Last edited Tue Mar 4, 2014, 06:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Most here, even that vocal minority, to whom you refer, acknowledge racial bias and rarely minimize it, they just don't want to talk about it, other than to tell non-white people how we should feel/think about it and what we should be to avoid its ill effect.

Now the topic of racial advantage ... that makes me laugh (in a sad kind of way). Folks acknowledge race-based discrimination => acknowledge that non-white folks experience race-based discrimination => acknowledge that race-based discrimination has a negative effect => But find it difficult to bring themselves to acknowledge that NOT being faced with race-based discrimination IS an advantage, i.e., privilege.

While I have posted responses on a few of these white privilege threads, I'm left wanting to know what the point is? There never seems to be a point to posting these. You ask for acknowledgment, and you largely get it. I sometimes wish I hadn't posted in these threads, but the pointlessness drew me in. My overriding question is...what do you want?

1) For white people to acknowledge that their whiteness provides them a privilege (i.e., unearned benefit) over non-white people.

2) For white people stop arguing against the fact that their whiteness provides them a privilege over non-white people.

3) For white people of understanding to confront other white people whenever they argue that their whiteness does not provides them a privilege over non-white folks ... using terms from their own experience, so that they, too, gain understanding.

It is the non-acknowledgement of privilege that allows space for racism to exist.

can see those points.

Or maybe it's because I'm a bit older that I can see this.

I suspect that your 50+yr old white womanness acknowledges and is not threatened by admitting your privilege.

by this admission of fact.

privilege in a general sense or only in the specific to straight white male privilege?

"they just don't want to talk about it..."

The previous thread I'd read regarding this included a response that discussing it is little more than a "collective circle-jerk", and that there have been enough discussions on it already.

That alone tells me that even on DU, the discussions need to to take place.

it is the dismissiveness among "liberals/progressives" that "hurts" the most.

If we compared our relative degree of privilege, would my whiteness outweigh your maleness? I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything...genuinely curious to know your take on that matter (racial privilege vs gender privilege).

In a predominately Black (mixed-gender) social environment, to other Black folks, my maleness would trump your whiteness.

However, in most other social (mixed-gender) environments, e.g., where Black folks are not in the vast majority, your whiteness would trump my maleness. Likewise, In a predominately white female environment, your whiteness would trump my maleness.

But, and interestingly, in a largely white male environment, we would both face a different burden, though neither of would experience privilege.

I have a similar take on the necessity of examining context. I find blanket assessments (that is, statements like "our American society is such-and-such on this sociological point&quot to be misleading and useless. It's uncommon for the actual, localized situations we find ourselves in to mirror the broader context in the same proportions.

In any case, what you posted is largely true. It's also something that gets posted almost daily on DU.

I would say yes.

I think Melissa Harris-Perry got it right when talking about her role in the GLBTQ struggle:

I can understand how this would seem disempowering to members of the "majority", who are used to being listened to.

(But in all honesty, I must confess I have a ways to go on the anti-Semitism thing, as I see anti-Semitism being conflated with Zionism that I see as an extension of European white supremacy. But I am, largely, silent on this as I read, listen and grow.)

Good answer to that question. And yes I think it's hard when you've lived in the majority to sit back and listen, because it's a new role.

You tell me.

I think that was Creekdog's point.

Because he's white, right?

CreekDog is reflecting the thoughts and experiences of non-white folks. That doesn't make him/her an "expert" but it does mean he/she has an understanding of what we (People of Color) have been saying.

is a combination of narcissism and that some people are simply blind to the advantages that they have. They assume that their day to day life is normal for everyone else, and take it as an attack upon themselves to say othewise.

You don't see much racism in your white upper middle class neighborhoods, and if you don't see it running rampant ipso facto it must be the way it is for everyone else. If you aren't getting treated unfairly, then obviously no one else is getting treated unfairly. Further, to suggest otherwise means that they didn't earn their position fairly or that their sacrifices were not as great and they get defensive.

IE:

They are insulted and feel that you are accusing them of racism. To them, they know that they have never discriminated against anyone and they simply stop listening and feel indignant and the need to speak out. "NO, YOU ARE WRONG! I don't discriminate and have never been discriminated against and therefore neither have you!"

They close their eyes to research and rely on their own experiences in their tiny bubble. Its the same thing that allows someone to fly on airplanes and use computers and then turn around and deny evolution or climate change or the negative impact of spanking and claim scientists are ivory tower elitist who know nothing of the "real" world and that what works for them must work for everyone.

They are so busy trying to think of ways of countering each and everything they THINK you said they never actually hear what you actually said.

They literally can not see the forest because of all the trees in the way.

with this edit:

But I think that's what you meant.

I would add that the most vocal objectors are found at the other end of the economic scale ... those that can't see their privilege because their lives have not turned out roses; but SEE Black folks who are doing well. They point to President Obama or JayZ or Beyonce and try to make a point ... ignoring the talent and effort and luck that these folks made, and not even pausing to consider how much farther along these folks would be, but for discrimination.

