Video: Whites are privileged, and that's unfair

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

But being white is but one of the many many day to day privileges people may have (or being black is one of many disadvantages). To this we must add male or female privilege (there are both),

Actually, yes, I was going to mention male privilege as another analogy. Men do not have to be wary of being yelled at or propositioned or denigrated or threatened, to the point where many of them simply don't even believe it can and does happen to women.

Maybe we have to accept it as a fact of life that we're never going to stomp out the catcallers or the suspicious store clerks, but that doesn't mean we can't be aware that it happens and work against it when possible.

It's primarily about having empathy for others and realizing that your situation is not the same as their situation, and it isn't actually their fault for being in that situation.

[MOIDALIZE]

I obviously didn't read this whole thread, as is my white privilege (REE-EH-EEE-EEE-EEE!).

Anyway...are white people privileged? Yes. Remember, privilege doesn't have to mean "special benefits." It can mean "not being subject to particular harms," or "having your cultural experience or point of view be considered the norm" (Example: nearly all Americans, whatever their religious persuasion, will have some level of familiarity with Christianity, such that being Christian in America is not an exotic or particularly remarkable thing).

BUT...

If you account for class, a lot of the supposed privileges white people have turn out to be theoretical. Tell some poor white guy in coal country that he is privileged because he'd have no problem getting a cab in NYC, and he will rightly regard you as a clueless asshole. And news flash: in absolute terms, there are more non-Hispanic whites in poverty in the U.S. than any other race or ethnicity (though of course the percentages are higher for Latinos and blacks, which is shameful enough).

To have white urban liberals tell some poor SOB, living in a dying town that business and society have forsaken, that he is actually quite privileged (which he would realize if he wasn't such ignorant white trash), only to wonder why he keeps voting "against his interests" for the party that is at least willing to pretend to care about his fears and frustrations, is simply amazing to me.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

To have white urban liberals tell some poor SOB, living in a dying town that business and society have forsaken, that he is actually quite privileged (which he would realize if he wasn't such ignorant white trash), only to wonder why he keeps voting "against his interests" for the party that is at least willing to pretend to care about his fears and frustrations, is simply amazing to me.

Is anyone actually doing that? White privilege only comes up in the context of race relations; where it's irrelevant, it's irrelevant.

[MOIDALIZE]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

White privilege only comes up in the context of race relations...

I don't know what you mean by that.

[florez]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Okay.

But being white is but one of the many many day to day privileges people may have (or being black is one of many disadvantages). To this we must add male or female privilege (there are both), blonde privilege, tall privilege, thin privilege, attractive privilege, good-dresser privilege, good-taste-in-hair style privilege, young/old privilege, nice car privilege, speaks without a weird accent privilege....

Blond, tall, thin, great hair, etc., attractive, and by whose standards? Sorta like the white Barbie & Ken dolls, and now we have brown Barbie and Ken available so everything should be equal.

But what of the sociological study done in the 1940's that show a majority of black children preferred to play with white dolls instead of black, and how fifty years later in a repeat study the change in preference was only slight?

The right to white privilege might be unconsciously absorbed at an early age, as well as any internalized ideas of what might identify people with this privilege or without it.


And this might also cut through many class differences, if not color differences; and still not hold everyone with internalized inferiority back, or give everyone with internalized superiority a leg up. But it is still real for many, and probably has it's roots in our histories with institutionalized racism.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publ...lts_2919.shtml

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

I obviously didn't read this whole thread, as is my white privilege (REE-EH-EEE-EEE-EEE!).

Yes, it's obvious you didn't read the thread since the rest of your post shows that you didn't to read the arguments about the subject and simply decided to project strawman arguments onto the people discussing it.

To have white urban liberals tell some poor SOB, living in a dying town that business and society have forsaken, that he is actually quite privileged (which he would realize if he wasn't such ignorant white trash), only to wonder why he keeps voting "against his interests" for the party that is at least willing to pretend to care about his fears and frustrations, is simply amazing to me.

If anyone was doing that you'd have a point, but no one is, so you don't.

Beyond that, I'm amazed to find yet another person who seems to think that it would be wrong to claim that Muslims were privleged over Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Christians over Jews in Tsarist Russia.

Obviously, you have stated that, but that would be the logic conclusion of your arguments, particularly since the average Ottoman Christian was better off financially than the average Ottoman Muslim and the same was true regarding Jews and Christians in Tsarist Russia.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

Did you earn your height? Because, again, that's the analogy.

