In a nutshell...

Talking about white privilege is required in order to understand the effects/affects of racism. The removal of white privilege would effectively be and/or signal the end of racism. That does not require taking anything away from white people. It requires cultivating a society where white privilege no longer exists because no one suffers the effects/affects and/or injuries stemming from racism.

You've articulated this very clearly. A fine job.

Nice posts Creativesoul, I was looking for someone to attempt to defend the white privilege framing and finally, someone did. I have to admit, I wasn't expecting to see it but I'm pleasantly surprised. Perhaps the other thread wasn't useless after all? Particularly your post after the first is what I was looking for.

I accept the separation between how the white privilege conceptualisation can be applied. Banno mocks people and asks them to check their privilege, you are looking for a serious and respectful discussion on how racism functions. All of the instances where white privilege is used to be anti-white, to be disrespectful and hateful, are misuses and anything can be misused.

I have complained about the unpleasant consequences of calling something a "privilege" but it's an unpleasant reality and so here it might be appropriate, so let's put that aside as well. First, I'll give my comments on what you've written. then I'll write some sort of overall.

This is clearly an emotionally charged topic. It's best for white privilege to be clearly defined, because it seems that many people hereabouts and elsewhere have differing thought, beliefs, emotions, and subsequent ideas regarding it. The mere invocation of the term "white privilege" can instantly and completely change one's emotional state of mind, and that holds good for whites and non whites alike. — creativesoul

I agree, it is an emotionally charged topic, it is one where a single misstep can draw out strong emotions. Much of your response has characterised white privilege as mostly a tool for educating people on how racism functions. To look objectively at how systemic racism clearly creates a "white privilege" and this is backed up by too many experiences, too many statistics, it's just the obvious logical conclusion. What I want to do is not only separate the facts being characterised by white privilege, which I mostly see as being true but also the importance of educating people about these facts from the term white privilege.

One of the reasons is simply because we're dealing with such a difficult topic, a term which invokes a race "white privilege" possibly already makes it inappropriate. I would have as much an issue with it as if "black unluckiness" or "coloured misfortune". I really have to challenge whether "white privilege" is a good name for something which is merely supposed to educate people and whether we shouldn't try to sidestep the inevitable controversy.

White privilege is the direct, demonstrable, and inevitable result of systemic and/or institutional racism. Put simply, it is what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis that non whites do. It is the injury because one is non white that white people avoid suffering because they are not. The negative effects/affects that racist people, policies, belief systems, and social practices created remain extant in American society. They continue to directly impact the lives and livelihoods of the people that they were originally designed to discriminate against. — creativesoul

As I said previously, we do not get to choose an infinite number of framings, we only get the chance to choose a handful. At some point, they get in the way of another. Systemic racism clearly discriminates based on race, it's in the name, one of the most controversial approaches to racism is to conceptualise white people as the beneficiaries of systemic racism. The very term "white privilege" implicitly contextualises systemic racism as a positive thing for white people, that's what a privilege is.

A lot of what you're talking about is a hard sell, "not being harassed by police" is not a white privilege, being harassed by police is a terrible and scary thing that happens disproportionately to coloured people. Wouldn't it be easier for "white people" to stand up against injustice than to their own privilege? Is conceptualizing that as a white privilege even a reasonable thing to do?

Shouldn't any mention of the injustice focus on the causes of the injustice? How much should white people even be involved in a conversation about how coloured people are disproportionately harassed by police?

Honoring them goes a long way towards building a movement to end racism. — creativesoul

I am not sure that the term "white privilege" honours black people. It's clearly a concept centred around the "white" experience. Which is another criticism, I am not saying I want a concept centred around the "black" experience because I don't think the correct way to talk about racism as being through race.

Effectively ending racism requires understanding white privilege. — creativesoul

I hope you can see that my criticism is really directed at the choices made by people as opposed to the underlying facts. I am not preaching ignorance.

If they feel like non whites are attacking them personally because of the fact that they are white, it is very hard to convince them that those non whites are not racist, regardless of whether or not they actually are. — creativesoul

I am not convinced that the perpetuators of the white privilege framing are mostly non-white but I agree with the general sentiment.

