What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

White Privilege and Intersectionality (1 Viewer)

adonis

adonis

Footballguy
I recently had a discussion/debate with a friend who is from Puerto Rico, and he's a fairly liberal guy.

During the discussion, the term "white privilege" was thrown around pretty freely, and was used as a way to discredit my opinion on most things related to racial issues.  This was mixed with a discussion about "intersectionality" which left me confused as to why anyone thinks it was useful, and then we ended the conversation after discussing how science and truth matter, and he said "but what were the races of those who were conducting the science?"

I have yet to have a single meaningful/useful conversation where the terms "white privilege" or "intersectionality" were used in a serious manner.

Is there any useful place in today's politics for concepts like "white privilege" which state that white people in the USA should feel guilt and shame at actions their ancestors committed because today they benefit from them?  And intersectionality, where it's basically a game to see who can be the most victimized by amassing the most disadvantages in specific and narrow categories.

What in the world is going on with the liberals in our country when this kind of conversation is so pervasive?  Part of identity politics run amok? 

 
adonis said:
I recently had a discussion/debate with a friend who is from Puerto Rico, and he's a fairly liberal guy.

During the discussion, the term "white privilege" was thrown around pretty freely, and was used as a way to discredit my opinion on most things related to racial issues.  This was mixed with a discussion about "intersectionality" which left me confused as to why anyone thinks it was useful, and then we ended the conversation after discussing how science and truth matter, and he said "but what were the races of those who were conducting the science?"

I have yet to have a single meaningful/useful conversation where the terms "white privilege" or "intersectionality" were used in a serious manner.

Is there any useful place in today's politics for concepts like "white privilege" which state that white people in the USA should feel guilt and shame at actions their ancestors committed because today they benefit from them?  And intersectionality, where it's basically a game to see who can be the most victimized by amassing the most disadvantages in specific and narrow categories.

What in the world is going on with the liberals in our country when this kind of conversation is so pervasive?  Part of identity politics run amok? 
Click to expand...
Yeah, but this has been going on since the seventies, so...

"I dunno. Maybe get a kitten." - Aesop Rock

I remember Audrey Lorde, a feminist lesbian black poet actually listing her credentials for being oppressed. It struck me as grotesque, then it demeaned my own humanity.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
When one casts life as the oppressed vs the oppressor, well, welcome to being the oppressor because you are certainly not oppressed.

 
I can’t speak to the second term. I don’t hear it used. 

But as far as white privilege goes, it’s a fact. I don’t feel guilty or ashamed about it, but it exists: as a white American I have had, throughout my life, economic and cultural opportunities that a lot of minorities have not had. 

I don’t want to give these up. I don’t feel ashamed about it. I deserve these opportunities in a free society. So does everyone.  What’s important is to acknowledge that the imbalance exists and try to fix it by finding ways to give minorities the same opportunities that I have enjoyed. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not familiar with the term "intersectionality", but I wish people would stop using "white privilege".  I understand the point it is trying to get across, and in many cases where I see it being used I agree with the point of the person using it. But it's a loaded term that causes division and doesn't help win people over to see the bigger point that is being raised. 

 
adonis said:
I recently had a discussion/debate with a friend who is from Puerto Rico, and he's a fairly liberal guy.

During the discussion, the term "white privilege" was thrown around pretty freely, and was used as a way to discredit my opinion on most things related to racial issues.  This was mixed with a discussion about "intersectionality" which left me confused as to why anyone thinks it was useful, and then we ended the conversation after discussing how science and truth matter, and he said "but what were the races of those who were conducting the science?"

I have yet to have a single meaningful/useful conversation where the terms "white privilege" or "intersectionality" were used in a serious manner.

Is there any useful place in today's politics for concepts like "white privilege" which state that white people in the USA should feel guilt and shame at actions their ancestors committed because today they benefit from them?  And intersectionality, where it's basically a game to see who can be the most victimized by amassing the most disadvantages in specific and narrow categories.

What in the world is going on with the liberals in our country when this kind of conversation is so pervasive?  Part of identity politics run amok? 
Click to expand...
Ask your Puerto Rican friend if being white would give you an advantage with the locals in Puerto Rico.

 
adonis said:
I recently had a discussion/debate with a friend who is from Puerto Rico, and he's a fairly liberal guy.

