The Best Explanation of White Privilege?

[xbuzzerx]

Making shit up in an argument doesn't exactly spit-shine your integrity, either. Go back and reread what I wrote, sport. Not once did I say white privilege doesn't exist.

You're welcome to have a go at me if you're think you're hard enough, but check your facts first. Otherwise it's just laziness.

And libel.

-d-

You've stated that programs that combat prejudice within a society are "exclusionary of whites."

Now you claim you acknowledge white privilege exists.

Make up your mind which it is. Saying that programs that help combat a traditional trend of minorities not having equal access to the same resources in society "discriminates against whites" and saying you do acknowledge white privilege exists are contradictory.

 

[xbuzzerx]

So Xbuzzxx and Svengali-Roly, how do the Italians and the Irish and the other "non-Whites" fit into this scheme you're trying to sell to us?

You two and your system of Eternal Guilt sound like university pranksters to me.

I realize you're just baiting and trolling like usual, but how many times do we need to re-state to you that the discussion you repeatedly brought up was talking about the view of those groups 100 years ago? Do you read English?

 

[pat grimshaw]

… 100 years ago?

The slavery was 150 years ago but you're still demanding eternal guilt.

 

[Rolyo85]

If a black person said there was no such thing as racism, he would be mistaken. If he said he had not experienced racism, I would actually believe him. If he said "yes, I have experienced acts of racism, but I still would not reframe my identity as being "an unprivileged person" or "a victim" or "an oppressed person," I would defend him from the haranguing he would be sure to receive on here.

If "society" can smugly decide that I need no assistance to start my own business and that no analysis is required beyond a determination of my skin colour, that is all the backup anyone can ask for.

Not to point out the obvious, but while you may choose to ignore the distinction between racism and white privilege, some of us actually have a clue, so I'll just point out that I have NEVER been the victim of homophobia, but I am constantly the victim of straight privilege. If a black guy tells you he has never been the victim of racism, that could be totally true, but if he said he's never been the victim of white privilege, then he's either lying, or clueless as to what that actually means. As you seem to be, though deliberately so.

 

[Rolyo85]

The slavery was 150 years ago but you're still demanding eternal guilt.

Nobody but the ones already feeling guilty, has brought up "guilt". Acknowledging that I have a better position in life than black people do, doesn't give me ANY sense of guilt. Why does it give it to you?

Ah yes, because you're a racist and feel attacked ^_^

 

[blackbeltninja]

You've stated that programs that combat prejudice within a society are "exclusionary of whites."

Now you claim you acknowledge white privilege exists.

Make up your mind which it is. Saying that programs that help combat a traditional trend of minorities not having equal access to the same resources in society "discriminates against whites" and saying you do acknowledge white privilege exists are contradictory.

No.

I said the way YOU want to combat prejudice is exclusionary, saying i would prefer a solution which truly gives everyone equal access. I have not denied the existence of white privilege.

Keep trying - you're sure to get it right sometime. Alternatively, keep digging - rock bottom is that way.

-d-

 

[bankside]

Not to point out the obvious, but while you may choose to ignore the distinction between racism and white privilege, some of us actually have a clue, so I'll just point out that I have NEVER been the victim of homophobia, but I am constantly the victim of straight privilege. If a black guy tells you he has never been the victim of racism, that could be totally true, but if he said he's never been the victim of white privilege, then he's either lying, or clueless as to what that actually means. As you seem to be, though deliberately so.

There is no meaningful distinction in the example you provide between homophobia and "straight privilege." It just repeats the error (with commendable consistency I suppose) that you make with "white privilege." And your assertion of "victimhood" just tips off what I had postulated earlier: the "privilege" rhetoric is just a way to stake a claim to the identity of victimhood, while slyly insinuating that anyone who is not a victim is an exploitive aggressor.

 

[Rolyo85]

There is no meaningful distinction in the example you provide between homophobia and "straight privilege." It just repeats the error (with commendable consistency I suppose) that you make with "white privilege." And your assertion of "victimhood" just tips off what I had postulated earlier: the "privilege" rhetoric is just a way to stake a claim to the identity of victimhood, while slyly insinuating that anyone who is not a victim is an exploitive aggressor.

Ok.....

 

[xbuzzerx]

The slavery was 150 years ago but you're still demanding eternal guilt.

Quote me telling anyone to "feel guilty."

No.

I said the way YOU want to combat prejudice is exclusionary, saying i would prefer a solution which truly gives everyone equal access. I have not denied the existence of white privilege.

Keep trying - you're sure to get it right sometime. Alternatively, keep digging - rock bottom is that way.

