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.
I agree. But if you can take a step back for a second and recognize that to many people this idea of "well, we should do that for everyone!" feeling has its roots in the same place as the "All Lives Matter" movement, I think it's reasonable to recognize that. That vaguely uncomfortable feeling that makes you angry about being told about white privilege, with the general uncertainty of "well, what am I supposed to do about that?!" is okay. It feels not okay, but it's okay. That's how it feels.
And it's very reasonable to feel attacked during these conversations. Accept that. Try to move past it and discuss anyway. Try to imagine they're not trying to be divisive and maybe there are important bits of the conversation that are totally worth having to feel what the conversation makes you feel.
Because the denoting word "oppressor" probably means something different to you than it does to them. Quite seriously. It's a weird thing. But it often really makes a difference to realize that even if the
dictionary definition is the same between you, the
actual meaning really isn't. Viscerally.
I have an issue with the black lives matter movement for a few reasons, but the issues are mainly based on what the data shows in terms of their claims. I also have a concern that politically, singling out a race for some kind of special elevation is a poor tactic and encourages backlash that's undesirable from the very people whose help may be needed to help fix some of the wrongs.
So whether it's black lives matter, or white privilege, I have a problem with grouping folks by race and making blanket comments about the groups that tend to pit one race against another, either in terms of who has guilt, or in terms of who needs attention based on wrongs.
The civil rights movement was not the black right's movement, and for good reason. MLK focused on humanity, and made basic appeals to all people, and encouraged folks to be valued based on the individual characteristics rather than the race they belong to. White privilege, white guilt, black lives matter...all of this lumps folks in groups and requires judgments to be made at an (artificial) racial group level. This is clearly divisive and, imo, counterproductive. Also, in some cases, I think it misses the mark in terms of fairness, honesty and truth.
But back to your point - I don't mind feeling attacked, or uncomfortable, as a majority in the country being spoken to by someone else. I do appreciate a willingness to discuss perspective with me that may offend, and to be honest, I'm pretty laid back in those conversations and take them seriously. But I do have (what i feel to be) legitimate questions about the approach, and whether it's functional or desirable in America today. I currently don't think it is.
To me, it's instituting a ledger system whereby minorities attempt to tally the debts they're owed for being a minority, and the debts owed by the majority (or the oppressor, or colonialists) and attempting to negotiate from that starting point. It's as if folks who use this kinda language want to enter negotiations by insisting that the white folks in the conversation owe a debt, and that debt should be paid to people based on whatever intersectionality says they are owed. I don't see how this can ever be an effective negotiating tactic that does anything other than turn off the majority of white folks who are approached this way (which is generally what happens).
Unfortunately, it's interpreted, when white folks get annoyed with this approach, as them not being able to accept their white shame. And yes, this is actually something that's commonly said but I suspect you've heard it as well. And perhaps folks like yourself, who have a nuanced or perhaps softer framing of the situation can tone down the shame and guilt angle, but are you willing to say that there is no implied debt in discussions with folks who talk about white privilege? You seem to interpret it as "responsibility" but do you acknowledge, or do you see it in conversations with others, that in many cases it's approached as a debt rather than a responsibility?
As a framework to help folks who don't think they're fortunate, or don't think being white is a privileged position in America, there may be some benefit to using the concept of "white privilege" as a framework to lead to a deeper appreciation of the advantages bestowed by that status, but when it moves from being used as a means to make folks more self-aware, to a tool to make folks feel like they have a debt to be paid, or shame to be felt, or guilt that needs to be atoned for....that's when it goes off the rails. In fact, it goes off the rails as a political strategy the moment we start lumping people together in groups of races, and starting talking about relative advantages in society and how the political system should be used to address inequality by group. What you end up with, as mentioned before, is a backlash to this grouping...which, imo, has lead us to Trump in large part.
Maybe focusing on whether guilt/shame is typically included in "white privilege" conversations that imply some action that needs to be taken, especially politically, would be good. I know you're making a case that philosophically, that shame/guilty/debt doesn't have to be present in order to become self-aware of privilege...but in practice, how it's used in political discussions, or in discussions about "shoulds" and "oughts", do you have the experience that it's included often there?