jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (117 posts)

White privilege - What to do about it?

  1. mrpopo profile image88
    mrpopoposted 6 months ago

    Privilege is defined as “a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.” White privilege means that there are rights, immunities or benefits enjoyed only by whites because society places whites in a higher position than minorities. Some examples of this include better access to loans, bandaids matching the colour of your skin and shampoos suited for typical white hair.

    So let's assume white privilege exists. Now that it's recognized, what are we supposed to do about it?

    Friendly reminder that, while this may be a sensitive topic of discussion, we should try to keep it civil and understand the opposite point of view. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the last thread. Looking forward to your suggestions.

    Source on white privilege definition and examples: http://www.cpt.org/files/Undoing%20Raci … endall.pdf

    1. theraggededge profile image94
      theraggededgeposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Here in the UK, the opposite is true, minority groups, and their members (whatever their colour), tend to have more influence and priority over such things as policy, employment, media etc.

      As to your examples, they are marketing to their customer base. I have seen plenty of beauty products catering to non-whites. Loans and mortgages in the UK are based on criteria such as earnings, credit ratings, etc., not skin colour.

      So, no, I don't agree with your assumption as it applies to my experience. However, you may only be referring to the US, in that case, I can't comment.

      1. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the response theraggededge. Believe me, I'm more than aware that there are serious flaws with these examples. I didn't come up with them. I'm just accepting them as valid for the sake of argument because I want to know what those who insist on the existence of white privilege want to do about it.

        Incidentally, I've seen the same pattern in Canada and the US to varying degrees. An ubiquitous statement like white privilege is easily debunked with examples of minorities having more influence and priority, but I'm going to be charitable and assume they mean "on average."

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Those accustomed to privilege often perceive measures to ensure racial equality as examples of minorities being given "more influence and priority" (my emphasis). For those accustomed to being disadvantaged, the same measures are just seen as examples of levelling an uneven playing field. So I think it's a mistake to suggest the notion of white privilege has been debunked. It doesn't follow that because some advances have been made in levelling a playing field, that the field is now level.

          The examples you cite in your (hypothetical) acceptance of white privilege are not representative of the range of issues related to racial inequality. Examples of the wider range of issues you could have used include the privilege of:

          Receiving sentences for drug offenses that are 20 times shorter than black defendants who commit the same crime, and who have a similar criminal history;

          Being stopped less often by police while driving, and searched less often when stopped, despite statistics showing that a higher percentage of white drivers searched are found to be carrying contraband and/ or weapons in their vehicle;   

          Being less likely to be excluded from school, or receive sanctions than non-white children, for the same types of infractions;

          Being 50% more likely to have a CV accepted for interview than CV's with "ethnic sounding" names, despite listing the same knowledge, skills and experience.

          Being charged less interest on personal loans, than those from ethnic minorities, despite having the same personal risk profile.

          Being shown 17% more properties than black people, despite both being equally qualified to buy or rent.

          The justice system, law enforcement, education housing, finance; all fundamental aspects of society. Examples of racial inequality that negatively impacts non white people have been highlighted in all of them.

          What should we do about racial inequality?

          1) Stop playing the blame/ guilt game. These inequalities do not imply personal racism. They are systemic issues, and although such issues do stem from individual prejudices (pre-judgments), that prejudice is not always conscious and deliberate.

          2) Stop pretending racial inequality does not exist, and that non white people are disproportionately affected by it. It does, and they are.

          3) Listen to what others are saying about it

          I think that would be a useful start.

          1. mrpopo profile image88
            mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            "Those accustomed to privilege often perceive measures to ensure racial equality as examples of minorities being given "more influence and priority" (my emphasis). For those accustomed to being disadvantaged, the same measures are just seen as examples of levelling an uneven playing field."

            You're right; that's why I don't trust either biased perspective. Here's my suggestion: instead of disputing the ability or inability to perceive privilege (an unfalsifiable statement), how about we examine evidence of the playing field, its balance and how it came about?

            "So I think it's a mistake to suggest the notion of white privilege has been debunked."

            I qualified white privilege when it's used ubiquitously. Saying that all white people are more privileged than all minorities is demonstrably false. The term does invoke that notion even if it does not intend to - unfortunately, that is the nature of making a statement in the form of race + a negative trait.

            "It doesn't follow that because some advances have been made in levelling a playing field, that the field is now level."

            I never said the field is now level. I am suggesting that the field may not be level for reasons outside of racism, and that expecting 100% level balance is very likely a mistake.

            "The examples you cite in your (hypothetical) acceptance of white privilege are not representative of the range of issues related to racial inequality."

            They were the only examples cited in a paper of white privilege by a notable author. They are common examples outside of that source. If they're not representative perhaps you should contact the authors with better, less ridiculous examples.

            "Being stopped less often by police while driving, and searched less often when stopped, despite statistics showing that a higher percentage of white drivers searched are found to be carrying contraband and/ or weapons in their vehicle;"

            The first part can be explained if black drivers are more likely to speed or break traffic laws than white drivers. I can't speculate any further unless you give me a source. I know that the Department of Justice commissioned a study on the New Jersey Turnpike and found that blacks were more likely to speed than whites in the early 2000s. Funny enough, that study was commissioned specifically because of accusations of profiling. It's almost like correlation doesn't equal causation.

            As for your other examples, I'd like specific sources on them as well.

            "1) Stop playing the blame/ guilt game."

            As I alluded to earlier, using a near-ubiquitous term like white privilege is playing the blame game, especially when you are using a superficial trait like skin colour, which does not account for the living realities of individual white people. I'm sure there are whites which have been searched disproportionately, excluded from school, denied interviews, charged more on loans and shown less properties, who had been historically oppressed in the past (Irish, anyone?) and yet you lump them into a category of privilege based on skin.

            "2) Stop pretending racial inequality does not exist, and that non white people are disproportionately affected by it. It does, and they are."

            Never said racial inequality doesn't exist. I am just questioning the reasons this inequality exists.

            "3) Listen to what others are saying about it"

            That's why I made this thread. I'm listening, not really convinced though.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              "You're right; that's why I don't trust either biased perspective. . . ". 

              (And from a previous post)
              "An ubiquitous statement like white privilege is easily debunked with examples of minorities having more influence and priority . . . "

              You accept that attitudes towards white privilege are biased due to the differences in perspective of those with different experiences of the issue. And you believe that ("ubiquitous") white privilege is debunked with examples of minorities having more influence and priority. Unfortunately these two positions (assuming I have understood you correctly) are self defeating. By the logic of your own argument, the first turns the second into a biased mis-perception that cannot be relied on.

              Moreover, you are making a common mistake made by authors and commentators who consider white privilege in isolation from other types of social privilege, such as that relating to wealth, sex, gender, age, sexual orientation etc. All of these things intersect, making social privilege at an individual level, the product of a combination of different variables.

              It's entirely possible for a person to be privileged in certain ways because she is white, but disadvantaged in certain ways because she is a woman, but privileged in certain ways because she is heterosexual. Or for a person to be privileged by the fact he is male, disadvantaged by the fact he is a person of color, further disadvantaged by the fact he is homosexual, but privileged by the fact he is wealthy etc. So isolating race from gender and other personal attributes when discussing privilege/disadvantage is unhelpful in my opinion.

              "Here's my suggestion: instead of disputing the ability or inability to perceive privilege (an unfalsifiable statement), how about we examine evidence of the playing field, its balance and how it came about?"

              Sure. Start with slavery and go from there if you like.

              "I qualified white privilege when it's used ubiquitously. Saying that all white people are more privileged than all minorities is demonstrably false. The term does invoke that notion even if it does not intend to - unfortunately, that is the nature of making a statement in the form of race + a negative trait."

              White privilege is, by definition, ubiquitous. That's what a social privilege is. An advantage available only to a particular social group. Whether a specific individual is able to personally utilise that advantage, is irrelevant to whether the advantage exists.

              "I never said the field is now level. I am suggesting that the field may not be level for reasons outside of racism, and that expecting 100% level balance is very likely a mistake."

              Straw man. Who's saying the inequalities we see in society are exclusively the result of racial inequality? Inequalities are the result of a complex combination of various levels of privilege/disadvantage associated with different personal attributes, one of which is race.

              "They were the only examples cited in a paper of white privilege by a notable author. They are common examples outside of that source. If they're not representative perhaps you should contact the authors with better, less ridiculous examples."

              The source of these examples, or how common they are, is irrelevant. They are not representative of the range of issues related to racial inequality. Nevertheless, I didn't call them ridiculous. You made that part up.

              "The first part can be explained if black drivers are more likely to speed or break traffic laws than white drivers. I can't speculate any further unless you give me a source. I know that the Department of Justice commissioned a study on the New Jersey Turnpike and found that blacks were more likely to speed than whites in the early 2000s. Funny enough, that study was commissioned specifically because of accusations of profiling. It's almost like correlation doesn't equal causation.

              As for your other examples, I'd like specific sources on them as well."

              I've posted the sources elsewhere on the forum. I'll see if I can dig them out. If not I won't be finding the original sources again. Too much work. If you're genuinely interested you can do some google research, it's all publicly available information. In the meantime, tell me some examples of racial inequality you think are based on racial discrimination. No sources needed. Just tell me what you think. because even though you don't believe racial discrimination is 100% the reason for racial inequality, I assume you accept it is the cause of some racial inequality, right?

              "As I alluded to earlier, using a near-ubiquitous term like white privilege is playing the blame game . . ."

              Once again, social privilege is ubiquitous by definition because it's an advantage that applies to a group. The only way to not have that advantage is to not be in the group. Whether a specific individual is able to personally utilise that advantage, is irrelevant to whether the privilege exists.

              "Never said racial inequality doesn't exist. I am just questioning the reasons this inequality exists."
              Great. Again, can you give some examples of racial inequality that you believe are the result of racial discrimination? Or is it your contention that no example of racial inequality currently in existence, is the result of racial discrimination?

              "That's why I made this thread. I'm listening, not really convinced though."
              I don't think being "convinced" is necessarily the goal of listening. Be great if we all agreed, but disagreement is natural and inevitable. How we deal with that reveals more about us in my opinion.

              1. mrpopo profile image88
                mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                "You accept that attitudes towards white privilege are biased due to the differences in perspective of those with different experiences of the issue. And you believe that ("ubiquitous") white privilege is debunked with examples of minorities having more influence and priority. Unfortunately these two positions (assuming I have understood you correctly) are self defeating. By the logic of your own argument, the first turns the second into a biased mis-perception that cannot be relied on."

                Only if you reduce truth-checking a basic premise into invoking biased misperceptions. That would mean anyone talking about privilege is biased and cannot be relied on. Your logic, not mine. Or are you trying to suggest that you are the only one qualified to speak on whether privilege does or does not exist?

                "Moreover, you are making a common mistake made by authors and commentators who consider white privilege in isolation from other types of social privilege, such as that relating to wealth, sex, gender, age, sexual orientation etc. All of these things intersect, making social privilege at an individual level, the product of a combination of different variables.

