Well, I believe that people who insert that phrase into every conversation possible are having an increasingly powerful divisive effect, particularly among white* people of limited means, such as poor southerners. I don’t know if it’s on purpose or not; I initially assumed this was just racism directed at whites, because that’s how it comes across, but clearly that is not always the case.
“White privilege” conversations minimize both the achievements of privileged non-white Americans, and the suffering of unprivileged white Americans, because they are fundamentally based on the same argument that racists use in their claims to white superiority - the entirely false belief that statistical averages are infallible indicators of the experience and characteristics of individuals.
If you believe, like I do, that dark-skinned Americans are disproportionately impacted by problems like poverty and poor educational systems, that does not make it logical or reasonable to give jobs and schools to people based on their skin color. That’s just perpetuating racism. My daughter’s a brilliant and highly privileged child, and so are the daughters of Barack Obama. They don’t need assistance and it’s racist to say that they do - it’s painting them as what they aren’t because of their dark skin.
I also believe that the majority of the people who favor the phrase “white privilege” aren’t doing anything useful to help resolve American issues that disproportionately effect black people, such as limited economic opportunity and lack of access to education; they are just talkers. But that part’s just a guess, I don’t really know (hopefully I’m wrong).
* I often put quotes around the words “white” and “black” because I’m pinkish and my family range from deep brown to yellowish to heavily spotted. But people were calling them scare quotes and claiming this proves I’m a blood-drinking Nazi or something, so I’m trying to stop doing that.
But poor southerners experience white privilege too, because a poor white southerner still statistically has better prospects than a poor black southerner.
If your goal is to help an individual then you should look at their individual experience. But if your goal is to address a systemic problem effecting entire populations of people then that’s where things like “statistical averages” become much more important.
You can believe in the existence of “white privilege” and use that term in conversation without necessarily agreeing on any one particular solution to address the problem (such as affirmative action).
I don’t believe the majority of any group of people are doing anything useful to help resolve those issues, but I suspect the people who aren’t afraid to acknowledge the reality of “white privilege” are more likely to come up with solutions than the people who treat it like a dirty word.
Denying that white people get preferential treatment is equally damaging. Try hailing a taxi in NYC, regardless of class and dress, I bet white people are more likely to be picked up. You could also look at arrests and sentencing of Whites vs Blacks. Or even how many UPOC are shot by police vs a white dude who is armed.
To suggest that it all boils down to socioeconomic status and education access is ignoring a huge body of research on the effects simply of being black on success.
The most classic examples being black names: pick your sector —high paying jobs, low paying jobs, liberal arts college positions — study after study has shown that identical resumes sent with “black” names vs. “white” names have hugely reduced chance of callbacks and job offers.
Those studies are excellent because it’s one of the most controlled ways of accounting for race separated from other factors — you can’t say that the fake-Shaniqua didn’t get the job because of her poor access to education: her education was identical to fake-Sarah.
There are many other similar studies, showing things like juries beliefs regarding white vs black witnesses — again completely irrespective of economic status.
To suggest that there’s no such thing as “white privilege” and that it’s all about socioeconomic factors is just utterly ignoring evidence.
Your post is a nearly perfect encapsulation of what I’m talking about.
Incidentally, I believe affirmative action is often warranted, and support pretty much all of the US affirmative action programs I’m aware of. The ones I dislike (such as color-line “reparations”) have never been implemented AFAIK.
That is not my experience in meatspace. The people I work with who are making a difference today are not afraid to acknowledge racial disparities, but they consistently refuse to use purposely divisive language. Obviously, your experience may be different.
Anyway, let me ask you this: You insist that statistical averages can be guides to the treatment of individuals. Should we therefore prevent Asians from attending college? Asians are statistically higher performing academically than other groups. Is it legitimate to treat Asians as if they have an unfair advantage, even when they don’t, as long as they are identifiably Asian?
“White privilege” is divisive language in much the same sense that “global warming” is divisive language. The people who complain about the term are most often the people who deny the reality of the phenomenon.
No I didn’t. I said examining statistical averages is critical if you’re trying to address systemic problems affecting entire populations. To use @SamSam’s example above, a resume with a stereotypically “black” name like Tyrone Johnson or NaShonda Williams is demonstrably, statistically less likely to get a call-in for an interview than an identical resume with a stereotypically “white” name. What do we do with that information is open for debate, but the first step is to acknowledge the existence of the problem.
