everyone moves through the world to some degree unaware of the way they affect those around them; all the usual suspects have a part here (race, sex, class, appearance, etc. etc. etc.) but it is also, I firmly agree with Burns, just the human condition.
I'll give you an example. As a young intellectual, I was, as I see it now, kind of an arrogant prick. I didn't see it that way at the time, and I like to think I've mellowed somewhat with age, so when a coworker told me, referring to some other employees in the building, "They're all scared of you," I was genuinely taken aback. I don't even interact with these people much, and I have no idea what I did to make them feel intimidated. But it's a fact. Have I been up to my old tricks without realizing it? Would make sense, but I don't know that; they might find me intimidating for some reason completely unrelated to the swagger I used to affect in my twenties.
All I can say is that something has put me in a position of dominance or privilege that I was unaware of and that I have been acting as the dominant without having any such intention. Sometimes when you learn something like that, it can be eye-opening. (I'm a sucker for epiphanies. One of my favorite moments in film history is when Alec Guinness says, 'My God, what have I done?')
You're focusing on people who refuse to have that eye-opening experience despite being given the opportunity; they engage in denial, in willful ignorance. This happens, no question, and it's pretty clear that two of the big reasons are (a) a sort of contra-Burns desire to maintain the image of yourself you've grown accustomed to and like, and (b) the simplicity of not dealing with decidedly unpleasant issues like sexism, racism, oppression, and your role in them (and so back to (a)).
Maybe the difference is something like this: we all lack some awareness of how we affect others -- and you can't quite call this a lack of self awareness because others are involved from the start (this is why I had so much trouble formulating my last post) -- but this is your immediate environment we're talking about; but then there's lack of awareness of the society you're a part of, what goes on in it, what the experiences of others, especially others unlike you, are like, and, to get to the point, the experiences of others unlike you interacting with people quite a bit like you. Burns doesn't say anything stops us from seeing and understanding that stuff; if we don't, that's a failing beyond what he talks about, a failure to see or a failure to draw connections between what you see "out there" and your own life.
This is, in simple point of fact, racism. The conjuring of race as a concept, followed by the distribution of all people according to this manufactured set of categories.
I denounce this. It is not necessary to view the world in this way. I can acknowledge that people do hold this view, but I reject it and I push for everyone else to reject it as well.
Thus, you may ascribe "white membership" to me, but I do not accept it, nor do I wish to define myself or anyone else this way.
But you're not going to deny that a whole lot of people count you as white and that this has consequences, are you?
This looks like a deflection. You seem to fully understand racialisation as a societal mechanism (people are sorted into racial categories by skin colour blah blah blah) and now apparently me pointing out that this happens regardless of individuals' choices to identify as a race member is a racist act.
But yes, indeed, racialisation is part of systemic discrimination. If only I could end it with my own will.
Quoting Pro Hominem
I still think it's a social fact that people are racialised. That's what I'm pointing out. The lack of scientific basis for sorting people into races biologically and blah blah is something much different.
Quoting Pro Hominem
If you're white or black, you're white or black whether you accept it or not. Those are the breaks. That is the social fact of racialisation. If you are uncomfortable with being seen as your race... Welcome to the racial binning process, please enjoy your stay.
It's really not that simple. If someone is 1/8 black are they black or white? Who is society to deny their blackness? Who is society to tell, say, Ashkenazi Jews, that they are "really" white?
See this post. Racialisation doesn't have to hold together as a logically coherent story. That misses the nature and history of the phenomenon. When people study race with a historical eye, it's shown to be nonsense, when people study race with with a scientific one, it's shown to be nonsense on stilts. Still, racialisation happens. People are put into racial bins and treated differently depending on what bin they're in. Absent historical and scientific validation, but it still happens. That leaves the messy world of social norms.
Effectively, you're putting me in a position where I have to give you a check list of who counts as what and for what reasons - but the process by which people are put into racial bins just doesn't work like a logical definition of anything. From my position, the question you ask is loaded.
Racialisation works through norms; it's a societal process, a social fact; and it works associatively rather than logically.
This is a recurring thing in this conversation. People keep jumping back and forth from the general to the specific whenever it suits them. One can acknowledge the presence of racism without "doing" racism. In the same way one can acknowledge the existence of sociopaths without having to be one. I did not say that you were committing a "racist act". I said that the predilection to sort people according to perceptions of skin tone is racism. I try very hard never to do this, and I would not ever do it if it wasn't necessary at times only because so many other people do it.
Quoting fdrake
I read an implication in what you're saying here. That implication is "racism is a fact and we just have to accept it." Correct me if that inference is not accurate. If it is accurate, I wholly disagree. Racism did not always exist. There is no "need" for it to exist. It remains at least in part because we as a culture do not seem very motivated to rid ourselves of it. Even those who are upset about "racist acts" still perpetuate their likelihood by maintaining the race-based view of the world.
