Its easy to see where you have that privilege, whats much much harder is to convince people that it wasnt earned. To be honest, I havent heard an argument that would compell folks. Personally, its hard to look at my own parents and how hard they worked to give me an awesome head start and then diminish it by saying "well they were white, so its not fair."
This is a wonderful sentiment, but it kind of falls apart when you read things like this. For however hard you or your parents worked, there absolutely are structure advantages for white people in society.
Like the other poster said upthread, benefiting from privilege doesn't make you a bad person. You didn't ask for it, and for the most part you can't even refuse its benefits if you do become aware of them.
That study is an example of the reason things like affirmative action need to exist. We can be aware of privilege in a general way, but we can't correct for it on our own because none of us (or very few, anyway) have the ability to step outside our entire cultural/developmental environment.
But when you tie these things directly to being white you start to lose people and make them defensive.
If a statement as simple as "white privilege exists" makes people defensive, those people have some serious self-examination to get busy on.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
But when you tie these things directly to being white you start to lose people and make them defensive.
If a statement as simple as "white privilege exists" makes people defensive, those people have some serious self-examination to get busy on.
You can keep blaming them if you want, but this attitude doesn't change things for the better. Saying "it shouldn't be the disadvantaged person's responsibility to educate/fix the perceptions of the privileged" is all well and good, but if you just expect them to change, when they don't know that anything is wrong, and the status quo is actually beneficial to them, I think you'll be waiting a long time. Be the change you want to see in the world, and other missattributed quotes by world leaders.
But when you tie these things directly to being white you start to lose people and make them defensive.
If a statement as simple as "white privilege exists" makes people defensive, those people have some serious self-examination to get busy on.
You can keep blaming them if you want, but this attitude doesn't change things for the better. Saying "it shouldn't be the disadvantaged person's responsibility to educate/fix the perceptions of the privileged" is all well and good, but if you just expect them to change, when they don't know that anything is wrong, and the status quo is actually beneficial to them, I think you'll be waiting a long time. Be the change you want to see in the world, and other missattributed quotes by world leaders.
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
But when you tie these things directly to being white you start to lose people and make them defensive.
If a statement as simple as "white privilege exists" makes people defensive, those people have some serious self-examination to get busy on.
You can keep blaming them if you want, but this attitude doesn't change things for the better. Saying "it shouldn't be the disadvantaged person's responsibility to educate/fix the perceptions of the privileged" is all well and good, but if you just expect them to change, when they don't know that anything is wrong, and the status quo is actually beneficial to them, I think you'll be waiting a long time. Be the change you want to see in the world, and other missattributed quotes by world leaders.
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
There has to be an answer to this. It can't just be a catch 22, can it? To be honest, I think the answer may simply be that ads don't work, and the issue needs to be addressed in a more robust and individualized way.
But when you tie these things directly to being white you start to lose people and make them defensive.
If a statement as simple as "white privilege exists" makes people defensive, those people have some serious self-examination to get busy on.
You can keep blaming them if you want, but this attitude doesn't change things for the better. Saying "it shouldn't be the disadvantaged person's responsibility to educate/fix the perceptions of the privileged" is all well and good, but if you just expect them to change, when they don't know that anything is wrong, and the status quo is actually beneficial to them, I think you'll be waiting a long time. Be the change you want to see in the world, and other missattributed quotes by world leaders.
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
There has to be an answer to this. It can't just be a catch 22, can it? To be honest, I think the answer may simply be that ads don't work, and the issue needs to be addressed in a more robust and individualized way.
A more robust and individualized way might never be available for the majority of people who might benefit from thinking about the concept of privilege, unless you want to hire a small army of folks to go door to door. So a campaign like this one is, practically, better than nothing in that it might inspire some folks to seek out a more robust and individualized take on the concept, and I highly doubt the folks who see it as some sort of personal insult will become more racist than they already are (or aren't).
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
But when you tie these things directly to being white you start to lose people and make them defensive.
If a statement as simple as "white privilege exists" makes people defensive, those people have some serious self-examination to get busy on.
You can keep blaming them if you want, but this attitude doesn't change things for the better. Saying "it shouldn't be the disadvantaged person's responsibility to educate/fix the perceptions of the privileged" is all well and good, but if you just expect them to change, when they don't know that anything is wrong, and the status quo is actually beneficial to them, I think you'll be waiting a long time. Be the change you want to see in the world, and other missattributed quotes by world leaders.
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
There has to be an answer to this. It can't just be a catch 22, can it? To be honest, I think the answer may simply be that ads don't work, and the issue needs to be addressed in a more robust and individualized way.
A more robust and individualized way might never be available for the majority of people who might benefit from thinking about the concept of privilege, unless you want to hire a small army of folks to go door to door. So a campaign like this one is, practically, better than nothing in that it might inspire some folks to seek out a more robust and individualized take on the concept, and I highly doubt the folks who see it as some sort of personal insult will become more racist than they already are (or aren't).
Maybe the answer is a movie or tv show that starts a national conversation about the problems nonwhites face. It needs to be more than just a bulletin board though. I can't imagine how this campaign could get anyone engaged on the issue if they aren't already. Like I said before, I think the best case is probably convincing someone familiar with the concepts to think something more needs to be done, but I don't see this particular ad even doing that.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But when you tie these things directly to being white you start to lose people and make them defensive.
If a statement as simple as "white privilege exists" makes people defensive, those people have some serious self-examination to get busy on.
You can keep blaming them if you want, but this attitude doesn't change things for the better. Saying "it shouldn't be the disadvantaged person's responsibility to educate/fix the perceptions of the privileged" is all well and good, but if you just expect them to change, when they don't know that anything is wrong, and the status quo is actually beneficial to them, I think you'll be waiting a long time. Be the change you want to see in the world, and other missattributed quotes by world leaders.
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
There has to be an answer to this. It can't just be a catch 22, can it? To be honest, I think the answer may simply be that ads don't work, and the issue needs to be addressed in a more robust and individualized way.
A more robust and individualized way might never be available for the majority of people who might benefit from thinking about the concept of privilege, unless you want to hire a small army of folks to go door to door. So a campaign like this one is, practically, better than nothing in that it might inspire some folks to seek out a more robust and individualized take on the concept, and I highly doubt the folks who see it as some sort of personal insult will become more racist than they already are (or aren't).
Maybe the answer is a movie or tv show that starts a national conversation about the problems nonwhites face. It needs to be more than just a bulletin board though. I can't imagine how this campaign could get anyone engaged on the issue if they aren't already. Like I said before, I think the best case is probably convincing someone familiar with the concepts to think something more needs to be done, but I don't see this particular ad even doing that.
this stuff does exist, you know. There are movies, and TV shows, and music and art in whatever other media which deal with the concepts of race and privilege and wealth in society. It's not like this is a new topic. What happens when people get exposed to them is the same thing we see happening here: people get defensive and individualize the criticism being made of social behavior. When people get uncomfortable they stop watching, which is why most of our television is so noncontroversial (and also so white.)
These billboards probably won't reach 95% of people who see them in a meaningful way, but that's okay because nothing else will either. An individual changing their attitude on these topics is hardly ever the result of a singular circumstance. But maybe there's some number of people who see this billboard and think about it long enough to be kind of annoyed, who also read some article about a failing school in a poor neighborhood, and a lightbulb goes off.
