Video: Whites are privileged, and that's unfair

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by Shakes

I agree with you actually. My bit about "I can't succeed because whitey is racist.' was meant to draw a line as to how far one can take this whole victimization thing.

Why would you take something that's true and exaggerate it to the point where it's ridiculous and untrue? "What? You say global warming is real? Well it's obviously incorrect that it's a hundred billion degrees, genius." Does that make sense to say?

Also, if minorities think THIS is real, it is not.

The video in the OP sort of leaves me with the feeling that whites actually do have it that good.

Dude, are you serious? The only people who think reality is anything like that would be found in an institution somewhere. Eddie Murphy is exaggerating to the point of ridiculousness, but as a joke. It wouldn't be funny if it was literally true (well, I don't think it's funny anyway, because I think Eddie Murphy is annoying).

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by Blackberry

Dude, are you serious? The only people who think reality is anything like that would be found in an institution somewhere. Eddie Murphy is exaggerating to the point of ridiculousness, but as a joke. It wouldn't be funny if it was literally true (well, I don't think it's funny anyway, because I think Eddie Murphy is annoying).

No. That's the joke. And sadly, that's pretty much the same messege I take away from the video linked in the OP.

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It's mostly a semantic distinction, but the point is that everyone else should be treated better, not that white people should be treated worse.

You can't treat minorities better without things getting worse for white people in zero-sum games like employment and higher education, though. When one person gets a job, all the other candidates didn't get it. When only 100 people will be admitted to a prestigious college program, or 10 will get a full tuition scholarship, there are a lot of other applicants who were turned away.

White people have traditionally had it easier than non-whites in a lot of ways, whether they realize, care, acknowledge it, or not--this is the definition of privilege. And making things easier for non-whites means that white people are now going to have it less easy (or, as is semantically-equivalent, harder) than they used to. That's the logical consequence of acknowledging privilege. It's also necessary if we are to progress as a nation/species.

Whites who complain about affirmative action (despite the fact that we are not even close to racial parity in the US) don't realize that without it, things would currently be even worse for non-whites. Well... either they don't realize it or they don't care, because they're afraid of losing the advantages they had before AA existed. Whether or not we call this racism (which to some whites is a more offensive term than the N-word), I say it's pretty fuckin' repugnant to want to keep holding non-whites back for the sake of continuing your own advancement (advancement that was built on the oppression of, and at the expense of, non-white people). You can't say, "black people are doing fine now, enough with the AA bullshit," and make it so. The numbers don't agree with you.

"Because we've always done it this way" or "this is the most fair way" are bullshit arguments, but commonly trotted out by conservatives in this debate. If you (general you) are compelled to think or say that, you should take a fair few steps back and figure out why you're so threatened by the possibility of racial parity. Because anyone who thinks we're already at racial parity isn't looking at the facts... they're deluding themselves.

I am a white person who is willing to give up my white privilege so that non-whites can have it better. Obviously I can't put my privilege in a bucket, go hand it to a black girl my age, and be done with it . But I can advocate for affirmative action (even knowing it may come at the expense of my own job), higher college subsidies for non-whites (even knowing I might pay more for my own education or go to a lower-ranked school as a result), try to change the minds of old white dudes who won't acknowledge their privilege (even though it pisses them off and causes them to write me off as a hopelessly idealistic libtard), and refuse to hang around people who are racist assholes (even though it may cost me relationships and make me look snobby). Over time, the hope is that these small things, which every white person can do, will lead to future improvements for non-whites.

And I'm sure that posting about this will probably get me hardcore snarked on elsewhere--oh well. I don't say this stuff to get cred or to be internet-cool or because I think it makes me a better person than anyone else. I'm say it because there's a lot of ignorance about privilege which I felt up to fighting today. Any haters can kindly suck it.

[olivesmarch4th]

rachelellogram, that was beautiful! Couldn't have said it better.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Maeglin

Is this generally how you feel? That if you are not causing a problem, you don't have to do anything different?

Depends on the problem, I suppose, and especially on what they think causes it and what I need to do about it.

If they are saying that white privilege is the source of most of the problems in some minority group, then they have to show how that is the case. And not just by running a PSA saying "no fair". And also, not by simply saying how they are disadvantaged and assuming it is because of white privilege.

It seems a little silly to say that white privilege consists of not being treated as a group, and that this is unfair, and at the same time saying that whites as a group have this privilege.

White racism is not the source of the problems of most of the minorities in the US. And minorities who have overcome racism didn't do it by pointing fingers at white people.

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

Whites who complain about affirmative action (despite the fact that we are not even close to racial parity in the US) don't realize that without it, things would currently be even worse for non-whites. Well... either they don't realize it or they don't care, because they're afraid of losing the advantages they had before AA existed. Whether or not we call this racism (which to some whites is a more offensive term than the N-word), I say it's pretty fuckin' repugnant to want to keep holding non-whites back for the sake of continuing your own advancement...

If advancement is a zero-sum game, as you seem to be saying, then isn't it equally repugnant to say that whites should be held back for the sake of other peoples' advancement? In other words, "privilege" is unfair, but only if it applies to one group and not to others?

If it is unfair to hold a group back so that another group can advance, isn't it unfair to hold a group back so that another group can advance? The solution to injustice is not more injustice.