We could stop doing this. I have. Teach against the concept in schools for a generation, then never speak of it again. Stop reinforcing it by self-identifying in this way. Stop using its language. Actively teach humanity as a singular whole. There are lots of things that could be done differently and better.
Quoting fdrake
I am painfully aware that this happens. I just took part in a census, which seemed to have establishing the race and gender of everyone in my house as nearly its only purpose. I'm not denying that we as a society do this, I'm just saying we dont have to. We can be better. We can do better. We just need the will to make changes. The easiest change to make is in one's self, and a good place to start is to personally reject race and its signifiers and purge them as much as possible from your mindset. Once you've done that, don't be afraid to counter people using race-based language - make a point to say that "race doesn't really exist". Learn the science and history to support that statement. Truly adopt that belief. Realize that change takes time, but remain persistent. After all, if you aren't willing to do any of this, how can you expect anyone else to?
This isn't it though. The language of privilege is simply a discourse meant to de-universalize one's experience and to remind one that one's experience is not some kind of standard or paradigm by which all others are to be measured up against. A reckoning with 'white' privilege in particular is a recognition that the ability to sail through life being racially unmarked is not something that many others are afforded. I mean, there's something comic - truly hilarious - about the dude above who reckons that he can just 'reject' racial labels. One has to ask: how does this play out when you're being shot at by a cop? "I reject this!". Oh goody, racism is cancelled, everyone can go home. I mean these people really think racism is some kind of discursive phenomenon, the kind of thing you can just reason about over a coffee table. Their experience of race - or lack thereof - is so far removed from any reality that they really think it's just some kind of moot-court exercise in which if one disavows with a clear, strong voice, then all will be right with the world. If only George Floyd had 'rejected' being knelt on.
It's not a question of knowing 'how we affect others' or an 'awareness of the society we are part of'; it's a simple question of humility about just how universal one's own experience is.
Quoting Pro Hominem
We could go around the discussion again; my view is that so long as race based discrimination exists, we'll need to be aware of racialisation and keep race around as a critical category. We could go into whether being aware of racialisation is the same thing as racialising people again, but I don't really feel the need.
Consider these two dialogues:
A: "Black children are 5 times more likely to drown in swimming pools"
B: "You are aware race doesn't really exist, right?"
vs
A: (car fails to start) "These parts are Jewish!"
B: "You are aware race doesn't really exist, right?"
I imagine you imagine you are doing the latter. From my perspective, it looks like you are doing the former. I draw that conclusion because you are being hostile to the concept of race (and that people are racialised) in a discussion regarding a critical concept used to highlight racial disparities rooted in discrimination. Surely the difference between the two is obvious to you.
This is the part I don't get. I agree completely that a white guy like me grows up thinking his experience is universal in way that is certainly illusory, divorced from reality; but I am connected to reality, to the only one there is. I move through the world thinking of myself as only a person, and that "only" is a delusion; the whole time I am moving through the world also as a white guy, and to this I am simply oblivious, as Peggy McIntosh aptly puts it. I want people like me to see that they do indeed have an experience of race and of sex and of gender and of class and the rest of it.
Are you sure that your rejection of their rejection of race isn't too focused on what they're thinking and too little on how they experience the world? It's probably just a matter of emphasis. I'm not sure we disagree at all.
Yes and no. Here are my actual responses:
A: "Black children are 5 times more likely to drown in swimming pools"
B: "If so, it's not because they are black, so what's the real reason?"
and
A: (car fails to start) "These parts are Jewish!"
B: "That's a horribly inappropriate thing to say. You shouldn't speak like that if you don't want people to think you're a bigoted asshole."
Now, imagine this third conversation:
A: "I think we can effectively reduce racist acts and inequality by pushing the concept of "white privilege".
B: "Except that race doesn't really exist and we are reinforcing these false categories with language like that. If we have to do something like this, let's keep the focus on teaching people not to hate and fear others for their skin color rather than trying to convince the majority of people that they are implicit in every racist act simply by virtue of their skin color."
I assume the differences here are obvious to you as well.
No it's absolutely experience, and it's that experience that informs thought. When one doesn't experience racial marking in one's day-to-day, then racism unsurprisingly ends up being some kind of pick-your-own-adventure story where if you just 'reject' it, it can't exist. A kind of Disney anti-racism. When racism isn't lived, the most it apparently can become is just a matter of words - as if it's real locus isn't at every level social behaviour. The white experience of race is largely one of having experiences which are not racially marked at all, which is why the "solution" ends up being a kind of "if I can do it so can you!". Easy, of course, for this person to say - given that 'saying' is all they know - informed by their own experience of non-experience.
I understand that and I understand where you're coming from. I agree. However, just because something works a given way doesn't mean we ought to throw our hands up in the air and just accept it. As individuals, we can teach society our own racial/ethnic backgrounds and the cultural nuances associated with it. I understand society might largely see me as white, but this really isn't an adequate descriptor of my racial/ethnic identity (I'm an Ashkenazi Jew). As individuals we need to educate society. Society labels; we fight back.