-d-

On paper, "bank loans" already "give equal access to everybody." For DECADES the trend has still proven overwhelmingly true that certain demographics of first time homebuyers can't get loans in the traditional walk-into-a-bank scenario because of their zip code, ethnicity and socioeconomic class. So all you're saying is "we should go colorblind and make everything the same for everyone", and what you are not getting is that, technically, that is what we've already done-- and it hasn't worked. Because even if you don't have formal, legal prejudices written into either the formal laws or regulations of what institutions, police, employers or banks can do, decisions still made at the individual level are still influenced by these factors that can be invisible and difficult to measure-- like people's prejudices.

For example, black youth are 48 times more likely to face incarceration for a first-time drug possession charge than white youth. Despite the laws, on the books, being "equally inclusionary for everyone."

So perhaps you are the one who needs to try again.

There is no meaningful distinction in the example you provide between homophobia and "straight privilege." It just repeats the error (with commendable consistency I suppose) that you make with "white privilege." And your assertion of "victimhood" just tips off what I had postulated earlier: the "privilege" rhetoric is just a way to stake a claim to the identity of victimhood, while slyly insinuating that anyone who is not a victim is an exploitive aggressor.

No, that is how you choose to view it because you are uncomfortable with acknowledging that you are part of any demographic which may experience any forms of privilege in society. But you are. You're white. You're male. Those are two right there. As a gay man you should already relate to certain aspects of what's different for you vs. a member of a more elevated mainstream demographic, but perhaps you've lived a very coddled life. Your chances of being beaten up badly enough to require hospitalization as you simply walk down a street or come out of a bar are orders of magnitude higher as a gay male than a straight male. Even if that has never happened to you. When we talk about, say, levels of black conviction or incarceration for the same crimes as other demographics, we see exactly the same substantial difference in magnitude. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to acknowledge.

 

[blackbeltninja]

Quote me telling anyone to "feel guilty."

Quote me saying white privilege doesn't exist in this thread.

So perhaps you are the one who needs to try again.

Yeah. And perhaps not, if you know what I mean. Moving on.

On paper, "bank loans" already "give equal access to everybody." For DECADES the trend has still proven overwhelmingly true that certain demographics of first time homebuyers can't get loans in the traditional walk-into-a-bank scenario because of their zip code, ethnicity and socioeconomic class. So all you're saying is "we should go colorblind and make everything the same for everyone", and what you are not getting is that, technically, that is what we've already done-- and it hasn't worked.

Well, then, attention businessmen and entrepreneurs: open a bank and deliberately lure in 1st time home-buyers of the "wrong" demographic as your clientele. Don't deliberately exclude anyone, mind, but make sure you're aiming at your target market. Apparently there is a mint to be made. And hey, if it works, you can prove the point at the same time - double trouble! And then Freddie and Fannie can fuck right off.

Because even if you don't have formal, legal prejudices written into either the formal laws or regulations of what institutions, police, employers or banks can do, decisions still made at the individual level are still influenced by these factors that can be invisible and difficult to measure-- like people's prejudices.

For example, black youth are 48 times more likely to face incarceration for a first-time drug possession charge than white youth. Despite the laws, on the books, being "equally inclusionary for everyone."

Okay, for the first time in a long time, you make a valid point and I fully see your side of the story. The question now is this: should you rewrite the laws to solely favour the prejudiced, or should you attempt to reformulate policy to make sure that glass ceilings, prejudice etc are minimised? I think the latter would work - watchdog bodies and people to make a shitload of noise, not a rewriting of the laws.

In a majority-ruled country like .za, where the formerly-oppressed now hold power, rewriting the law in their favour is easy. Where you are, where the minorities want change, the majority is unlikely to go for anything which now discriminates against them (and it does). Personally, I think gradualism is the way to go.

I honestly don't think the un-oppressed majority will ever agree with affirmative action - I certainly won't. I've worked too hard for too long to become extremely good at what I do to willingly agree to take myself out of the running for bigger and better opportunities, which I believe I have earned the right to compete for fairly on merit alone. And under no circumstances would I agree to a policy which would render my family or my children ineligible for opportunities, either.

And that's not racism, it's just survival.

-d-

 

[MisterB]

People like Pistorious because he's pretty. OJ Simpson was also pretty and he got world wide media coverage.

People are fascinated by Pistorious because he is a freak athlete with two titanium blades used in place of the lower legs he lost as a young child.

People are fascinated by OJ Simpson because he was a black man married to a white woman accused of murdering said wife, famous as much for his football greatness (Heisman Trophy Winner) as his driving skills.