If the argument is that we should wait for the silver bullet that will perfectly engage everybody, we'll be waiting forever.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Framing is a thing though. I'd be willing to bet that quite a large proportion of people who strongly object to the idea that they benefit from "white privilege" would more or less agree with the concept of "black disadvantage", even though they're semantically equivalent (when you're only considering whites and blacks anyway). Those are people whom adverts like this not only aren't reaching, but are running the risk of turning a potential 'convert' (for want of a better word) into a hardcore racist.
I can tell you that because for the longest time I used to be one of them. At the time I first heard the word "privilege" used in a socioethnic context, I literally could not afford all the food I needed. "Mouth-foaming red-mist outrage" would have been a fair assessment of my emotional reaction at being described as "privileged" - and that was from just reading it. Had someone said it to my face at the time, I would probably have reacted violently.
It took a long time for me to start to understand the context properly, and that was in part due to the lengthy discussions on this very forum. Sometimes people need a little help to do difficult tiring things. And even now, I have to consciously master the defensiveness and resentment that the word engenders when I read discussions about it. It is still difficult. It is still tiring. And it's always a good idea to make it as easy as possible when you want somebody to do something for you.
There's no way to use a word like 'privilege' without dragging along a load of connotations that are really unfortunate. It's a loaded word, freighted with moral judgement, and the way it is sometimes so carelessly applied without providing proper context really doesn't help. Just handwaving this away with a "oh well we'll never reach 95% of these scumbags anyway" is just lazy and arrogant, IMO. It's an excuse to be insensitive and judgemental towards people* whom you want to put in effort to do a difficult and uncomfortable thing. There are good people out there who are potentially receptive to the concept who will not be reached in this way, and indeed who will be potentially pushed into becoming an active part of the problem.
Just my 2p.
*People who, I might add, while benefitting from white privilege, are quite often heavily disadvantaged from not being included in other social privileges. The privilege of having a stable two parent family. The privilege of going to a good school. The privilege of being attractive. The privilege of good health.
My point wasn't that some large percentage of people are totally unreachable on the issue, just that no individual effort is going to be the silver bullet that people apparently feel is necessary.
And I mean, at some point the onus is on you to explain what kind of language you would like to see used to explain these concepts to people. 'Privilege' is a loaded word that we can't use without offending people; ditto for 'racism.' Any word or phrase we use to discuss these problems will rapidly become 'loaded,' just because it's an incredibly uncomfortable discussion for lots of people to have.
I also reject the idea that anybody who previously didn't walk around acting racist will suddenly begin acting racist as a result of this advertising. Anyone self-aware enough to care about the consequences of those behaviors in the first place isn't suddenly going to stop.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
One problem might be that everyone but WASP's has some cultural or institutional disadvantages. While whites might not understand blacks' issues, they might not be happy being picked out when blacks don't know what it's like being Irish or Jewish.
I would be interested in seeing examples of what does constitute a productive advocacy campaign on this topic, from people who think this one isn't.
I think emphasizing the people being hurt instead of the people benefitting from privilege would be a good start. Maybe a billboard with a picture of a well dressed black woman that says "I have all the right credentials. Too bad I have the wrong name" and then a statistic on hiring and ethnic names?
I would be interested in seeing examples of what does constitute a productive advocacy campaign on this topic, from people who think this one isn't.
I think emphasizing the people being hurt instead of the people benefitting from privilege would be a good start. Maybe a billboard with a picture of a well dressed black woman that says "I have all the right credentials. Too bad I have the wrong name" and then a statistic on hiring and ethnic names?
That still allows people the out of saying "Well, that's a few other people being racist when it comes to hiring people, not anything systemic that needs to be dealt with differently".
I would be interested in seeing examples of what does constitute a productive advocacy campaign on this topic, from people who think this one isn't.
I think emphasizing the people being hurt instead of the people benefitting from privilege would be a good start. Maybe a billboard with a picture of a well dressed black woman that says "I have all the right credentials. Too bad I have the wrong name" and then a statistic on hiring and ethnic names?
First, no matter how true it is, its strange that the ability to label an entire group of people by saying "you are white, you are privileged" is somehow acceptable. It really doesnt matter if its true. I would give examples of true statements about other races that would offend, but inherently, I'd offend folks by doing so. So I will refrain. Point is, you cant just generalize like that, its offensive in of itself.
Secondly, I have issues with the actual point. Ever be the only white person in a room filled with black people? I have. I walked into a food court during a meeting of sorts or something and was the only white kid in there in college. Its awkward. They all stared at me. So I can definitely understand the advantage I have by most people in a position of hiring or whatever to being similar to me. I get that, I dont need to not be white to understand that.
But, a lot of the problems arent "OMG you are white, you dont know what its like" and more "OMG you are in the majority, you dont know what its like." Its not inherently a white thing. There are two things that facilitate the privilege, being the majority and being in a certain class.
But when you tie these things directly to being white you start to lose people and make them defensive.
Then there is the entire concept of "privilege" being earned. I mean, what are we supposed to do, hit a culture reset button every few generations to keep things fair? Isnt one of the major points to raising kids to try and give them advantages you didnt have, to make their life better? Obviously slavery sort of breaks this argument, because, that shit gave one group way too much of a head start. But it doesn't dismiss the whole thing.
Its easy to see where you have that privilege, whats much much harder is to convince people that it wasnt earned. To be honest, I havent heard an argument that would compell folks. Personally, its hard to look at my own parents and how hard they worked to give me an awesome head start and then diminish it by saying "well they were white, so its not fair."
And that's the mentality you have to try and fight. Pointing out the privilege doesn't make much headway there and does get folks defensive.
I, too, have no privilege because of that one time I was made to feel uncomfortable because of my skin color.
Yes that the point of what I said.
My point there is that just because someone is white doesnt mean they are blind to what its like or can not know what its like when you are not sitting atop your priivlege of being surrounded by folks like you. Because that's a part of why the privilege exists. The culture is dominated by whites so whites get an advantage over others. Part of the whole campaign is "well you cant see racism because you are white, and you dont see the subtle stares or judgements etc". My point is simply that isnt true. You can easily experience that aspect of the other side.
The other point was that it isnt inherently a white thing, its a culture thing. The majority is inherently going to have privilege because like it or not, we relate better with those more like ourselves. So if more people, and more people in power have characteristics similar to you, you are going to have a leg up versus someone different. Honestly, I dont think there is a cure for that. People gravitate to those like them. As long as whites are the majority that specific privilege really cant be undone, because it is directly tied to being the majority. No amount of education or awareness is going to stop people from gravitating to those similar to themselves.
If a statement as simple as "white privilege exists" makes people defensive, those people have some serious self-examination to get busy on.
But why bring skin color into it? It really doesnt matter. Why not call it "Majority Privilege" or "Bias Privilege"?. Nothing about the Privilege has anything to do with skin color and everything to do with the fact white folks exist in the majority and have the power. But as soon as you start bringing color into it it just feels hypocritical even if it isnt. Its hard for me to get over the word and I am pretty liberal out in the real world (admittedly conservative compared to most of the forum). Imagine how the other 50% of the population feels? Honestly renaming or reframing the argument could go a long way to making the point more accessible, something the billboard and campaign does not do.