If that is what the PSA is saying, that whites have to be held back so that non-whites can get their goodies, then my reaction to the PSA goes from indifference to outright refusal. I am not going agree to be treated unjustly, and non-whites who want me to can go pound sand. Because they have given up the only persuasive argument they have that "white privilege" is wrong - that it is unjust.

"This is wrong, and we need to continue it, just in a way that screws a different set of people". No thanks. If it is unjust for you, it is unjust for anyone else.

Regards,
Shodan

[olivesmarch4th]

Originally Posted by Crafter_Man

There's no affirmative action for me.

There is, and has been, since before this country was even founded.

[Der Trihs]

Most whites aren't privileged; they are in fact treated poorly. It's just that non-whites are treated even worse. Which is one reason why claims of "white privilege" are received poorly; someone who is being ground down and exploited isn't going to buy it when someone tells them that they are "privileged", even if they are objectively better off than the person making the accusation.

And this entire idea reeks of divide-and-conquer; the poor and mistreated in general deserve better treatment, but they aren't likely to get if if they spend their energy beating on each other. This argument over who's the worst treated and the idea that only the worst treated deserve sympathy and aid only benefits the rich and powerful who are doing the mistreating. The same logic that leads to the claim that poor whites aren't supposed to complain because they are "privileged" leads to groups like blacks and Jews and gays and women getting into collective screaming matches over who has been treated worse, and accomplishes nothing except dividing them against each other.

[The Great Sun Jester]

If "privileged" means "receives preferential treatment" then this Whitey disagrees.

Of course, I can only go by my own experience. I've known lots of folks of lots of races, most of 'em were Americans. It's my experience that, when dealing with people who have lived here their entire lives, I run about a 1 in 3 chance of coming across an asshole irrespective of the color of their skin. For my part, I disfavor assholes and reward, probably disproportionately, people whom I feel are being up front and reasonable. I don't keep track of race or ethnicity in general for stuff that matters because it's just not a reliable indicator of anything I need to know. ZIP codes, on the other hand....

If "privileged" means "wealth" then I might get on board, but it's more to do with fate and the culture you were born into than any insidious, deep-rooted conspiracy to keep someone in their place. I have family that has been satisfied being trailer/shack trash since there have been trailers/shacks. My parents left because their desire to be something 'better' was stronger than their love of the family they left behind. They were unusual, and in a sense the pair of Southern hicks living in Seattle were immigrants. Most people prefer to stick with what they know, and I refuse to believe I am responsible for American subcultures who shun education and taxable work when they don't want it anyway.

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Most whites aren't privileged; they are in fact treated poorly. It's just that non-whites are treated even worse. Which is one reason why claims of "white privilege" are received poorly; someone who is being ground down and exploited isn't going to buy it when someone tells them that they are "privileged", even if they are objectively better off than the person making the accusation.

This is true, but the white people who really are privileged seem to be at least as likely as less privileged ones to take issue with the claim. And I wish more of the white people who haven't been treated right either wouldn't take such offense at the suggestion that, all else being equal, they still have more privilege than they would if they weren't white. I'm white and I feel pretty beaten down by society too. There are enough things that suck about life to go around though and I can acknowledge the unearned privileges I do have.

It shouldn't be a divide-and-conquer situation. Exploited groups should band together and fight for causes that only affect some of them. Not that that's likely to happen to any great degree, but it would be nice.

Also, good post, Rachelellogram.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Most whites aren't privileged; they are in fact treated poorly. It's just that non-whites are treated even worse. Which is one reason why claims of "white privilege" are received poorly; someone who is being ground down and exploited isn't going to buy it when someone tells them that they are "privileged", even if they are objectively better off than the person making the accusation.

Agreed, the idea that "white" people have some kind of monolithic culture or experience is one of the things that sours any reasonable discussion in the USA. And no one dares mention the forbidden word class.

But some of you are arguing things which are not racial privilege, like wealth.

When my wife can say there is not a snowballs chance in hell they would even listen to our plea, and I say what? nah stay here and let me go talk to them................ok they agreed. That is privilege right there.

Grude invokes white power!

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by LonesomePolecat

Well, gosh, maybe you should go back to India, where you will certainly not be subjected to such horrible unfairness. We horrible white people should not have forced you to immigrate here, considering what a wonderful life you had back there. It really was mean of us.

And here's the obligatory white person telling a member of a racial minority to get out of the country. This massive sense of entitlement is one of the results of white privilege.

[Ibanez]

I was turned down for a government job about a decade ago, I was qualified but the problem not only the fact that I had a penis. But it was white. Yeah I'm privileged alright.

[AClockworkMelon]

"I'm such a bummer... I shouldn't be, I'm a lucky guy. I'm healthy, I'm relatively young... I'm white, which thank God for that shit, boy. That is a HUGE leg up, are you kidding me? I love being white, I really do. Seriously, if you aren't white you're missing out, because this shit is really good. Let me be clear, I'm not saying that white people are better, I'm saying that being white is clearly better. Who could even argue? If it was an option, I'd re-up every year: "Oh yeah I'll take white again absolutely, I'll stick with white, thank you." This is how great it is to be white: I could get into a time machine and go to any time and it'll be fucking awesome when I get there! That is exclusively a white privilege. Black people can't fuck with time machines! A black guy with a time machine is like "Hey, anything before 1980, no thank you, don't wanna go!" But I can go to ANY time. The year TWO? I don't even know what was happening then. But I know when I get there it'll be "Thank you for coming we have a table for you right here, sir." I can go to any time! In the past. I don't want to go to the future and find out what happens to white people. Because we're gonna pay hard for this shit. You can't just fall from one to two. They're gonna hold us down and fuck us in the ass and we totally deserve it. But until then, WEEEEEEEE!"
Louis CK

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Most whites aren't privileged; they are in fact treated poorly. It's just that non-whites are treated even worse. Which is one reason why claims of "white privilege" are received poorly; someone who is being ground down and exploited isn't going to buy it when someone tells them that they are "privileged", even if they are objectively better off than the person making the accusation.