Giving a short person a boost is not the same as cutting off a tall person’s legs.
I am saying that insisting on injecting the “white privilege narrative” everywhere, as is the trend among Internet liberals these days, is both divisive and counterproductive.
It also offends me, personally, because you’re saying things about my family that are not true. My daughter’s “black” name and dark skin don’t prevent her from getting a taxi, and will not prevent her from being a success. You don’t even know her, but you’ve assigned her a place in your world based on her skin color. How is that not blatant racism on your part? In reality, she’ll always be better off than any white child of the bayous, because she has had a highly privileged upbringing.
Weirdly, the same people who refuse to acknowledge that their favorite choice of words is offending people, also insist that certain words you can’t type on bOINGbOING are inherently evil. It’s just other people’s words that offend, I guess.
I also object to that term, and prefer “climate change”.
I developed both the objection and the preference about 20 years ago, after attending a lecture by the man who popularized the term “global warming”. Chatting afterwards, Dr. Woodwell told me it was the worst mistake of his career - that by pushing that term into popular consciousness he helped his worst enemies. Which is exactly what y’all are doing… think about that.
And thus we move the usual, tediously repetitive second phase of the “white privilege” conversation - the ad hominem insinuation and demands for “acknowledgement” of the dominance of this broken paradigm. Perhaps we’ve all said all there is to say, at this point; I think I’ve made it clear that I don’t like these conversations. They make me sad.
Edit: I typed raw HTML instead of discourse metacode by accident.
So by acknowledging systemic injustice… I’m the real racist?
As for “divisive.” I’m cool with that. Martin Luther King Jr. was considered divisive, as people who pursue justice usually are. On the other hand, it was George W. Bush who stated, “I’m a uniter, not a divider.” Given the associations, I think I know who I’d rather emulate.
I’d say that you constructed quite the strawman, but I don’t think you intended to. That is a complete mischaracterization of the concept. The statistics, such as the one you yourself provided, are meaningful indicators of the state of inequality. If you acknowledge there is inequality, then you have to characterize it. You can either decide that privileged people should be brought down to the level of everyone else (let’s call it “Black disadvantage”) or you can argue that people in persecuted parts of society should be brought up to the level of people with advantages. I call the latter construct, privilege. I’d rather see everyone enjoy more rights than see people who currently enjoy more rights get fewer rights to reach equality. (Unless, as in the case of police, they include the right to kill indiscriminately or perpetuate injustice.)
You’re turning this into a debate about affirmative action, which is one strategy of tackling the issue of privilege. At it’s core, the strategy addresses a real issue: Employers are reticent to hire people of color who are well-qualified. Is it the best strategy? I don’t know. I do know that it’s not insulting to me, for someone to say, “Well, you’re qualified, so we have to hire you, otherwise we might not based on your skin tone.” You can argue that AA doesn’t have that effect, but that is its intended effect. It’s not a cryptoracist conspiracy.
I think people protesting disproportionate police treatment in Ferguson were “doing something.” I’m pretty sure a lot of them use that phrase. If you’re out on the street “talking” at the height of your voice, that’s actually a form of doing something.
I don’t think it makes you a Nazi, I do think it falls in line with your philosophy on this subject. So I guess you get points for consistency? I think mostly it’s just unnecessary and seems contrived, but I can’t pretend it bothers me. Not unless you’re going to get into, “race doesn’t exist biologically, therefore race doesn’t exist culturally.”
I wasn’t going to talk any more, but I think you deserve a reply.
Your rhetorical choice has exactly the opposite connotation.
The “white privilege” conversation is about white people and their advantages. The very words you’re using themselves enshrine this. It’s about white people and their privilege. It’s not hard to see what has to change in that paradigm order to reach equality - white people need lose something. Perhaps have it taken from them. There is no other option; step outside your own frame of reference and look at it like you’re a poor white farmer in Georgia. You’re talking about removing something - a privilege - which implies pushing somebody down, not bringing anybody up.
Personally, I want to do something about certain systemic injustices that disproportionately effect people of color. It’s important to that effort that I resist using words that provide fodder for the right wing - what they call “the rhetoric of envy” (1) when they are drumming up Republican votes from poor whites, or looking for campaign donations from the privileged (2). Jon Stewart isn’t the only one who broadcasts out-of-context clips of people saying hateful things - Rush Limbaugh was doing it before anybody knew who Stewart was!
