White Privilege and Intersectionality (2 Viewers)

[adonis]

Huh?

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

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 .

I'm confused, I'll just let it go I guess.

 

[-OZ-]

White privilege

Male privilege

Heterosexual privilege

Above average height privilege

Physically in shape privilege

Mentally capable privilege

2 parent household as a kid privilege

Not overly fugly privilege

Raised as a Christian privilege

So my opinion is completely irrelevant these days. 

 

[jonessed]

White privilege

Male privilege

Heterosexual privilege

Above average height privilege

Physically in shape privilege

Mentally capable privilege

2 parent household as a kid privilege

Not overly fugly privilege

Raised as a Christian privilege

So my opinion is completely irrelevant these days. 

Footballguys access privilege.

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

 

[Henry Ford]

White privilege

Male privilege

Heterosexual privilege

Above average height privilege

Physically in shape privilege

Mentally capable privilege

2 parent household as a kid privilege

Not overly fugly privilege

Raised as a Christian privilege

So my opinion is completely irrelevant these days. 

No, quite the opposite.  As someone who recognizes the privilege he has, your voice as an ally is unbelievably powerful.  Insanely powerful.  Your voice, on the side of people who need allies, can move mountains.  Assuming you're willing to take a back seat in the fight and come into the fray when the people who need allies let you know you can do the most good.

 

[ren hoek]

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? 

Really agree with bolded, although I'd decouple it from 'liberals'.  Most of them deserve better than that.  

It's pretty patronizing to speak out for a different race of people like you understand their feelings because you recognize the privilege you've had, but other people can't understand their plight because of the privilege they've had.  Either people can talk about stuff and relate to each other or they can't.  I'm pretty sure the last thing disadvantaged people want is to be coddled by insulated pc knights with a white savior complex.  

 

[Henry Ford]

No, quite the opposite.  As someone who recognizes the privilege he has, your voice as an ally is unbelievably powerful.  Insanely powerful.  Your voice, on the side of people who need allies, can move mountains.  Assuming you're willing to take a back seat in the fight and come into the fray when the people who need allies let you know you can do the most good.

To piggyback on this - I'd like to bring up two names you may or may not have heard of.  Leslie Dunbar, and Ralph McGill.  Dunbar died a year ago, McGill a long time ago.

Both were absolutely pivotal to the Civil rights movement.  You might never have heard of either.  Both were white.  I have argued in the past (and still do) that the Civil Rights movement would never have had the successes it had without Dunbar, McGill, and people like them.  

Dunbar is probably personally responsible for more black voters being registered to vote than any other human being who's ever lived.  And for making desegregation palatable to while liberals.  And for getting Robert F. Kennedy to get the Justice Department to fund voter registration.  Primarily as a result of his work with the Voter Education Project, 700,000 black voters were registered before the voting rights act.

McGill published the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  'nuff said.  

Incredibly important voices.  Unbelievably influential and powerful.  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Really agree with bolded, although I'd decouple it from 'liberals'.  Most of them deserve better than that.  

It's pretty patronizing to speak out for a different race of people like you understand their feelings because you recognize the privilege you've had, but other people can't understand their plight because of the privilege they've had.  Either people can talk about stuff and relate to each other or they can't.  I'm pretty sure the last thing disadvantaged people want is to be coddled by insulated pc knights with a white savior complex.  

I suspect the irony police are going to give you a citation on this post.  Still, how can we talk if we can't talk because some will purposefully misunderstand us to put us in our place without ever first determining if that is needed or will be productive?

 

[abbottjamesr]

I hate when people talk about White Privilege as it reminds me that I am failing at life on its easiest setting.

 

[The Future Champs]

I reject any discussion that includes the concepts of white privilege and/or white guilt.   If a bunch of bleeding heart liberals want to wallow in it that's their decision for themselves.