During the discussion, the term "white privilege" was thrown around pretty freely, and was used as a way to discredit my opinion on most things related to racial issues.  This was mixed with a discussion about "intersectionality" which left me confused as to why anyone thinks it was useful, and then we ended the conversation after discussing how science and truth matter, and he said "but what were the races of those who were conducting the science?"

I have yet to have a single meaningful/useful conversation where the terms "white privilege" or "intersectionality" were used in a serious manner.

Is there any useful place in today's politics for concepts like "white privilege" which state that white people in the USA should feel guilt and shame at actions their ancestors committed because today they benefit from them?  And intersectionality, where it's basically a game to see who can be the most victimized by amassing the most disadvantages in specific and narrow categories.

What in the world is going on with the liberals in our country when this kind of conversation is so pervasive?  Part of identity politics run amok? 
Click to expand...
The extreme left and right wings seem to have control of the floor in each side-of-the-aisle's national conversations right now.  Obviously both to different degrees and relative power, but it does seem crazy out there right now.  Its definitely exhausting and discouraging.  Hopefully the insane get pushed back out to the fringes again sooner rather than later.   I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 
adonis said:
"white privilege" which state that white people in the USA should feel guilt and shame at actions their ancestors committed because today they benefit from them? 
Click to expand...
Isn't that "white guilt"?

"White privilege" is the idea that, all else being equal, white people in the US have it better than non-whites. I think some people would simply like white people to recognize that. Yes, there are also some people who think whites should turn that recognition of privilege into guilt.

 
cockroach said:
squistion said:
After reading that, I still don't know what it means.
Click to expand...
It means, "You think it's hard being black... or being a woman... now imagine being a black woman!"... easily dismissed by those who astutely observe the term was coined by a black woman.
Click to expand...
Now imagine you're a gay black woman...even worse.

It's a method to point out that levels of oppression stack, in a way to tally points of discrimination or oppression.

 
dgreen said:
adonis said:
"white privilege" which state that white people in the USA should feel guilt and shame at actions their ancestors committed because today they benefit from them? 
Click to expand...
Isn't that "white guilt"?

"White privilege" is the idea that, all else being equal, white people in the US have it better than non-whites. I think some people would simply like white people to recognize that. Yes, there are also some people who think whites should turn that recognition of privilege into guilt.
Click to expand...
White privilege goes hand in hand with white guilt.  You should be guilty of your white privilege because of the oppression required to grant it to you, and a failure on your part to recognize that is possibly racist in nature, or naive at best. (so it goes)

 
dgreen said:
Isn't that "white guilt"?

"White privilege" is the idea that, all else being equal, white people in the US have it better than non-whites. I think some people would simply like white people to recognize that. Yes, there are also some people who think whites should turn that recognition of privilege into guilt.
Click to expand...
Being white probably does have its privileges in a country that is 65% white...I don't think being white has any privilege in countries or areas of countries where they are the minority.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
dgreen said:
Isn't that "white guilt"?

"White privilege" is the idea that, all else being equal, white people in the US have it better than non-whites. I think some people would simply like white people to recognize that. Yes, there are also some people who think whites should turn that recognition of privilege into guilt.
Click to expand...
Being white probably does have its privileges in a country that is 65% white...I don't think being white has any privilege in countries or areas of countries where they are the minority.
Click to expand...
Asian privilege?

The convo with my friend stalled at a point when I said, white privilege is basically just a result of the fact that white folks won battles long ago and were the ones to set up most of the system.  If Puerto Ricans had done it, we'd be talking about Puerto Rican privilege (or whatever the country was called previously - he told me, i forgot).

 
adonis said:
Asian privilege?

The convo with my friend stalled at a point when I said, white privilege is basically just a result of the fact that white folks won battles long ago and were the ones to set up most of the system.  If Puerto Ricans had done it, we'd be talking about Puerto Rican privilege (or whatever the country was called previously - he told me, i forgot).
Click to expand...
might makes right then?

