White privilege poll.

[SimpleDon]

While it may not be a privilege to be white in the US, excuse the play on words, there are many benefits to being a white male in the US still even after sixty years of progress for minorities and women.

An obvious one is that equality in opportunity is still limited to what white males are willing to grant. Take the supposed great equalizer, education. Whites, both men and women go to better schools than non-whites.

I realize that while I risk cries of derailing the thread, I feel that I have to point out that in parallel with white privilege, you also have to consider class privilege, which might be a much stronger support for the existing social order and a much larger impediment to a merit-based society than white privilege. Most of the advantages that white privilege is suppose to bestow on the favored are actually ones of class, not race. Upper class minorities have always been able to insulate themselves and their children from most if not all of the fallout from racism, providing an unearned advantage to be passed on to their children.

We have an example of what I am talking about, the recent thread on legacy admissions to top universities far outnumbering AA minority admissions, both under relaxed criteria, but without the conservatives' outcry in the case of legacy admissions of what they say is important, that the university is admitting less qualified candidates over more qualified candidates. The inescapable conclusion of the thread is that conservatives accept being disadvantaged by class privilege while denying the existence of white privilege.

I agree with you about 'class' privileges (inverted commas because socioeconomic status has tended to replace class as a categorisation in countries without formal or even semi-formal classes) and it may even be the case that they are more advantageous than, say, white privileges, nowadays, in the USA (where, as Randy Newman sang, 'it's money that matters'). It's an interesting topic. Possibly off-topic here, even if related. You wouldn't be the first person to suggest that differences in skin colour have been used to divide disadvantaged groups that might otherwise unite in common cause against the wealthy, the powerful elite and the establishment. It's arguably a bit of an ongoing con job, possibly in the USA more than anywhere else in the world, though it probably exists everywhere. As Gene Hackman's character in the film, 'Mississippi Burning' said (about his father poisoning a neighbouring black farmer's mule), 'as a poor white man, if you ain't better than a poor black man, who are you better than?' Nobody wants to be at the bottom, so last place and second-last place fight about it, when they should both be fighting someone much higher up. Something similar could be said about the middle 'classes'.

This is one reason why at least a bit more socialism would probably benefit most people in the USA, imo, and quite possibly partly why it's been strategically labelled a bogeyman. Another con job, imo.

Maybe we should mainly stick to the issue of white privilege here though, tempted though I am to branch off.

I am sorry that I raised it. Perhaps someone could start a separate thread about it.

I can't host a thread, it takes me too much effort to write posts and I "type" so slowly I answer a post two or three pages after the post I am answering.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

"Small", "moderate" and "large" don't mean much to me, so I just went with large.

I wrote a few paragraphs explaining my choice, but I didn't think it would persuade anyone of anything.

The problem with the concept of white privilege is that it's a sociological phenomenon: you can see its effect across groups of people, but you can't definitely say how racial privilege affected the path some particular person's life took at some particular juncture. If you can't explain the effect of white privilege to people in terms of personal stories, then a lot of people just won't be convinced that it's real.

On top of that, people go out of their way to misunderstand the idea, by comparing wealthy blacks (e.g. the Obamas) to poor whites, or citing fringe examples of discrimination against whites. Such people cannot be reasoned with.

Yeah. Basically this. I do think people can at least learn what white privilege means, so they can at least learn what the conversation is about, but in general, people who don't believe in it are simply ignorant of what it means.

Unpacking the invisible knapsack is a good place to start
https://nationalseedproject.org/Key-SEED-Texts/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

 

[ruby sparks]

I am sorry that I raised it. Perhaps someone could start a separate thread about it.

No need to be sorry at all. It's a very, very good and important point, imo, and arguably even more worthy of discussion than this OP, and related to it. Arguably the broader and deeper picture, which I think is always important. I shouldn't have put you off at all. For starters, I'm not in charge of the thread. In fact, apologies, and please feel free to continue. It probably won't derail the whole thread and can always be tied back to the OP to which it is related.

 

[Trausti]

White privilege is asians consistently outperforming whites in most social outcomes.

 

[Toni]

"Small", "moderate" and "large" don't mean much to me, so I just went with large.

I wrote a few paragraphs explaining my choice, but I didn't think it would persuade anyone of anything.

The problem with the concept of white privilege is that it's a sociological phenomenon: you can see its effect across groups of people, but you can't definitely say how racial privilege affected the path some particular person's life took at some particular juncture. If you can't explain the effect of white privilege to people in terms of personal stories, then a lot of people just won't be convinced that it's real.

On top of that, people go out of their way to misunderstand the idea, by comparing wealthy blacks (e.g. the Obamas) to poor whites, or citing fringe examples of discrimination against whites. Such people cannot be reasoned with.

