We white people should feel guilty because we are the beneficiaries of racial privilege. We white people have more power, more stuff, and more resources, and nicer lives than people of color have. Not only do we have a nicer life than people of color, but we would prefer that it stay that way. — Bitter Crank

Maybe I am living in the wrong place at the wrong time.I don't have more stuff than people of color. And I certainly hope that those that have less than me, whatever their color, on day can have as much as me. Just like I wish I had as much as those rich people do. I don't prefer that thing stay the way they are.

If you don't feel guilty about being a rich white male, or his fortunate wife, how did you manage to solve your guilt problem? — Bitter Crank

I don't feel guilty about being about being a rich white male, because I am not one. So I don't have a problem to solve.

So, we practice affirmative action, and decisions shouldn't be driven by emotional reasoning. What's the point?

Why should you feel guilty? Has anyone in particular suggested that you should?

the thread is a play on the title of the "Why should you feel guilty" thread.

Actually, I do not feel guilty for being a rich white male (rich, relative to dwellers in the suddenly famous shit holes of the world). However, casting guilt seems to be the intention of referencing white privilege, male privilege, first world wealth, etc. If I have white privileges, or male privileges, or both rolled up together, fine by me. But Billy Bragg says "Rights are merely privileges extended/if not enjoyed by one and all". Why would one not enjoy having privileges, earned or inherited? I don't have much wealth, though I do have a lot of "stuff" I would like to get rid of.

Perhaps I should send my old dusty books, old ratty clothes, and collection of screws, nails, and other odds and ends overseas. Or at least to a poor family in the near-by shit hole. I have quite a few plastic food containers, for instance, two plastic pink flamingos--surely one is enough. Would you like one of them? How about an interior door I retrieved from the alley? Need one? Once I get rid of the dusty books, I'll have some unused book cases. They're quite lovely -- still unpainted, after many years of use.

So, we practice affirmative action, and decisions shouldn't be driven by emotional reasoning. What's the point? — Posty McPostface

What's the point of what -- affirmative action or emotional reasoning?

So here: While it is true, that some whites and blacks are tied for last place at the bottom of the barrel, most Most black people are much, much poorer than most white people. The gap in wealth is not an accident. Whites were given tremendous wealth creating opportunities in the form of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) starting in the 1930s. The program was intended to assist white people and to do nothing for black people: it was written into the policies when Roosevelt created the program. Millions of Americans bought new homes with mortgages guaranteed by FHA. These homes have since appreciated several times over, plus inflation. A very affordable post WWII house selling for $8,000 in 1950 ($100,000 roughly in 2015 dollars) sold for $300,000 to $450,000) in 2016. That's a tremendous gain of wealth that can be used for advancing education and careers. White veterans also were eligible for college loans or grants. Blacks (and Mexicans, Aboriginals, and Asians) were systematically excluded.

Most black workers in the south (domestic workers and agricultural workers) were not even eligible for social security until quite a bit later.

Affirmative action is not robust enough to undo the damage of "dis-privileging" black people in these critical ways for 50 years. Reparations are in order, many people feel. Why? Because these programs were not an act of individual racism. There isn't much than can be done to pay people back for private racism. But the FHA was a federal program, not a private one. When the government does wrong, it should be corrected, and in this case, it means transferring wealth.

How do you feel about being asked to help scrape up the billions that would be coming to black people? I'm not baiting you. Were we to solve the problem, people would pay for the correction out of tax revenue. Lots of poeple would object, many for good reason. "I didn't benefit, why should I have to help pay?" "I didn't cause the problem, why should I have to pay?"

However, casting guilt seems to be the intention of referencing white privilege, male privilege, first world wealth, etc. — Bitter Crank

Is it? Has anyone in particular suggested that this is the intention, with respect to those who do make such mentions?

Surely you have read or heard accusatory references to "white males" dead or alive, "white privilege", and so on, with the implication the privileges of whites and men have cost people of color and women something they would otherwise have had?

I've heard the references. I'm wondering about the 'implications' you're drawing from them, and how warranted they are. I'm particularly interested in the 'guilt' implication, and where you would have picked that up from. Sources would be good.

If you don't feel guilty about being a rich white male, or his fortunate wife, how did you manage to solve your guilt problem?

I didn't solve it and I live with it, but I also don't consider myself "a rich white male".

