How Would You Define the Concept of "White Privilege"?

[Sunstone]

Please Note Well: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. This request might be a wee bit quixotic for the internet, but please approach this topic in the spirit of seeking to understand each other's views, rather than in the spirit of seeking to refute them.




How would you define the concept of "white privilege"?

What is your understanding of its significance or importance?

What, if anything, do you see as its merits?

What, if anything, do you see as its weaknesses?

 

[Curious George]

White privilege is the statistical trends of racial advantages and disadvantage that reflect the disparity we see by group demographics.

It is important because it helps account for disparities we see across demographics. This in turn allows us to focus our efforts to eliminate racial disparities. Further it helps tie concepts together in an effort to identify root causes of such disparity.

The name white privilege is equivalently discussed by speaking about statistical disadvantages. However, using the name privilege reinforces the concept that there is a flip side to the coin of disadvantage. Namely, that where one is disadvantaged another draws a benefit. This ideally would help make the racial disparity relevant and avoid apathetic responses. When acts of prejudice occur, many will try to disassociate from those acts. This is true even of those who unknowingly draw an advantage from those acts of prejudice. Emphasizing privilege helps to focus the responsibility on the group as a whole.

The weakness is that the term is misused and misapplied. This results in a p*ssing contest about who is more disadvantaged. There is always someone more disadvantaged. Especially when we consider those with moderate to severe special needs. Think you got it bad? Try not being able to talk, or walk or have 40 seizures a day. This isn't the point of privilege discussion yet it is always where privilege discussions seem to end. Similar to having to walk uphill 60miles both ways barefoot, people can't seem to help measuring their johnsons. So ideas like white privilege that deal with group dynamics end up being internalized and applied to and by individuals.

 

[Sunstone]

White privilege is the statistical trends of racial advantages and disadvantage that reflect the disparity we see by group demographics.

It is important because it helps account for disparities we see across demographics. This in turn allows us to focus our efforts to eliminate racial disparities. Further it helps tie concepts together in an effort to identify root causes of such disparity.

The name white privilege is equivalently discussed by speaking about statistical disadvantages. However, using the name privilege reinforces the concept that there is a flip side to the coin of disadvantage. Namely, that where one is disadvantaged another draws a benefit. This ideally would help make the racial disparity relevant and avoid apathetic responses. When acts of prejudice occur, many will try to disassociate from those acts. This is true even of those who unknowingly draw an advantage from those acts of prejudice. Emphasizing privilege helps to focus the responsibility on the group as a whole.

The weakness is that the term is misused and misapplied. This results in a p*ssing contest about who is more disadvantaged. There is always someone more disadvantaged. Especially when we consider those with moderate to severe special needs. Think you got it bad? Try not being able to talk, or walk or have 40 seizures a day. This isn't the point of privilege discussion yet it is always where privilege discussions seem to end. Similar to having to walk uphill 60miles both ways barefoot, people can't seem to help measuring their johnsons. So ideas like white privilege that deal with group dynamics end up being internalized and applied to and by individuals.

Thank you so much for such a detailed, articulate, and thought-provoking response. Much appreciated. Not by me, of course. I am incapable of appreciating anything worth appreciating. But I'm sure it was much appreciated by someone.

 

[Curious George]

Thank you so much for such a detailed, articulate, and thought-provoking response. Much appreciated. Not by me, of course. I am incapable of appreciating anything worth appreciating. But I'm sure it was much appreciated by someone.

I appreciate your appreciation even if modesty forbids you from acknowledging it.

 

[Augustus]

How would you define the concept of "white privilege"?

That the average non-white person is more likely to experience discrimination or disadvantage than the average white person for whom this constitutes 'privilege'.

What is your understanding of its significance or importance?

It's a great example of well-meaning people causing harm with bad ideas.

What, if anything, do you see as its merits?

In a limited context, it offers a different way of looking at the relationship between disadvantage and advantage which can be useful, although I think this disappears when it turns into a catch-all concept operating in uncontrolled societal discourse.

What, if anything, do you see as its weaknesses?

The major problem with this, and modern "woke" antiracist ideology* in general is that it is completely counterproductive (*"woke" antiracist ideology is used for want of a better term and does not mean simply "one who is opposed to racism"). The more you ensure people have to focus on race and the more you force people to see their identity in terms of race, the more people discriminate. As well as being entirely consistent with what we know about human psychology, there are several scientific studies that have shown this specifically (see: Race and identity politics). Creating a reductionist "white" v "people of colour" dichotomy is not a good way to reduce discrimination and also operates as a terrible paradigm to understand the complexities of human history, identity and society.