Yeah. Basically this. I do think people can at least learn what white privilege means, so they can at least learn what the conversation is about, but in general, people who don't believe in it are simply ignorant of what it means.

Unpacking the invisible knapsack is a good place to start
https://nationalseedproject.org/Key-SEED-Texts/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

Oh, I disagree that it is impossible to see how white privilege affected individual people by telling their stories. My own family is a case in point: My grandparents and parents were poor during the Great Depression. My generation are all very solidly middle to upper middle class, in one generation. Largely because we were unburdened by the color of our skins. Heck, our country is rife with the stories of powerful, almost exclusively white people who are born into poverty and yet succeed beyond anyone's wildest dreams. It's The American Dream.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't think you can understand white privilege without incorporating the study of socioeconomic class. Absent class issues, the "white race" and "black race" would never have been invented to begin with. It is and always was a cynical idea, meant to divide the working poor against each one another and stave off rebellion against the aristocracy. The true power brokers have enough education to know that biology doesn't really work the way folk taxonomies of race would have you believe (and it shows, when you look at how they treat impoverished whites) but when you have a considerable economic stake in the perpetuation of a bad idea, it's not hard to convince yourself of it.

At the risk of teeing away from the main OP......

I do agree, of course. Well, up to a point. I don't think any aristocracy invented racism. They may have exploited it however.

 

[Trausti]

White privilege is when black/latino/ethnic studies promote the achievements and specialness of being black/latino/ethnic. But whiteness studies treats whiteness as a disease; white people being born with sin requiring eternal repentance.

 

[Bomb#20]

White privilege: social, political and other advantages that derive from being white (that is to say, because of that, and not, for example, by being gained in another way). Privilege is generally considered to have been unearned through personal endeavour, for example.
...
In answering this particular poll, the idea is to indicate whether you agree that overall, there are more (or more valuable) advantages to being white rather than non-white...

"Privilege" and "advantage" are political terms. So when you ask "Does (overall) white privilege exist in the USA?", that automatically brings up four questions that need to be addressed.

1: What is a neutral, clinical way to characterize whichever phenomenon you're labeling "white privilege" and "advantage"?

2: Going by that neutral, clinical characterization, does the phenomenon you have in mind exist in the USA?

3: Assuming the phenomenon exists, what additional properties are you ascribing to that phenomenon by labeling it "white privilege" and "advantage" instead of using the neutral clinical terms from the get-go?

4: Assuming the phenomenon exists, does it in point of fact have those additional properties you ascribe to it?​

I think one useful way to think about it is to ask if, all other things being equal (such as socioeconomic status for example, and many others) is it generally the case that being white in the USA has advantages, of itself.

Given that nineteen people died in the Santa Rosa firestorm, we could also ask if it is generally the case that escaping with your life and losing only your house and your dozen-odd musical instruments has advantages, of itself.

The political term "advantage" carries the connotation that one is benefiting. The hypothesis that one is benefiting appears to be derived from the observation that another is being harmed and from the assumption that life is a zero-sum game. Life is not a zero-sum game. Racism harms people of some races more than others; but we'd all be better off without it.

 

[ruby sparks]

"Small", "moderate" and "large" don't mean much to me, so I just went with large.

I wrote a few paragraphs explaining my choice, but I didn't think it would persuade anyone of anything.

The problem with the concept of white privilege is that it's a sociological phenomenon: you can see its effect across groups of people, but you can't definitely say how racial privilege affected the path some particular person's life took at some particular juncture. If you can't explain the effect of white privilege to people in terms of personal stories, then a lot of people just won't be convinced that it's real.

On top of that, people go out of their way to misunderstand the idea, by comparing wealthy blacks (e.g. the Obamas) to poor whites, or citing fringe examples of discrimination against whites. Such people cannot be reasoned with.

Yeah. Basically this. I do think people can at least learn what white privilege means, so they can at least learn what the conversation is about, but in general, people who don't believe in it are simply ignorant of what it means.

Unpacking the invisible knapsack is a good place to start
https://nationalseedproject.org/Key-SEED-Texts/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

A useful list, imo, even if slightly out of date (1989).

 

[ruby sparks]

Oh, I disagree that it is impossible to see how white privilege affected individual people by telling their stories. My own family is a case in point: My grandparents and parents were poor during the Great Depression. My generation are all very solidly middle to upper middle class, in one generation. Largely because we were unburdened by the color of our skins. Heck, our country is rife with the stories of powerful, almost exclusively white people who are born into poverty and yet succeed beyond anyone's wildest dreams. It's The American Dream.

