What is this assessment based on?
I think these campaigns have enormous influence. They already have. And more to come.
In my experience, in my situation, it was the Guam public school system. Which technically is US soil but whites are very much a minority.
I probably shouldn’t have said that white privilege is a myth, it’s just a misnomer. The privilege is with the majority group or whatever group is in power (which is usually the majority), and in the US that is definitely white males. My point is that “white privilege” is a US-centric or western-centric viewpoint. And if you declare that a person can’t have had an experience because of their skin color, that’s extremely prejudiced. You don’t know that.
I do not disagree* AND it still does not mean that what a member of a group with less privilege thinks about what a privileged person intends to mean with speech or action is objective fact, or that the only narrative that should be allowed is one greenlit by the less privileged group, as a general principle. (Again no comment on the specifics, the op was stating as a more general case.)
Lots of reasons for that but among them is that if the goal is to win hearts and minds over to a different way of thinking censorship of all opposing POVs, forcing them into areas of no contact with other perspectives in order to protect yourself from theirs, is an ineffective method, IMHO anyway.
*I do however have to note that it is not the only privilege operational in the U.S. - a separate discussion to be sure.
Yes, I am writing from a western-centric viewpoint. This is the only viewpoint on this particular board at this particular time that makes any sense. It is a generalization, but a perfectly valid one under these circumstances.
Your definition of white privilege is therefore faulty. White privilege means exactly what I said: that whites are the presumed default and superior group, for whom laws are made and exceptions are granted. White privilege means that the mere fact of possessing white skin is a protection in many situations. Whites are far less likely to be stopped-and-frisked or to be followed around a store or need to provide i.d. Whites are far more likely to get away without getting a ticket or being arrested or having their entry impeded. It absolutely does not mean that these things never or always happen; it means simply and exactly that whites are generally privileged in a wide variety of ways people of color are not.
Extend equivalents of that privilege to other slices of American society and you get the overarching default privilege I refer to.
I just resent the idea that no white person could have experienced prejudice in their life. That’s ridiculous. Can you say they don’t know what it’s like to be black, or Native American, or Jewish, or Arabic…? Sure, of course! But saying “ straight, white, able-bodied Americans just don’t have the experience or knowledge to discuss systemic discrimination” is ignorant. It sounds like you should even know better than to say that, so why did you? 
I like to think my experience makes me more empathetic on the issue. I can never say racism isn’t a thing, I’ve felt it. I am fortunate not to be in that environment anymore. It was horrible; I felt like I was worth less than others around me, I could never fit in even though I tried (and yes I had Chamorro/Filipino friends but they were outliers). I even felt suicidal at times and was very depressed and angry. I will never know what it’s like to be that kind of a minority my entire life in the contiguous US but I can imagine it must be horrible at times.
That’s what I’m curious about too. Does the OP want the mods to cornfield any opinion from someone that is uninfomed aka “not woke”?
Asked and answered, many times. Did you read the thread? Hint: the answer is “no”.
I know the difference between individual discrimination and systemic racism. Both happen but I’m talking about the latter because it’s thousands of times more frequent.
I also believe that people like you and me who’ve been the minority are much less likely to make the comments that we’re objecting to. It’s truly a learning experience. That’s why I can be sure that those making the comments here have never learned.
Part of the framework behind saying white people don’t (largely) experience systemic racism abroad is part of a larger colonialist framework. It’s not fully accurate, but is accurate to approximation. The idea is essentially that the European world has spent so much time colonizing the word not just militarily, but through media, that there’s a certain degree of bias towards white people even partially just because of things like big international blockbusters that lionize white people.
In many countries, even if there is systemic bias against white people (e.g. Japan), oftentimes it’s largely not towards white people specifically and more against “foreigners” in general the larger systemic racism is against other minorities (e.g. Koreans, Chinese, or peoples like the Ainu or Okinawans/Ryukyuans). I do think a lot of people overly write off white experiences with racism abroad, but the framework is somewhat valid from a world colonialist perspective.
Especially when you take into account things like Colorism/Shadeism which is the tendency for, even among their own racial group, people to prefer and give advantages to lighter skinned members of their race. This isn’t universal, but is common in many cultures such as Indian or Japanese. Sometimes this does have traditional meaning separate from white colonialism (the Japanese thing has been around for centuries, and is part of why, e.g., Geisha wear snow white makeup), but it is reinforced by white-biased international media and also just has a small effect that white people get some of the side-benefits of being more similar to “lighter skinned” members of the local populace.
Again though, this is only accurate to a first approximation. For instance, the Irish, Welsh, and Scottish have an ongoing cultural battle with eradication or erasure of their cultures, languages, and traditions at the hands of the English, and also issues with things like political autonomy or biases against their dialects. And in some countries, even if the bias is against “foreigners in general”, white people do still face systemic discrimination to some degree. It also ignores that while it applies at a larger systemic level, even in the US there may be smaller tight knit towns and communities that if a white person is stuck in they may have some systemic issues, and may be impoverished enough they can’t “just move” to an area where the systemic racism against them doesn’t exist.
So I think it’s both reductive to say white privilege is US/Western-centric, but it’s also reductive to say white people cannot experience systemic racism.
Anyway yes, as a US based community, barring exceptions for specific posters who have spent large amounts of time abroad, largely POC are going to have more valuable opinions on systemic racism, women (and most non-woman AFAB people) are going to have more nuanced and informed opinions about misogyny, trans people are going to have more knowledgeable opinions about transphobia and trans issues etc.
I agree with you 100% here.
Thank you.
We live in a time in which all opinions are equal.
But if I disagree with that and my opinion is equal we create a paradox that threatens the space-time continuum.
My head was designed with paradox-absorbing crumple zones [/santa]
Bob Welch knew this in 1972:
There’s a scene in All Quiet on the Western Front where Paul, home on leave during WWI, converses with townsmen, none of whom have been in the military. The school headmaster proclaims the German troops have merely to smash through French lines.
Paul explains that’s not possible. *Besides, the war may be rather different from what people think.
He dismisses the idea loftily and informs me I know nothing about it. “The details, yes,” says he, "but this relates to the whole. And of that you are not able to judge. You see only your little sector and so cannot have any general survey.*
The dismissive headmaster is a fool, of course, for his cavalier certainty that his viewpoint is superior to that of someone with actual experience and that someone with experience must be incapable of seeing the bigger picture.
This post may well be ignored, but I thought the analogy–imperfect as all analogies are–was worth making.
I’m curious if you see you experience at that time as the same/comparable to the experience of people of color in the US? Do you think you got any more general benefit of being white, even while you experienced bigotry in that situation?
I think it is quite apt. Thank you for sharing it.
Wow, calling women complaining of misogyny on a message board “shrill.” Are our posts getting too high pitched, like women’s voices, and hurting your ears? You may be unaware that this is a commonly used term to dismiss or devalue women’s words. It is an extremely gendered way of describing speech, and I find it exceptional that it is being applied to written words.
See, e.g., The Long, Sexist History of 'Shrill' Women | TIME
Too late to add to prior post: if you are starting from a position of ignorance, try listening and being curious. Ask questions. You don’t have to accept everything someone says as true and valid to do this. I personally would not tell anyone to shut up and nod, but yes, stop asserting things, listen, try to understand, ask curious questions (not trying to make a point disguised as a question). And that advice is not something I’m suggesting as board policy. I’m suggesting that anyone in power who has been dismissive of complaints of harm or unfair treatment by people not in power ought to try listening instead of dismissing.