 

[pat grimshaw]

People are fascinated by Pistorious …
People are fascinated by OJ Simpson …

Yes, and they're both pretty.

 

[MisterB]

Slogged through this entire thread. OMG. It's funny (not ha ha funny) to read the various differing of opinions and slants on mostly similar opinions. Funny how most were similar, yet slightly different. Kinda like people, huh?

What's the difference between discrimination, racism and white privilege? I maintain they are more closely related than they are dissimilar. Or am I wrong?

I recall one poster (maybe others?) who stated that racism is the act of discrimination. If that were true, then what's the difference between overt and covert discrimination, racism and white privilege?

I ask because I believe we all commit various types of prejudicial behavior each day. How much of such behavior are we actually aware of? Those we think about less than those we may actually do?

For example, I'm really working on how I react to folks working in retail with facial piercings or visible tatoos. I don't care for those piercings/tatoos; I'm prejudiced against them. So much that I avoided one particular cashier's line. But then I had to check out with her because she was the only line open; she was delightful to talk with and extremely efficient. I learned alot that day about myself.

 

[MisterB]

Yes, and they're both pretty.

Is pretty Australian for handsome?

 

[blackbeltninja]

South African miners are fighting for fair wages and for their human rights yet they are getting shot and killed.

Putting the story in a nutshell like that unfortunately dismisses a lot of the salient points - like the workers' union takes 10% of the miners' salary, and at certain mines the work is outsourced, so you only get the job through a labour broker for another 35% of your salary. These guys are fairly well paid on paper, but are not left with much because of these "fees."

Also... "peaceful" protests here in .za, such as was supposed to happen at Marikana, frequently feature the protesters burning cars and property, looting shops, and assaulting foreigners. Although the police response to the violence was heavy-handed, the protesters were not at all peaceful and many were carrying guns.

Also, a perfect example of white privilege in South Africa is the case of that disabled white track star Oscar Pistorious, if he was a black South African man I doubt he would be granted bail.

Again, if I could make some points... bail is not granted if you're deemed to be a flight risk, you're likely to harass or intimidate witnesses, you're likely to cause harm in your environment (a suspected child molester, say, who might molest more children before the trial starts) or you're likely to come to harm in your environment.

In the case of a black person from the townships, they are certainly a flight risk and will leave town at the drop of a hat, because they are at risk in their environment. Kangaroo courts will think nothing of stoning or burning a suspected rapist or child molester on hearsay, regardless of evidence, and anyone caught stealing in the townships and released pre-trial is frequently beaten to the brink of death, or beaten to the point of paralysis, or killed, as an example to the community.

Also, justice is often dispensed by kangaroo courts before the police can even arrive to make the arrest. Here, you should read this article from last week's news. For the record, a necklacing occurs when a tire filled with petrol is hung around someone's neck and set alight. You can google for images and video footage, if you have a strong stomach.

In Oscar's case, his passports were confiscated so he's not a flight risk - not like he could leave the country unnoticed anyway, given his current infamy - he's not deemed a risk to his neighbours or them a risk to him, and there are no witnesses to intimidate. He also has to report to the local police station twice daily, if memory serves, and is having random drug and alcohol tests throughout the pre-trial period. Not making excuses for the guy, just offering some clarity.

-d-

 

[pat grimshaw]

Is pretty Australian for handsome?

pretty/handsome/sexy/whatever we all know that the media paid more attention on them because we like good looks.

… Kangaroo courts will think nothing of stoning or burning a suspected rapist or child molester on hearsay…

I can't forget the picture of that person here on JUB last year of that man with the burning tyre around his neck.

 

[sixthson]

Blackbeltninja, that was very enlightening. Thanks for the info.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Well, then, attention businessmen and entrepreneurs: open a bank and deliberately lure in 1st time home-buyers of the "wrong" demographic as your clientele. Don't deliberately exclude anyone, mind, but make sure you're aiming at your target market. Apparently there is a mint to be made. And hey, if it works, you can prove the point at the same time - double trouble! And then Freddie and Fannie can fuck right off.

Banks are private lenders and when they reject someone for a loan the reasons why are, at best, ambiguous. Ever seen a homeloan application or contract? Good luck finding the 1 reason you were or weren't approved in it. They're enormous, btw.

It basically sounded in the above quote like you were saying minorities get rejected because they're less worthy to extend credit to and are the "wrong market", but I'll give the benefit of the doubt that you weren't intended to sound as racist as that did.