I'm not sure BWE said that was impossible but.....

Yes, good example. And if detail were needed, it could be added, in the form of aspects of The New Deal, redlining, Jim Crow Laws and so on.

Now, those are not things of today. So the question becomes, are the (legacy) outcomes still there today? I would say yes, most notably in terms of wealth (which is not just income, but includes for example property). In other words, the advantages (privileges) were to some extent inherited, and, not merely inherited from previous privileges, but from previous racist discriminations, and not that long ago. Literally in my lifetime.

 

[Politesse]

I don't think you can understand white privilege without incorporating the study of socioeconomic class. Absent class issues, the "white race" and "black race" would never have been invented to begin with. It is and always was a cynical idea, meant to divide the working poor against each one another and stave off rebellion against the aristocracy. The true power brokers have enough education to know that biology doesn't really work the way folk taxonomies of race would have you believe (and it shows, when you look at how they treat impoverished whites) but when you have a considerable economic stake in the perpetuation of a bad idea, it's not hard to convince yourself of it.

At the risk of teeing away from the main OP......

I do agree, of course. Well, up to a point. I don't think any aristocracy invented racism. They may have exploited it however.

I did not claim that they invented racism, only the specific concepts of "black" and "white" classes in particular. And it was absolutely weatlhy academics who invented, defined, and pushed those concepts. There was no folk concept of inherent blackness or whitness before slavery became an integral component to the colonial economy of Europe.

 

[ruby sparks]

There was no folk concept of inherent blackness or whiteness before slavery became an integral component to the colonial economy of Europe.

I have to doubt that very much. I believe Aristotle was at least somewhat anti-black for starters, and arguably Plato. Aristotle is sometimes called the father of race science. That may be a simplistic overstatement, but I do not think it is hard to find pejorative racial distinctions being made between light and dark skin colour long before the European slave trade. And why not? It's one of the most overt, obvious differences, and once you get that, you get ingroup/outgroup behaviours almost automatically.

 

[Politesse]

There was no folk concept of inherent blackness or whiteness before slavery became an integral component to the colonial economy of Europe.

I doubt that very much. I believe Aristotle was anti-black for starters. He is sometimes called the father of race science.

Citation? Aristotle had very odd views of physiognomy, by modern standards. Prejudicial, certainly, but they do not correspond clearly to modern categories of Blacks and Whites. Do you think Aristotle would have considered a resident of what's now Britain to be of the same ethnos as himself? What about Norway? The Eurasian steppe?

 

[ruby sparks]

There was no folk concept of inherent blackness or whiteness before slavery became an integral component to the colonial economy of Europe.

I doubt that very much. I believe Aristotle was anti-black for starters. He is sometimes called the father of race science.

Citation? Aristotle had very odd views of physiognomy, by modern standards. Prejudicial, certainly, but they do not correspond clearly to modern categories of Blacks and Whites. Do you think Aristotle would have considered a resident of what's now Britain to be of the same ethnos as himself? What about Norway? The Eurasian steppe?

If you are saying that folk concepts of inherent blackness or whitness did not exist before the European colonial slave trade (which is what you said), you cannot be serious.

Here's Aristotle just for for starters, from his 'Physiognomics', not just making skin colour distinctions, but using pejoratives based on them, and throwing in sexism against white women for good measure:

"Those who are too swarthy are cowardly; this applies to Egyptians and Ethiopians. But the excessively fair are also cowardly; witness women."

If you want citations from other ancient writers, just say.

 

[ruby sparks]

"The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are black in colour and have flat noses and woolly hair. As for their spirit they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast, not so much, however, in their temper as in their ways of living; for they are squalid all over their bodies, they keep their nails very long like the wild beasts, and are as far removed as possible from human kindness to one another; and speaking as they do with a shrill voice and cultivating none of the practices of civilized life as these are found among the rest of mankind, they present a striking contrast when considered in the light of our own customs."

Diodorus Siculus, 1st C BCE.

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh, I disagree that it is impossible to see how white privilege affected individual people by telling their stories. My own family is a case in point: My grandparents and parents were poor during the Great Depression. My generation are all very solidly middle to upper middle class, in one generation. Largely because we were unburdened by the color of our skins. Heck, our country is rife with the stories of powerful, almost exclusively white people who are born into poverty and yet succeed beyond anyone's wildest dreams. It's The American Dream.

Your "almost exclusively white people" is far from reality. But it does fit the politicization of the topic. It serves those pushing their political narrative of white power to overlook (or deny) black accomplishments. The entertainment and sports industries are full of multi-millionaire black stars that grew up in poverty. Many major cities have black mayors and other blacks in high political office. Their are many blacks that have started and run both small and major businesses. As you say, "It's The American Dream."

