Are poor white people priviliged?

[Bomb#20]

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.

It needs to get more complicated primarily because of claims just like that one. The purpose of the term is not to highlight the existence of racial bias against non-white people, even though that too is a real thing. If a speaker's goal were wholly to highlight the existence of racial bias against non-white people, which is a real thing, then he could perfectly well express that fact more clearly and more truthfully by saying "Racial bias against non-white people is a real thing."

The purpose of the term "white privilege" is to allege that white people in general, and whichever white person the term is being thrown at in particular, benefit from racial bias against non-white people. It is an accusation that the target of the speaker's invective has unjustly received an unearned benefit and thereby accrued a debt he has an obligation to repay. So of course if you use the term then you're going to get poor white people's backs up; and that's not the sign of a character flaw in the targets that "white privilege" peddlers typically treat it as; it's a sign that you've wronged them.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Because it's so much in poor people's interests to be ruled by an incestuous clique with the self given privilege of being the judges of what's in everybody else's interests.

 

[rousseau]

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.

It needs to get more complicated primarily because of claims just like that one. The purpose of the term is not to highlight the existence of racial bias against non-white people, even though that too is a real thing. If a speaker's goal were wholly to highlight the existence of racial bias against non-white people, which is a real thing, then he could perfectly well express that fact more clearly and more truthfully by saying "Racial bias against non-white people is a real thing."

The purpose of the term "white privilege" is to allege that white people in general, and whichever white person the term is being thrown at in particular, benefit from racial bias against non-white people. It is an accusation that the target of the speaker's invective has unjustly received an unearned benefit and thereby accrued a debt he has an obligation to repay. So of course if you use the term then you're going to get poor white people's backs up; and that's not the sign of a character flaw in the targets that "white privilege" peddlers typically treat it as; it's a sign that you've wronged them.

So this explanation is less about the term, more about your disdain toward people who use the term, gotcha.

So would you agree or disagree that being white, in the majority of contexts, offers a person privilege that isn't accessible to non-white people?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

It needs to get more complicated primarily because of claims just like that one. The purpose of the term is not to highlight the existence of racial bias against non-white people, even though that too is a real thing. If a speaker's goal were wholly to highlight the existence of racial bias against non-white people, which is a real thing, then he could perfectly well express that fact more clearly and more truthfully by saying "Racial bias against non-white people is a real thing."

The purpose of the term "white privilege" is to allege that white people in general, and whichever white person the term is being thrown at in particular, benefit from racial bias against non-white people. It is an accusation that the target of the speaker's invective has unjustly received an unearned benefit and thereby accrued a debt he has an obligation to repay. So of course if you use the term then you're going to get poor white people's backs up; and that's not the sign of a character flaw in the targets that "white privilege" peddlers typically treat it as; it's a sign that you've wronged them.

So this explanation is less about the term, more about your disdain toward people who use the term, gotcha.

"More"? No, the explanation is equally about the term and my disdain. People who use the term use it with the meaning I pointed out, for the reason I pointed out -- to make an unfair accusation -- and therefore do not deserve respect. The meaning and the disdain are two sides of the same coin.

If you disagree, then either (1) explain how the existence of racial bias against non-white people really does imply that the particular white person benefits from that bias, or else, if you disagree about whether the term is being used to imply a benefit, then (2) explain what the whole purpose of the term is, this time without making a blatantly false and trivially refutable claim that its whole purpose is to highlight the existence of racial bias against non-white people. Propose a credible reason for adopting the word "privilege" that doesn't reflect badly on the ethics of the person adopting it.

The reason so many progressives choose to believe transparently counterfactual claims like "The whole purpose of the term is to highlight the existence of racial bias against non-white people, which is a real thing" appears to be so that when the poor white people who perceive themselves to be accused of receiving an unjust benefit and who see no referent for that alleged benefit in their own lives inevitably angrily deny that they are privileged, the progressives can use their angry denial as a way to give themselves permission to accuse the poor white people of angrily denying that there's racial bias against non-white people. That too deserves disdain -- it's abusive and it's intellectually dishonest.