                I'm not making any such mistake. Feel free to read the rest of the thread, where I question why we only talk about male, white and heterosexual privileges. Why aren't we talking about height privilege? Weight privilege? Health privilege? Genetic privilege? None of these distinctions are particularly helpful. What is the point of talking about things that are largely determined by probability or individual choice? What is your end goal with such discussions?

                "Sure. Start with slavery and go from there if you like."

                I have. That's why I mentioned the Irish, for instance. As you said, those slave descendants are still privileged, somehow, because you're the one limiting the analysis to skin colour, not me.

                "White privilege is, by definition, ubiquitous. That's what a social privilege is. An advantage available only to a particular social group."

                Every single example of yours is not an advantage exclusive to a particular social group (Asians have similar advantages to whites, for instance). Those examples are differences in outcome on average. They wouldn't even be advantages, they'd be disproportionate punishments, again, on average.

                "Whether a specific individual is able to personally utilise that advantage, is irrelevant to whether the advantage exists."

                lol so white privilege is ubiquitous (present, appearing, or found everywhere) but it's also not ubiquitous at the same time. Can this be tested scientifically? Can you find a white guy who is using absolutely none of his privileges and get him to become privileged? I wonder how you'll do that, given how apparently we're all biased in discussions of privilege...how will we know objectively that this advantage exists and is not a misconception?

                "Inequalities are the result of a complex combination of various levels of privilege/disadvantage associated with different personal attributes, one of which is race."

                Yes, probabilistic events determine how well off you will be. That's called life. I don't know what you want to do about that.

                "Straw man. Who's saying the inequalities we see in society are exclusively the result of racial inequality?"

                lol why would you accuse me of strawmanning if you don't even know who I am referring to? Am I even quoting anyone in particular? What if I'm simply suggesting something for the edification of all readers? Please re-read what I've stated, you're getting trigger happy with these fallacy accusations.

                "The source of these examples, or how common they are, is irrelevant. They are not representative of the range of issues related to racial inequality."

                1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Which number is representative of the average number? 2. Can 2 be representative of the range? Not really. Expecting a few examples to be representative of the entire range of examples sounds nonsensical to me. Would love a clarification.

                Note the definition of representative: typical of a class, group, or body of opinion. You might be operating on a different set of rules if you think that the source of the example and its frequency is irrelevant to it being typical.

                "Nevertheless, I didn't call them ridiculous. You made that part up."

                I never said you called them ridiculous. Seems one of us is making things up, but it's not me.

                "I've posted the sources elsewhere on the forum. I'll see if I can dig them out. If not I won't be finding the original sources again. Too much work. If you're genuinely interested you can do some google research, it's all publicly available information."

                I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase to find the specific sources you were referring to. If you have those sources, great. If not, too bad. I am genuinely interested, which is why I've already been reading. Note that I've given you a source specifically from the Department of Justice.

                "In the meantime, tell me some examples of racial inequality you think are based on racial discrimination"

                There are plenty of examples of racial discrimination on an individual level, against every race, by every race. Are these incidents enough to cause statistical disparities in education, housing, income, legal punishments etc.? I haven't seen evidence of that in Western countries.

                "Once again, social privilege is ubiquitous by definition because it's an advantage that applies to a group. The only way to not have that advantage is to not be in the group. Whether a specific individual is able to personally utilise that advantage, is irrelevant to whether the privilege exists."

                I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you could explain white privilege as an average advantage, but you opted to go the route that suggests every white person has an inherent advantage relative to every black person, nuance be damned. At least you've agreed that it is playing the blame game though.

                "Or is it your contention that no example of racial inequality currently in existence, is the result of racial discrimination?"

                You almost got it. My contention is that no current statistical disparity between races is primarily the result of current racial discrimination. Individual examples of racial discrimination will always be there, but not enough to be statistically significant and are almost always rectified anyway.

                "I don't think being "convinced" is necessarily the goal of listening."

                It should be, if we're talking about an explanation of reality.

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  "Only if you reduce truth-checking a basic premise into invoking biased misperceptions. That would mean anyone talking about privilege is biased and cannot be relied on. Your logic, not mine. Or are you trying to suggest that you are the only one qualified to speak on whether privilege does or does not exist?"

                  No, it means that the idea minorities have "more influence and priority" (presumably than white people) is only your perception. If your supposed debunking of white privilege is based on that assertion, which by your own admission it is, then it is unreliable. If you would like to present evidence from reliable sources that minorities do in fact have "more influence and priority" than white people, I'd be happy to look at it, but I predict that any such evidence could be countered by evidence indicating that minorities do not have more influence and priority, which I suspect you already know.

                  "I'm not making any such mistake. Feel free to read the rest of the thread, where I question why we only talk about male, white and heterosexual privileges."

                  Is it because there is a worldwide conspiracy against white heterosexual men? Are all the females, and nonwhites jealous of that maleness, whiteness, and straightness? Are they all in cahoots and hell bent on tearing down white heterosexual men?Or do you think those three things might be referenced most because they appear to have the highest levels of privilege/disadvantage associated with them? Which do you think is more likely? Or do you think there's some other reason I haven't thought of?

                  "Why aren't we talking about height privilege? Weight privilege? Health privilege? Genetic privilege? None of these distinctions are particularly helpful. What is the point of talking about things that are largely determined by probability or individual choice? What is your end goal with such discussions?"

                  There is some discussion about weight, e.g. the idea of "body-shaming" etc.. But why do you think these distinctions are made? Do you think people sit around trying to think up more and more ways to categorise different people? Do you think people categorise by race, sexual orientation etc. because they believe it's "helpful"? Or do you think perhaps it's because people have noticed that society treats people differently based on certain attributes like color, sex, sexual orientation etc. So in order to talk about that, people have to reference those attributes? Again, which do you think is more likely, or do you have another explanation you'd like to share?

                  The end goal? If I were given a job (where height is irrelevant) purely on the grounds that I'm taller than you? And this happened to you time and again. So you raised it as an issue. What would be the end goal of you raising it?

                  "I have. That's why I mentioned the Irish, for instance. As you said, those slave descendants are still privileged, somehow, because you're the one limiting the analysis to skin colour, not me."

                  Oh dear, alarm bells are ringing. Are you one of those history revisionists who perpetuate the myth that the "Irish were treated worse than black people in America". That  has been thoroughly debunked, it would be such a waste of time to revisit. I hope that's not what you are referring to.

                  "Every single example of yours is not an advantage exclusive to a particular social group (Asians have similar advantages to whites, for instance). Those examples are differences in outcome [i]on average. They wouldn't even be advantages, they'd be disproportionate punishments, again, on average."[/i]

                  The whole issue can be framed in terms of advantages or disadvantages. They are two sides of the same coin. Once again, there will be a matrix of different levels of advantage/disadvantage between different groups, but that is irrelevant to the idea of white privilege. You are essentially asking for a list of all the social inequalities associated with being asian, black, latino specifically relative to being white. That information is available.

                  "lol so white privilege is ubiquitous (present, appearing, or found everywhere) but it's also not ubiquitous at the same time. Can this be tested scientifically? Can you find a white guy who is using absolutely none of his privileges and get him to become privileged? I wonder how you'll do that, given how apparently we're all biased in discussions of privilege...how will we know objectively that this advantage exists and is not a misconception?"

                  That's the equivalent of a saying: "It's really cold today, therefore global warming doesn't exist", or "the president is black, therefore racism doesn't exist". It's nonsense. The fact that some white people are poor does not mean white privilege doesn't exist.

                  "Yes, probabilistic events determine how well off you will be. That's called life. I don't know what you want to do about that."

                  I didn't make myself clear. I'm was referring to socially constructed advantages/disadvantages. These are not born of probabilistic events, they are born of (often arbitrary) discrimination. You are conflating the two.

                  If being successful at a particular task required someone to be tall, then someone who happened to be tall, would have a natural advantage.

                  If, on the other hand, the task in question was accountancy (as a random example) then being tall would confer no significant advantage. So if accountancy jobs were mostly filled by tall people in a way that is not representative of the tall/short demographic, and some of those tall people had expressed prejudicial negative attitudes towards short people, and there was a history in the country of short people being mistreated by tall people, and there were other examples of short people (all other things equal) being treated less favorably than tall people within various social institutions, then one might (reasonably I think) conclude that there is an inequality between tall and short people which is a social construct.

                  Unfortunately the above scenario would also likely produce people who would, upon seeing the relative dominance of tall people in society, erroneously conclude that tall people must in fact be inherently superior, and that the inequality is therefore somehow justified.

                  "lol why would you accuse me of strawmanning if you don't even know who I am referring to? Am I even quoting anyone in particular? What if I'm simply suggesting something for the edification of all readers? Please re-read what I've stated, you're getting trigger happy with these fallacy accusations."

                  In response to my charge that the playing field is still uneven, you said "I never said the field is now level. I am suggesting that the field may not be level for reasons outside of racism, and that expecting 100% level balance is very likely a mistake". Your response implies you are addressing my argument. You weren't. It also implies that you are addressing someone's argument. You weren't. So it was perfectly reasonable to conclude it was a straw man. By your own admission you were playing to the gallery and your comment was apropos nothing. I think it's unreasonable to expect me to assume that. If you want to make pronouncements for the edification of "all readers", I suggest you highlight them. to ensure I don't mistakenly think you are addressing an actual argument.

                  "1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4 ,5 ,6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Which number is representative of the average number? 2. Can 2 be representative of the range? Not really. Expecting a few examples to be representative of the entire [i]range of examples sounds nonsensical to me. Would love a clarification."[/i]

                  It's very simple. I'm talking about the range of severity in relation to the effects of white privilege. While the issues you quote are valid examples, they give no indication as to the full range of severity. In the same way that 2 gives no indication of the range of numbers in the above list. Sure 2 is the median, and the most frequent number, but that gives no indication of the upper or lower ranges. That list could go up as high as 1 million, or down as low as minus 1 million. 2 gives no indication of that. Of course, in a list of numbers the extremes could be infinite, but in relation to social issues, the extremes will be finite. The most severe effect being death. The least severe being no significant impact. The point is that in only mentioning examples that relate to cosmetic issues, you (and the author you quoted) give the impression that the severity of effects related to white privilege are less severe than they actually are.

                  "Note the definition of representative: typical of a class, group, or body of opinion. You might be operating on a different set of rules if you think that the source of the example and its frequency is irrelevant to it being typical."

                  Again, straw man. I didn't say frequency was irrelevant to something being typical. I said the examples are not typical of the full range of issues, which is true. Including examples of issues that have severe impact on people, would be more representative of the full range of issues. I'm not sure why you find that difficult.

                  "I never said [i]you called them ridiculous. Seems one of us is making things up, but it's not me."[/i]

                  Which suggests you think they those examples are ridiculous. Therein lies the problem with not giving examples that are representative of the full range of issues related to white privilege.

                  "There are plenty of examples of racial discrimination on an individual level, against every race, by every race. Are these incidents enough to cause statistical disparities in education, housing, income, legal punishments etc.? I haven't seen evidence of that in Western countries."