Disrupter on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I would be interested in seeing examples of what does constitute a productive advocacy campaign on this topic, from people who think this one isn't.
I think emphasizing the people being hurt instead of the people benefitting from privilege would be a good start. Maybe a billboard with a picture of a well dressed black woman that says "I have all the right credentials. Too bad I have the wrong name" and then a statistic on hiring and ethnic names?
That still allows people the out of saying "Well, that's a few other people being racist when it comes to hiring people, not anything systemic that needs to be dealt with differently".
Well, there isn't a way to create a campaign that no one can dismiss. At least if you are more specific like this, then someone may think of it when they are hiring and maybe not pass over Lakisha's resume so quickly.
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
You know, this sort of thing really makes me wonder. We've done studies now that confirm if you challenge false beliefs with facts it does not dispel them, only reinforce them. So it'd be nice if we had some sort of correlating studies to see what CAN be done in its place to change beliefs. This would finally make broaching such controversial subjects possible. If we could figure out what is actually effective at a scientific level these sorts of criticisms on tone could be done away with.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
But why bring skin color into it? It really doesnt matter. Why not call it "Majority Privilege" or "Bias Privilege"?. Nothing about the Privilege has anything to do with skin color and everything to do with the fact white folks exist in the majority and have the power.
It is about color, though. Even people who fall far outside the social/cultural norms we associate with being African-American still face discrimination on the basis of skin color when they happen to be black (Barack Obama, for example.)
Saying it's all about wealth and power is missing the forest for the trees; why is it that wealth and power seem to be concentrated in the hands of white people? Why does our society continue to reinforce that concentration?
ed: also whatever word you pick (bias, majority, whatever) will become just as "charged" once people figure out what the word actually means. "Privilege" expanded to describe circumstances other than simple wealth relatively recently, and here we are.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
But why bring skin color into it? It really doesnt matter. Why not call it "Majority Privilege" or "Bias Privilege"?. Nothing about the Privilege has anything to do with skin color and everything to do with the fact white folks exist in the majority and have the power.
It is about color, though. Even people who fall far outside the social/cultural norms we associate with being African-American still face discrimination on the basis of skin color when they happen to be black (Barack Obama, for example.)
Saying it's all about wealth and power is missing the forest for the trees; why is it that wealth and power seem to be concentrated in the hands of white people? Why does our society continue to reinforce that concentration?
ed: also whatever word you pick (bias, majority, whatever) will become just as "charged" once people figure out what the word actually means. "Privilege" expanded to describe circumstances other than simple wealth relatively recently, and here we are.
nepotism
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
You know, this sort of thing really makes me wonder. We've done studies now that confirm if you challenge false beliefs with facts it does not dispel them, only reinforce them. So it'd be nice if we had some sort of correlating studies to see what CAN be done in its place to change beliefs. This would finally make broaching such controversial subjects possible. If we could figure out what is actually effective at a scientific level these sorts of criticisms on tone could be done away with.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure the only way to truly solve these problems is to get more minorities integrated into all levels of the work force, society, etc. It is so much easier to hate a group than a person, and if you get to know and like/respect enough members of the group, maybe that is when you'll say "hey, Steve and Dave are both smart guys and hard workers, and they've told me about racism and challenges they've faced. If they had to go through it despite being such great guys, maybe it really is tougher for black people in general. Also, why are they the only two black people in my department?"
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
You know, this sort of thing really makes me wonder. We've done studies now that confirm if you challenge false beliefs with facts it does not dispel them, only reinforce them. So it'd be nice if we had some sort of correlating studies to see what CAN be done in its place to change beliefs. This would finally make broaching such controversial subjects possible. If we could figure out what is actually effective at a scientific level these sorts of criticisms on tone could be done away with.
That would be an awesome socio/psychological project, but also a rather controversial one I'm afraid - from both sides of the issue. The researchers would need some pretty thick skins. Still, few good things come easily.
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
You know, this sort of thing really makes me wonder. We've done studies now that confirm if you challenge false beliefs with facts it does not dispel them, only reinforce them. So it'd be nice if we had some sort of correlating studies to see what CAN be done in its place to change beliefs. This would finally make broaching such controversial subjects possible. If we could figure out what is actually effective at a scientific level these sorts of criticisms on tone could be done away with.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure the only way to truly solve these problems is to get more minorities integrated into all levels of the work force, society, etc. It is so much easier to hate a group than a person, and if you get to know and like/respect enough members of the group, maybe that is when you'll say "hey, Steve and Dave are both smart guys and hard workers, and they've told me about racism and challenges they've faced. If they had to go through it despite being such great guys, maybe it really is tougher for black people in general. Also, why are they the only two black people in my department?"
It might also be helpful to broaden the scope of the "privilege" campaign. It doesn't have to be just "white vs everyone". As said above, point out that non-jews (including black people) have privilege. Point out that people (including black people and jews) with "normal" accents have privilege. Point out that good looking people (including black people, jews and people with strong accents) have privilege. Point out that heterosexual people (including etc etc etc) have privilege. And so on.
Basically just about everyone benefits and suffers from privilege in some way. We're all caught up in this web, but some people are obectively left way worse off than others. Then instead of one specific group feeling "accused" of THE privilege, and rejecting the whole idea because it feels aimed at them, we raise acceptance and understanding of the concept, and then it's possible to demonstrate out that some privileges are way more powerful than others. Nothing gives sympathy for the underdog like showing people how they are one themselves in some way. Acknowledging the problems an ugly gay hick Jew* faces will make him much more receptive to the idea that 'Lakisha' has similar ones too, but even worse.
It is about color, though. Even people who fall far outside the social/cultural norms we associate with being African-American still face discrimination on the basis of skin color when they happen to be black (Barack Obama, for example.)
Saying it's all about wealth and power is missing the forest for the trees; why is it that wealth and power seem to be concentrated in the hands of white people? Why does our society continue to reinforce that concentration?
Well I think its sort of cyclical. Our socirty continues to reinforce that concentration because the people already in power are the ones influencing it. If white guys are all in charge of hiring folks, and there is a natural bias towards people similar to you (which I feel is just inherent, but maybe that IS solvable, thats another disucssion though) then white guys will tend to want to hire other white guys. This puts more white guys in a position to be in power and feed the system of white guys having privilege. Basically the privilege reinforces itself. It seems pretty simple and obvious to me.
As to how it got that way? We have to look at colonialism and Europe for that, I'd have to assume. England basically raping its colonies, putting white Europeans way ahead of everyone else. Thats where the privilege started, and then its a cycle that reinforces itself. But again, nothing about it is inherently "white".
I guarentee you if black people were in power and had the majority they would see the bonuses and whites would see the disadvantage. Color isnt the only thing that matters, not even right now. We see that by the name bias. Its a culture thing. White males have control, so the "norm" is white males with white male sounding names and white male accents. Anything in that norm feels comfortable and familiar and those in power gravitate to that. Anything outside of it gets a disadvantage. It HAPPENS to be white people in charge, but making that the focus of the problem seems to be more divisive then it has to be.
ed: also whatever word you pick (bias, majority, whatever) will become just as "charged" once people figure out what the word actually means. "Privilege" expanded to describe circumstances other than simple wealth relatively recently, and here we are.