 

[-OZ-]

No, quite the opposite.  As someone who recognizes the privilege he has, your voice as an ally is unbelievably powerful.  Insanely powerful.  Your voice, on the side of people who need allies, can move mountains.  Assuming you're willing to take a back seat in the fight and come into the fray when the people who need allies let you know you can do the most good.

So... liking and sometimes sharing stories on Facebook?

 

[Henry Ford]

So... liking and sometimes sharing stories on Facebook?

Do you ever feel like you put a lot of effort into a conversation and the other person isn’t really listening? 

 

[timschochet]

White privilege needn’t have anything to do with guilt. It has to do with remedy. Minorities in our society are at a distinct disadvantage. How best to remedy that? 

 

[adonis]

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?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I've had white privilege invoked in several political discussions I've had on social media over the past couple of years.  Not once did the folks of color who invoked it want any payments, shame, debts to be paid, etc.  They were simply pointing out a factor that may contribute to the lack of understanding by others in the discussion about the need for social programs that benefit the less fortunate.  Acknowledging the privilege was all they wanted, so that we could note that the playing field isn't equal when discussing the relevant policy.

I'll never understand the reluctance by some to admit the good fortune they've experienced. Isn't the good fortune enough?

 

[tommyGunZ]

adonis - this is an inflection point in our countries history.  You're one of the smarter dudes on the board, and I think you're generally on the right side of issues.  Don't be the guy who opposed the Civil Rights marches in the '60s because lots of folks attending those marches parked illegallly.  

 

[adonis]

I've had white privilege invoked in several political discussion I've had on social media over the past couple of years.  Not once did the folks of color who invoked it want any payments, shame, debts to be paid, etc.  They were simply pointing out a factor that may contribute to the lack of understanding by others in the discussion about the need for social programs that benefit the less fortunate.  
I'll never understand the reluctance by some to admit the good fortune they've experienced. Isn't the good fortune enough?

Many people have good fortune.  Black folks born into wealthy families.  Asian folks born into good families with highly educated, healthy, attractive parents.

Good fortune isn't isolated to white folks in America.  If people deny that being white is a benefit in America, then there are better ways to convince them that they're wrong other than throwing a phrase like "white privilege" at them.

And just to be clear, no one has talked about literal debts to be paid...but I'm speaking metaphorically that it's the approach that was taken, as if tallying up generations worth of benefit left current white folks with a balance that was carried at the expense of minorities, that minorities are now calling due.  Again, not literally, but the Puerto Rican friend I was talking to took me back to the history of Puerto Rico, to his ancestry, to the colonization of the island and surrounding areas and how the island and its people have basically been taken advantage of for centuries.  To this day, it's still treated as an asset to be exploited rather than put on equal footing with the other states.  I see his point to a large degree.

The interesting thing to me is that white folks don't require a large narrative to explain their current situation.  We don't need language of oppression, of colonialism, of white privilege in order to understand our place in the world.  It's absolutely true that this implies a sense of privilege, and in this context, most white folks have it.  But I think the difficulty is that while it's very useful for other folks to explain their situation or their history, or perhaps why when they're in the USA they're treated differently, afforded different opportunities, that same framework isn't so useful for white folks.  And "white privilege", "white guilt", etc is an attempt to map a framework that works for the oppressed onto those seen as oppressors, but it's not a framework that works...in fact, it's a framework that ends up being counterproductive.

 

[knowledge dropper]

Not being a tool but which is worse according to intersectionality - race or homosexuality?  Is a heterosexual black male more privileged than a homosexual white male?

 

[adonis]

adonis - this is an inflection point in our countries history.  You're one of the smarter dudes on the board, and I think you're generally on the right side of issues.  Don't be the guy who opposed the Civil Rights marches in the '60s because lots of folks attending those marches parked illegallly.  

I'd be marching right alongside the civil rights folks.  That movement served to empower black folks (and other minorities) by focusing on common rights, on common values, on common humanity.  Look at the speeches from MLK...the appeals to justice, to equality, to fairness were not made simply based on groups, but based on values, based on god-given rights, based on a call to fulfill our purpose as a nation, a call to fulfill our founding principles.