                  Examples such as . . . ? And does that mean you don't believe systemic racial discrimination exists?

                  "I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you could explain white privilege as an average advantage, but you opted to go the route that suggests every white person has an inherent advantage relative to every black person, nuance be damned. At least you've agreed that it [i]is playing the blame game though."
                  [/i]
                  You seem to be unsure, so let me be very clear in what I am saying. If two people (one white, one nonwhite) have the same amount of money, the same level of education etc. the white person still has a social advantage. Not because of an inherent superiority/inferiority related to race, but because society is currently structured in a way that artificially maintains the dominance of a particular social group. That's only about blame if you are incapable of distinguishing between individual racial discrimination, and structural and systemic racial discrimination. I am capable of doing that, so I fully understand that I am not personally responsible for the inequality that stems from systemic racial discrimination. However, I also understand that I am responsible for acknowledging it, and ensuring that it is not continued. I hope that clarifies my position for you.

                  "You almost got it. My contention is that no current statistical disparity between races is primarily the result of current racial discrimination. Individual examples of racial discrimination will always be there, but not enough to be statistically significant and are almost always rectified anyway."

                  If you left it at ". . . no current statistical disparity between races is primarily the result of current racial discrimination" (my emphasis) I'd be in agreement. People are discriminated against on the basis of other attributes, and those attributes all intersect. But I disagree with your suggestion that systemic racial discrimination does not exist. I think it's unreasonable to hold that view in light of the extent of literature indicating otherwise.

                  "It should be, if we're talking about an explanation of reality."

                  Only the rigors of scientific method bring about that type of consensus in relation to an explanation of reality. If that were possible with social issues, I'd be all for it, but I don't think it is, or at least it's extremely difficult. Being rational and reasonable is a must though. In applying reason to this subject, we could ask, what is more conducive to a harmonious society: discrimination against people based on their skin color, or treating people equally regardless of their color?

                  1. mrpopo profile image88
                    mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    “No, it means that the idea minorities have "more influence and priority" (presumably than white people) is only your perception.”

                    The idea that minorities have “less influence and priority” is also only your perception. Again, do you think your perception is the only one qualified to speak on the issue of privilege?

                    “If your supposed debunking of white privilege is based on that assertion, which by your own admission it is, then it is unreliable”

                    I was speaking of a ubiquitous statement related to white privilege, that all white people have more advantages than all minorities. That statement is easily debunked by having a single minority have more advantages than whites. The debunking of such a statement unaffected by our perceptions of privilege. Unless you think that just examining the facts is also unreliable?

                    “Or do you think those three things might be referenced most because they appear to have the highest levels of privilege/disadvantage associated with them?”

                    The idea that white, heterosexual men have the highest levels of privilege associated with them is only your perception. We can do this all day, can’t we?

                    Funny enough, wealth, height, environment and intelligence are better indicators of success than maleness, whiteness or straightness. For some reason we don’t talk about those privileges.

                    “There is some discussion about weight, e.g. the idea of "body-shaming" etc”

                    Not height or health or genes though, huh? Maybe they'll get around to it tomorrow. Maybe they'll eventually realize not everyone wins the lotto.

                    What did you think about the Protein World Controversy? Who was being body shamed there? Was it the lack of different types of body shapes and sizes, many of which are not attractive, especially in beach attire? Or was it the model of the ad who, despite being of average weight, was harassed for being too skinny and anorexic?

                    “Do you think people sit around trying to think up more and more ways to categorise different people?”

                    Of course they do, that’s why new “privileges” are being discovered every day.

                    “Or do you think perhaps it's because people have noticed that society treats people differently based on certain attributes like color, sex, sexual orientation etc.”

                    Society does treat people differently based on certain attributes. This is almost always with good reason. Intelligent people are demonstrably more capable in complex tasks and thus qualify for better jobs and better salaries. This is not equal to discriminating against those of us with lower IQs except on a technical level.

                    Society as a whole already doesn’t condone discriminatory behaviour with the largely superficial attributes that you mentioned, which is why discrimination on those grounds is routinely punished, even if it’s just perceived discrimination. Unfortunately, in its efforts in combating discrimination, our society conflates equality of outcome with equality of opportunity and punishes disparities in the latter as if they were disparities in the former.

                    “If I were given a job (where height is irrelevant) purely on the grounds that I'm taller than you? And this happened to you time and again. So you raised it as an issue.”

                    How would I know that I was being discriminated time and time again because of height? My perception is flawed, remember?

                    No really, it is. There’s a reason why I wouldn’t raise it as an issue even if it appeared to be happening to me time and time again. There may be a relevant underlying factor correlated to height that I’m mistaking for a height advantage. For instance, confidence: https://contently.com/strategist/2015/0 … r-success/

                    Of course, looking at such factors actually takes work, self-introspection and skepticism, along with some understanding of statistics. It would be much easier to act like I’m a victim of misfortune.

                    “Oh dear, alarm bells are ringing. Are you one of those history revisionists who perpetuate the myth that the "Irish were treated worse than black people in America". That  has been thoroughly debunked, it would be such a waste of time to revisit. I hope that's not what you are referring to.”

                    No. If I were saying that, I would have said “the Irish were treated worse than black people in America.” But I don’t play victimology games. Let’s miss the underlying point for a quasi-strawman some other time.

                    “The whole issue can be framed in terms of advantages or disadvantages.”

                    That’s the whole point. You’re conflating equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. You’re conflating correlations with causations.

                    “That's the equivalent of a saying: "It's really cold today, therefore global warming doesn't exist", or "the president is black, therefore racism doesn't exist". It's nonsense.”

                    No, it’d be the equivalent of saying “it’s always colder in Toronto than it is in California” and then pointing to an instance where California was actually colder than Toronto. That’s because I was challenging the specific notion that all white people are more advantaged than all minorities.

                    By the way, how are we going to test the existence of white privilege on those white folks who are not taking advantage of that privilege? Clearly you’re convinced they have privilege, so let’s design a scientific test proving that white privilege is there even if it’s not being used.

                    “These are not born of probabilistic events, they are born of (often arbitrary) discrimination.”

                    You have not demonstrated that once.

                    “So if accountancy jobs were mostly filled by tall people in a way that is not representative of the tall/short demographic, and some of those tall people had expressed prejudicial negative attitudes towards short people,and there was a history in the country of short people being mistreated by tall people, and there were other examples of short people (all other things equal) being treated less favorably than tall people within various social institutions”

                    All of the above are likely to be true and you would still not have demonstrated institutional discrimination. Refer to the article I posted. Tall people have greater confidence earned from their teenage years, translating to better job prospects and performance in those various social institutions. The relevant factor is confidence, not height. Correlation does not equal causation.

                    “Your response implies you are addressing my argument. You weren't. It also implies that you are addressing someone'sargument. You weren't.”

                    How does my response imply that? Do you know what a suggestion is?

                    “So it was perfectly reasonable to conclude it was a straw man.”

                    Maybe for someone with faulty perception.

                    “By your own admission you were playing to the gallery and your comment was apropos nothing”

                    Not nothing, because my comment is my hypothesis regarding statistical discrepancies between outcomes based on race (that extends to gender, orientation etc.) I don’t know why you would think that restating my hypothesis for your clarification is a strawman of your or anyone else's argument.

                    I mean, you do realize you have been doing the same thing, right? You attacked the claim that the playing field was even when nobody here made that claim. Was that a strawman? Or was that you navigating through the discussion?

                    “If you want to make pronouncements for the edification of "all readers", I suggest you highlight them.”

                    If you want to avoid erroneous accusations of fallacies, I suggest you read more carefully.

                    “The point is that in only mentioning examples that relate to cosmetic issues, you (and the author you quoted) give the impression that the severity of effects related to white privilege are less severe than they actually are.”

                    Except that the most frequent issue is closer to the typical issue, and thus the typical severity, of the effects of white privilege. Range does not really tell you the severity of the issue overall, it tells you the extremes. The KKK create issues ranging from “minor nuisance” to “death”. ISIS creates issues ranging from “minor nuisance” to “death”. Which is more severe?

                    “Again, straw man.”

                    “Again”? Hasn't it gotten through to you that it wasn't a strawman to begin with?

                    “I didn't say frequency was irrelevant to something being typical.”

                    I never said you did. I said if you think that, you might be operating on a different set of rules. Which you are; you’d rather look at the range of issues (even if their frequency is barely measurable) instead of the median, mode or mean of the issue. Obviously the range is representative of the range and the median is representative of the median, but which of those is representative of the issue?

                    “Which suggests you think they those examples are ridiculous.”

                    No kidding. It doesn’t suggest that you think those examples are ridiculous, though.

                    “Therein lies the problem with not giving examples that are representative of the full range of issues related to white privilege.”

                    That’s a problem with your analysis, not mine. You’d rather investigate the range as if the range is representative of the issue. It’s not.

                    “You seem to be unsure, so let me be very clear in what I am saying.”

                    That’s just your perception.

                    “If two people (one white, one nonwhite) have the same amount of money, the same level of education etc. the white person still has a social advantage.”

                    Name one advantage that can be testable in those conditions. I want a way to test this. I mean, someone has tested this, right?

                    “But I disagree with your suggestion that systemic racial discrimination does not exist. I think it's unreasonable to hold that view in light of the extent of literature indicating otherwise.”

                    Extensive literature is not enough to establish truth or even fact, especially from one-dimensional sources approaching the problem from the same angle and with a preconceived ideology:

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_A … ake_papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

                    This is why I asked for specific sources, so we can go through them and evaluate their methodologies and limitations.

                    “Only the rigors of scientific method bring about that type of consensus in relation to an explanation of reality.”

                    Which is why I wonder how you have the sort of predictive power to claim “If two people (one white, one nonwhite) have the same amount of money, the same level of education etc. the white person still has a social advantage“ simply because he's white.

                    “In applying reason to this subject, we could ask, what is more conducive to a harmonious society: discrimination against people based on their skin color, or treating people equally regardless of their color?”

                    Obviously the former, nobody here is against that (is that another strawman?). The question is how pervasive is discrimination against people based on skin colour in society to merit this accusation of white privilege, not whether it’s good or bad.

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Welcome, reading the material provided, you can now acknowledge the existence of 'white privilege' even if grudgingly.

      So, it is not a figment of the imagination from the Left and/or minority groups. As the enlightened ones, as few as they may be, recognize its existence.

      So what do we do about it?

      What had to be done about it when it certainly played a role in the social, economic and political exploitation of an entire group of people? This is direct conflict with the vaunted claims of American society, that of equal standing before the law and equal opportunity. Can't have that if certain groups of people feel that based on superiority and privilege they can withhold from others, no?

      And while the extreme cases that I used as example no longer exist to the same extent, the priniciple of the thing remains.

      Application of  pressure, agitation, using the Courts, Lawsuits, whatever it takes to balance the scales to make sure the 'advantaged' people are not able to use that advantage to torment others. That was a start.

