Are poor white people priviliged?

[DrZoidberg]

It's a simple question. I tried finding statistics to show this either way, but wasn't sure what to search for. Any ideas?

I think it's pretty clear that there's white privilige among the middle-class. Just based on experiences in life. And having seen numbers in the past to show it. I just wondered if it's analogues to the working class?

To say that poor white people are priviliged over poor non-white people isn't really saying much. They'll of course compare themselves to non-white middle class people and see that as evidence of the contrary

 

[ruby sparks]

Most people born and living in the 'developed' world are privileged in some way.

That's one answer. It may not apply to the USA as much as it does to Western Europe (where there is often more of a social safety net). And it is a generalisation, not least because there are some very wealthy/privileged people in under-developed countries.

Another one might be that a poor white ('western') man is likely to be slightly more privileged, by and large, than an equally poor black man.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Most people born and living in the 'developed' world are privileged in some way.

That's one answer. It may not apply to the USA as much as it does to Western Europe (where there is often more of a social safety net). And it is a generalisation, not least because there are some very wealthy/privileged people in under-developed countries.

Another one might be that a poor white ('western') man is likely to be slightly more privileged, by and large, than an equally poor black man.

I'd like to see some numbers to back it up. And the developing world is rapidly coming up to our western standards. A middle class Indian today has more privilege from birth than a working class Swede for instance. I've had plenty of opportunity to work with both

 

[rousseau]

There's privilege in the sense that their skin colour, as an isolated variable, confers advantages in reference to other skin colours. Although they likely lack privilege in other ways. I think you'll find that this is how most people would answer this question.

The definition of 'privilege' isn't the sum total of a person's qualities, it's the advantages that are conferred by specific qualities.

 

[ruby sparks]

There's privilege in the sense that their skin colour, as an isolated variable, confers advantages in reference to other skin colours. Although they likely lack privilege in other ways. I think you'll find that this is how most people would answer this question.

The definition of 'privilege' isn't the sum total of a person's qualities, it's the advantages that are conferred by specific qualities.

There isn't likely to be a better answer that that, imo.

 

[Underseer]

It's a simple question. I tried finding statistics to show this either way, but wasn't sure what to search for. Any ideas?

I think it's pretty clear that there's white privilige among the middle-class. Just based on experiences in life. And having seen numbers in the past to show it. I just wondered if it's analogues to the working class?

To say that poor white people are priviliged over poor non-white people isn't really saying much. They'll of course compare themselves to non-white middle class people and see that as evidence of the contrary

No matter how bad a poor white person has it, things would be worse if they were poor and African-American.

They deny this because they are fed a narrative that says they are inherently superior by virtue of their birth, and that makes them feel better about their lot in life.

If you acknowledge that systemic racism exists, then they will feel less like special snowflakes. Once they feel that their participating trophy is being taken away, they become angry and defensive.

And just like that, they are focused on how superior they are to non-whites instead of thinking about how many unfair, systemic advantages rich white people have over them.

And that's all racism is: a mechanism for allowing rich white people to screw over poor white people as much as they like without the risk of any inconvenient revolutions. The fact that poor African-Americans are harmed even more than poor whites is irrelevant to the kind of people willing to use strategies like this.

Not only does racism protect rich white people from criticism, but it causes poor white people to attack anyone who sees what the real problem is.

If poor white people can be made to ignore systemic racism that hurts black people, they can be made to ignore the systemic injustice against poor people that hurts them.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

It's a simple question. I tried finding statistics to show this either way, but wasn't sure what to search for. Any ideas?

I think it's pretty clear that there's white privilige among the middle-class. Just based on experiences in life. And having seen numbers in the past to show it. I just wondered if it's analogues to the working class?

To say that poor white people are priviliged over poor non-white people isn't really saying much. They'll of course compare themselves to non-white middle class people and see that as evidence of the contrary

No they aren't because white privilege doesn't exist. What does happen is that, in a democracy, majorities rule.....which is why we have a Constitutional Republic; to protect individual rights from a tyranny of the majority. Even so, outside of those Constitutional rights, the majority of voters determine government actions.

 

[southernhybrid]

In the small city where I live, there are a lot of black and white mixed couples. I am close friends with one of these couples. They are somewhat poor, in that they receive SNAP ( previously known as food stamps ) Does a poor white person who is married to a poor black person still have white privilege? I don't think the white half of that couple feels as if she has privilege. Despite the fact that we have more mixed race marriages here than in any place I've ever lived or visited, she feels as if she is still stigmatized for having mixed race kids. Her black husband doesn't feel as if he's been hurt as a result of his race, so maybe it's at least partially a matter of perception.