I dont know. Is "Privilege" really the charged word, or is "White Privilege" the charged phrase? I feel its the latter, but I may be wrong.
As to how it got that way? We have to look at colonialism and Europe for that, I'd have to assume. England basically raping its colonies, putting white Europeans way ahead of everyone else. Thats where the privilege started, and then its a cycle that reinforces itself. But again, nothing about it is inherently "white".
The Portugese and Spanish got a big headstart on that game; we were pretty late entrants. I don't think Britain was even in the lead until after the Napoleonic wars settled out and things really got going in Africa and SE Asia.
As to how it got that way? We have to look at colonialism and Europe for that, I'd have to assume. England basically raping its colonies, putting white Europeans way ahead of everyone else. Thats where the privilege started, and then its a cycle that reinforces itself. But again, nothing about it is inherently "white".
The Portugese and Spanish got a big headstart on that game; we were pretty late entrants. I don't think Britain was even in the lead until after the Napoleonic wars settled out and things really got going in Africa and SE Asia.
In Africa, at least, Portugal and Spain were early but minor players, as they valued the trade and ship "refueling" purposes of the continent rather than its value for land and on-site labour. Partly, this may have been due to Iberia having a lot of horses, particularly breeds that were heat resistant. African nations valued the military uses of horses highly, but were never able to breed them.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I didn't want to start a new one. The other day, I literally saw a black person in my town for the first time ever. He doesn't even live here (he was asking someone for directions) but I never realized before then that there are basically no minorities at all where I live, and I live near NYC. So I looked at the statistics, and my town is over 90% white, and the remainder are mostly asian. I know part of it is socioeconomic, but I also can't help but wonder at the division being that stark. In looking for the statistics, I actually came across a thread on a forum where someone was asking if my town or any of the surrounding (very similar) towns would be good places for a wealthy, successful Indian family to move to, and the reaction was actually very mixed between "yes, they are nice areas and the people are nice, although you may be the only Indian family for many blocks" and "not unless you are ok being the only nonwhite people around." That kind of blew me away. I would be interested to hear if other people have had similar experiences, especially minorities who were deciding how a mostly white town would be to live in, and what ultimately decided it.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I didn't want to start a new one. The other day, I literally saw a black person in my town for the first time ever. He doesn't even live here (he was asking someone for directions) but I never realized before then that there are basically no minorities at all where I live, and I live near NYC. So I looked at the statistics, and my town is over 90% white, and the remainder are mostly asian. I know part of it is socioeconomic, but I also can't help but wonder at the division being that stark. In looking for the statistics, I actually came across a thread on a forum where someone was asking if my town or any of the surrounding (very similar) towns would be good places for a wealthy, successful Indian family to move to, and the reaction was actually very mixed between "yes, they are nice areas and the people are nice, although you may be the only Indian family for many blocks" and "not unless you are ok being the only nonwhite people around." That kind of blew me away. I would be interested to hear if other people have had similar experiences, especially minorities who were deciding how a mostly white town would be to live in, and what ultimately decided it.
It's a product of unequal access to solid education and opportunity and a ton of other things. I imagine you live on Long Island or something, no? My roommate at grad school has talked about similar realizations.
But it can be quite startling when you realize it.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I didn't want to start a new one. The other day, I literally saw a black person in my town for the first time ever. He doesn't even live here (he was asking someone for directions) but I never realized before then that there are basically no minorities at all where I live, and I live near NYC. So I looked at the statistics, and my town is over 90% white, and the remainder are mostly asian. I know part of it is socioeconomic, but I also can't help but wonder at the division being that stark. In looking for the statistics, I actually came across a thread on a forum where someone was asking if my town or any of the surrounding (very similar) towns would be good places for a wealthy, successful Indian family to move to, and the reaction was actually very mixed between "yes, they are nice areas and the people are nice, although you may be the only Indian family for many blocks" and "not unless you are ok being the only nonwhite people around." That kind of blew me away. I would be interested to hear if other people have had similar experiences, especially minorities who were deciding how a mostly white town would be to live in, and what ultimately decided it.
It's a product of unequal access to solid education and opportunity and a ton of other things. I imagine you live on Long Island or something, no? My roommate at grad school has talked about similar realizations.
But it can be quite startling when you realize it.
Yeah, I'm in LI. In general things are pretty segregated here, with a few "black" towns and the rest being almost all white.
But why bring skin color into it? It really doesnt matter. Why not call it "Majority Privilege" or "Bias Privilege"?. Nothing about the Privilege has anything to do with skin color and everything to do with the fact white folks exist in the majority and have the power.
It is about color, though. Even people who fall far outside the social/cultural norms we associate with being African-American still face discrimination on the basis of skin color when they happen to be black (Barack Obama, for example.)
Saying it's all about wealth and power is missing the forest for the trees; why is it that wealth and power seem to be concentrated in the hands of white people? Why does our society continue to reinforce that concentration?
ed: also whatever word you pick (bias, majority, whatever) will become just as "charged" once people figure out what the word actually means. "Privilege" expanded to describe circumstances other than simple wealth relatively recently, and here we are.
A considerably better name for the concept of 'privilege' would be 'power similarity bias'.
What is it? Well, its power similarity bias. You are similar to the people in power who have made laws and set customs to benefit themselves. You gain some benefit from this similarity, as laws and customs are biased towards someone who is like you. This bias may be MASSIVELY outweighed by your personal situation, and it is by no means impossible for someone who doesn't get bias from it to overcome the lack of it.
I think the second thing is what is the big failing of the whole concept of privilege though, whatever you call it. Because there are thousands of different forms of it going on at the same time. You can't bring it to anyone and say, 'you've got the privilege', since it's barely ever 100% true. Does a rich white woman have privilege? Yes, because she's rich and white. Does a Rich black man have privilege? Yes, because he's a man and rich. Is 'white privilege' the most powerful privilege? Nope, the most powerful would be 'not an orphan' privilege, or 'Able to see' privilege.
You can't consider anything alone, because what does it matter if you are Hispanic if you are smart, handsome, tall, a rich man, healthy, and well educated. Every person has a different amount of power similarity bias, which should only ever be considered in totality.
Well, because some forms of power similarity bias have been inculcated over thousands of years, are currently actively supported, and need to be addressed up front.
Even if that occasionally involves maybe not everyone getting to be the underdog.
I mean how dare we even mention "able to see" privilege right? I mean what if I'm a poor sighted man and the blind man is rich? Maybe it's completely impossible for anyone to ever be negatively impacted by any aspect of our societal structure and we should just stop talking about it so it will get better by magic?