Such frameworks using white privilege do not promote the kind of cohesion that's necessary for ending racism. — creativesoul

Sure, that's a fair distinction and I certainly prefer your proposed usage of white privilege in comparison to what you've criticised and I believe your criticisms are relevant.

However many times when non whites begin talking in terms of "white people" they are guilty of the exact same gross overgeneralization fallacy that underlies white racist mentality about non whites. Multiplying the error does not serve to correct the underlying problems. Rather, it further reinforces deep seated racist beliefs rather than helping to defuse them. — creativesoul

I agree although I don't agree with the white/non-white distinction here, anyone can talk incorrectly about "white people" in this way.

Putting white privilege to good use as a means to help end systemic racist takes mutual respect of the participants in the discussion about racism and it's effects/affects. Shedding light on white privilege does not require attacking whites because of it. — creativesoul

The solutions to ending white privilege are necessarily race-based, where most of the problems with systemic racism are legal, cultural and economic. What kind of response to systemic racism are you hoping for? Of course, we call out racism when we see it but besides that, what are you trying to achieve?

What I seek is the dissolution of the importance of race, to view the major problems faced by black Americans as problems faced by people, while condemning racism where it is seen. We need to challenge how poverty is dealt within the US, how crime is handled, how the justice system functions, practices of policing, the lack of economic redistribution and so on. I see these responses as being more direct and practical responses to the problems faced disproportionately by black Americans but without adding the controversy of race. Even if everyone agreed with white privilege, you'd have to do these things anyway to actually do something productive.

Is the white privilege framing just detracting from more humanitarian, justice-based narratives which sidestep the controversy of race and promote humanitarian ideals? After someone acknowledges white privilege, they're still hopelessly uneducated on what to do about it. Even just one of the aforementioned issues is complex enough, by the time you've diluted them all into the concept of white privilege, they're just miniatures of the actual problems, interpreted through the lens of race. I want to minimise the relevance of race to systemic racism - because I think that mirrors the race-based perspectives that we describe as being racist.

I just don't think you can correctly condemn racism while still addressing people based on their whiteness. That's the whole problem with racism to begin with, you shouldn't care about whether someone is white or black yet people do and the result is immoral, unjust, stupid and wrong.

Overall, I can see that you are capable of presenting a defence of the usefulness of the white privilege framing and that's what I wanted to see.

I thought I'd make it clear because others have complained about "removing race" from racism and how that doesn't make sense. The idea is to see racist people as being racist people, to view racism like any other kind of crime or injustice. Let racists care about your skin colour, I care about people being treated fairly and treating others fairly. In short, I don't see race as being a crucial issue in racism, the real concern is dismantling racist policies, institutions, belief systems and so on.

Thanks. I appreciate the kind words. There's still a long way to go. I barely touched on the offense aspect. I'm still quite uncertain whether or not there is a mutual understanding... shared meaning... regarding the referent of "white privilege". I'm inclined to think otherwise given Judaka's response. To quite the contrary, there are some clear indications that we're still not talking about the same thing(s).

Are you an American citizen?

No, Australian.

To quite the contrary, there are some clear indications that we're still not talking about the same thing(s). — creativesoul

That's not surprising given that privilege is subjective. One person's privilege is another person's taboo. We all don't value the same things, so what you consider a privilege, I might not.

After all, when groups of people distinguish themselves from others by focusing on skin color, as if what they value is different than what others with a different skin color value, then privilege becomes something different for each group.

Talking about white privilege is required in order to understand the effects/affects of racism. The removal of white privilege would effectively be and/or signal the end of racism. That does not require taking anything away from white people. It requires cultivating a society where white privilege no longer exists because no one suffers the effects/affects and/or injuries stemming from racism.

The irony is the only way to “remove white privilege” is to believe the same as the racist, except to discriminate “positively”. First you must believe that your skin color offers you some sort of advantage, that a dark skin color offers disadvantage, then treat people accordingly. All this talk about how whites are better off and have an upper hand because they are white reeks to me of white supremacy. It’s no wonder that people reject it out of hand.

I think you're conflating privilege with entitlement. The former has a negative connotation due to the fact that it's supposed to be unfair but the latter is not viewed in a similar light. A person could have, to use your analogy, a head start in a race because of an entitlement, e.g. a right that is owed to him by society but such a person can't be given the same opportunity on the grounds that s/he is privileged in any way.