 
Ditka Butkus said:
Being white probably does have its privileges in a country that is 65% white...I don't think being white has any privilege in countries or areas of countries where they are the minority.
Click to expand...
And if privilege exists, it is at a macro level.
Perhaps there have been times I wasn't stopped by a police office because of the color of my skin.
Asking me to identify the times I wasn't pulled over because I was white is impossible. I can't take ownership for something that I can't quantify and have no proof actually exists for me personally.

 
cockroach said:
adonis said:
Asian privilege?

The convo with my friend stalled at a point when I said, white privilege is basically just a result of the fact that white folks won battles long ago and were the ones to set up most of the system.  If Puerto Ricans had done it, we'd be talking about Puerto Rican privilege (or whatever the country was called previously - he told me, i forgot).
Click to expand...
might makes right then?
Click to expand...
Not sure how you draw that conclusion from what I said.

Inevitably, when you have a "race" of people set up a system that lasts for centuries, no matter the race of those people, those very people will be "privileged" in said society.  That's kinda the point of setting up a society and a culture, to protect your people, expand opportunity, etc.  At the same time, folks should treat people within that culture or society who are different, fairly.  There's no doubt of that. 

But to complain that a culture/society set up largely by a race of folks, privileges that same group of folks...well, I mean that's like wishing a square had 5 sides.

Folks should be aware that minorities have a hard time in a society where they're a minority and laws and regulations should be made to ensure as fair treatment of all people under the law as possible...but to complain about something that's impossible to avoid seems a bit misguided.

 
squistion said:
adonis said:
Now imagine you're a gay black woman...even worse.

It's a method to point out that levels of oppression stack, in a way to tally points of discrimination or oppression.
Click to expand...
I still have no idea what intersectionality means.
Click to expand...
A black, gay, woman is more oppressed than a black woman, according to intersectionality.  A white woman is less advantaged than a white male, but more than a black female.  A gay white male has it easier than a black gay male.

Without intersectionality, all you had was one level of discrimination - majority vs minority, but it didn't pay attention to the degrees of oppression...as in, some groups have it MUCH harder than others, even though they're all minorities.

 
adonis said:
A black, gay, woman is more oppressed than a black woman, according to intersectionality.  A white woman is less advantaged than a white male, but more than a black female.  A gay white male has it easier than a black gay male.

Without intersectionality, all you had was one level of discrimination - majority vs minority, but it didn't pay attention to the degrees of oppression...as in, some groups have it MUCH harder than others, even though they're all minorities.
Click to expand...
Got it. Thx.

 
adonis said:
Not sure how you draw that conclusion from what I said.

Inevitably, when you have a "race" of people set up a system that lasts for centuries, no matter the race of those people, those very people will be "privileged" in said society.  That's kinda the point of setting up a society and a culture, to protect your people, expand opportunity, etc.  At the same time, folks should treat people within that culture or society who are different, fairly.  There's no doubt of that. 

But to complain that a culture/society set up largely by a race of folks, privileges that same group of folks...well, I mean that's like wishing a square had 5 sides.

Folks should be aware that minorities have a hard time in a society where they're a minority and laws and regulations should be made to ensure as fair treatment of all people under the law as possible...but to complain about something that's impossible to avoid seems a bit misguided.
Click to expand...
I imagine very similar things were said to Native American tribes throughout the 1800s as their numbers dwindled.  Don't complain, shut up and take it, it's inevitable.

 
adonis said:
A black, gay, woman is more oppressed than a black woman, according to intersectionality.  A white woman is less advantaged than a white male, but more than a black female.  A gay white male has it easier than a black gay male.

Without intersectionality, all you had was one level of discrimination - majority vs minority, but it didn't pay attention to the degrees of oppression...as in, some groups have it MUCH harder than others, even though they're all minorities.
Click to expand...
It's like a DVOA type ranking that puts your hot prospect last so you want to discredit it

 
cockroach said:
I imagine very similar things were said to Native American tribes throughout the 1800s as their numbers dwindled.  Don't complain, shut up and take it, it's inevitable.
Click to expand...
I don't think society was fair enough in the 1800's to give Native Americans enough of a voice to even be told to shut up.