You know, the neo-cons hate people like me because they consider me a leveler. I want to bring people up to my level of privilege, and I am actively doing that, both by bringing children disadvantaged by birth into my family and by hiring people from less privileged backgrounds. But I won’t give those neo-cons a way to use my own words against me if I can help it.
And there’s damn good reasons for a taxi driver to prefer a white passenger to a black one - the white passenger is more likely to be affluent, and thus more profitable. You want taxis to stop for black people, you need to address fundamental issues of economic and educational opportunity, many of which are the consequences of color-line slavery. You need to focus on the black disadvantage and remove that, instead of framing discussion in terms of white privileges that are not actually enjoyed by all whites. Taxis aren’t available in the bayou or the holler any more than they are in the ghetto.
OK, surely we are done here now? I can’t imagine that I could say more about my position.
This is a semantic coloration that could go either way, it’s like the south pole of a magnet, which points to the earth’s magnetic north pole (i.e. South). In reality, no matter what you call north or south, there’s going to be something dissatisfying about it. Same with “black disadvantage” versus “white privilege.” I was not intending for the definition to hold based on a semantic argument, I was simply defining the term in opposition to what it is not and throwing a different name at what it isn’t. Honestly, I thought it was probably more confusing as I wrote it.
But in a very real sense, some people’s privileges are going to have to go. Men have the privilege of “he-said” meaning a lot more than “she-said” in rape cases for instance. Yeah, I’m sorry, that’s got to go. Same with white witnesses being intrinsically more sympathetic than black suspects, as compared to black witnesses against white suspects.
You keep saying that I need to see it from the perspective of a poor farmer in Georgia. What about his obligation to see it from the perspective of a poor black man in NYC? Between the two of them, one is more likely to appear on a political ad, and to me, that means that they should be the ones to look around them a little harder. Why should I underestimate the intellect of a Georgian farmer?
Man, I don’t know if you ever got picked on in grade school, but I can tell you that bullies will find a way and a reason to pick on you no matter what you do. I don’t think we have any obligation to fight dishonest rhetoric by equivocating.
Except that white folk in the Bayou still have it better than black folk in the bayou. That was the point of this whole article. It doesn’t matter what your education is: If you’re Black, you’re more likely to end up in prison. That applies, statistically to all whites. That’s how it works. You’re essentially looking at these stats, and going, “Huh? There seems to be a disparity here. We should work on that.” Meanwhile, you’re missing that the primary reason for that disparity is connected to the fact that society treats people differently based on skin tone in addition to what they have in their wallets.
No, we’re not. I’ll see you again elsewhere on BB, and eventually we’ll just rehash the same old shit again at some point. I personally don’t mind it so much. Despite my tendency to be an asshole at times, I do try to keep it from getting too personal, because I know I’m just going to see you again. But I think this particular discussion is about as stale as year-old matzoh taped to a box fan.
If you want this conversation to be done, so be it, but it’s very hard to be told you’re a racist just for describing studies that show that black people have a greater barrier to getting jobs that white people.
Do you think the studies are wrong?
Or do you think we can’t conclude anything from them?
Do you believe that a Shaniqua has an equal chance as a Sarah at getting an interview, if she is equally educated? Because the studies say she wouldn’t be.
I’m probably overstepping, but I feel that your frustration with this issue is an anger at the notion that even though you may have done everything you can do to raise your children with all the privileges they can have, they may still face barriers that you can’t do anything about. And you’re right to feel anger at that. But pretending that they may not have additional barriers won’t make it go away.
Even if your kids do achieve everything they want to, and I hope they do, I think it’s dismissive of you to suggest that some other girl who didn’t get an interview because of her minority name can’t have any cause to feel angry at the difference in the way people are treated based on race alone.
How can we change this kind of discrimination without first acknowledging that it exists?
And if you do acknowledge that it exists, what do you call it?
So you’re OK with terms like “black disadvantage” but not “white privilege.”
To me, that makes about as much sense as getting upset at someone for using the term “home team advantage” and insisting that they use “away team disadvantage.” It boils down to exactly the same thing. If “white privilege” is divisive because some white people are born dirt poor, then “black disadvantage” is equally divisive since some black people are born very rich. (I can’t think of any offhand, but I’m sure a handful are out there.)
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.
This is what it boils down to. Not really a reply specifically to @ActionAbe.