I stand with every minority, every oppressed person on that level.  On a level that we're all created equal.  That we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That our country should strive to be as colorblind as possible, to afford folks an equal shot at success whenever possible.

And most of all, I'm in support of methods and practices that are MOST likely to get us there.  It's my view that things like identity politics, "white privilege" and otherwise shaming of the majority white group in America is what lead us to Trump, in large part, and is undoing a lot of the good that has been done recently by folks like Obama and other progressives.

So just be careful in suggesting that I'm going to be on the wrong side of history.  I agree with the end goal, but I take major issue with the tactics currently being used to get us there.  Huge difference between that and being opposed to the end goals.

 

[Henry Ford]

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?

I think I’ve acknowledged repeatedly in this discussion over two threads that it’s treated that way in many discussions and that’s very problematic.  If you haven’t seen that in my posts, I’ll try to be clearer about it.  Though I’m not sure how to be. 

 

[adonis]

I think I’ve acknowledged repeatedly in this discussion that it’s treated that way in many discussions and that’s very problematic.  If you haven’t seen that in my posts, I’ll try to be clearer about it.  Though I’m not sure how to be. 

Understood, sometimes I focus more on disagreements than areas of agreement.  

I appreciate your approach to the concept of "white privilege", even though I think that with the baggage that comes with the term being commonly associated with shame and guilt, that its use as an effective tool to get people to a better place is in serious doubt. 

I find it to be so problematic a phrase, and so counterproductive to rational and reasonable conversations that it's better just not to mention it especially when the same outcomes can be obtained through a more accessible route.

 

[Henry Ford]

I also think that it all starts with just acknowledging.  And recognizing that people will react to that acknowledgment differently.  A lot of people of color get pretty angry when they first put a name to it and don’t react perfectly how we’d like.  I think that’s to be expected too. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Understood, sometimes I focus more on disagreements than areas of agreement.  

I appreciate your approach to the concept of "white privilege", even though I think that with the baggage that comes with the term being commonly associated with shame and guilt, that its use as an effective tool to get people to a better place is in serious doubt. 

I find it to be so problematic a phrase, and so counterproductive to rational and reasonable conversations that it's better just not to mention it especially when the same outcomes can be obtained through a more accessible route.

I get that you feel that way, but that phrase isn’t going anywhere. 

 

[adonis]

I get that you feel that way, but that phrase isn’t going anywhere. 

I dare say our ultimate goals for humanity are relatively well aligned.  

I find identity politics, concepts like "white privilege" and intersectionality to be incredibly counterproductive towards achieving the goals I want to see achieved.

Is it correct to say that you have no such issue with those things?  Or are you just resigned to the fact that they're not going anywhere, without making a judgment on whether or not they should?

 

[wikkidpissah]

Not being a tool but which is worse according to intersectionality - race or homosexuality?  Is a heterosexual black male more privileged than a homosexual white male?

just not only accept but embrace every candyass notion a millennial can conjur and you'll be fine

 

[Henry Ford]

I dare say our ultimate goals for humanity are relatively well aligned.  

I find identity politics, concepts like "white privilege" and intersectionality to be incredibly counterproductive towards achieving the goals I want to see achieved.

Is it correct to say that you have no such issue with those things?  Or are you just resigned to the fact that they're not going anywhere, without making a judgment on whether or not they should?

I think that I and people like me have told people what they’re allowed to call me and people like me for a long time.  I don’t really care what words people use if their concepts are reasonable. 

On the flip side, some people do the opposite and it bothers me. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Not being a tool but which is worse according to intersectionality - race or homosexuality?  Is a heterosexual black male more privileged than a homosexual white male?

Probably depends on context. Are you applying for a job in New York City or trying to get married in rural Alabama?

 

[adonis]

I think that I and people like me have told people what they’re allowed to call me and people like me for a long time.  I don’t really care what words people use if their concepts are reasonable. 

On the flip side, some people do the opposite and it bothers me. 