I'm not saying oppression is ok.  I'm not saying racism is ok.  I'm not saying unfair treatment is ok.  I'm saying that privilege in a society is inevitable for the class/race that set it up and largely ran it for centuries.  

Again, it doesn't excuse mistreatment of minorities in the culture, but to pretend in and of itself it's something bad seems to miss the point of even setting up a society or a culture.

 
cockroach said:
adonis said:
A black, gay, woman is more oppressed than a black woman, according to intersectionality.  A white woman is less advantaged than a white male, but more than a black female.  A gay white male has it easier than a black gay male.

Without intersectionality, all you had was one level of discrimination - majority vs minority, but it didn't pay attention to the degrees of oppression...as in, some groups have it MUCH harder than others, even though they're all minorities.
Click to expand...
It's like a DVOA type ranking that puts your hot prospect last so you want to discredit it
Click to expand...
No, I think it has no merit not because it puts me last, but rather because it doesn't make sense.

People should be treated fairly regardless of how many levels of oppressed they are, from 1-1000.  

Tell me this: the socio-economic status of a kids parents are more indicative of future success in america than race is.  Should that be a group folks can fall into to show they're oppressed?

What about the kids of ugly parents?  Physical attraction plays a big role in your earnings throughout your life.

What about IQ? It's heritable...folks with dumber parents perhaps should feel oppressed.

What about folks who have high anxiety?

What about folks who suck at sports?

There are tons of things more predictive of future earnings or success in society other than race, gender, sexual orientation but those are the major ones folks rally around when trying to describe oppression.  Why?

 
cockroach said:
It's really not about population demographics as it is power and wealth
Click to expand...
Typically people are more comfortable with people who are like themselves; cultural, color, beliefs etc...If a white merchant opened a shop up in a predominately black neighborhood and offered the same goods for the same price as his neighboring black merchant...more than likely the neighborhood would shop at the black merchants store...Is it right or fair...probably not... but it is what we do, we gravitate towards those who are most like us...Over time the neighborhood would probably become more accepting of their new merchant.

 
adonis said:
I don't think society was fair enough in the 1800's to give Native Americans enough of a voice to even be told to shut up.

I'm not saying oppression is ok.  I'm not saying racism is ok.  I'm not saying unfair treatment is ok.  I'm saying that privilege in a society is inevitable for the class/race that set it up and largely ran it for centuries.  

Again, it doesn't excuse mistreatment of minorities in the culture, but to pretend in and of itself it's something bad seems to miss the point of even setting up a society or a culture.
Click to expand...
Ok, so white privilege exists, just shut up about it already.  I get it.

To answer you original question.  When can the term be used productively politically? Since we know white privilege exists (I'm glad that's not the debate here) maybe we can use that info when it comes time to dole out funding for public schools.  And the ####-hole schools in the inner city might be able to get a little more funding when it comes to supplies or nutritional lunches or something. 

 
cockroach said:
To answer you original question.  When can the term be used productively politically? Since we know white privilege exists (I'm glad that's not the debate here) maybe we can use that info when it comes time to dole out funding for public schools.  And the ####-hole schools in the inner city might be able to get a little more funding when it comes to supplies or nutritional lunches or something. 
Click to expand...
That convo can be had without condescending comments about a "race" of folks.

Fairness should be the argument, whether or not white schools were advantaged or not.

Let's say you had primarily hispanic schools getting more funding than primarily black schools.  You can't make an appeal for white privilege there to make your point, but the issue of fairness still applies.

That's my point about this whole thing.  Bringing race into the conversation in an attempt to guilt a group of folks into feelings of shame/regret about things they never did in order to do something that should be done purely because it's the fair thing to do is unnecessary. 

 
adonis said:
That convo can be had without condescending comments about a "race" of folks.

Fairness should be the argument, whether or not white schools were advantaged or not.

Let's say you had primarily hispanic schools getting more funding than primarily black schools.  You can't make an appeal for white privilege there to make your point, but the issue of fairness still applies.