And this entire idea reeks of divide-and-conquer; the poor and mistreated in general deserve better treatment, but they aren't likely to get if if they spend their energy beating on each other. This argument over who's the worst treated and the idea that only the worst treated deserve sympathy and aid only benefits the rich and powerful who are doing the mistreating. The same logic that leads to the claim that poor whites aren't supposed to complain because they are "privileged" leads to groups like blacks and Jews and gays and women getting into collective screaming matches over who has been treated worse, and accomplishes nothing except dividing them against each other.

Thank you. It's nice to see that someone gets it. Honestly a bit surprised it's you, as usually you're the one who doesn't understand that how you frame the issue often makes people defensive. I voted that this was a message I disagreed because of exactly what you said: whites are not privileged.

And rachellelogram's post is horrible as she completely missed the point of the person she was responding to. Stop commending her for creating a strawman.

[jsgoddess]

I'm white and I think it's really pretty damned obvious that whites are privileged. I think this is a great analogy.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse

Lonesome,

You understand that she's not accusing you, right? The fact that there's unfairness to non-whites doesn't require that all white people are horrible and unfair. Although responding with "go home then" really doesn't help you.

No, she is. That's the whole point. There's no reason to tell white people that they are privileged unless you are telling them that they need to stop being so. That's the entire problem with this crap.

I'm all for supporting minorities. I'm all for affirmative action. But I do that to help other people, not to decrease my privilege. My goal is to make everyone equal, not disparage one group to make another group better.

Heck, the idea that affirmative action is giving up privilege is probably the reason there are so many white people that object to it. The focus should be on helping you, not hurting me.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by BigT

No, she is. That's the whole point. There's no reason to tell white people that they are privileged unless you are telling them that they need to stop being so. That's the entire problem with this crap.
.

This.

The problem with telling white people they are priveledged is IMO it sounds like several things. First it makes it sound like they have it easy. I don't know many white people that I would go that far in describing their lives. Second, it makes it sound like it's THEIR fault for not having it as hard as black people/whoever. Thirdly, it also sounds like its their fault black people/whoever have it harder than them. Fourthly it makes it sound like all the good stuff they have is just given to them (again, I aint seeing it).

And this whole approach just seems to me like a way to piss off any white people who don't already suffer from the white guilt complex.

Tell me as a minority about all the ways you are treated wrongly and I'll probably be sympatheic and say this or that IS wrong...blah blah blah.

Stand there and tell me I've got it easy just because I am white and my first inclination is to say "bite me".

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by billfish678

The problem with telling white people they are priveledged is IMO it sounds like several things. First it makes it sound like they have it easy. I don't know many white people that I would go that far in describing their lives.

What it actually means is that white people have it easier. If you want to assign your own strawman meaning to the phrase that's your business but it's not a valid point.

Second, it makes it sound like it's THEIR fault for not having it as hard as black people/whoever. Thirdly, it also sounds like its their fault black people/whoever have it harder than them.

No, it doesn't imply either of those things. It says that white people, not by virtue of anything they've done, have systematic advantages including ones they aren't aware of unless someone who doesn't have those advantages explains it to them.

Fourthly it makes it sound like all the good stuff they have is just given to them (again, I aint seeing it).

No. It just means that whatever their accomplishments, they would have been more difficult, or their success less assured, had they not had the advantage of being white.

You can impute whatever idiosyncratic meanings you like on the word, but making up meanings for words and then getting defensive and angry about the meanings you made up is absurd.

And this whole approach just seems to me like a way to piss off any white people who don't already suffer from the white guilt complex.

Sure. A lot of members of any majority group will get angry and defensive and try to shout down anyone who points out the ways in which they have things easier. And they'll make up all sorts of imaginary strawman arguments and often react with outrage. Look at Lonesome Polecat's posts for an example. That doesn't mean that no one should say those things, though.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Sure. A lot of members of any majority group will get angry and defensive and try to shout down anyone who points out the ways in which they have things easier. And they'll make up all sorts of imaginary strawman arguments and often react with outrage. Look at Lonesome Polecat's posts for an example. That doesn't mean that no one should say those things, though.

If its counterproductive to your cause its bad mkay?

Of course I am white so I really don't care about your cause so have at it.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by billfish678

If its counterproductive to your cause its bad mkay?

Do you actually have ideas for how to address the issue in a way that is productive? Or do you just want to complain and say things like "bite me" to people who correctly point out the existence of systematic racism and its effects on people?

Originally Posted by billfish678

Of course I am white so I really don't care about your cause so have at it.

Ahh. This clears that up.

[Idle Thoughts]

All right, I'm going to move this over to Great Debates now. I think it suitably reached that level a bit ago.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Do you actually have ideas for how to address the issue in a way that is productive? Or do you just want to complain and say things like "bite me" to people who correctly point out the existence of systematic racism and its effects on people?.