So this is what I don't get. 

Because of the bad actions of people who are not you but who shared a common skin color and perhaps lineage, you are ceding your right to have an opinion on whether it's an effective term to be used in conversations today to achieve specific political goals?

 

[Henry Ford]

So this is what I don't get. 

Because of the bad actions of people who are not you but who shared a common skin color and perhaps lineage, you are ceding your right to have an opinion on whether it's an effective term to be used in conversations today to achieve specific political goals?

No. I can have an opinion.  I happen to not care, but I get to have one.  It just doesn’t override his freedom to speak how he would like to.  And nothing at all will ever change unless people like you and me listen to what people who have traditionally been silenced have to say.  And if i say I won’t have  conversation if someone uses a particular term, I’m refusing to listen.  

Edit: it’s also not just people like me.  I’ve not always been all that liberal.  I choose to be so now. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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? 

White privilege is a real thing.  But your friend is a moron for the bolded part.

 

[Henry Ford]

It’s kind of like the thread I started about universal healthcare, explicitly asking not to talk about costs.  Because people shut down the conversation with cost.  That thread just devolved into people telling me they didn’t think the thread was any good because they only wanted to talk about it in conjunction with cost.  

Similarly, if we will only engage on our terms and have to solve our semantic issues before we listen, we never talk about the concerns. 

 

[Henry Ford]

White privilege is a real thing.  But your friend is a moron for the bolded part.

 

[Doug B]

White privilege needn’t have anything to do with guilt. It has to do with remedy. Minorities in our society are at a distinct disadvantage. How best to remedy that? 

One thing I've always had in the back of my mind when I read these threads is "Somebody has to be dispossessed. A whole lot of somebodies".

There's no credible way to even minimally approach a fair society for all, is there? Dispossession, disadvantage ... someone must get pushed down to the bottom, right? At the same time, it's not fair for any group of people to accept that, right? So where does overall society ultimately go?

 

[adonis]

It’s kind of like the thread I started about universal healthcare, explicitly asking not to talk about costs.  Because people shut down the conversation with cost.  That thread just devolved into people telling me they didn’t think the thread was any good because they only wanted to talk about it in conjunction with cost.  

Similarly, if we will only engage on our terms and have to solve our semantic issues before we listen, we never talk about the concerns. 

I think you may be missing my point though.

My point isn't a semantic one, it's a fundamental issue with the approach currently en vogue.  The term "white privilege" and the concept of "intersectionality" are simply symptomatic of the underlying issues with identity politics, which pits groups against each other based on artificially drawn lines.  This is divisive, and causes backlash that's unhelpful to achieving the desired goals.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think you may be missing my point though.

My point isn't a semantic one, it's a fundamental issue with the approach currently en vogue.  The term "white privilege" and the concept of "intersectionality" are simply symptomatic of the underlying issues with identity politics, which pits groups against each other based on artificially drawn lines.  This is divisive, and causes backlash that's unhelpful to achieving the desired goals.

Do you believe that the people who talk about white privilege and intersectionality invented that divide? are they maybe trying to fix problems in a world where that divide is already in existence?

Because one option is to refuse to hear or address those concerns until we solve the problem of artificial divides between us created by societal pressures and identity politics.  I don’t think that’s very reasonable though.  

 

[Da Guru]

One thing I've always had in the back of my mind when I read these threads is "Somebody has to be dispossessed. A whole lot of somebodies".

There's no credible way to even minimally approach a fair society for all, is there? Dispossession, disadvantage ... someone must get pushed down to the bottom, right? At the same time, it's not fair for any group of people to accept that, right? So where does overall society ultimately go?

I told my dad when I was 12 I don`t think I want to go to college...I remember his words to this day "Well the world needs ditch diggers too" In all societies some class is always going to be feel somewhat "oppressed" 

If the USA was 100% white it would be the rich vs the poor warfare. The haves vs the have not's.

 

[Doug B]

Right, Da Guru -- in a Land of Millionaires, the people with $900,000 are taking to the streets.