So would you agree or disagree that being white, in the majority of contexts, offers a person privilege that isn't accessible to non-white people?

I went to the same big-name university as my parents. I like to think I was good enough to get in on my own merit. But I know perfectly well that that school practices "legacy admissions"; for all I know, maybe that's what I was. My spot in that freshman class was a benefit I received, and I may not have deserved it. Not everyone can get that benefit -- the school can't admit everyone. Maybe they should have rejected me. Maybe they would have, if my parents hadn't gone there. That's what privilege is.

The phenomenon progressives label "white privilege" is the phenomenon of white people not being treated unfairly on account of their race. Not being treated unfairly on account of race is not a limited resource. There is a good reason some people should be rejected from a university; there is no good reason anyone should be treated unfairly on account of her race. The white people are merely being treated the way everyone ought to be treated. Regardless of what color people are, screwing them over because of it is wrong. Well, we have a word in English for what you're depriving someone of when you wrong him; and that word is not "privilege". When you murder someone, we don't say you violated his "privilege of life". When you kidnap him, we don't say you violated his "privilege of liberty". When you rob him, we don't say you violated his "privilege of property".

So yes, of course I disagree that being white, in the majority of contexts, offers a person privilege. This is not rocket science. Fair treatment regardless of your race is not a privilege. It's a right.

 

[rousseau]

The phenomenon progressives label "white privilege" is the phenomenon of white people not being treated unfairly on account of their race.

privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people

If you want to argue that social justice warriors are idiots or whatever, or that everyone misapplies the term, then make a thread about that. That doesn't change the fact that white people are privileged due to their race.

The reason white people get upset over the term is because they don't want to admit that there lives are, averaged out, easier because of their skin colour. Sure, it might piss poor white people off, but it doesn't mean it's any less real.

 

[Angry Floof]

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

Privilege is seldom something you can see when it's yours. Poor white people experience less backlash or punishment for doing or saying certain things. Barbecuing at a park where barbecuing is allowed, for example. Or walking down the street. We tend to see things as injustices the more we ourselves get the punishment. If the person is different enough from us, it's easier to assume they did something to deserve it besides just being poor because obviously you're poor but not getting punished. Your mileage may vary regarding how likely any given poor white person would fall into this trap instead of choosing to see the injustice of it and relate, depending on a lot of things such as a strong sense of empathy or how strongly reinforced "the us vs them" messages in their personal bubble.

 

[Bomb#20]

The phenomenon progressives label "white privilege" is the phenomenon of white people not being treated unfairly on account of their race.

privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people

I just googled "not a privilege" "a right". I got four million hits, the first page of which were:

Education is a Right, Not a Privilege | Global Partnership for Education

Health Care is a Right, Not a Privilege - Senator Bernie Sanders

UNICEF on Twitter: "Water is a right, not a privilege. We're joining the ? for #EarthHour to show our commitment to build a sustainable future

Education: A right, not a privilege

Is healthcare a privilege and not a right? | Debate.org

Health Care is a Right, not a Privilege - The Duke Human Rights ...

'Speech is a right and not a privilege' - BBC News - BBC.com

Braden: Healthcare is a Right, Not a Privilege – Daily Utah Chronicle

Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege | HuffPost

Life Is A RIGHT...Not A Privilege! - Human Coalition

Life is a right, not a privilege - News - Precious Life

Healthcare access as a right, not a privilege: a construct of Western ...​

Feel free to tell Bernie and UNICEF and the rest of those activists that they're idiots or whatever because the dictionary says privileges are rights. Meaning is determined by use, not by dictionaries. Dictionary writers are supposed to know that and report their observations of common use rather than make up whatever definitions they please.

If you want to argue that social justice warriors are idiots or whatever,

Where the heck did I suggest they're idiots? They misuse the word tactically. What they're doing is dishonorable, not idiotic.

or that everyone misapplies the term, then make a thread about that.