Also keep in mind that these labels: white, black, etc. are political. They're not simple descriptors. Whether we like it or not whiteness has certain associations.
Yes, because all white people just get to "sail through life."
Quoting StreetlightX
We are literally reasoning about this over a metaphorical coffee table. That is the context of this conversation. I am saying that within these confines, we should strive for language and thinking that is more accurate and nuanced than "white people bad!". Not just because it is totally inaccurate, but because it is unproductive. In the "real" world, i have repeatedly expressed my belief in a movement like "Black Lives Matter" to show these inequities in practice and stoke public outrage against them. These are two entirely separate conversations, but you cannot seem to follow that point. Or you don't want to because it would undercut your whole "pedantic asshole" vibe. Your arguments are weak and mostly all end up as ad hominem attacks. Before you say it, what I have done was make a coherent argument and then follow it with an ad hominem attack.
Quoting StreetlightX
You know absolutely zero about my experience, but it is clear that you hold yourself as an authority on things you know nothing about, so I know that won't stop you.
Quoting StreetlightX
"Give me Liberty, or give me death!"
"I have a dream!"
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"
Disavowing a thing in a clear strong voice is a critical part of every successful resistance effort in history. George Floyd did "reject" his treatment. "I can't breathe!" is a battle cry now. It is a call to arms to resist oppression. It has been carried into the streets. This, hopefully, will foster some real progress.
How can you not register the difference between that and a purely intellectual discussion playing out on a philosophy forum?
Cool, 'cause that's not what white privilege is or implies - although I understand that for you, seeing the word 'white' can mean nothing other than some kind of slight because at no point have you ever had to deal with being racially marked in that way.
It has far fewer consequences than if they identified me as black. But what does that have to do with this conversation? "Many people engage in lazy and fallacious thinking, therefore..." What? I have to think that way too?
It is the position of the (apparent) majority here on this board that the answer to racism is to double down on racially categorizing people. "If you're going to say that blacks are bad, we're going to show you how whites are bad - that'll teach you!" What's actually bad is ascribing qualities to an individual based on their skin tone. That is what systemic racism fosters. I don't see how the answer to this is to ascribe qualities to individuals based on skin tone. It's the same mistake in a different direction.
Let's change the conversation. Let's consider saying skin tone might not actually tell you anything about a person and see where that takes us. This is clearly a minority position, but I feel it is the more rational of the two.
Okay, again, this is what I don't get, and don't get in particular in a discussion of white privilege. Everyone is racially marked.
An attempt at an example. Suppose I'm in a situation, an officer-involved situation, and I demand that my rights be respected. I think I'm acting only as a person, because I universalize my experience. Now let's suppose the cop acquiesces to my demands because he marks me as white. (It could be otherwise, and I'm stipulating that it isn't.) Whether he knows this is why he's doing it or not, same result for me. I have an experience that reinforces my view of myself as a raceless person, by having an experience as a white person, an experience that, with this cop in this moment, only a white person can have. I go on my oblivious way, not recognizing the role my race plays in my experience.
Note that the cop needn't be racist. He could be black.
My experience of (a) being white and treated white but (b) thinking I'm raceless and treated raceless is what I think of as white privilege.
I'm just confused by you saying I'm not racially marked, that I don't experience the society I live in as racist. White people do get the message that race is something other people have, but that message itself is a lie.
Quoting StreetlightX
Maybe this is the better way to put it, and I'm making a lot of nothing. We're probably saying the same thing, but keep swapping who's pointing at the underlying context.
I think so. By racially marked I simply mean that one's race is, as it were, re-marked upon, whether in word or deed. A kind of racial intentionality as it were - to experience race as race; as distinct from those experiences of race which are not experienced in racial terms - as with your hypothetical police interaction.
I think the consequences are really different, largely invisible, but no fewer.
But as I'm arguing with @StreetlightX, I find I'm not really sure, again.
In a sense, I'm not racially marked; in a sense, I'm racially marked as white; in a sense, I'm marked as raceless by being marked as white; in a sense I'm marked as white but take that as not being marked. I honestly can't figure out right this second what the "right" thing to say is, if there is one, if it even matters, given that the result of all three is the same. Maybe Street will come up with something.
Oh, you know, that does actually help a lot. It's not just about categorizing.
Okay, this gives me something to think about some more.
Rest of the post good too. You have actually helped me here! Thank you.
That's all that 'white privilege' is meant to bring to the fore! To make visible what is, in the main, invisible.
Let me say this as clearly as possible. You have absolutely NO IDEA what my experience is.
You are also apparently unaware that engaging in speculation about it is the textbook definition of the ad hominem fallacy. Based on the entire body of your responses, you lack the ability, if not the intellect, to form or respond to actual arguments in any meaningful way. This is not me attacking you, this is a conclusion drawn from the totality of my experience of your behavior. I invite you to surprise me in the future, but you'll understand if I doubt it will happen.