Also, accepting you benefit from unearned "white" privilege is shameful, and requires 'repentance'. Once you make being "white" shameful, you incentivise "woke" people to try to manufacture an identity as a "person of colour" (My great-grandmother was Native American!) as this bestows virtue, absent this one has to outwardly demonstrate virtue in other ways to signify they are a "good white". This is evidenced by the fact that white progressives are the only demographic to have expressed a stronger preference for other racial groups compared to their own.

In addition, it also makes it easy for people to overstate the degree of privilege/discrimination in society. You see this all the time when people take a single issue of a negative outcome for a "person of colour"/positive outcome for a "white" (let's say harsh treatment by police/soft treatment by police) and state that this clearly demonstrates "white privilege". Absent clear proof that racism/favouritism was in play, no single event with variable outcomes can be assumed to demonstrate "privilege", even if we accept the overall trend exists. People who have never been significantly discriminated against can also still feel that the must have been hard done by because "white privilege", and that the key factor leading to differing individual/group outcomes must be discrimination.

"White privilege" also suffers from being one of the worst ways to 'brand' an issue given that it can produce a strong negative response even among people who accept (systemic) racial discrimination as a problem and support attempts to minimise it. It also turns an issue that most people support (reducing discrimination), into a highly partisan issue (white privilege). Given that academics are, on average, among the worst communicators in human history, and this issue is largely a 'sacred' ideological tenet rather than a practical attempt at solving a problem, such a terrible 'branding' is hardly surprising.

 

[PureX]

White privilege is the statistical trends of racial advantages and disadvantage that reflect the disparity we see by group demographics.

It is important because it helps account for disparities we see across demographics. This in turn allows us to focus our efforts to eliminate racial disparities. Further it helps tie concepts together in an effort to identify root causes of such disparity.

The name white privilege is equivalently discussed by speaking about statistical disadvantages. However, using the name privilege reinforces the concept that there is a flip side to the coin of disadvantage. Namely, that where one is disadvantaged another draws a benefit. This ideally would help make the racial disparity relevant and avoid apathetic responses. When acts of prejudice occur, many will try to disassociate from those acts. This is true even of those who unknowingly draw an advantage from those acts of prejudice. Emphasizing privilege helps to focus the responsibility on the group as a whole.

The weakness is that the term is misused and misapplied. This results in a p*ssing contest about who is more disadvantaged. There is always someone more disadvantaged. Especially when we consider those with moderate to severe special needs. Think you got it bad? Try not being able to talk, or walk or have 40 seizures a day. This isn't the point of privilege discussion yet it is always where privilege discussions seem to end. Similar to having to walk uphill 60miles both ways barefoot, people can't seem to help measuring their johnsons. So ideas like white privilege that deal with group dynamics end up being internalized and applied to and by individuals.

Thank you for this illuminating description. I would also point out, however, that what we are talking about, here, isn't just statistical. It's a very real and very pervasive collection of effective advantages that are being given to a segment of our population, and that are so persistently applied in our culture and society that they are presumed immutable.

I am sadly stunned by how many of the people who have received these advantages all their lives, are completely oblivious of them, and moreover, are determined to remain that way.

 

[LuisDantas]

How would you define the concept of "white privilege"?

It is the expectation that sufficiently caucasian-like people "should" have a certain degree of confort, certainty, or assurance in most situations, while other people are not assured the same transit.

What is your understanding of its significance or importance?

It is important to acknowledge its existence, to understand its historical origins, and the reasons why it is inherently unfair and must be destroyed. Because the alternative is to deny people proper acknowledgement, recognition and opportunity due to circunstances of birth.

What, if anything, do you see as its merits?

Nothing. For those that it favors, it is a crutch that endangers their moral integrity and honesty. For those that it excludes, it is a denial of dignity.

What, if anything, do you see as its weaknesses?

It is so darned arbitrary that it can't help but crumble under its own weight eventually. It is wise to allow it to without attempting to preserve "the way things used to be".

 

[PureX]

The more you ensure people have to focus on race and the more you force people to see their identity in terms of race, the more people discriminate.

But we can't fight racial oppression by ignoring racial oppression, either.

As well as being entirely consistent with what we know about human psychology, there are several scientific studies that have shown this specifically (see: Race and identity politics). Creating a reductionist "white" v "people of colour" dichotomy is not a good way to reduce discrimination and also operates as a terrible paradigm to understand the complexities of human history, identity and society.

It is, however, still essentially a psychological problem that manifests socially. And it's not going to go away by ignoring it.

Also, accepting you benefit from unearned "white" privilege is shameful, and requires 'repentance'. Once you make being "white" shameful, you incentivise "woke" people to try to manufacture an identity as a "person of colour" (My great-grandmother was Native American!) as this bestows virtue, absent this one has to outwardly demonstrate virtue in other ways to signify they are a "good white". This is evidenced by the fact that white progressives are the only demographic to have expressed a stronger preference for other racial groups compared to their own.