It wasn't about what you did with your height, or whether you helped the short woman, or whether you're a nice person. It's about whether you have an advantage that she doesn't. That's it. That's all it is. Do you have an advantage that she doesn't, in the analogy, and was it something you earned?

You keep trying to make the analogy oppress you. It can't do that.

Height isn't the best analogy, unless you are asserting there is something unfair about the fact that some people are taller than others.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Yes, it's obvious you didn't read the thread since the rest of your post shows that you didn't to read the arguments about the subject and simply decided to project strawman arguments onto the people discussing it.



If anyone was doing that you'd have a point, but no one is, so you don't.

Beyond that, I'm amazed to find yet another person who seems to think that it would be wrong to claim that Muslims were privleged over Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Christians over Jews in Tsarist Russia.

Obviously, you have stated that, but that would be the logic conclusion of your arguments, particularly since the average Ottoman Christian was better off financially than the average Ottoman Muslim and the same was true regarding Jews and Christians in Tsarist Russia.

The situation of Jews in Russia and Christians in Ottoman Turkey (or for that matter, overseas Chinese in Indonesia) is the reverse of the coin - a minority that on average does financially well in spite of majority oppression.

The case of "white privilege" is that of a majority that does financially better. The cause of this is debatable (and much debated), but probably is a combination of factors - the least significant being actual outright oppression by the majority, in this day and age.

In the case of (say) Jews in Tsarist Russia, even extremely fierce oppression did not result in Jews doing worse financially than the majority population. The natural inference is that one cannot reason backwards from the financial situation of one segment of the population to determine that oppression or advantage exists, since an oppressed minority can, in some cases, do better than the unoppressed (or not oppressed in the same way) majority. So I'm not sure where the analogy takes you.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by florez

But what of the sociological study done in the 1940's that show a majority of black children preferred to play with white dolls instead of black, and how fifty years later in a repeat study the change in preference was only slight?

The right to white privilege might be unconsciously absorbed at an early age, as well as any internalized ideas of what might identify people with this privilege or without it.

Uh, wait a minute. You're not talking about white privilege any more, you're talking about a new thing - an alleged innate belief that one deserves the privilege (or doesn't in the case of blacks) - in other words, racism.

Not the same thing.

And, of course, we know that many other privileges are also internalized. Big, athletic types soon feel superior because they get what they want, for instance. Blondes too.

And this might also cut through many class differences, if not color differences; and still not hold everyone with internalized inferiority back, or give everyone with internalized superiority a leg up. But it is still real for many, and probably has it's roots in our histories with institutionalized racism.

So what do you want? From whites, or anyone else? What should whites do about this? What should people do about their other privileges?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Actually, yes, I was going to mention male privilege as another analogy. Men do not have to be wary of being yelled at or propositioned or denigrated or threatened, to the point where many of them simply don't even believe it can and does happen to women.

First of all, men do face many problems due to their gender. They must tread lightly lest they be falsely accused of sexism, for instance. They are viewed with suspicion if they're too friendly with a woman. Put children in the mix - like a man trying to get a job at a child care center - and they think you might be a pedophile. But I digress.

Maybe we have to accept it as a fact of life that we're never going to stomp out the catcallers or the suspicious store clerks, but that doesn't mean we can't be aware that it happens and work against it when possible.

That goes without saying though, at least for me.

It's primarily about having empathy for others and realizing that your situation is not the same as their situation, and it isn't actually their fault for being in that situation.

I learned empathy as a small child. I hope you can see how it can border on insulting to suggest that someone needs more empathy. I don't need a PSA for that. And why it's unfair to focus it only on whiteness, or maleness, as if that's the only place where empathy is lacking in our society.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Malthus

Height isn't the best analogy, unless you are asserting there is something unfair about the fact that some people are taller than others.

Well, there is something unfair about it. Life's unfair. Let's stipulate that we can't, and shouldn't, try to fix every little unfairness.

We shouldn't create new ones either, like racism or sexism. And we should do what's reasonable to make life more fair. But we can't fix everything.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

I don't know what you mean by that.

So let's put it another way:

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

To have white urban liberals tell some poor SOB, living in a dying town that business and society have forsaken, that he is actually quite privileged (which he would realize if he wasn't such ignorant white trash), only to wonder why he keeps voting "against his interests" for the party that is at least willing to pretend to care about his fears and frustrations, is simply amazing to me.

