[RD] Most White People Want to Keep Their Priviledge (And Know They Have It)

[BvBPL]

Racial tensions are not "getting so much worse."

The SPLC thinks we might be in the middle of a fifty-year high of polarization.

This just in : dividing discourse along racial lines and telling people they should be ashamed and should make amend because of their skin colour, doesn't tend to reduce racism.
Shocking, I know. Who could have known ?!

If you search for MTV Resolutions for White Guys on YouTube, the only results you will find are people decrying it.
CFC has certainly come out against shame as force for social improvement in the past.

 

[Synobun]

Media exposure of what, precisely, though?

Race-related crime and racist rhetoric. Both sides (minority and majority).

No, it sounds like you think white privilege is not real. Is that what you think?

It depends on how you see 'white privilege', maybe. As much as I don't appreciate you simply saying "no" to me, I'm ignoring that and instead taking your second question at face value. I don't think the concept of original sin is conducive to problem-solving or pursuing a viable solution to proposed or confirmed problems. I can't think of a single scenario where telling someone they're privileged results in anything positive. It's an irrelevant label to place on someone unless you are specifically seeking to "other" them.

 

[Synobun]

I think the problem is that sentiment - "tensions now are worse than they were before," is most commonly seen being wielded as a club to admonish black people for getting too uppity. The racism and the police brutality and the systematic, enforced inequality has always been there. The only difference is that the minority communities aren't rolling over and taking it anymore. So to turn around and complain about increased tension essentially becomes the equivalent of punching a guy in the face and then complaining when he's always bringing up his black eye any time he sees you. You might not necessarily be making a tension argument as an indictment on the black community. You might merely be stating the facts with no subtext intended. But the fact of the matter is the subtext is there and that's what Lexicus is picking up on.

I'm 100% in favour of minority communities standing up for themselves, and am definitely in support of the general sentiment behind BLM as well. As mentioned to metalhead, I'm totally on board with the idea of equality and raising the disadvantaged up to equal footing with the advantaged demographics around them. Sign me up.

 

[Lexicus]

Race-related crime and racist rhetoric. Both sides (minority and majority).

Tell me more about these things as they relate to minorities. An example of minorities using racist rhetoric would be good place to start.

It depends on how you see 'white privilege', maybe. As much as I don't appreciate you simply saying "no" to me, I'm ignoring that and instead taking your second question at face value. I don't think the concept of original sin is conducive to problem-solving or pursuing a viable solution to proposed or confirmed problems. I can't think of a single scenario where telling someone they're privileged results in anything positive. It's an irrelevant label to place on someone unless you are specifically seeking to "other" them.

K.
White privilege not real is something I have trouble debating because I just see it as harmful and reproducing racism.
I'm a little confused because I'm not sure whether you're saying that privilege doesn't actually exist- ie, that white people do not gain an automatic unearned benefit simply from being white in the USA- or if you just think talking about it is bad.

As much as I don't appreciate you simply saying "no" to me

And sorry, but that was just meant to convey that the question was about your understanding of the concept 'white privilege,' not specifically its use in college courses. I wasn't looking for the sort of answer you gave.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm a little confused because I'm not sure whether you're saying that privilege doesn't actually exist- ie, that white people do not gain an automatic unearned benefit simply from being white in the USA- or if you just think talking about it is bad.

If two thirds of the population within a society are receiving a given benefit, does it really make sense to describe it as a "benefit", and not just as the baseline for how people in that society are treated?

It seems like a semantic point, but the whole rickety edifice of contemporary privilege theory rests on this assumption which is by no means at all self-evident. The privilege model of social injustice is a theory, and a theory is not correct simply because it is fashionable.

 

[Synobun]

Tell me more about these things as they relate to minorities. An example of minorities using racist rhetoric would be good place to start.

Is there a particular point to me doing this given that you're just finding new and different ways to call me racist?

 

[Lexicus]

If two thirds of the population within a society are receiving a given benefit, does it really make sense to describe it as a "benefit", and not just as the baseline for how people in that society are treated?

The problem is that the benefit is derived at the expense of black people. So call it what you will but refusing to confront that fact is problematic for obvious reasons.
Now, having said that I believe that a lot of the talk about privilege is off-base because it tends to be overly reductionist. And that is often a problem with academic concepts diffusing out into the culture.

Is there a particular point to me doing this given that you're just finding new and different ways to call me racist?