      There is a lot more involved than just shampoo and bandaids. The first thing to do is what you seem to have done, acknowledge the existence of 'White Priviliege'.

      Next, The Left and minority groups will keep up pressure to make sure that we do not backslide, holding authorities accountable promoting for a society that lives up to American creed,  not reducing it to no more than a scrap of paper.

      The rest are the interactions between people and cannot be changed. But, as a minority, understanding its existence is an education of what to be aware of and what I can expect to anticipate and therefore, protect against.

      1. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        "Welcome, reading the material provided, you can now acknowledge the existence of 'white privilege' even if grudgingly.

        So, it is not a figment of the imagination from the Left and/or minority groups. As the enlightened ones, as few as they may be, recognize its existence."


        Enlightened one, allow me to clarify something: I have stated for the sake of argument that we are assuming its existence to be real. Please note the distinction. And I really shouldn't have to say this, but the fact that there exists reading material about the subject does not mean the subject is real or that the reading material is accurate.

        "Can't have that if certain groups of people feel that based on superiority and privilege they can withhold from others, no?"

        Who is withholding opportunities from others? If they are instances of people withholding opportunities from others, are the perpetrators not punished? If they are punished, aren't we already doing all that we can?

        "Application of  pressure, agitation, using the Courts, Lawsuits"

        I could have sworn there were some in the last thread stating that the courts are comprised of corrupt old, white men that would only buy into racist arguments. Well, if courts and lawsuits are effective at punishing discriminatory practices, aren't we already doing all we can?

        "There is a lot more involved than just shampoo and bandaids."

        The link I was provided with used those examples as prominent examples. I assume the underlying point is that disparities in accessibility to products and services is a racial privilege. How would you solve disparities in accessibility to products and services? Are you sure these disparities are based on race, as opposed to economic factors and statistical probabilities?

        "The first thing to do is what you seem to have done, acknowledge the existence of 'White Priviliege'."

        Again, refer to my first point.

        Also, if you could answer some questions for me, I'd appreciate it:

        1) How does privilege, in general, come about? Surely privilege did not come into existence because some people were white. Why aren't we using a term that accurately encompasses the true nature of privileges?

        2) Not all whites are privileged and not all minorities are disprivileged. There are also some things, like affirmative action and quotas, that are exclusively minority privileges. Why is the term called "white privilege" if it is not a ubiquitous and accurate representation of reality?

        3) Why aren't we talking about privilege in other dimensions? Height privilege, weight privilege, strength privilege, inheritance privilege, intelligence privilege, genetic privilege etc etc? Why is the scope of the discussion limited to race, sex and orientation?

        4) What is the end game objective to the problem of privileges? How do you determine that you've arrived there?

        5) You mentioned a strategy of putting pressure and agitation on institutions to "balance the scales". Here is a case study where pressure and agitation was put on an institution in an attempt to do just that:

        The UVA rape scandal had various demonstrations in support of the accuser and widespread condemnation and punishments towards the accused, including social isolation, drudgery through the university kangaroo courts, loss of university and personal rights, public shaming/abuse, and death threats. Much of the condemnation involved attacking his entitlement in the form of "white, patriarchal privilege" which had supposedly enabled him to attack and rape the accuser without a second thought. He was found not guilty due to lack of evidence and because there was plenty of evidence indicating that the accuser was lying about the nature of the event and their relationship. In stark contrast to the accused, she received an incredible amount of support from the very beginning by university officials and media, and was even allowed to use the event in a public manner as her senior thesis. The accuser was never punished for the false accusation nor for her public shaming and abusing of the accused.

        The result of the above strategy was a complete and utter failure of due process and justice.

        Do you think that inciting a group of people to put pressure on an institution to get the outcome you want is the appropriate way to resolve incidents? Who do you think is really privileged, if it only takes an accusation of injustice to get what you want?

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          I am not assuming at all about its existence, I live here as an African-American that is exactly how things have been. I have lived the over 60 years here in the trenches while you can only have an inaccurate and dispassionate view from the outside. Oh, yes, it is quite real, alright.


          "Who is withholding opportunities from others? If they are instances of people withholding opportunities from others, are the perpetrators not punished? If they are punished, aren't we already doing all that we can?"

          Yes, this is better, are you saying that what was being done a couple of generations ago without a thought is completely wiped out today? The EOC can attest that the attempts at discrimination do not stop and those that are inclined to use it are simply more clever at concealing it to avoid being prosecuted, that is all. Let's not capitulate to the Right and ignore the fact that what progress that had been made in this area has been at great cost and must stay on course. Yes, do all the best that we can and keep doing better!!


          The courts and the lawsuits are just tools, weapons to be employed in an never ending struggle.

          I am not unreasonable, I have lived in the State of Montana for a few years and hair pomade for my nappy little head was hard to come by. It is pure economics and I am well aware of that. But, it is interesting to think that Band-Aid never gave a thought to producing a product to reflect the differing skin tone of its customers. Since White people are considered the norm and everyone else, a mere aberration of humanity, how could I have expected anything more?( A complaint found in your original attachment)


          I will do the best that I can to answer your questions...

          The first question is very philosophical and I can only focus on the circumstance that we see in America to make the case of what it is. European-Anglo/Saxon having acquired advantages over other groups of people out of sheer luck of geography and resources available where they were located acquired a technological edge. They used the edge of firearms, steel, and plague germs to overwhelm and conquer. Of course, to keep conquered people in subjection, the conqueror distinguished himself and his culture from the conquered. They overran the indigenous natives, taking millions of square miles of land while profited from the Slave trade enriching themselves at the expense of conquered people. So, of course they and their kind make the advantage of the conqueror in all realms of life relative to the vanquished. You overwhelm the conquered in every sense simply to maintain control, this is physical as well as psychological.

          I will address the other questions in separate posts, very soon.

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          2) Not all whites are privileged and not all minorities are disprivileged. There are also some things, like affirmative action and quotas, that are exclusively minority privileges. Why is the term called "white privilege" if it is not a ubiquitous and accurate representation of reality?



          According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, Blacks and Hispanics have on average 5% of the net worth of the average white family. Or, here is another one, whites families have 90 percent of the national wealth compared with Blacks having only 2.6 percent. Am I to believe that the Anglo is so clever and resourceful while minority groups so inept, to explain so great a disparity of wealth and income?? I have worked in the Civil Service for the length of my career, Affirmative Action was used more often to promote opportunities for White females. Affirmative Action is not a minority privilege, it was a tool to allow one to compete with others on an equal basis. Without Affirmative Action, I was not even considered whether I was qualified or not. Why is it a privilege to insist upon being treated like everyone else? That was the reality of my apprenticeship into my chosen profession and I am familiar with it, first hand. White privilege is based partially on folks given the benefit of the doubt giving preferences relative to me that they did not earn and on the other coin, the right to deny, out of hand, fair treatment even when I meet or exceed the standards of Anglo competition.

          3. Why aren't we talking about privilege in other dimensions? Height privilege, weight privilege, strength privilege, inheritance privilege, intelligence privilege, genetic privilege etc etc? Why is the scope of the discussion limited to race, sex and orientation

          3. The other 'privileges' are incidental and are not broad, there are distinctions between individuals that will always be there. How can one distinction, having the advantage of being white and male have so profound effect on the life chances of those who are not? You can acquire an advantage limited in scope with any of your examples. No one was prevented from voting because they weighed too much, or denied a bank loan because they were not strong enough...

          1. mrpopo profile image88
            mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            "I am not assuming at all about its existence, I live here as an African-American that is exactly how things have been. I have lived the over 60 years here in the trenches while you can only have an inaccurate and dispassionate view from the outside. Oh, yes, it is quite real, alright."

            Perhaps I spoke poorly, but I never said you were assuming anything. I am assuming it is real for the sake of argument so that we (and by we, I mean anyone who wants to participate in this thread) can carry out a discussion without needing to believe anything one way or another. The original argument contains no opinion on whether white privilege exists.

            "Yes, this is better, are you saying that what was being done a couple of generations ago without a thought is completely wiped out today?"

            No? I said it's being punished when caught. You'll never completely wipe out discriminatory practices because humans are discriminatory creatures. What is your end goal in light of that fact? We are already punishing people for being discriminatory, what more can we do?

            "The EOC can attest that the attempts at discrimination do not stop and those that are inclined to use it are simply more clever at concealing it to avoid being prosecuted, that is all."

            Yes, and we need to be more clever in discovering it. But I don't really see any cleverness from your strategy, only pressure and agitation tactics often misused against innocent targets.

            "Let's not capitulate to the Right and ignore the fact that what progress that had been made in this area has been at great cost and must stay on course. Yes, do all the best that we can and keep doing better!!"

            Like what? We punish those that break the law. What more do you want? Let’s not capitulate to the  extreme Left and ignore due process.

            "The courts and the lawsuits are just tools, weapons to be employed in an never ending struggle."

            And many on your side claimed they were corrupt tools of old, white men who believe in racist rationalizations. Why use them if you think they are so ineffective?

            "But, it is interesting to think that Band-Aid never gave a thought to producing a product to reflect the differing skin tone of its customers."

            1) You said you recognize the economic aspect of it. Have you considered that the company's analysis did not find it economically viable to sell bandaids of different skin tones? That it would be more profitable to have one skin tone that most people would happily use?
            2) Do you think Band-Aid and other bandaid companies are obligated to make products that cater to every demographic in the United States? Are they not allowed to focus on specific demographics?
            3) If it was such an in-demand product, why didn't anyone, including minorities, think about developing and marketing the product? Was there any legal barrier in coming up with such products?

            At the present moment, bandaids of many different shapes, tones and sizes are available for purchase, so the bandaid example is, at best, outdated. We are discussing white privilege right now, not in the past.

            "Since White people are considered the norm and everyone else, a mere aberration of humanity, how could I have expected anything more?""

            They are the norm in North America because they are the majority. Who has made the claim that non-whites are aberrations of humanity? Do you honestly think such accusations are a true reflection of your society, in light of the fact that discriminatory practices are punished and measures of equality (like affirmative action) are enacted and available?

            "I will do the best that I can to answer your questions"

            I appreciate that, and your participation in this discussion. So far, you're the only one coming from a "white privilege exists" position that has challenged the argument. That merits respect.

            "European-Anglo/Saxon having acquired advantages over other groups of people out of sheer luck"

            So like I said in the last thread, this is "chance" privilege, not "white" privilege. Why aren’t we using that term?

            "According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, Blacks and Hispanics have on average 5% of the net worth of the average white family. Or, here is another one, whites families have 90 percent of the national wealth compared with Blacks having only 2.6 percent. Am I to believe that the Anglo is so clever and resourceful while minority groups so inept, to explain so great a disparity of wealth and income??"

            Have you ever heard of “correlation does not necessarily equal causation”? The classic example is that the more ice-cream is consumed, the more likely people are to drown. Is ice-cream actually causing people to drown? No. It just so happens that summertime causes people to eat ice-cream more often and to go swimming more often. Going swimming more often increases the chances of drowning.

