# White Privilage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 9, 2018, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511 "2018-02-09T14:26:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/201 "2018-02-13T01:38:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I think that I’ve already stated my position plainly enough. I believe there are some places in the country where the court systems treats black suspects worse than white suspects. I do not see any reason to make up the term “white privilege”, much less to drive the hysterical obsession that some folks have with using that term in every other sentence. I’ve already stated why. Andrew Sullivan also has a good [essay](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/we-all-live-on-campus-now.html) touching this and similar topics that represents my opinion. > > There are races other than blacks and whites, though the blog post that you linked to doesn’t mention them. So to determine whether better treatment of drug crime suspects is exclusive to being white, one would need to investigate how Asian, Latino, Native American, multi-racial, and other groups are treated by the same court system. Absent any data on that, we have no way of knowing whether certain types of treatment are exclusive to whites. > > Further, the definitions of “white” and “black” are arbitrary, as is being discussed in another GD thread right now. The official definition says that descendants of original inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa are white. Obviously some or all of those people could just as easily be classified as members of other races. So if the official definition changes at some point, would those of Middle Eastern or North African descent spontaneously become unprivileged? > > Some people don’t even know what their ancestry is. Are we supposed to believe that such people simply can’t know whether they’re privileged or not? And what about my cousin Daniel, who is both white and Hispanic? Is he privileged or unprivileged? Is everything easier for him, or harder? > > And then what about people who grew up thinking that they were white, but then took a DNA test and found out that they are actually black? Does everything suddenly become hard for them at the moment that they get the DNA results, or is their past re-written so that everything from birth is retroactively made harder? I should add that these privileges have always been arbitrary. 110 years ago, as a Finn, I would have not been considered “White”, in fact in 1908 the Federal Government lost a lawsuit where they denied citizenship to Finnish people claiming that they were Asian and thus covered under the Chinese Exclusion Act. The same is true for Irish or Italians who were discriminated based on being “Alpine” and not “Nordic”. The idea is not to punish anyone, but to avoid unfair advantages being provided to particular groups due to no merit at all, but because their parents happened to pass on particular traits. As a White person, the only “shame” you should feel is if you try to maintain a system that throws your fellow Americans under the bus. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/202 "2018-02-13T01:42:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You seem to still think I’m making an argument about genetics. I’m not. Do you understand that? When I say that the average life expectancy for whites is 79 and for blacks it’s 75.5 ([cite](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf#015)), I’m making no claim about the _reason_ for that disparity, I’m just noting a fact. And you claimed that was due to biological reasons, when those results are due to social inequality and pressures caused by racial inequity. If you concede that point why would you argue that biased outcomes in policing must also (based on the invalidity of a biological differences in these groupings) must also be caused by this arbitrary grouping. It is another example of the reason we should work on fixing the issue, and in no way validates the systemic biases that your post about precincts was trying to defend. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/203 "2018-02-13T04:02:31Z")
**HD** , part of what **rat avatar** is referring to is this: > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Of course there are biological differences [between races] The use of the word “biological” generally implies something related to birth and heredity. That is, DNA. An inherent difference, biologically, between different humans related to their racial/ethnic makeup, passed down generationally. If that’s not what you meant to say, now’s a great time to clarify. . ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/204 "2018-02-13T04:32:36Z")
> [@andros](#): > > **HD** , part of what **rat avatar** is referring to is this: > > The use of the word “biological” generally implies something related to birth and heredity. That is, DNA. An inherent difference, biologically, between different humans related to their racial/ethnic makeup, passed down generationally. > > If that’s not what you meant to say, now’s a great time to clarify. > . Sure. Americans are on average taller than Japanese people. That trend has continued for many generations. I’m not trying to assess the _cause_ with that observation (frankly, I don’t know) and I suppose it’s possible that it’s just due to differences in our diet over our lifetimes or the altitude we live at or something like that. I thought “biological” was an acceptable label for noting those physiological differences between these two groups of people, but I’m certainly open to correction on my word choice if there’s a more accurate one. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/205 "2018-02-13T04:51:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Sure. Americans are on average taller than Japanese people. That trend has continued for many generations. I’m not trying to assess the _cause_ with that observation (frankly, I don’t know) and I suppose it’s possible that it’s just due to differences in our diet over our lifetimes or the altitude we live at or something like that. I thought “biological” was an acceptable label for noting those physiological differences between these two groups of people, but I’m certainly open to correction on my word choice if there’s a more accurate one. Americans are now in the middle of the pack. > **[Americans Are Shrinking, While Chinese And Koreans Sprout Up](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/07/27/487391773/americans-are-shrinking-while-chinese-and-koreans-sprout-up)** > > A massive study looks at how heights around the world have changed over the past century. The problem with stating it is biologically related is that race is not a valid biological classifier. It is based off criteria that just don’t end up mattering that much from a hereditary DNA basis. Race is not a cause or the “real” reason something occurred, the ultimate cause is typically related to the conditions provided by society in most of this differentiation. It is important to keep social-constructs like money, which is very real and has very important impacts on outcomes separate from physical, biological differences. Racial exclusion and immigration laws have almost exclusively been based on pseudoscience that claimed that these differences were real, inherited traits. So the language surrounding these concepts is important to keep precise. There is no scientific validity to the historical racial categorization of humans, it is a manufactured social construct with very real consequences for a large number of people. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/206 "2018-02-13T05:49:02Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Americans are now in the middle of the pack. > > [Massive Study Looks At How Heights Around The World Have Changed Over The Past Century : Goats and Soda : NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/07/27/487391773/americans-are-shrinking-while-chinese-and-koreans-sprout-up) Yeah, I didn’t say otherwise. I just said they’re taller than Japanese people on average. > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The problem with stating it is biologically related is that race is not a valid biological classifier. It is based off criteria that just don’t end up mattering that much from a hereditary DNA basis. So … for example, the prevalence of red-headed people of Irish descent has nothing to do with hereditary DNA? Or is “red-headed” not a biological difference? Or are you saying “Irish” isn’t a race? Basically, what’s your point? > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Racial exclusion and immigration laws have almost exclusively been based on pseudoscience that claimed that these differences were real, inherited traits. So the language surrounding these concepts is important to keep precise. Great, so if “biological difference” isn’t the correct label, what is, for example, for the red-headed Irish people from above? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/207 "2018-02-13T06:08:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yeah, I didn’t say otherwise. I just said they’re taller than Japanese people on average. > > So … for example, the prevalence of red-headed people of Irish descent has nothing to do with hereditary DNA? Or is “red-headed” not a biological difference? Or are you saying “Irish” isn’t a race? Basically, what’s your point? > > Great, so if “biological difference” isn’t the correct label, what is, for example, for the red-headed Irish people from above? Irish isn’t a race, but demonstrates how there is more diversity within the eugenicist era racial categories than between them. Also having red hair doesn’t predict traits that make one group superior or inferior to others. Lets be clear, these racial categories were created to label people as superior or inferior in intelligence, morals, etc… Bring a cite that shows that these minor cosmetic differences have value in prediction of other traits that are unique to these groups based on these minor differences. The AAA cite above covered why this just doesn’t apply, please feel free to revisit that page before returning with yet another discredited theory. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/208 "2018-02-13T06:25:19Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So … for example, the prevalence of red-headed people of Irish descent has nothing to do with hereditary DNA? Or is “red-headed” not a biological difference? Or are you saying “Irish” isn’t a race? Basically, what’s your point? IAN **rat avatar** and cannot speak for him, but I think the issue is that “race” is not a reliable indicator of genetic relatedness. That doesn’t mean that there don’t exist many identifiable human population groups whose members are more closely related genetically to people within the group than to people outside it. But such populations shouldn’t be conflated with vague categories like “race”. As I understand it, it’s still debated whether the prevalence of red hair among the Irish is due primarily to Celtic or to Norse ancestry. In any case, though, even a population as historically isolated as the Irish turns out to be descended from multiple waves of ancient migration by peoples from as far afield as Spain, the Middle East and Russia. “Irish” is not a genetically distinct category; even “red-headed Irish” is not a genetically distinct category. Suppose, for example, that you and your cousin both have red hair, but your sibling does not. Sure, hereditary DNA probably has a lot to do with the fact that you and your cousin both have red hair. But does that imply that you and your cousin are somehow more biologically akin or more closely related than you and your sibling? No. Likewise, trying to classify “red-headed Irish” as a genetic grouping would be biologically meaningless. Yes, red-headed Irish people do owe their hair color to common ancestry. But that doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily more closely related to other red-headed Irish people than they are to Irish people who don’t happen to have red hair. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/209 "2018-02-13T06:37:38Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > IAN **rat avatar** and cannot speak for him, but I think the issue is that “race” is not a reliable indicator of genetic relatedness. That doesn’t mean that there don’t exist many identifiable human population groups whose members are more closely related genetically to people within the group than to people outside it. But such populations shouldn’t be conflated with vague categories like “race”. > > As I understand it, it’s still debated whether the prevalence of red hair among the Irish is due primarily to Celtic or to Norse ancestry. In any case, though, even a population as historically isolated as the Irish turns out to be descended from multiple waves of ancient migration by peoples from as far afield as Spain, the Middle East and Russia. “Irish” is not a genetically distinct category; even “red-headed Irish” is not a genetically distinct category. > > Suppose, for example, that you and your cousin both have red hair, but your sibling does not. Sure, hereditary DNA probably has a lot to do with the fact that you and your cousin both have red hair. But does that imply that you and your cousin are somehow more biologically akin or more closely related than you and your sibling? No. > > Likewise, trying to classify “red-headed Irish” as a genetic grouping would be biologically meaningless. Yes, red-headed Irish people do owe their hair color to common ancestry. But that doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily more closely related to other red-headed Irish people than they are to Irish people who don’t happen to have red hair. Gotcha, and thanks for putting that in such clear terms. I think I have that idea pretty clear in my mind, and agree with your post. Getting back to Shodan’s apparently-controversial remark, he said: > [@Shodan](#): > > … Black people are disproportionately “profiled” because they commit a disproportionate amount of street crime. … Do you agree that black people (who are just self-identified members of a social construct group and have no distinctive DNA that would identify them as black or otherwise differentiate them from other people) in America commit a disproportionate amount of street crimes (due to, probably, a whole host of reasons like poverty rates, culture, lack of male role models, oppression, lack of opportunities, racism, bad schools, etc)? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/210 "2018-02-13T07:10:56Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Yes. > > I think celebrating death and being happy someone killed himself is sick. It’s sadistic and nasty. Nasty? Maybe. It’s certainly not _nice_. Sadistic? No, I don’t think so. Not when there’s a good reason to be happy. Sadism is when the happiness is its own goal. Celebrating the death of a monster isn’t the same thing. The Munchkins weren’t sadists for singing “Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!” > [@](#): > > I say that as someone who’s father’s family lost everyone in Europe to Hitler, as someone who would have been on a cattle car to a death camp if I had been there, as a member of one of those groups you named. Fair enough. Are you saying that gives you the right to decide the level of sickness of those other victims who don’t have your attitude? I say this as someone who would also be in a camp, since you seem to think that matters. > [@](#): > > No, it would be sad and tragic that hate and bigotry took another life. Hate and bigotry didn’t take that life. Pride and failure did. > [@](#): > > There are bigots that have reformed and become non-bigots. Wait, are you _seriously_ suggesting _Adolf Hitler_ was a candidate for reform? Who else? Stalin? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Some people _are_ “just” monsters, beyond the hope of reform. All we should do is cage them. And if they save us the trouble, well, I’m happy enough. > [@](#): > > I just don’t see anything happy about death, or anything to celebrate, and I am creeped out and frightened by people who delight and celebrate in the death of another. Revenge is a natural human (actually,[pre-human](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge#In_animals)) impulse, and I think labelling it as “sick” is just sanctimony. And I get that - I’m pretty sanctimonious about my equally un-natural pacifism - but I _don’t_ go labelling non-pacifists “sick”, I recognize it’s a perfectly normal choice. Yes, by all means, surpass your own animal instincts, that’s laudable - but allow not everyone else does, or even wants to. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/211 "2018-02-13T07:34:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Do you agree that black people (who are just self-identified members of a social construct group and have no distinctive DNA that would identify them as black or otherwise differentiate them from other people) in America commit a disproportionate amount of street crimes (due to, probably, a whole host of reasons like poverty rates, culture, lack of male role models, oppression, lack of opportunities, racism, bad schools, etc)? 