See above. Evidently not everyone misapplies the term.

That doesn't change the fact that white people are privileged due to their race.

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Calling a right a privilege doesn't make it one.

The reason white people get upset over the term is because they don't want to admit that there lives are, averaged out, easier because of their skin colour.

Poppycock. What they don't want to "admit" is that they got something they didn't deserve that they owe somebody for. Alleged "white privilege" is a component of the whole "Debt"/"Reparations" discourse. That's why so-called "social justice warriors" usually double down on the term "privilege" when they get push-back, instead of just saying "Your life would be even harder if you were black.", which is what they'd say if that were the concept they genuinely intended to express.

Elitists can of course tell themselves whatever they need to believe about those they regard as lower orders of society in order to remain heroes of their own narratives. But poor people can tell there's a difference in intent between "You're one of the privileged." and "Others have it even worse."; and insisting to them you mean the latter while utterly refusing to stop saying the former is not a story they're going to buy. Poor people are not, as a rule, idiots.

But hey, if you want them to keep voting for Trump, by all means keep insulting their intelligence.

 

[Trausti]

The reason white people get upset over the term is because they don't want to admit that there lives are, averaged out, easier because of their skin colour. Sure, it might piss poor white people off, but it doesn't mean it's any less real.

This argument. So redolent of the religious fundamentalist who says that atheists know God exists but deny him in their hearts. It seems that as folks in the West leave Christianity behind, those with religious tendencies have migrated to this new cultural/secular religion. Some just cannot get on without the belief in invisible power structures.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The reason white people get upset over the term is because they don't want to admit that there lives are, averaged out, easier because of their skin colour. Sure, it might piss poor white people off, but it doesn't mean it's any less real.

This argument. So redolent of the religious fundamentalist who says that atheists know God exists but deny him in their hearts. It seems that as folks in the West leave Christianity behind, those with religious tendencies have migrated to this new cultural/secular religion. Some just cannot get on without the belief in invisible power structures.

Perhaps a better title for this thread would be "Do You feel Persecuted?" People are always inventing reasons to justify a persecution complex instead of simply moving on.

 

[JohnG]

What would the "White Privileged" preferred to be called?

 

[ruby sparks]

The reason white people get upset over the term is because they don't want to admit that there lives are, averaged out, easier because of their skin colour. Sure, it might piss poor white people off, but it doesn't mean it's any less real.

It might be real, I'd agree it's real, but in a country like America where money is arguably way too involved in status and wellbeing, if you're piss poor, it must seem relatively trivial and somewhat abstract. I'd have a lot of sympathy with a poor white person objecting to being reminded that on average they'd be worse off if they were also black, because they get up in the morning and go about in a world where nearly everyone is less disadvantaged than them and (especially in America) very few people, it seems to them, are actively sympathetic to their plight, by which I mean their poverty. I think it would be easy to be irked if you perceive there's too much emphasis on and sympathy for one of your 'rivals' in the social injustice stakes.

For instance, if you're black and poor, are there more people willing to say that to more of an extent it's not your fault? If you're poor and white, whose fault is it that you're a 'loser'? Yours? Of course, it may not be your fault in that case either, but maybe you're not getting the same sort or degree of sympathy and support that your black neighbour is getting. To an extent, you'd feel under-represented and ignored.

 

[JohnG]

The point of acknowledging white privilege isn't to insult poor white people, the point is to raise awareness of inequality in society in general. Of course no one wants to admit they have an advantage, especially when one is working hard and receiving little. It sucks to acknowledge someone else is working just as hard and receiving less, so now your afraid/angry there is a chance you have to give up a piece of your pie to give to the other guy.

If you pretend the problem doesn't exist, maybe it will go away. Heck, if you oppress brown people, maybe you can get more for yourself.

I don't think enough is done to show the hard costs of white privilege in society.

 

[thebeave]

What would the "White Privileged" preferred to be called?

Um..."people" would be just fine. You know, kinda like what we used to call them before the Age of Identity Politics.

