What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Helen Keller: privileged white person (1 Viewer)

parasaurolophus

Footballguy
Yep. Thats right. Time magazine Article

However, to some Black disability rights activists, like Anita Cameron, Helen Keller is not radical at all, “just another, despite disabilities, privileged white person,” and yet another example of history telling the story of privileged white Americans. 

 
Yep. Thats right. Time magazine Article

However, to some Black disability rights activists, like Anita Cameron, Helen Keller is not radical at all, “just another, despite disabilities, privileged white person,” and yet another example of history telling the story of privileged white Americans. 
If you read her autobiography she was definitely privileged.  She made the progress she made is because she always had money to have all the best things at all the best universities. 

All that said, she was an amazing individual and her story is so very compelling. I highly recommend learning about real adversity. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In fairness I haven’t read this. But instead of taking an extreme and predictable position, might you try to first understand the merits of the perspective? There might just be some.

Had similar discussion with good friend who signed book deal with major publisher for what has potential to be an important fantasy book series for teens.

She was given notes to change ethnicity of some characters. Then to reconsider words like “crazy,” “idiot” and “stupid.” 

Her reaction was it seems a bit much, and that JK Rowling would probably have gotten #### about a lot of what she wrote in the Harry Potter series.

She asked my advice, and I said it’s complicated and worth thinking through.

Art reflects, but it also influences. As an artist, what’s the responsibility? Do you risk losing relatability, to model better behavior? It’s worth considering and not dismissing out of hand.

My ultimate comment was if generations look back and conclude we got it wrong by trying to be too considerate, too kind, and it seems artificial — so what? Is that the worst legacy we can leave? I’d sure as hell rather leave that than Bugs Bunny cartoons in black face.

So here’s the point: What do you have to gain by dismissing these nuanced discussions out of hand?
There are no merits to the position. To call helen keller a priviliged white person is absurd. 

 
Pretty much everyone who's ever lived has been privileged in some ways, not so privileged in others. On the whole, Helen Keller may have been less privileged than most people of her day, but what she made of her situation is inspirational.

 
  • Thinking
Reactions: JAA
Are you saying she wasn’t privileged?  That she did not have things other kids had?

How much do you know about Hellen Keller?
Look, if you want to try and argue that the definition of priviliged means any instance of having one more thing than any one person, have at it. 

 
Look, if you want to try and argue that the definition of priviliged means any instance of having one more thing than any one person, have at it. 
If that is what you think the argument is about, then I would guess you don’t know much about HK. 

 
Also seems weird to take a single sentence out of context in an article that is making an entirely different point and try to create a Hot Take out of it.  

 
Why is this political, by the way?  I’m assuming the source of the faux outrage is some right-leaning infotainment outlet

Edit:  yep.  Quick Twitter search shows Trump Junior complaining about cancel culture.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is this political, by the way?  I’m assuming the source of the faux outrage is some right-leaning infotainment outlet
White privilege, radical,  socialism, etc are all terms mentioned in that article. There is no way this topic would ever not be moved from the ffa. 

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Look, if you want to try and argue that the definition of priviliged means any instance of having one more thing than any one person, have at it. 
priv·i·lege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

A black blind/deaf person at that time would not have had the same opportunities. It doesn’t mean what she accomplished isn’t amazing but she did have white privilege. 

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Wait until all of these right wingers complaining about the “woke mob” attacking Hellen Keller find out she was a card-carrying socialist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Laughing
Reactions: JAA
priv·i·lege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

A black blind/deaf person at that time would not have had the same opportunities. It doesn’t mean what she accomplished isn’t amazing but she did have white privilege. 
When you have to bring up fictitious black deaf and blind kids to compare somebody to, it really isnt a solid argument. 

 
priv·i·lege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

A black blind/deaf person at that time would not have had the same opportunities. It doesn’t mean what she accomplished isn’t amazing but she did have white privilege. 
It’s not just racial. It’s also socioeconomic privilege.

 
Let’s find something absurd that a radical black activist said and start a discussion about it! 

Hey Para, if you ever get tired of doing this for free in the politics forum, Tucker or Hannity probably are looking to hire. 

 
Everyone is privileged compared to someone else.  Calling someone privileged for being white is lazy and usually done by a troll.

 
  • Thinking
Reactions: JAA
Ok. You’re the one that created the topic. Prove the article wrong. 
The article does not attempt to claim this.  It is a single sentence quote demonstrating an objection to teaching about her in schools as an example of someone overcoming disability.  

 
Let’s find something absurd that a radical black activist said and start a discussion about it! 

Hey Para, if you ever get tired of doing this for free in the politics forum, Tucker or Hannity probably are looking to hire. 
I sent them a link. Will update if I get a nibble. 