I live in a nice mostly white middle class neighborhood. I have often felt as if my black neighbors received some of the benefits of white privilege. By that I mean, that the police never bother anyone in our neighborhood, regardless of race. If they were poor and lived on the area of town that has more poverty and appears to have more black residents, they would probably not have this benefit. But, how much of this is due to race and how much of this is due to class? But then, you do need to ask the question as to why we have more poor black people than poor white people in town. Is that simply a result of white privilege, or is it due to the long history of the way black folks were treated in the US? Is that what is meant by white privilege? Overcoming generations of discrimination takes a long time. It's a lot more complicated than we try to make it. Until, Trump came along, I saw a lot of progress happening. Now, I'm not sure where we're going.

I realize that many black folks have been treated unfairly, at least by the police, regardless of their educational or class status, but I don't think it's nearly as common as what poor folks often deal with when they are stopped by the police.

I also think that our current president has brought out the worst in people, who might have been somewhat racist, but kept their feelings silent. Race is one of those idiotic fictions that humans invented. I wish we could move past it and agree that we're all imperfect humans.

I am certain of one thing. By constantly telling impoverished and low wage earners that just happen to be white, that they benefit from white privilege, it's very likely to end up causing an unfortunate backlash. It's hard for a desperate poor person to grasp the concept that he has something called white privilege, especially when he's living in situations similar to his black neighbors. This is something I've given a lot of thought to, and I'm not sure exactly where I stand. For that matter, there are so many mixed race folks around these days, that I don't even know how to identify them as one race or another. Since race is an archaic human fiction, why should it even matter? Yeah. I know. Some people are just ignorant.

 

[fromderinside]

It's a simple question. I tried finding statistics to show this either way, but wasn't sure what to search for. Any ideas?

I think it's pretty clear that there's white privilige among the middle-class. Just based on experiences in life. And having seen numbers in the past to show it. I just wondered if it's analogues to the working class?

To say that poor white people are privileged over poor non-white people isn't really saying much. They'll of course compare themselves to non-white middle class people and see that as evidence of the contrary

I've never been one who thinks self reporting local conditions ever gets us much factual data.

So I chose incarceration rates as an index of privilege. I choose to use the US since it has clear racial structure and it has sufficient populations of various browns and broad enough financial and social diversity to support empirical generalizations.

The two reports below point pretty strongly to poor whites being privileged compared to browns of any shade in the US

Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf

This study demonstrates both blacks and hispanics are at least twice, as likely to wind up in jail than whites at any age

Prisons of Poverty: Uncovering the pre-incarceration incomes of the imprisoned https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html

This study shows both that poor whites in jail are much poorer relative to average whites than are poor blacks and hispanics.

One can sfely conclude that income level is a powerful indicator of incarceration likelihood but that even here blacks are three or four times more likely to be incarcerated than are white while hispanics are more than two times more likely to be jailed than whites.

Take together these studies show definite priviliege of whites over browns particularly at low income levels.

My guess is given social structures tend to bias against those who are not the traditional color in any society. Extreme racial isolation of nations like China, Japan, Russia, and social discrimination of those nations colonized by europeans all point to strong trends for explicit or implicit for tribal privilege worldwide with African heritage coming up at the bottom.

 

[Bomb#20]

Race is one of those idiotic fictions that humans invented. ... For that matter, there are so many mixed race folks around these days... Since race is an archaic human fiction, why should it even matter?

"Alexander the Great did not exist and he had an infinite number of limbs."

https://www.fortfreedom.org/b19.htm

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's a simple question. I tried finding statistics to show this either way, but wasn't sure what to search for. Any ideas?

I think it's pretty clear that there's white privilige among the middle-class. Just based on experiences in life. And having seen numbers in the past to show it. I just wondered if it's analogues to the working class?

To say that poor white people are priviliged over poor non-white people isn't really saying much. They'll of course compare themselves to non-white middle class people and see that as evidence of the contrary

Of course poor white people are privileged.

Show

They should be poor and black.

EB

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There's privilege in the sense that their skin colour, as an isolated variable, confers advantages in reference to other skin colours. Although they likely lack privilege in other ways. I think you'll find that this is how most people would answer this question.

The definition of 'privilege' isn't the sum total of a person's qualities, it's the advantages that are conferred by specific qualities.

And it even varies drastically between people with those qualities even on those qualities. Some people are going to face more barriers/benefits for others for having the same trait X.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's a simple question. I tried finding statistics to show this either way, but wasn't sure what to search for. Any ideas?

