White Privilege

When someone tells a story like DG, you don't say "other people have it worse" or "on average, minorities are more likely to have that problem," even though both are correct. What you should say is "This is unacceptable."

Someone else (minority or otherwise) has a worse story? Also unacceptable. That doesn't make the level of poverty DG talked about acceptable.

Try and extend that concept out. Advocate for and assist the poor in general. That should be your priority.

Tell me, what is the value in spending so much time trying to convince people White Privilege exists? Where's the payoff? Especially when you make it an uphill battle by framing in hostile terms.

I can tell you exactly where the payoff is when you help the poor. Whether you do it through charity or by support of (democratic) socialism, the payoff is clear. I can't for the life of me see why focusing on race among the poor should be important.

Part of the problem seems to me to be that White Privilege incorporates several thing under one banner. Some are trivial, and should be dismissed. Others are because of racists, and will fade with time. But some are economic and logical, and so why aren't you solving them in an economic, logical way?

Entirely agreed with Zeal 1564; that was much better than anything I could've said.

I have to quibble with this; there's definitely a difference between what I said and how Cats quoted me. I didn't say "who cares about white people?", I've been very careful NOT to say "who cares about white people?". What I said was, "who cares about what white people **feel**?"

Which means, I'm not saying to ignore white people's problems, I'm saying that their opinions on OTHER people's problems don't matter. There's a difference.

(This is basically how Zeal responded to your post; I just wanted to make it canon.)

With all due respect I think the people being oppressed are damn well relevant authorities.

What's this with people reading "and therefore your accomplishments are lessened" into what I say? White privilege doesn't lessen your accomplishments unless YOU think it does. And if you do, well, even more reason to get rid of it, then.

You actually did that several times, and it didn't help. Hell, **I** did that at least once, and it didn't help.

For one thing, self-introspection. Again, let's use sexism as an example. Someone mentions that more women than men are sexually harassed in the workplace and it's important to be able to recognize harassment when you see it. You say, "Well that's a shame, but I never harass anybody, so it's not my problem." One day, you go to work and notice your male coworker hitting on a female coworker. You brush it off because, hey, there's nothing wrong with a little flirting as long as work gets done, right? Except you don't notice that your female coworker already turned him down once. Now, she feels anxiety about coming to work, that she intentionally tries to avoid your coworker, and that she only smiles and laughs at his jokes because she's looking for a way to get out. All because this guy can't take a hint, and you don't see anything wrong with what he's doing.

Or, let's take examples of sexism in media like Stripperiffic, Vasquez Always Dies and Tits And Ass Pose. Many, MANY people don't see anything wrong with any of these tropes. Hell, personally, I never even noticed Vasquez Always Dies or Tits And Ass Pose before I came here, but since I've been here, I've noticed them where I saw them and I can agree that they're sexist. At the very least, I can vote with my wallet and not buy media that uses these tropes. And hell, I like these tropes. But, they're designed for me to like them because I like to fuck women.

These same things apply here. A person earlier in this thread insisted that racism isn't a factor in being a writer. And I, as a black writer, can sure as shit tell you that isn't true. Black treatments, manuscripts and screenplays get passed over far more often than white ones. And there's problems of black-authored fiction being thrown into "Black Literature" no matter what its genre. The point is, some people don't KNOW these sorts of problems exist, and even if they do, they often don't see them as "racist". As a black writer, I have to know about things like this because my specific trade requires it. White authors do not need to worry about this in any way at all. That is a privilege.

edited 25th May '12 8:50:03 PM by KingZeal

Agreed.

Social justice movements have a term for people who do what you're doing, you know. It's usually referred to as "concern trolling." You're so worried about what term the anti-racist movement uses, ostensibly because "it'll be easier if you can get white people to help!" (this "the term you're using alienates [the sociological majority in question]" debate is called "arguing tone," and is typically a diverting tactic by people who don't really buy into the movement at all), but seemingly more so because it "makes white people feel bad" (though not in those exact words) that you've shifted the discussion from "hey, this thing here X is a problem for this group, let's fix it" to "hey, you guys are hurting this other group that's part of problem X's feelings, you should stop that!"

