Honestly it would depend on which ones we are talking about. The African-Americans that you guys are speaking of are usually the poverty stricken ones that happen to be in the “bad” parts of town that are crime ridden, so no I wouldn’t trade places with them. The ones that I identify with are the ones I was competing against to get into the same college, with the same middle class upbringing. I never once saw out and out racism.
Bottom line is that I want all people treated the same, I don’t disagree that there are times when the African American population is treated poorly. Then again, that has never been my disagreement. My disagreement comes when you lay all the blame upon others.
Reminds me of a bit Wanda Sykes used to do. She said with every win, Tiger Woods gets a little less black-- his first big win, he was black, then he was “biracial,” then he was “part Native American.” Then Sykes says “But if he acts the fool, what’s the headline going to say? ‘Black golfer arrested!’”
Well, I do for one. As would, I’m sure, a lot of lower class white people. A lot of the arguments here seem to give black people very little agency in fixing this problem, as if it’s a white person’s problem to fix. If that is true (it may be), then you probably don’t use a choir-preaching well-poisoning buzzword.
Cite? I mean, a lot of immigrants, not all of them white, must think this is a pretty great to be here, otherwise they wouldn’t have come. That doesn’t they can’t see injustices.
Okay, then say white advantage. Not perfect, but better. It’s the thing whites are cognizant of when they realize they wouldn’t trade places with the average black person (though, some certainly would). White people don’t “enjoy” it. That’s their default. White people enjoy going on vacation. People enjoy drinking pumpkin spice lattes.
If all these issues went away, do you think black people would be “enjoying” it? Their quality of life would be better, sure, but I’m betting within a very short time that’d be their “default” too. Hmm, spittballing here, but maybe “white quality of life” might be even be better.
So is this just about the black perspective? I thought whites were needed to help solve this? These things aren’t driver’s licenses or taxi medallions. Not something you earn or get down the road sometime after birth. ALL those things I listed are rights that ought to be afforded to everyone, at birth. If a black person makes it through the day without any of those things happening, should he say “Oh, I’m so thankful for the privilege of not getting pulled over?” No, he shouldn’t have to think about anything at all, because that’s way it should be.
So, let me get this straight. The opposite of injustice is privilege? I’d say not getting what should be yours at birth (a right) is an injustice. We (all) have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If someone is taking away those rights, THAT is oppression. If that isn’t codified enough (and I don’t think it is), then you can pass laws to rectify that. America hasn’t lived up to the ideals it was founded on, but it has gotten better, and it can get better still.
Look I get that you and I are talking about the same thing. We’re just differing on definitions. But no lower class white person on the poverty line is going to buy that he’s “white privileged.” I mean, if you’re going down that road then everybody in the US (yes, even black people) is privileged compared to a vast majority of people walking this earth. I’ve seen it. I’ve lived it. You can’t just say that privilege stops at some border.
What do you mean by “out and out” racism? Someone shouting “get out nigger”" That stuff still happens, but it’s considered impolite by most folks. However, overt racism isn’t the only kind of racism. And it’s not the only kind of racism that affects a person.
You will probably never see an employer toss an applicant’s resume in the circular file because their name is too “black-sounding” or because they attended an HBCU, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
You will probably never see a gifted black student be punished by his or her teachers’ low expectations, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
You will probably never see a white doctor give poorer treatment to his or her black patients than their white patients, but that doesn’t mean that doesn’t happen.
You will probably never hear a cop admit that he pulls blacks and Hispanics over more than whites, but that doesn’t mean that doesn’t happen.
You will probably never hear a banker say they discriminate based on race, but that doesn’t mean that doesn’t happen.
“Same middle-class upbringing” is often illusory. A middle-class black person is more likely to be first-generation “middle-class” than a middle-class white person. A middle-class black person isn’t likely to have the same kind of wealth as a middle-class white person, because the average black person’s parents, grandparents, great-grandparents were denied access to appreciable assets (i.e., real estate) that white folks were given access to. This goes all the way back to the 1860s with the
Homestead Act. Imagine being fresh off the boat from a European country and being given 160 acres of arable farmland. Imagine how more fortunate your children will be compared to the children of the parents whose application was rejected. Given how land tends to appreciate in value over time, it shouldn’t be surprising at all that black folks today have less wealth than white folks. Black people’s applications to the middle and upper middle classdom, in a metaphorical and literal sense, have been rejected since the founding of this country. It is only in the last sixty years or so when society decided to stop doing all the rejecting out in the open. But it’s still doing it. Just because you aren’t seeing doesn’t mean it still isn’t happening.
I recognize that there may still be people who’ve just heard the term and have not yet run into the explanation. But I have very definitely run into people who have heard that explanation multiple times but keep refusing to pay any attention to it.
