Real simple. You compare yourself to him and think “Gee, I’m lucky I don’t have to deal with that headache.” Your luck only exists because he’s unlucky. You don’t have to worry about the color of your skin when you go out. He does.
Because when you see the black guy’s disadvantage as something that has nothing to do with your station in life relative to his, it means its going to be more difficult for you to understand the concept of White Privilege. It goes back to what I was telling js_. If cops target blacks disproportionate to their offenses, that lets a disproportionate number of whites be free of the harassment that is due to them. If the justice system sentences blacks to longer sentences than whites for the same type of crimes, that means whites are getting more freedom than black people, even if they don’t deserve it.
You have to look at it on a population-scale, not on an individual level.
Thank you for your answer. I was looking at it in an individual way, not on a population-scale. And using a different definition of advantage and linked than what I originally thought was meant, I now have a better understanding of where the study’s conclusions come from.
You make assumptions by leaps and bounds. I certainly don’t identify “my culture” as being “my race.” Now that I think about it, I belong to several “cultures”: Late Twentieth Century Feminists, Retired Metro Teachers that are Salty Old Broads, Liberal Democrats, Southerners, and so on. “Whites” is just too broad a group to equate with a “culture.”
I like to see societies evolve naturally. I live in a multi-cultural neighborhood and I enjoy seeing the changes. That doesn’t come from “self-loathing.” To the contrary, it comes from being very content with life as it unfolds. I’m not defined by anything that can be taken from me.
It isn’t. Never has been.
Only on radio. In the television series they were played by Blacks.
Was Bill Cosby also working in a “white” job as a doctor when he played Dr. Huxtable?
“Though whites in the U.S. believe there remain advantages to being white, they don’t necessarily link those advantages with blacks’ disadvantages.”
Give that particular wording, I can see why people might agree that there is no link.
Certainly, for someone to have an “advantage” they have to have an advantage with respect to someone else. You cannot have an advantage over yourself. If A has an advantage with respect to B, then B has a disadvantage with respect to A.
However, the wording of the article allows for another interpretation. As another poster has mentioned, there is no Law of Conservation of Disadvantage. The fact that I can drive without getting pulled over for no good reason does not create a disadvantage for anyone. The fact that some people get pulled over for no good reason is not caused by my not being pulled over for no good reason.
In other words, while I think it’s obvious that for every advantage there is an equal and opposite disadvantage, that doesn’t mean that the condition that is the advantage causes or creates the condition that is the disadvantage.
If responders to the survey understood the word “link” to mean “causal link”, then I’m not surprised that they answered the way they did. Besides, why would anyone even ask if there’s a link between white advantage and black disadvantage if what they meant by “link” was some tautological true-by-definition stuff? That seems pointless enough to me that I would assume they meant “link” in a causal sense.
(Ok, there’s probably one of Aristotle’s definitions of “cause” that fits the “true-by-definition” thing. I’m too tired and lazy to remember or check, and you know what I mean anyway, dammit.)
For the record, I’m not opposed to the idea that there could be something justifiably called “white American culture”, but I’m not convinced there is such a thing either. On the one hand, there is an enormous amount of variation in lifestyles among white Americans. I assure you that even though we are both white American computer geeks, Bill Gates and I live very different lifestyles.* On the other hand, I’ve read the phrase “acting white” used before in various places. If this has any meaning, then it must mean something to “act white”. That at least hints that there may be some sort of general white American culture. Also, if there is such a thing as “black American culture”, even though there is a large amount of variation in lifestyles among black Americans, then I don’t see why the same couldn’t be true for whites.
Although we are both fucking his wife. Hah! Just kiddin’ Bill. Just getting you back for Windows ME.
I think the problem is that because white Americans enjoy the advantage of not having to think about when they go to a bar, or move into a new town, or not being pulled over when driving in a car - because they are not affected directly - it’s easier for them to forget that others, like Blacks, don’t have that advantage, but are disadvantaged. They are not as eager (generally speaking) to stop the disadvantage to the blacks, they may not even know that Blacks have a disadvantage, because they don’t have it - as in the example: a white American can move to any city, and go to any bar without problems, so why shouldn’t the Black also do? The white doesn’t even think or know that there is a disadvantage.
But why would you consider not getting pulled over an advantage at all, if not for the fact that that advantage exists because of someone else’s disadvantage?
Let’s pretend the survey asked whites to list all of the advantages they have as white people and they listed:
I can go to bars without worrying about rude/discriminatory treatment.
I can drive without being unfairly stopped by police officers.
I can look for housing without worrying about discrimination.
