I strongly suspect that there was no effort to make anyone feel guilty by the people who coined the term. There probably have been people who siezed on the term as an opportunity to use the term to spread guilt around, but like the idiots who claim that racism can only be exercised by people in power, one can simply dismiss such people as dishonest or misguided and stick to addressing the actual phenomena rather than getting hung up on their distortions. (Chafing against “white privilege” is a bit like nurturing anti-semitic feelings based on a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the phrase “Chosen People.”*)
If someone wants to propose a replacement term, I would be willing to consider it, as long it addressed the actual situation in this society that “white privilege” identifies. From my perspective, it exactly describes the situation: people who are not white are given less leeway in personal behavior, are less likely to receive social acceptance without having to prove themselves, are sometimes treated unfairly in the legal system, and are looked upon as “representatives” of their ethnic group in ways that whites have the privilege of escaping, being judged pretty much on their own personalities rather than on their skin color.
See several recent threads in which the term has been hashed out with posters who see that phrase only in anti-semitic ways and in contrast to its actual meaning.
I apologize that I’m too lazy to much legwork on this, but, as I recall, the term “white privilege” was popularized specifically for this reason. The logic was that white students were disengaged by discussions of racism because they don’t feel like “minority disadvantages” impact them. The idea was specifically to make white students feel engaged – specifically by being aware that they benefit from advantages.
“Popularized” where? That some people have latched onto the phrase and used it to inspire white guilt is true. I have encountered folks for whom that sort of nonsense was a serious avocation. I have already mentioned the baseless notion that only people with power can engage in racism.
However, your original statement was that it was coined for that purpose and that simply has no basis in fact. It was coined to describe a situation that resolves itself more easily if people are aware that it exists.
I think we disagree in the sense that you see it as a disadvantage to minorities rather than an advantage to whites. It makes a difference in how you view your role in racial disparities.
Can we stop with this “strongly suspect” thing and have both sides bring in citations? Show me how the term was started, if you think it’s relevant to the discussion.
My rationale for disliking “white privilege” is that it implies that the solution is to reduce the privilege, when that’s not the case. The solution is to grant that privilege to everyone, which counter-intuitively destroys the privilege.
That’s what matters, not some idea of which group you most identify with, nor how the term was started.
That would be the link provided several pages ago:
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion about what it implies. I have never heard anyone opposing police harrassment for Driving While Black claim that the police should stop more whites. I have never heard anyone who opposed the disproportionate laws regarding cocaine and crack claim that cocaine usage should receive harsher punishments. I have never encountered someone who was upset that whites were offered rehabilitation over incarceration at higher rates than blacks claim that they wanted to see fewer whites offered rehabilitation.
Eliminating white privilege is always discussed in terms of extending rights and opportunities to non-whites, not in terms of making life harder for whites.
It is a disadvantage to minorities. They are subject to more harrassment and harsher laws; they are offered fewer opportunities to avoid incarceration. Unless one really does want to impose harsher laws and more capricious enforcement on whites, I am not sure how else one should view it.
To go back to my mountain in a blizzard analogy, simply not suffering a sprained ankle does not actually confer a benefit on one hiker. That is a “benefit” that both hikers experienced before the injured hiker fell victim to the accident, depriving him of mobility.
I know this was back several posts ago, but I have to agree with it. I got into a discussion on Facebook recently about the “pay gap” between men and women – I won’t detail the argument at the risk of derailing the thread. Now what happened was a few men (including me) were linking studies and counter-studies (news articles, etc) on the wage gap and other things like the concept of stereotype threat. At no point did any man say “well, I’ve never seen it happen.”