How much shittier would that guy's life be if he were in the exact same town in the exact same situation...but black? He's not privileged as in he's got it good, he's just better off than a black guy in his circumstances would be. Maybe not by much, but it's undeniably better to be white than black. Outside of race, "white privilege" has no meaning. It's just a different way to talk about underlying racism.

I don't expect the guy to care. He has more immediate things to deal with than big-picture race issues. But that doesn't make the issue go away, and the people who are able to deal with it should be aware of it.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

First of all, men do face many problems due to their gender. They must tread lightly lest they be falsely accused of sexism, for instance. They are viewed with suspicion if they're too friendly with a woman. Put children in the mix - like a man trying to get a job at a child care center - and they think you might be a pedophile. But I digress.

No, no, let's look at these.

Except for on the Internet, I haven't been accused of sexism, real or falsely, since 1997. (On the Internet I foolishly wandered onto the Ms. Messageboards some years ago--what a trainwreck--and then I may have been accused of sexism around here by some lunatic or another, but I'm honestly not sure). The 1997 incident involved someone who was determined to get my goat and threw every insult she could think of at me.

I am totally unaware of being viewed with suspicion for being too friendly with a woman. Who would do it--my wife? If so, wouldn't this be exactly the same danger a woman with a jealous husband would face?

Men working with children do face a bit of danger, I think. I have co-workers who will give students rides home or pick them up for an event, things I would never in a million years consider doing, out of a desire to protect me. The other danger I face is being viewed by sexist co-workers as an affirmative-action hire. More than one female co-worker has made some nasty comment about how easy it must be to get a job if you have a penis, and it pisses me off. But I deal with it by a civil but forceful confrontation with them, something along the lines of, "Actually, I try really hard to be a good teacher, and I hope I stay in the classroom because of my skills rather than my gender, and I hope people don't just view me as the male teacher." This has invariably worked to stop that particular co-worker from making such comments (at least to my face).

These hazards frankly pale compared to what women face. Think of the things you do that many women may not feel comfortable doing. It's pretty good being a man, all told.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

How much shittier would that guy's life be if he were in the exact same town in the exact same situation...but black? He's not privileged as in he's got it good, he's just better off than a black guy in his circumstances would be. Maybe not by much, but it's undeniably better to be white than black. Outside of race, "white privilege" has no meaning. It's just a different way to talk about underlying racism.

WEB Du Bois talked about the wages of whiteness:

Originally Posted by WEB Du Bois

It must be remembered that the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage. They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were white. They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks, and the best schools. The police were drawn from their ranks, and the courts, dependent on their votes, treated them with such leniency as to encourage lawlessness. Their vote selected public officials, and while this had small effect upon the economic situation, it had great effect upon their personal treatment and the deference shown them. White schoolhouses were the best in the community, and conspicuously placed, and they cost anywhere from twice to ten times as much per capita as the colored schools. The newspapers specialized on news that flattered the poor whites and almost utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule.

This system is much diminished from the Jim Crow era in which Du Bois wrote these words. However, consider the following lines from this article:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In her book Privilege Revealed: How Invisible Preference Undermines America, Stephanie M. Wildman writes that many Americans who advocate a merit-based, race-free worldview do not acknowledge the systems of privilege which have benefited them. For example, many Americans rely on a social or financial inheritance from previous generations, an inheritance unlikely to be forthcoming if one's ancestors were slaves. Whites were sometimes afforded opportunities and benefits that were unavailable to others. In the middle of the 20th century, the government subsidized white homeownership through the Federal Housing Administration, but not homeownership of other minorities.

When I'm dealing with students, I may be dealing with two boys in poverty. The black boy has grandparents who grew up in a viciously racist society and who undoubtedly tell him about it; they may themselves view white people with intense mistrust born of their experiences in their youth. The white boy may have similar grandparents, except that, having grown up in a viciously racist society, they tell him about his natural superiority over black classmates.

Both boys live in poverty; both face pernicious legacies from their grandparents. Which legacy will be more psychologically crippling?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Should I make a PSA too?

If you feel strongly about the issue, sure.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

If you feel strongly about the issue, sure.

Would you take it seriously?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Except for on the Internet, I haven't been accused of sexism, real or falsely, since 1997.

You're one person.