I think they know the invalidity of these comparisons, but point to them because the closer (truer) comparison is, also, far more hurtful ... the similarly-situated Black person (i.e., same education level, same experience level, same outward effort) with whom they are in direct competition. When that Black person is doing better than they, they have two choices: use that to discount their own privilege (as the societal default has always been white over Black), or acknowledge that there is something about them, personally, that holds them back, despite having a privilege, or that there is something about that Black person, personally, that allowed them to achieve, in spite of discrimination.

That is a painful bit of self-reflection ... given the societal default.

Because I would be "free, White and 21."

You could say that was my Right. Or you could call it my Entitlement. But don't ever call it a Privilege. Because ... something or other.


I wonder how often Black boys were told they could do/be/say anything when they were "free, Black and 21"?

As a child, I was always told I could do/be anything I wanted to be, if I was willing to work hard enough ... and then, the conversation turned to that "'working hard enough meant the expectation of working twice as hard to get half as far and sometimes there just was not enough hard work to get there. But the level of work required to get where you dream, will leave you far from where you currently are ... but without putting in the work, you'll never know."

I think the combined talk was designed to keep my dreams alive, while preparing me for not attaining my goals for reasons beyond my control ... whether discrimination or just the unfairness of life.

But that said, I have NEVER been told I could EVER say whatever I wanted, at any age.

Pretty sure posters here on DU get 'it' when it comes to institutionalized racism and also understand whites benefit more in things from jail sentences to portrayals in books/movies.

Where the problem comes in, as far as I can see, centers around terminology and application.

Having privilege, through no fault of your own, based on how you were born is not a mark against anyone. Stating that because someone has it that they are inherently part of the problem when they are trying to be part of the solution seems somewhat demeaning.

African Americans are generally more privileged than American Indians in our society. In areas in which minorities are a majority you see problems of racism just like anywhere else (some areas of LA and Asian store keepers as one example and how they are seen/treated).

Jews have privilege in Israel. Someone born wealthy is more privileged than someone born poor. The list goes on.

The idea of privilege is well understood and fuels progressives in general - we seek equal opportunity for all based on the content of their character and not on birth traits.

I say 'ok, sure, white privilege exists'. It does. Great. If you are just now discovering that you are late to the party. What I, and others, have seen over the years is that the root cause is not the same as the problem in this one incarnation. Take away the term white and you have the broader problem that is more inclusive and at the root of what we try to address - that those with power often use that power to help people more like them to the detriment of others.

Boiling it down it becomes a tribal mentality. You are not as welcome in our group, what you say doesn't resonate as well, etc and so on because you do not belong to it. You don't trust others as much as those most like yourself so you set up mental preferences that become more institutionalized over time - even in small things.

Practical applications exists on a broader scale - someone white in a position of power trusts someone from their own group (race at the base) and treats them in a better way. Since more whites have power whites will have a leg up at the very base in those situations. Quite often though it is not the base of it that makes that decision - it becomes more focused such as - are you wealthy, are you homeless, do you have good credit, do you play golf where I do, did we both serve, etc and so on.

In those cases whites, which have as a base a similarity to the core group deciding things, aren't getting any leverage at all and are just as outside as someone not sharing the same race as the person in power. A white homeless man is the same as one of another race to those in power.

In short, while non-whites are not as privileged as whites on the base level most all people are discriminated against by those in power for a plethora of reasons involving group dynamics and prejudices.

Which is the thing most all of us see and fight against. Which is broader than the narrow fight some others are wanting to focus on.

should be an OP

it was just a plain fact, a given. and now today, we act like we are clueless. in our less progressive time, we were more insightful and progressive today. or flat out just more honest about it.

it's getting harder and harder for them to get away with their hateful practices and views.

it's not perfect, but it is progress.

you dilute the real meaning and cheapen real instances of racism and racial bias.

Take a long drive with yourself, Creek, and think about that.

and he didn't, which is why you could never prove what you said.

you're a good example of the complaint you're making.

doesn't carry the weight it used to.

D'oh!

why blame the racists when it was me, i ruined the word!

Why did you RUIN racism?

oh noes!

Is more around what is the best way to solve continued racial disparities. That means identifying what is holding in place racial disparities and addressing that. Almost everyone agrees that racism in history created them in the first place, on here at least.

I don't think the theory of racism is holding those disparities in place. I think that even if there was no racism or racial bigotry, but everything else remained the exact same, racial disparities would persist.

That's because we are not a meritocracy. Our economic system is set up in such a way as to cement the status quo, and whatever historical baggage that comes with it.

I think racial disparities and segregation cause lots of racial bigotry, which is distinct from racism. Our economic system is perpetuating the legacy of racism and causing racial bigotry. If we change the economic system to be inclusive, to have a strong social safety net, to break up poverty, to increase opportunities for everyone so they are more equal, we have a much better shot at finally beginning to close racial disparities. If we don't, we won't close any disparities of any sort in society, just make the ones that already existed worse.

We are very far off from that, though, and the Democratic Party, being moderate conservatives on these economic policies, won't change that any time soon. Meanwhile, Republicans want us to think it is all about race. It plays into their hand of not addressing the real source of continued disparity and also playing racial identity politics with their base.

Again, you could eliminate racism tomorrow and it would do little on its own to close racial disparities in the US. There are many other nations out there without the history of racism, that the US has, but with very conservative economics, and they have disparities of all sorts as well, from their own histories, and they continue for the same reason, even as the original cause of those disparities fade away.