To be frank, nobody within the actual social justice movement really cares about the feelings of white people. Their opinions on giving rights to minorities is really entirely secondary to giving said rights to minorities, and their approval is really not necessary. At the end of the day, they're going to lose some things they should never have had to begin with, and gain some other things that they should always have had. Such is how it should be, and crying over what will be lost is part of what the idea of "privilege" is: assuming one has any right to such things to begin with.

As to "but these other white people are just as worse off as racial minorities," the term "intersectionality" and its meaning has already been brought up and, I hope, explained. If it was missed, or needs elaboration, please, do ask.

edited 25th May '12 8:51:42 PM by DerelictVessel

It explicitly does lessen your accomplishments if they're held up against a comparable poc. If you're a white person and you got out of being poor, it was probably less difficult than if you were an otherwise identical poc. Which means the white person's accomplishments are cheapened due to their privileges, which pisses off the white person in question because it makes them feel like they're a lesser person for having it easier.

You can't avoid insulting them, BH. The truth is a bitch, and trying to say it isn't insulting just pisses them off even more.

But your right, this is just another reason to get rid of it as fast as possible.

@Zeal: Gender relations aren't the same as race relations. Your example is actively unhelpful, because I'm going to argue the analogy. It's why I don't use analogies.

Do you have any ACTUAL objections, or are you going to just Ad Hominem my analogy?

edited 25th May '12 9:11:25 PM by KingZeal

I don't know if I have any objections. I didn't have a clue what your analogy was trying to argue. I can't really agree or disagree with any intellectual honesty, then, can I?

So I do have an objection. I'd prefer if you actually stated your point. Instead, you spent the entire post discussing hypothetical coworkers and the fact that you don't consume works using semi-pornographic tropes.

edited 25th May '12 9:23:57 PM by Ultrayellow

I'll object, I suppose.

People are privileged because they have power. Money is the biggest source of power. Get money into the hands of the unprivileged until they're equal with the privileged, and those privileges that the privileged have mostly stop existing (and the ones that still exist will be far more easily addressed since the biggest issue was gone).

edited 25th May '12 9:28:42 PM by Ekuran

The analogies were relevant, and I have no idea how you missed it. But to put it simply: people have to know that a problem exists.

And by the way...what was wrong with the last paragraph? Because it wasn't an analogy. It was exactly what we're discussing.

It's not always about money. Centrism (the assumption that your demographic is the default) is a far more insidious problem.

edited 25th May '12 9:29:47 PM by KingZeal

Because it was answered by a later paragraph in my original post, which you didn't quote.

Issues with racism itself are different from socioeconomic issues. Very different. It's just that we lump them all under the same term.

Racism will end over time. The Civil Rights Movement was in the Sixties. Now it's the "Tens." Half a century is a long time...but not quite as long as a human lifespan. Twenty years from now, the kind of racism you're talking about will be as marginalized as the KKK.

Now, what won't end are the economic issues. Blacks will probably still be poorer on average. And that's why we need to help the poor, we need to work on upward mobility, we need to provide huge numbers of free-ride scholarships. I'd prefer if free-ride scholarships were colorblind, but that's kind of a different issue. All of those things provide real, concrete, necessary help. I don't think awareness does.

In my social circles, I will never come across open racism in the workplace. And that's why your analogy made no sense to me.

Economic issues can be addressed. Addressing centrism requires altering the thought process of the vast majority of humans, which is a tad bit more difficult, so it can take a back seat.

edited 25th May '12 9:43:25 PM by Ekuran

What later paragraph?

Okay. You do realize that "time" isn't, by itself, what did this, right? That it was because of people systematically destroying racist infrastructure that progress was made? Racism isn't like some old Toyota that's going to eventually fail its emissions test. In fact, history argues that racism actually gets worse when left alone. Stereotypes beget other stereotypes and those are used as justification for some sort of racist structure.

