What my bike has taught me about white privilege.

[AthenaAwakened]

There is nothing wrong with cyclists

There is nothing wrong whit their choice of transportation

In areas where the rules of the road and the construction of roadways count the safety and accessibility of cyclists as deserving of the same consideration as the safety and accessibility of motorists, both groups get the service they need and both groups respect each other because they no longer see themselves in competition for use of the road or the other as trespassing where they don't belong.

And please note I am talking about people and not confusing people with their vehicles. Such confusion muddles the discourse and is dehumanizing.

People are not what they ride in. And the fact that our system of roads and streets is designed and regulated to ensure the easy passage of the motoring, multi passenger public privileges that section of the public not only over cyclists, but pedestrians as well.

The existence of that privilege doesn't mean that motorists or cyclists can't be excellent drivers and courteous citizens or selfish road hogs and reckless buffoons. It is not about individual character traits but the construction of circumstance that weighs advantage toward one side or the other.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In areas where the rules of the road and the construction of roadways count the safety and accessibility of cyclists as deserving of the same consideration as the safety and accessibility of motorists, both groups get the service they need and both groups respect each other because they no longer see themselves in competition for use of the road or the other as trespassing where they don't belong.

Deserving of safety sure, which is why we should stay off of highways and not weave in and out of traffic when riding a bicycle. Deserving of equal access? Why? That is entirely up to the city to decide. Horseback, foot travel, busses, bicycles, cars, can all be given different access and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

And please note I am talking about people and not confusing people with their vehicles. Such confusion muddles the discourse and is dehumanizing.

A cyclist is only a cyclist so long as he or she is riding a bicycle. That is one reason why this is not a good analogy for race differences. A cyclist is a cyclist by choice, and is likely a cyclist, a pedestrian, and a motorist at different times. Most of us have equal access to each mode of transportation, and if you say no we don't because of wealth disparity, then wealth is the privilege we should be discussing, and not some weird "motorist privilege".

People are not what they ride in. And the fact that our system of roads and streets is designed and regulated to ensure the easy passage of the motoring, multi passenger public privileges that section of the public not only over cyclists, but pedestrians as well.

But it isn't a "Segment of the public" the way you seem to need it to be for your analogy to work. Anybody can enter a car, bus, bicycle, etc. And even if we were designated at birth to peddle bicycles or drive cars, the two modes of transportation are different and require different rules. It is not desirable to have the two using all the same infrastructure all the same ways. You can say that when in a car you have a "motorist privilege" to go on the highway, and you can say that when riding a bicycle you have a "cyclist privilege" to use bike paths I suppose, but you've strayed awfully far from any analogy to race at that point.

 

[repoman]

AA,

I think that the english language (like all languages) is a bit imprecise. You used the word "advantage" in your last post and it seems to me that this is closer to what motorized vehicles experience in most cases on the road compared to cyclists (leaving aside lane splitting, sidewalk riding, low costs and the maneuverability of cyclists).

Privilege even before this current new usage has connotations that equate it with very high-end social ranking which very few whites (or motorists) actually have. Whites have used "privileged" to talk about children of old money for a long time.

I agree that white (privilege/advantage/better-fitting-word) exist to some very real degrees, though not all the time or to the extent that some radicals insist. I just think a better-fitting-word is desperately needed.

 

[Sabine Grant]

What Athena has been pointing over and over again is that a system and its structures can facilitate a mentality growing into a sense of entitlement endorsed by the very group who benefits most of the said system and its structures.

 

[scombrid]

But the bike rider analogy also highlights another comparison. At least in urban areas, bike riders are the most reckless, law-breaking, but self-righteous a@@holes on the road. Note the whining about the danger that car divers pose to them and the assertions about the "rights" of bike riders, without any acknowledgment of the responsibility bike riders have to obey all traffic laws, and yet nearly every one of them break these laws multiple times in every mile that they ride. I live a major city with many ever-increasing number of bike riders, and many bike lanes. Unless there is a car at the cross street, the odd of a bicyclist stopping at a stop sign is less than 1 in 10, and the same goes for red lights. They also constantly ride down one-way streets, and never signal when merging or making left turns.
Also, fewer than half wear helmets or any protective gear while engaging in these recklessly dangerous acts. In most major cities bicyclists have manufactured a kind of political identity and movement of victimhood, but the are their own worst enemies and greatest threat to themselves, yet they can never be heard acknowledging this.

So what you're saying is that cyclists are yet another misbehaving minority looking for special rights to sanction their bad behavior when the real problem is themselves and their own habits. Cyclists, the monolithic misbehaving minority, need to get their own house in order before they dare ask that a pickup truck not overtake them on a blind curve on a two lane road.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And do understand, attacking an analogy, won't make white privilege any less real.

Nor will trying to define privilege as a result of individual actions and not a societal system that permeates the institutions, history, and narrative of the nation.

 

[Nexus]

And do understand, attacking an analogy, won't make white privilege any less real.

