Yeah, I’m not sure how acknowledging it would work. Bringing it up in everyday life seems like the stuff of SNL skits…
Sorry to sound pedantic I just didn’t know if you were familiar with the character.
*That is the worst Jamaican accent ever, seriously I live in Trinidad and that sounds nothing like actual Jamaicans.
It’s hard for me to see the problem with people trying to be aware of what particular advantages we have.
Or being a bit thankful for good health, if we have it. I actually am pretty glad I don’t have cancer. I really don’t understand the argument against being aware of whatever ways we’re fortunate.
Thats okay. Talking about JarJar gets everybody on edge 
Being aware and grateful for your advantages is fine. But do you go around saying, “What a great day – SO glad I don’t have cancer!”? It just seems like it would get weird fast.
And whats even weirder is somebody else running around reminding other folks that they are priviledged because they don’t have cancer but that person does.
Well, I don’t think anyone would argue that white people should start every morning with a hearty acknowledgement white privilege, either. (And same goes for any other kind of privilege.)
I think it’d be pretty appropriate to do so if someone without cancer started grousing about how they don’t get special handouts like all those cancer patients. People in this very thread have said the equivalent about being white.
Lots of people. Just as many say that gays, blacks, Jews, and pretty much any group shouldn’t complain because “they haven’t had it as bad as us!”. I hear it all the time; many people think that unless you have been worse treated than anyone else you have no right to complain; and of course it’s always their group which has been the worst treated.
Oh, really? I must have missed my White Guy Stipend in the mail.
. . . so then, why does the existence of poor people somehow make it wrong to take about white privilege, exactly?
Wow did you ever completely fail to understand the conversation.
Problem is, a conversation isn’t necessarily the right venue for teaching folks: you’re more looking for a lecture format in that case. Yeah, in conversation, I’ll be happy to learn from you. But only if you’re happy to learn from me. Conversation is about give and take.
Now, sometimes one person knows more than another, sure. Saying, “Shut up and listen for a minute” is fine, if you’re knowledgeable on a topic. But saying, “Check your privilege” is at best meaningless, and at worst says, “…because it means your thoughts on this subject are worthless.”
There certainly are settings where certain people dominate the discussion in one way or another, and one way of domination is for someone born ten feet from the finish line to keep crowing about what a fast sprinter they are. But another way for someone to dominate the discussion is to use some sort of catch phrase to shoot down any dissent. Neither way is acceptable.
It’s worth being aware of how your background affects you (one exercise I do pretty often in meetings is to count the number of men–I work in a female-dominated field–and then keep a tally of how many comments are made by men or women–it’s almost always at least twice as many comments from men as from women). But the phrase “check your privilege” has never, in my experience, ever ever led to a good result, and although it sometimes comes from a good place, it more often comes from someone leveraging a relative lack of privilege into a means to silence dissent.
You are misrepresenting your position. You are not merely saying it’s okay for someone to have this sort of worldview, you are advocating that those who don’t have this worldview should change.
And the reason this position is wrong is because you’re arguing they should do so for no other reason than they are not a victim. Not because they’re doing anything wrong, just for existing and not getting screwed. It kind of reminds me of some religious people, who get miffed if you’re not sufficiently grateful for not actually getting any help.
True, but I was apologizing to grude not you.
Anyway, you made a very stupid and somewhat racist comment.
So, once again, please explain.
When has “Jessy(sic) Jackson” ever claimed that white people are evil?
Second when has “Jessy(sic) Jackson” said “weesas” or anything similar"?
Third, when doing a parody of Jewish politicians do you have them speak with exagerated Yiddish accents the way you had “Jessy(sic) Jackson” speak with a parody of an Ebonics accent?
Thanks
The problem is that if it’s a conversation about oppression, there is pretty much nothing that (for example) a woman could learn from me about sexism. Insisting that a woman has to hear me out when I have pretty much nothing to say that would be at all new to her doesn’t make for a productive conversation. Outside of a conversation about sexism, obviously, it’d rarely be appropriate to bring up male privilege (except in response to a sexist statement or joke or something along those lines) but within a conversation about sexism, it’s not like my male views on the issue are somehow useful or helpful to a woman I’m talking with.
The problem is that, once again, people who are in oppressed groups and who are passionate about the issue are very used to biting their tongues when the topic comes up. You get a lifetime of practice when you don’t want to turn conversations with family members into shouting matches, or (depending on the circumstances) conversations with strangers into violence. So, again, in the example in which I’m having some sort of conversation with a woman about sexism, especially if she’s a friend of mine and doesn’t want to piss me off (or, alternately, if she’s worried that I’ll do something violent, which sadly, is a real risk for women), an imbalance almost certainly exists unless I also make an effort to bite my tongue – only I don’t have a lifetime of practice doing so, so I have to make a conscious effort to check my privilege.