That's my point about this whole thing.  Bringing race into the conversation in an attempt to guilt a group of folks into feelings of shame/regret about things they never did in order to do something that should be done purely because it's the fair thing to do is unnecessary. 
Click to expand...
What makes you assume the hypothetical ####-hole school I was talking about was black?  Where I live and grew up there is large populations of SE Asians, S. and C. Americans and Blacks.

I've never seen a "hispanic" or "black" school.

Anyway, to "fairly" determine how much help someone needs, it helps to determine how much they've had.  And Intersectionality is all about this fairness you strive for.  It says consider everything, essentially.  Give the shortest, ugliest ####er in the nation a BIG or cushy job somewhere we don't have to see his tiny, hideous ###.  I'm fine with that.  Consider everything. 

 
cockroach said:
adonis said:
That convo can be had without condescending comments about a "race" of folks.

Fairness should be the argument, whether or not white schools were advantaged or not.

Let's say you had primarily hispanic schools getting more funding than primarily black schools.  You can't make an appeal for white privilege there to make your point, but the issue of fairness still applies.

That's my point about this whole thing.  Bringing race into the conversation in an attempt to guilt a group of folks into feelings of shame/regret about things they never did in order to do something that should be done purely because it's the fair thing to do is unnecessary. 
Click to expand...
What makes you assume the hypothetical ####-hole school I was talking about was black?  Where I live and grew up there is large populations of SE Asians, S. and C. Americans and Blacks.

I've never seen a "hispanic" or "black" school.

Anyway, to "fairly" determine how much help someone needs, it helps to determine how much they've had.  And Intersectionality is all about this fairness you strive for.  It says consider everything, essentially.  Give the shortest, ugliest ####er in the nation a BIG or cushy job somewhere we don't have to see his tiny, hideous ###.  I'm fine with that.  Consider everything. 
Click to expand...
I recently lived in a city (Baton Rouge) where those with means actually attempted to form a new city to get away from minorities there, mostly black folks.  So you had mostly white folks with money trying to form their own city (St. George) to create their own school system to exclude minorities, mostly black.  So yeah, that's been my experience between unequal schools. 

But what's more, folks with money just end up sending their kids to private schools to achieve the same segregation they desire, which avoids the public argument almost entirely, until you get into the voucher debate.

And I didn't assume the hypothetical ####-hole school you were talking about was black.  I just used it as my own hypothetical.  And yes, you can have schools that are primarily black...and before desegregation, you had exactly all black schools that were said to be "separate but equal" when they clearly were not.  No appeal to "white privilege" was necessary in order to remedy that situtation...appeals to fairness and equality were sufficient, and almost always are.

And finally, when you say "consider everything" the ultimate endpoint of that statement is that every single person is an individual with their own unique challenges, ways they have a tougher or easier time than others.  When you "consider everything", you end up with 300 million individual groups of people, and inside each group you have 1 person.  Which is how it should be.

The law, and our society should treat every individual with as much fairness and equality as is possible under the law, regardless of their individual characteristics.  That is the point that folks who throw around terms like "white privilege" and "intersectionality" fail to understand, in addition to failing to understand that the ultimate conclusion when you "consider everything" is that every single person is different so grouping according to relative degrees of oppression becomes meaningless.

 
Agree 100% with the fairness stuff, but you know the term isn't going anywhere since America was established by wiping out the indigenous population and importing slave labor establishing this "White Privilege" we agree exists but is pointless to use.  I know the 'why you always bringin up old ####' argument applies there.  But folks insist it has a bearing on current day events.

 
cockroach said:
Agree 100% with the fairness stuff, but you know the term isn't going anywhere since America was established by wiping out the indigenous population and importing slave labor establishing this "White Privilege" we agree exists but is pointless to use.  I know the 'why you always bringin up old ####' argument applies there.  But folks insist it has a bearing on current day events.
Click to expand...
And those folks, I argue, are doing their arguments a disservice and actually diminishing the likelihood that they get people to come together to solve the real problems that exist.  

This is because they're attempting, at least in part, to shame a group of people based on the race of those people and the actions of folks other than the people they're talking to (largely the actions of ancestors who may or may not have been involved in terrible things).

