I cant’t claim to be such as charitable person as you, but I do work for specifically the least privileged people in the US - who come from all races. I’ve never been told to check my privilege. I’ve been told some uncharitable things, but not that. The check your privilege thing seems to come from people who are at least as privileged as I am, if not far more so.
If all someone’s doing is a “they’re part of group X, therefore this individual is privileged” I agree. But not if the person in question is actually identified as seeming to have some privilege they’re unaware of. I get your objection, but it’s an objection that applies to any singling out of an individual; there doesn’t seem to be anything unique or more common about talking about privilege in that regard.
“Talking about groups” by claiming that someone is guilty by association because they are in a group of people that’s based on skin color, gender, etc. is stereotyping and prejudice. And that’s exactly what ‘privilege’ arguments and ‘you’re white so you aren’t allowed to comment’ do. If you actually don’t want stereotyping and prejudice to rule the day, then you have to refrain from engaging in them yourself.
That is people talking to each other, which is technically a conversation. It’s not a good conversation, but my point is that it’s not a good conversation and highlights how alienating a lot of the ‘identity politics’ discussions are. Defining ‘conversation’ as ‘only good conversation that I like’ is engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Because it’s completely irrelevant. Once people start making racist arguments, I have no interest in what else they have to say. When ‘white people need to shut up’ or 'check your privilege is part of the conversation, I don’t care what else people are saying unless they are backing off of that part. And while there’s issues with that part of the conversation, they’re not what I’m discussing.
The phrase ‘check your privilege’ is used to dismiss other people’s opinions, and even their right to have an opinion. “Check your privilege” is not a real argument or a useful phrase, and is not actually challenging opinions, it’s an outright dismissal of the other person’s right to even have their own opinion.
I quoted what you said, you praised the ‘conversation’ discussed in the article, not just the writing of the article. You are now backing away by saying that the parts that you don’t like don’t count as conversation, but that’s just a dodge.
What was wrong with the analysis in my post #125?
As far as “blabbing and blaming”, that just seems like more excuses to ignore the concerns of minorities. There were a few asshole Civil Rights activists in the 60s, but their existence didn’t mean the overall message of the CR movement wasn’t correct. Anti-CR people latched onto occasional bad behavior or bad reasoning to justify continuing to support racist policies and practices. Things are a bit different now – society is better, in general, IMO… but there are still reasonable concerns about bigotry and discrimination, and IMO you should reject the impulse to dismiss them because some of them are presented poorly or by assholes.
Obama’s approval rating is currently 54% (RCP). At about this this time eight years ago it was 83%.
According to The Hill: “Trump’s 48 percent approval last month was already the lowest for any presidential transition the polling company had measured, based on Gallup’s measured ratings since President Bill Clinton.”
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying Obama’s all-time high rating was based on race, or that Trump’s all-time low rating is based on race. It’s because Obama has been a great president, and Trump is both a charlatan and the least qualified person ever to be elected president.
I’m not even saying people aren’t racist - they are. (All people.) Nor am I disagreeing with your specific point - that at least some of the “Obama isn’t an American” bullshit was founded in racism. I think it was.
I would argue, though, that Obama’s two-term presidency is evidence of America’s ability to transcend race, rather than evidence that America is racist.
Hell, I think if Obama could have run for a third term, he would have won.
“Barack Hussein Obama” has a “weird” name. He was, is, and will have been an extremely popular president.
Finally, some white people are gay. Some white people are here illegally. Some white people have “weird” names. None of those are examples of white privilege. In fact, whites are more accepting of homosexuality than other racial groups. According to the Pew Research Center, for example, whites support gay marriage. Blacks, not so much.
Such sweeping statements (America is racist, or America is not racist), are kind of pointless, IMO. It’s also a misunderstanding of racism if you think Obama’s election and support is evidence that America isn’t racist. Racism is more than just refusing to vote for a black person or support a black president. It’s entirely possible to have racist views and still support a black politician – one might think most black people are inferior, but some few (like Obama) are good enough to be honorary whites (or some other ridiculous and racist concept); there are many such permutations.
And I think you’re also misunderstanding privilege. A gay white person will sometimes be mistreated by others – that doesn’t mean they don’t ever experience white privilege. Similarly, a straight black person will sometimes be mistreated, but that doesn’t they don’t ever experience straight privilege. Pretty much everyone experiences some sort of privilege – it’s not unique to white people, or straight people, or any category. It’s a way to describe the little day-to-day shitty things that someone might not experience because they’re not gay, or not Hispanic, or not black, or not disabled, or not trans, etc. There are even some situations, most likely, in which a white person might experience some instances of beint treated poorly/unfairly while a Hispanic or black person would not. Non-white privilege is a lot less common than non-black privilege, but it probably exists in some small number of situations. But in most white people’s lives, there are many situations in which they were probably treated better than they would have been had they been black (or Hispanic, etc.), and probably very few in which they were treated worse, which is why we tend to talk about white privilege (or non-black privilege) a lot more than non-white privilege.
nm
I like your startup idea. But if I were to arrange it in terms of importance, it would look more like this:
1.) Wealth/income (they’re highly correlated)
2.) Mental Health
3.) Physical Health
4.) Attractiveness
5.) Legal History (if you mean criminal record)
6.) Sexual orientation
7.) Race
7.) Gender (Obviously, women have it better than men)
8.) Religion (Unless you’re in a super-unpopular religion, like say, the FLDS)
Age is tougher, since it obviously make a huge difference, but most people will experience being young, middle-aged, and old - unless they die before they get there. Having said that, I suspect just about any 99 year old billionaire would trade all her wealth to be 18 again.