Analogies are useful to explain concepts that are accepted as true. When you try to use analogies to push an agenda people will rightly point out the flaws in the analogy because argument by analogy is a logical fallacy.

Nor will trying to define privilege as a result of individual actions and not a societal system that permeates the institutions, history, and narrative of the nation.

You don't get to be the sole definer of privilege. The "white privilege" meme is your go to narrative. You wish to frame it in racial terms because that leads to policies you desire like affirmative action as the best course of redress.

Instead of using flawed analogies to push your politics, how about you state exactly what white privilege is and explain how it benefits all whites, harms all other races and if you make your case then we can all agree AA is whats needed to correct the problem.

 

[Nexus]

So what you're saying is that cyclists are yet another misbehaving minority looking for special rights to sanction their bad behavior when the real problem is themselves and their own habits.

No, its what you are saying if you love this analogy and need it to make your case.

 

[Trausti]

What Athena has been pointing over and over again is that a system and its structures can facilitate a mentality growing into a sense of entitlement endorsed by the very group who benefits most of the said system and its structures.

Like affirmative action?

 

[laughing dog]

What Athena has been pointing over and over again is that a system and its structures can facilitate a mentality growing into a sense of entitlement endorsed by the very group who benefits most of the said system and its structures.

Like affirmative action?

And people keep claiming there is no such thing as "white privilege".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Like affirmative action?

And people keep claiming there is no such thing as "white privilege".

I have to ask

Those of you who keep trying to redefine privilege as something it isn't
Those of you who say it's not real

What if it is?

If you awake this morning and knew that privilege was real and that you had benefitted from it,

Then what?

What changes? How would your life be different? How would anyone's life be different?

Really, I want to know what you think would happen if you lived in a world where you benefitted from a rigged game, a game you didn't rig, a game you didn't even know was rigged until this morning, what happens next?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And people keep claiming there is no such thing as "white privilege".

I have to ask

Those of you who keep trying to redefine privilege as something it isn't
Those of you who say it's not real

What if it is?

If you awake this morning and knew that privilege was real and that you had benefitted from it,

Then what?

What changes? How would your life be different? How would anyone's life be different?

Really, I want to know what you think would happen if you lived in a world where you benefitted from a rigged game, a game you didn't rig, a game you didn't even know was rigged until this morning, what happens next?

It would be like it is now, because I do benefit from it. My name (and race) really gets me places. James Q. Bottomtooth III

 

[scombrid]

No, its what you are saying if you love this analogy and need it to make your case.

I wasn't initially enamored with the analogy. Group of people affiliated by transportation mode versus group of people affiliated by skin color. I said, meh, and moved on. But on seeing the thread reach double digit page count I figured it might have entertainment value, not on par with a "not all men" thread, but enough to come back and read some.

On return I find that the anti-cyclist posts in the thread have a familiar feel that makes the analogy slightly more real.

 

[Togo]

No, its what you are saying if you love this analogy and need it to make your case.

I wasn't initially enamored with the analogy. Group of people affiliated by transportation mode versus group of people affiliated by skin color. I said, meh, and moved on. But on seeing the thread reach double digit page count I figured it might have entertainment value, not on par with a "not all men" thread, but enough to come back and read some.

On return I find that the anti-cyclist posts in the thread have a familiar feel that makes the analogy slightly more real.

Got to agree. While the analogy has it's pluses and minuses, the opposition that it arouses is pretty much spot on, making me think it might well be a useful one to remember.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have to ask

Those of you who keep trying to redefine privilege as something it isn't
Those of you who say it's not real

What if it is?

First, it is great to see that you have finally abandoned this faulty mode of transportation analogy. It was doing you more harm than good.

Second, of course privilege exists. All of us here benefit from privilege, including me, and including you (gasp!)

I personally benefit from privilege to my benefit in many different ways, and to my detriment in some others.

Then what?

We should do what we can to un-rig the game.

I think universal basic income and universal health care would be good places to start. I'd also like to see more discouragement of ingroup / outgroup thinking, be that about political parties, races, religions, and whatever else. And of course discriminatory policies favouring one group over another based on anything but merit or need should be eliminated.

Note that un-rigging it doesn't not mean re-rigging it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

First, it is great to see that you have finally abandoned this faulty mode of transportation analogy.

the analogy is fine and apt and those two things are probably what annoys about it, but go on.

It was doing you more harm than good.

No. I have not been harmed at all and most people get it. Sorry you don't.

Second, of course privilege exists. All of us here benefit from privilege, including me, and including you (gasp!)

I never said otherwise.

I personally benefit from privilege to my benefit in many different ways, and to my detriment in some others.

Odd sentence, but go on.

Then what?

We should do what we can to un-rig the game.

Like what?

I think universal basic income and universal health care would be good places to start. I'd also like to see more discouragement of ingroup / outgroup thinking, be that about political parties, races, religions, and whatever else. And of course discriminatory policies favouring one group over another based on anything but merit or need should be eliminated.

Note that un-rigging it doesn't not mean re-rigging it.

Has someone called for re-rigging it?