As you are, you add absolutely nothing constructive to any conversation I've seen you take part in. That could be excusable, but you have somehow married incredible arrogance to a mind of absolutely no consequence. I invite you to just stop posting for a long while and read. Learn from people who are just plain better at this than you are - and I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about almost everyone else on this board. You'd really be doing all of us, including yourself, a favor.
Hoping this doesn't derail what is finally the discussion of white privilege we should have, but --
That's not systemic racism -- at least not as I use the term. Systemic racism is differences in experiences and outcomes that correlate to an improbable degree with which race your society, at large, assigns you. It is evidence of the holding, at least now and then, of racist attitudes because, being improbable, it must consist of racist behavior. As I say, "in effect racist".
But when you put the word "systemic" in front of the word "racism", do you mean something else? Something like "racism without gaps"? I truly don't know. Attributing qualities besides skin tone based on skin tone, I would just call "racist". Do you just mean "lots of people having racist ideas"? If so, I suppose I agree after all, I just make allowances for people not to be all-day-everyday racist, in this sense. You only need to be racist once in a while to do your part. (Like maybe you want your dog to have a fun day and that bird-watcher is just so annoying.)
Street and I don't often get along (maybe he's forgotten since I haven't been around for a while), but this is the key post in the thread:
Quoting StreetlightX
You don't see anything here or in the last handful of posts he and I have exchanged? Nothing that rings true?
What? I don't really think you believe that. That's just for argument's sake, right? Devil's advocate?
I invite you to enumerate examples of "white consequences" vs "black consequences" that would clarify what you are asserting. For now, I'll proceed within the context of "white privilege" which is the de facto subject of this conversation.
If you look through all the attempts to define "white privilege" in this thread, they are phrased in the negative. It is that white people experience the absence of the oppression non-white people experience. This is no straw man - scroll through the posts, that is what is asserted time and again. Given that definition of "white privilege":
If you look at any of this and think it is a bit absurd, then you see what I see. The white privilege concept is poorly defined, not accurate, and leads to conflict instead of resolving it.
No. I mean what "systemic" means. Embodied in a system. Systemic racism is a formal, structural phenomenon whereby institutions deny services or discriminate against people based on race. Systemic racism has been reduced in the aggregate over the last few decades, but it still remains, particularly in the criminal justice system.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
This is actually "interpersonal racism" and is embodied in the interactions of individuals with one another. It is what most people mean when they just say "racism". The key here is "experiences and outcomes" which cannot exist in a vacuum, there must be individuals to have these experiences and outcomes. Systemic racism, on the other hand, exists whether anyone experiences it or not, for example using zoning laws to enforce de facto segregation, or maintaining the criminalization of marijuana to allow for discriminatory enforcement of the laws.
Not really. When was the last time someone said anything to you about your whiteness? The reality is that there is ordinary interpersonal interaction, which I acknowledge is the usual standard in an "all-white" group (of course, this can fall apart in the face of someone being Jewish, or Italian, or Irish, etc, so the perceived blanket category of "white" is largely illusory). In many instances, black individuals may experience something less than that standard, but how much depends a lot on the place and the people. It's why I hate painting with these broad brushes. It's also why it's so important to maintain a distinction between acts of interpersonal racism and systemic racism. They are not the same problem and won't have the same solution. One can be legislated, the other, only educated.
And this: "A kind of racial intentionality as it were - to experience race as race; as distinct from those experiences of race which are not experienced in racial terms"? I can't tell if that's circular or just nonsense. What does that even mean?
Sorry for multi-posting here, but you started it :grin:
I agree with your claim that this is how white privilege is often described and how many have described it in this thread, but it's not quite how I see it, and I don't think it's quite what Peggy McIntosh had in mind.
But before dealing with your specific points, let's talk about negation.
Americans, to pick an example, have rights; the rights of Black Americans are frequently violated with impunity; the rights of white Americans aren't. I'll admit, there's something a little underwhelming about saying one group experiences the absence of a denial of something; that's just to say they're treated normal, right? Because I find that at least a little persuasive, I've been more interested in other ways of looking at it, and you won't find me pushing the "absence of denial" approach much.
But think of it this way: system says, this is for everybody; then system pretty consistently grants to one group and very, very inconsistently grants to another. What is that? That looks a lot to me like the system straight up giving more to one group than to another, and it's the "absence of denial" formulation that looks like a ridiculously roundabout way of describing it.
It's not what the system says it's doing -- no question. And by its terms, you'd have to resort to this "absence of denial" thing. But the system is lying.
Let's just call a spade a spade. White Americans have more rights than Black Americans, and they do because the system gives them more rights.
We'll just have to agree on your terms. I make some distinctions I like and find useful but not everyone does.
Some of what you're describing I would call "institutional racism" and it bugs me that Wikipedia redirects "systemic racism" there. I think of institutional racism as the codifying of racist choices within an institutional structure; it allows members of that institution to avoid responsibility. "Look, if it were up to me, I'd hire you. But we just don't hire colored people, company policy. I'm not saying it's right, or that I wouldn't change it if I could, but I just work here."