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I didn't want to start a new one. The other day, I literally saw a black person in my town for the first time ever. He doesn't even live here (he was asking someone for directions) but I never realized before then that there are basically no minorities at all where I live, and I live near NYC. So I looked at the statistics, and my town is over 90% white, and the remainder are mostly asian. I know part of it is socioeconomic, but I also can't help but wonder at the division being that stark. In looking for the statistics, I actually came across a thread on a forum where someone was asking if my town or any of the surrounding (very similar) towns would be good places for a wealthy, successful Indian family to move to, and the reaction was actually very mixed between "yes, they are nice areas and the people are nice, although you may be the only Indian family for many blocks" and "not unless you are ok being the only nonwhite people around." That kind of blew me away. I would be interested to hear if other people have had similar experiences, especially minorities who were deciding how a mostly white town would be to live in, and what ultimately decided it.
It's a product of unequal access to solid education and opportunity and a ton of other things. I imagine you live on Long Island or something, no? My roommate at grad school has talked about similar realizations.
But it can be quite startling when you realize it.
Yeah, I'm in LI. In general things are pretty segregated here, with a few "black" towns and the rest being almost all white.
Luckily, follow me here, I grew up quite poor in a very impoverished part of the world so I never really experienced segregation until I went to college.
But there are still times where I realize how even in those circumstances I benefited from my pale Scottish pallor.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited July 2012
I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to make a salient point here, as the notion of privilege as a thing is something I've only recently been introduced too (Through a thread on this forum actually), and I'm still processing it as applied to my experiences. Doesn't help that most examples discussed here are US specific. Anyway, rambling commencing.
A friend once asked me what it was like growing up in Apartheid SA as a white person. I jokingly answered pretty much the same, just more white people. The joke being that there wasn't more white people, it's just we were more separated.
My peers were all white, as were their parents (i.e. my parents friends), teachers, doctors etc. Any black people I encountered were older, and was always in a professional manner.
Now this system was invisible from the inside (at least as a child). That's just the way it was. It's hard to focus or quantify something insubstantial as race in that setting. I mean, they also had houses, schools, jobs. The similarities to lifestyle was there. The lack of choice is harder to see, so easier to just marginalize the effect or just claim it doesn't exist.
Now obviously there's a world of difference between Apartheid and Privilege, but sometimes, when the light catches it just so, I think the difference might just be in scale.
Okay, so I might have to try and clean up this line of thought when I get home. Introspection be hard yo.
Edit: Okay, so condense my point here a bit.
Under this system, the everyday people weren't bad people. They didn't actively support the system, and some were quite vocal against it. They knew that they were getting something from it, but the effect was underplayed, specific examples and anecdotes were always dredged up as counterpoints.
I guess if somebody (me included) can be partially oblivious to something obvious, I try to not dismiss things that are a lot more subtle just because I might not be in a position to see it.
Well, because some forms of power similarity bias have been inculcated over thousands of years, are currently actively supported, and need to be addressed up front.
Even if that occasionally involves maybe not everyone getting to be the underdog.
I mean how dare we even mention "able to see" privilege right? I mean what if I'm a poor sighted man and the blind man is rich? Maybe it's completely impossible for anyone to ever be negatively impacted by any aspect of our societal structure and we should just stop talking about it so it will get better by magic?
My point is, that focusing on the racial aspect simply destroys the message. If you go around telling white people that simply by existing they are being passively racist, or men that simply by existing they are being passively misogynists then you won't get anyone to listen to you.
The actual message is that society sets itself up to benefit (even if not deliberately) those in power. Furthermore, even if those in power actively work against that, people want to BE powerful and cultural norms will mimic the behavior of powerful and influential people. No government or movement has the power to stop or influence that. People should be aware of it in all the ways it manifests. You'll never get it to go away, or control it, you can just hope to minimize it's effects on peoples decisions. By talking about it in it's totality, it becomes a sensible and non-divisive idea. It goes from, "Damn you white person, you are a racist!" to "Remember that time you felt excluded because you were different, other people feel like that too, often far more regularly. Maybe you should think about that the next time you are interacting with someone"
Well, because some forms of power similarity bias have been inculcated over thousands of years, are currently actively supported, and need to be addressed up front.
Even if that occasionally involves maybe not everyone getting to be the underdog.
I mean how dare we even mention "able to see" privilege right? I mean what if I'm a poor sighted man and the blind man is rich? Maybe it's completely impossible for anyone to ever be negatively impacted by any aspect of our societal structure and we should just stop talking about it so it will get better by magic?
Let's not, because frankly 'not-disable privilege' is garbage. It's takes a fairly useful tool for discussing societal structure, and tries to piggy back on it. The sighted haven't slowly built up societal advantage via generations of pro-sighted norms. Imagine a country where only 13% of the country is sighted. Would they(the sighted) not still have a massive advantage in most things?
Well, because some forms of power similarity bias have been inculcated over thousands of years, are currently actively supported, and need to be addressed up front.
Even if that occasionally involves maybe not everyone getting to be the underdog.
I mean how dare we even mention "able to see" privilege right? I mean what if I'm a poor sighted man and the blind man is rich? Maybe it's completely impossible for anyone to ever be negatively impacted by any aspect of our societal structure and we should just stop talking about it so it will get better by magic?
My point is, that focusing on the racial aspect simply destroys the message. If you go around telling white people that simply by existing they are being passively racist, or men that simply by existing they are being passively misogynists then you won't get anyone to listen to you.
The actual message is that society sets itself up to benefit (even if not deliberately) those in power. Furthermore, even if those in power actively work against that, people want to BE powerful and cultural norms will mimic the behavior of powerful and influential people. No government or movement has the power to stop or influence that. People should be aware of it in all the ways it manifests. You'll never get it to go away, or control it, you can just hope to minimize it's effects on peoples decisions. By talking about it in it's totality, it becomes a sensible and non-divisive idea. It goes from, "Damn you white person, you are a racist!" to "Remember that time you felt excluded because you were different, other people feel like that too, often far more regularly. Maybe you should think about that the next time you are interacting with someone"
I don't think I've ever seen anyone remotely describe privilege as "passive x-ism". Or even describe it in a manner that could be reasonably misinterpreted as being that. It was described to me plainly and seemed like a reasonable rhetorical option for explaining things about the background radiation of preconceived notions in society.
Also the fact that the conversation about privilege inevitably focuses on how to present it in terms that will most comfort those least negatively effected seems like a very silly thing.
I mean yeah we're all in this together man but there's a reason for inequalities that exist, and sometimes that reason is best expressed as privilege. Acting as though the fact that it's possible to be handicapped in a variety of ways eliminates any need to concern yourself with any one in particular is simply a method of allowing yourself to maintain the status quo and ignore correctable injustices.
Well, because some forms of power similarity bias have been inculcated over thousands of years, are currently actively supported, and need to be addressed up front.
Even if that occasionally involves maybe not everyone getting to be the underdog.
I mean how dare we even mention "able to see" privilege right? I mean what if I'm a poor sighted man and the blind man is rich? Maybe it's completely impossible for anyone to ever be negatively impacted by any aspect of our societal structure and we should just stop talking about it so it will get better by magic?
My point is, that focusing on the racial aspect simply destroys the message. If you go around telling white people that simply by existing they are being passively racist, or men that simply by existing they are being passively misogynists then you won't get anyone to listen to you.