First post here. I've enjoyed reading through this dialogue and watching how it evolved. There were some great twists!

I would first make the observation that the discussion has been somewhat handcuffed by the OP's choice of the word privilege to stage the question. It definitely muddied the waters. Still, I think ultimately some good points found their way to the surface.

I think everyone seems to agree that the outcomes of racist thinking are undesirable, so no need to continue beating that horse.

The remaining point of interest here is the conversation over an appropriate way to frame a response to "racism".

• On the one hand, we have the assertion that an important step in changing matters of discrimination, whether on the basis of race or gender or similar ideas, is to acknowledge that there is a privileged group that is immune(ish) to that discrimination (let's set aside the conversation of height or beauty discrimination, as these really aren't relevant to the discussion).
  
• The other position holds that the preoccupation with categorized privilege (white or otherwise) is that it inherently reinforces the categories - which are themselves the root causes of most of the problems.

I'm going to proceed based on those characterizations of the points expressed above - i'm sure someone will let me know if I've badly missed the point. :D

My problem with the first position is that I think it improperly places the focus on some perceived misconduct by a given group (all white people), instead of placing the focus where it should be, on the targeted misconduct AGAINST a different group (people of color). In other words, the movement must and should be BLACK Lives Matter, not WHITE Lives Don't Matter As Much As You Think They Do, which is the subtext of this need to make white privilege a conspicuous part of this discussion.

The problem is NOT that white people have generally safe(r) neighborhoods, more access to education and higher paying jobs, and a general lack of suspicion directed at them as they go about their daily lives. The problem IS that people of color shouldn't have less of those things for the simple reason that they are people of color. Systemic racism doesn't spring from the general public's attitude that white people deserve to have advantages (taking out the case of white supremacists, who are just awful people), it springs from a deep seated fear that has been woven into the culture over a long period of time with varying degrees of intent and aimed at people of color. Calling attention to that phenomenon and actively trying to root it out is placing the focus on the problem - trying to shame people for a state of affairs that they did not create and in most cases are not even conscious of is not.

That brings us to the second position - that the problem here is the insistence on lumping people into these categories, and that talking about White privilege or Black lives mattering is just a reinforcement of the conditions that one is supposedly trying to overcome. I think this idea (once it was finally made clear several pages in) is a fantastic one and a worthy aspiration. The plain fact is that "race" does not exist in any scientific way, it is just a social/political construct. It is in our best interest to attempt to edit this construct out of our culture. I agree with this. However, it falls short in two ways:

• It is not practical. In our culture AS IT EXISTS, most people believe in the notion of race and it plays a role in how they understand their environment. While it might be nice to imagine a world where this is not true, we don't live in that world, so for now we must acknowledge the idea of race and deal with it in those terms while we hope for enlightenment on the issue to surface somewhere in the future. For now, we must proceed with BLM until there is no longer an embedded belief in the "B".

• It is unreasonably selective. While race is merely a social/political construct, so too are money, freedom, constitutional law, love, and language, just to name a few. To try to dismiss the problem of racist outcomes by saying that people should just "smarten up" and stop believing in race is like saying that the solution for our economic problems is for people to just stop believing in money. It is not that simple or surgical. Few people are able to cherry-pick their worldview in this way.

TL;DR
I agree with those that say insisting on recognizing "white privilege" is not useful or helpful to solving the larger issue. The problem is not (for example) that I went to college and I'm white. The problem is (for example) that sometimes cops seem to kill people because they're black.

However, I disagree that the reason to avoid thoughts of "white privilege" is because it reinforces the concept of race and of dividing people into categories. People do that and will continue to do so in the near future. The real reason to avoid white privilege in this discussion is because it's not a helpful concept if the goal is the "end of racism".

To try to dismiss the problem of racist outcomes by saying that people should just "smarten up" and stop believing in race is like saying that the solution for our economic problems is for people to just stop believing in money. It is not that simple or surgical. Few people are able to cherry-pick their worldview in this way. — Pro Hominem

I do agree and have argued similarly to the rest of your points, just to make clear that my opposition to the white privilege framing isn't just because reinforces the importance of race. So the rest of your post, I agree with but obviously, you have highlighted this disagreement so I'll respond.