Instead, if we discussed as a society issues of fairness based on fairness alone, without trying to shame a race of people based on actions the individuals didn't do (which, when you think about it, is really a racist thing to do if you go by the definition of racist), we'd get a lot farther.  Liberals might actually be able to pull from those on the center-right by making common appeals to values we all hold, rather than pointing the finger of shame at a group and saying they should feel guilty enough to act to help folks out.

 
adonis said:
White privilege goes hand in hand with white guilt.  You should be guilty of your white privilege because of the oppression required to grant it to you, and a failure on your part to recognize that is possibly racist in nature, or naive at best. (so it goes)
Click to expand...
But you didn't say white priviledge and white guilt go hand in hand. You defined white privilege with the definition of white guilt in your initial post. They're not the same thing. I'm guessing that's probably where your conversation with your Puerto Rican friend began to go off the rails.

 
squistion said:
OP please define intersectionality.
Click to expand...
The basic premise is that the experience of outgroups is exponentially more oppressive, or at least more than additively more oppressive, when you're part of multiple groups.

So in theory a poor black lesbian is going to feel the consequences of oppression or discrimination "more" than would be felt by a black man, a lesbian, and a poor man all added together. 

So if X number of doors are closed to any one of those categories, X3 doors are closed as a result of the intersectional nature of the individual.

This is all pretty easy to understand if you just do a simple search for "homeless black lesbian porn."  It's a pretty small category.

 
tommyGunZ said:
adonis said:
White privilege goes hand in hand with white guilt.  You should be guilty of your white privilege because of the oppression required to grant it to you, and a failure on your part to recognize that is possibly racist in nature, or naive at best. (so it goes)
Click to expand...
But you didn't say white priviledge and white guilt go hand in hand. You defined white privilege with the definition of white guilt in your initial post. They're not the same thing. I'm guessing that's probably where your conversation with your Puerto Rican friend began to go off the rails.
Click to expand...
White privilege relies on white guilt to be operative.  Otherwise it doesn't have a ton of meaning.  It basically says that you have benefits from being white, and because you acknowledge that, and that the benefits you received came from oppression in the past, you need to do things for minorities now out of a sense of obligation.

 
adonis said:
White privilege goes hand in hand with white guilt.  You should be guilty of your white privilege because of the oppression required to grant it to you, and a failure on your part to recognize that is possibly racist in nature, or naive at best. (so it goes)
Click to expand...
This is absolutely not the point that these discussions should instill. 

White privilege goes hand in hand with white responsibility.  Which is problematic in its own ways, vis-a-vis avoiding paternalism, but it's not the same thing.

 
adonis said:
White privilege relies on white guilt to be operative.  Otherwise it doesn't have a ton of meaning.  It basically says that you have benefits from being white, and because you acknowledge that, and that the benefits you received came from oppression in the past, you need to do things for minorities now out of a sense of obligation.
Click to expand...
When you do things for your church, or your friend group, or some person you identify with who needs help (I don't know your back story, but I was homeless at one point.  So when I find someone who's homeless and I can do something to help I try to.) do you try to help them?  Is it out of a sense of guilt?  Because it isn't for me.  Obligation doesn't mean guilt.  It means responsibility.  I feel, as someone who got through something they are going through, like I have some obligation to turn around and help the next person in line.  But that's not because I feel guilty for not being homeless anymore.  It's because that's what you should do.

Similarly, white privilege recognition is intended to cause people to say "well, when I can help, I should. Because this privilege means there are probably less people who identify with that group of people who will be in a position to turn around and help, and as an ally who recognizes his privilege I should turn around and help when I can."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are things moving in the right direction for oppressed people?  

ETA: And are things moving enough in the wrong direction for the oppressors to satisfy those that feel this way?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
When you do things for your church, or your friend group, or some person you identify with (I don't know your back story, but I was homeless at one point.  So when I find someone who's homeless and I can do something to help I try to.) do you try to help them?  Is it out of a sense of guilt?  Because it isn't for me.  Obligation doesn't mean guilt.  It means responsibility.  I feel, as someone who got through something they are going through, like I have some obligation to turn around and help the next person in line.  But that's not because I feel guilty for not being homeless anymore.  It's because that's what you should do.