The actual message is that society sets itself up to benefit (even if not deliberately) those in power. Furthermore, even if those in power actively work against that, people want to BE powerful and cultural norms will mimic the behavior of powerful and influential people. No government or movement has the power to stop or influence that. People should be aware of it in all the ways it manifests. You'll never get it to go away, or control it, you can just hope to minimize it's effects on peoples decisions. By talking about it in it's totality, it becomes a sensible and non-divisive idea. It goes from, "Damn you white person, you are a racist!" to "Remember that time you felt excluded because you were different, other people feel like that too, often far more regularly. Maybe you should think about that the next time you are interacting with someone"
I don't think I've ever seen anyone remotely describe privilege as "passive x-ism". Or even describe it in a manner that could be reasonably misinterpreted as being that. It was described to me plainly and seemed like a reasonable rhetorical option for explaining things about the background radiation of preconceived notions in society.
Also the fact that the conversation about privilege inevitably focuses on how to present it in terms that will most comfort those least negatively effected seems like a very silly thing.
Sure unless you look at those same people as the peoples who's actions/opinions you most need to change; which you know..they are.
Well, because some forms of power similarity bias have been inculcated over thousands of years, are currently actively supported, and need to be addressed up front.
Even if that occasionally involves maybe not everyone getting to be the underdog.
I mean how dare we even mention "able to see" privilege right? I mean what if I'm a poor sighted man and the blind man is rich? Maybe it's completely impossible for anyone to ever be negatively impacted by any aspect of our societal structure and we should just stop talking about it so it will get better by magic?
My point is, that focusing on the racial aspect simply destroys the message. If you go around telling white people that simply by existing they are being passively racist, or men that simply by existing they are being passively misogynists then you won't get anyone to listen to you.
The actual message is that society sets itself up to benefit (even if not deliberately) those in power. Furthermore, even if those in power actively work against that, people want to BE powerful and cultural norms will mimic the behavior of powerful and influential people. No government or movement has the power to stop or influence that. People should be aware of it in all the ways it manifests. You'll never get it to go away, or control it, you can just hope to minimize it's effects on peoples decisions. By talking about it in it's totality, it becomes a sensible and non-divisive idea. It goes from, "Damn you white person, you are a racist!" to "Remember that time you felt excluded because you were different, other people feel like that too, often far more regularly. Maybe you should think about that the next time you are interacting with someone"
I don't think I've ever seen anyone remotely describe privilege as "passive x-ism". Or even describe it in a manner that could be reasonably misinterpreted as being that. It was described to me plainly and seemed like a reasonable rhetorical option for explaining things about the background radiation of preconceived notions in society.
Also the fact that the conversation about privilege inevitably focuses on how to present it in terms that will most comfort those least negatively effected seems like a very silly thing.
I mean yeah we're all in this together man but there's a reason for inequalities that exist, and sometimes that reason is best expressed as privilege. Acting as though the fact that it's possible to be handicapped in a variety of ways eliminates any need to concern yourself with any one in particular is simply a method of allowing yourself to maintain the status quo and ignore correctable injustices.
Focusing on one immediately highlights all the other aspects of exclusion that people feel and causes them to resent you for it.
And lets not try to pretend that privilige isn't passive x-ism. That is EXACTLY what is being described. White privilege is white people getting benefits (fitting in with society, having names that work well to get interviews, being in large groups of similar people at academic institutions) above those possessed by black people simply due to their race while at no point consciously planning to exclude black people. It is the very definition of passive racism.
There is no interpretation of it OTHER than passive racism. Hell, there is no other possible thing it could be. If its NOT racism, (or any kind of x-ism) then it doesn't matter. The 'background radiation of preconceived notions' IS passive x-ism.
Well, because some forms of power similarity bias have been inculcated over thousands of years, are currently actively supported, and need to be addressed up front.
Even if that occasionally involves maybe not everyone getting to be the underdog.
I mean how dare we even mention "able to see" privilege right? I mean what if I'm a poor sighted man and the blind man is rich? Maybe it's completely impossible for anyone to ever be negatively impacted by any aspect of our societal structure and we should just stop talking about it so it will get better by magic?
Let's not, because frankly 'not-disable privilege' is garbage. It's takes a fairly useful tool for discussing societal structure, and tries to piggy back on it. The sighted haven't slowly built up societal advantage via generations of pro-sighted norms. Imagine a country where only 13% of the country is sighted. Would they(the sighted) not still have a massive advantage in most things?
They would have a massive advantage, but it would be a similar advantage to that possessed by geniuses. Society wouldn't have set itself up around their needs, and the small advantaged community wouldn't control all aspects of society in a democracy. You can also say that being sighted has definite advantages. Rewarding those definate skills is not a bad thing.
Posts
This is a wonderful sentiment, but it kind of falls apart when you read things like this. For however hard you or your parents worked, there absolutely are structure advantages for white people in society.
Like the other poster said upthread, benefiting from privilege doesn't make you a bad person. You didn't ask for it, and for the most part you can't even refuse its benefits if you do become aware of them.
That study is an example of the reason things like affirmative action need to exist. We can be aware of privilege in a general way, but we can't correct for it on our own because none of us (or very few, anyway) have the ability to step outside our entire cultural/developmental environment.
If a statement as simple as "white privilege exists" makes people defensive, those people have some serious self-examination to get busy on.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You can keep blaming them if you want, but this attitude doesn't change things for the better. Saying "it shouldn't be the disadvantaged person's responsibility to educate/fix the perceptions of the privileged" is all well and good, but if you just expect them to change, when they don't know that anything is wrong, and the status quo is actually beneficial to them, I think you'll be waiting a long time. Be the change you want to see in the world, and other missattributed quotes by world leaders.
The truth is rarely, if ever, completely comfortable.
Considering how some folks seem to take the relatively benign concept of "white privilege" to be a full-frontal assault on their very worth as human beings, I'm doubtful that it'd be possible to soften the message enough to either console the fragile egos of those folks or to actually get across any point other than "Yay for white people!"
There has to be an answer to this. It can't just be a catch 22, can it? To be honest, I think the answer may simply be that ads don't work, and the issue needs to be addressed in a more robust and individualized way.
A more robust and individualized way might never be available for the majority of people who might benefit from thinking about the concept of privilege, unless you want to hire a small army of folks to go door to door. So a campaign like this one is, practically, better than nothing in that it might inspire some folks to seek out a more robust and individualized take on the concept, and I highly doubt the folks who see it as some sort of personal insult will become more racist than they already are (or aren't).
Maybe the answer is a movie or tv show that starts a national conversation about the problems nonwhites face. It needs to be more than just a bulletin board though. I can't imagine how this campaign could get anyone engaged on the issue if they aren't already. Like I said before, I think the best case is probably convincing someone familiar with the concepts to think something more needs to be done, but I don't see this particular ad even doing that.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
this stuff does exist, you know. There are movies, and TV shows, and music and art in whatever other media which deal with the concepts of race and privilege and wealth in society. It's not like this is a new topic. What happens when people get exposed to them is the same thing we see happening here: people get defensive and individualize the criticism being made of social behavior. When people get uncomfortable they stop watching, which is why most of our television is so noncontroversial (and also so white.)
These billboards probably won't reach 95% of people who see them in a meaningful way, but that's okay because nothing else will either. An individual changing their attitude on these topics is hardly ever the result of a singular circumstance. But maybe there's some number of people who see this billboard and think about it long enough to be kind of annoyed, who also read some article about a failing school in a poor neighborhood, and a lightbulb goes off.