Some things like mandatory minimums are kind of a grey area for me because they're certainly "in effect racist" but they are not explicitly racist.
:up:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
:up:
I guess that insight is ultimately an intersectional one, no? You've got enough white signifiers to count as white in most contexts, you'll live absent systemic discrimination in some ways; you're not gonna get racial profiled like a black man will in the US. But you're gonna be lumped in with a global conspiracy that motivates white supremacist terrorists. Being racialised as white doesn't exempt you from being racialised as Jewish and vice versa.
Quoting Pro Hominem
But like... social facts are causal too. People drive on the side of the road they drive on because it's a norm. If you're happy to disentangle race from science, and you know the history of the concepts, that doesn't mean disentangling race from causality, no? People really are treated differently because of their race, that's the very essence of racism - be it a personal prejudice, an implicit stereotype, an apartheid system or systemic effects. If someone's racial profiled - yeah, it's because of their race. If someone avoids all of that horrible bollocks; yeah, it's also because of their race.
Racial categorisation isn't rooted in science or an accurate history of how peoples moved about the planet, that doesn't stop racism from causing stuff to happen.
If we're happy to say that people get racially profiled because they're black; it's an act of racism and implicit stereotyping. Then we should be happy to say that people aren't exposed to some risks, or have relative advantages, because they are white. And that's white privilege. And yes, it is racist - a relative benefit, positive discrimination etc etc...
If you want the causal chain spelled out:
skin colour -racial signification> assigned attributes+treatments
The rarity of this is part of the point.
You've left something out of the quote. The example you gave was about black people drowning in swimming pools. I can't say I'm acquainted with the raw statistical data, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those cases are not because someone drowned them. In other words, the drowning is not racially motivated. There are likely to be socio-economic factors at play - e.g., lower access to swimming lessons for a range of reasons - and that is the proper focus. Race may play a role in that analysis, but it's incredibly lazy to reach a conclusion like "black people drown because they're black."
i would also caution you against lumping "apartheid systems" in with "personal prejudices". They are different things, and operate in different ways.
Quoting fdrake
Black people get racially profiled for two reasons: 1) because police departments train their officers to do it, and 2) because some individual cops are racially prejudiced against blacks. The act is interpersonal racism, the training is systemic racism. Again, they are two different problems with two different solutions. Both are predicated on the fiction of race, and could not exist without it.
Quoting fdrake
What if there were no "non-whites" in the population? Is their treatment still an advantage? Do they still have white privilege? No, they just have ordinary treatment. But if we add some "other" group and treat them poorly, the same treatment of the original group becomes a privilege? What if over a long period of time that other group is assimilated and there is no discernible difference in treatment? Do they now all have privilege, or does the privilege disappear even though nothing has changed about the underlying treatment? The point is, this is a disingenuous way to talk about these things. Mistreatment exists. It does not transform all other treatment into privilege. That's not what privilege is. Privilege is a unique benefit conferred on a designated person or group. That group is usually restricted in number, and that is implicit in the way the word is used. Except for "white privilege", which has none of these characteristics at all.
Quoting fdrake
So if we remove racial signification, your chain breaks, yes?
They're not mine, they are the common uses of the terms in these conversations, per my growing internet research over the lingering days I continue to participate in this thread. I may be a qualified expert before this is all done. :grin: Your wikipedia frustration is caused by that commonality of usage. In general, I would say that "system" and "institution" are considered synonymous in this case.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I don't think it necessarily does that, or that's all it does. In your scenario, there are a few possibilities. Either both the institution and the individual are racist, or one is. If it's only the institution, the individual may be genuinely unhappy about it (and they should look for another job). If it's only the individual, hopefully someone finds out about it and that person is fired. The institution can be changed through legal processes, but the individual is much harder and takes longer.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Are you referring to affirmative action? If so, it is explicitly racist. However, it is an example of an application of the racial fiction that may be necessary to eventually destroy that fiction and/or its lingering effects. I do not believe "white privilege" falls into a similar category of utility.
No no, the differential minimum sentences for crack vs powdered cocaine, famous example of a law that is in effect racist.
There is a legal issue -- since we're here -- about whether a policy (or law or regulation) is known by those enacting it to be in-effect racist, in which case that's a no-no, and counts as discrimination.
I'm allowing for the possibility that a lot of people contribute to a given institution being in-effect racist, while themselves only occasionally and perhaps quite rarely racist, and perhaps not even knowing it.
(As Michel Foucault said, people know what they do, mostly know why they do what they do, rarely know what what-they-do does.)
Oh -- that's not what I meant to type at all! I just mean whatever terms, however used, so long as we understand each other, and I'll keep making whatever distinctions I want.
Yes, I am aware of de facto and de jure discrimination, I just didn't understand what you were referring to when you mentioned minimums above. The de facto legal analysis turns on outcomes; whether the law, correctly applied, results in obviously discriminatory results. If a law is "known" to be discriminatory by those enacting it, that would be de jure discrimination, because it is within the intent of the lawmaker(s).