No one is suggesting that it's "shameful" until it's been acknowledged, and THEN willfully endorsed and exploited. Which is why there is such an intense push to refuse to recognize it as a legitimate phenomenon.

 

[Stevicus]

Please Note Well: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. This request might be a wee bit quixotic for the internet, but please approach this topic in the spirit of seeking to understand each other's views, rather than in the spirit of seeking to refute them.




How would you define the concept of "white privilege"?

What is your understanding of its significance or importance?

What, if anything, do you see as its merits?

What, if anything, do you see as its weaknesses?

I suppose an example of it might be a situation where a white person walks through a certain neighborhood, and is left alone and nobody thinks twice about it. A black person might walk through the same neighborhood, and people would become wary - and some might even call the police.

It would appear to be a legacy of centuries of racism, which seems to continue to persist to this day. Although nowadays, it hasn't been quite so overt or obvious as it was decades ago.

But a term like "white privilege" might be harder to define and discern, since it implies something more subtle and stealthy - not something quite so obvious as a sign that says "whites only." It's easy to address and change an actual written law or policy which is overtly racist, but when it comes to things which are subtle, vague, not overtly expressed, or otherwise in the realm of gut feelings and impressions, it's harder to pin down.

I would suppose there's some significance to the concept in the sense that, as a society, there still seems to be widespread confusion and disagreement. A common argument I've seen is when someone might point to a certain politician and say "he's a racist," there might be others who disagree and say that he isn't a racist. This phenomenon may not be directly related to the concept of "white privilege," but it's indicative of how much of a variance there is in perception and understanding.

I was thinking about this when I saw another thread about feminism, and I've noticed the tendency in the realm of "social justice academicians" to use high-falutin', academic jargon to an excessive degree, making such terms and concepts inaccessible to a large percentage of the US population. Their message is meant to impress professors from the Ivy League, but it doesn't exactly impart or convey all that much which is useful to the masses.

I also get the impression that, when a term like "white privilege" is brought up, most people might focus on the word "white," how it's defined and how it's perceived - yet not so much on the word "privilege," which might be the greater problem.

The easiest way to eliminate privilege is to implement a classless society, but since there are too many people opposed to that idea (including many liberals and so-called "SJWs"), we end up stuck in the kind of political quagmire which is evident these days.

 

[Augustus]

But we can't fight racial oppression by ignoring racial oppression, either.
It is, however, still essentially a psychological problem that manifests socially. And it's not going to go away by ignoring it.

As Sir Sunstone requested no debating, I won't go into detail, but to clarify my point reducing 'passive' discrimination which is often subconscious, likely relies on organic change over time. Explicit attempts to engineer it away will likely be counterproductive for the reasons mentioned and others I could go into were this a debate thread.

You can't 'fix' human cognitive shortcomings simply by making people aware of them, and just because a problem exists it doesn't mean any well-meaning action must be desirable.

No one is suggesting that it's "shameful" until it's been acknowledged, and THEN willfully endorsed and exploited. Which is why there is such an intense push to refuse to recognize it as a legitimate phenomenon.

To clarify, many people reject the framing rather than rejecting the idea that some degree of discrimination still exists.

An interesting thought experiment:

If someone simply says "privilege" on its own, what is the mental association conjured up?

For many people it's going to be top hat and monocle wearing, mansion dwelling, prep school attending fops. Many people will never overcome this emotionally driven stigma.

That is why "white privilege" is a case study in how not to frame an issue if you want to be persuasive.

 

[Polymath257]

I see 'white privilege' as being the fact that I often get the 'benefit of the doubt' in many situations.

So, because of my skin I don't have to worry about driving a nice car in a nice neighborhood.

Because of my skin, I can go into stores and not be followed around.

Because of my skin, an interaction with police is much less fraught with danger. I never had to have 'the talk' when I was young.

There are a thousand 'little' aspects of social and legal interaction where I get a 'benefit of the doubt' simply because of my skin.

The importance is that even in an otherwise level playing field, the little doubts tend to run in my favor. For those that don't get such a benefit, the cumulative effect of these 'little' judgements is oppressive.

 

[Sunstone]

...what we are talking about, here, isn't just statistical.

Thank you so much, PureX for sharing your views on White Privilege. They are valuable and helpful to me, and I am sure to others as well.

I must point out, however, that your effort to "correct" and "inform" a fellow poster in this thread amounts to debating them. As you know, I am not only requesting that everyone refrain from indulging themselves in debate, but debating is also a rules violation in the context of this discussion thread. Fortunately, you do not need to explicitly quote and "correct" your fellow posters in order to share your own views.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

How would you define the concept of "white privilege"?

