Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm curious why some people are so insistent on using the phrase "white privilege"? IMO, it's just a rhetorical distraction from getting white people to focus on the disadvantages racial/ethnic minorities face in society?
IMO, there are two basic problems with "white privilege": 1) It creates a distracting semantic debate over the meaning of "privilege" Privilege can be a loaded term. Privilege in common usage is so associated with a economic wealth and elitism. While most most elites in the county are white, most white people are not economic or social elites. In stead of focusing the ways minorities can be disadvantaged in society, many whites (particularly less educated, lower income white with limited social connections) will just be pissed off as being portrayed as a members of a homogenous, wealthy and powerful elite. Particularly at a time, when there are many high status and income persons of color.
2) White privilege is an academic theory that has strong ideological/philosophical underpinnings and serious people can take issue with some of the underlying pieces, even if you accept the basic premise. No serious scholar takes issue with the idea that minorities face certain disadvantages and white people have certain advantages in society. But even many people who agree with the basic premise take issue with certain aspects of the notion of "white privilege"
At the end of the day, the whole "White Privilege" debate seems to be a rhetorical distraction that needlessly distracts from more productive conversations on how to help end racial discrimination. Broad based economic measures to combat poverty/encourage opportunity and legal/policy efforts to fight outright discrimination and the milder/but more widespread problem of stereotyping and implicit biases would seem to be far more productive.
They focus on both. For years and years it has been minority disadvantage and now they have come up with white privilege to add to the guilt whites might feel and to stir up more anger against whites. Its all baloney from the start. I know too many whites that grew up poor to lump whites together as being privileged. And those poor whites never got to use anything like affirmative action and all the other benefits that minorities get. I know too many whites that had to work their way through college while minorities had a free pass. I hope others realize that.
All privilege means is there is some part of your identity that has an easier time operating in society, all things being equal, than people who don't share that identity.
There is class privilege, gender privilege, privilege associated with sexual identity, etc.
For instance, a middle class straight black female will have advantages over a middle class gay black female. If all you change is that one thing, the straight one is more accepted in society. That is what privilege means.
White privilege doesn't mean all whites have it easy. It means ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the white skin is an advantage in America. So a poor white male working his way up from poverty would have more acceptance moving through society than a poor black male working his way up from poverty.
White privilege (and male privilege) get focused on in part because they are sensational and spark controversy. And often, the definition gets misrepresented as "all whites have it easy" which is not what it means. But honestly, if we don't talk about it how can we change it? Conversations about straight privilege helped me to see things I had taken for granted forever. It made me a better ally. It can be quite helpful if the defensiveness gets dropped.
All privilege means is there is some part of your identity that has an easier time operating in society, all things being equal, than people who don't share that identity.
There is class privilege, gender privilege, privilege associated with sexual identity, etc.
For instance, a middle class straight black female will have advantages over a middle class gay black female. If all you change is that one thing, the straight one is more accepted in society. That is what privilege means.
White privilege doesn't mean all whites have it easy. It means ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the white skin is an advantage in America. So a poor white male working his way up from poverty would have more acceptance moving through society than a poor black male working his way up from poverty.
White privilege (and male privilege) get focused on in part because they are sensational and spark controversy. And often, the definition gets misrepresented as "all whites have it easy" which is not what it means. But honestly, if we don't talk about it how can we change it? Conversations about straight privilege helped me to see things I had taken for granted forever. It made me a better ally. It can be quite helpful if the defensiveness gets dropped.
Thanks for the very thoughtful post.
You seem to be arguing for a more moderate form of "privilege", which I happen to agree with in broad terms. All things being equal, it is easier to be white than Asian or Hispanic. It is better to Asian or Hispanic than it is to be African-American. It is better to be native born than foreign born. It is easier to be Straight than Gay and easier to be Gay then Transgender. It is better to be born into a middle class family than working class or poor family (and even better to be born into a high income household). It's better to be born into a stable 2-parent home than a single parent home, it is better to be attractive than ugly and so on.
In reality, we have many advantages and disadvantages in life. In contemporary society, it is possible for class privilege to trump race/ethnicity in some cases. It is probably better to be born to an upper middle class Hispanic couple living in an affluent neighborhood than a poor white single mother in blue collar town. Yes, in the real world there is a correlation between race and class. But, there is a rising non-white upper class (particularly among Asians) and many poor whites.
But, it seems there is also a strong form of privilege, which often says the dominant group seeks to oppress other groups (and benefits from this oppression). Personally, I think this is too far. To take the straight privilege example, sure the vast majority of society is straight and cultural norms (and in some cases laws) largely reflect that fact. I guess relative to gay, people straight people have privilege. But, the privilege seems mostly about discrimination/denied rights that gay people face, rather than any tangible benefits that straight people receive. Gay people may be passed over for a job because they are gay, but it is unlikely a straight person will be hired simply because they are straight. Gay people may in some sense be "oppressed" but it isn't clear that straight people really derive much of a benefit from that. Maybe at one point, the vast majority of straight people sought to intentionally "oppress" gay people. But, today many straight people favor equality for gays and have played a role in ended discrimination against gays.
I think this strong form of privilege described the US on race in the 50s and on homosexuality in the 80s. But, I don't think it describes US society today despite many disadvantages and forms of discrimination against both groups.
As I stated before, I think replacing the word "privilege" with something less charged like "advantage/disadvantages" would do a much better job of moving the conversation along.
It's better to focus on achievement. Someone who achieved something, whether learning, the arts, business, public service, charity, etc. should be recognized for what he has done.
People like Westinghouse, Ford, Faulkner, Angelou, achieved great things that benefited us all. Most of us will never match their accomplishment, but we can try. If we make it part way, like A's in school, designing a new airplane, working in charity, that too should be recognized.