"Different" issue is not the same as "mutually exclusive" issue. Racism is a Vicious Cycle. Blacks were kept less educated than wWites, which meant that racists could say they were less educated. A relevant problem is that (to use the Black author examples again) if a Black person is less successful in a trade just BECAUSE they're Black (for example, books with Black characters on the front cover sell less than books with White characters on the cover) then they're going to be poorer. That goes for the workforce in general. If people are passing over De Shawn and Lashauna resumes for Wendy and Colin resumes, then De Shawn and Lashauna are going to be passed over for the same economical opportunities. That's a race issue that leads INTO an economic issue.

The two issues being different doesn't mean they're exclusive to each other.

1. "Open" racism is less of a problem than hidden racism.
2. This is relevant why?

I disagree. It's a two-pronged assault. Addressing economic issues without addressing centrism just means that new economic issues arise that still revolve around the centric demographic.

edited 25th May '12 9:57:54 PM by KingZeal

Taking a back seat doesn't mean ignoring it entirely, but the economic issues of the unprivileged is a bigger and more easily solved problem, while centrism can be addressed during and after the attempt to equalize economic conditions for the privileged and the unprivileged.

And now we're going to respond, point by point. Quote after quote. It's going to take ages, and (calling it right now) neither of us is changing our mind. It seems so pointless...

Post 1576, final paragraph.

I don't believe we have a racist infrastructure anymore. There may be individual racists. But the structure itself is sound. I see no laws which discriminate against blacks anymore, for example.

Different issue, different topic. But I guess I'll respond to that in this post too. You're talking about AA scholarships, right? In my view, people shouldn't be reading the applicant's name at all. The solution is not to mandate that a certain number of Leshawnas get into college. The solution is to prevent people from excluding Leshawna because of her name. All Affirmative Action needs to be is a set of anti-discrimination laws and regulations.

It was relevant (IMO) because your analogy didn't transfer. You talked about not being able to fight against sexism and sexual harassment in the workplace, because of a lack of awareness of the problem. But I'm never going to be able to fight against racism in my workplace, because it's just not there to fight. It's not like I'm the one reading resumes. And so no amount of awareness will help with this problem. That's why the analogy made no sense to me.

Then leave.

Yeah, I see it. And it's completely wrong.

"Individuals" in aggregate create an infrastructure. For example, an industry can be racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic without any laws advocating it.

No.

The name isn't specifically the problem. It's anything that indicates a demographic. For example, anyone who understands Chicagoan geography will instantly know what race I am if I put my address on an application. There are an infinite number of "signals" which can give away a person's demographic.

Like I said, as long as centrism exists, the problem will not go away. But I'm leaving AA out of this conversation, because that's a different subject entirely.

The fact that you can say "it's not there to fight" and "I'm not the one reading resumes" in the same passage proves exactly what I'm talking about though. You don't know if a problem exists or not, because you're not in a possition to look for it. And just because you can't see it NOW doesn't mean it won't be and that there's no reason to be aware of it. That's just silly.

And really, this is still irrelevant because I have no way of verifying what you say or not. For all I know, there's not a single black person working in your workplace. And even if you respond with "Yeah, there is", it's still not relevant because I still can't verify.

edited 25th May '12 10:25:05 PM by KingZeal

"Then leave."

Okay. Enjoy the satisfaction of having had the last word on every point.

I read this as, "White people's feelings on the term 'white privilege' don't matter because the movement doesn't require the support of white people." Which I think is what you were trying to say earlier.

Glad my non-white self is a relevant authority. What happens now that we disagree?

Aw, isn't that cute? Not only do they have a term for "people who do what I'm doing," but "concern trolling" is a term for an action, not a person. They probably need to get on the ball with their terms. Also, saying I'm trolling is coming dangerously close to Ad Hominem.

Your opinion about whether I buy into the movement or not is irrelevant. You can read back on 64 pages where I discuss some of my thoughts on the origins and solutions of the problem we're discussing if you desire to, but I think I've spoken for myself on most of the "social justice" threads. Again, drop the Ad Hominem stuff.

