More like they took a thousand resumes and sent them to lots of different companies, so that every company got a different combination of white and black resumes. What they found was that whatever combination a given company got, they called the white versions more.
Who says what’s the way things are supposed to be? Someone dropping into America context-free in 2020 would assume that all those things you list are supposed to be the way they are; that the current experience of America for black citizens is exactly what it’s supposed to be. There needs to be language to describe how one population in this country has advantages that another does not enjoy.
From a black perspective, it totally makes sense to say that “white people experience privileges that I don’t.” You don’t have to stretch any definitions or anything; that sentence would be accurate.
Calling my experience a privileged one forces me to consider it from the eyes of someone who doesn’t enjoy the same . . . privileges that I do. Or we could use the word freedoms if that feels better. That black people don’t enjoy the same freedoms that I do. Though that takes us down a language path that I’m sure most “don’t call it white privilege” people really don’t want to go down.
Also, all this talk of “that’s the way it’s supposed to be” is meaningless. Not getting followed around in stores for no reason is the way it’s supposed to be, but some people experience the privilege of that being true, while others suffer under the opposite. It’s not “poisoning the well” to center the black experience.
Being free of injustice while your neighbors suffer under injustice is a privilege. That’s what the word means.
The desire to fight back against the idea of privilege in this context is the desire to separate any given white person’s responsibility to do anything about injustice. “It’s not that I have something, it’s that you don’t!”
You can’t have more without less. You can’t have dark without light. You can’t have oppression without privilege. Demanding that you can’t ever use the word “down”, but instead have to use “not up” or “less up” is nonsense.
[quote=“Ludovic, post:131, topic:913927, full:true”]
I agree that use of the term to glibly dismiss dialogue has poisoned it from being used in this way, but the freedom to be oblivious is a real phenomenon that needs a name, unlike institutional racism, which already has a name so doesn’t need another one.[/quote]
I’m in agreement. I have experienced situations to where I was oblivious to what the problem was because it wasn’t even on my radar. Once at a work, a black employee came in to get her ID badge replaced because she had lost it. We were right in the middle of updating all employee photos because so many of them were woefully out of date. Seriously, there were employees with badge photos that were 10-15 years old.
I found her to be very pleasant as we chit chatted until I told her we need to take a new photo. She didn’t want to take a new photo but I explained to her that we were updating them for all employees who get new badges. She became agitated and then belligerent to the point where I had to go get my supervisor who was also a black woman.
This employee had her hair in braids that was in vogue for black women at the time and and was afraid it didn’t look professional and she might face discrimination for it. (Part of the problem is that she held the erroneous believe that a hiring manager had access to her badge photo.) While I was aware of many past policies being unfair towards African Americans in regards to acceptable hairstyles at work, it had never occurred to me that this is what she was worried about. She looked perfectly professional to me.
I understand why she found it difficult to tell me the real reason she didn’t want to have her photo taken. But I would have agreed to use her old photo had she been able to tell me.
We also don’t tend to say that class privilege is just another way of describing how everyone should be treated. When a person can get into college with lousy grades just because their uncle is a huge donor to the school, we don’t say “Well, they are just enjoying something we should all be entitled to.” Because we are able to recognize that being able to pay to avoid hurdles that other people encounter by default is a privilege.
The same applies to race. Whiteness allows a person to avoid hurdles that other people encounter by default.
If you can stay out all night long while I’m subjected to a curfew, then you have a privilege that I don’t have. It doesn’t matter that in an ideal world both of us would get to stay up all night long. And it also doesn’t matter that in another ideal world both of us would have to be under a curfew. All that matters is what is happening in this world. In this world, one of us can do something the other person isn’t allowed to do.
Valid point. Perhaps if the term BLM were reconstructed to be BLMT (as in Black Lives Matter, Too) it might also be less “unpalatable” to certain groups, or, maybe people would feel less likely to think of it an an exclusion to their own significance instead of precisely what it is.
I think it wouldn’t matter one tiny bit what phrase was used, because it isn’t the phrase that upsets most of them-it is the very idea that this group that is being held down doesn’t want to be held down any more. This can be seen in conversations, on the internet and in real life, where the objection to the term is vocalized, the explanation as to what really means is given(often over and over again)…and the acknowledgement of understanding of what it really means just doesn’t happen. Either the person ignores the response(s) and walks away, or the person raises the same objection elsewhere.
That’s exactly what makes issues of race and racism and related biases so tricky…humans are inherently inclined to categorize and search for patterns and assign significances to variations in people…the goal should be to eliminate the desire to subjugate/harm/disadvantage another based on whatever bias one holds.
I think it might, simply because there are many instances of a single item being called two different names, each of which are considered differently. This is fairly prevalent in the world of cuisine, as what one restaurant might call “mashed vegetables” another might call a “crudités purée”, or something of the like. One could sound more appealing than the other, depending on the sensibility of the diner.
If processing a certain string of words aligns more closely with one’s values, the point might be internalized more easily.
It’s easy to think that, because not everyone is going to be moved by a change in message - some, as you say, will remain unmoved no matter what the language or medium. And it is difficult to notice a 30% or so reduction in the amount of people who object to any one message because the human brain just doesn’t work that way.
For instance, although I was one of the people who objected to the subset of BLM protesters who condoned looting and rioting, and, to a degree, protests that could not be reasonably seen as petitioning one’s government for redress such as shutting down freeways, I thought it was pretty obvious that there were a lot of people who would object no matter how “polite” the new protests would putatively be, so I greeted the furor at simply taking a knee with a mix of sadness, bemusement, and amusement (at my own predictive powers.)