Maybe we’re talking about the same thing. But to cut to the chase, I think where we disagree is that you think that the reason lots of people aren’t on board with [something we can’t call white privilege] is because folks don’t like the particular word that means “having something others don’t”. I happen to think that the problem isn’t the word, it’s the basic concept behind the meaning, and that any number of synonyms for privilege or advantage would be equally hard to swallow for those who don’t like “privilege” because at their core they don’t believe that the systemic issues at play are really true.
No, it’s not “just” about the black perspective. My point is that refusing to talk about white privilege denies the black perspective.
If everyone is treated the same, then there is no privilege. Privilege exists when one person or group enjoys treatment that is denied to another group. I hate referring to the dictionary as a debate tool, and I’ve gone to the thesaurus here already, but you seem to be arguing for some meaning of privilege that is counter to the actual meaning of the word.
I don’t think that is correct, unless it is being asked to a white supremacist, in which case you might as well just end the discussion right then and there. If you asked the question posited in the OP, and the answer is anything other than “black skin is icky”, or “whites are inherently superior” (the white supremacist answers) then that answer will most likely be a tacit admission that being white sucks less than being black on average. I mean, seriously, what answer could you give that isn’t an admission of that?
I would say it has nothing to do the white people getting the loans (the so-called privileged people), and everything to do with the people not issuing the loans to the black people. If that is happening, regardless of who the banker is, then that needs to be fixed (see possible solution below). If it is a privilege to get loans, then that implies that the loans given to white people is being taken from equally deserving black people (same credit score, payment history, income, etc). That’s not necessarily the case. Loans are not a zero-sum game. You could set up a system that would equally distribute the loans.
One way to solve this is for loan applications to be done blindly. This is already being done for online credit card applications. A computer does the whole thing, start to finish. Now, you may argue that the average black person isn’t going to have the same “numbers” a computer would look at to make a decision that the average white person would have. That is, quite likely, true. Does that mean banks should be obligated to take on higher risk loans for black people? That would require race on credit applications, wouldn’t it? And didn’t the housing crisis show that high risk loans are kind of a bad idea?
Well, I guess at this point we’re just going back and forth without progress, but this is a nonsense interpretation. Person 1 and Person 2 are systemically treated unequally. Saying that the system “favors/privileges” Person 1, and “disfavors/disadvantages” Person 2 are both reasonable statements that follow. You’re insisting that you can’t say that the system privileges Person 1 because you wish that the system treated both people like Person 1. There’s no real logic there.
No, it doesn’t imply that. This is again your narrow definition of “privilege” that is nicely defined such that it is impossible to talk about white people being granted anything that black people are denied.
But I’ll ask again the question you deftly avoided; would you agree with this sentence:
I don’t think it’s that complicated, and can likely be answered with a simple yes or no (or even a "yes, but . . . " or "no, but . . . ").
I am not arguing against that. I just don’t think that has anything to do (on a moral level) with the white people getting the loans. I am putting the onus on the bankers to fix the problem. They’re the ones that are causing the problem, wether they are doing it conciously or not. Again, this is something that CAN and SHOULD be addressed. We have the technology.
Okay, then I guess I misinterpreted this. Sorry.
The main caveat being the “one person or group” is NOT the cause of the denial of “the other group.” In terms of loans, of course. That’s on the lenders, not the borrowers.
And where, in that definition, does it say anything about race? Prepending “white” makes this a political definition, not a dictionary one. If any dictionary includes race, then it’s been on there for about 5 minutes, not long enough to seep into colloquial usage (except among people that are already on board).
Yes? I think I’ve already said that or at least heavily implied it, and put the onus of fixing that on the people that could actually do it.
If a banker has a gazillion dollars to loan out but they decide to discriminate against some people for bullshit reasons, they don’t just sit on the money they would have loaned those people. The banker will loan that money to someone because that’s how the banker makes a profit. In the case of a banker with anti-black policies, loans will go to white folk who–in a fairer system–wouldn’t be eligible for a loan. Thus, some white people are being giving a “freebie”. It’s not just a case of black people being robbed of an opportunity. It’s also the case of white people getting something they don’t deserve.
It’s like this down the line.
If cops were to suddenly stop disproportionately locking up black people for bullshit and low-level offenses, they don’t start spending all their free time picking wildflowers and having tea parties. No, cops would start going after white people for bullshit and low-level offenses because they’ve got quotas to fill. So making the justice system fairer means that white people will experience more pain and suffering than what they are experiencing right now. (I have hope that maybe one day no one will be pulled over for bullshit and low-level offenses. But I don’t think this will happen unless it starts happening to white people at some palpable frequency. As long as it disproportionately happens to black people, it won’t be seen as a problem.)