And then they asked them to list all the disadvantages that black people have. Shouldn’t that list essentially be the converse of the other list?
They can’t go to bars without…
They can’t drive without…
They can’t look for housing…
You being white does not cause blacks to get harrassed by cops, but I think it’s a big stretch to interpret “link” in that way. I should hope that the study question wasn’t worded so ambiguously so as to allow someone to think that, because that would be an absurd question.
But there is a cause and effect relationship between advantage and disadvantage. The thing that causes you to have an advantage is the exact same thing that causes them to have a disadvantage: White privilege. If both groups were treated exactly the same, there would be no advantage or disadvantage. It would be completely neutral.
Without actually seeing the study in question, I have a strong feeling that the black respondents understood “link” in the same way that the investigators are using it. If blacks seem to perceive a 1:1 relationship between white advantage and black disadvantage, why wouldn’t whites?
I think the answer here is much simpler and in a way much more revealing. tomndebb touched on it, but maybe didn’t spell it out quite as clearly.
When we’re looking at advantages and disadvantages, we are talking about “as compared to everyone else.” For whites, “everyone else” is also white, so of course they don’t see any advantages to being white - that’s just the norm. For blacks, “everyone else” is generally both blacks and whites, and thus they see an equal relationship between advantages had by whites and disadvantages had by blacks.
Part of this is, of course, that whites are still the majority in this culture. But it’s also that minorities tend to be financially poor in greater proportion than whites, and thus highly marginalized. Their cultural influence is much less, although in recent years with the advent of Rap, it has become somewhat greater (and faster - jazz took decades to become popular with middle-class whites). Minorities who cease to be poor tend to adopt the white middle-class culture, at least visibly (what they do with respect to things like bedtime stories may continue to be somewhat different, but that’s not readily observable to anyone outside the family).
This kind of thing can’t change overnight. There is no racism fairy who can come along and cast a spell so that everyone will wake up with no racism. But in the course of my fifty years, things have changed a good deal, and I see no likelihood that they will not continue to change. The biggest problem we have today is two-fold: the fact that minorities of all stripes tend to be very poor, and the fact that being very poor is discriminated against without guilt or second thought, regardless of race. We do it here on the SDMB everytime we use the term “trailer-trash” or mention people who avidly watch Jerry Springer in a context that doesn’t relate directly to watching the show. This often looks like racism because such a large percentage of minorities are very poor that it is often assumed that any member of a minority is, but those same people who appear to be racist will, for the most part, treat an unequivocably middle-class or higher member of that minority without any trace of discrimination shown or even felt.
According to the article, whites do think they have advantages. Everything that you’re saying would make sense if the respondents only acknowledged black disadvantage but didn’t recognize white advantage. That doesn’t seem to be the case, though. The article leaves me with the impression that whites believe their advantages have nothing to do with black disadvantages, and I’m not grasping the logic behind it.
Perhaps the writer of the piece took some license here by saying that whites believe they have advantages. In the paragraph before, it seems like the whites in the study don’t recognize their advantage, but without seeing the study itself we can’t tell what the hell is going on.
But they were stereotyped as the “Steppin Fetchit” type of “Negro” (I am using that term because it was more prevelant at the time). You didn’t see an educated, articulate portrayal of a black person.
I was referring to portrayals from the 60’s. In the 70’s you had some poor attempts at black television leading characters (Fred Sanford was poor but wise, George Jefferson was rich but obnoxious, Florida Evans on Good Times was trying to take care of her family in the Chicago projects, a situation made more difficult after her husband was killed off) and also in movies (think of the “Blaxploitation” movies, including Superfly and Shaft ). By the time the 80’s came along it was acceptable to middle white America for The Cosby Show to come along because it portrayed a black family where both parents were:
married
employed in “respectable” white collar jobs
involved in their children’s lives.
Cosby has consistently railed against the “gangsta”/hip-hop culture and his show provided a great representation of what everyone could achieve if they applied themselves, no matter what their race was. The show would not have been as successful, especially with white Americans, if Cliff Huxtable was a drug dealer or rapper. Will Smith in Fresh Prince could, through a little inner city aspect to his character, minimize the overly “white” attitudes and performances of the other characters, but he did not demean himself or the show by resorting to stereotypes of a “ghetto” character. A Different World also worked because it showed black characters attending college, attempting to better themselves.
Those are what you call “stereotypes”. And they’re just as incorrect as ones about people of other races.