Similarly, white privilege recognition is intended to cause people to say "well, when I can help, I should. Because this privilege means there are probably less people who identify with that group of people who will be in a position to turn around and help, and as an ally who recognizes his privilege I should turn around and help when I can."
Click to expand...
I'm glad for your engagement here because I imagine you can explain this better than most I speak to, and while I suspect i may still disagree, perhaps i'll have more respect for the position.

The impression I get when white privilege, as a term, is used is that I have a debt that I'm being told about and folks are pointing it out in order to prompt me to do something about it.  It reminds me a bit of original sin, in religious terms, in that I'm somehow responsible for the sins of my father and am born a sinner in need of redemption, at birth, from sin I inherit - thus i need to accept Jesus to atone for my sins, plus those of my fathers.  This is largely out of date in religion today, but still plays a big role in the narrative of judeo-christian religion.

For me, an appeal to my sense of fairness is all it should take in order to help other folks.  There is no guilt there based on actions by anyone but myself.  One could simply say "Look at everything you have, the luck you've had, the position of influence you have but may not be aware of.  Other folks are less fortunate, and could use a leg up, and perhaps they may not be on your radar because they're not in the same group you run with, but their plight is important and urgent.  Can you see a way you can help?" That would be a great and effective way to appeal to just about anyone, but you almost get an instant turn-off when a person starts talking about my white privilege, which like i said is almost always operationalized with an appeal to a sense of guilt or shame at the ways in which it was obtained for me, as an incentive/obligation/responsibility to help others.

Truth, fairness, equality - all things that appeal to anyone, no matter their race, gender sexual orientation.  Whether a black person is in a position of power, a white person, a latino, etc...the same appeal to "There but for the grace of god go I" kinda attitude works...for me at least.  The other doesn't.

 
Thunderlips said:
Are things moving in the right direction for oppressed people?  

ETA: And are things moving enough in the wrong direction for the oppressors to satisfy those that feel this way?
Click to expand...
Huh?

Calling folks "oppressors", do you find, is a good way to engage folks?

 
adonis said:
I'm glad for your engagement here because I imagine you can explain this better than most I speak to, and while I suspect i may still disagree, perhaps i'll have more respect for the position.

The impression I get when white privilege, as a term, is used is that I have a debt that I'm being told about and folks are pointing it out in order to prompt me to do something about it.  It reminds me a bit of original sin, in religious terms, in that I'm somehow responsible for the sins of my father and am born a sinner in need of redemption, at birth, from sin I inherit - thus i need to accept Jesus to atone for my sins, plus those of my fathers.  This is largely out of date in religion today, but still plays a big role in the narrative of judeo-christian religion.

For me, an appeal to my sense of fairness is all it should take in order to help other folks.  There is no guilt there based on actions by anyone but myself.  One could simply say "Look at everything you have, the luck you've had, the position of influence you have but may not be aware of.  Other folks are less fortunate, and could use a leg up, and perhaps they may not be on your radar because they're not in the same group you run with, but their plight is important and urgent.  Can you see a way you can help?" That would be a great and effective way to appeal to just about anyone, but you almost get an instant turn-off when a person starts talking about my white privilege, which like i said is almost always operationalized with an appeal to a sense of guilt or shame at the ways in which it was obtained for me, as an incentive/obligation/responsibility to help others.

Truth, fairness, equality - all things that appeal to anyone, no matter their race, gender sexual orientation.  Whether a black person is in a position of power, a white person, a latino, etc...the same appeal to "There but for the grace of god go I" kinda attitude works...for me at least.  The other doesn't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get hearing it like that.  I heard it like that at first, too, and then had a friend who I really respect explain it to me.  And not in terms of "good or bad" or "you don't get to talk about this but you can talk about this" or anything like that.

It's really hard to live in this world.  There's no question about that.  Really hard.  Almost no matter who you are.  But it's harder for some people.  It just is, and there's nothing we can do about that being the case.

I have a lot of privileges.  I'm white.  I'm male.  I'm straight.  I'm educated.  I was born to middle class parents.  I was lucky enough to meet the woman I married young, and she's turned out to be as super awesome as I'd hoped.  I'm loved.  That's a big thing in this world.