I believe I have been fairly scrupulous about referring to beliefs and things you have said in this thread as, in my opinion, racist, rather than you. If you are invested in those things to the extent that you're unable to distinguish them from yourself, then...I can't blame you because I'm emotionally invested in this debate as well, as you can probably tell.

I would ask again, do you believe that white people do not derive unearned benefits at the expense of black people, just by virtue of being white? Or do you just think talking about it is unproductive? I don't see why you should be bothered by me saying anything you think is racist since

I am thoroughly confused by the assertion that I hold a racist belief because I think that tensions are growing more dire instead of less. To me, it has as much relevance as me saying crossing the street at 2:30 PM on a Tuesday is racist. It has no logic or relevance from where I am standing

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem is that the benefit is derived at the expense of black people. So call it what you will but refusing to confront that fact is problematic for obvious reasons.

In what sense? Most of the "privileges" accorded to white people are in any reasonably humane society regarded as rights, rights which many white people struggle to access. A lesser degree of exploitation, oppression and disenfranchisement is only a "privilege" if exploitation, oppression and disenfranchisement are assumed to be the natural and proper condition of the working class, and not an injustice that falls more heavily on some than on others.

"Privilege" has some explanatory power as a psychological mechanism, in describing the behaviour of people who have accepted that, indeed, exploitation, oppression and disenfranchisement are the natural way of things, and that all one can do is find the highest place in the pyramid. But that doesn't mean that it describes how society actually works, how power and resources are accumulated or dispersed, only how it is imagined to work by people who we are assuming, in making the argument, to suffer from some sort of pathology.

 

[Lexicus]

In what sense? Most of the "privileges" accorded to white people are in any reasonably humane society regarded as rights, rights which many white people struggle to access. A lesser degree of exploitation, oppression and disenfranchisement is only a "privilege" if exploitation, oppression and disenfranchisement are assumed to be the natural and proper condition of the working class, and not an injustice that falls more heavily on some than on others.

Some examples of what I'm talking about are that white people are unemployed at 1/3rd the rate black people are pretty consistently, that white people with high school degrees compete in the job market on equal terms with black people who have college degrees. I'm not sure what 'humane societies' believe it's a "right" to compete in the job market or for university admission at an advantage relative to other people - it doesn't even make sense to conceive of the issue in that way. The benefit is derived at the expense of people of color because there are a finite number of jobs, college slots, residences for rent, and so on.

Now, importantly this is where we get into the reductionism problem because I see no problem with what you're saying here (ie that people are exploited to greater or lesser degrees) but I don't believe the world is evenly divided into exploiters and exploited any more than it is neatly divided into the privileged and the marginalized. Obviously, black people are not the only non-white people around either. In the real world white privilege exists alongside many other systems of privilege and injustice.

Practically speaking though I don't think that many people believe that, for example, the solution to disproportionate incarceration of black people is to lock up a proportional amount of white people. Maybe some people think that way, but if so I've never encountered them. But unfortunately the obvious solution to the disparities in socioeconomic indicators is a redistribution of wealth from white people to black people. If I were king I'd accomplish this as part of a general redistribution from the rich to the poor, which would also redistribute wealth from white to black people because the former are disproportionately represented among the wealthy while the latter are disproportionately represented among the poor.

 

[Traitorfish]

Some examples of what I'm talking about are that white people are unemployed at 1/3rd the rate black people are pretty consistently, that white people with high school degrees compete in the job market on equal terms with black people who have college degrees. I'm not sure what 'humane societies' believe it's a "right" to compete in the job market or for university admission at an advantage relative to other people - it doesn't even make sense to conceive of the issue in that way. The benefit is derived at the expense of people of color because there are a finite number of jobs, college slots, residences for rent, and so on.

Under capitalism, yes, because capitalism is a system of artificial scarcity, artificial inequality. To accept competition over limited resources that do not need to be limited- to accept competition over jobs, for chrissake, as if there was hard limit on the number of people who can do useful tasks- is to accept the logic of capitalism's false scarcity, of the control of access to resources by capital and by the state, which is to surrender the possibility of a genuinely left-wing politics before you've begun.

Privilege theory is not a critique of capitalist society, it is capitalist society's critique of itself, and therefore any political project grounded in privilege theory begins an ends as a justification of capitalist society: with the basic rightness of the premises of capitalism, and with a program for ironing out those injustices which exposes capitalism to more fundamental criticism.