The concept of white privilege is derived from a social-political ideology which claims that all "white" people, regardless of position or status in society, benefit from advantages granted to them by their peers on the sole basis of being perceived as part of the "white" race.

What is your understanding of its significance or importance?

The concept of white privilege is typically used to explain economic disparities between races, such as wealth and income. In addition, it is often used as justification to implement equity policies.

What, if anything, do you see as its merits?

The concept correctly asserts that there are economic disparities between races.

What, if anything, do you see as its weaknesses?

The concept is not well-supported by scientific evidence and is inconsistent with several racial-economic statistics. The concept likely psychologically burdens minorities with the expectation of failure and underachievement.

 

[Sunstone]

***Mod Post***

Please take care to avoid quoting other posters in this thread in order to "correct", "contradict", or "inform" them of something they "should know". Such behavior can easily be perceived as debating and/or encouraging debate in a discussion thread. Fortunately, it is not necessary to pointedly and explicitly correct, contradict, or inform other posters in order to express your own views on white priviledge.​

 

[PureX]

You can't 'fix' human cognitive shortcomings simply by making people aware of them, ...

But certainly is a good place to start. And the next step would be to get them to recognize the injustice of it, and therefor the damage it's doing to a great many fellow humans. In other words, WHY internal changes are needed.

To clarify, many people reject the framing rather than rejecting the idea that some degree of discrimination still exists.

Sure, they reject any 'framing' that shows themselves to be in any way complicit. Society is clearly racist, but never the individuals in it! Or at least, never THIS individual! Hence, the prerequisites above.

 

[PureX]

Thank you so much, PureX for sharing your views on White Privilege. They are valuable and helpful to me, and I am sure to others as well.

I must point out, however, that your effort to "correct" and "inform" a fellow poster in this thread amounts to debating them.

I disagree. Just because my observations don't agree with someone else's, and I post them, anyway, does not mean I am "debating" them. Nor does this comment mean that I am "debating" you. I am simply contributing my observations/opinions on the subject. And if this is "debating", then I'm not sure what ISN'T debating?

 

[Sunstone]

I disagree. Just because my observations don't agree with someone else's, and I post them, anyway, does not mean I am "debating" them. Nor does this comment mean that I am "debating" you. I am simply contributing my observations/opinions on the subject. And if this is "debating", then I'm not sure what ISN'T debating?

Your disagreement is noted, and thank you for your input. However, I feel for the sake of fairness that I must inform you -- or anyone who starts a debate in this thread -- that the rules you promised to respect and abide by when you joined the Forum shall be fully and justly enforced. Just so you know.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I disagree. Just because my observations don't agree with someone else's, and I post them, anyway, does not mean I am "debating" them. Nor does this comment mean that I am "debating" you. I am simply contributing my observations/opinions on the subject. And if this is "debating", then I'm not sure what ISN'T debating?

Discussion, in the general context of how we set up the discussion v debate terms on rf, is answering questions rather than rebutting statements.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I've always liked the explanation that privilege does not mean your life can't be hard, it means that having x quality isn't one of the reasons why it's hard for you. Anyone and everyone has some degree of privilege. Isolating out white privilege from the discussion, imo, completely misses how it works into intersectionality, which strives to understand why law, belief, treatment, etc, can have different impacts within a dynamic community based on various qualities individuals in that community have. We talk a lot about white privilege because race relations is a big thing in the current cultural discussion, but every non-white person who isn't disabled has 'abled privilege.' Non-white disabled people can have gender or sexuality privilige or wealth bracket privilege.

Where intersectionality is useful is when it has a goal to distribute X resource, be it information, law etc takes into account individual statuses which might inhibit equal access to that resource. Such as, X movement doesn't have a strong following among those effected in poverty because it's largely an online movement and access to internet while in poverty is limited.
Where intersectionality is NOT useful is attempting to use privilege to evoke shame, or to use one privilege set in isolation from the rest. Once again, everyone has some degree of privilege. Having privilege is a neutral certainty in a dynamic social group.

 

[MikeDwight]

I did have to work pretty hard not to get informed on it by other posters. Thanks.
How would you define the concept of "white privilege"?
Clearly Europe had a habitable advantage in resources, mineral, farm, situation, says authors, and we're talking about the perception that they've been able to maintain their advantages as a cultural normalcy.
What is your understanding of its significance or importance?
Irrational decisionmaking, lets not forget . Improper and unfair disadvantage.
What, if anything, do you see as its merits?
odd section, quantifying the world
What, if anything, do you see as its weaknesses?
odd section, stereotyping