If gifted black kids are being shafted by their teachers and we decide to correct this, ideally we would get additional teachers to handle the expanded gifted student body (assuming the current gifted student body is at maximum capacity). If we don’t have the resources to do this, then the students who are currently in the gifted student body might have to give something up. Like, maybe there are some kids in that program who don’t need special attention because they aren’t really uber geniuses, but they were labeled gifted because they tested high on a single test back in the first grade and their white wealthy parents’ insisted they be labeled gifted. They were given an opportunity based on subjective criteria that was denied to someone else based on equally subjective criteria. So making a system with finite resources fairer means that someone is going to be left pouting because they aren’t as special as they thought they were.
Let’s say your parents give you two desserts for every one dessert that your sibling gets after supper. Objectively speaking, neither one of you are entitled to dessert–cuz that’s an “extra”. And objectively speaking, eating two desserts is less healthy than eating one dessert. But none of these things matter to the dynamics between you and your sibling. Your sibling will feel like they are being treated unfairly. You are getting favored for no good reason. You will likely grow up to be bigger and more satisfied with life than they do. You will likely grow up with a stronger sense of entitlement for the same reason the person who gets the home loan frequently goes back to the bank to ask for a second mortgage or a business loan, while the person who gets denied for a home loan doesn’t dare ask for anything something else. If you know your parents are generous enough to give you two desserts, you know they’re generous enough to raise your allowance and give a brand-new bicycle for Christmas. But if your sibling knows your parents don’t like them enough to give them two desserts, they won’t bother asking for those nice things.
The privileged person has a hard time seeing the ridiculousness of getting two desserts. They don’t know that most people get zero dessert. They think everyone is entitled to two desserts, so of course they think if Mom and Dad just gives everyone two desserts, the world will be perfect. But they don’t see that Mom and Dad lack the resources to give everyone two desserts. Fairness necessitates one of those desserts be cut in half.
Okay, can you name a bank, in 2020, with an “anti-black policy”? If so, name it, and I won’t bank there. Don’t just tell me “they all are, you just can’t see it”, because that’s basically a useless assertion. What is anybody supposed to do with that? Furthermore, I think I think you know as well as I do that there is no bank in America, under normal circumstance (maybe not in the pandemic, that might have changed things), that is extended to the max and can’t issue out a single other loan. And even if that were the case (and it’s not), there are several thousand banks in a America if they say “ooops, sorry, we’re all out of loans right now.”
If a bank is rejecting a black applicant simply because they are black and for no other reason, then that bank is losing money, period. And since they are ONLY in the business of of making money, it would be in their best interest to implement ways to mitigate that, cause, you know, maybe nobody can see it and maybe it’s unconscious, but computers and non-personally identifying loans don’t care about that.
And what is this about white people getting loans they don’t deserve? Can you at least cite the statistical number of white people getting loans they “didn’t deserve?” Not anecdotes, numbers.
The problem here is the quota, not that white people aren’t getting harassed by cops enough. Can you agree that if black people are harassed less, that they were imprisoned less, that that’s a preferable outcome? Do we really need more people in jail for “bullshit and low-level offenses”?
Okay, so, has this idea never been thought of before? Never been implemented? If so, lets give it a trial run and see if it works. I am NOT opposed to looking for solutions!
I will provide you the evidence of what you are looking for. The question I have is will you read it? Will you accept it as evidence? Or will you reflexively deny it?
[T]he Berkeley study presents rare documentation that racial bias in face-to-face lending also seems to be creeping into online platforms. A Lending Tree study released in October reported that African-Americans had the highest denial rates for mortgages in 2018 at 17.4%. Whites had the lowest at 7.9%. The study showed that African-Americans and Latinos have had the highest denial rates since 2004.
The Berkeley study included data from almost 2,100 lenders, almost half of which have an online or app-based loan application. Researchers specifically cited Quicken Loans’ mortgage app Rocket Mortgage as “the largest-volume mortgage product in the U.S. as of 2018.”
…
Machine learning systems are developed when programmers load in large data sets to teach the system how to respond to new information. The system “identifies patterns within the data and uses those historical patterns to make predictions about future data,” said Sarah Myers West, who studies artificial intelligence bias at New York University.
West said she can see how bias would happen in online home lending because those platforms were built from old mortgages that were already biased.
AI-powered algorithms received even more scrutiny this past week when allegations of gender bias arose in the Apple Card from Goldman Sachs. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and Basecamp chief technology officer David Heinmeier Hansson both reported their wives got a lower amount of credit offered when they applied online despite the women having a similar credit profile as their spouse.
“We turn to machine learning in the hopes that they’ll be more objective, but really what they’re doing is reflecting and amplifying historical patterns of discrimination and often in ways that are harder to see,” West said.