The white privilege framing isn't responsible for nor is alone responsible for holding up the importance of race, it's a small piece of what does that and so let's avoid hyperbole. My condemnation of this aspect of the framing is a component of my stance against emphasising the importance of race, which I consider to be a more important issue than whether people talk about white privilege or not. So I condemn it wherever I see it and you have to start somewhere.

Increasing the minimum wage won't solve economic inequality but it's not reasonable to counter doing it by saying that because it's a step in the right direction. Same applies here.

Imagine we had a different term which focused on the real issues, which is not how white people are doing well but how black people aren't by the same standards, "black underprivileged" or whatever. The term targets racial inequity, can the solution to racial inequity be anything but organised around race? Conversations about reparations for slavery? Policies which discriminate based on race? Prioritising help based on race?

If it's talking about more than just racial inequity, but like creativesoul says, how black Americans have to deal with racists, they have to deal with microaggressions or whatever else. It's not just about noticing race, it's about giving a meaning to race which allows you to prejudice against people based on race. Right now, you can discriminate based on white privilege, creativesoul condemns it but that's a logical outcome of thinking this way and we've seen others go that route.

I'm not going to go through it all but based on white privilege (I don't think a black-focused term would solve this) we have so many people thinking about so many race-based solutions. You can't be blind to how politically divisive it's already been, you can't think it's going to stop anytime soon. I don't just disagree with it on a moral level, it's just politically impractical and it leads to ridiculous solutions being validated. It interferes with a justice-based humanitarian message which doesn't mention race and therefore can't be disagreed with based on your opinions on race. Which just makes things simpler.

Let me briefly address BLM, I think the message of BLM (rather than the organisation) is fair. Why? Because they are talking about discrimination against black Americans, which you can't do without talking about the blackness of the black Americans being targetted. The solution requires talking about it and the same thing applies to racial inequity. The difference here is that I am happy to directly address police brutality towards black Americans but I am not happy to directly address racial inequity.

Way back, I entered this conversation with the example of stairs privileging the ambulatory. I chose that example with care, because of what it shows about privilege.

Privilege is not often intentional. Stairs are a cheap, quick way into a building, and were not built with the exclusion of certain people in mind. But that was the result.

Fixing the problem will cost money.

Fixing the problem will cause inconvenience.

The result will be the removal of an encumbrance, and hence have long term benefits for everyone.

Importantly, the first step in removing this encumbrance is to recognise it. No one pulls out a set of stairs on a whim. Recognising the issue involves seeing the issue from the point of view of someone who has quite a different experience to oneself. Recognising the issue involves recognising one's privilege. That is, privilege should be pointed out.

That's pretty much the point I wished to make. @Judaka's responses struck me as tangential, since they seemed to me to place the emphasis on the privileged; hence my vexation. It's as if someone were to advocate research into artificial limbs instead of replacing steps with ramps, so that the ambulatory would not have to put up with a minor inconvenience.

I parodied Judaka's position as that we should not call out privilege because it will upset the privileged. I think that remains accurate.

I do not think privilege can be removed. I do think that we can recognise it and mitigate against it, for the common good.

I would like to thank Judaka for his responses, which have caused me to tighten and rethink my position.

Pro Hominem, I would point out that while race has no scientific grounding, there are cultural differences that are of great import. The generic flaw in liberalism is that in seeking to treat everyone as equals it inadvertently seeks to minimises these cultural differences. In the end this looks like white males arguing that the solution to the world's problems is for everyone to act more like white males.

Such differences are to be celebrated, not eradicated.

I was looking for someone to attempt to defend the white privilege framing and finally, someone did. I have to admit, I wasn't expecting to see it but I'm pleasantly surprised...

...I accept the separation between how the white privilege conceptualisation can be applied. — Judaka

Disappointing that your openly expressed gratitude was accompanied by such a short-lived acceptance. Typically, when we say that we accept that there are a plurality of ways that white privilege can be applied, if we are genuine in our curiosity about this new and novel application, we will set aside our own preconceived notion and adopt the new way, if for no other reason than to better understand what is meant by the foreign framework.