I am totally unaware of being viewed with suspicion for being too friendly with a woman. Who would do it--my wife? If so, wouldn't this be exactly the same danger a woman with a jealous husband would face?

No, I mean on the job or some other inappropriate way.

These hazards frankly pale compared to what women face. Think of the things you do that many women may not feel comfortable doing. It's pretty good being a man, all told.

Sure. There's no denying we get it better. My point was that it's not as simple as one side getting it all.

Oh, to add a few things - we are expected to do more physical or dangerous work (and die on the job alot more often), we get drafted for wars.

[MOIDALIZE]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Yes, it's obvious you didn't read the thread since the rest of your post shows that you didn't to read the arguments about the subject and simply decided to project strawman arguments onto the people discussing it.

Hey look, a snotty Ibn Warraq post I didn't read.

Originally Posted by Bosstone

So let's put it another way:

How much shittier would that guy's life be if he were in the exact same town in the exact same situation...but black? He's not privileged as in he's got it good, he's just better off than a black guy in his circumstances would be. Maybe not by much, but it's undeniably better to be white than black.

But why? It's not self evident to me that that's true.

Let me put it this way. Who's worse off in the following scenario: the children of the black guy who finds his economic opportunities limited because of white flight from the inner city, or the children of the white guy who finds his economic opportunities limited because neoliberal economic policies led to his town's largest employer shipping his steady job with benefits overseas? The reasons for their respective predicaments are certainly different, and you can decide that one is worse than the other, but I think the effect is largely the same.

We had a thread a few months ago about Charles Murray's (the Bell Curve guy) latest book, which pointed out that we're seeing some of the same problems in white communities devastated by economic upheaval that are commonly associated with inner city black communities (higher infant mortality, more teen pregnancy, drug use, etc). Of course, Murray tried to pin this on a change in white working class culture that he pretty much pulled out of his ass, while ignoring the growing economic insecurity that I believe provides a much better explanation for what's happening. I don't think you can draw meaningful distinctions between black poverty and white poverty. It fucking sucks either way.

[florez]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Uh, wait a minute. You're not talking about white privilege any more, you're talking about a new thing - an alleged innate belief that one deserves the privilege (or doesn't in the case of blacks) - in other words, racism.


So what do you want? From whites, or anyone else? What should whites do about this? What should people do about their other privileges?

The OP is about white privilege which IMO is one of the co-products of racism, and from what I understand innate means inborn and natural, and I do not consider institutionalized racism to be natural; but internalizing a societal message is probably no different for any group of children growing up and absorbing the reality around them.

What do I want whites or anyone else to do about it? Many people of all colors are already aware that undoing institutionalized racism will probably involve more decades of muti-cultural collaboration and speaking out against racism and other forms of oppression. Also helping to empower groups that take action against it, or joining such groups and making it a priority would be a good thing.

I would hope that certain white people try to take into consideration that racism is not always the personal problem of a race card carrying cry baby with a skewed view, and that to assume such might be comparable to victim blaming.

And that it is important to clearly recognize who is disadvantaged and who is not when it comes to light that racial bias still exists, for example racial profiling, sentencing and conviction rates, disparities in education, housing and loan practices,etc.

And discussions like this on the OP of white privilege is addressing the issue in a constructive way, even if it brings out disagreement and some frustration. IMO it is good to know where others are coming from, and how many white people do understand the issue and want fairness to prevail.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

Hey look, a snotty Ibn Warraq post I didn't read.

Heh. I try not to be snotty, for exactly this reason, but this thread is evidence enough that I don't always succeed.

Let me put it this way. Who's worse off in the following scenario: the children of the black guy who finds his economic opportunities limited because of white flight from the inner city, or the children of the white guy who finds his economic opportunities limited because neoliberal economic policies led to his town's largest employer shipping his steady job with benefits overseas?

The black kids, because they'll also see a disproportionate number of folks who look like them in jail, and their dad is disproportionately likely to be hassled by homeowners when he goes to pick his kids up from the bus stop, and they're likelier to get the hairy eyeball from store-owners, and so on and so forth.

Economics are one piece of the sandwich, and if you're poor, that's a big old turd in your sandwich. But if you're black in the US, you also get a booger in that sandwich.

[MOIDALIZE]

But of all the white people in prison, what percentage of them do you think came from poverty? I'm betting it's a pretty high percentage.