However, as soon as a woman came in and offered an anecdote, about 3/4ths of the participants changed modes into how she was more qualified to speak on the subject due to being a woman, and completely redacting their viewpoints because of a single 20-something college-going part time job having woman’s experiences on the matter. Now before anybody jumps on me, wait – anecdote vs anecdote a woman beats a man, hands down on subjects involving sexist discrimination against women. I am not arguing against that. However, as the saying goes, anecdote is not the singular of data – she offered one viewpoint in contrast to numerous studies offered. We were making arguments about the general case, in no way does one person’s experiences change the general case. The 1/4ths that didn’t kowtow even acknowledged that it would be ridiculous and offensive to tell her that her experience of discrimination was fake or all in her head, we were just speaking in general. And yet to many of these people, being a man disagreeing with a woman who has been affected by the issue was “offensive” regardless of the data they had to present.
Here’s the issue: it is absolutely useful to note that white people, or males, or cis people may not be the most qualified to speak on certain issues anecdote vs anecdote. It is absolutely stupid to use the argument (an argument that is sadly used rather often) “Well, nobody I know has ever sexually harassed/raped/discriminated against/mocked/whatever a woman/black person/trans person etc.” The best way to describe it is that most people are good, and more importantly, bad people are often pragmatic and act less bad in broad daylight. You simply don’t know how common it is for a man or white person to act poorly towards the victim in private because your sample size includes solely you and maybe a couple friends (who are self-selected to not be assholes, one would hope), whereas a woman or black person’s sample size involves a large number of potential bad-actors.
However, it is way, way too easy to take this to the extreme and argue that men or cis or straight or Christian or white people are simply “not qualified” to speak on a topic, even if they bring cites. This does not mean we need to stop the rhetoric in the last paragraph, it’s absolutely important. What we do need to fix is the notion that when anecdotes are not involved (meaning, using deductive logic or scientific studies), those of us who do not fit in a given group can have a valid voice as well. And more importantly, that an unprivileged group’s anecdotes do not trump actual data cited by a member of a privileged group.
However, in terms of this thread, I’m not convinced that “white privilege” itself as a term causes this effect. The closest term I’ve ever come in contact with that encourages this mentality is “mansplaining” from feminist circles, I don’t think “white privilege” causes this sort of backlash like you think it does. I do agree that it’s perhaps a poor, easy to misinterpret term (too easy to translate it to “all whites have it made” or a hundred of other things it doesn’t actually mean), and that may put white people on the defensive more than they should be. I agree with its definition, but I think a better term that’s less easy to misinterpret, if one could be made, would be better.
By your reckoning, the phrase white privilege is almost entirely redundant with discrimination. I think the concept of white privilege is a lot larger than mere discrimination.
Its not just discriminationa gainst blacks and other minorities, it is discrimination in favor of whites. A societal discrimination in favor of whites. The higher hurdle Asians face in the college admissions process isn’t discrimiantion against Asians, its favoring whites.
On the other hand, I would not say that it was redundant with discrimination. I don’t think that the chief point of the issue comes from arguing whether it results in gains to whites or losses to non-whites.
I think the more important aspect of the concept is that it is often unconscious and that it is very often unrecognized by those who benefit from it while it is very visible to those who suffer from it. Arguing over gain vs loss is pretty much irrelevant. The more important point is that it needs to be identified or exposed before it can be addressed.
No one is prohibited from drinking from the “correct” water fountain any more. No one is ordered to sit farther back in a bus than some other person based on appearance.
That sort of discrimination is history.
Few people, today, are denied housing loans or made to jump through extra hoops to secure them based on their ethnicity. Those who are treated badly in this way have recourse to the government.
What white privilege addresses are the sort of phenomena that are not explicitly against the law and of which the the vast majority of white people never encounter, so they are unaware of the discrimination that occurs.
Imagine you are catholic going to BYU. Everyone is nice as can be but everything seems to be built with Mormons in mind and there are constant reminders that you are different. Whenever an opportunity for a research fellowship or something comes up, you never seem to get the nod. Your toast always seems to land buttered side down.
Yes you might get some hazing in the locker room that noone is sensitive to because they are not subjected to it. But you are also dealing with the effects of living in a society that just wasn’t built for you, where all ties go against you and things never seem to go your way.