You asserted acceptance, but failed to continue to use the term in the way that I explicitly set out. By the time you got to the end of the long reply, the beginning of which is quoted above, you'd completely forgotten and/or neglected the remarkable differences between what "white privilege" meant to you, and what it means to me. The following is a prima facie example in support of this charge of forgetfulness and/or neglect.

A lot of what you're talking about is a hard sell, "not being harassed by police" is not a white privilege... — Judaka

I've never said that "not being harassed by police" is a white privilege. Given that brute fact, what are those quotes doing besides quoting something I did not say. Since I did not say it, I'm cetainly not trying to 'sell' it.

Not being harassed by police because your non white is a white privilege. That's not something I'm trying to sell either. Rather, as always, I'm doing this completely free of charge. Good for goodness' sake.



The injury that systemic racism has had, and continues to have, upon non whites is not a mere conceptualization. Those are actual. Whether or not we correctly conceive of them depends upon whether or not we have access to the existence thereof. These injuries continue to happen everyday, and they are precisely what white individuals do not have to deal with on a day to day basis, because they are white.

The only way for a white person to learn about those actual effects/affects is to listen to someone who has.

Hence, the following...

I am not convinced that the perpetuators of the white privilege framing are mostly non-white... — Judaka

Is completely disjointed, at best...

I agree with those that say insisting on recognizing "white privilege" is not useful or helpful to solving the larger issue. The problem is not (for example) that I went to college and I'm white. The problem is (for example) that sometimes cops seem to kill people because they're black. — Pro Hominem

Your having gone to college and being white is not white privilege. White privilege is the negative effects/affects of systemic racism that you do not suffer from because you're white.

"White privilege" is extremely useful for helping an otherwise unknowing, but generally caring, white individual to have a much better understanding of the residual ongoing affects/effects of systemic racism.

Noticing that cops sometimes seem to kill pople because they are black is virtually unavoidable at this point in time. That's a problem, to be sure. The bigger problem lies in the fact that it's taken so long for enough white people to seem to care. The much bigger problems reside just below the surface, so to speak, but immediately spill over to this very day. They do so on such quick notice. The deeper problems are shown by the fact that so many white people are somehow personally offended by the following three words...

Black Lives Matter

I would point out that while race has no scientific grounding, there are cultural differences that are of great import. The generic flaw in liberalism is that in seeking to treat everyone as equals it inadvertently seeks to minimises these cultural differences. In the end this looks like white males arguing that the solution to the world's problems is for everyone to act more like white males.

Such differences are to be celebrated, not eradicated — Banno

First, there is a scientific grounding of race.

Second, cultural differences aren't important when hiring someone or giving them a raise.

Third, what is the difference between acting human vs. acting black or white? What does it even mean to act black or white? It seems to me that putting people in boxes is what is racist. I guess for you, acting black is voting Democrat and acting white is voting Republucan?

The real reason to avoid white privilege in this discussion is because it's not a helpful concept if the goal is the "end of racism". — Pro Hominem

Effectively ending racism requires understanding both it's motivations and it's effects/affects.
White privilege is an effect/affect of racism.
Effectively ending racism requires understanding white privilege.

Curious then... Which premiss are you're objecting to, and what grounds the objection?

Effectively ending racism requires understanding both it's motivations and it's effects/affects. — creativesoul

Just as a matter of rational principle, it most assuredly doesn't. In order to end something one only need know its causes. There's no inherent necessity to know its effects. Eliminating the cause of a thing will eliminate the the thing, regardless of whether one is even aware of the effects.

Premise after premise of yours, I disagree with. It's not just that I'm interested in less race-based solutions but that I see your race-based framing as being unreasonable and at times simply incorrect.

Talking about white privilege is required in order to understand the effects/affects of racism. The removal of white privilege would effectively be and/or signal the end of racism. That does not require taking anything away from white people. It requires cultivating a society where white privilege no longer exists because no one suffers the effects/affects and/or injuries stemming from racism. — creativesoul

I disagree with it all, I accept you don't see it that way but I thought that's where the discussion was. Now, I accept a response like Banno's where he has basically said, he doesn't find my reasoning compelling, his answer is better and he's satisfied with that conclusion. Most debates are going to more or less end that way and I always expect that conclusion.

I have broadened my understanding of the different ways in which white privilege is being applied and defended. Not a useless conversation.