Yeah, I agree, we should all just focus on fairness and equality.  But the fact is, we all tend toward groups we identify with.  We just do.  

Think of it this way.  Say there's a new kid in your kid's school.  And a birthday party the whole class is going to.  What do you tell your kid before the party?  Nothing?  Maybe a little "hey, if the new kid is off by himself and he doesn't seem like an axe murderer, go over and say hi and see if you can include him, okay"?  Because your kid, in this situation is privileged.  He's been there. It's not that everyone at the party shouldn't be looked after if they're off by themselves, but hey, maybe keep your head on a swivel for the new kid.  He's probably not going to ask anyone for help, and he's most likely to need it.  Not because your kid needs to feel guilty. But because keeping that in mind might be the best way to make the pathway smooth to everything working out better for everyone.

 
adonis said:
Huh?

Calling folks "oppressors", do you find, is a good way to engage folks?
Click to expand...
oppressor is the opposite of the word oppressed I used in the previous sentence. I was looking for some symmetry.  If you are triggered by that....I am truly sorry.

MODS!....please change my oppressors to "oppressors" in my post .

 
Henry Ford said:
Yeah, I get hearing it like that.  I heard it like that at first, too, and then had a friend who I really respect explain it to me.  And not in terms of "good or bad" or "you don't get to talk about this but you can talk about this" or anything like that.

It's really hard to live in this world.  There's no question about that.  Really hard.  Almost no matter who you are.  But it's harder for some people.  It just is, and there's nothing we can do about that being the case.

I have a lot of privileges.  I'm white.  I'm male.  I'm straight.  I'm educated.  I was born to middle class parents.  I was lucky enough to meet the woman I married young, and she's turned out to be as super awesome as I'd hoped.  I'm loved.  That's a big thing in this world.

Yeah, I agree, we should all just focus on fairness and equality.  But the fact is, we all tend toward groups we identify with.  We just do.  

Think of it this way.  Say there's a new kid in your kid's school.  And a birthday party the whole class is going to.  What do you tell your kid before the party?  Nothing?  Maybe a little "hey, if the new kid is off by himself and he doesn't seem like an axe murderer, go over and say hi and see if you can include him, okay"?  Because your kid, in this situation is privileged.  He's been there. It's not that everyone at the party shouldn't be looked after if they're off by themselves, but hey, maybe keep your head on a swivel for the new kid.  He's probably not going to ask anyone for help, and he's most likely to need it.  Not because your kid needs to feel guilty. But because keeping that in mind might be the best way to make the pathway smooth to everything working out better for everyone.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with all of that.  I'm unbelievably privileged, winning the historical and genetic lottery of all time.  I think that does give me a sense of responsibility, but not one that has anything to do with past oppression or guilt.  That's where I fall out, because every conversation in person I've had with folks (educated folks, social justice folks) ends up turning into oppressor/oppressed language that I find to be divisive.

I think every appeal that can be made for how we should act in the world can be done irrespective of race.  My friends would say that's my white privilege speaking, but I don't think so.  It's my idealism speaking.

I teach my kids to be kind to other folks because it's the right thing to do.  I try to be as fair to folks of all types because it's the right thing to do, regardless of my position.  If I was poor, helping others would still be the right thing to do.  If I was black, it'd still be the right thing to do.  Small, tall, black, white, old, young, rich, poor...right is right. 

In my opinion, that should be the focus because by initiating this conversation based on race, which is a fictional grouping (as you know, there's really no such thing), you are pitting group against group.  Responsibility, fairness, equality crosses all groupings and allows people to focus on commonality in mission rather than assigning responsibilities based on race, especially when, many times, this responsibility is packaged with guilt/shame of ancestors.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

rockaction
Personality Crisis - On Intersectionality And Social Modernity
Replies
18
Views
386
Manster
Manster
GordonGekko
Newsweek: Muslim & Christian Parents Unite In Michigan Against "Sexually Explicit" School Books (10/14/22 02:46 PST)
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks
GordonGekko
Johnson & Johnson Employee Caught Denouncing COVID19 Vaccine For Children (10/1/21 04:24 PST)
Replies
46
Views
1K
(HULK)
(HULK)

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top