You, Gentle Reader, have a choice of the words you use. You can use words in ignorance, misunderstanding how they are being received, and that’s one thing. My mother was only taught one name for Brazil nuts, and she knew no other. But if you’re reading this, you know how I feel about certain conversational framings, and it would take very little research to learn that many thousands of people have similar feelings, and that racists and plutocrats can use these feelings as a weapon to fight for preservation of inequality. I have done my part to inform you, the person reading this. My mother calls them Brazil nuts now, and she calls geodes, geodes. I believe the choice she has made in this regard, preferring the respect the feelings of people she doesn’t even know, reflects the content of her character. I hope your choices will do the same.
And that’s it, I’m out! If others wish to reply, I’ll read 'em eventually, but I’m going to get my dinner.
i’ve been reading through this discussion and something about it has been bothering me. you seem to be equating the recognition of privilege and expressing it as what it is with calling people of color n*****rs. i find that pretty risible if not ridiculous. based on the experiences of my 53 years on earth as a white male in texas i think one of the causes for the persistence of racism is unexamined privilege. i know from my personal experiences that i carry with me a great deal of privilege which has allowed me to go through my life with thousands, if not millions, fewer insults both to my dignity and my person both verbal and physical. a degree of privilege which even the poorest white person in my state and the rest of the south shares. a degree of privilege which my biracial grandsons and my black daughter-in-law do not share. if you can’t acknowledge that privilege then you lack crucial insights into the nature of race in our society. certainly social class has a role but not to the extent that race does.
They’re legally available, but formal legality and equality doesn’t do too much in the real world, especially when initial endowments (e.g., family wealth at birth) are so varied. I mean, your median white family is 13 times more wealthy than your median black family. If you’re born into one of these households your opportunities are going to be different than if you were born into the other.
Well, what does that have to do with race, you might be asking, Perhaps you think it reinforces your point that this is a money problem, not a race problem. I guess where race comes in is when you consider that wealth is transferred between generations. People inherit money as well as opportunities. And 160 years ago, not only were almost almost 90% of blacks incapable of having wealth, they were part of their owners’ wealth. Thus in the US white people have been wealthier by virtue of being allowed to pass on wealth from generation to generation, while blacks did not have wealth or the right to pass it on for a long time. Add in post-Civil War race-based laws and segregation, and the opportunity gap (even in purely formal terms) persisted until 50 years ago.
Current laws which are formally equal continue to perpetuate these historical, race-based gaps—for example, as long as local property taxes form a large part of school funding you’re unlikely to make much educational progress.
But since wealth and where you live breaks down along predictable racial lines (as your graph indicates), good luck getting the majority (i.e., whites) to vote for these sorts of changes. So should minorities and those interested in minority rights pretend there is no racial basis for inequality just to make some whites feel better or less guilty (which is another way of saying they feel more comfortable blaming minorities for succeeding like white folk do)? Or should we acknowledge that formal equality doesn’t guarantee practical equality, especially when formal equality comes on the heels of generations of formal inequality?
Umm… we already know this happens. Look at the percentage of UCal students who are Asian (state schools in California are forbidden by the Constitution of California from taking race into account) and compare that to Stanford. It’s well accepted that Ivy league school are more difficult to get into if you’re Asian.
As an Asian, I’m not particularly aggrieved by this situation.
I don’t think this is hypocritical: people are evaluating the social utility of words. Some words don’t do much to help, but do a lot of harm (the N word, gay slurs, etc.). Others may do some people some harm, but also possibly do a lot of good (“white privilege,” for example). Making decisions on net social utility, and deciding some words are, in net, socially negative while others are socially positive isn’t an inconsistent approach. Now you may disagree on the net social utility of some words, but it doesn’t make those who honestly believe they are socially positive hypocrites.
I think that’s part of what @Medievalist’s meaning. Poor white folk struggling to get by probably don’t do a lot of thumb twaddling and existential navel gazing as they ponder the nature of race in society. Life’s a struggle and they resent being told they are beneficiaries of white privilege. But although this narrative makes sense, quite frankly I don’t really think these are the people who are responsible for setting policy and making decisions that can have a significant effect on minorities. Which is to say that although “white privilege” may have a corrosive effect on some segments of society, they may also bring introspection and more nuanced decision making from those who actually have a hand in shaping policy.
Of your links, only the LA Times says that people are being charged in Washington state for public defenders (which is genuinely shocking to me, even if they are only imposed on those found guilty), and that link doesn’t actually say you are imprisoned if you fail to pay those costs (though if you’ve been found guilty of a felony it’s likely you’re going to prison anyway).