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Economics are one piece of the sandwich, and if you're poor, that's a big old turd in your sandwich. But if you're black in the US, you also get a booger in that sandwich.

All I'm saying is that it's a mighty big assumption that poor whites aren't getting similar boogers (what a disgusting analogy).

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

All I'm saying is that it's a mighty big assumption that poor whites aren't getting similar boogers (what a disgusting analogy).

My favorite ever job interview question was, "If you had to eat a scab sandwich or swim in a pool full of boogers, which would you choose?"

I didn't get the job, but to this day I'm convinced that if I'd said, "I can only choose one?" I would have.

Anyway.

The entire point is that poverty imposes one set of obnoxious social conditions on you, and being the wrong race imposes a different, related set of obnoxious social conditions on you. If you're black and wealthy, you're probably better off than poor and white. But you get more grief for being poor than for being rich, AND you get more grief for being black than for being white. Although those griefs are related, it's possible to talk about them separately and evaluate them separately.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

Hey look, a snotty Ibn Warraq post I didn't read.

If you're going to criticize my post I recommend you choose a more appropriate word than "snotty" since it wasn't.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're upset with me about since in the post I was responding to, you stated you hadn't been following the thread and then proceeded to prove it by putting up a post which seemed to imply that "white privilege" referred to economics when it didn't.

If you don't like people criticizing you for not bothering to read a thread or pay attention to the arguments people are making, I recommend you not admit you haven't bothered reading them, or better yet, read them and then respond.

[MOIDALIZE]

It's funny how I've got respectful dialogues going on with two other posters, yet you can't seem to figure out what the problem is.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

It's funny how I've got respectful dialogues going on with two other posters, yet you can't seem to figure out what the problem is.

It's not my fault that you react badly to people criticizing you when, by your own admission you decide to post in a thread without, by your own admission, bothering to read it.

[MOIDALIZE]

So? What do you care if I didn't read the whole thread? Did I overlook some brilliant point you made on page 4 and hurt your feelings?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

So? What do you care if I didn't read the whole thread? Did I overlook some brilliant point you made on page 4 and hurt your feelings?

To be fair, although his post really was snotty, you're reiterating some of the exact same arguments made by various other posters throughout the thread; I'm responding to you because I've been thinking a lot about this thread over the last week. It's kind of sad when literally days of reflection and the best I can come up with is metaphors about poop-and-booger sandwiches.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

So? What do you care if I didn't read the whole thread? Did I overlook some brilliant point you made on page 4 and hurt your feelings?

I don't believe I've made any brilliant points on this topic and you didn't hurt my feelings, you merely annoyed me because I think it's stupid to post on a topic without bothering to read the topic and even stupider to brag, as you have done, about not reading the thread.

Now, I don't know why you're all worked up about some fairly mild criticisms particularly since I don't recall us ever arguing before nor have you ever made much of an impression on me.

No insult is intended by the last comment.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by florez

What do I want whites or anyone else to do about it? Many people of all colors are already aware that undoing institutionalized racism will probably involve more decades of muti-cultural collaboration and speaking out against racism and other forms of oppression. Also helping to empower groups that take action against it, or joining such groups and making it a priority would be a good thing.

Okay, speak out against racism. Check. Join a group. Check.

I would hope that certain white people try to take into consideration that racism is not always the personal problem of a race card carrying cry baby with a skewed view, and that to assume such might be comparable to victim blaming.

And I'm saying that PSAs like this one and the abuse of the term "white privilege" risks making that perception worse, not better.

And that it is important to clearly recognize who is disadvantaged and who is not

Hence me pointing out that you CANNOT just point to a white and say "advantaged" and a black and say "disadvantaged!" That's incredibly simplistic.

when it comes to light that racial bias still exists, for example racial profiling, sentencing and conviction rates, disparities in education, housing and loan practices,etc.

It doesn't matter. Racism is wrong, we should stop it. Racism againts white people, if you find it, is just as wrong. The societal advantages associated with race dont' change that.

And discussions like this on the OP of white privilege is addressing the issue in a constructive way, even if it brings out disagreement and some frustration. IMO it is good to know where others are coming from, and how many white people do understand the issue and want fairness to prevail.

Most people want fairness. This is about what fairness means, and what actions are appropriate to bring it about. The range of options is big, so it's important to discuss it further.

One thing I have encountered elsewhere is people claiming that if you dare question your privilege, or any policies based on that idea, it means you are just trying to keep it - and therefore you shouldn't oppose anything they say. That's bullying, and I didn't like it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Would you take it seriously?