Privilege is a a diversion. It has a narrow meaning that has been hijacked by people seeking to enlist it in a political cause. For most of us, it has no meaning. We neither have it nor are effected by it. Every good fortune that comes our way is not privilege. Almost all of what we achieve is accomplished by striving. Privilege is pejoratively applied to people who succeed by striving and luck as well as advantage. The goal is to excuse the non-strivers, those who achieve nothing. To blame others for the non-strivers' failures.
They focus on both. For years and years it has been minority disadvantage and now they have come up with white privilege to add to the guilt whites might feel and to stir up more anger against whites. Its all baloney from the start. I know too many whites that grew up poor to lump whites together as being privileged. And those poor whites never got to use anything like affirmative action and all the other benefits that minorities get. I know too many whites that had to work their way through college while minorities had a free pass. I hope others realize that.
What minorities got a free pass? I'm Black and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for medical school. Never got a free pass for anything.
Saying minorities get a free pass is IMO ridiculous and a vast over generalization. Obviously it is very easy to see how people could be offended. In general, successful minorities work very hard work to get where they are and no body is given a free ride. Minorities, on average, come from much more difficult situations than their white counterparts. (Of course many white people also have hardships and many minorities advantages).
But, I can see how "race conscious" social policies are controversial. As a strict matter it is indeed discrimination based on race. The counter point is of course that this "government sanctioned discrimination" partially offsets lots of real world discrimination. (In practice it is legally supported under notions of encouraging diversity as a social goal.)
I think the "righting past wrong argument" is a particularly compelling case when applied to African-Americans. As a group, AAs have been subject to a level of racism/discrimination unlike another group in our history. We are not so far removed from an official policy of state sponsored racial segregation. I don't think it should be open ended, but I support some "positive race based discrimination." Based on the 3 generatons to assimilate rule, perhaps it should be open to those and the children and grand children of those who suffered under jim crown. Basically, people who have AA grandparents born before 1965. (Full disclosure my spouse is AA, so this would theoretically benefit my children).
But, when it comes to Hispanics (many of whom came to the country recently as voluntary immigrants/not slaves) I'm not so sure the case for ethnicity specific measures is as strong. It is a bit of a contradiction to encourage mass low skilled immigration (predominantly Hispanic) and then turn around an complain that Hispanics (who are predominantly low skilled immigrants and the 1st generation children of low skilled immigrants) lag whites on average and white privilege/systemic racism are to blame. Particularly at a time when we know that low skilled individuals (regardless of race) will struggle in the modern economy due to automation and globalization. Unlike 100 years ago, there aren't the factory jobs. We live in a knowledge based labor market, where a skill is a essential for a middle class wage.
It seems the left (of which I consider myself) needs to better acknowledge the contradiction between championing low skilled immigration and trying to fight domestic poverty. The more low skilled immigration we have the more domestic poverty/working poor we will have. Current discrimination against Hispanics seems more on par with the bigotry faced by Southern and Eastern European immigrants 100 years ago. One hundred years ago, northern Europeans had "privilege" relative to Southern and Eastern Europeans. Those have basically faded away overtime as the immigrant groups assimilated.
We should obviously vigorously fight discrimination. Everyone should be treated legally equally in our society. But it seems social policies toward raising up the poor should be broad based and race neutral.
Asians are mostly immigrants or the children of ON AVERAGE higher skilled immigrants and consequently they have ON AVERAGE higher incomes. Hispanics are the ON AVERAGE the opposite. We don't have to go into some crazy discussions on culture or genetics (like some on the right like to do) or some structural racism/white supremacy argument (like those on the left like to do).
Why is ANYONE focusing on color? Do your best. Be polite. Work hard. Be honest...that's all it takes. You are your own "disadvantage"....do NOT blame color.
I'm curious why some people are so insistent on using the phrase "white privilege"? IMO, it's just a rhetorical distraction from getting white people to focus on the disadvantages racial/ethnic minorities face in society?
IMO, there are two basic problems with "white privilege": 1) It creates a distracting semantic debate over the meaning of "privilege" Privilege can be a loaded term. Privilege in common usage is so associated with a economic wealth and elitism. While most most elites in the county are white, most white people are not economic or social elites. In stead of focusing the ways minorities can be disadvantaged in society, many whites (particularly less educated, lower income white with limited social connections) will just be pissed off as being portrayed as a members of a homogenous, wealthy and powerful elite. Particularly at a time, when there are many high status and income persons of color.
2) White privilege is an academic theory that has strong ideological/philosophical underpinnings and serious people can take issue with some of the underlying pieces, even if you accept the basic premise. No serious scholar takes issue with the idea that minorities face certain disadvantages and white people have certain advantages in society. But even many people who agree with the basic premise take issue with certain aspects of the notion of "white privilege"
At the end of the day, the whole "White Privilege" debate seems to be a rhetorical distraction that needlessly distracts from more productive conversations on how to help end racial discrimination. Broad based economic measures to combat poverty/encourage opportunity and legal/policy efforts to fight outright discrimination and the milder/but more widespread problem of stereotyping and implicit biases would seem to be far more productive.
They do it because their leaders come up with a new slogan that basically translates to whitey had it too good and they deserve better despite their efforts and attitudes. They are always pissed. It's how Sharpton makes a living. Agitate, agitate, agitate.
White privilege makes a lot of sense. I hate how people attempt to derail discussions about white privilege by crying how they aren't racist, that's not the point. A lot of people of color know that white privilege is very real, and it's sad how it's always trying to shift blame or point fingers at other people. We can all acknowledge that straight people have more of an easier life than gay people, because we are the "normal" and we don't get harassment, questions, or even murdered just because we fit the norm. Why can't anyone see that with white privilege? It's only right to say white privilege comes with its advantages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