If the argument is that we should wait for the silver bullet that will perfectly engage everybody, we'll be waiting forever.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I can tell you that because for the longest time I used to be one of them. At the time I first heard the word "privilege" used in a socioethnic context, I literally could not afford all the food I needed. "Mouth-foaming red-mist outrage" would have been a fair assessment of my emotional reaction at being described as "privileged" - and that was from just reading it. Had someone said it to my face at the time, I would probably have reacted violently.
It took a long time for me to start to understand the context properly, and that was in part due to the lengthy discussions on this very forum. Sometimes people need a little help to do difficult tiring things. And even now, I have to consciously master the defensiveness and resentment that the word engenders when I read discussions about it. It is still difficult. It is still tiring. And it's always a good idea to make it as easy as possible when you want somebody to do something for you.
There's no way to use a word like 'privilege' without dragging along a load of connotations that are really unfortunate. It's a loaded word, freighted with moral judgement, and the way it is sometimes so carelessly applied without providing proper context really doesn't help. Just handwaving this away with a "oh well we'll never reach 95% of these scumbags anyway" is just lazy and arrogant, IMO. It's an excuse to be insensitive and judgemental towards people* whom you want to put in effort to do a difficult and uncomfortable thing. There are good people out there who are potentially receptive to the concept who will not be reached in this way, and indeed who will be potentially pushed into becoming an active part of the problem.
Just my 2p.
*People who, I might add, while benefitting from white privilege, are quite often heavily disadvantaged from not being included in other social privileges. The privilege of having a stable two parent family. The privilege of going to a good school. The privilege of being attractive. The privilege of good health.
And I mean, at some point the onus is on you to explain what kind of language you would like to see used to explain these concepts to people. 'Privilege' is a loaded word that we can't use without offending people; ditto for 'racism.' Any word or phrase we use to discuss these problems will rapidly become 'loaded,' just because it's an incredibly uncomfortable discussion for lots of people to have.
I also reject the idea that anybody who previously didn't walk around acting racist will suddenly begin acting racist as a result of this advertising. Anyone self-aware enough to care about the consequences of those behaviors in the first place isn't suddenly going to stop.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I think emphasizing the people being hurt instead of the people benefitting from privilege would be a good start. Maybe a billboard with a picture of a well dressed black woman that says "I have all the right credentials. Too bad I have the wrong name" and then a statistic on hiring and ethnic names?
That still allows people the out of saying "Well, that's a few other people being racist when it comes to hiring people, not anything systemic that needs to be dealt with differently".
Yes that the point of what I said.
My point there is that just because someone is white doesnt mean they are blind to what its like or can not know what its like when you are not sitting atop your priivlege of being surrounded by folks like you. Because that's a part of why the privilege exists. The culture is dominated by whites so whites get an advantage over others. Part of the whole campaign is "well you cant see racism because you are white, and you dont see the subtle stares or judgements etc". My point is simply that isnt true. You can easily experience that aspect of the other side.
The other point was that it isnt inherently a white thing, its a culture thing. The majority is inherently going to have privilege because like it or not, we relate better with those more like ourselves. So if more people, and more people in power have characteristics similar to you, you are going to have a leg up versus someone different. Honestly, I dont think there is a cure for that. People gravitate to those like them. As long as whites are the majority that specific privilege really cant be undone, because it is directly tied to being the majority. No amount of education or awareness is going to stop people from gravitating to those similar to themselves.
But why bring skin color into it? It really doesnt matter. Why not call it "Majority Privilege" or "Bias Privilege"?. Nothing about the Privilege has anything to do with skin color and everything to do with the fact white folks exist in the majority and have the power. But as soon as you start bringing color into it it just feels hypocritical even if it isnt. Its hard for me to get over the word and I am pretty liberal out in the real world (admittedly conservative compared to most of the forum). Imagine how the other 50% of the population feels? Honestly renaming or reframing the argument could go a long way to making the point more accessible, something the billboard and campaign does not do.
Well, there isn't a way to create a campaign that no one can dismiss. At least if you are more specific like this, then someone may think of it when they are hiring and maybe not pass over Lakisha's resume so quickly.
You know, this sort of thing really makes me wonder. We've done studies now that confirm if you challenge false beliefs with facts it does not dispel them, only reinforce them. So it'd be nice if we had some sort of correlating studies to see what CAN be done in its place to change beliefs. This would finally make broaching such controversial subjects possible. If we could figure out what is actually effective at a scientific level these sorts of criticisms on tone could be done away with.
It is about color, though. Even people who fall far outside the social/cultural norms we associate with being African-American still face discrimination on the basis of skin color when they happen to be black (Barack Obama, for example.)
Saying it's all about wealth and power is missing the forest for the trees; why is it that wealth and power seem to be concentrated in the hands of white people? Why does our society continue to reinforce that concentration?
ed: also whatever word you pick (bias, majority, whatever) will become just as "charged" once people figure out what the word actually means. "Privilege" expanded to describe circumstances other than simple wealth relatively recently, and here we are.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
nepotism
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure the only way to truly solve these problems is to get more minorities integrated into all levels of the work force, society, etc. It is so much easier to hate a group than a person, and if you get to know and like/respect enough members of the group, maybe that is when you'll say "hey, Steve and Dave are both smart guys and hard workers, and they've told me about racism and challenges they've faced. If they had to go through it despite being such great guys, maybe it really is tougher for black people in general. Also, why are they the only two black people in my department?"
That would be an awesome socio/psychological project, but also a rather controversial one I'm afraid - from both sides of the issue. The researchers would need some pretty thick skins. Still, few good things come easily.
It might also be helpful to broaden the scope of the "privilege" campaign. It doesn't have to be just "white vs everyone". As said above, point out that non-jews (including black people) have privilege. Point out that people (including black people and jews) with "normal" accents have privilege. Point out that good looking people (including black people, jews and people with strong accents) have privilege. Point out that heterosexual people (including etc etc etc) have privilege. And so on.
Basically just about everyone benefits and suffers from privilege in some way. We're all caught up in this web, but some people are obectively left way worse off than others. Then instead of one specific group feeling "accused" of THE privilege, and rejecting the whole idea because it feels aimed at them, we raise acceptance and understanding of the concept, and then it's possible to demonstrate out that some privileges are way more powerful than others. Nothing gives sympathy for the underdog like showing people how they are one themselves in some way. Acknowledging the problems an ugly gay hick Jew* faces will make him much more receptive to the idea that 'Lakisha' has similar ones too, but even worse.
Well I think its sort of cyclical. Our socirty continues to reinforce that concentration because the people already in power are the ones influencing it. If white guys are all in charge of hiring folks, and there is a natural bias towards people similar to you (which I feel is just inherent, but maybe that IS solvable, thats another disucssion though) then white guys will tend to want to hire other white guys. This puts more white guys in a position to be in power and feed the system of white guys having privilege. Basically the privilege reinforces itself. It seems pretty simple and obvious to me.