The differences in our perspective are great enough that despite agreeing in the reality of systemic racism and the moral importance of resolving the issues it caused, I am as fearful of what you might propose based on your framing as I am of inaction. Where you see black people, I see people, where you see inequity, I see poverty. The injustice here doesn't need to be described in racial terms and I think that's our fundamental disagreement.

Your having gone to college and being white is not white privilege. White privilege is the negative effects/affects of systemic racism that you do not suffer from because you're white. — creativesoul

This is exactly the problem with the concept. You can only define it in the negative. White privilege is not privilege at all. It is the ABSENCE of being treated unfairly because one is non-white. To put this another way, no one (who isn't themselves a racist of a different type) wants to END white privilege. They want people of color to no longer be mistreated or have different standards applied to them. "White privilege" as you are describing will disappear when everyone is just treated fairly.

Using the term "white privilege" has the practical effect of irritating or offending some people who feel targeted or just lumped in unfairly. It has no corresponding utility or benefit in race conversations to offset this.

If it is pointed out to a white person that a black person was treated badly in a situation that both experienced, say a job interview or an encounter with a police officer, the proper response for the white person is not "I feel guilty and terrible that I was treated well", it is "I feel terrible that you were treated poorly", and hopefully they could agree to work together to try to change that in the future.

It is not necessary or helpful to demonize all white people for being white in order to try to improve conditions for people who are non-white.

First, there is a scientific grounding of race. — Harry Hindu

Defend this statement.

Second, cultural differences aren't important when hiring someone or giving them a raise. — Harry Hindu

Defend this statement.

Third, what is the difference between acting human vs. acting black or white? What does it even mean to act black or white? It seems to me that putting people in boxes is what is racist. I guess for you, acting black is voting Democrat and acting white is voting Republucan? — Harry Hindu

Stay on topic, please.

Way back, I entered this conversation with the example of stairs privileging the ambulatory. I chose that example with care, because of what it shows about privilege.

Privilege is not often intentional. Stairs are a cheap, quick way into a building, and were not built with the exclusion of certain people in mind. But that was the result.

Fixing the problem will cost money.

Fixing the problem will cause inconvenience.

The result will be the removal of an encumbrance, and hence have long term benefits for everyone.

Importantly, the first step in removing this encumbrance is to recognise it. No one pulls out a set of stairs on a whim. Recognising the issue involves seeing the issue from the point of view of someone who has quite a different experience to oneself. Recognising the issue involves recognising one's privilege. That is, privilege should be pointed out. — Banno

Ok, this is getting bogged down in your specific example and straying from the topic quite a bit, but since it has been posted about several times I feel like I will weigh in.

The stairs analogy doesn't really work. Stairs are an object, a piece of technology. They have different levels of utility to different individuals based on a range of factors like age, weight, leg strength, cardio-vascular health, etc. One is not "privileged" to be able to use them, one simply does or does not based on need and ability. A person who knows how to chop firewood with an axe safely is not "axe privileged" they just have the ability to do an activity that uses a particular piece of technology. Some people aren't strong enough to lift the axe, some would just be in danger of chopping off their foot. Trying to use the concept of "privilege" to describe this state of affairs is not useful. It adds unnecessary baggage to the conversation.

Nonetheless, the US had this conversation some decades ago and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA has resulted in all sorts of effects, some very unintended, but most frequently encountered by most people in the built environment. Every public building in the US has wheelchair access and handicapped parking spaces. The only exceptions are buildings that predate the law - however those buildings MUST be brought into compliance if they are upgraded or renovated in any way. The burden falls on the owner of the property. This has resulted (over the subsequent decades) in many small businesses being closed because they could not afford to comply with the regulations, contributing bit by bit to the big box Walmartification of our society.

The guidelines for handicapped parking spaces have also increased the area of parking lots which impacts groundwater penetration and has a range of undesirable effects, all so these spaces can sit empty most of the time. Or at least they used to, but now they play a key role in enabling the obesity epidemic in this country by rewarding people with weight problems all the good parking spots. Once again, visit any Walmart to see this in full effect.