 
Everyone is privileged compared to someone else.  Calling someone privileged for being white is lazy and usually done by a troll.
Are you saying the color of ones skin does not open up additional opportunity in pay scale across the same position?

 
The article does not attempt to claim this.  It is a single sentence quote demonstrating an objection to teaching about her in schools as an example of someone overcoming disability.  
She very much overcame disability. Pretty unbelievably. I would also wager this was due in large part to her privilege. 

 
She very much overcame disability. Pretty unbelievably. I would also wager this was due in large part to her privilege. 
Nobody said she didn’t.  One quote in the article was provided as an example of a position that other people should be taught in schools. 

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Are you saying the color of ones skin does not open up additional opportunity in pay scale across the same position?
For all white people?  No it does not.  That's why it's lazy.  There's always some additional characteristics that would give that person privilege.

 
One of the ironies of this thread is that Keller actually acknowledged her white privilege -- maybe not with those exact words, but with equivalent language -- and ended up pushing for racial equality as she became more famous.

 
I’m confused by the arguments. Is it beyond the pale to think someone can be deprived of senses and also privileged, or even lucky?
Somebody deaf and blind can have good luck. They can even come from money. Even lots of money. They can just miss getting hit by a train at some point. Even win the lottery. 

Nobody should be describing that person as privileged. Or as such a lucky duck. Or as just another rich kid born with a silver spoon. Or insert whatever here.

These are not descriptions that reasonable people use to describe somebody that is deaf and blind regardless of if those situations are true. 

The list of people that would trade places with a blind and deaf person is very short. 

Even somebody like lou gehrig, the self described luckiest man on the face of the earth, should never be described as "that guy was so lucky" or just another "privileged white guy"

I cant wait til next week when we describe some of the white kids that got to meet their fave athlete through the make a wish foundation as privileged. I mean dude a whole day with peyton manning? So lucky. 

 
Somebody deaf and blind can have good luck. They can even come from money. Even lots of money. They can just miss getting hit by a train at some point. Even win the lottery. 

Nobody should be describing that person as privileged. Or as such a lucky duck. Or as just another rich kid born with a silver spoon. Or insert whatever here.

These are not descriptions that reasonable people use to describe somebody that is deaf and blind regardless of if those situations are true. 

The list of people that would trade places with a blind and deaf person is very short. 

Even somebody like lou gehrig, the self described luckiest man on the face of the earth, should never be described as "that guy was so lucky" or just another "privileged white guy"

I cant wait til next week when we describe some of the white kids that got to meet their fave athlete through the make a wish foundation as privileged. I mean dude a whole day with peyton manning? So lucky. 
Take 2 blind and deaf people. One is white with money and opportunity. The other is non-white, poor and destitute. Is it fair to say one is privileged and the other is not?

 
Also seems weird to take a single sentence out of context in an article that is making an entirely different point and try to create a Hot Take out of it.  
OP didn't pull anything out of context.  According to the article, the person being quoted thinks that we give Hellen Keller too much prominence.

However, to some Black disability rights activists, like Anita Cameron, Helen Keller is not radical at all, “just another, despite disabilities, privileged white person,” and yet another example of history telling the story of privileged white Americans. Critics of Helen Keller cite her writings that reflected the popularity of now-dated eugenics theories and her friendship with one of the movement’s supporters Alexander Graham Bell. The American Foundation for the Blind archivist Helen Selsdon says Keller “moved away from that position.”
If you want to accuse someone of dropping a hot take, you should go have a talk with Ms. "Just another . . . privileged white person."  That's about the most incendiary wording possible for a not-especially-great point

 
Take 2 blind and deaf people. One is white with money and opportunity. The other is non-white, poor and destitute. Is it fair to say one is privileged and the other is not?
The answer to "is the blind and deaf person privileged" is always no. 

Again, as I said before. If you have to create fictitious blind and deaf people to compare them to, the argument is over. 

 
Take 2 blind and deaf people. One is white with money and opportunity. The other is non-white, poor and destitute. Is it fair to say one is privileged and the other is not?
Hint:  It's not the white and non-white part that would provide the privilege. 

How about you take 2 blind and deaf people.  One is black with money and opportunity.  The other is non-black, poor and destitute.   Which one is privileged?

 
In my opinion, once the word "privilege" is introduced, real discussion is difficult.

Every single one of us reading this has privilege just by the fact we're able to see and read and have access to a screen of some sort. That puts us way up the scale.

As it now seems we do with most anything, everyone loves to dive in to the ends of the spectrum and take their shots.

One one end, it's the position of "I don't have any privilege. I earned most everything I have". Translated: "I did this mostly all on my own."

