You don’t get something from nothing (quantum physics aside). Ethnicity may or may not be an advantage to a given individual if you cherry pick the individual. But some individuals must have a quantifiable advantage/disadvantage due to their ethnicity. Else, where do the statistically significant differences come from?
Why is that illogical? Given the relative lack of variety (opportunity?) of sports afforded black kids in inner cities, surely the NBA player had the advantage of developing a basketball skill set as opposed to say, rowing or fencing. Doesn’t environment have a heavy influence on outcomes?
True. It’s understood that statistics don’t tell you very much about any single individual. But it doesn’t follow that no white individual benefits from being white. A statistically significant number must.
A white person born with connections is not benefitting from being white. They’re benefitting from their connections.
The fact that more or fewer people of the same ethnicity have or don’t have connections has nothing to do with the fact that this particular guy has or doesn’t have connections.
What do YOU think it means, since you think you’re not guilty of benefiting from privilege by gaining benefit from privilege? I think this falls quite squarely into “justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable:” GUILTY Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com .
Again, you seem to expect me to take the opposite of my position. I think that the whole concept of ‘privilege’, as it’s used in ‘check your privilege’ is nonsensical, and that the arguments surrounding it are filled with nonsense. Arguing that a part of the concept as it’s used is nonsensical is SUPPORT for what I’m saying, not a contradiction of it.
The linked definition is fine, and refers to actions taken, and not applicable to immutable characteristics.
I’ve only seen it used by you, someone who rejects the concept entirely. It appears to be straw version of the actual concept of privilege, using a loaded, prejudicial word like “guilty” to discredit an idea you don’t like.
IME, “white privilege” is often most pronounced in countries where white people are a minority, not a majority. For instance, I’ve seen white people get what was almost celebrity-like treatment in Asia when they were tourists or visitors. Some white people also had things handed to them on a plate, so to speak, in a way that locals wouldn’t have had. You wouldn’t get that kind of white privilege in America because you don’t treat Race X as a celebrity when Race X is the majority.
Right. But it’s not for being white. It’s for a specific connection to specific people.
If your father is a billionaire, then you have advantages in life. But if you’re a white guy whose father is a billionaire, you’re not getting anything for “being white”. You’re getting something because your connection to one specific billionaire.
The fact that your father is more likely to be a billionaire if you’re white is not a race advantage even if you’re the lucky white guy in that situation.
This is going round and round here. If people can’t understand this, then I’m going to drop it.
Because you cited (post #206) a higher likelihood of having connections as an example of how you may have ““gained an advantage at the expense of others” due to your whiteness”.
Okay, I get the quibble. That particular advantage comes from factors somewhat related to whiteness (i.e. the wealth and influence of one’s friends and family), but not the whiteness itself.
Especially when it’s often used to say, “you’re not getting lynched in the streets, so what kind of problems can you possibly have? {blank}-ism isn’t an issue anymore. Just sit down and shut up so I can go back to ignoring you.”
Yeah. I have seen people lining up for photographs with random black people in the Far East (an area not famed for its racial tolerance). Thats exoticness, not privilege.