            What you’ve presented from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a correlation, in this case the disparity between race and net worth in the United States. You are now assigning causalities to that correlation. Your main causal hypothesis is that the correlation/disparity of net worth is caused by racism. Unfortunately, you only have the correlation. I don’t see any evidence that you’ve provided to indicate that the causality between net worth discrepancies must be racism.

            You’ve provided another mechanism of net worth success in the form of cleverness and resourcefulness (basically, being better at obtaining net worth), but you find that less believable. Is it not possible that some races are better at certain things than others? For instance, I think we can all agree that there is a strong correlation between being an NBA player and being black. Is this due to racism? Is it due to genetic differences? Is it due to cultural differences?

            Either way, if I’m to make a case for any one of these causalities, I need to present evidence. I can’t just point to the discrepancy between black basketball players and white basketball players and assume it’s x, y or z that’s causing it.

            “I have worked in the Civil Service for the length of my career, Affirmative Action was used more often to promote opportunities for White females”

            Just to clarify for anyone that didn’t know, white women are also eligible for affirmative action benefits because they are also considered to have been oppressed.

            The pertinent question here is how often were white women applying for affirmative action benefits compared to minorities? If they were more white women applying than minorities then naturally, more white women would obtain benefits. Do you have any evidence to demonstrate that minorities were applying more often than white women?

            "Affirmative Action is not a minority privilege, it was a tool to allow one to compete with others on an equal basis. Without Affirmative Action, I was not even considered whether I was qualified or not. Why is it a privilege to insist upon being treated like everyone else?”

            How do you earn affirmative action benefits? Do they look at your qualifications, or is it primarily your race? If it’s the former, then contrary to what you’re claiming, institutions are capable of considering you based on your qualifications. If it’s the latter, then you aren’t being treated like everyone else nor are you being considered for your qualifications. You are being given an advantage because of your race, and you are being considered qualified because of your race.

            “The other 'privileges' are incidental”

            How are intelligence, height, weight and genetics “incidental”? Are you seriously saying these are minor influences in the successes and failures in people’s lives?

            “and are not broad”

            What are you trying to say here? How is it an advantage to have a broad-brush generalization based on race being applied to individuals? Do you think society would let it slide if someone were to even state “black people are less intelligent” as a broad-brush generalization, let alone apply it to individual black people who may or may not be intelligent?

            “there are distinctions between individuals that will always be there”

            This is also true regarding race and sex yet you don’t seem to care.

            “How can one distinction, having the advantage of being white and male have so profound effect on the life chances of those who are not?”

            Correlation does not equal causation.

            “You can acquire an advantage limited in scope with any of your examples. No one was prevented from voting because they weighed too much, or denied a bank loan because they were not strong enough...”

            Do you think voting and loans are the only measures of privilege? They are obviously not. People are routinely denied opportunities in jobs, education, politics, dating etc.  because of intelligence, height, strength, weight, charisma etc.

            How do you conclude these advantages are limited in scope? Height advantage, for instance, is nearly universal: http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_art … index.html

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

              Got waylaid for a while, but I am back

              "We need to be more clever is discovering it and you say that my methods are ineffective, is the choice then to do nothing? Yes, I say keep the punishments on going and work harder to ferret out those that do not comply.

              We use the tools of corrupt old white men, as it is a better alternative to doing nothing at all and allowing the race prejudice and discrimination to rule the day in America without challenge. Old White men can be intimidated based on the conflict of the reality of racism verses their vaunted  adherence to those scraps of paper 'The Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights". Hypocrisy here would be as having your slip showing....

              Your line on the Band-Aid economic argument is ok. I will give you that one.

              I get your argument about correlation and causation, Google a little bit and get a consensus on what others feel that the causations factors are that are behind the statistics? Unless you think you know more than the experts, it is only fair that you check this out.

              How do you qualify for Affirmative Action benefits? Affirmative Action is a program that make sure that a qualified applicant is considered for a position, rather than being dismissed out of hand because I was a black person. That has been the case all of the time before the institution of the program, everybody knew that.  Why do think that even the old white men saw the necessity in its creation?

              Do you really think that if people were actually hired based solely on their qualifications there would be an issue? That is true whether you are male, female, fat, thin, whatever. But Black American is a protected class and justifiably so. They did not see the need for the 'protected class' designation for fat people or people who wear mustaches.  While that designation may make no sense to you, it is perfected rational to me. That is, of course, unless you think that you are better qualified to make the call than the experts?

              You still try to reduce racial strife in America to something you can put in a alchemist's beaker. This is a complicated issue of Social Science and the idea that people who have been oppressed are to blame for their oppression and exploitation being merely incidental denies the whole of American History, but again I forget, you are Canadian...

              1. mrpopo profile image88
                mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                "We need to be more clever is discovering it and you say that my methods are ineffective, is the choice then to do nothing?"

                Never said that. Are you familiar with false dichotomies? Saying your methods are ineffective does not mean the only other choice is to do nothing.

                "Yes, I say keep the punishments on going and work harder to ferret out those that do not comply."

                Sounds like we're already doing that. What is your end goal? How can you determine that the problem of white privilege has been solved?

                "We use the tools of corrupt old white men, as it is a better alternative to doing nothing at all and allowing the race prejudice and discrimination to rule the day in America without challenge"

                How can you use a corrupt tool to eradicate corruption?

                "Old White men can be intimidated based on the conflict of the reality of racism"

                What does this mean? Please elaborate. Are you saying old white men are intimidated by racist conflicts? Also, why are you continuing to use a brush as broad as "old white men"? Do you think old white men are generally racist?

                "their vaunted  adherence to those scraps of paper 'The Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights""

                Why are you expressing such disdain for such a well constructed set of legal rights? It's been an exemplary model of governance for the last two centuries.

                "I get your argument about correlation and causation, Google a little bit and get a consensus on what others feel that the causations factors are that are behind the statistics? Unless you think you know more than the experts, it is only fair that you check this out."

                Like I said to you previously, experts are not infallible. But if you were to give me some sources, I am open to checking them out.

                "Affirmative Action is a program that make sure that a qualified applicant is considered for a position, rather than being dismissed out of hand because I was a black person"

                Please explain how companies and institutions were willing to consider you on equal terms after AA, but not before.

                "Why do think that even the old white men saw the necessity in its creation?"

                It's odd, the supposedly racist old white men saw necessity in creating something that supposedly countered racist practices. Why would racist individuals implement something to counteract racist practices?

                "Do you really think that if people were actually hired based solely on their qualifications there would be an issue? That is true whether you are male, female, fat, thin, whatever."

                That's false. Women are given preferential hiring practices - well, generally, really, thanks to affirmative action - but also in cases where their qualifications are codified to be lower than the men's qualifications e.g. firefighting, military, police force.

                Also, we're talking about privilege, remember? Maybe fat people aren't discriminated against in generic hiring practices, I don't know (they certainly are in jobs that require you to be fit - see firefighter, military). But like I already told you earlier, hiring practices is just one aspect of privilege. Thin privilege, for example, would be the privilege to have most products tailored to your specific needs. Clothes that fit them, food that satisfies them, infrastructure that accommodates them, media characters that represent them. This is in line with the white privilege examples of bandaids, shampoo and history lessons in education.

                "But Black American is a protected class and justifiably so."

                Interesting. Sounds almost like a privilege.

                "They did not see the need for the 'protected class' designation for fat people or people who wear mustaches."

                Are you serious? I've given you an example of nearly universal height discrimination and you don't care because "they" aren't currently seeing the need? A few decades or centuries ago "they" would not see the need for blacks being a protected class. "They" are not infallible, so stop appealing to their authority.

                Also, unless you have any evidence to prove that people with mustaches are discriminated, your example is a false equivalence.

                "While that designation may make no sense to you, it is perfected rational to me."

                I don't really care whether it is "perfected" rational to you. I just care whether or not it's objectively rational.

                "You still try to reduce racial strife in America to something you can put in a alchemist's beaker"

                I know you have a certain disdain for the scientific process - despite being a prime beneficiary of its benefits - but can I ask you to just provide evidence of your claims instead of going off on poetic tangents?

                "This is a complicated issue of Social Science"

                You invoke science as a solution after lambasting me for trying to reduce racial strife to something I can put in a beaker - aka, science. The irony is not lost on me.

                "the idea that people who have been oppressed are to blame for their oppression and exploitation being merely incidental denies the whole of American History"

                I never said they are solely to blame. I only asked what we are supposed to do about white privilege, what were its causes, what is the end goal etc. Nobody here has adequately answered such questions.

                As to whether "privileges" are incidental - well, I never said that. You did, remember? You've been dismissing near universal privileges like height, intelligence, genetics etc. as "incidental." Why?

                "but again I forget, you are Canadian"

                Being Canadian does not preclude me from having thought-based perspectives on subjects outside of Canada.

    3. RJ Schwartz profile image93
      RJ Schwartzposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I'd love to comment, but since White Privilege isn't a real thing, I'll just have to keep my thoughts to myself.

      http://hubpages.com/politics/The-Myth-o … -Privilege

      1. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        That is an excellent article, very well written and researched.

      2. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of arguing for the sake of argument wink

  2. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 6 months ago

    In America it's called "Affirmative Action "  , and that is just a beginning , state  job applications , Federal jobs  ,there are many protections   for the minorities..  All minorities are pretty well taken care of in professional   job markets ,    I believe 'white privilege "  is all but non-existent .   I DO believe I saw more of a general  minority discriminating    cultural  in the south in the couple of years I lived there .      One needs to look  at  many large inner cities to realize true minority bias .  And there   one needs to ask , why Liberal governed cities have the most problems?

    1. mrpopo profile image88
      mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately affirmative action doesn't solve the bandaid and shampoo disparities that minorities suffer from. What to do about such issues?

      I'm also wondering, if minorities are the only group receiving affirmative action benefits, aren't they privileged in this respect?

      1. ahorseback profile image52
        ahorsebackposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Exactly , and what to do when it works in reversing opportunities for others ?    The biggest problem with favoring a pigment color is that no one TODAY is the discriminatory ,victim  and no one TODAY is the oppressor  !   Although  liberal ideologies prefer  that simply accusatory agenda for conducting their many needs  for social  entitlement reforms . Period .

  3. colorfulone profile image89
    colorfuloneposted 6 months ago

    Mr Popo, I just found out listening to Infowars that there was a White Privilege Conference recently in Philadelphia (the 17th annual conference).  Who knew?   
    http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/

    1. mrpopo profile image88
      mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Had no idea but this sort of thing doesn't surprise me, it's been happening quite a bit in universities.

      By the way, I enjoy Paul Joseph Watson's work on Infowars. I don't agree with him on everything but he's done great work highlighting some of the recent failures of the left.

      1. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Yeah, evidently there were a lot of teachers at the conference, its a liberal thing to target whites...which seems racist to me being based on skin color.  Am I wrong?

        Muslims are okey, but they seem to think racism is Christian's fault.  Very liberal brainwashed anti-christian, anti-white organization. 