How can I take it seriously when I haven't seen it yet and don't know what it's about?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

How can I take it seriously when I haven't seen it yet and don't know what it's about?

You know exactly what it's about. I told you.

I've made my point.

[lance strongarm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiNXXM2mn9Y

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

You know exactly what it's about. I told you.

I've made my point.

You told me it might be about...

...male or female privilege (there are both), blonde privilege, tall privilege, thin privilege, attractive privilege, good-dresser privilege, good-taste-in-hair style privilege, young/old privilege, nice car privilege, speaks without a weird accent privilege....

Some of these are legitimate social concerns, and some are not.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Some of these are legitimate social concerns, and some are not.

Which are? And how do you decide?

[Incomprehension]

Caucasians are not privileged. They have it just as hard as anyone else. Africans actually commit more crimes on average than Caucasians. There is a reason they are racially profiled sometimes. I don't agree with it though. If anything Caucasians have it worse than other minority's. Due to this hail immigrants mindset whites are becoming a minority in their own country. Pablo is having eight kids, while Walter is only having two kids. Minority's have a easier time finding a job due to laws that require company's to hire x amount of colored people. They have an easier time getting better interest on a loan, and also get special treatment for being, "suppressed".

This goes along with all of that feminist nonsense that exists now days. Caucasian females actually have more power than Caucasian males, and not a equal amount. If anything White Caucasians are the most suppressed. People need to be proud of their race, especially people of the Caucasian race that will soon be extinct.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Curious: Do you agree with this PSA's message? Apparently it is part of something called the Un-Fair Campaign, co-sponsored by the NAACP, the YWCA and the League of Women Voters. Poll to follow shortly.

ETA: In the title I should have specified that white *individuals* are privileged by virtue of being white, as that's the message of the video. Agree/?

I'm not all that surprised that this thread has gotten as heated as it has on occasion--we certainly know how to brawl on this forum.

On the other hand, the actual video was a fairly innocuous observation of a truism with a very mild message: when we see examples of white privilege, speak up against it.

That is hardly a call to arms or a demand for an end to all social problems or a condemnation of any person or group. It is simply a message that when we observe a particular type of behavior, we call attention to it so that the person engaging in that behavior will think twice before repeating it. I am pretty sure that the promoters of this video would be equally in favor of speaking up at signs of sexism, age discrimination, religious discrimination, probably sexual orientation discrimination, and other things.

The video makes no claim that all white people are villainous racists or that no non-white person can get a fair shake in society. it simply notes that, as the majority, whites occasionally get better treatment (or avoid worse treatment) based on being part of a recognizable majority and such phenomena could be ameliorated by noting them when they happen.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Incomprehension

Caucasians are not privileged. They have it just as hard as anyone else. Africans actually commit more crimes on average than Caucasians. There is a reason they are racially profiled sometimes. I don't agree with it though. If anything Caucasians have it worse than other minority's. Due to this hail immigrants mindset whites are becoming a minority in their own country. Pablo is having eight kids, while Walter is only having two kids. Minority's have a easier time finding a job due to laws that require company's to hire x amount of colored people. They have an easier time getting better interest on a loan, and also get special treatment for being, "suppressed".

This goes along with all of that feminist nonsense that exists now days. Caucasian females actually have more power Caucasian males, and not a equal amount. If anything White Caucasians are the most suppressed.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Incomprehension

Caucasians are not privileged. They have it just as hard as anyone else. Africans actually commit more crimes on average than Caucasians. There is a reason they are racially profiled sometimes. I don't agree with it though. If anything Caucasians have it worse than other minority's. Due to this hail immigrants mindset whites are becoming a minority in their own country. Pablo is having eight kids, while Walter is only having two kids. Minority's have a easier time finding a job due to laws that require company's to hire x amount of colored people. They have an easier time getting better interest on a loan, and also get special treatment for being, "suppressed".

This goes along with all of that feminist nonsense that exists now days. Caucasian females actually have more power than Caucasian males, and not a equal amount. If anything White Caucasians are the most suppressed.

I can't tell if this is a racist rant or merely a well-crafted parody.

A fine example of Poe's law in action.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

On the other hand, the actual video was a fairly innocuous observation of a truism with a very mild message: when we see examples of white privilege, speak up against it.