EDIT: There is a third option, in which the outcomes of a law are discriminatory, but only because it is being incorrectly applied. In this case, the law is held to be not discriminatory at all, and the court recommends for changes in enforcement or oversight, or suggests recourse in civil suits.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I can certainly agree that people are frequently part of institutions that are racist (or sexist, or whatever) and they may not be aware of it. If their participation contributes to that institution, does it necessarily follow that it contributes to the racism? Can we generalize that every part of an organization is responsible for every other part of the organization? Doesn't that result in everyone being guilty of everything? Shouldn't there be rules governing who is effectively responsible for something within a group that the whole group does not directly participate in? These rules already exist, but are you arguing for broadening them to include if not everyone, then a much broader segment of people? Doesn't this seem like a slippery slope to a place we don't want to go?
If you went with "white blindness", or even the more aggressive "white ignorance" here, I could at least see clear reasoning for it, and my only concern would be deploying it in a way that doesn't do more harm than good. But I can't draw a line to "privilege" because it just doesn't connect with the meaning of the word.
Some here have tried defending it by acknowledging it's not particularly descriptive, but that it is impactful, and my response to that is how clear is the evidence that such impact is positive? If the majority of people you communicate this idea to get pissed off (rightly or wrongly) is that the best way to engage them in a fruitful conversation? I see it as something that has limited utility where people are well-known to each other or have a vested interest in remaining in the conversation, but not in the majority of public discussions of race.
It's like Hillary Clinton saying "basket of undesirables". You can think about what she's trying to communicate and understand what she means, and maybe even come around to agreeing with it, but the fact is that most people won't engage the idea for that long, and it backfires as a rallying point for the opposition.
In many cases, no. The social relation in question is one of particular bodies. If every human lost their awareness skin colour tomorrow, it would not alter many of the present social relations between bodies. The same bodies would still be in jails, poverty striken communities, etc., and the structures of systematic racism would still be present of the bodies. We would just cease to be aware of them.
Many people make the mistake of analysing these issues in terms of intention towards a skin colour, deliberately granting or harming people is some way because they have one skin colour or another. This is only one aspect of racism. Much of it is just a relation of how a body exists or is treated. A black body does not need someone to deliberately act upon it because it is black, the general systems of society can act to produce an unjust relation without any mention of skin colour-- e.g. a capitalism in which the black bodies are overwhelming in poverty compared to others, a justice system in which black bodies are overwhelming incarcerated, etc.
Just because these systems might act with reasons of employment/profit or in response to crimes, rather than because someone has a skin colour, it doesn't change the impact upon the bodies. Certain bodies, the black ones, are still overwhelming poor, incarcerated, etc. For us to forget concepts of race entirely doesn't alter these circumstances.
No that it is not the tree I'm barking up at all. If, say, a bank lends money to qualified Black applicants at a lower rate than it lends to qualified white applicants, that bank is in effect racist. It gets to be that way because some loan officers made some racist decisions. If you worked at the bank for thirty years and only made one such decision, you contributed some tiny amount to the bank being racist, not just because you worked there, but because of something you did. Maybe once or twice you wondered why someone was being turned down by another loan officer, but didn't raise the issue. More, but still smallish, responsibility, and so on.
Maybe I could be convinced by some argument about enabling __, or supporting __, or contributing to __, or participating in __, or whatever, but I'm certainly not making any such claim now. I'm just talking about what people actually do that's actually in itself not okay. And making one indefensible decision also doesn't make you responsible for the decisions of the virulent racist in the next office, or for the whole bank, just your part.
We could keep messing with this, but I'm not sure it's much help. What suspicions did you have? Did you act on them in any way? Was there an incident which, if you reflected on it, might have led you to check that guy next-door's numbers to see if there's a pattern? I don't need all this for the tiny point I'm making.
And you know I've posted a lot of this stuff and been pretty clear throughout, I thought, that I'm not saying every white person had their knee on George Floyd's neck. The other cops there, who failed to do what I didn't even have the option of doing, none of them actually had their knee on his neck either. I don't see that I'm even committed to saying that anyone benefited from George Floyd's murder, though I hold out some hope that we all do, in a very different way. (I almost posted something on an objection to the concept of white privilege which I was going to describe as "The murder of George Floyd didn't help me pay my mortgage." I decided against it. @StreetlightX would have posted it -- love ya, Street.)
So I'm just going to say: if you're tempted to think I've said that all the racist things are done by all the white people and they're all responsible for all of them and all the white people benefit from all the racist things all the white people do -- that's not me. I can't imagine why I would ever say that.
I fundamentally disagree. If we all became effectively "colorless", it wouldn't immediately release people from jails or poverty, but it would dramatically effect how people were processed by the criminal justice system going forward, and it would gradually even out the disparity in wealth accumulation, albeit over several generations. There would still be much to do to address the disparity between rich and poor, and no doubt the rich would invent some other idea to divide us and keep the status quo, but you can't have racism without race.