There is a moral argument that suggest that most of us ought to feel guilty. If someone in front of us were in need, most of us would try to see what we could do to help, and if several people needed help as in a disaster, we and others would try to do whatever we could do to help. It would be the moral way to react to such calamities.

There are people around the world that urgently need help, and morally we ought to accept that these people are just as needy as those people in front of you, or near you. If you agree with this then it is your moral duty to try to assist them, to shell out money to assist them, to help them in some manner. (Peter Singer argument)

Most could give more, and it would be a moral thing to do, but many don't and therefore we remain guilty.

I'm not very interested in the cultural wars over race and gender, and I generally am no more than annoyed with it.

But... There has been systematic impoverishment of some people (not just blacks) and the systematic enrichment of others (not just whites) through law and government programs. Over time the differences in wealth between haves and have nots has become quite extreme. No one is guilty but everyone is responsible. I don't feel guilty, but I do feel some responsibility. I would hope many would feel responsible (which isn't the same as guilt or being a bad actor).

Okay, but why are you talking about guilt? Is anyone but you talking about guilt? Especially guilt that one 'should' be feeling? Or is this just a bunch of introjection now projected outwards?

Okay, but why are you talking about guilt? Is anyone but you talking about guilt? Especially guilt that one 'should' be feeling? Or is this just a bunch of introjection now projected outwards? — StreetlightX

But there is some societal guilt or shame for being privileged. I remember this college event for a club I attended. We were all white. This one guy called someone who stole his backpack a "nigger". Everyone's response was to shame and then ostracize him. I was distressed by this. Yeah, white people aren't supposed to use the N word, but people make mistakes and it was in context of being angry at someone for a legitimate reason. We could have just corrected him and let it go at that instead of basically unfriending him on the spot.

Thinking back on that and other ways white people often act publically about other white people exhibiting racism, it makes me thing well-meaning people feel some shame and need to prove publically that they're not guilty of sins of their ancestors, or KKK demonstrators.

Thinking back on that and other ways white people often act publically about that matter, it makes me thing well-meaning people feel some shame and need to prove publically that they're not guilty of sins of their ancestors, or KKK demonstrators. — Marchesk

I'm less interested in the 'is' of guilt here than the apparent 'ought' of guilt: the idea that apparently, acknowledging privledge entails a normative injunction to feel guilty for that privledge. I've seen lots of the first, not so much the second, and I'm wondering who exactly is supposed to be making such a link?

I'm not very interested in the cultural wars over race and gender, and I generally am no more than annoyed with it. — Bitter Crank

This, by the way, is precisely the kind of statement that discussions of privilege are meant to highlight. There are some who don't have the 'privilege' of being 'not very interested in the cultural wars over race and gender', but because those 'wars' are not abstract theoretical arguments, but a life that one has to live. Such wars may concern them whether they would deign to concern themselves with them or not.

Thanks for that. Now I better understand the rising poverty rates of our millennial generation relative to well-off whites who benefitted from said distorted policies.

Thanks for that. Now I better understand the rising poverty rates of our millennial generation relative to well-off whites who benefitted from said distorted policies. — Posty McPostface

After the 2008 economic crisis, we seem to be living in a different landscape. There is a lot of fear around still, so the business environment isn't great, that's why things are more difficult now, both for employees and for entrepreneurs. Back before 2008, all you had to do was show up, and you were winning. Getting access to capital was so easy, it was a joke. Now everyone is struggling, and good luck getting access to capital on favourable terms that aren't meant to screw you.

If you don't feel guilty about being a rich white male, or his fortunate wife, how did you manage to solve your guilt problem? — Bitter Crank

By trying to help those who are less fortunate. Feeling guilty doesn't help anyone.

By trying to help those who are less fortunate. Feeling guilty doesn't help anyone. — darthbarracuda

To do that, first I got to help myself no? ;)

I think people over-estimate how much they actually need.

I think people over-estimate how much they actually need. — darthbarracuda

No, you're not understanding. You need a mechanism which generates more than enough for yourself, then you can start helping others.

Elon Musk wants to get to Mars. To get to Mars, he had to find a way to generate the resources needed while investing them in rocket technology. That's why the NASA contracts.

I am very aware of my white privilege, but I have never felt guilty about it. Being brought up RC, I am very prone to guilt, but it's only about choices I've made, and I didn't choose my skin colour.