 

[Doug B]

Because one option is to refuse to hear or address those concerns until we solve the problem of artificial divides between us created by societal pressures and identity politics.  I don’t think that’s very reasonable though.  

Solutions to the broader concerns gain traction when most people feel an underlying sense of commonality. That doesn't have to be along racial or economic lines (and almost certainly won't be) -- but groups of people pulling in a bunch of different directions isn't going to get anything done, either, IMHO.

 

[adonis]

I think you may be missing my point though.

My point isn't a semantic one, it's a fundamental issue with the approach currently en vogue.  The term "white privilege" and the concept of "intersectionality" are simply symptomatic of the underlying issues with identity politics, which pits groups against each other based on artificially drawn lines.  This is divisive, and causes backlash that's unhelpful to achieving the desired goals.

Do you believe that the people who talk about white privilege and intersectionality invented that divide? are they maybe trying to fix problems in a world where that divide is already in existence?

Because one option is to refuse to hear or address those concerns until we solve the problem of artificial divides between us created by societal pressures and identity politics.  I don’t think that’s very reasonable though.  

There are real divides in society between various groups.  How a movement groups folks is incredibly important in determining policies or actions that can benefit the group, and also potentially can affect buy-in of a significant number of americans.

For instance, you can group people artificially by race.  You can also group them together by a social class.  You can also group them together by sexual orientation.

Which of those is a stronger predictor of wellbeing in America?  (answer: social class)

If we could gear policies and improvements to groups based on class instead of other identity based categories, a huge number of minorities would be affected, as well as white folks and you may get the political sway necessary to actually do something.

But so long as we continue to focus on divisions in our country around identity, progressives will continue to be splintered and run the risk of a backlash the likes of which helped elect Trump.

 

[adonis]

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? 

White privilege is a real thing.  But your friend is a moron for the bolded part.

I was shocked, and left speechless, at this point.  I literally was asking "So you think the truth of scientific findings is biased by the race of the people conducting the studies?" and he said Yes.  Truth was relative to the people with the power.  The winners write the history, and they control everything else.

This is his narrative.  He has slave blood, African slave blood in his veins because apparently Puerto Rico used slaves from Africa not too long ago, and there was intermarrying and rape among the colonists and the slaves, and many Puerto Ricans have this heritage.  So there is a long history of colonialism, oppression, etc...and with how Puerto Rico is currently being treated by this country, it's hard to fault a sense of bitterness.

But it's in the extreme to which these views are taken which is problematic to me.  Everything becomes relative to personal experience (and I mean everything, including scientific truths) when you go very far down the "white privilege" pathway.

He's a great guy, and it was eye opening to hear the story of his family, and his perspective on America.  He's a citizen, obviously, but in the broader country and Louisiana in particular, he's an outsider.  I don't know what that feels like.  And despite disagreeing with some of what he was saying, I listened closely to what he had to say.

It's clear that his identity as a Puerto Rican is incredibly important to him and it flavors how he sees the world, and his relationship to any other person in it.  But at a certain point, when you remain too far down in that identity and start looking at everyone in america who has their own equally deep, equally important identity, if that's where we have to relate to each other we're all screwed.  Rather, I think we should take several steps up from that type of identity, and find things that allow us to more easily relate to each other, and try to fix issues at that level.  

 

[rockaction]

I think we're being too nice. I escaped Nazi occupation by not even barely a generation in Eastern Europe. I have no taste for identity politics, nationalism, or anything that doesn't say what Allan Bloom noted of W.E.B. DuBois when he said that he desired nothing more than to walk with Socrates and discuss things with him as an equal. 

I just...will never get it, but like I've said to friends before, "If enough people tell you something..." 

Then again, that's a problematic formula in its own right. What of individual conscience?  

 

[dutch]

My black son has to be more aware of his surroundings in our predominantly white town than I do and I feel no guilt at acknowledging that fact but am pragmatic enough to impart that reality to my son so he can take heed.  And my state is also predominantly white, as is my country so he has to be mindful in a vast swath of society.