I pointed out a productive way VS a IMWO a less productive way. But you missed it apparently. Hint, it read something like this:

"Tell me as a minority about all the ways you are treated wrongly and I'll probably be sympatheic and say this or that IS wrong...blah blah blah."


"White people have it good" = bad way.

"Black people/minorities have it bad" = good way.

The first just trys to make whitey feel guilty. The second way appeals to whitey's sense of justice.

[BrainGlutton]

It remains true, even today, that people of the same class but different "races" are not equally privileged; this holds true even at the upper-class level, to some extent -- and, to the extent that nonwhite upper-class Americans exist. It also remains true that the further you go up the class ladder, the fewer nonwhites there are. From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind:

The chief danger confronting the twenty-first century United States is not Balkanization but what might be called Brazilianization. By Brazilianization I mean not the separation of cultures by race, but the separation of races by class. As in Brazil, a common American culture could be indefinitely compatible with a blurry, informal caste system in which most of those at the top of the social hierarchy are white, and most brown and black Americans are on the bottom -- forever. Behind all the boosterish talk about the wonders of the new American rainbow is the reality of enduring racial division by class, something that multicultural education initiatives and racial preference policies do not begin to address.

In the absence of sustained popular pressure from below or concern about America's international status, the white overclass has no incentive to combat Brazilianization in the United States. For one thing, any serious effort to reduce racial separation by class would inevitably mean higher taxes on the affluent -- not just the rich, but the politically powerful upper-middle class. What is more, the dominance of the white oligarchy in American politics is strengthened by the emergent dynamics of a polarized society. In a more homogeneous society, the increasing concentration of wealth and power at the top might produce a populist reaction by the majority. But in a society like that of present-day America where a small, homogeneous oligarchy confronts a diverse population that shares a common national culture but remains divided along racial lines, the position of the outnumbered elite can be very secure. This is because the resentments caused by economic decline are likely to be expressed as hostility between the groups at the bottom, rather than as a rebellion against the top. In the Los Angeles riot, black, Hispanic, and white rioters turned on Korean middlemen, rather than march on Beverly Hills.

[Rachellelogram]

I think a good way to sum up white privilege is: no matter how good or how shitty your life is right now, if your skin were a different color, your life would be worse. Let's use a car analogy:

You're a spectator at a racetrack and notice the lead car is way ahead of the other cars. The driver is happy, and secure in the knowledge that he's much more skillful than than the other drivers. He earned his way to first place! But actually, unbeknownst to him, the frame of his car was secretly designed with a rare, strong, super-lightweight metal alloy. The car was designed a couple hundred years ago, and nobody who's responsible for its lightweight, superior design is still alive today. The alloy lets him accelerate faster than any other car on the track, and it's the biggest reason why he's in the lead. He's a fine driver, sure, but this alloy gave him opportunities that the other cars never had. If he'd crashed into the wall then he'd be out of the race, of course. Nothing about the alloy prevents him from crashing. But the other cars are heavier, and they corner more slowly. It's much harder for those drivers to do as well as our lead driver. Unless the lead driver makes a huge mistake, he's not going to lose the race; in fact, that gap will never be closed, it's only going to get wider.

As it turns out, the racetrack owners only recently found out about this alloy. The driver himself doesn't even know about it, because he's only ever driven one car his whole life. That's how it's always been. But soon, the owners pull him aside and tell him, "Listen. You're a fine driver, and we appreciate all the work you've done to get so many sponsors and first-place trophies. But it turns out you've been racing with an unfair weight advantage for a couple hundred years now. We hope you can agree that it's not a fair race unless all the cars weigh the same amount. Unfortunately, we can't give everyone the exact same frame as you, since the people who designed it died centuries ago and they didn't leave the blueprints. But we don't want to take away your frame, either. You're used to driving your car like it is, and it wouldn't be fair to take that away from you. So instead, we're going to change some parts around on all the other cars. In the end, all the cars will weigh exactly the same. We're going to check and make sure that this is a fair race for everybody from now on."

At this point, they've decided that it doesn't matter how his car got an unfair advantage. They're not going to take away any of his old trophies or his existing sponsorships. They just want to make it right, because the only thing that matters is moving forward and being fair from now on. So the other drivers get lighter tires, or a more-efficient engine, or a more-streamlined design (whatever mod is most appropriate, given their car's current design). But his car never changes. If he's still the lead man after the next few dozen races, then his skill was truly superb all along. But more likely, he will slip in the standings (perhaps a little, perhaps a lot depending on his skill). Because it was never pure skill that got him the lead, it was the alloy. He will start to lose some sponsorship money. Maybe he only gets a trophy once a year now. It's harder to get laid by hot chicks at tailgate parties; now he has to take a few 9s instead of all 10s (or have sex less often, which is unthinkable! ).


His response at this point defines him as a person:

• If he's a good person, he will humbly acknowledge that of course the other drivers deserve a fair shot to win. He realizes there is no point in getting angry at the other cars, it's not their fault his car was lighter. He doesn't blame himself, because he didn't know his car was lighter--it was only recently brought to his attention, after all. And there's no point in getting pissed at the racetrack owners, they just want a fair race for everybody at the track they work so hard to keep profitable. If anybody is to blame, it's the designers of the car. But they're all dead, and we can't ask them why they designed things the way they did back then. Now that he has to actually try to succeed in life, he dedicates himself to doing better. He gets used to living on less money and sleeping with fewer super-hot babes. He doesn't complain that he's not always #1 anymore.
• If he's a whiny, self-entitled person, he will deny that he ever had an advantage in the first place. He might go on TV and proclaim that the racetrack owners are out to get him. That alloy doesn't exist, they made it up as an excuse to give the other cars unfair advantages. Their lighter-weight parts and more efficient engines are why they're beating him now, not their skill.