 

[ruby sparks]

The point of acknowledging white privilege isn't to insult poor white people, the point is to raise awareness of inequality in society in general. Of course no one wants to admit they have an advantage, especially when one is working hard and receiving little. It sucks to acknowledge someone else is working just as hard and receiving less, so now your afraid/angry there is a chance you have to give up a piece of your pie to give to the other guy.

If you pretend the problem doesn't exist, maybe it will go away. Heck, if you oppress brown people, maybe you can get more for yourself.

I don't think enough is done to show the hard costs of white privilege in society.

Yes.

But to persuade the white privilege deniers, of which there seem to be at least a few here, that it would be in their interests to acknowledge what is arguably the undeniable fact that white privilege exists and is real, would not, I think be easy. This may be partly due to it not really being in their interests. By which I mean self/selfish interests.

 

[Bomb#20]

The point of acknowledging white privilege isn't to insult poor white people, the point is to raise awareness of inequality in society in general. Of course no one wants to admit they have an advantage, especially when one is working hard and receiving little. It sucks to acknowledge someone else is working just as hard and receiving less,

No, that is not the point.

so now your afraid/angry there is a chance you have to give up a piece of your pie to give to the other guy.

That's the point. The reason for talking about "white privilege" is to try to justify making poor white people give up a piece of their pie. Raising awareness of inequality doesn't require poor white people who are working hard and receiving little to have to give up a piece of their pie to give to the other guy.

All it takes to raise awareness of inequality is to point out that others work hard too, and receive even less. If the "white privilege" peddlers were only trying to raise awareness, then they'd say to poor white people "You should be aware, others work hard too, and receive even less." But instead they say "You have a privilege". That's not raising their awareness of inequality. That's threatening them.

If you pretend the problem doesn't exist, maybe it will go away. Heck, if you oppress brown people, maybe you can get more for yourself.

So, even though the point isn't to insult poor white people, you're unable to resist the impulse to insult poor white people. Stands to reason -- you're threatening them, but you still want to feel noble. Insulting people you mean to hurt is one of the most popular ways there is to convince yourself they deserve it.

I don't think enough is done to show the hard costs of white privilege in society.

So which piece of pie do you mean to take away from white people who are working hard and receiving little? And what hard costs will taking pie away from them eliminate?

 

[ruby sparks]

....so now your afraid/angry there is a chance you have to give up a piece of your pie to give to the other guy.

That's the point. The reason for talking about "white privilege" is to try to justify making poor white people give up a piece of their pie.

That is just what you believe is the point. The fact (and it is a fact) that one can read about, consider and study white privilege without it necessarily involving making poor white people give up a piece of their pie just makes you, I'm sorry, de facto and demonstrably plain wrong.

Now, on the other hand, it is true that some do call for, for example, reparations, and affirmative action of various types. But resistance to that particular, specific reason for not talking about white privilege is not the point, it is merely one aspect of a complicated and nuanced issue that you and some others here are emphasising (and quite possibly overplaying in terms of the actual risks or potential losses involved).

For the sake of balance, I think it could be said that JohnG or anyone else is (or would be) also wrong to effectively limit 'the point' to raising awareness, because it's also obvious that calls from some for reparations de facto and demonstrably disprove that in turn.

Personally, I'm against reparations and affirmative action (probably with a few caveats in both cases where targeted versions of such things can be temporarily justified in terms of overall benefit, which imo is not generally the case and is one reason I am not much in favour of them, generally) but in favour of acknowledging white privilege. Why? Well, mostly because it's bloody daft imo to aspire to be intelligent and rational person and deny it. In fact, as is often the case with tricky, complicated or controversial issues, once you move away from denial about them, or away from a simplistic response, you are often in a better position to defend an alternative stance (for example, in this case an anti-reparations stance). By sticking one's head in the sand and saying 'white privilege my arse' or overstating the actual downside risks at the expense of a balanced analysis (in which, surprise surprise, there may be benefits as well as losses) you can often just undermine the reasonableness of your own position.