        Paul Watson will get to the nuts and bolts of a story.  I really get a kick out of him when he gets on a rant.  One time he went off because someone was saying he looks gay because of the way he wears his hair.  He was hilarious.

        1. mrpopo profile image88
          mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          To me, there's no question that a flawed and selective generalization based on race is more racist than having products and services be made and distributed based on statistical probabilities. They're perhaps well intentioned in eradicating racism, but ironically, they're being more racist than the things they are targeting.

          I love his rants, he's got a knack for taking down crazy arguments.

  4. AshtonFirefly profile image83
    AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago

    *looks around nervously, steps cautiously into thread.*

      Disclaimer: I know very little about this issue, so I wanted to ask a few basic questions that I'm sure have been already answered, but I haven't gotten answers to because every discussion has already developed so far into logical reasoning that bringing it up is pointless. Hence why I ask now, whilst this topic is still new.

      Okay, this is going to sound insanely stupid, but here goes: If whites are a majority by numbers in the United States, doesn't this necessarily mean that there's a higher change that they will receive such things as jobs, benefits, education, etc? Just from a mathematical perspective? For example, if there are 1000 whites in a city and one non-white person, wouldn't there be statistically a higher chance of a white person getting a job? Also, wouldn't this be reflected in an economic sense with regard to commercial products, etc? When I lived in Florida, you were hard pressed to find any job being a white caucasian. You had to be hispanic. Also with food products. Most of the stores carried Mexican foods. Also with hair and skin products. Almost all catered to Hispanics.

      I do realize you're talking about on a national level, which is why I ask, wouldn't this same concept be reflected on a national scale?

      To answer the question in your post, if it truly does exist, then I don't think there is a solution. As long as people are human beings, they will find ways to discriminate against that which they find different, and they will favor those like them, as opposed to those unlike them. Plastering laws and sanctions and restrictions to force people to be fair human beings has rarely caused people to change their deep-rooted prejudices and self-importance, which is where it all starts. That's just my opinion, but perhaps I think too simplistically.

    1. mrpopo profile image88
      mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Not a stupid question at all, Ashton. I'm glad you brought that point up because it's fundamental to understanding the problem with white privilege accusations.

      Just to make a small clarification - I don't believe white privilege is a thing. I believe it's exactly as you said: privilege, as it is described in the West, is simply a function based on statistical probabilities. Unfortunately, statistical probability very often gets confused with prejudice and discrimination. Check out Simpson's paradox for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

      In the previous thread, someone who did believe in white privilege later stated that it's more like majority privilege, so that Latinos in Latin countries are privileged, Africans in African countries are privileged etc. The problem with that theory is that things like "Latin privilege" and "African privilege" simply don't exist; indeed, if you were to search for privilege in Latin, African and even Asian countries, you'll still only find accusations that it's whites in those countries that are privileged, as opposed to the respective majorities. Accusations of privilege race-wise are, for some reason, exclusive to whites even in other countries which have different racial majorities and dynamics that could benefit demographics other than whites. So majority privilege doesn't quite add up as the explanation for the supposed existence of white privilege. However, your explanation of statistical probability does apply if whites are statistically more likely to be successful per capita, including in countries outside their own. (Incidentally, this also typically applies to Asians and Jews but again, you never hear of Asian privilege or Jew privilege.)

      I made this thread for the sake of argument because I am looking for the reason why whites (and only whites) are accused of having privilege - in many cases, shamed for it - and what we are supposed to do about this supposed existence of white privilege. I want someone that believes in white privilege to explain to me what the end goal objective is, how we go about to getting there, and why it's only being primarily discussed in a Western context of race (white privilege), sex (male privilege) and orientation (heterosexual privilege). How did these privileges come about, if they don't operate on statistical probabilities? Why aren't we talking about privilege in other dimensions? What about people who have rich privilege? Or pet privilege? Or perfect eyesight privilege? The responses to these questions (or lack thereof) will tell me a lot about their motivations.

      I think your solution is far better than the alternative of silencing and restricting individual liberties. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, so let these individuals spout and act discriminatory all they want; if they're able to openly broadcast their prejudice, we'll know where to steer clear.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
        AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

        It makes so much more sense now. Thank you for explaining! As I have no statistical data or prior knowledge to offer on this (as this type of discussion seems to demand), I shall sit back and watch the discussion and do some research.

        Thanks smile

        1. mrpopo profile image88
          mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Anytime! And I appreciate your comment - believe me, you've already made a significant contribution to the discussion.

    2. theraggededge profile image94
      theraggededgeposted 6 months ago in reply to this
      1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
        AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Yes my question and example was to find out what exactly white privilege was in the united states as a starter question, as my knowledge on the subject was basically nothing, not to argue for or against. (note disclaimer) smile Someone explained it to me so I got a better understanding of how people are thinking about it now.

  5. colorfulone profile image89
    colorfuloneposted 6 months ago

    Mr. Popo, I have been reading History Is A Weapon "Propaganda" (1928) by Edward Bernays.

    "The Secret History of Western Education" by Charlotte Isberbyt, I listened to on YouTube. Then, I read "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America".

    There is a reason for everything and nothing new under the sun.  Propaganda is a powerful tool that can be used for good or for evil to control groups of people, and the masses.  Through an act of Congress the Carnegie Foundation was charted for U.S. education and scientific research in 1906. 

    Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Cornelius Vanderbilt  are noted as the devious men who built America. 

    After reading "Lines of Credit: Ropes of Bondage". I would dare say that the people who desire to not owe anyone anything are the most free.  That, those who are the greatest in debt are the most enslaved because of good credit and their material desires.

    I think the history of America has been written and rewritten by those who wish to control our minds, feelings, actions, reactions and even the will of people as a whole and by communities and race through propaganda.  There lies the root of racism (I believe), because they could use tactics that unit us instead of polarize. 

    We have been educated for the work force based on what we can do in order to become enslaved, or brainwashed with a slave mentality?  Both are based on rewards (dog training). 

    Recommended Reading:
    "None Dare Call It Conspiracy"
    "Conspiracy of Silence"

    Peace!

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    Just don't live beyond your means.
    Means is everything.
    means:
    2 money; financial resources:


    Do whites have attributes which others do not have?? (the word privileges is not workable because it implies that someone has issued them. Whites were not issued privileges / advantages by anyone.)

    1. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them. ~  Albert Einstein

      The US education system is in crisis because of the factory model.  Children will be taken out of school and brought to learn how to make Cuban cigars, and soon they will be graduating at age 14 and put to work.  (Soviet socialism communist scenario)   
      Unless, we can stop it!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        yeah, by not electing stupid presidents, pure and simple.

    2. lovetherain profile image72
      lovetherainposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      SOME people are issued privileges though.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Really?
        by who?

        1. lovetherain profile image72
          lovetherainposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          You really have not heard of Affirmative Action?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Thank you. I was just wondering.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    The significant problems we have =____________________________.
    cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them =_________________________________

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    freedom of will is what we have.
    pure and simple.
    how we guide this will within the limits and opportunities set up by people / their governments is the essence of life.
    setting up the environment is the key. What are the perimeters and what are the opportunities.
    Only we can figure this out. when some force is encroaching upon our way of life we need to address it …
      But here is the problem. The unified force of WE is not on the same page. and we do not know how to get on the same page.
    Here is where education comes in.

    The Way I See It

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    "Many believe that the diversity of current American society suggests that affirmative action policies succeeded and are no longer required. Opponents of affirmative action argue that these policies are outdated and lead to reverse discrimination which entails favoring one group over another based upon racial preference rather than achievement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmati … ted_States
    RATHER THAN ACHIEVEMENT!

    Achievement
    1 a thing done successfully, typically by effort, courage, or skill:
    2 the process or fact of achieving something:

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    What stands in the way of achievement of ANYONE in the United States of America????

    What stands in the way of individual achievement, ability to survive and joy of life?

    One thing is being forced.
    For instance, this is what school systems do. They are cranking out sheep.
    Students are not led to think for themselves.
    why? because no one understands their ability to cooperate with love,  joy and enthusiasm.
    Look at a puppy! Look at a small child!
    what do you see?
    Joy of Life.
    School systems need to keep this joy of life in tact by offering more freedom of choice and more encouragement to follow intrinsic interests as they develop new ones. It is not just a matter of cracking open the brain and pouring in what the school systems / governments think they should know. Only through interest and respect for knowledge is information even retained. So what is the point of forcing students to learn?

    What is the point of forcing others to work for others through socialism? It merely shuts down the will.
    Sorry, but working for oneself and one's loved ones is the nature of the human soul.
    So let us.
    The only person that will let us do this is White Ace Trump.
    Sorry about that.

    1. lovetherain profile image72
      lovetherainposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Personal faults only, such as laziness.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        … most of the time, even laziness is the result of being forced!
        other personal faults may be instilled by improper/ ignorant parenting.
        Bad diets … stupid peer pressure.


        Boundaries can go a long way.

        Freedom within appropriate boundaries.

    2. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      For the past twenty years or so young Native Americans have been committing suicide. They say its because of oppression.  It is heartbreaking.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        "The truth is most reservations and Indian communities are as poor as, or below, the level of the third world/global south countries. Looking at it from my own experience, my own nation’s reservation is gripped by abject poverty and utter desperation and isolation. Alcohol and drug use are killing more of us than Custer and Sherman could have ever have hoped to with guns and bombs, and there is little hope for the future when faced with the full force of the white supremacist, Christian, patriarchal capital-imperialist machine that is the United States Federal government."
        https://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpre … d-ignored/

        Historical insight:

        "This Land is My Land
        The English valued everything in monetary terms. The Native Americans' goal was to live in harmony with nature. While the Native Americans tried to make political alliances with the colonists, the Europeans were more interested in grabbing as much land as possible.
        The Native Americans' social hierarchy was not based on property ownership. They lived in different areas during the year, depending on the season. Their mobile lifestyle meant that their homes had none of the possessions that were the sign of status in Europe. Using matting, bark and pelts, they lived in easily built lodges."
        http://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2007/10 … s-bay.html

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          But of course, living in harmony with nature could become an ever increasing, rather than ever diminishing, conscious goal for materialists in America.

          1. colorfulone profile image89
            colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            I love living in harmony with nature.  I think everyone should have good relations with descendants of the original people in their country, it is the right thing to do.  I have several Native American friends from back in our high school years.  Time tested and approved!

  11. mrpopo profile image88
    mrpopoposted 6 months ago

    I'm disappointed only one person has challenged the premise in my argument. There seemed to be no end of challenges in the last thread, though most were conflating what the OP was saying regarding his argument, specifically the word superior.

    Speaking of which, this is what the paper I’ve linked in the OP says:

    On the other hand, the creation of a system in which race plays a central part − one that codifies the superiority of the white race over all others − has been in no way accidental or haphazard.

    Curious how she used the word superiority while arguing that white privilege exists, and how she specifies this was not accidental.