Totally off topic, but is your screen name a Buffy reference?
But that's the issue: here "racial issues" are just thinking someone ought to have one social position or another because someone has a skin colour or not. It's a material relation of bodies in a community.
So to merely stop thinking concepts of race doesn't actually get us to the position you describe. It might, if the the absence of a concept of race were then to cause future changes in the community, more equitable relationships between certian bodies, etc.
We know, however, this effect will be extremely limited by the way our economic system functions. Poverty runs in a cycle. Those who a poor, usually remain poor. If we just stop thinking about race, the economic disparities will largely remain because the structure of poverty will reproduce or where it already is. Stopping thinking about race will not slove the major issues in this area. The bodies in question will still be overwhelming in poverty. The racism of concern, economic disparities between these bodies, remains the case. Stopping thinking about race doesn't make it disappear.
Yes, it's partly a Buffy reference.
I still see you conflating systemic and interpersonal racism. I think this is the thing causing the biggest problem in this whole thread. I might even go so far as to accept that "white privilege" is a real thing in interpersonal situations. If the cop gives you a pass because he's racist but you happen to be white, then I suppose you garnered a benefit there whether you meant to or not. If the individual loan officer sees you in the lobby and denies the black person ahead of you because he only needs to sign you to reach his quota, then you received a benefit whether you meant to or not. I mean, I suppose "white privilege" is as good a description of that as any. But so what? What's the utility of having a term for that? If you don't even know it's happening, there's little you can do about those instances of racist activity. If you do know, what do you expect people to do? Demand the officer ticket or arrest them? Tell the bank they refuse the loan? There's no way you'd convince anyone to do that, and it still wouldn't even help anything if they did.
If the scope of what you are saying is that people sometimes racially discriminate against each other, and that's undesirable, and it happens way more often to non-whites than whites, and we could call that disparity "white privilege", then fine. Sold. I don't see how it makes a difference, but I accept it all.
But what happened to George Floyd (and so many others) was so very much more than a "discriminatory act." It was the result of explicit and implicit racist thought and policy at multiple levels, from the individual officer on up. Those policies are quietly defended and extended by racists in positions of wealth and/or power because they are very intentionally trying to derive some benefit from it, or because they are simply morally bankrupt cretins. These people are a minority, but they align themselves with others who are blind (intentionally or not) to their activities. To defeat this system of racism, it must be isolated and dragged out into plain view. Those perpetrating it need to be clearly identified and made example of. To make this happen, the majority of people that have no interest in racism (whether or not they actively oppose it) have to find common cause and change the systems at fault. Even after this is done, it will take some time and that coalition must be maintained.
Calling a huge chunk of these people out by painting them with "white privilege" is not going to help this at all. Especially when you try to sell it as part of the systemwide problem, not just something that could pop up in a given situation. Now you've taken these people who are not exactly allies to begin with, and you've made them defensive. Are they going to agree to go along with you now? Are they going to support your efforts to remove certain people from power? Hopefully they will, but a lot of them would be doing it despite being told they have "white privilege", not because of it.
If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is.
This is where someone usually trots out how I'm all personally upset about the term. Besides being false, this is just an attempt to avoid the issue. "Al Gore is a knob, therefore global warming isn't happening." No one here has successfully defended "white privilege" in a systemic context, they keep being forced to return to interpersonal acts of racism. Most of the "white privilege" apologists readily admit that it irritates and sometimes infuriates people they speak to about it, and yet no one can seem to respond to my point about there being no demonstrable benefit, but more likely a cost, to this use of the term. No one has explained why it is beneficial at a time when "Black Lives Matter" is gaining traction to point out, "yeah, but white privilege..." In short, no one has offered a meaningful rebuttal to any of the points I've made on the issue.
I am readily aware of both systemic and interpersonal racism. I have witnessed both up close in person. I am acutely aware that there are differences in the way people are treated based solely (in many cases) on the color of their skin. I doubt that concepts that imply that "all black people are x," or "all white people are y," are likely to help end this state of affairs. I doubt that "all white people" benefit from racism. I doubt that anyone "benefits" from racism except for a limited few in a purely economic way. I don't think most racism is about benefits at all. It is hurt for the sake of hurt. I doubt that finding one more way to focus that hurt is helpful at all.
I think I'm done with this topic. I already was once, but then a couple new people popped in and I wanted to hear them out. Thanks to most of you for the discussion. Cheers.
Cool.
I agree that many of the effects of racism are socio-economic, and those will remain ever if the underlying racism diminishes. We are seeing that currently. I observe that systemic racism has reduced significantly in this country over the last few decades, with the criminal justice system as the pernicious exception. Mostly racism is interpersonal now, although Trump clearly would be open to allowing it to creep back into our institutions (sorry for the bias if you're not American). The larger problem is wealth disparity and the stranglehold the very wealthy have on power. The only answer is education. For any of it.