Nobody is taking anything away from our driver. He had an unfair advantage for centuries that was camouflaged so well, nobody ever even noticed it was there. And for all that time, the drivers of slower cars have had to exert herculean efforts just to end up in the top 10. A lot of the more downtrodden cars that end up in the middle of the pack had to try harder to just barely get by than the lead man ever had to try to attain his obscene levels of success.

Now that the playing field is level, some of the slower cars are likely going to pass our driver. But no matter how uncomfortable that makes our driver, we owed it to the slower drivers to remove the barriers that were holding them back. And sure, some of the slower cars will still fail, even after we've given them faster parts. Some of those drivers will attempt to cheat the system by making their cars even lighter than our driver's car. That's part of the automotive condition. Regardless, the failure or poor qualities of some slower drivers can't be used as an excuse to deny a faster parts to all of the slower cars. They didn't ask to be born heavy and slow any more than our driver asked to be born light and speedy. It just happened that way, and we can't change it. But now that we can see the lead driver was lighter and speedier than he should have been all along, we have a moral obligation to bring the others up to speed.

Within a few hundred more years, all the cars will be placing based entirely on their efforts. And that's the way it should be.

TL;DR version: http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/k...ng/concise.jpg

[tellyworth]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

I think Acsenray has summed it up: the point seems to be that white people do have a tendency to see each other first as individuals and non-whites first as members of a group.

In social psychology it's called Outgroup Homogeneity Bias.

[VarlosZ]

Originally Posted by billfish678

The problem with telling white people they are priveledged is IMO it sounds like several things. First it makes it sound like they have it easy. I don't know many white people that I would go that far in describing their lives. Second, it makes it sound like it's THEIR fault for not having it as hard as black people/whoever. Thirdly, it also sounds like its their fault black people/whoever have it harder than them. Fourthly it makes it sound like all the good stuff they have is just given to them (again, I aint seeing it).

And this whole approach just seems to me like a way to piss off any white people who don't already suffer from the white guilt complex.

I can understand why you might feel this way, but most of that seems like stuff that you and others are reading into these kinds of messages rather than something that's being communicated by the speaker.

To make explicit all sorts of caveats: white people don't have it easy just because they're white, AND almost all of us work very hard for what we have just like everyone else, AND no individual white person (even if he's an Archie Bunker-type bigot) is personally culpable for any hardships faced by minorities in this country, AND America's racism problem is by no means uniquely bad within the world community, AND the U.S.A. is a wonderful place to live with countless great features (both tangible and intangible). That said, all things being equal, it's harder to be non-white in America than it is to be white, and that's a problem that bears addressing. Making people aware that there's still a lot of casual, informal racism --- and nudging them to maybe not put up with said when they run across it in the future, or to be vigilant in avoiding it in themselves -- is one way to address it. No one is attacking you, I swear. (Or, it's rare, anyway: there are plenty of asshats in every walk of life.)

Furthermore, I gather that almost everyone here who's ticked off by this PSA is strongly opposed to affirmative action. Obviously, you'd prefer to see the problem of racism dealt with from within civil society rather than through government. Well, this is what that looks like.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Most whites aren't privileged; they are in fact treated poorly. It's just that non-whites are treated even worse. Which is one reason why claims of "white privilege" are received poorly; someone who is being ground down and exploited isn't going to buy it when someone tells them that they are "privileged", even if they are objectively better off than the person making the accusation.

And this entire idea reeks of divide-and-conquer; the poor and mistreated in general deserve better treatment, but they aren't likely to get if if they spend their energy beating on each other. This argument over who's the worst treated and the idea that only the worst treated deserve sympathy and aid only benefits the rich and powerful who are doing the mistreating. The same logic that leads to the claim that poor whites aren't supposed to complain because they are "privileged" leads to groups like blacks and Jews and gays and women getting into collective screaming matches over who has been treated worse, and accomplishes nothing except dividing them against each other.

Heh. I know this looks like Der Trihs is saying that people shouldn't get bogged down in race distinctions, but what he's actually saying is: "I have zero interest in abstract problems with amorphous or nonexistent villains, so I'm going to recast this issue as follows: Rich people are evil. Eat them."

(Obviously I'm drawing on previous experience here. I agree that it's typically poor form to drag things from past encounters into unrelated threads, so on that front I apologize up front.)

Anyway, more constructively: linking racial animosity to affluence in this way seems tenuous. Income inequality is a problem, and racism is a problem, but fixing one does not fix the other. There's some overlap, of course, and plausibly even some vicious-cycle behavior: racism helps to keep minorities poor, which keeps them socially and geographically separated from whites, which increases alienation and racism, etc. -- but arguing that one problem is predominantly caused by the other, or is merely a mask for the other, is way too simplistically pat, and Marxist, and unsupported by evidence. Unless you literally believe in a "divide & conquer" scheme perpetrated by the rich, economic inequality is a red herring in this conversation.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by VarlosZ

I can understand why you might feel this way, but most of that seems like stuff that you and others are reading into these kinds of messages rather than something that's being communicated by the speaker.