There are plenty of inconsiderate white folks who play their radios loudly. I live on the “wealthy” side of town, and from what I can see (in a town of 275K, the well to do folks are just as inconsiderate. More so if you ask me, with their “do you KNOW who I am” sense of entitlement).
White women spend just as much time pampering themselves in a beauty parlor or day spa. Where did you get the idea that they don’t, or that they think it’s a waste of time? Have you ever spent any time in a hair salon? It’s at least 1 to 2 hours for me depending upon what I’m having done. And the only “waste of time” I can think of is if there is more fun stuff to be done.
Whites don’t dance? PUH lease. (I’m a dance instructor). Umm yes, yes they do dance. And a lot of them are quite good at it, without being the least bit drunk (the University wouldn’t allow students to participate drunk, and the night club I taught at only the pool players drank, the dancers preferred soda so that they could practice well).
Repressed? You haven’t ever been to a rock concert have you? Nor are you apparently aware that porn (though I can’t stand it for other reasons) is a multi billion dollar a year industry.
Yes, because white people are automatically imbued with wealth and an abundance of status symbols merely by virtue of being white. And no other ethnic groups indulge in any sort of status labels on their clothing, or in what cars they drive or anything.
And lord knows there are no poor white people, or ones for whom character, family values or love of their fellow man equal success rather than money.
Some white people do. And others of other races admire refinement and classiness as well. This doesn’t make it a “white culture” thing. It makes it a “people who want to be wealthy and sophisticated” thing.
And you’ve got hard data to back this up? I can’t speak for other parents, but I don’t despise it because I think it’s any sort of “downward mobility”. I despise it because I’m sick of pounding bass stereo intrusions at 3am (luckily, since I’ve moved, there’s rarely any of that in my new condo association). And those pounding bass intrusions were from the rich kids (of all racial backgrounds) from “Hillside”. Though I don’t just despise it from the rich kids. I despise the sucky “music” and idiot behaviour across all class and racial lines. The “thug is cool” mentality is a stupid one.
But the clothes do crack me up. Not so much despising going on there from my end, as ridicule. The “toddler with a full poopy load pants” look cracks me up every time.
That’s exactly what I was saying. Read my post again. I was agreeing with you on this particular point.
Not as absurd as asking people whether a tautology is true. I don’t see the point of asking people the equivalent of “Is the fact that A > B linked with the fact that B < A?” It’s true, obviously true, and utterly pointless to ask questions about. Granted, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t mean this. I wish, as others have done in this thread, that we had more precise data from the report.
I don’t see what’s absurd about posing two questions that go somewhat like this:
“Do blacks have a disadvantage because they are black?”
“Do whites have an advantage because they are white?”
Yes, it’s tautological, but not obviously so if you fail to understand the concept of white privilege. The thing that puts blacks at a disadvantage (relative to whites) is because they are not white. The thing that puts whites (relative to blacks) at an advantage is because they are not black.
I think Oy! did a good job elucidating where the disconnect might be coming from. Whites don’t have a problem seeing that blacks are at a disadvantage relative to “the norm”. But when asked about their advantage, for some reason they end up comparing themselves to “the norm” but forget to factor in the black component of this norm. If you exclude the black component, then there is no advantage because all you’re doing is comparing yourself to other white people; i.e. the numerator and denominator cancel themselves out. Hence, the failure to grasp the inescapable relationship between disadvantage and advantage.
I suspect black people don’t make the same mistake because they are a minority and would never make the mistake of excluding white people from the point of reference.
I think another reason that blacks and whites see this issue differently is that when asked about advantages, whites are likely to see ‘the norm’ as equal to ‘what’s fair or right’ (which may or may not be true, but people are optimistic). And in that sense, there is no equal and opposite relationship between advantages held by one group and disadvantages held by another, or at least the relationship is so diluted out as to be inperceptible. Whites see themselves as being treated fairly for the most part; they have no instant advantage in competitive situations. But they recognize that minorities are not treated fairly in some situations - that they have an instant disadvantage.
you with the face, in attempting to get her point across before, talked as if justice were a limited quantity and thus a zero sum game - one group can not have more without another group having less. I desperately hope that isn’t true. It’s a terrible thought that things must become less than fair for one group in order to make them equally fair for another group.
On the other hand, it’s absolutely true in some cases. If there is one house and several people want to buy it, only one will be able to. The more people competing, the less an individual’s chance to win will be. Same thing with school admissions or jobs. In cases where the desired thing is available in limited quantity, it’s always a zero sum game - one cannot gain without another losing. In those cases, though, if there has been discrimination, it has taken place at a point where the competitors who are not discriminated against are not aware of it. They see only that they are competing fairly with whoever is left, and thus are aware of no advantages, because as the point they are competing, they have none.