Maybe it's an intersectional one? I'm not sure.
Yes, I'll be lumped in with a global conspiracy that motivates some on the far right. According to some on the right/far right Jews aren't even white. They're imposter white people and they fall on the bottom of the racial hierarchy. They attack us by undermining our whiteness and seek to alienate us from other white people.
On the left/far left the Jews get victimized often due to our apparent whiteness and its association with oppression/colonization. In Israel we're often described in left-wing circles as white colonizers brutally suppressing an indigenous population despite the fact that Jews consider themselves the indigenous population and many Jews are not white. Even apart from Israel anti-Semitism is often just seen as "punching up" and "stickin' it to the man" or "speaking truth about power" and this can come from both sides of the political spectrum. See the recent examples with Nick Cannon and DeSean Jackson.
Every system has emergent properties which therefore do not require them to be formal.
Originally introduced to highlight that "being black" and "being a woman" interact together to produce different issues for black women than black people regardless of gender and women regardless of race.
So you'll have white privilege in some regards, be discriminated against for being a Jew in some regards.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
:up:
Wherever you'll find criticism of Israel by many people, you'll find anti-semitic bollocks spouted by some.
:up:
In the UK, people talk about race less, but there's still all kinds of racial discrimination. EG, during corona, people currently on limited leave to remain don't have access to any benefits whatsoever. That's about 1.4 mil people suddenly made destitute. Add that to illegal deportations. and the usual racial distribution of poverty, disproportionate rates of state sanctioned violence, and the historical sacking of black neighbourhoods by white supremacists (white working class brits elevating themselves symbolically by "punching down" - hashtag union politics) and it's same shit different smell.
Instead of talking about race, the UK talks about immigration. Racism is always close to the surface in that kind of discussion, and it shows when it boils over into hate crimes.
The critical tradition in the US regarding systemic racism is something very much to be admired, it's a massive achievement of activism and scholarship that it's so publicised and well understood. Not quite the same for the UK, in which approx 30% of the people believe the UK's former colonies were better off when they were colonised. Combine that with racism in the UK being to a large part colonialism brought home... And yeah. UK's got a long way to go on the consciousness of systemic racism front.
Edit: in case the context isn't clear, awareness of how racism works requires an understanding of race and its categories. It just isn't plausible that stopping being aware of race is going to address systemic racism, precisely it requires a critical awareness of race.
There are those whose aim it is to obfuscate, deny, distort, and refuse to hear the message... so it cannot be sold.
I suspect you are one.
Awareness of race isn't going to address systemic racism either it seems to me, at least not on it's own. It's interesting you bring up the UK and compliment the US on it's awareness of the problem, because it isn't entirely clear to me that black people are better off in the US compared to the UK.
It's a bit of catch-22, right? The categories that are created are the origin of the problem, and then you have to take them into account because they have created a reality that you want to change. But in doing so you risk reinforcing made-up categories that tend to cause inequities by virtue of them existing. Then again they already exist, so it probably doesn't make all that much of a difference.
Still the root of the problem is the existence of the categories it seems. Apparently game-theoretic models predict these kind of inequities 'naturally' arising between separate identified social groups. I don't know how solid and applicable these models really are, I'm no expert, but it does intuitively makes perfect sense to me that this would be the case, especially if one group is a minority. And so if you can't do away with them, it's always going to be a bit of an uphill battle.
But maybe - if I'm allowed to make abstraction from the real world problem for a second - that is the more philosophical take-away from all of this.... that inequalities will arise between identified social groups no matter if there is overt or active racial discrimination or not (and there certainly is that too). And so we need something to correct for that... I'm not entirely sure what kinda of solution would do the trick though.
Aye. That's why I said it was a requirement, rather than a solution.
Red kool-aid would still stain clothes even if we did not call it "red". The root of the problem is not language. That misgiving has been addressed more than enough in this thread.
Because no one who doesn't agree with you can legitimately oppose racism? Because you have some special understanding of the issue that only you can possess due to the moral superiority of your particular experience? Because black people taught you about white privilege, therefore it must be real? You still have never been able to respond to anything I've said beyond to attack me personally in some way. It speaks to the weakness of your beliefs.
It's funny. Way back at the beginning of this thread, before I even posted, I tended to agree with your position. The longer you have defended it however, the less your goal seems to be equity. You seem to have been radicalized and to have some need that there is some sort of retribution and culpability leveled at all white people. I am starting to believe that you are a racist.
Deny it all you want. Your words speak otherwise.
No. It is for none of those proposed reasons that I suspect you are aiming to muddy the waters and deliberately confuse the issues. Rather, it's because I've assumed that you are capable of understanding what's been written.
I could be wrong about that.
That's not true at all. What valid response and/or criticism have you levied that I've not given due attention to?
Where have I attacked you personally? The reverse is easily shown, so...
Offer one criticism of white privilege that follows from what I've been setting out here. We can go from there. You'll have my undivided attention.
Got one?