.

And I'm telling you (the general you, not so much the you you if you know what I mean) if THATS the way a good fraction of white people read that message its a bad message and it needs to be delivered in a different way. Now maybe it's only me that "white people are priveledged" rubs the wrong way. But I doubt it.

I am sure I could come up with all sorts of technically and logically sound advice for minorities. Certain ways would be listened to intently. Other ways, but still the same advice would result in city wide riots if the local mayor said em.

BTW the rest of your post was good.

[Koxinga]

What occurs to me -- and DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME, I'M NOT SAYING DRAWING AN EQUIVALENCE TO RACE -- is this is kind of like saying "Attractive people are 'privileged,' and that's unfair," or "people who can speak or write well are 'privileged,' and that's unfair." I don't think anyone would dispute the first part of each statement, but to uphold the second parts might be highly questionable, except in some academic sense.

If you're doing lousy in your life right now, think about how much worse it'd be for you if you were ugly. Uh . . . yeah?

Again, that's not drawing an equivalence between being of another race and being ugly. But it is saying that human nature works in certain ways, where people -- in any country -- are at least slightly more accepting of others who are attractive, who are articulate, and are part of their "in-group." If you're in a majority white country, yeah, you have a slight advantage on the last count if you happen to be white. But you've also got a slight advantage if you happen to be born good looking or smart. Are you going to go around beating yourself up for being either of those two as well?

[Sitnam]

White and agree, but I don't generally feel it's up to me to push for equality. I'd vote for what I wouldn't picket to achieve.

I disagree with the US current foreign policy concerning the Middle East but don't feel the need to apologize to every Arabic person I meet.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by VarlosZ

Heh. I know this looks like Der Trihs is saying that people shouldn't get bogged down in race distinctions, but what he's actually saying is: "I have zero interest in abstract problems with amorphous or nonexistent villains, so I'm going to recast this issue as follows: Rich people are evil. Eat them."

That's a bit of an overgenerous interpretation of what he's doing, since he's clearly trying to distract from and derail a discussion of racial disparities. It's unfortunately common for people to try to stop discussions of racial issues that way.

Originally Posted by billfish678

And I'm telling you (the general you, not so much the you you if you know what I mean) if THATS the way a good fraction of white people read that message its a bad message and it needs to be delivered in a different way. Now maybe it's only me that "white people are priveledged" rubs the wrong way. But I doubt it.

I am sure I could come up with all sorts of technically and logically sound advice for minorities. Certain ways would be listened to intently. Other ways, but still the same advice would result in city wide riots if the local mayor said em.

BTW the rest of your post was good.

I'm not sure I believe that there's any way of framing this message that wouldn't similarly result in lots and lots of white people growing defensive and outraged and self-righteously complaining about how badly they are being treated.

Originally Posted by Sitnam

I disagree with the US current foreign policy concerning the Middle East but don't feel the need to apologize to every Arabic person I meet.

Who, specifically, asked you to apologize to every single person you meet of any particular group? What was the context? Because I have to say I find it somewhat hard to believe.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

But it turns out you've been racing with an unfair weight advantage for a couple hundred years now. We hope you can agree that it's not a fair race unless all the cars weigh the same amount. Unfortunately, we can't give everyone the exact same frame as you, since the people who designed it died centuries ago and they didn't leave the blueprints. But we don't want to take away your frame, either. You're used to driving your car like it is, and it wouldn't be fair to take that away from you. So instead, we're going to change some parts around on all the other cars. In the end, all the cars will weigh exactly the same. We're going to check and make sure that this is a fair race for everybody from now on."

All they'd do is slap a couple of hundred pounds of metal on the guy's car which was lighter. Which is essentially what people worry will happen to them when the do-gooders start talking about making everyone 'equal'.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

I'm not sure I believe that there's any way of framing this message that wouldn't similarly result in lots and lots of white people growing defensive and outraged and self-righteously complaining about how badly they are being treated.

Man you are dense aren't you?

Did MLK make great civil rights progress by running around telling folks how great white people had it? And it's a damn shame somebody even remotely worthy taking his place didn't.

[billfish678]

I shouldnt have said the dense part. My apologies for that. That was out of line.

But I think my point still stands.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by billfish678

Man you are dense aren't you?

Did MLK make great civil rights progress by running around telling folks how great white people had it? And it's a damn shame somebody even remotely worthy taking his place didn't.

That's a kind of a funny juxtaposition there, really. Because it goes to prove my point exactly -- Dr. King and his family were constantly harassed and threatened, until he was eventually murdered for standing up for the civil rights of black people. If we accept your analysis that he spoke his message in the non-threatening way you prefer, it illustrates clearly that there's no way for a member of an oppressed group to speak up on behalf of that group without stirring up rage.

Given that, it's hard for me to muster up much sympathy for someone in a societally dominant group who hears a message about how members of a minority are being oppressed and gets offended and spouts a bunch of self-righteous outrage about how the message wasn't delivered politely enough. It's hard to believe that their real problem is with the format of the message and not the content. Especially in your case, since you're continuing, after having it explained to you more than once, to reiterate the absurd idea that the phrase "white privilege" somehow means that all white people have it great.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by oreally

But it works so well, I guess I can't blame them for continuing to milk it for all it's worth. Talk about a cash cow (in every sense).