 

[Henry Ford]

There are real divides in society between various groups.  How a movement groups folks is incredibly important in determining policies or actions that can benefit the group, and also potentially can affect buy-in of a significant number of americans.

For instance, you can group people artificially by race.  You can also group them together by a social class.  You can also group them together by sexual orientation.

Which of those is a stronger predictor of wellbeing in America?  (answer: social class)

If we could gear policies and improvements to groups based on class instead of other identity based categories, a huge number of minorities would be affected, as well as white folks and you may get the political sway necessary to actually do something.

But so long as we continue to focus on divisions in our country around identity, progressives will continue to be splintered and run the risk of a backlash the likes of which helped elect Trump.

Until we are willing to recognize that people who belong to these made up groups are treated differently than those who aren’t we will always be fractured.  And recognizing isn’t just seeing and hearing, it’s acknowledging without a “yeah but.”

 

[Henry Ford]

I think we're being too nice. I escaped Nazi occupation by not even barely a generation in Eastern Europe. I have no taste for identity politics, nationalism, or anything that doesn't say what Allan Bloom noted of W.E.B. DuBois when he said that he desired nothing more than to walk with Socrates and discuss things with him as an equal. 

I just...will never get it, but like I've said to friends before, "If enough people tell you something..." 

Then again, that's a problematic formula in its own right. What of individual conscience?  

You don’t have to agree because lots of people say something.  But you should consider with an open mind.  

 

[adonis]

Until we are willing to recognize that people who belong to these made up groups are treated differently than those who aren’t we will always be fractured.  And recognizing isn’t just seeing and hearing, it’s acknowledging without a “yeah but.”

They are treated differently, there's no "yeah but" at least from me.

The fact that they're treated differently is injustice.  It needs resolution, it needs to be fixed.  I support methods that are productive towards fixing the injustice in our society, and I think it's useful to point out frameworks and language that is counterproductive.  Especially when it seems the conventional wisdom is that it's useful and productive.

 

[Henry Ford]

They are treated differently, there's no "yeah but" at least from me.

The fact that they're treated differently is injustice.  It needs resolution, it needs to be fixed.  I support methods that are productive towards fixing the injustice in our society, and I think it's useful to point out frameworks and language that is counterproductive.  Especially when it seems the conventional wisdom is that it's useful and productive.

That “treated differently” is what White Privilege means. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

You don’t have to agree because lots of people say something.  But you should consider with an open mind.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFTvENHcobM

 

[tommyGunZ]

"I understand your race has been systemically disadvantaged for centuries in this country and in many respects it continues to this day, but as a white male I'm deeply offended by the terminology you're choosing to use to describe the advantages folks like me have been granted, often at your race's expense. So please stop using that term or I won't listen. Please pass the Grey Poupon."     

 

[Henry Ford]

I had a massive blow up when I was much younger with a mentor about how I agreed with her about everything but I thought the term “feminist” just continued to divide us and I consider myself a humanist and won’t discuss it in terms of feminism. 

I still shake my head and feel a little silly when I think of that. 

 

[adonis]

"I understand your race has been systemically disadvantaged for centuries in this country and in many respects it continues to this day, but as a white male I'm deeply offended by the terminology you're choosing to use to describe the advantages folks like me have been granted, often at your race's expense. So please stop using that term or I won't listen. Please pass the Grey Poupon."     

I'm not deeply offended by the terminology, i just think it's counter productive when it's typically used in conversations.  I do think it's wrong if someone expands white privilege to suggest I should feel guilt or shame about things my ancestors did but that I work hard to not do in my life.  And I don't believe at any point in any of my posts did I say that I wouldn't listen to someone if they said "white privilege", but rather that I believe there are other methods to arrive at the same goal that are more effective.

After all, shouldn't folks who think inequality is bad be interested in achieving a solution in an effective manner, and avoiding potential counter-productive outcomes?