I think it's pretty clear that there's white privilige among the middle-class. Just based on experiences in life. And having seen numbers in the past to show it. I just wondered if it's analogues to the working class?

To say that poor white people are priviliged over poor non-white people isn't really saying much. They'll of course compare themselves to non-white middle class people and see that as evidence of the contrary

No matter how bad a poor white person has it, things would be worse if they were poor and African-American.


.

To the extent this is true, it is completely meaningless. If you take every single negative aspect of a poor white person's life and keep it the same except for adding the effects of being black, then most of the time they will be even worse off. However, such a hypothetical never actually happens and thus is meaningless. What actually happens is that there are poor white people and poor black people all with variable lives with different experiences and a range of "privileges" and "injustices" they have experienced. While on average the poor whites are better off than equally poor blacks, most people are not "average" but either above or below it. That means there are plenty of poor blacks whose personal life is better off than some equally poor whites.

Then making your observation even more meaningless is that there is "correct" comparison group for any person to be compared to. There are whites poorer than the average black and thus some of them are worse off than most blacks, even including the effects of racism. There may be an even greater % of whites who they are worse off than, but that just means they are worse off them most people of all groups and most people in general. IF a person is worse off than the majority of people in their society, then to say they are "privileged" just because you can find a few they are better off than is absurd, insulting, and will rightly cause anger and resentment among them.

Then, yet another fact that makes your observation (and the term "white privilege") inaccurate or meaningless at best, is the fact that effects of income, class, and race are just a small % of the things that impact people's lives, many of them random and with minimal correlation with those group-level variables. For example, a middle class white kid whose mother dies when they are 5 and father is an abusive alcoholic can easily be less "privileged" in every meaningful way than a black kid with the same or even lesser parental income and wealth.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's a simple question. I tried finding statistics to show this either way, but wasn't sure what to search for. Any ideas?

I think it's pretty clear that there's white privilige among the middle-class. Just based on experiences in life. And having seen numbers in the past to show it. I just wondered if it's analogues to the working class?

To say that poor white people are priviliged over poor non-white people isn't really saying much. They'll of course compare themselves to non-white middle class people and see that as evidence of the contrary

No matter how bad a poor white person has it, things would be worse if they were poor and African-American.


.

To the extent this is true, it is completely meaningless. If you take every single negative aspect of a poor white person's life and keep it the same except for adding the effects of being black, then most of the time they will be even worse off. However, such a hypothetical never actually happens and thus is meaningless. What actually happens is that there are poor white people and poor black people all with variable lives with different experiences and a range of "privileges" and "injustices" they have experienced. While on average the poor whites are better off than equally poor blacks, most people are not "average" but either above or below it. That means there are plenty of poor blacks whose personal life is better off than some equally poor whites.

Then making your observation even more meaningless is that there is "correct" comparison group for any person to be compared to. There are whites poorer than the average black and thus some of them are worse off than most blacks, even including the effects of racism. There may be an even greater % of whites who they are worse off than, but that just means they are worse off them most people of all groups and most people in general. IF a person is worse off than the majority of people in their society, then to say they are "privileged" just because you can find a few they are better off than is absurd, insulting, and will rightly cause anger and resentment among them.

Then, yet another fact that makes your observation (and the term "white privilege") inaccurate or meaningless at best, is the fact that effects of income, class, and race are just a small % of the things that impact people's lives, many of them random and with minimal correlation with those group-level variables. For example, a middle class white kid whose mother dies when they are 5 and father is an abusive alcoholic can easily be less "privileged" in every meaningful way than a black kid with the same or even lesser parental income and wealth.

Those are all good points and I generally agree.

All I would say is that at the same time, exceptions or misapplications/inaccuracies in generalities do not make things like white privilege go away, or be a meaningless term.

 

[ronburgundy]

To the extent this is true, it is completely meaningless. If you take every single negative aspect of a poor white person's life and keep it the same except for adding the effects of being black, then most of the time they will be even worse off. However, such a hypothetical never actually happens and thus is meaningless. What actually happens is that there are poor white people and poor black people all with variable lives with different experiences and a range of "privileges" and "injustices" they have experienced. While on average the poor whites are better off than equally poor blacks, most people are not "average" but either above or below it. That means there are plenty of poor blacks whose personal life is better off than some equally poor whites.

Then making your observation even more meaningless is that there is "correct" comparison group for any person to be compared to. There are whites poorer than the average black and thus some of them are worse off than most blacks, even including the effects of racism. There may be an even greater % of whites who they are worse off than, but that just means they are worse off them most people of all groups and most people in general. IF a person is worse off than the majority of people in their society, then to say they are "privileged" just because you can find a few they are better off than is absurd, insulting, and will rightly cause anger and resentment among them.