That is hardly a call to arms or a demand for an end to all social problems or a condemnation of any person or group. It is simply a message that when we observe a particular type of behavior, we call attention to it so that the person engaging in that behavior will think twice before repeating it.

Even that mild-sounding proposition is vague though.

I am pretty sure that the promoters of this video would be equally in favor of speaking up at signs of sexism, age discrimination, religious discrimination, probably sexual orientation discrimination, and other things.

Then why did the focus on whiteness? Why not make a PSA saying "speak against unfair privilege in general?"

it simply notes that, as the majority, whites occasionally get better treatment (or avoid worse treatment) based on being part of a recognizable majority and such phenomena could be ameliorated by noting them when they happen.

I'll speak out against unfair treatment when I see it - all kinds, not just racial.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Which are? And how do you decide?

Has anyone ever lost a job because of their hairstyle, do you think?

Originally Posted by Incomprehension

This goes along with all of that feminist nonsense that exists now days. Caucasian females actually have more power than Caucasian males, and not a equal amount. If anything White Caucasians are the most suppressed. People need to be proud of their race, especially people of the Caucasian race that will soon be extinct.

Out of the 535 members of the 111th Congress, there are 103 nonwhites - assuming you count all the Jewish and Hispanic members as nonwhite. How many have to be white before you're not oppressed, exactly?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Then why did the focus on whiteness? Why not make a PSA saying "speak against unfair privilege in general?"

Why should they? If they perceive a problem--or a slew of problems--they are going to get more bang for their buck by focusing on short messages that grab attention for each one rather than posting a much longer message that is confusing in having multiple problems to address.

The PSA is short. It grabs attention with its visuals. It addresses a particular situation that many people do not consider in their day-to-day lives. It is to the point. That is how PSAs work.

Pollution is a serious problem. Do you oppose a PSA that addresses littering because it does not also address industrial pollution, mismanagement of landfills, and household dumping?

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I'll speak out against unfair treatment when I see it - all kinds, not just racial.

Bully for you.
Do you have some sort of problem with people addressing individual issues individually? Is there some minimum number of issues that one needs to address in a PSA before it is legitimate?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Has anyone ever lost a job because of their hairstyle, do you think?

Yep.

http://www.fmylife.com/work/14033454
http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...take_his_case/ (with a dash of religion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_hair#Social_stigma

[newcomer]

Okay, I kind of understand the motivation behind pointing to a White privilege but how come pointing to other identifiable groups’ privileges is more often than not interpreted as racist or discriminatory in general?

What’s so special about White privilege that seems to be as they say “fair game”?

Aren't there some other types of privileges that are based on other factors (like celebrity, money, banksters, etc) where people get a privileged treatment that should be call out?

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Has anyone ever lost a job because of their hairstyle, do you think?

Yes. Not many, but yes.

So is hairstyle out? That's one down.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Why should they? If they perceive a problem--or a slew of problems--they are going to get more bang for their buck by focusing on short messages that grab attention for each one rather than posting a much longer message that is confusing in having multiple problems to address.

Well, no, that's not why. But there's no reason they couldn't simply say "unfairness."

The PSA is short. It grabs attention with its visuals. It addresses a particular situation that many people do not consider in their day-to-day lives. It is to the point. That is how PSAs work.

Why have a PSA at all then?

Pollution is a serious problem. Do you oppose a PSA that addresses littering because it does not also address industrial pollution, mismanagement of landfills, and household dumping?

Most PSAs about pollution do just say "pollution" and not a specific type. Would you think a PSA about one specific type of pollution would be a little, well, too specific?

My point isn't about the PSA though. It's about the focus on white privilege. And yeah, it's fine to put that at the top of the list of unfairness. It's by far the biggest one, bigger than all the rest combined. But it's not the only one, and we should remember that if we don't want to think too simplistically about this.

Do you have some sort of problem with people addressing individual issues individually? Is there some minimum number of issues that one needs to address in a PSA before it is legitimate?

No, and I wasn't implying that.

The problem I have with this PSA is that it implies that whites are somehow responsible for their privilege. That it's our fault. Well, I didn't ask to be favorably discriminated for. If I ever see it happening, I'll oppose it. But there's only so much I can do about it.