 

[Lexicus]

Privilege theory is not a critique of capitalist society, it is capitalist society's critique of itself, and therefore any political project grounded in privilege theory begins an ends as a justification of capitalist society: with the basic rightness of the premises of capitalism, and with a program for ironing out those injustices which exposes capitalism to more fundamental criticism.

I mean, do you see social democracy the same way? Capitalism's critique of itself that ends up just strengthening capitalism? Unless you're like, a doctrinaire revolutionary Marxist the idea that one cannot subscribe to privilege theory without sacrificing a genuine left-wing politics seems absurd. Most of the people I know concerned with privilege theory are also concerned with economic inequality under capitalism. And I for one frequently criticize what I see as excessive focus on 'identity politics' at the expense of economic inequality (though I spend about as much time criticizing the opposite problem, class-reductionism).

I also don't really see how this translates into anything practical. The proletarian revolution ain't a-comin', not in these here United States, so dreams of racism withering away after capitalism has been destroyed just aren't going to cut it for me. In the meantime, we've gotta do something about this racism thing because the effects on people of color are intolerable to any 'humane' person.

 

[metalhead]

Quote me saying that everyone that's an anti-racism advocate is an extremist.

You won't be able to.

Your description of activism is completely fine. I support it wholeheartedly. I've been very clear about what sort of activism I'm not in support of, and what sort of activism I feel directly contradicts the overarching goal of equality.

You didn't say "all," but you did say "often," and "many," with regards to the extremist views you claim that activists subscribe to. I would strongly dispute that characterization as inaccurate and not descriptive of the vast majority of activists. Thereby calling into question the conclusions you make based on saying it happens with frequency, specifically that "many" activists "often" say and do things to inflame the situation.

 

[Synobun]

I would ask again, do you believe that white people do not derive unearned benefits at the expense of black people, just by virtue of being white? Or do you just think talking about it is unproductive?

Yes.

The issue with the "unearned benefit" argument, besides what Traitorfish said, is that it has the explicit implication that a remedy would be to take it away. You haven't earned something so you don't get it. I don't agree with that approach. Minorities should be raised while the "unearned benefit" remains the case. The only change would be that minorities get to enjoy this "unearned benefit" alongside the people who have had said benefit all this time. Reducing one to build up another isn't an effective path to equality when you are dealing with people and not numbers. Dare I say it that how white people live in the United States shouldn't be considered an "unearned benefit", but instead the minimum quality of life for all persons around the world.

It's a very cavalier approach to a situation where you acknowledge there's tension (although your assertion is that it's been static all this time). By structuring your argument as "white vs. black" you create an inherent cycle where it's someone versus another, and it's a self-sustaining cycle since both sides fuel it once they're in it. It is difficult to convince someone that equality is your goal when your argument comes from a foundation where the enemy is the person you're trying to convince. In matters of social policy, the ideal scenario is to structure the problem as the enemy and not the people on the other side of the fence.

You didn't say "all," but you did say "often," and "many," with regards to the extremist views you claim that activists subscribe to. I would strongly dispute that characterization as inaccurate and not descriptive of the vast majority of activists. Thereby calling into question the conclusions you make based on saying it happens with frequency, specifically that "many" activists "often" say and do things to inflame the situation.

I'm sorry you don't like my phrasing.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm going to hazard that this guy looks more like this guy than he looks like this guy.

Indeed

If you're looking at these pictures and the melanin level is what stands out to you, that's a decision you've made about how you're going to see the world.

What would stand out if the 3rd image was another middle aged dude in a suit?

 

[Old Hippy]

people feel more comfortable around people who look like them

then they just find another label to use that puts them down from 'country hick' to 'the chattering classes' or 'the great unwashed' based on how they dress
They only see them as looking like them when someone is obviously different in looks like with skin colour

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The issue with the "unearned benefit" argument, besides what Traitorfish said, is that it has the explicit implication that a remedy would be to take it away. You haven't earned something so you don't get it. I don't agree with that approach. Minorities should be raised while the "unearned benefit" remains the case. The only change would be that minorities get to enjoy this "unearned benefit" alongside the people who have had said benefit all this time. Reducing one to build up another isn't an effective path to equality when you are dealing with people and not numbers. Dare I say it that how white people live in the United States shouldn't be considered an "unearned benefit", but instead the minimum quality of life for all persons around the world.