    Like I repeatedly said in the last thread: those of you who believe white privilege exists must necessarily believe that whites were successful in designing a system of superiority unless you think it happened by chance. Kendall clearly thinks this wasn't by chance. If this wasn’t by chance, how did they do it? The answer should be obvious.

    All of you frothing at the mouth because of the OP in the last thread should take a hard look at yourselves.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      On the other hand, the creation of a system in which race plays a central part − one that codifies the superiority of the white race over all others − has been in no way accidental or haphazard.


      Okay, I'll bite.  I interpret this excerpt to mean that whites systematically and intentionally created a system in which race plays a central part, and that the notion of the superiority of the white race over all others is a central part of that system. 

      If you agree with her statement, it does not necessarily follow that because whites were successful at creating this system, which included the central notion of white superiority, that whites are actually superior.

      Now, I have a question for you.  You said:  Like I repeatedly said in the last thread: those of you who believe white privilege exists must necessarily believe that whites were successful in designing a system of superiority unless you think it happened by chance. Kendall clearly thinks this wasn't by chance. If this wasn’t by chance, how did they do it? [b]The answer should be obvious. :  Since you believe the answer should be obvious, what is this obvious answer?

      1. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        "If you agree with her statement, it does not necessarily follow that because whites were successful at creating this system, which included the central notion of white superiority, that whites are actually superior."

        In the context of the last thread, we were talking about whites being better specifically in creating a system of systematic advantages AKA privilege. The OP gave several venues on how this could happen: intelligence, savagery, numbers etc. Nothing about "actual superiority" was invoked, which I presume to mean overall racial supremacy.

        Like you've done just now, in the last thread most of you conflated superiority in one specific dimension with overall racial supremacy, which is why many kept giving examples of things like lions winning vs unarmed men (superior unarmed combat ability) as evidence of the lion being better than men (racial/special supremacy) and thus deserving of victory (moral justification). The latter two steps were never invoked by anyone - and yet again and again people this same mistake keeps propping up.

        "Since you believe the answer should be obvious, what is this obvious answer?"

        I'll use an analogous example provided by your own link:

        At some colleges and universities, for example, sons and daughters of alumnae and alumni might have lower grades and test scores than other applicants; they are accepted, however, because their parents graduated from the institutions. That is a privilege that the sons and daughters did nothing to earn; they were put ahead of other possible applicants who may have had higher test scores and grades because of where their parents had gone to school.

        How did the alumni parents of the privileged applicants get in university, if not by chance? What are the deciding factors in getting accepted to university? Superior grades, extracurricular activities, volunteering experience etc. relative to other candidates of that particular year. In other words, they were superior relative to the competition, in those particular dimensions, in that particular year.

        Apply the same principle to a group of people imposing systematic advantages to another group of people and you should have your answer. I've already stated it in this post and the last. Unless you have a better explanation? I'm all ears. How did someone succeed in something if they were not better than the competition in one or more relevant dimensions and if chance had nothing to do with it?

        Reminder that the definition of superior utilized in this context is as follows:

        "2. above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc.:
        superior math students."

        Note the example. Superior math students are no more superior as people than anyone else, but they are superior at being math students.

        Note the definition of excellence:

        "1. the fact or state of excelling; superiority; eminence:
        his excellence in mathematics."

        Again, note the use of math as an example. These words are interchangeable in this context.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          The other thread is no longer here for me to refer back to, unless I'm not seeing it somehow.

          So, before I continue further, would you mind just answering the question directly and simply, without all the justifications and qualifications?  This would help me immensely, as you said you previously answered it, but I don't feel like wading through a bunch of posts to find it.  I can then refer back to your justifications and qualifications as needed.

          Here is the quote from you and my previous question:  Like I repeatedly said in the last thread: those of you who believe white privilege exists must necessarily believe that whites were successful in designing a system of superiority unless you think it happened by chance. Kendall clearly thinks this wasn't by chance. If this wasn’t by chance, how did they do it? The answer should be obvious. Since you believe the answer should be obvious, what is this obvious answer?

          1. mrpopo profile image88
            mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            It's not there. I'm using my memory but I also have the cached pages saved on my browser somewhere. You can try downloading Chrome Cache View (or something similar) and look for them yourself, if you're interested.

            To answer your question: if whites were successful in designing a system of superiority, and this was not due to chance, then whites were superior in the relevant dimensions that enabled them to design this system of superiority. Some possible explanations: technological advantages, disease immunity, savagery, intelligence - basically, anything that gave whites a competitive edge.

            It can be summed up as a general rule: if person A won competition X against person B, and this was not due to chance or probability, then person A was better/superior in the relevant dimensions of competition X compared to person B.

            So far, nobody has proposed a different mechanism. Either chance or superiority in particular elements dictates outcomes in particular competitions.

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    It comes down to breeding and child rearing. The white advantage and privilege stems from certain habits of behavior intermingled with individual belief system. It is random and it is chance and it is all influenced by two major factors involving individual will and genetics.

    For instance: Adolf Hitler's scientists created humans from test tube fertilizations and they were raised to be superior. They were, in the end, not at all superior because an important ingredient was left out of their lives: No parents = no love. Oops. yikes

           No Love = No Joy of Life.

           No Joy of Life = No Enthusiasm.

           No Enthusiasm = No Intrinsic Motivation.

           No Intrinsic Motivation = No Will.

           No Will = No Accomplishment.

           No Accomplishment = No Superiority …

    at all.

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    Superiority cannot be brought about by design. It is random, but based on regions of populations. What made the "white race" superior in the past?

    Look at European nations and determine:
    1. Education
    2. Industry
    3. Strong wills of the people stemming from weather conditions which created the urgent necessity to survive.
    4. Love of families: closeness of wives and husbands / love for their children / love and care for extended family.
    6. Willingly following common sense boundaries and laws protecting individual liberty.
    7. Respect for other members in society, golden-rule wise, contributing to networking abilities leading to business / trade / wealth.
    8. Acquired standards of Discipline and Expectation within society.

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    P.S. Through experimentation it was determined that worms pass on newly learned behaviors to offspring.
    I am sure dog and horse breeders can shed some light on the subject of passing on superior genetic codes and behaviors as well.

    Obviously, in the human population no such puposeful breeding, (especially on a mass level,) goes on at a conscious level …
    At All.
    It is impossible.

  15. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    Perhaps, in the end, white privilege is just a matter of the effect of colder regions on the human population. Do New Yorkers have more privileges than Californians?
    Could I, from LA survive in Buffalo?
    I am not smart enough to adapt there, therefore no privileges for me!
    Could my children or their children survive there? I think they would have a harder time than those born and raised in Buffalo for several generations.

    1. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Good point.  People come here from all over the world for the Arrowhead 135 marathon and find out they were not prepared for the harsh winter elements like the locals.   

      It was snowing here this past Friday - Saturday.  USA- global warming!

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago
  17. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image97
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 6 months ago

    I've been 'white' for 42 years now. Where do I sign up for some of that privilege? I'm poor as dirt, been locked up several times for petty crimes, and denied jobs applications in places by people acting like they didn't know what I was asking for.

    Where is the white privilege office of affairs? I need to sign up for what I'm due.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Despite the sociocultural, sociopolitical, & socioeconomic inroads & progress made by non-Caucasians, females, & formerly marglinalized groups in the United States, there are still remnants of Caucasian hegemony in American culture & society.  Besides remnants of Caucasian hegemony, there are also remnants of male, heterosexual, married, & Christian hegemony in American culture & society.

      The most important thing to realize that there is wealth hegemony in America. That is whoever has the purse strings or the most concentrated money controls & influences America socioculturally, socio-politically, & socioeconomically.  It really does not matter what race, age, marital status, creed, sexual orientation, &/or gender, it is one's socioeconomic class which determines the hegemony h/she has in American society.  So skip the so-called Caucasian, male hegemony.

      Although Caucasian male hegemony still exists, if one is a Caucasian male.......& in the lower socioeconomic rungs of American society, how much "control", "power", "predominance", & even "preeminence  does he has.  Well, very little to none unless it's in his immediate environment aside from work.   A non-Caucasian woman who is in the upper socioeconomic echelons of society has MUCH MORE control, power, predominance, & even preeminence.  So come to think of it, it really ISN'T Caucasian hegemony a/k/a White privilege or even male hegemony a/k/a male privilege.  It is more like socioeconomic hegemony a/k/a rich/wealth privilege than any racial or gender privilege.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
        AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        I am not male, married, Christian, or of middle or upper class. Not looking good for me.

      2. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Rich privilege would be a more accurate term. What would you do about it?

      3. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Any American hegemony is only because of the Globalist's vast amount of money to secure their interests to control the money through their appointed rulers that obey.   America is bankrupt.

        This is How Corrupt The Political System Is
        * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBZ2V9LMeDk

      4. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Well said, yes the money is the ultimate determinate. I deal with 'Wealth Privilege by having law and the courts restrict their ability to do whatever is it  they like when it is out of line. Just as I prefer to  deal with other 'groups' who 'take advantage'.

        There is a lot of residual Caucasian hegemony in this society. The rise of Trump and the racial resentment politics behind his rise attests to that.

        White privilege is like the atmosphere. The atmosphere has weight, volume and can react to and employ force, but unless you evaluate the individual atoms and molecules that compose it, people will stare at you in disbelief and say 'where is this so called atmosphere of yours' has it disappeared into thin air?

  18. paradigmsearch profile image89
    paradigmsearchposted 6 months ago

    "White privilege - What to do about it?"

    As far as I'm concerned, the law treats white males as second-class citizens these days. In fact, it's been that way for quite awhile.

  19. colorfulone profile image89
    colorfuloneposted 6 months ago

    Crede, that is Salon radical left-wing nonsense about Trump.
      http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2815189
    That site romanticizes pedophilia.  Yikes, pure evil agenda.  Maybe search for truth instead spreading Salon garbage. Spreading "racial resentment politics" is spreading just that, and pinning it on Trump is BS.  Be a solution to the problem, not a part of it.  Liberal media is full of propaganda. 

    The fact is "racial resentment politics" is a deep seeded problem that began long, long ago.  Because of the way the government is run, it is doubtful that Trump will be able to change that in 4 or 8 years.  The Globalists have the corner on that agenda. Trump is a Nationalist, so no worries (and is an outsider). 

    Talk about "racial resentment politics"!

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Colorfulone, It is better than the WND rag and other right wing rubbish things that you quote as legitimate. And it is not just Salon that is saying it. Like you said, I am not your secretary, look it up!!! But according the
      Rightwingers, 99 percent of mainstream media is in error, only their erroneous sources are to be trusted, not in my opinion... Trump is part of the problem, he is the last person that will "change it'.  While it began long ago, Trump with his attacks on those that are not White Males pours gasoline on a raging fire.

      1. colorfulone profile image89
        colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Rubbish!

  20. AshtonFirefly profile image83
    AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago

    Just a meandering thought, as I follow this thread and absorb the information:

    There still has not been any suggestions as to how to correct the issue of white privilege, should it exist based on racial bias...how would one do this without sacrificing the already established rules of non-discriminatory criteria?  I feel like we're already doing all that we can; the problem is that people are not following laws of non-discrimination, and that's something that is difficult to prove.