I think it's important for whites who, like me, have benefited from good education and growing up in neghbourhoods that are not terrorised by gangs, to be aware of their white privilege. However, I think it's very unhelpful to assert that all white people have white privilege. Even if that's true, it is a heartless and tactically foolish thing to say about white people that are economically disadvantaged. Such thoughtless statements only help the cause of populists and white supremacists, enabling them to equate anti-racism with a lack of concern for disadvantaged whites. So, if one feels inclined to repeat the mantra 'Check your privilege', one should be very, very careful about whom one is saying it to. Their being white is nowhere near enough.

As to male privilege, I don't think that exists in the society in which I live. In many societies around the world, being male is an enormous privilege. But in the privileged, educated, progressive society in which I have the good fortune to live, I cannot see that it is any privilege at all. I am very privileged to live in such a society, but no more privileged than the women that also live in that society.

By the way, looking at some of the posts on here, I get the feeling that there is a misunderstanding of what 'white privilege' means, either by me or by other posters.

I don't understand white privilege to be about the fact that I have wealth and an education and come from an unbroken family. There is a correlation of those things with whiteness, but it is loose. There are plenty of whites that are poor or uneducated or from broken homes.

I understand white privilege to be that I can sit on a bus or train, or walk down a street without having to wonder whether a stranger is going to start abusing me and accuse me of being a terrorist or stealing people's jobs or being a dole bludger simply because of my skin colour. From what I've read, white privilege in the US is also about not having to be afraid every time a police officer walks by, that they may search, arrest or shoot you.

In short, white privilege is the freedom from fearing mistreatment by strangers simply based on your skin colour. It has nothing to do with your education or your wealth. So it is true that poor, uneducated whites do have that white privilege. But, as I said above, I think it is stupid and damaging to make a point of that. Everybody has some privileges, but if their overall position is miserable, blaming them for not appreciating their few privileges is ridiculous.

I think it's important for whites who, like me, have benefited from good education and growing up in neghbourhoods that are not terrorised by gangs, to be aware of their white privilege. However, I think it's very unhelpful to assert that all white people have white privilege. Even if that's true, it is a heartless and tactically foolish thing to say about white people that are economically disadvantaged. Such thoughtless statements only help the cause of populists and white supremacists, enabling them to equate anti-racism with a lack of concern for disadvantaged whites. — andrewk

Well said. I think these are important distinctions that are often obscured.

I think people generally attach a significance to the term "privilege" which carries with it certain (non-relative) connotations of positive advantage received through no effort of one's own. Things like not being pulled over by cops, or not being followed in a store, or not being denied the opportunity to rent an apartment solely because of the color of your skin seem like normal things rather than examples of the sort of concrete privileges--elite schools, financial independence due to family background, etc.--that some white people in our society are clearly the beneficiaries of.

I wish I could come up with a better analogy, but it'd almost be like telling a child who gets abused by his or her parents "only" once a month that they're privileged because there are other kids that get abused every single day. That may be true in a relative sense, but it still seems a bit insensitive to point it out. Furthermore, from a pragmatic standpoint "privilege" may not be the best word to describe such a state of affairs; it's a somewhat aggressive and even confrontational term, and this being so it often puts the one it's directed at on the defensive. It just seems like there's a better way of opening them up to the plight of those who obviously have it way worse than they do.

Anyhow, do you think it's possible to focus on combating racism and other forms of oppression against POC without also bringing white privilege into the discussion? I ask this in all sincerity since you seem to have a deep understanding of the issue and a judicious way of approaching it.

While I'm at it, I'd also add the quick observation that there seems to be a significant difference in aim and perspective between those who want to open up dialogue as a means of promoting genuine racial healing and equality, and others who appear to be much more motivated by a sense of gaining revenge for past and current injustices.

It obviously takes a great deal of magnanimity for those who've been subjected to constant affronts to their pride and dignity because of their race to pursue reconciliation over payback, and if I'm being totally honest I'd admit that I'd likely prefer the latter course if I were in their shoes. But I do think the conciliatory messages of certain black people through the years like, say, MLK or even Barack Obama, resonate much more with "average" white people than the more hostile and accusatory dialogue that's growing increasingly common in this day and age of identity politics.

White people for their (our) part need not feel guilty over being born white, but we should acknowledge the obvious--that black people have been and continue to be treated unjustly--and attempt to rectify the situation to the best of our abilities. That simple and honest acknowledgement may even open up an important space for connecting with the "other" in essential ways that transcend race.

