I have some thoughts on this, but need to get them together…
Like so many other aspects of American history, conservatives can’t decide whether to settle on a version of historical revisionism that claims MLK as one of their own (“he was a Republican and he would have condemned today’s civil rights protesters!”) or a version of historical revisionism that casts him as a villain (“he was a dirty commie and anyone who follows his teachings hates America!”).
They have the same relationship with Jesus, frankly.
Depends on the situation, of course. Like other historical figures, they don’t treat King like a human being who was complex and complicated, but as a symbol that is used in a particular way depending on circumstances… It shows how they are not just dehumanizing their “enemies” but pretty much everyone, now and through out history. They’re all just props to support their bigoted, hateful, disgusting worldview.
And the founding fathers. And the Confederates. And Hitler. It’s a completely amoral worldview.
Ah, all the many, many points in time when vintage satires become undistinguishable from contemporary documentaries.
Wow, those admins who backed down are such cowards!
Privilege was defined as “a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group.” In the U.S., the post said, “privilege is granted to people who have membership in one or more of these social identity groups: white people, able-bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle-aged people, English-speaking people.”
The post also said, “Privilege is characteristically invisible to people who have it.”
No lies detected.
(Also, don’t read the comments! 
)
Unfortunately, I made that mistake 
obviously not the point, but for me the most controversial part is the “given to” part
“give” is usually something directly handed to someone. and while that does happen with privilege (job connections, etc.), it’s also such a structural thing that active action isn’t necessary. like the difference between racists and racism maybe.
i’d like to think there’s some phrasing to help people get past the “but i earned this” knee jerk reaction. ( the myth of bootstraps is like privilege’s self defense mechanism or something )
I’m skeptical on that, at least from some folks. While some can be reached, but there are quite a few people who will never accept the concept of privilege as defined in this way, because they believe that they deserve that privilege due to their race. They buy into the racial worldview, because it gives them power over others and those very privileges that DEI is seeking reveal to us.
I’m not sure I agree. Just like people take something away with negative microaggressions, people give others positive microprivileges. That’s what counters the assertion of “but I earned this” - that the privileged are given something for nothing. Just like the discriminated have something taken for no reason.
Yep, and still others think they don’t have privilege (because they can’t see it or don’t understand how it works), and worse yet, think they’re the real victims become DEI initiatives make others the ones with “real” privilege.
It’s a lot to untangle and get beyond!
Yes. I think something along those lines whenever I see women speaking, and getting doubted and challenged a lot more than men who basically say the same damn thing.
A “positive microprivilege” (not even micro really) for men is being granted a greater amount of assumed competence and authority, just for being men.
i definitely agree that’s the gop, q, and the right. however, i do think there’s people in the middle on privilege, even some on the left.
on the left are people who feel that racists (*) not racism is the problem. and in the middle i think are still relatively well meaning people who think that “color blind” is a good goal, and are squeamish about things like affirmative action
privilege seems to be one of those concepts that still takes some work.
(*eta: to clarify, racists are a problem. i just mean that structural racism is also a problem )
yeah, but that’s not the whole of privilege. privilege includes where you’re born, what schools you have access to, where’s your grocery store… and a thousand other things that exist the moment you do
I agree… I’m just saying there are quite a few people who do not want to do that work…
OK, sure, some people will present microaggressions based on whether you’re wearing expensive shoes
i think we’re talking about different things. as far as i understand the meaning of privilege, it’s not individualized responses like overt racism ( or misogyny, etc. ), nor internalized racism ( resulting in micro aggressions )
it’s things like i mentioned in my earlier response: factors beyond the individual.
for instance, overt racism caused redlining. after redlining, overt racism by individuals - while still an issue in people’s lives - was no longer necessary. neighborhoods have different pricing and families different access to wealth.