    For example, I KNEW that I was being discriminated against when I lived in Florida, because the managers always treated the hispanic and haitians with respect, and treated me with disrespect. In a situation where I had seniority, I always received the benefits of a new hire. I was given write ups for things that the hispanics and haitians did not. There was nothing which separated me from them: I held the same position, was the same age, etc. but consistently received horrible treatment. Now, did I KNOW that I was being discriminated against because I was a white Caucasian? YES. Could I prove it? NO. All I could do is say "look. I'm not being treated like these other people." Their response? "Well each manager evaluates each case differently. Yours may have been different for (such and such a reason...)" and they could explain it away...

    My point is, in this given situation, what could I realistically do about it? The managers would still discriminate, they would still come up with [valid] reasons as to why I was treated differently, but what could effectively be done to change it? Nothing. The only thing they could do is re-emphasize the anti-discriminatory rules already in place, and those can be very craftily disobeyed without proof of it.

    If I'm remembering correctly Mrpopo, this was your original question [i.e. what could be done about it] and I have yet to see anyone really answer it hmm

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I don't know if I can ask you to correct it, Ashton. All I ask is that people acknowledge that it exists and it is hard to get people to recognize that. It is not about individuals but structure and institutions. It is a machine that operates in a certain way that no one thinks much about until it is closely examined.

      You have been one of the few Anglo's that actual get to see the shoe on the other foot. It is wholly unfair, is it not? You can see how it is easily concealed and almost impossible to ferret out, so Mr. P's reasoning about adequate identification and punishment for those that practice such things rings hollow.

      I liked the public sector as an employer because they had to keep records and support the fact that the successful hire was selected without racial bias. I could take recourse if they were not in compliance and register my complaint to an independent agency. The agency could review the selection process to see that the successful one, won based on job related skills and merit. But, inspite of that,  in your experience and mine, which is over a much broader part of American life, you can't cut it off completely. But to apply legal remedies where possible is better than doing nothing. I did not trust  the private sector because my time was valuable and discrimination wasted my time and efforts, denying me the just reward for my work that otherwise everybody else was receiving.  There more of a problem with arbitrary stuff, working for the private sector much like you experienced with your employer.

      1. mrpopo profile image88
        mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        "You can see how it is easily concealed and almost impossible to ferret out, so Mr. P's reasoning about adequate identification and punishment for those that practice such things rings hollow."

        One of the great things of your American legal system is the idea of innocent until proven guilty. In other words, your legal system would rather let a criminal get away on lack of evidence than punish an innocent person on lack of evidence. I get that it can be difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (in general, not just with cases about discrimination), but that's the standard we must operate on if we want to avoid punishing innocent people for crimes they did not commit. If that rings hollow to you, I don't know what to say.

    2. mrpopo profile image88
      mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Yes. Nobody has given an answer other than "acknowledge it exists," which, as you said, doesn't really solve anything.

      Can I ask, in what ways could a manager validly justify their disrespect towards you relative to other workers? I'm sure they could explain it away, I'm just having a hard time coming up with anything.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
        AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Well, usually it would be dismissed as me "taking something personally." The only witnesses I had were the hispanics and the haitians, who of course said the same thing. My word meant nothing. My observation would be more or less dismissed as being all in my head. You know?

        1. mrpopo profile image88
          mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          I was referring more to this:

          "Well each manager evaluates each case differently. Yours may have been different for (such and such a reason...)"

          Let's say you had evidence that the Hispanics and Haitians were given seniority benefits while you weren't, that your transgressions earned you write-ups while theirs were overlooked etc. and you provided this evidence to the management demanding an explanation. What could be a valid justification? I know they could ignore the evidence and dismiss it as you taking it personally but that wouldn't adequately explain the disparity in outcome.

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
            AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Because there really wasn't evidence. I couldn't prove that someone else had done the same error and didn't get a write up. All I'd be able to say was, "I've seen this person do [ this] and the manager didn't reprimand them..." It was more based upon behavior than actual evidence, as whether or not someone actually received a write up was not technically allowed. I could say, "such and such told me they didn't get a write up, therefore..." To which they would say "I'm not allowed to confirm whether or not they did, and there may have been other circumstances influencing, etc."  Now as far as seniority, that was easier to defend. Proving however that it was  intentional and not simply a mistake was difficult. Now the process of reporting these kinds of cases was also not confidential, no matter how much they said it was. If I went higher up, someone WOULD find out and I feared retaliation or hostile environment. So the attempts I did make were shunned, and I was aware that if I took it higher, there would be a leak of that info, for managers were friends with all the same-race workers.

            1. mrpopo profile image88
              mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              I understand there wasn't really evidence. I'm saying hypothetically, if you had evidence (logs/records of the events) demonstrating different outcomes under identical circumstances, and you presented it to management/court/body of peers etc., what could they say to explain the disparity? Basically I'm trying to ask what are some possible valid explanations for the difference in outcomes, other than discrimination.

              1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
                AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                Usually there are none. Discrimination is simply denied without explanation.

                For example, hypothetically I have a log showing that at each time I had seniority in choosing which task I took on for that day. I had first choice, but it was given to someone else. Yes I can prove that. So I would take it to management, who would say something like:

                "It is possible the manager was not aware of your seniority."

                So great, but it continues. So I keep bringing it up.

                "This person may have had a difficult work load this week, so they were given priority of choice"

                However, I point out that in the same situation, when I had a difficult work load which gave me priority of choice, someone else with "seniority" was given the choice. Should I present this, it becomes,

                "It is up to the manager's discretion to determine if the work load was enough to warrant priority of choice."

                And if I say, "I feel that their 'discretion' is based on race," then it becomes:

                It becomes: "We will look into it," then later..."we could find no solid proof of this in our investigation."

                In other words, the managers found an infinite number of factors which may have influenced this decision, whether "true" or not, often resorting to "there were extenuating circumstances I'm not legally allowed to discuss."

                Also, the majority of my complaints were an accumulation of little things which managers claimed could not be proven to be logically connected.

                In the meantime, word is getting around that I'm complaining about it, only it was spoken in spanish and haitian creole, which I was able to understand, and which they did not know I was able to understand. If I claimed that someone said something which proved there was discrimination going on, it was my word against theirs.

                Sorry if I'm failing to understand your question hmm Hopefully that helped explain...

                1. mrpopo profile image88
                  mrpopoposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  No worries, you answered it just fine. I don't think there are any good explanations they could come up with for your particular case, but you've provided two explanations they could invoke:

                  1) It is possible the manager was not aware of your seniority.
                  2) This person may have had a difficult work load this week, so they were given priority of choice.

                  Both of those answers can only explain a handful of outcomes at best. For 1, the manager would be aware of your seniority after one, two, maybe three mistakes, and if they were genuine mistakes they would correct the mistake every time it happened. If the manager remains oblivious of your seniority over months or years (and makes no attempt to correct that mistake) then the manager is either inept or intentionally ignoring your seniority, and in either case the manager should be reprimanded and probably punished to some capacity.

                  Also, since they'd be admitting these are recurring mistakes on the part of the manager, you'd have a good case in getting them to rectify the situation and provide your rightful seniority benefits for every time it was missed. Example 2 would be more or less similar.

                  I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on in court if you provided evidence of this behaviour occurring more than a handful of times. Basically, I'm just trying to point out that the main problem isn't really the laws in place or the court system. The problem is the difficulty in gathering evidence, and this is true of just about anything but especially regarding unfair discriminatory practices. And this problem will never go away because we demand evidence beyond a reasonable doubt when establishing guilt, and rightfully so.

                  I think transparency and public records could help workers with finding evidence, as it did for Credence in the public sector (and I'm glad it did), but I worry about the potential misuse of this information.

                  Also, note that I didn't invoke race in any the above. Discriminatory practices are not limited to minorities and are not limited to race. Erroneously stating that a group of people have systematic immunities to this problem (as white privilege does) points the blame in the wrong direction and is in some ways a fundamental misunderstanding. Even in your particular case I'd be careful of stating that they were discriminating against you specifically because you were white. We know that they were discriminating against you; this could be because they don't like you specifically (has happened to me before), instead of all whites in general.

                  Fortunately, we don't need to establish discrimination on racial grounds, just that the discrimination is unfair.

                  1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
                    AshtonFireflyposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes I see your point. Discrimination against me could have also been based on cultural factors, as well. I obviously was not aware of Hispanic or Haitian culture, so it may have been more of a cultural discrimination. 
                    Either way like you said, it would still be handled the same

    3. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Perhaps if the power was the states' to enforce the laws on the books.  Ugh!  That would take an act of Congress?  Maybe a states' SCOTUS ruling.  Who has the money or influence willing to do that?

  21. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 6 months ago

    I am not a scientist , nor a archeologist ,  I am not a professional historian , And   I  more than suspect that that's why we do not see such professionals in these public forums , But ,   "White privilege what do we do about it " ,  not only asks  for an assumed answer to an already morally correct  and assumed question .    In other words  ,    to even answer this question one has to automatically assume that the question itself is ethnically correct in literal composition .

    All of the above professions , archeology , historian and  science have one great advantage to their  professional make up ,  they lack emotion   empathy , personal agenda or political correctness in their professional make -up,   they rely completely on cold hard fact , on written words ,  on an intricate ability to decipher simple and at times obscure pieces of  history to make determinations of such fact .
    Most times , they can't even be  totally conclusive in their outcomes .

    White privilege,  while at one time  a real entity in America , today is nothing more than a bad   dream .   We can no more  assume it's existence today  than we can  assume that of the Minority Privileged .   Since the racially driven  make over of the pre-nineteen sixties in America and especially before that  of Affirmative Action ,  civil rights acts and actions  ,  ethnic diversity ,  population shifts , immigration  ebbs and flows ,  America IS and HAS become a far different platform of  a population and culture melting pot .

    Accept it or not ,   There is no more "White Privilege " in America  than there is  black privilege , brown privilege , yellow privilege , or purple privilege in our country.   In fact ,  The existence of racist  ethnic ,or  religious bias , is far more prevalent in most other , even  culturally more advanced countries ,than in America  TODAY !

    What there is though , is a mass  culturally centered  , emotionally driven  presence of  victim-hood  present  today , that and a media that continually bottom- feeds on any  hysterically driven focus on all cultural wars  as if computer  "hits " were their moral compass .   

    Just why is it that all of the "White Privilege " finger pointing  comes almost entirely   from some factions of the  African American community   today , especially when given the  entirely diverse  ethnic make up in America  ?That would have been a far better and fairer question  .   I give you this ,  That question would have been entirely and far more fair and answerable  a question seventy years ago , than today.      I believe that  the very popular  cultural  love affair with the all things 1965  in America right now , IS the entire make up of this very question .  There is no "White Privilege" in America today  , any more than there is black privilege , blue privilege or  green privilege .

 
working