On the other end it's "You were handed all this and your success has more to do with your parents than any work you've done".  Translated: "You mostly didn't have much to do with your success".

Both are wrong in my opinion. 

And the way it's usually discussed is someone more on the "you didn't earn anything" end takes their shot at the guy on the end with the "You didn't earn anything" or "You were born with a silver spoon".

Invariably it seems the discussion goes to belittle the other side and we get exactly what we get. 

I think a much better way to talk about it is "Advantages". 

To suggest I as a white male born with no physical/mental issues into a middle class family with two parents who loved me didn't have massive advantages compared to many people is absurd. And insulting to other people.

To suggest I didn't do anything to get to where I have is also absurd. And kind of insulting to me and the work I've done. 

I think we all get that. But we seem to have a hard time discussing it. 

Helen Keller absolutely had advantages with her economic situation and skin color.

Helen Keller absolutely had massive disadvantages with her physical issues and being a woman in that time. 

Instead of a hot take that Keller was privileged, I wish we could have more honest discussion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my opinion, once the word "privilege" is introduced, real discussion is difficult.

Every single one of us reading this has privilege just by the fact we're able to see and read and have access to a screen of some sort. That puts us way up the scale.

As it now seems we do with most anything, everyone loves to dive in to the ends of the spectrum and take their shots.

One one end, it's the position of "I don't have any privilege. I earned everything I have.

On the other end it's "You didn't do a single thing to get where you are, it is all given to you".

Both are wrong in my opinion. 

And the way it's usually discussed is someone more on the "you didn't earn anything" end takes their shot at the guy on the end with the "You didn't earn anything" or "You were born with a silver spoon".

Invariably it seems the discussion goes to belittle the other side and we get exactly what we get. 

I think a much better way to talk about it is "Advantages". 

To suggest I as a white male born with no physical/mental issues into a middle class family with two parents who loved me didn't have massive advantages compared to many people is absurd. And insulting to other people.

To suggest I didn't do anything to get to where I have is also absurd. And kind of insulting to me and the work I've done. 

I think we all get that. But we seem to have a hard time discussing it. 

Helen Keller absolutely had advantages with her economic situation and skin color.

Helen Keller absolutely had massive disadvantages with her physical issues and being a woman in that time. 

Instead of a hot take that Keller was privileged, I wish we could have more honest discussion.
I came in here to say just this.  The word "privileged" has in many cases taken on a negative connotation.   It sets people off and they immediately get defensive.  

 
This is really easy.

There is not one white person on the planet that accomplished anything without help, privileged, advantage, whatever

There is not one black person on the planet that accomplished anything without help, privileged, advantage, whatever.

There are no two people on the planet that have the same exact amount of privilege, advantage, whatever.

How about instead of finding reasons to denigrate each other, we focus on the reasons to admire and support.  If you've achieved something in the face of adversity or a challenge that's awesome.  I personally feel very privileged that my mind and soul is not so corrupted that I'd rather find reasons to denigrate you or in this case the accomplishments of a woman born without sight or hearing.

 
There are no merits to the position. To call helen keller a priviliged white person is absurd. 
Huh? 

She was white. 

She was benefited by a higher percentage of expendable income than the average similarly situated person at her time. 

She is a person.

Definitionally it seems very accurate to call her that. I get your point in its context, but it's not absurd to call her a "priveleged white person."

 
Huh? 

She was white. 

She was benefited by a higher percentage of expendable income than the average similarly situated person at her time. 

She is a person.

Definitionally it seems very accurate to call her that. I get your point in its context, but it's not absurd to call her a "priveleged white person."
Is the bolded the official privileged police definition of privileged?

Is "similarly situated" limited to geography?  Timeframes?  What other factors?  Is average mean, median, mode?

If I am black and have $200k of expendable income and my friend is white and has $100k of expendable income.  Am I privileged and he is not?  What if I am a black woman, does that sufficiently lower my privilege quotient to below that of my male white friend with $100k?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huh? 

She was white. 

She was benefited by a higher percentage of expendable income than the average similarly situated person at her time. 

She is a person.

Definitionally it seems very accurate to call her that. I get your point in its context, but it's not absurd to call her a "priveleged white person."
It's accurate in a very specific, almost academic sense.  

In an ordinary English sense, it's kind of silly to describe Keller as "just another privileged white person" but saying it that way sure is exciting and incendiary.

There's a term for this.  It's called a "motte and bailey."  A speaker says something wild and exciting, gets called on it, and then retreats to a very narrow and boring re-definition of what they said.  Then, when people get bored with dunking on them, they leave the narrow/boring re-definition aside and go right back to the exciting position that they intended all along, without acknowledging that they never actually defended that position in the first place.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top