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, I disagree that it is impossible to see how white privilege affected individual people by telling their stories. My own family is a case in point: My grandparents and parents were poor during the Great Depression. My generation are all very solidly middle to upper middle class, in one generation. Largely because we were unburdened by the color of our skins. Heck, our country is rife with the stories of powerful, almost exclusively white people who are born into poverty and yet succeed beyond anyone's wildest dreams. It's The American Dream.

Your "almost exclusively white people" is far from reality. But it does fit the politicization of the topic. It serves those pushing their political narrative of white power to overlook (or deny) black accomplishments. The entertainment and sports industries are full of multi-millionaire black stars that grew up in poverty. Many major cities have black mayors and other blacks in high political office. Their are many blacks that have started and run both small and major businesses. As you say, "It's The American Dream."

A disinterested and nuanced thinker would see the term "almost exclusively" as allowing for black accomplishments.

Your hand-waved response serves the political narrative of "no racism here" in order to diminish the real effects of racism and its legacy in the USA.

 

[Politesse]

Citation? Aristotle had very odd views of physiognomy, by modern standards. Prejudicial, certainly, but they do not correspond clearly to modern categories of Blacks and Whites. Do you think Aristotle would have considered a resident of what's now Britain to be of the same ethnos as himself? What about Norway? The Eurasian steppe?

If you are saying that folk concepts of inherent blackness or whitness did not exist before the European colonial slave trade (which is what you said), you cannot be serious.

Here's Aristotle just for for starters, from his 'Physiognomics', not just making skin colour distinctions, but using pejoratives based on them, and throwing in sexism against white women for good measure:

"Those who are too swarthy are cowardly; this applies to Egyptians and Ethiopians. But the excessively fair are also cowardly; witness women."

If you want citations from other ancient writers, just say.

So you feel that in Aristotle, there are two "Races", one including all residents of Egypt and Ethiopia, and one including all human women? And that these two categories mean the same thing as "White" and "Black" in American politics? I note that it includes: Tall people. Short People. Stupid people. Smart people.... well, actually an excess of any physical, mental, or spiritual quality, which makes sense if you know anything about Aristotle.

I am not saying that no one ever noticed skin color before 1620. I am saying that people understood physiological variations between people in a fundamentally different way before 1620, and definitely the implementation thereof. Shall we start listing off all the various groups and peoples whom Aristotle insults in the Categories, and see how many of those peoples represent a "race" as per British industrial age colonial law?

 

[ruby sparks]

So you feel that in Aristotle, there are two "Races", one including all Egyptians and Ethiopeans, and one including all women?

No, I don't feel that. I'm not wasting much time on this. It's clearly wrong to say that there was no folk concept of blackness or whiteness before slavery became an integral component to the colonial economy of Europe. It clearly existed long before then, as did pejoratives associated with it. Obviously that's not to say it was exactly the same concept. It wasn't. We would not expect it to be. Perhaps one could say that there was no folk concept of blackness or whiteness in the modern sense before slavery became an integral component to the colonial economy of Europe. That wouldn't be surprising either. I doubt that the manifestation of many ingroup/outgroup behaviours in modern times are necessarily the same as they were further back in history, for a variety of reasons, including different zeitgeists. Or perhaps I mean weltanschauungs.

 

[Politesse]

So you feel that in Aristotle, there are two "Races", one including all Egyptians and Ethiopeans, and one including all women?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm not wasting much time on this. It's clearly wrong to say that there was no folk concept of blackness or whiteness before slavery became an integral component to the colonial economy of Europe. It clearly existed long before then, as did pejoratives associated with it. Obviously that's not to say it was exactly the same concept. It wasn't. We would not expect it to be.

You are saying, in the same paragraph, that they both did and did not have the same categories as now. Aristotle would surely suggest that your thinking is a bit muddled; he loved to laugh at rhetoricians who reasoned themselves into arguing both sides of the same point.

If you interpret this text to say that Aristotle was arguing that there are only two kinds of people, Whites and Blacks, then you must also concede that he believed there were only two kinds of people, Tall and Short, Wise and Foolish, Greek and Barbarian, Rhetorician and Philosopher, and so on and so forth for every sort of comparison he makes in the Categories.

As for wasting time, you're the one who brought it up, and I think it is relevant since systems of privilege thrive on false notions of infinite perpetuity. If the races have always been perceived the same way by all peoples regardless of context, it seems absurd to try and dismantle those notions. If however they were invented for particular reasons at a particular time, we are free to ponder whether those needs are still relevant and desirable, or whether we should rethink them.