I am of course aware that you personally might agree that you (I don't know the colour of your skin or your social status or financial situation or a lot about your background) and others (many/most 'western' whites for example) have white privileges and that what you are mainly objecting to is unhelpful social or political aspects (or perceptions) associated with the public use or misuse of the term, but even then (and you can clarify to me how much if any of what I wondered is accurate or not about you) I think I would still quite strongly advocate for more acknowledgement of it than you appear to.

 

[JohnG]

What would the "White Privileged" preferred to be called?

Um..."people" would be just fine. You know, kinda like what we used to call them before the Age of Identity Politics.

Of course they would.

 

[JohnG]

No, that is not the point.


That's the point. The reason for talking about "white privilege" is to try to justify making poor white people give up a piece of their pie. Raising awareness of inequality doesn't require poor white people who are working hard and receiving little to have to give up a piece of their pie to give to the other guy.

All it takes to raise awareness of inequality is to point out that others work hard too, and receive even less. If the "white privilege" peddlers were only trying to raise awareness, then they'd say to poor white people "You should be aware, others work hard too, and receive even less." But instead they say "You have a privilege". That's not raising their awareness of inequality. That's threatening them.

If you pretend the problem doesn't exist, maybe it will go away. Heck, if you oppress brown people, maybe you can get more for yourself.

So, even though the point isn't to insult poor white people, you're unable to resist the impulse to insult poor white people. Stands to reason -- you're threatening them, but you still want to feel noble. Insulting people you mean to hurt is one of the most popular ways there is to convince yourself they deserve it.

I don't think enough is done to show the hard costs of white privilege in society.

So which piece of pie do you mean to take away from white people who are working hard and receiving little? And what hard costs will taking pie away from them eliminate?

It's not a zero sum game. We can all be treated with respect.

 

[ronburgundy]

The reason white people get upset over the term is because they don't want to admit that there lives are, averaged out, easier because of their skin colour.

This is precisely the inherent problem with the term. No ones life ever "averaged out". Lives are individual things lived by individuals and the fact that other people with white skin tend to have it better than other people with non-white skin doesn't affect the life of the person with white skin whose life sucks more than most people of all skin colors.

What pisses people off is the inherent racism behind the term which treats draws conclusions about them based upon their skin color and treats them as nothing more than a member of a racial category.

Again, it is the same thing that does and should piss blacks off if people used the term "black criminality" to refer to the empirical fact that, on average, blacks in the US are more likely to engage in crime than whites.

 

[ruby sparks]

.... should piss blacks off.....

Using racial categories to decry the use of racial categories I see.

Seriously though, you weren't. By using the term, 'blacks' you were not treating those you referred to as nothing more than members of a racial category.

And so it is with 'whites' and indeed 'white privilege'. Use of the term and acknowledgement of the phenomena does not mean treating people with white skin as nothing more than a member of a racial category, as is also the case with a plethora of group reference terms, when appropriately used. That is a red herring. Or at least, it's either personal perception when heard or misapplication when used improperly by someone else. Either way, it is also perfectly possible to acknowledge it and still treat individuals as individuals. It's not an either or, and neither only the 'either' nor only the 'or' are likely to be as useful as some sort of balanced hybrid approach which recognises the shortcomings of either (supposed) binary option. If you ask me (and I realise you haven't) this is what is inherently the problem, at least in discussions here a lot of the time, the unnecessary splitting of the issue into false dichotomies.

As to comparing 'white privilege' to 'black criminality' I agree that there may be some similarities in principle, and even in practice, although if we teased them out we might find that they are not quite of equivalence when it comes to adverse outcomes for those so labelled.

Basically, I get your point. By all means deny or diminish the existence of white privilege. That's up to you and I do see what the objections consist of and they're not ridiculous. I personally am fine with the term and with acknowledging I have white privileges, at least some. I have male privileges too. Possibly some protestant ones, though those are thin on the ground nowadays. Probably a few other types too. Basically, I'm pretty lucky, in certain ways at least, with where I landed up and what I landed up with.