IMO working to forward racial equality is a noble and extremely important goal, and how to best go about achieving this is something that should concern all thoughtful people. I definitely don't have the answers other than what tactics I think may work better (not perfectly) than ones currently practiced, at least given the goal of bettering racial relations. These are more emotional intuitions than anything else, and they may very well be misguided.

reconciliation over payback — Erik

In his very good book, The Color of Law: How the Federal Government Segregated America, Richard Rothstein makes a useful distinction:

Individual acts of discrimination can not be systematically redressed, all of the 1-on-1 discriminations, refusals to rent, refusals to hire, refusals to share schools, and so forth. What can and ought be redressed are programs of discrimination shaped and supported by law. The laws creating and policies governing the Federal Housing Administration (1935) extended and fixed in place a pattern of nearly complete racial segregation in housing.

The rules were explicit: blacks and whites are to be segregated through the power of guaranteeing home loans issued by lenders. The positive effect of this law is for whites (the home loan and wealth accumulation) and the negative effect of this law is for blacks -- consignment to over-priced second and third-rate housing, primarily rental, and minimal wealth accumulation.

So, it is proper to demand more than reconciliation for systematic housing discrimination, because it was a wrong carried out by government. The wrongs of housing segregation were far reaching, powerfully shaping education and health outcomes, and employment: positively for whites, negatively for blacks. The effects were of course general. There are many exceptions.

reconciliation over payback — Erik

There is another book, White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg which tells yet another story, While "white privilege" was enshrined in the Colonies as the bedrock of society, the privilege of race applied to only those with wealth and pedigree. Those without wealth and inherited status were viewed as riff-raff, not a whole lot better than slaves.

From the colonies to the present, the bifurcation of whites into "quality people" and "riff raff" (my term, not Isenberg's) has continued. Most white people were wage earners under pretty unfavorable circumstances until only recently. While many white working class people did achieve a reasonably stable, prosperous life by working class standards, they weren't so well off that they could expect to rise very far in society.

It wasn't until the post WWII boom that unionized, working class white people were able to achieve a solid upgrade. Some of that was thanks to programs like the FHA, VA, National Defense Education Loans and so on. In the last 30 to 40 years, however, the economic circumstances of white working class people (the majority of white people) have receded.

Yes, it's fair to mention Donald Trump at this point -- who benefitted from white dissatisfaction and disenchantment with the status quo. But Trump didn't win by a landslide.

So, structuring a payback program for blacks who were pretty thoroughly shafted in the 20th century (never mind having been enslaved up until the middle of the preceding century) must avoid also shafting white working class people who were not the prime movers (and in many cases, not even the beneficiaries) of the federal housing program.

White veterans also were eligible for college loans or grants. Blacks (and Mexicans, Aboriginals, and Asians) were systematically excluded. — Bitter Crank

Could you post evidence in support of this? I can't find any information online on it.

Could you post evidence in support of this? I can't find any information online on it. — Posty McPostface

I assume you are referring to National Defense Education loans. Sorry.

I am afraid my composition was sloppy. It was the FHA loans (and VA housing benefits) that were restricted to whites. I don't know that various groups were systematically excluded from the National Defense education grants. At the time, before and for a while after WWII, discrimination in college admissions was rife. Jews were subject to quota ceilings -- some colleges would only admit a certain number, like the Ivy League schools. Blacks with the cash to pay for college would have run into a brick wall at many admissions offices in 1950. Not all, but at most of them. Hispanics and asians would have had similar experiences, depending where they lived.

Remember, in 1950, non-discrimination laws were a ways into the future.

If you are referencing housing discrimination, I don't have a list of web sites available. Most of the information I have is from The Color of Law and a second book, When Affirmative Action Was White, both recently published.

Thank you, Bitter Crank, you've piqued my interest and I'm going to look into those books.

Just to get acquainted with the topic if some are interested:

http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1934-1968-FHA-Redlining.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/19/498536077/interactive-redlining-map-zooms-in-on-americas-history-of-discrimination

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/upshot/how-redlinings-racist-effects-lasted-for-decades.html?_r=0

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/racism_in_real_estate_landlords_redlining_housing_values_and_discrimination.html

https://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol36_2009/fall2009/residential_segregation_after_the_fair_housing_act.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/19/498536077/interactive-redlining-map-zooms-in-on-americas-history-of-discrimination — Posty McPostface

This is a really useful link to examine housing assessments in the late 1930s-40s. Lots of maps of cities showing what was considered (at the time) good, stable, declining, and "hazardous for loaning mortgages" neighborhoods.