Long story short, the right way to view this problem IS to focus on artificial limbs or other enabling technologies (as you mentioned), since they can be employed by the individual disabled person at the time of need, instead of making the case that the rest of us are "able-body-privileged" and therefore we should all suffer negative consequences to level the field at the low bar instead of the high one.

And that brings me back to the unhelpfulness of the "white privilege" concept. It denotes that the problem is some people being treated well, as opposed to the real problem which is some people being treated poorly.

Effectively ending racism requires understanding both it's motivations and it's effects/affects.
— creativesoul

Just as a matter of rational principle, it most assuredly doesn't. In order to end something one only need know its causes. There's no inherent necessity to know its effects. Eliminating the cause of a thing will eliminate the the thing, regardless of whether one is even aware of the effects. — Isaac

Well, perhaps this holds perfectly good with simple physical and/or material things. It's far less applicable to that which is not. Racism is not a simple physical thing. It's quite a bit more nuanced than that Isaac.

First and foremost, in order to effectively end something, we would first need to know what exactly we were trying to end. At least, if putting an end to that something was the goal. Identifying racism in it's most basic form is a crucial first step so as to be able to properly and/or correctly recognize it along with it's effects/affects 'in the wild'.

Racism is the practiced devaluation of an entire group of people based upon the color of their skin(race) alone. Racism eats, lives, and breathes in the thoughts and subsequent actions of those practicing such belief. Ending racism would require ending racist belief, which brings us to the inherent inadequacy of your suggested method of approach. There is no clear cut readily identifiable single cause for racist belief. That is where the rational principle you've proposed fails.

Premise after premise of yours, I disagree with. — Judaka

That's disappointing too. Either you're lying now, or you lied earlier, or you're just contradicting yourself. No matter which is the actual case, it ends in incoherency.

I have broadened my understanding of the different ways in which white privilege is being applied and defended. Not a useless conversation. — Judaka

Good, this is certainly part of the goal here. Do you find any single sense of "white privilege" more well-grounded than any other?

The differences in our perspective are great enough that despite agreeing in the reality of systemic racism and the moral importance of resolving the issues it caused, I am as fearful of what you might propose based on your framing as I am of inaction. Where you see black people, I see people, where you see inequity, I see poverty. The injustice here doesn't need to be described in racial terms and I think that's our fundamental disagreement. — Judaka

Poverty exists in communities and/or societies where no one in poverty suffers from systemic racism. What you see is based upon conflating distinctly different things, I'm afraid. However, we may have more than enough agreement between us to move the conversation forward. Perhaps it will help ease your fears...

Reparations.

What would you like to see done?

Not sure what you think I'm lying about, I have always been open and upfront about my contempt for the framing. If I agreed that white privilege was necessary, if I agreed that white privilege was an important marker, then my opposition makes no sense.

Good, this is certainly part of the goal here. Do you find any single sense of "white privilege" more well-grounded than any other? — creativesoul

I would agree that it is important to demonstrate the existence of systemic racism and part of that is by pointing out how imbalanced certain statistics are between the races. In the context where you're faced with someone who is denying systemic racism, the disparities you call white privilege need to be pointed out.

There are many white people who openly say and actually believe that racism is not acceptable and it ought be removed from American society. Some of these white people come from areas in the country where there is very little ethnic and/or racial diversity, so they have had little to no personal experience and/or interactions with non whites. Rural America in particular simply does not have the degree of diversity that is common in the larger cities, particularly along the coastlines. Not everyone in these areas holds strong and clear racist belief against non whites, even if they come from a community where those remain in practice. They see racism when it's undeniably open and public, they know it's wrong, but they do not recognize the subtlety of white privilege. That takes someone else to show them in a manner that they're open and able to understand, which does not include personal attacks because they are white, as well as a white who is capable of listening to another's plight because they are not. It takes mutual respect. — creativesoul

I am sympathetic here, you are coming from a similar position to me but with a different approach. I know that general views on racism can be a little simple, it can be frustrating. If people think that racism is just verbally insulting someone then you do need to show that it's more complicated than that. So I see the aspect of white privilege as a means to have people think more deeply about what racism is to be a stronger component of the framing.