I think his argument is that there are things like white people being preferentially hired for jobs over non-whites. In that case you couldn't really bring non-whites up to the same level without creating more jobs. If there is only a limited, finite pool of jobs then addressing that inequality would necessarily mean removing an unearned benefit from white people.

I'm not saying I agree with the vast majority of anything else he says, but on this point at least I would say the logic is sound

 

[Lexicus]

Dare I say it that how white people live in the United States shouldn't be considered an "unearned benefit", but instead the minimum quality of life for all persons around the world.

This seems to be a pretty tenuous grounds on which to reject the entire line of reasoning. I genuinely do not know of anyone who consciously wants to 'take white privilege away' and treat white people the same way PoC are now treated. On the contrary, every person I have interacted with in real life thinks that black people should get to do all the things white people get to do.

However, that being said, until we usher in the Glorious Socialist Utopia, there are a finite number of jobs, college positions, and so on, and for black people to have a fair shot means white people are going to have to deal with getting less of these things, because it simply isn't fair that white mediocrity (or, you know, even incompetence) competes on equal terms with black excellence (ie, President Trump and President Obama). Similarly redistribution of wealth from white people to black people is something I consider morally imperative.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Redistribution of wealth from rich people to poor people might make more sense...

 

[metalhead]

I'm sorry you don't like my phrasing.

Unless your phrasing doesn't accurately reflect your thinking, it isn't the issue here.

 

[Traitorfish]

What would stand out if the 3rd image was another middle aged dude in a suit?

Well, the third guy has no mouth and four eyes that are constantly weeping blood. He doesn't have any hair, either, which wouldn't be too weird, but instead of being bald he has a swarm of bloated, red hornets crawling all over his head. Plus, the suit is purple and shiny, like a sixties lounge singer, which is a bit tacky compared to the somber, tasteful suits worn by both presidents.

Or did you mean another clean-cut guy who happens to be either black or white? Because that seems like rigging the game.

I mean, do you see social democracy the same way? Capitalism's critique of itself that ends up just strengthening capitalism? Unless you're like, a doctrinaire revolutionary Marxist the idea that one cannot subscribe to privilege theory without sacrificing a genuine left-wing politics seems absurd. Most of the people I know concerned with privilege theory are also concerned with economic inequality under capitalism. And I for one frequently criticize what I see as excessive focus on 'identity politics' at the expense of economic inequality (though I spend about as much time criticizing the opposite problem, class-reductionism).

You're conflating privilege theory with non-economic inequality. My objection isn't that contemporary privilege theory doesn't sufficiently emphasise class, or that it doesn't explain economic inequality (and it really doesn't): it's that doesn't explain non-economic forms of inequality. It's popular because its strategically useful in academic and campus politics, where competition for access to a predetermined quantity of centrally-controlled resources is assumed, but the world outside of the campus cannot be accurately described in such terms. It's a critique of capitalist politics, but not of capital economy: of the ways in which access to wealth and power are regulated, but not of the people doing the regulating.

Social democracy is more complicated. Certainly, it has conservative forms. But it can also be a starting place for a more radical critique. What's important isn't the specific policies which are proposed, its where they originate and how they are brought about: Sanders was no more a revolutionary than Tony Blair, but where Blair represented the ruling class and its sense of "good government", Sanders represented, or at least was able to represent, widespread working class discontent with the prevailing economic order.

I also don't really see how this translates into anything practical. The proletarian revolution ain't a-comin', not in these here United States, so dreams of racism withering away after capitalism has been destroyed just aren't going to cut it for me. In the meantime, we've gotta do something about this racism thing because the effects on people of color are intolerable to any 'humane' person.

All real social change has come from the solidarity of the working class, whether in whole in part. Privilege theory rejects class solidarity, not simply in the sense of the old Marxist chesnut that "identity politics divides the working class", but in the sense that it explicitly frames class solidarity as impossible. How can the oppressor be in solidarity with the oppressed? Progress can only be won when the oppressed becomes sufficiently wracked with shame to make concessions to the oppressor, a prospect just about as absurd as it sounds.

For proponent of privilege theory to produce a practical politics, they have to set it aside while they attempt to form a movement in support of progressive goals- that is, while they actually conduct the business of politics- and a theory that only can only serve as a moral cudgel is no kind of theory at all.