I’d leave off occupation, since it only matters in terms of income.
Also, at the extremes, mental and physical health matter more than income. If you’re dead, wealth matter any more.
I think it’s fine that you have worked out this complicated scheme, and I respect it. The problem that I have is that some on the left (and I’m on the left!) insist that everyone agree with their exact version of their own similar complicated scheme or else they are not “allies” or whatever the current accepted term is.
We’re turning off voters who 97% agree with us by being self righteous assholes. If a person accepts that there is racism in the country, and wants to do their part to help, that should be enough to embrace them.
Your job and education make a difference if you hold everything else equal. Your parents make a huge difference when you hold everything else equal. Children who are abused or neglected start out with a huge disadvantage, for example. But you can’t tell that by looking at the color of somebody’s skin.
Well said.
Actually, white women voted 53% - 43% for Trump.
The question - for debate - is whether cis-gendered right-handed heterosexual whites should form an identity group. Identity politics advocates generally say that they should.
I realize right-handedness isn’t often brought as a privilege, but lefties have historically faced a tremendous amount of discrimination. Can you imagine being forced to write with the wrong hand? Not being able to use scissors? Even language reinforces the right-handed privilege. “Right” is both a homonym and a homograph for “correct”. Historically, one punishment for stealing was cutting off the right hand - because it was assumed everyone was right-handed. (OK, maybe that example wasn’t a good one, but you get the point.)
I can’t say I’m especially upset you don’t know what I’m saying. I like generating debate. That’s why I do it. I figure other people like it too, or they wouldn’t be participating. Plus - with all this advertising - page views have got to be good for Straight Dope. “Cecil Adams” has created a lot of free content for me in the past. So this is me paying him back. (Though - assuming for the moment he’s a white right-handed cis-gendered, heterosexual, perhaps he’s so over-privileged I shouldn’t be doing it. I’ll have to think about that.)
I said it was an example of America’s ability to transcend racism.
I agree. One might think, for example, that Obama isn’t really black, but mixed race.
That’s sort of my argument. Give it back, please. I don’t appreciate your appropriating it.
Unless they’re included in the “etc.” you’re missing some pretty big ones. Wealth comes to mind. There is no bigger privilege than being wealthy. Well, having good physical and mental health comes to mind. Though that starts to get complicated. How many dollars is it worth to not have diabetes? Schizophrenia? Chronic pain? Severe depression?
Sure. Try walking through a black neighborhood at night as a white person.
I’m not sure about that.
I’m glad there is some common ground.
That’s not what we’re talking about here, though. No characteristics are being imputed.
Well, relative to a black person from that same community, that person is privileged.
And again, using the idea of privilege to bully people into not expressing their views is wrong, and should be condemned.
That’s actual stereotyping, and is also wrong.
Not necessarily. It can be used in a shitty way, but it doesn’t have to be.
I said nothing about guilt, which is irrelevant to the concept of privilege. And once more, telling people they can’t comment (which seems to come up far more often from people denouncing the idea of privilege than in reality, but whatever, I’m sure it’s happened at least once somewhere) is wrong.
I don’t think you can have a conversation predicated on one party insisting that the other not speak. We’re splitting hairs here though. Actual conversations about privilege don’t seem to fit the pattern you’ve outlined, though.
That’s nutpicking, and you’ve demonstrated the problem with it. There was a legitimate issue with the march, people pointed this out, and it was corrected. Then, some other person who may or may not have been even discussing the march (it doesn’t really make sense in the context given) says “white allies should listen more and talk less”, and you’re ready to throw the whole concepts of inclusiveness and representation in the trash? That’s absurd. It’s equally absurd for the woman in the article to not attend on the march on the basis of that remark, but it’s her life.
Again, I disagree. Can you conceive of a situation where it is useful? If not, would you be open to a hypothetical example?
No, I said that the ideas you came up with weren’t a conversation. In reference to the article, you said “Having an issue with someone because of their race, and having a ‘conversation’ that is really just telling them to shut up and do what you say is, in fact, a bad thing on many levels, both from a moral stance and a practical stance.”
However, that stuff doesn’t appear in the article. It’s your spin and commentary on it.
…how are you defining an “Identity Group?”
Who makes the decision on what is and isn’t an Identity Group? What metrics are involved? Who do you apply too? Do you get a certificate?
What does an “Identity Politics Advocate” advocate for? What is it that they want?
Can you name some identity politics advocates? I don’t know who any of them are.
Can you provide quotes to prove that identity politics advocate say what you claim they do?
Why would you be upset that I didn’t know what you were saying? I still don’t know what you are talking about. I hope that doesn’t upset you.
Guilt is central to the concept of privilege, the whole concept of ‘check your privilege’ is that the ‘you’ is guilty of gaining all kinds of benefits because of their race/sex/gender/orientation/etc. Without guilt the phrase doesn’t even work, there’s no privilege to check without being guilty of gaining an advantage at the expense of others.
Saying ‘if you are race X, you need stop talking and listen to people who are race Y,’ is not practicing inclusiveness and representation. That’s one of the big problems with progressives who play the identity politics game; they want to claim the mantle of ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘representation’, but don’t actually practice it themselves. And then they get all surprised when the people they say should ‘listen more and talk less’ just tune them out completely.
So you disagree with me saying the phrase is useless, but want me to come up with an example where it is useful? How does that even start to make sense? And no, I don’t have any interest in a hypothetical example - my contention is that the phrase ‘check your privilege’ is useless in the real world, not that no one can come up with an imaginary situation (possibly with a different history of usage) where it could be useful.
I can’t help but notice you made a big change in your paraphasing there. And it’s one that has a strong effect on your point.