Indeed. There is a ton of research that backs up the fact that men speak more frequently and at greater length in mixed-gender group discussions.
Well, it has led to a good result in a lot of my experiences, when someone realized what they were unconsciously doing and backed off. And, again, in the context in which that phrase is likely to be used, well, a person who benefits from the particular privilege under discussion is almost never doing anything productive or helpful by “dissenting” against the viewpoints of the marginalized group. Obviously unless someone’s being really obnoxious, it’s best to address their behavior in a friendly way, but there’s no real way to sugarcoat “you need to be quiet and listen rather than talking about what you don’t understand” to the point where it’s pleasant to hear without erasing the message entirely.
Again, I want to reemphasize that there is only a limited context in which this applies. But in that context, if the privileged people (in that particular conversation – obviously most people are privileged in at least some contexts) are unwilling to bite their tongues and sit back rather than trying to explain oppression to the less privileged people, there’s no way a useful conversation can happen.
I don’t see where I’m misrepresenting myself. I am very much clear that anyone in the U.S. at least (I don’t know enough about other parts of the world to talk about them, although I’m sure this holds equally true in Western Europe, anyway) who is white and doesn’t believe that they have a systematic advantage over racial minorities – that they don’t automatically have it easier – should change their world-view. Because if they don’t, than they are continuing to believe something obviously false. I don’t see anywhere where I said that it’s all right for white people to not believe we are privileged.
Yes. I do think people should be aware of the ways they are not victims. I don’t see any way attitudes can change in the way that I think they need to if people refuse to acknowledge the ways they have it better than others, even though they are not individually responsible for perpetrating that imbalance.
In fact, unless a person holds the absurd view that racism doesn’t exist, I don’t think it’s possible to believe that racial minorities aren’t disadvantaged vis-à-vis white people (and that’s all “white privilege” means) without cognitive dissonance. Which I speculate is probably part of the outsized outrage a lot of people show – and there are plenty of examples in this thread – at the mere suggestion that they somehow have unearned advantages over other people.
Well let me retract my statement then.
Man, I’m glad I got that yatch to wax.
Thanks, **Left Hand **(and others) 
The truth is, if the US had not discriminated against non-white people for the past 200+ years, that guy (and likely others) might very well have blown your qualifications out of the water. But we *did *discriminate against them for so long, and we can’t go back and fix that at the source. How do you propose we start making progress against institutionalized racism, if we don’t try to make things right starting now?
Currently, the best-qualified candidate for most high-paying jobs is a white person. But you can’t honestly argue that this is a coincidence, or that it’s because whites are inherently superior to non-whites. It’s because white people started out with a leg up on everybody else (or, if you prefer, because non-whites started out a rung down from whites–those phrases are functionally identical, but whatever). And we have to start compensating for that somewhere. It’s like the old trope, you need experience in that industry to get a job in that industry. If we never give non-whites a mulligan on the former, they’ll never consistently achieve the latter.
This is really weird, and almost certainly untrue. Sexism is a tricky subject, and one person’s sexism is another person’s third-wave feminism. Having breasts doesn’t make you more qualified to analyze human behavior.
But it’s very common for certain ideologues to believe in this sort of essentialism: if you’re white, you can’t possibly have a valid analysis of racism that differs from a black person’s, or if you’re male, you can’t possibly see sexism in a different but valid way from how any specific woman sees it.
A semi-hypothetical conversation: imagine two people, a man and a woman, discussing sex workers. The woman believes prostitution should remain illegal, whereas the man believes it should be legalized and regulated. The woman tells the man to check his privilege: do you consider this helpful? If another woman joins the conversation and agrees with the man, how does that change things?
What you’re describing is exactly the sort of behavior that surrounds the word “privilege” that I find corrosive to dialog.
Go up to some white homeless guy rooting through garbage and tell him he’s privileged; see how well that goes over. Dismissing such people from consideration is a major reason for using the term; if they are "privileged’; then they don’t need or deserve any help after all, so they can be left to suffer and die with a clean conscience.
Then if you’re being truthful in your claim that you “hear it all the time” it should be easy for you to provide a link to someone insisting the poor white people shouldn’t complain about how bad they have it because of white skin privilege.
Please do so.