I agree ywtf, and I would also add that one of the components of a system of privilege is its “invisibility” - systemic privilege weaves itself into the fabric of one’s life, to the point that it is camouflaged. Recognizing that privilege exists is sometimes (in my experience) the most difficult aspect in teaching courses about cultural diversity. That’s why Peggy Macintosh’s work is so valuable - when (typically White) students read it, they recognize that there are certain perks they experience on a daily basis. The second part, of course, is that by realizing that these experiences are automatic and require little to no thought, it also means that non-Whites do expend energy and thought on one end of the spectrum (a good example was the poster who discussed how a friend worried about how he would be received at a pub) to outright danger, risking life and one’s own livelihood (housing and job discrimination, for example).
As an educational tool I try to help students understand that yes, privilege is conditional, and yes, it is possible to be, for example, an affluent White male and experience disadvantage in some contexts. But those contexts are limited and there is often a superstructure that supports the system of privilege above and beyond. I use the example of a friend who taught elementary school in an all-Black community. I’d say that demographically, Black women were the dominant group, followed by White women, Black men, and finally White men (I never saw a Latino or Asian person among the staff). The administrators were all Black. The district supervisors were mostly Black. My friend certainly experienced prejudice at the hands of students and some parents, and when he struggled (as we all did) I sensed that people were less willing to help him - maybe they wanted to see him fail? Of course one could factor in personality, willingness to work, and all those other factors - I think he was an outgoing, serious, motivated teacher and I thought he was treated terribly. (I was in the same school experiencing terrible treatment as well, but he had it worse!)
However, if things got uncomfortable, he could have easily summoned in assistance from the district central office. He also could have used the media or legal approaches to help him through. (To his credit he did not - he just applied himself, really got to know people in the community and at the school, and it did get better over time. However, I have known people who taught in similar situations and placed calls to family, family friends, or even sympathetic administrators and saw results.)
I think it once again relates to relativity in a subjective world.
If everyone was sentenced to life without parole for a particular crime, then that would be “fair”, since there is no gold standard for fairness when it comes to sentencing (after a certain point, of course). So when it comes to sentencing, fairness is therefore synonymous with equality and impartiality. If black people are more frequently sentenced to life w/o parole for the same type of felonies that whites commit, then you have two ways of stating the problem: either whites unfairly receive less punishment than blacks or blacks unfairly receive more punishment than whites. Who is to say which is the right interpretation?
Whites are used to seeing their treatment as just, for the most part. So it’s hard for them to grok the idea that they may be “getting away” with something. As a black person who has been discriminated against, you kinda get used to seeing both sides of the coin.
“It’s not fair that black people keep getting pulled over when they’re not doing anything anyone else isn’t doing!”
“It’s not fair that white people aren’t getting pulled over when they’re doing exactly the same thing everyone else is doing!”
Individual cases of discrimination are hard to prove precisely because usually there is nothing hard and fast that determines whether an action is just. So its not so much that the Law of Conservation applies. It’s more like realizing that there is always two ways of looking at discrimination and both ways are equally valid because they are equally subjective.
you with the face, you are certainly right. I’m sure you’ll forgive me in hoping that the universal standard becomes that which has applied to whites rather than that which has applied to blacks.
I still believe that class-ism plays a larger role than racism these days in such matters, however. Also, I think speech is a bigger trigger for discrimination than skin color, at least in anything important. Unfortunately, it’s a very difficult thing to differentiate, so I can’t present facts to support my opinion. (This also would have something to do with the fact that I am incredibly lazy; there may be such studies but I’m too lazy to hunt for them. :D)
Someone should start a GD thread asking what “white culture” is. Barry Manilow? Love him, can’t say most or even many of the white people I know do. Who doesn’t like mayo, do white people love mayo more than Puerto Ricans? Are Puerto Rican’s white? Black people don’t watch Disney as much as white ones? What in the multi-culti world is everyone in this thread talking about?
I disagree. I don’t know how it is in the US, but in Europe there are many who see themselves as being part of Europe and a European culture. Europe has a very long history that binds us together and which has formed us. I don’t see why this should be ignored just because there now are nation states. Me, I’m not particular Danish, I am Scandinavian and I am European. One can be part of several cultures at once.
And since everybody agrees culture is a social construct, when somebody says he feel he is part of a European culture that is what he is. And I guess if somebody, or a lot, says they’re part of a white culture, that self identification makes it so.
I’m guessing many feel part of an Asian or African culture.