Then, yet another fact that makes your observation (and the term "white privilege") inaccurate or meaningless at best, is the fact that effects of income, class, and race are just a small % of the things that impact people's lives, many of them random and with minimal correlation with those group-level variables. For example, a middle class white kid whose mother dies when they are 5 and father is an abusive alcoholic can easily be less "privileged" in every meaningful way than a black kid with the same or even lesser parental income and wealth.

Those are all good points and I generally agree.

All I would say is that at the same time, exceptions or misapplications/inaccuracies in generalities do not make things like white privilege go away, or be a meaningless term.

There are an infinite number of other factors create privilege, and being white does not reliably create privilege, and even when it does create privilege that privilege is only relative to some specific comparisons. This makes the term "white privilege" largely meaningless and cannot be validly applied, except to very specific situations and specific individuals where the details of their lives are known and there is evidence that they not only are privileged over some specified comparison, but there is evidence that their whiteness is the cause of that privilege. The required knowledge to meet such criteria are rare. Thus, the term's potential invalid applications far outnumber it potential valid applications. This is why it is almost never used in such valid contexts, but rather used most often to imply that whiteness is reliably sufficient to make a person privileged.

 

[rousseau]

To the extent this is true, it is completely meaningless. If you take every single negative aspect of a poor white person's life and keep it the same except for adding the effects of being black, then most of the time they will be even worse off. However, such a hypothetical never actually happens and thus is meaningless. What actually happens is that there are poor white people and poor black people all with variable lives with different experiences and a range of "privileges" and "injustices" they have experienced. While on average the poor whites are better off than equally poor blacks, most people are not "average" but either above or below it. That means there are plenty of poor blacks whose personal life is better off than some equally poor whites.

Then making your observation even more meaningless is that there is "correct" comparison group for any person to be compared to. There are whites poorer than the average black and thus some of them are worse off than most blacks, even including the effects of racism. There may be an even greater % of whites who they are worse off than, but that just means they are worse off them most people of all groups and most people in general. IF a person is worse off than the majority of people in their society, then to say they are "privileged" just because you can find a few they are better off than is absurd, insulting, and will rightly cause anger and resentment among them.

Then, yet another fact that makes your observation (and the term "white privilege") inaccurate or meaningless at best, is the fact that effects of income, class, and race are just a small % of the things that impact people's lives, many of them random and with minimal correlation with those group-level variables. For example, a middle class white kid whose mother dies when they are 5 and father is an abusive alcoholic can easily be less "privileged" in every meaningful way than a black kid with the same or even lesser parental income and wealth.

Those are all good points and I generally agree.

All I would say is that at the same time, exceptions or misapplications/inaccuracies in generalities do not make things like white privilege go away, or be a meaningless term.

There are an infinite number of other factors create privilege, and being white does not reliably create privilege, and even when it does create privilege that privilege is only relative to some specific comparisons. This makes the term "white privilege" largely meaningless and cannot be validly applied, except to very specific situations and specific individuals where the details of their lives are known and there is evidence that they not only are privileged over some specified comparison, but there is evidence that their whiteness is the cause of that privilege. The required knowledge to meet such criteria are rare. Thus, the term's potential invalid applications far outnumber it potential valid applications. This is why it is almost never used in such valid contexts, but rather used most often to imply that whiteness is reliably sufficient to make a person privileged.

I don't know that this is true. I don't hear it applied to specific situations very often, only to the very fact of the privilege of skin colour, which is undeniably real.

If anything, it's more often misapplied by people who think 'having white privilege' is the same thing as 'being privileged overall'. Very few people who understand the term make that claim. The term only exists to denote the fact that racial bias, more often than not, works in white people's favour. In the same way that gender bias works in men's favour.

 

[ronburgundy]

There are an infinite number of other factors create privilege, and being white does not reliably create privilege, and even when it does create privilege that privilege is only relative to some specific comparisons. This makes the term "white privilege" largely meaningless and cannot be validly applied, except to very specific situations and specific individuals where the details of their lives are known and there is evidence that they not only are privileged over some specified comparison, but there is evidence that their whiteness is the cause of that privilege. The required knowledge to meet such criteria are rare. Thus, the term's potential invalid applications far outnumber it potential valid applications. This is why it is almost never used in such valid contexts, but rather used most often to imply that whiteness is reliably sufficient to make a person privileged.

I don't know that this is true. I don't hear it applied to specific situations very often, only to the very fact of the privilege of skin colour, which is undeniably real.