Who is "them"?

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

That's a kind of a funny juxtaposition there, really. Because it goes to prove my point exactly -- Dr. King and his family were constantly harassed and threatened, until he was eventually murdered for standing up for the civil rights of black people. If we accept your analysis that he spoke his message in the non-threatening way you prefer, it illustrates clearly that there's no way for a member of an oppressed group to speak up on behalf of that group without stirring up rage.
.

And you think it would have gone BETTER if he ran around saying what he said in a MORE threatening or less polite or less politcally savy manner?

He made a damn lot more progress than the Black Panthers and the Jessy Jackson "weesas being oppressed and whiteys evil" types ever did.

MLK wanted dignity and fairness for EVERYONE. He didn't bitch that white people got more fair treatment and that was unfair. He strived for black people to get fairness and dignity too.

I'm outa here. I gotta yatch to go wax.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by billfish678

He made a damn lot more progress than the Black Panthers and the Jessy Jackson "weesas being oppressed and whiteys evil" types ever did.

MLK wanted dignity and fairness for EVERYONE. He didn't bitch that white people got more fair treatment and that was unfair. He strived for black people to get fairness and dignity too.

What the fuck are you talking about? King spent a great deal of time pointing out that blacks were being oppressed.

Jesse Jackson marched on Selma with King and was selected by King to run SCLC's campaign in Chicago.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Also, if minorities think THIS is real, it is not.

This is quite possibly the most moronic thing I've read on this site and that's saying a lot.

One would have to be completely delusional if not irretrievably stupid to believe for two seconds that any "minorities" think that video was in any way "real".

Obviously, I trust neither of those is true of you.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by billfish678

And you think it would have gone BETTER if he ran around saying what he said in a MORE threatening or less polite or less politcally savy manner?

I can't think of any civil rights victory he obtained by convincing white people of anything. His biggest specific accomplishment, at least that I can think of, was the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and that was done via economic pressure.

So I can't see how your point is applicable at all here.

He made a damn lot more progress than the Black Panthers and the Jessy Jackson "weesas being oppressed and whiteys evil" types ever did.

What? I am having a hard time reading your quote as anything but an attempt to write in some sort of black dialect which, wow.

MLK wanted dignity and fairness for EVERYONE. He didn't bitch that white people got more fair treatment and that was unfair. He strived for black people to get fairness and dignity too.

Yeah, I doubt actual examination of his speeches would show that he never complained about the advantages of white people and only mentioned the disadvantages of black people. And it's such a distinction-without-a-difference that it's hard for me to see it as anything but a rationalization anyway.

And Dr. King didn't speak about "equality for everyone" so much as the inequality faced by specific groups -- black people and, later on, poor people. He did his advocacy work in a way that challenged and outraged the people in power -- the backlash against the Montgomery Bus Boycott was fierce, because his strategy was not based at all on mollifying angry white people.

So pretty much everything you've said about him is completely insupportable.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Ibanez

I was turned down for a government job about a decade ago, I was qualified but the problem not only the fact that I had a penis. But it was white. Yeah I'm privileged alright.

That's odd, I've seen lots of white men with government jobs.

In fact most government workers I've met not only have penises, but white ones as well.

The penises may be smaller than the darker ones but I don't think that's a reason to be denied a job and I've never seen any employer say "sorry, if you had a darker penis or no penis we'd take you."

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

<snip> But you've also got a slight advantage if you happen to be born good looking or smart. Are you going to go around beating yourself up for being either of those two as well?

Nobody is saying white people should beat themselves up for being white. Just acknowledge that your whiteness is a benefit. Agree that you would have it worse than you currently do, all other things being equal, if you weren't white.

Well, that and don't stand in the way of policies that benefit non-whites, like affirmative action.

Originally Posted by Uzi

All they'd do is slap a couple of hundred pounds of metal on the guy's car which was lighter. Which is essentially what people worry will happen to them when the do-gooders start talking about making everyone 'equal'.

But that isn't what's happening now. They might slap a couple hundred pounds of metal on the rich whites (in the form of taxation for the benefit of minorities). But affirmative action is what's happening now. That does affect lower- and middle-class whites, but we shouldn't have a problem with that because affirmative action is more akin to removing weight from non-whites than weighing down whites.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by billfish678

He made a damn lot more progress than the Black Panthers and the Jessy Jackson "weesas being oppressed and whiteys evil" types ever did.

That comment is both racist and complete bullshit.

When has "Jessy(sic) Jackson" ever claimed that white people are evil?

Second when has "Jessy(sic) Jackson" said "weesas" or anything similar"?

Third, when doing a parody of Jewish politicians do you have them speak with exagerated Yiddish accents the way you had "Jessy(sic) Jackson" speak with a parody of an Ebonics accent?

Thanks

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

I can't think of any civil rights victory he obtained by convincing white people of anything. His biggest specific accomplishment, at least that I can think of, was the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and that was done via economic pressure.

To be fair, he (more specifically his allies) convinced a bunch of white dudes at the Supreme Court to let the boycott proceed, and that's what won the case. And he worked closely with white allies and made it clear they were welcome in the movement. But yeah, he also didn't shy away from pointing out injustice in any way.

