White Privilage

I’ve shared this story in another thread about privilege, maybe it would be useful again:

Friend of mine (call her S) is a black female psychologist. Upon graduating with her Psy D, S applied for jobs with various therapy groups. One in particular (a family therapy group) liked her a lot – they had 60 candidates, but they told S that she was by far their favorite. But there was a problem – they were seriously worried about how they would get patients to sign up with her – that many patients would not want a black therapist. They had no non white therapists, and this is the DC area - certainly not a place in which educated non white people are impossible to find. They were open with her about this worry.

Side-discussion 1: S is a very intelligent and qualified therapist. Her would-be employers showed no apparent sign of racial bias – and yet they were worried about their business, and that hiring a black therapist might not be the best move for their business. White applicants had the privilege of there being no concern about their race potentially harming the business of the prospective employer.

They ended up hiring her despite these concerns because they were so impressed by her interview (and academic history). They put up her picture on their therapy group website. She is an attractive woman who wore her hair naturally. For the first few months, she had zero patients. Her employers were extremely concerned. Someone had the idea of a new picture – she dressed very conservatively, had her hair styled in a more European (i.e. straightened) fashion, wore glasses (despite no need for glasses), and had the picture taken. Since then, she slowly built up a base of patients and now has as many as her co-therapists (including, paradoxically, an openly racist drug addict who swears that she is the only therapist who can keep him clean).

Side discussion 2: S is a skilled therapist and an attractive woman, but her picture (even when professionally taken) dissuaded potential patients from choosing her as their therapist. Her white co-therapists have the privilege of being able to present themselves on their website naturally (with their natural hair style) without dissuading patients and harming their business.

There is a happy ending – S is very content with her therapy group and has plenty of patients. She’s not a victim and never has been. This is just (in my view, at least) a realistic description of the challenges she faced due to various forms of privilege, or lack therof.

Conclusions: Privilege is generally about society, and not so much about individual prejudice. S’s therapy group shows no evidence of racial prejudice, but because their business is in a society in which there can be racial aspects to things as varying as patients choosing a therapist, they were concerned about hiring a black woman. S didn’t have to just be a good therapist – she had to be the best out of a group of 60, and even then there was a good chance she would not have been hired. She doesn’t just have to dress well and be attractive, she has to chemically alter her hair, wear glasses she doesn’t need, and dress more conservatively then her co-therapists, to get enough patients to be viable.

So if one of her white colleagues were to complain that all that’s needed to succeed in society is hard work, she might respond that this kind of statement probably comes from a place of privilege, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the actual hardships that so many people who are not white and male face.

Worst actually means something. Is/was the USA racist? Yes. Was our country more racist than SA? No. Was SA apartheid more racist than Germany? No. Germany practiced its own apartheid and finally genocide.

and 96% of arrests do not involve violent crime.

The FBI doesn’t seem to agree that drug arrests are insignificant.

That’s out of 10,797,088 arrests in 2015.

And for mairjuana

I recommend you pursue those links further, and educate yourself on the subject.

“The proud spirit of the original owners of these vast prairies inherited through centuries of fierce and bloody wars for their possession, lingered last in the bosom of Sitting Bull. With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are.”
–An American.

When someone is trying to dazzle you with misleading claims about history, best to look at the man behind the curtain.

Following up on iiandyiiii’s example: Another, more potentially catastrophic story in the article “A Presumption of Guilt” by the lawyer and writer Bryan Stevenson illustrates this kind of difference more dramatically.

As Stevenson points out, “Since I was a young, bearded black man dressed casually in jeans, most people would not assume I was a lawyer with a Harvard Law School degree.” That’s the sort of experience that never even crosses the minds of most middle-class white people in the US as something to worry about.

It’s also an illustration of the ways in which privilege is context-dependent. For instance, there must be dozens of times when I’ve sat in a parked car for a quarter of an hour, usually trying to figure out a goddamned map or how to find the flashers on an unfamiliar rental. No cop has ever approached me in such a situation even to ask politely what I was up to.

That’s because in such a context I have not only white privilege but female privilege. Of course, in a lot of contexts in a historically patriarchal society, being female is a dis-privileged status. But when it’s a question of dangers arising specifically from being perceived as a potential threat, women in general exist at a level of security that we mostly don’t even consciously realize.