I also resent the idea that I'm not already aware of it, but maybe there are some out there who aren't, I don't know.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Yep.

http://www.fmylife.com/work/14033454
http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...take_his_case/ (with a dash of religion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_hair#Social_stigma

Let's not forget cases like this, which mix hair and race:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ju...discrimination

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Well, no, that's not why. But there's no reason they couldn't simply say "unfairness."

Sure there is. Many people fail to recognize the prevalence of "white privilege" in this country. To address that, one needs to call attention to it.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Why have a PSA at all then?

To call attention to a particular situation that is too little recognized.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Most PSAs about pollution do just say "pollution" and not a specific type. Would you think a PSA about one specific type of pollution would be a little, well, too specific?

You are going to tell me you have never seen an ad against littering? I could only believe that if you had already established that you did not own and never watched a TV and have never gone to a movie in a public theater.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

My point isn't about the PSA though. It's about the focus on white privilege. And yeah, it's fine to put that at the top of the list of unfairness. It's by far the biggest one, bigger than all the rest combined. But it's not the only one, and we should remember that if we don't want to think too simplistically about this.

Piffle. It says nothing of the sort.
Rather, it says, here is an issue that exists that is too little recognized and by pointing it out it will be easier to stop. NOTHING in the PSA says that it is the biggest problem that we face, either as a society or even as one or another perceived race within it. It simply says that this problem will be more effectively addressed if more people are aware of it and they are attempting to increase that awareness.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

The problem I have with this PSA is that it implies that whites are somehow responsible for their privilege. That it's our fault.

Nothing in the PSA says that.

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

I also resent the idea that I'm not already aware of it, but maybe there are some out there who aren't, I don't know.

I don't litter, but I don't get personally offended that there are PSAs against littering. I vote, but I don't get personally offended by PSAs encouraging voter turnout. Why are you getting personally offended about a generally broadcast PSA? If they came you your door, handed you a DVD and said, "Here, you need to watch this," I could see your point, but "resenting" a PUBLIC Service Announcement that you do not believe applies to you seems a bit overly dramatic.

= = =

I am not a big fan of the phrase "white privilege" because people focus on the word "privilege" and it tends to get overblown with the sort of wrangling that we have seen in this thread. Some people go out of their way to overstate the situation and others pretend it does not even exist. However, that is the phrase that has come to describe the phenomenon and it has been around for twenty or thirty years, so, just as I find protests silly that argue that "homophobia" is not really a fear or that "anti-semitism" should apply to Arab Semites as well as to Jews, I find it pointless to nitpick the phrase that most conveniently describes the phenomenon based on decades of usage.

[Lochdale]

[quote=jsgoddess;15203596]Lemme try another analogy.

Say you're in a grocery store and you are over 6 feet tall. A very short woman is straining to reach something on the top shelf. She can't quite reach it and you, at over 6 feet, can reach it easily.
QUOTE]

So you're saying that there are differences between the races akin to height differences between a man and a very short woman?

[florez]

[quote=lance strongarm;15212537
Hence me pointing out that you CANNOT just point to a white and say "advantaged" and a black and say "disadvantaged!" That's incredibly simplistic..[/QUOTE]
####################################################



When I wrote IMO it is important for white people to clearly know who is advantaged and who is not, using those examples, I guess that I was not clear enough in that I did not mean a simplistic black disadvantage/white advantage.

Racial profiling is a problem for many brown people as well as black people, and I doubt you will deny that, and say it affects white people just as much. And would you deny that sentencing and conviction rates speak as to the disadvantage of whites?

And IMO it does often boils down to the little things in life that white people take for granted.
For example housing and loans business have had legal actions taken against them for discriminatory practices, and will be forced to change; but that does not mean fairness will be practiced by each individual in the business.

For example when I wanted a real estate agent to contact me, it became a joke for myself and my Native American SO, being that we are equally dark skinned, yet when using his Anglo last name in correspondence by email, we received a far better chance of hearing back from an agent then when using my Hispanic last name.

And from a Mexican-American perspective, education is often to the advantage of whites. For example in history class, we have a different view of how the border between US and Mexico came to be, the history of the Alamo, etc, and yet we must sit through a class, with our native friends learning how heroic Indian killing, land grabbing, America discovering white folks accomplished all these great things.

Not to mention that we continually have to fight to keep our language programs, ethnic studies and culturally relevant educational programs that we originally had to fight to obtain in the first place as part of the civil rights struggle.

[Sitnam]

Notwithstanding Chris Rock, I'd trade white privilege for wealth privilege.