The word "privilege" really gets up my nose, but I think that's because I first encountered it from some college radicals who'd use it as an attack rather than as a way of having a real discussion (they'd dismiss other folks' contributions to conversations by trying to get those people to examine their white/male/straight/wealth/whatever privilege). It's really my personal problem, though, as the word's here to stay.

I mostly came in the thread with the Louis CK quote, and with the wonderful Jon Scalzi link that jsgoddess posted--if y'all haven't read that, you really should.

That PSA? Not well done. Just saying, "Unfair!" doesn't suggest any solutions. Yeah, they only have thirty seconds, but it gives the viewer nothing to do with any awareness of privilege. Without suggesting any positive steps, it leaves the impression that the white viewer is just supposed to feel bad, which is of course not the point.

edit: Also, rachellellellellogram, excellent posts in this thread!

[grude]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Third, when doing a parody of Jewish politicians do you have them speak with exagerated Yiddish accents the way you had "Jessy(sic) Jackson" speak with a parody of an Ebonics accent?

Thanks

My mind instantly said "Jar Jar Binks" a reviled Star Wars character who doesn't have anything approaching an Ebonics accent.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

But that isn't what's happening now. They might slap a couple hundred pounds of metal on the rich whites (in the form of taxation for the benefit of minorities). But affirmative action is what's happening now. That does affect lower- and middle-class whites, but we shouldn't have a problem with that because affirmative action is more akin to removing weight from non-whites than weighing down whites.

The perception is that guy got my place because he was not white. It is about perception and fear.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The same logic that leads to the claim that poor whites aren't supposed to complain because they are "privileged"

Your strawman is complete bullshit.

Who has ever said that "poor whites aren't supposed to complain"?

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by grude

My mind instantly said "Jar Jar Binks" a reviled Star Wars character who doesn't have anything approaching an Ebonics accent.

No, he has a Jamaican accent.

Lord knows, know one associates black people with Jamaica and no one complained that Jar-Jar Binks was a racist charicature and the voice-actor for Jar-Jar was obviously white.

Edit: my post came across far ruder than I intended. I apologize for that.

[Freudian Slit]

Originally Posted by even sven

I'm sure we've all had situations where we've wandered into a neighborhood, or bar, or party, where we are a minority. When that happens, there are all these questions: "What do they think of me? Are they wondering why I'm here? Am I in any kind of danger? Are they going to stare at me?" For white people, these experiences are usually a novelty, and usually don't have a lot of power behind them. Most white people don't find themselves trying to move up the career ladder in a Latino dominated business, or needing to try to make friends in their Asian neighborhood.

But when you are a minority, these experiences and feelings happen day after day, and it wears you down. It's grinding on you, and it fucks with your sense of identity.

I agree that there are advantages to being white. But as a non-white person I don't "feel" like I'm in the minority. I suppose technically I am but I don't really notice when there are more white people around me than non-whites. I guess I'm just used to it to the point where I forget that I'm a minority. So the idea of "white privilege" is a lot more theoretical to me.

At the same time, the whole "let's talk about privilege" thing does get a bit grating. It seems like it's the topic du jour and that it's primarily upper/middle class white folks who seem to love talking about it -- whether it's gender, race, or attractiveness. Reading people bemoan "thin privilege" just feels a little silly to me, to be honest.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

Nobody is saying white people should beat themselves up for being white. Just acknowledge that your whiteness is a benefit.

Are we also supposed to go around saying, "Gee, it sure is great not to have cancer!"

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

The word "privilege" really gets up my nose, but I think that's because I first encountered it from some college radicals who'd use it as an attack rather than as a way of having a real discussion (they'd dismiss other folks' contributions to conversations by trying to get those people to examine their white/male/straight/wealth/whatever privilege). It's really my personal problem, though, as the word's here to stay.

While I have no idea whether the people who said that to you were right or wrong to do so, there are a lot of legitimate reasons to tell someone to back off and examine their privilege. One of the eternal annoyances of doing any kind of activist work (and I'm assuming that's the sort of case you're talking about, since I don't think I've ever heard anyone tell someone else to check their privilege when the conversation is about what bar to go to or their top ten desert island albums) is when people who aren't part of the group in question earnestly but cluelessly attempt to dominate the discussion or direct the group's efforts in the ways they wish. (I've heard this from enough other people working on causes separate from those I've been involved with to be pretty sure it's a general problem.) The problems being that (a) no matter how many racial minority/female/LGBT/poor people a person might know, they really don't understand the issues the group confronts in the same way members of the group do, and (b) members of a minority group rarely benefit from having members of the majority group explain their position because one of the fundamental facts of privilege is that whatever the minority group in question is, they've almost certainly heard this viewpoint a thousand times before, from the media, from friends or acquaintances, from hostile strangers, and so forth. For someone who's not a member of a group, it's easy to not realize how completely unnecessary their contribution may be. And talking over others can be hard to avoid because members of a minority group are almost certain to have lots of practice biting their tongues and not speaking up on their issues for the sake of sanity or even self-protection.

So stopping and checking your privilege is necessary for all of us at times when we are inadvertently talking over members of an oppressed group, even when it's in the context of our earnestly wanting to play a role in making things better. It's not pleasant to be told that, obviously. (And it's certainly something I've had to do on occasion, so I understand that it's not fun.) But the choice is between the discussion getting bogged down or else, basically, telling the person causing the problem to shut up and learn. And, well, letting the discussion become unproductive in order to protect someone's feelings is not a great option.