I agree that the author is grasping at straws, but this description of New England doesn’t square up with the New England I’ve lived in since ::checks notes:: birth.
In this thread? Trying to make a choice to stay warm an instance of white privilege, despite the fact that many other people chose to dress that way, including coats much larger than Bernie’s, cowboy boots, parkas with fur rimmed hoods and KC Chiefs hats. Unless they all were showing white privilege, including the black woman.
Sometimes staying warm is just staying warm.
Bernie Sanders gets to dress like he wants to, and it’s seen as “Bernie being Bernie.” He may or may not have given any thought to how the way he was dressed would be perceived. He almost certainly did not worry that people would make judgments about white people or males in general based on his choice of clothing. He did not have to worry about potentially being hassled by security or police because he didn’t appear to “belong” there. He could count on being treated and perceived as an individual, not a representative of white people, or all males. The fact that he did not dress as formally as some think is appropriate is taken as idiosyncratic, not that he probably didn’t have a good male role model, or other stereotyped ideas associated with his race. He did not feel responsible to represent his race well, and therefore feel pressure to dress in a way that was less likely to be pointed out or criticized.
Those are all positive things for Bernie Sanders. Not everyone gets to enjoy those same things. Everyone should. I’m sure there are more ways to express it, but that’s the gist.
Are they positive things for Bernie because of white privilege or perhaps something he earned by his many decades of political activism and service?
Without in any way wishing to diss Sanders, whom I admire in very many respects, I’d suggest that you think about that question in the context of some other public figures who have also engaged in “many decades of political activism and service”.
Can Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, for example, just wear whatever they choose without having to consider how the way they dress will be perceived, or whether their clothing choices will be considered to somehow reflect badly on their entire gender or race? I don’t think so.
As I’ve already said, it’s foolish to try to quantify exactly how much a privileged person is benefiting from their privilege in any specific situation. But it’s at least equally foolish to try to argue that because the privileged person also has some admirable personal qualities, then positive perceptions of them must be totally unaffected by their privilege.
Bernie grew up in Brooklyn, anyway.
Yes. And two common reactions to drawing attention to privilege are denial and distancing. Denial that privilege itself exists, or that this is an example of it. Distancing is that privilege itself, or such a privilege might exist, but that the person in question doesn’t benefit from it because they’ve had hardships, or they’ve worked hard.
So what should Sanders have done to be a decent person?
Should anyone have to earn those things? Maybe read them again and say which ones should be earned?
He is a decent person, as far as I know.
Oh, eschrodinger, a third one suddenly occurred to me: defensiveness.
If he didn’t do anything wrong this thread makes no sense. Unless the fact of his existence is itself an example of privilege.
Pointing out privilege does not mean pointing out that someone did anything wrong. Like how pointing out that because Sam is taller than Mike, he can reach the top shelf without a step stool is not saying anything about either Sam or Mike doing anything right or wrong. But it is important information when deciding where the most important resources should be stored. Particularly when most of the decision makers are Sam’s height or taller.
Again, as many others have said in this thread - someone having privilege doesn’t mean that person has done anything wrong.
Privilege is not about right or wrong. You (and others asking a similar question) need to separate the idea of “right” and the idea of “privilege.”
To expand on eschrodinger’s example. If Sam and Mike work in an office where all the office supplies are stored on a shelf 6 feet up, Sam’s got some privilege because he can easily reach them and Mike has to ask for help or find a step stool every time he needs a new pen. Sam is not doing anything wrong - he’s just getting envelopes. Privileged, not wrong. Mike pointing out the privilege is not accusing Sam of doing something wrong.
“You are privileged” =/= “You have sinned.”
“Someone else is privileged due to a characteristic that you happen to share” really really doesn’t equal “you have sinned.”
The instant defensiveness and denial are unwarranted.
That has not been my experience with how the concept is typically deployed.
Well, that’s how the concept has been used in the 230+ posts of this thread. Nobody here is trying to claim that having membership in some societally privileged category automatically means that you are not a decent person, or that you’re doing anything wrong.
So there doesn’t seem to be much point in attacking that straw opponent in this thread.
It’s used exactly as seen in this thread; as not particularly veiled accusations of racism.
That’s not at all what the posts in this thread are doing, AFAICT.
If you’re going to insist otherwise, I think you’ll need to quote some of the specific remarks in this thread that you claim are using acknowledgement of white privilege as “not particularly veiled accusations of racism”.
Perhaps you should say what else this would imply other than that those reactions are racism.
What? They are defensive reactions of people when privilege is pointed out. Not what white privilege is.