Even white men are probably a lot less oblivious than I am to the risks of other people mistakenly thinking you might be dangerous. And such risks for black men like Stevenson are often at literally life-threatening levels. But I’m in a category so firmly stereotyped by our society as non-dangerous that I never have to worry about that risk at all. That’s a classic example of societal privilege.

He said that people in bad neighborhoods cannot control where, when, and why the police are dispatched. Most bad neighborhoods are in Democratically controlled localities. If the residents cannot control their local police, that is a failure of democracy.

In fact, the police are responding to democratic demands. The residents demand the overbearing police and they have demanded mass incarceration since the beginning. Of course, many of you are unfamiliar with life in bad neighborhoods, and are simply unwilling to hear what the residents desire.

And just what is the source of your familiarity with bad neighborhoods? Grew up in one? Visted one one time? Read about it online?
:rolleyes:

Wait, are you saying that neighborhoods have their own police forces?

We are still working with HD’s hypothetical city here, right? Or are you looking at a specific one.

In HD’s city, you have 3/4ths of the population living in the nice neighborhoods, and 1/4 living in the high crime one.

The voters in the 3/4ths have much more control than the voters in the 1/4th.

The voters inthe 3/4ths don’t really care about what happens in the 1/4th, but they do care what happens in their neighborhoods. This is why they vote for police sheriffs or commissioners that will protect their neighborhoods from threats.
The people living in the 1/4 area have much less control over the election of police officials, and so they do not have the same control over the police.

That is why the police protect the 3/4ths neighborhoods from external threats, and go to the 1/4th neighborhood to find people to arrest.

No, real American cities. In real American cities, for many decades it has been precisely the people living in bad neighborhoods who have demanded increased arrests through political action in community organizations and churches. It continues today.

In earlier times, when police were more racist and cities more white, police largely ignored black communities. Black political leaders blamed racism for the lack of adequate policing.

Cites:

‘Black Silent Majority,’ by Michael Javen Fortner

Kris Parker

I don’t see where they demanded stop and frisk. I don’t see where they demanded that their kids be sent to jail for ting that are ignored in the “nice” neighborhoods.

What they were wanting is the same sort of protection that the nice neighborhoods get, what they got instead was an occupation force.

What a load. Are you claiming that your hand slipped and you accidentally capitalized “Democratic”? That was about as subtle as a large water balloon with the words “Water Balloon” printed on the side.

Utter nonsense.
The concept of white privilege is not racist; it is simply a recognition of reality. Any person of any group can behave badly. Any person of any group may be granted the privilege of not being regarded poorly, depending on the groups. The same sort of privilege can occur among all sorts of groups: men or women get accorded special treatment in many occasions. Women continue to be regarded as “not strong enough” or “not rational enough” to hold certain jobs; men have the privilege of not facing that issue. Men continue to be regarded with suspicion in their interaction with children as potential molesters; women have the privilege of not facing that bias. White privilege simply identifies a phenomenon in our society which suffers from a large racial divide. It is not a racist accusation of anything or an attempt to shame anyone.
I recognize white privilege for what it is and I am never ashamed of being white, nor do I consider the recognition of the phenomenon as an accusation against me.

They most definitely called for harsh drug law enforcement. You just haven’t paid attention.

You support his claim that 87% of arrests do not involve drugs with all that. If my math is correct you prove that 86.2% of arrests are not drug related.

1,488,707 out of 10,797,088 is 13.8% of all arrests.

No. I did it twice, so that would be quite a coincidence.

Thanks for the confirmation. BTW, have you got anything to say about the actual OP? Looking at the links I provided, do you think she actually said what was claimed?

The Rule of Law. Society establishing rules and then requiring people to obey them is not slavery. Slavery is owning people.

So, what is your point? Did I say otherwise?

I was responding to this “If every drug was legalized tomorrow it would have almost no difference in the different rates than blacks and whites are arrested.” Which he justifies by saying that 87% of arrests are not drug related.

So, if he has a point to make about that, then since 96% of arrests are not related to a violent crime, legalizing violent crime would have even less difference in the rate blacks and whites are arrested.

My point is that you validated his claim of 87% with data and then told him to examine the data more closely. It appeared that you did not understand what you were posting since you did not do the math you just let it ride for us to do the work.