But no one measured what I felt about it. The language was all “everyone who thought the original protesters were not protesting in the absolute best way possible think that Colin Kaepernick is still not polite enough for them!”
I’m not sure what I could have done to make that clearer. If I’d mentioned the subtleties of my views broadly enough, I imagine I would have gotten a lot of feedback like “Gee, thanks for telling us exactly how you think we can and can’t protest!”
You can refer him to the numerous studies that demonstrate that in schools, teachers subtly encourage boys in academics, while discouraging girls-- they call on boys to answer more often than girls, and compliment boys more often. Meanwhile other studies show that black students, especially boys, are punished more often and more harshly for offenses that all students commit, such as talking back, not following directions, getting out of their seats without permission, and forgetting materials.
After 12 years in such environments, he already has a leg up, if he’s a white boy: he has better records, more and better teacher recommendations, better grades, and better SAT scores. The odds favor him being a valedictorian, and having been able to participate in the sorts of extra-curricular activities that colleges like, so he’s more likely to even be accepted to college in the first place, and to get the scholarships that aren’t identity-based.
There’s a doozy of a scholarship my brother managed to get-- pretty much a free ride, which anyone can apply for, and it usually goes to a white male. Not to put down the fact that my brother got straight As from 6th grade - 12th grade, and was valedictorian, but there were societal factor that certainly helped him.
White boys are also much, much more likely to become Eagle Scouts (there’s a girl scout equivalent, but there are so few GS leader volunteers about elementary school, it’s rare for a girl to achieve it), and Eagles get rank if they go into the military straight from high school, or can apply for scholarships for Boy Scouts. If they choose to go the military-GI bill (or ROTC) route to pay for school, they earn a higher salary than non-Eagle Scouts.
Those paltry scholarships he’s not eligible for are by way of compensation for his 18 years of privileges. I don’t know what age your son is now, but if he’s still young enough to take advantage of the privilege, let him do it. Then he won’t need those scholarships.
But there’s a proven history of “I agree with what you say, but the way you say it is too loud/shrill/unpleasant, go try again” as a way to shush disadvantaged voices. Its a soft and condescending ad hominem. It refuses to engage with the speaker without addressing the argument.
But there is still a point at which the objection is legitimate. For instance, the poster a few years ago who dialed up the nastiness to the point of flinging sexual invectives and misogyny at everyone until he was banned. But there were still people who said “you only object to him calling you a thot because he’s black!” So some tone objections are legitimate, and some objections to tone objections are not, in my opinion.
Which isn’t to say that some people just use tone arguments as an excuse to dismiss an argument, it does happen a lot.
Well stated, and agreed. POC who’ve had a “less obviously ____experience” sometimes favor the less
vocal, more “agreeable” version of those truths, if for no other reason than to not be seen as threatening.
You should tell him he should’ve worked harder, studied more and gotten better grades and higher test scores. There are lots and lots and lots of white and female kids that managed to get good scholarships yet he couldn’t. He just wasn’t good enough.
Our society will open doors for the best and brightest, regardless of race and gender. There aren’t any systemic issues keeping him out of that club, look at all the other white kids that made it to the top of that ladder. If he can’t get there it’s his own fault. He needs to suck it up, tug at those bootstraps and try harder. Society has no obligation to pamper the mediocre by expanding the number of seats at the table and there’s no place for the average. Stop whining and work harder.Its all about personal responsibility and why does he need to rope someone else into paying for his education anyway.Maybe dad should’ve worked harder and saved more, too.
Which has always been our societial attitude towards students from disadvantaged backgrounds and it’s the status quo that conservatives are trying to maintain,
Work harder is actually great advice on a one to one level. It’s the advice I give my young nieces and nephews all the time. But it sucks as a public policy position.
The reaction from the privileged to the term “Black Lives Matter” is part and parcel of the problem of treating Black lives as if they do not matter.
So, I guess you’re saying that it really doesn’t make a difference what you call BLM, the demographic who’d need convincing (by way of an extra syllable) isn’t really the right audience for the message anyway, right?
I have more to say but I couldn’t put it in this forum. Check the pit. I tried to paste a link but it kept adding the text of the post which defeats the purpose so I deleted it.
I haven’t read this whole thread, but she’s touching on a very basic bit of philosophy known as the Veil of Ignorance
My only problem is that this part seems to be a bit of a straw man argument:
Of course I know that I wouldn’t want to be treated how American culture treats black people (and women) but I don’t see how I am “allowing it to happen.” It isn’t like I have a magic wand and can reach into the heads of millions of people and make them stop being racists. You might as well berate me for letting rain fall.
Yeah, but I don’t think he realizes it. That’s the thing.
As far as the whole “privilege” thing, I think one problem is simply the term “privilege”. People hear it and think, “what do you mean, ‘privilege’? My life sucks!” I think it might help if people would explain privilege as say, “By having X privilege, you will never have to deal with the kinds of problems that people who aren’t X do. That doesn’t mean your life will be all sunshine and roses.”
At least, that’s what I’ve noticed – people simply bristle when someone says “privilege”. It gives the impression of someone rich and spoiled. Because that’s how it was always used in the past.
(Of course, that’s just my observation. I could be wrong)
Oh for crying out loud! What about the edit was “too long”?