😕 It seems very odd to me to pose the question that way. If you are saying that people who are poor and oppressed, with toxic culture and minimal opportunities and education, etc., are more likely to commit disproportionate amounts of crime, then surely we should be focusing crime-fighting efforts directly on poverty and oppression and toxic culture and lack of advantages, etc. The fact that black Americans are disproportionately likely to be poor doesn’t mean that blackness is a reliable proxy for poverty. Focusing policing efforts on black people in general, when what we’re actually worried about are the criminal tendencies specifically of poor, oppressed, unstable, disadvantaged, etc. people, reminds me of the proverbial guy looking for his car keys under a streetlamp. He didn’t actually drop the keys there, but he’s looking there because that’s where the light happens to be. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/212 "2018-02-13T08:51:21Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 It seems very odd to me to pose the question that way. If you are saying that people who are poor and oppressed, with toxic culture and minimal opportunities and education, etc., are more likely to commit disproportionate amounts of crime, then surely we should be focusing crime-fighting efforts directly on poverty and oppression and toxic culture and lack of advantages, etc. The fact that black Americans are disproportionately likely to be poor doesn’t mean that blackness is a reliable proxy for poverty. I don’t understand why you think it’s odd. Here are the relevant posts that got me to the point where I thought an answer to that question was worthwhile in our conversation: > [@Shodan](#): > > … Black people are disproportionately “profiled” because they commit a disproportionate amount of street crime. … > [@Shodan](#): > > No, my argument is that black people are disproportionately criminal, and thus are disproportionately suspected. > > One in eleven black adults is on probation or parole, vs. 1 in 45 white adults. ([Cite.](http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases/0001/01/01/one-in-31-us-adults-are-behind-bars-on-parole-or-probation)) Therefore, one would expect that black adults are going to stopped at a disproportionate rate - after all, they are roughly four times more likely to be convicted criminals. > > One in 18 men are on probation or parole, vs one in 89 women. Do you think that this shows prejudice against men? > > Regards, > Shodan > [@Czarcasm](#): > > If where you look for crime is the African American neighborhoods, that’s where you will find it. Self-fulfilling prophecy at its best. All I wanted to find out with that question was whether you subscribed to **Czarcasm** ’s apparent theory that blacks are not _actually_ disproportionately-likely to commit crimes, but that it only _appears_ that way because they are the subject of increased enforcement efforts. That seems obviously wrong to me, but I wanted to see if we were on the same page on that point or not. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Focusing policing efforts on black people in general, when what we’re actually worried about are the criminal tendencies specifically of poor, oppressed, unstable, disadvantaged, etc. people, reminds me of the proverbial guy looking for his car keys under a streetlamp. He didn’t actually drop the keys there, but he’s looking there because that’s where the light happens to be. If there’s actually a police chief out there that’s instructing his officers to “go out there and pull over every black person you see, because they’re more likely to be criminals”, they ought to be fired. I suspect what’s happening is that police are focusing their efforts on high-crime areas, and mostly by coincidence happen to be interacting with a lot of black people in those high-crime areas (because that’s who lives in the high-crime area), and that tidbit of data gets spun into news stories like “police are stopping twice as many black people as white people. Why are they harassing minorities?” ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/213 "2018-02-13T09:17:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I suspect what’s happening is that police are focusing their efforts on high-crime areas, and mostly by coincidence happen to be interacting with a lot of black people in those high-crime areas (because that’s who lives in the high-crime area), and that tidbit of data gets spun into news stories like “police are stopping twice as many black people as white people. Why are they harassing minorities?” …I’ve spent several posts talking about the very real case of “Stop and Frisk” in New York. It isn’t a hypothetical. You can go and look at what happened. There was no “coincidences.” The courts didn’t find that things happened “by accident.” No “tidbit of data” got spun into news stories. So why don’t you have a look at that and then come back to the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/214 "2018-02-13T12:54:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I suspect what’s happening is that police are focusing their efforts on high-crime areas, and mostly by coincidence happen to be interacting with a lot of black people in those high-crime areas (because that’s who lives in the high-crime area), and that tidbit of data gets spun into news stories like “police are stopping twice as many black people as white people. Why are they harassing minorities?” What a coincidence-Sustained suspicion without evidence just happens to be what we are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/215 "2018-02-13T13:48:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If where you look for crime is the African American neighborhoods, that’s where you will find it. Self-fulfilling prophecy at its best. No, the police and society in general look for crime everywhere. They just find a disproportionate amount of it in black neighborhoods. Do you really think we would find as many murders in Salt Lake City as we do in Detroit if we just looked more closely? That is more than mildly absurd. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/216 "2018-02-13T13:54:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > All I wanted to find out with that question was whether you subscribed to **Czarcasm** ’s apparent theory that blacks are not _actually_ disproportionately-likely to commit crimes, but that it only _appears_ that way because they are the subject of increased enforcement efforts. I don’t know whether that “theory” is true or not, nor whether it accurately represents what **Czarcasm** was actually saying. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That seems obviously wrong to me, but I wanted to see if we were on the same page on that point or not. Let’s go with “not”, pending further clarification. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If there’s actually a police chief out there that’s instructing his officers to “go out there and pull over every black person you see, because they’re more likely to be criminals”, they ought to be fired. “Every” in that sentence seems like a cutely disingenuous way of making such an attitude seem more absurd and impossible than it may be in real life. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I suspect what’s happening is that police are focusing their efforts on high-crime areas I have no idea whether what you “suspect” is true or not, since your suspicions aren’t evidence. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/217 "2018-02-13T14:00:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, the police and society in general look for crime everywhere. They just find a disproportionate amount of it in black neighborhoods. > > Do you really think we would find as many murders in Salt Lake City as we do in Detroit if we just looked more closely? That is more than mildly absurd. > > Regards, > Shodan Are you really claiming that Detroit police are pulling people over in SLC??..no wonder their crime rate is so high!!! Also note Cites on previous page, which you will ignore. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/218 "2018-02-13T14:04:24Z")
The only privilege I see for some “whites” has been that they haven’t been as victimized by the state. Some whites benefit from the aggressions of the state. Some “blacks” do, but not nearly as much. “State privilege” has much more explanatory power than “White Privilege”. What can’t be explained by state privilege is best explained by individual behavior. Whites have passed laws to subjugate blacks (Jim Crow, drug laws, minimum wage, Great Society). It is to be expected when the state is run democratically and the “whites” who have been in control of the state seek to expand their control into many aspects of life at home and abroad. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/219 "2018-02-13T14:29:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do you really think we would find as many murders in Salt Lake City as we do in Detroit if we just looked more closely? That is more than mildly absurd. Why, because there are simply fewer African-Americans in SLC than in Detroit? That dog seems somewhat reluctant to hunt. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511/220 "2018-02-13T15:01:11Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Why, because there are simply fewer African-Americans in SLC than in Detroit? That dog seems somewhat reluctant to hunt. I’m not sure I can explain it any more simply. **Czarcasm** and others seem to believe that the disparate crime rate of blacks vs. whites is due simply to police looking for black crime and not for white crime. That isn’t true, and it isn’t true to the point that it is rather ridiculous. Police do not simply arrest people based only on what the police see - they also respond to complaints. For it to be true that the differences between black and white crime do not really exist, the police would have to be ignoring crime reports from white neighborhoods, and/or residents of white neighborhoods not reporting crimes. Do you actually believe that the crime rates in SLC are the same as in Detroit, and that police and citizens simply overlook muggings and robberies and murders and auto thefts and assaults in Salt Lake City, but tally and respond to them in Detroit? Why would that be? I doubt it is racism - most black crime is committed against black people, and most white crime is committed against white people. (Most inter-racial crime is committed by black people, but that is a different discussion). The idea that the disparate rates of crime committed by blacks is simply a matter of ‘you find what you are looking for’ does not hold water. Salt Lake City has low crime rates. Detroit has high crime rates. In fact - not simply as an anomaly of attribution. Look at the [National Crime Victimization Survey](https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245). Notice that crime victims report the race of their attackers in proportions that roughly match the race of arrests. That’s not evidence of racism - pretty much the opposite. If you want to define “white privilege” as “I haven’t knocked off a liquor store lately”, go ahead, but that’s not useful, IMO. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/white-privilage/808511.md?page=12)