If anything, it's more often misapplied by people who think 'having white privilege' is the same thing as 'being privileged overall'. Very few people who understand the term make that claim. The term only exists to denote the fact that racial bias, more often than not, works in white people's favour. In the same way that gender bias works in men's favour.

It is used as a explanation for specific outcomes, which means it is misapplied because the specific knowledge required to for any specific situation is not known. It is also routinely used to apply to all white people, such as when they are all told to "Check your privilege" despite the speaker having zero knowledge of the lives of the white people they are speaking, and implying that privilege is limited to whites so no non-whites need not bother to check theirs. Also, the term itself implies that whiteness is sufficient to result in privilege without regard to context, which is why it is inherently problematic the term "black criminality", despite the fact that blacks engage in more crime overall.

 

[Jokodo]

There are an infinite number of other factors create privilege, and being white does not reliably create privilege, and even when it does create privilege that privilege is only relative to some specific comparisons. This makes the term "white privilege" largely meaningless and cannot be validly applied, except to very specific situations and specific individuals where the details of their lives are known and there is evidence that they not only are privileged over some specified comparison, but there is evidence that their whiteness is the cause of that privilege. The required knowledge to meet such criteria are rare. Thus, the term's potential invalid applications far outnumber it potential valid applications. This is why it is almost never used in such valid contexts, but rather used most often to imply that whiteness is reliably sufficient to make a person privileged.

I don't know that this is true. I don't hear it applied to specific situations very often, only to the very fact of the privilege of skin colour, which is undeniably real.

If anything, it's more often misapplied by people who think 'having white privilege' is the same thing as 'being privileged overall'. Very few people who understand the term make that claim. The term only exists to denote the fact that racial bias, more often than not, works in white people's favour. In the same way that gender bias works in men's favour.

It is used as a explanation for specific outcomes, which means it is misapplied because the specific knowledge required to for any specific situation is not known. It is also routinely used to apply to all white people, such as when they are all told to "Check your privilege" despite the speaker having zero knowledge of the lives of the white people they are speaking, and implying that privilege is limited to whites so no non-whites need not bother to check theirs.

The only time I hear (or read) the phrase "check your privilege" is in response to a person denying or downplaying a specific type of discrimination they haven't experienced. There's no implication that the addressee isn't discriminated against along any number of other dimensions, nor that the speaker isn't privileged in other areas.

Also, the term itself implies that whiteness is sufficient to result in privilege without regard to context, which is why it is inherently problematic the term "black criminality", despite the fact that blacks engage in more crime overall.

No, it doesn't. It only implies that all else equal, being white makes things easier. This is demonstrably true, quite unlike the claim that blacks engage in more crimes than whites when controlling for all other factors.

 

[rousseau]

There are an infinite number of other factors create privilege, and being white does not reliably create privilege, and even when it does create privilege that privilege is only relative to some specific comparisons. This makes the term "white privilege" largely meaningless and cannot be validly applied, except to very specific situations and specific individuals where the details of their lives are known and there is evidence that they not only are privileged over some specified comparison, but there is evidence that their whiteness is the cause of that privilege. The required knowledge to meet such criteria are rare. Thus, the term's potential invalid applications far outnumber it potential valid applications. This is why it is almost never used in such valid contexts, but rather used most often to imply that whiteness is reliably sufficient to make a person privileged.

I don't know that this is true. I don't hear it applied to specific situations very often, only to the very fact of the privilege of skin colour, which is undeniably real.

If anything, it's more often misapplied by people who think 'having white privilege' is the same thing as 'being privileged overall'. Very few people who understand the term make that claim. The term only exists to denote the fact that racial bias, more often than not, works in white people's favour. In the same way that gender bias works in men's favour.

It is used as a explanation for specific outcomes, which means it is misapplied because the specific knowledge required to for any specific situation is not known. It is also routinely used to apply to all white people, such as when they are all told to "Check your privilege" despite the speaker having zero knowledge of the lives of the white people they are speaking, and implying that privilege is limited to whites so no non-whites need not bother to check theirs. Also, the term itself implies that whiteness is sufficient to result in privilege without regard to context, which is why it is inherently problematic the term "black criminality", despite the fact that blacks engage in more crime overall.

It may be misapplied at times, but I don't see what the big deal is with calling a spade a spade. You can have white privilege, and have a low level of overall privilege, if people misapply the term that's there problem, the term itself is still valid.

The whole purpose of the term is to highlight the existence of racial bias against non-white people, which is a real thing. I don't see why the conversation needs to get more complicated than that.

If we're talking 'how privileged someone is overall' that's an entirely different conversation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Poor white people have the self given privilege of voting against their interests.