As to how it got that way? We have to look at colonialism and Europe for that, I'd have to assume. England basically raping its colonies, putting white Europeans way ahead of everyone else. Thats where the privilege started, and then its a cycle that reinforces itself. But again, nothing about it is inherently "white".
I guarentee you if black people were in power and had the majority they would see the bonuses and whites would see the disadvantage. Color isnt the only thing that matters, not even right now. We see that by the name bias. Its a culture thing. White males have control, so the "norm" is white males with white male sounding names and white male accents. Anything in that norm feels comfortable and familiar and those in power gravitate to that. Anything outside of it gets a disadvantage. It HAPPENS to be white people in charge, but making that the focus of the problem seems to be more divisive then it has to be.
I dont know. Is "Privilege" really the charged word, or is "White Privilege" the charged phrase? I feel its the latter, but I may be wrong.
The Portugese and Spanish got a big headstart on that game; we were pretty late entrants. I don't think Britain was even in the lead until after the Napoleonic wars settled out and things really got going in Africa and SE Asia.
In Africa, at least, Portugal and Spain were early but minor players, as they valued the trade and ship "refueling" purposes of the continent rather than its value for land and on-site labour. Partly, this may have been due to Iberia having a lot of horses, particularly breeds that were heat resistant. African nations valued the military uses of horses highly, but were never able to breed them.
It's a product of unequal access to solid education and opportunity and a ton of other things. I imagine you live on Long Island or something, no? My roommate at grad school has talked about similar realizations.
But it can be quite startling when you realize it.
Yeah, I'm in LI. In general things are pretty segregated here, with a few "black" towns and the rest being almost all white.
A considerably better name for the concept of 'privilege' would be 'power similarity bias'.
What is it? Well, its power similarity bias. You are similar to the people in power who have made laws and set customs to benefit themselves. You gain some benefit from this similarity, as laws and customs are biased towards someone who is like you. This bias may be MASSIVELY outweighed by your personal situation, and it is by no means impossible for someone who doesn't get bias from it to overcome the lack of it.
I think the second thing is what is the big failing of the whole concept of privilege though, whatever you call it. Because there are thousands of different forms of it going on at the same time. You can't bring it to anyone and say, 'you've got the privilege', since it's barely ever 100% true. Does a rich white woman have privilege? Yes, because she's rich and white. Does a Rich black man have privilege? Yes, because he's a man and rich. Is 'white privilege' the most powerful privilege? Nope, the most powerful would be 'not an orphan' privilege, or 'Able to see' privilege.
You can't consider anything alone, because what does it matter if you are Hispanic if you are smart, handsome, tall, a rich man, healthy, and well educated. Every person has a different amount of power similarity bias, which should only ever be considered in totality.
Even if that occasionally involves maybe not everyone getting to be the underdog.
I mean how dare we even mention "able to see" privilege right? I mean what if I'm a poor sighted man and the blind man is rich? Maybe it's completely impossible for anyone to ever be negatively impacted by any aspect of our societal structure and we should just stop talking about it so it will get better by magic?
Luckily, follow me here, I grew up quite poor in a very impoverished part of the world so I never really experienced segregation until I went to college.
But there are still times where I realize how even in those circumstances I benefited from my pale Scottish pallor.
A friend once asked me what it was like growing up in Apartheid SA as a white person. I jokingly answered pretty much the same, just more white people. The joke being that there wasn't more white people, it's just we were more separated.
My peers were all white, as were their parents (i.e. my parents friends), teachers, doctors etc. Any black people I encountered were older, and was always in a professional manner.
Now this system was invisible from the inside (at least as a child). That's just the way it was. It's hard to focus or quantify something insubstantial as race in that setting. I mean, they also had houses, schools, jobs. The similarities to lifestyle was there. The lack of choice is harder to see, so easier to just marginalize the effect or just claim it doesn't exist.
Now obviously there's a world of difference between Apartheid and Privilege, but sometimes, when the light catches it just so, I think the difference might just be in scale.
Okay, so I might have to try and clean up this line of thought when I get home. Introspection be hard yo.
Edit: Okay, so condense my point here a bit.
Under this system, the everyday people weren't bad people. They didn't actively support the system, and some were quite vocal against it. They knew that they were getting something from it, but the effect was underplayed, specific examples and anecdotes were always dredged up as counterpoints.
I guess if somebody (me included) can be partially oblivious to something obvious, I try to not dismiss things that are a lot more subtle just because I might not be in a position to see it.
Okay, so that's probably not very clear at all.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
My point is, that focusing on the racial aspect simply destroys the message. If you go around telling white people that simply by existing they are being passively racist, or men that simply by existing they are being passively misogynists then you won't get anyone to listen to you.
The actual message is that society sets itself up to benefit (even if not deliberately) those in power. Furthermore, even if those in power actively work against that, people want to BE powerful and cultural norms will mimic the behavior of powerful and influential people. No government or movement has the power to stop or influence that. People should be aware of it in all the ways it manifests. You'll never get it to go away, or control it, you can just hope to minimize it's effects on peoples decisions. By talking about it in it's totality, it becomes a sensible and non-divisive idea. It goes from, "Damn you white person, you are a racist!" to "Remember that time you felt excluded because you were different, other people feel like that too, often far more regularly. Maybe you should think about that the next time you are interacting with someone"
Let's not, because frankly 'not-disable privilege' is garbage. It's takes a fairly useful tool for discussing societal structure, and tries to piggy back on it. The sighted haven't slowly built up societal advantage via generations of pro-sighted norms. Imagine a country where only 13% of the country is sighted. Would they(the sighted) not still have a massive advantage in most things?
I don't think I've ever seen anyone remotely describe privilege as "passive x-ism". Or even describe it in a manner that could be reasonably misinterpreted as being that. It was described to me plainly and seemed like a reasonable rhetorical option for explaining things about the background radiation of preconceived notions in society.
Also the fact that the conversation about privilege inevitably focuses on how to present it in terms that will most comfort those least negatively effected seems like a very silly thing.
I mean yeah we're all in this together man but there's a reason for inequalities that exist, and sometimes that reason is best expressed as privilege. Acting as though the fact that it's possible to be handicapped in a variety of ways eliminates any need to concern yourself with any one in particular is simply a method of allowing yourself to maintain the status quo and ignore correctable injustices.
Sure unless you look at those same people as the peoples who's actions/opinions you most need to change; which you know..they are.
Focusing on one immediately highlights all the other aspects of exclusion that people feel and causes them to resent you for it.
And lets not try to pretend that privilige isn't passive x-ism. That is EXACTLY what is being described. White privilege is white people getting benefits (fitting in with society, having names that work well to get interviews, being in large groups of similar people at academic institutions) above those possessed by black people simply due to their race while at no point consciously planning to exclude black people. It is the very definition of passive racism.
There is no interpretation of it OTHER than passive racism. Hell, there is no other possible thing it could be. If its NOT racism, (or any kind of x-ism) then it doesn't matter. The 'background radiation of preconceived notions' IS passive x-ism.
They would have a massive advantage, but it would be a similar advantage to that possessed by geniuses. Society wouldn't have set itself up around their needs, and the small advantaged community wouldn't control all aspects of society in a democracy. You can also say that being sighted has definite advantages. Rewarding those definate skills is not a bad thing.