Okay, for the first time in a long time, you make a valid point and I fully see your side of the story. The question now is this: should you rewrite the laws to solely favour the prejudiced, or should you attempt to reformulate policy to make sure that glass ceilings, prejudice etc are minimised? I think the latter would work - watchdog bodies and people to make a shitload of noise, not a rewriting of the laws.

If the laws allow too great a degree of discretion, at any level of law enforcement, where first cops who catch you or arrest you to county prosecutors deciding whether or not they will press charges or seek conviction to juries voting guilty or not guilty to judges deciding the sentence, and at the end result of that assembly line you have black people doing jail time 48 times more often for the same crime than white people, then yes, part of the process is changing the laws so that discretion (and therefore, individual prejudice) has a smaller impact on what happens from step A to step Z. But what we have right now are the results where social prejudices are almost assuredly playing a role in terms of deciding who's threatening to society, who's a more dangerous criminal, who needs to be slapped with a much harder punishment for their crime, and at the end of it a whole bunch of people putting their hands up in the air and going "but I'm not a racist, I didn't do anything, I just did my job." And technically-- they're right. The current laws allow this state of affairs to happen. No one person sat there and said I'm going to throw the book at every black person and put on satin gloves for every white person. But the cumulative effect of a lot of social attitudes from a lot of different steps of the process weighing in on the process end up basically creating that result.

If you're totally against changing the parameters or wording of laws to minimize this kind of effect, I have no idea what you think the solution is? Sensitivity training? lol.

In a majority-ruled country like .za, where the formerly-oppressed now hold power, rewriting the law in their favour is easy. Where you are, where the minorities want change, the majority is unlikely to go for anything which now discriminates against them (and it does). Personally, I think gradualism is the way to go.

I honestly don't think the un-oppressed majority will ever agree with affirmative action - I certainly won't. I've worked too hard for too long to become extremely good at what I do to willingly agree to take myself out of the running for bigger and better opportunities, which I believe I have earned the right to compete for fairly on merit alone. And under no circumstances would I agree to a policy which would render my family or my children ineligible for opportunities, either.

And that's not racism, it's just survival.

-d-

Affirmative action is a totally different topic, in fact its its own topic. This thread was about white privilege, not about affirmative action or reparations or indigenous land claims or anything else. White privilege is separate from all of those things and if the bug up your rear on this topic is that you don't like AA that has nothing to do with whether or not white privilege exists, nor has anyone ever said that the solution to white privilege is AA or "exclusionary laws" or anything else that you've repeatedly brought up.

 

[xbuzzerx]

What's the difference between discrimination, racism and white privilege? I maintain they are more closely related than they are dissimilar. Or am I wrong?

Discrimination: We feel white faces are better suited for news anchors.

Racism: The law forbids x group from doing y.

White privilege: Never having people, employers or law enforcement make assumptions that you might be an illegal immigrant (one example.) Never even having to worry, wonder, or think about such a thing, or have it ever affect you or people's first impression of you or opinion of you -- spoken or unspoken.

 

[bankside]

No, that is how you choose to view it because you are uncomfortable with acknowledging that you are part of any demographic which may experience any forms of privilege in society. But you are. You're white. You're male. Those are two right there. As a gay man you should already relate to certain aspects of what's different for you vs. a member of a more elevated mainstream demographic, but perhaps you've lived a very coddled life. Your chances of being beaten up badly enough to require hospitalization as you simply walk down a street or come out of a bar are orders of magnitude higher as a gay male than a straight male. Even if that has never happened to you. When we talk about, say, levels of black conviction or incarceration for the same crimes as other demographics, we see exactly the same substantial difference in magnitude. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to acknowledge.

Let's come back to my safety on a street at night: If I were to get beat up by someone, there would be a police report about me and the crime that happened against me and the assailant. There would not be a police report about the 300 other people walking down that segment of Davie Street….because it's not relevant. When I get beat up it matters that I was the target of violence and the nature of the violence, not that 300 other people weren't accosted.

Their experience does not really inform us about anything, and analysing it or referring to it or naming it "nightlife privilege" or whatever is pretty pointless when there is already a law that applies to my situation and which has been violated. By which I mean "redundant," no-value-added, a nul synonym and pointless neologism, which gives us no new insight and no new tools to contain and minimise homophobic violence. It's like making a shopping list of things you don't need from the store.

...Except for the other argument in this thread which suggests it is a distinct phenomenon, and it is of great significance that these other 300 people didn't get beaten up walking down the street because they have some kind of privilege. Now, rather than comparing the behaviour of my assailant to a standard of legal conduct, we're off into some weird territory of analysing people who had nothing to do with it. Why? No one will give an answer as to what is supposed to be gained from that activity, or what societal change is intended to be the result of doing it.