You've shifted the discussion from, "Vericrat and a number of other people here think that the term alienates useful potential allies for no good reason" to "Vericrat is arguing in bad faith because he doesn't think that nonwhites are at a disadvantage or because he thinks white people's feelings are more important than that." Do social justice movements have a term for that?

If anyone questions whether I've been discussing this in good faith, I have about a million posts on this thread and the homosexuality threads for you to examine to find out that I am for equal rights and dignity for people no matter how they were born.

So... Where are we now?

edited 26th May '12 5:13:36 AM by joeyjojo

Well, since we keep butting heads on the name issue without either side being able to convince the other, I suggest we drop it for now, and go back to looking at solutions.

Zeal, you've mentioned nepotism being a factor in discrimination against poc. Let's focus on that for a second. How do you eliminate it? It is definitely a problem facing nonwhite communities, but I'll set up the problem:

First, how do you go about proving that someone got a job they weren't qualified for through nepotism? More accurately, whose responsibility is it to prove it? Does the government go looking through all private- and public-sector jobs to see if people aren't qualified and have a friend who hired them? Does a qualified but unhired candidate initiate suit?

Secondly, it might be difficult to differentiate actual nepotism with business networking. In this case, I'm referring to hiring qualified (or mostly qualified) people that you, someone you know, or someone who works in the setting knows, because that's an excellent way to gauge whether they'll be a good fit for the workplace. It's a useful practice for employees as well, because if you can get your name out there as someone who is comfortable in business settings, easy to get along with, and a decent worker, you can get a shoe-in in certain jobs. But it also might hurt poc who may be less likely to have those kinds of connections. Do the benefits of keeping or eliminating business networking outweigh the costs?

That is what happens when I attempt to use complex multipart sentences before going to bed.

And, I said you're concern trolling, which is not trolling in the conventional internet sense. Your argument over what term the movement uses is missing the entire point of the movement and shifting focus away from the fact that there is a problem. What we call it is irrelevant and what potential allies we alienate is irrelevant, because democracy is not necessary to fix this problem.

Drop the pointless semantic argument, then. You can accuse me of ad hominem all day, but I'm complaining about the argument you're making, not you yourself, and so you'd still be using the term ad hominem incorrectly all day.

Not a concise term, no. Probably would amount to "addressing concern trolling," however.

"Useful potential allies" in the sense you're talking about are neither useful nor potential. The majority of privileged white people will not care about this issue (or be on the right side of it) until long after the counter-racism movement is at critical mass to address it. White people didn't build the Civil Rights Movement, black people did. White people simply jumped on the bandwagon en masse when it was plainly clear that there was no stifling the underclass that time around. Again, I will clarify for your convenience that social justice movements don't need democracy to function. They don't need to put minority rights up to a vote to get them in force of law, and as such the social justice movement doesn't really need to approval of society at large, insofar as the sociological majority or majorities is/are concerned.

And I, to the extent that such is possible based on this statement, believe you. I still think your tone argument is pointless and that quibbling over whether the term "white privilege" will offend white people is irrelevant and harmful to discussion about what white privilege actually is. People who are going to be offended by the term enough to not even listen to what it is were never going to follow the movement to begin with.

EDIT:

Well, that's all I wanted to happen.

edited 26th May '12 9:14:43 AM by DerelictVessel

Well, I somehow just lost the huge post I just typed out, so allow me to summarize what I was going to say, although it'll seem weaker without context.

1. The bar on education needs to be raised across the board, regardless of whether it's privately-owned or state-owned.
2. More state-sponsors trade workshops and employment fairs (possibly compulsory to the unemployed to receive state unemployment benefits and for employers maybe once or twice a year).
3. Affirmative Action, as flawed as it is, has to continue all around until equal representation has been achieved.

Agreed with all your points. But I have to ask, how and who will determine when AA has reached its max effectiveness?

I mean..you and I only make up %20 of the US pop, so we're never going to have 1:1 ratios in every sector.

It would be even ratios within the demographic itself.

The current problem isn't that there are an EQUAL number of minorities represented fairly (because the very term "minority" makes that an impossibility, and even when Hispanics eventually outnumber Whites, that won't mean they have fair representation).

Elaborate, please.