What you see is based upon conflating distinctly different things, I'm afraid. However, we may have more than enough agreement between us to move the conversation forward. Perhaps it will help ease your fears... — creativesoul

I think poverty is actually one of the biggest and most relevant aspects of systemic racism - because money represents a lot. Education, health, quality of life, power, freedom, dignity - there's a lot that comes just from having money and the fact is that black Americans are disgustingly poor in comparison to white Americans.

Nonetheless, I am totally against the idea of reparations. Because it's race-based. Fdrake made the point when I brought this up that because black Americans are disproportionately poor, they would be disproportionately benefited by economic redistribution and thus, when I argue for economic redistribution but against race-based economic redistribution, the distinction is a bit redundant. Nonetheless, I think it is important to stay away from race-based solutions and treat people based on more important distinctions than race - such as their economics.

The stairs analogy doesn't really work. — Pro Hominem

It's not an analogy. It is an example. The disenfranchisement caused to non-ambulatory people is real. But thanks, by denying that this is a problem you have reinforce my view that privilege cannot be easily recognised by the privileged.

The generic flaw in liberalism is that in seeking to treat everyone as equals it inadvertently seeks to minimises cultural differences. In the end this looks like white males arguing that the solution to the world's problems is for everyone to act more like white males. — Banno

This remains unaddressed.

Your having gone to college and being white is not white privilege. White privilege is the negative effects/affects of systemic racism that you do not suffer from because you're white.
— creativesoul

This is exactly the problem with the concept. You can only define it in the negative. White privilege is not privilege at all. It is the ABSENCE of being treated unfairly because one is non-white. — Pro Hominem

There are a couple of points that need to be made here...

First, it's not a 'problem with the concept' at all. It is a distinguishing feature, and a very very useful one when implemented in the 'right' ways. White privilege is best understood in terms of what white individuals do not suffer from(what they are exempt from). That is precisely what privilege is. Please allow me to elaborate a bit, for it seems necessary...

Being born white in America comes along with also being exempt from the liability of being non white. That is, even by legal definition(if the reader cares enough to actually look), what "privilege" is most commonly used to refer to. So, it is most certainly a privilege. That particular privilege exempts only whites. No non whites are exempt from the liabilities of being so. Hence, "white privilege" is perfectly understandable, perfectly sensible, and it's quite useful for increasing an individual's understanding and/or knowledge regarding the effects/affects of racism that continue to pervade American society to this day.

To put this another way, no one (who isn't themselves a racist of a different type) wants to END white privilege... — Pro Hominem

This makes no sense at all. It suggests that the only people who want to end white privilege are themselves racist of a different type(whatever that's supposed to mean). There is something or other seriously wrong with a few of the basic ideas/notions and/or (mis)conceptions that you're working from/with. Either way, on it's face, the sentence above is false. It conflicts with the actual circumstances described below.

I want to end white privilege. I do not devalue another simply because they are not white. I do not value another simply because that are not white. I do not devalue another simply because they are white. I do not value another simply because they are white. I am not alone.

Using the term "white privilege" has the practical effect of irritating or offending some people who feel targeted or just lumped in unfairly. It has no corresponding utility or benefit in race conversations to offset this. — Pro Hominem

Again, there are a couple of points to be made here as well...

The first statement is true. Some people experience irritation and/or are offended. However, it does not follow that all people do. However, the last statement only follows from the first, if all people did. They do not. So, it's an invalid conclusion for one, and actually false as well.

The sheer amount of otherwise reasonable, but innocently unaware white people, that have had their worldview expanded for the better by having discussions of white privilege is growing exponentially. The benefit of understanding white privilege is increased empathy. That is particularly true regarding those who are capable of caring about non white people, even if they personally know few if any, but are otherwise reasonable people.

If it is pointed out to a white person that a black person was treated badly in a situation that both experienced, say a job interview or an encounter with a police officer, the proper response for the white person is not "I feel guilty and terrible that I was treated well", it is "I feel terrible that you were treated poorly", and hopefully they could agree to work together to try to change that in the future.

It is not necessary or helpful to demonize all white people for being white in order to try to improve conditions for people who are non-white. — Pro Hominem

I actually agree with this, as it is written. What does that have to do with white privilege?

It's not an analogy. It is an example. The disenfranchisement caused to non-ambulatory people is real. But thanks, by denying that this is a problem you have reinforce my view that privilege cannot be easily recognised by the privileged. — Banno

So if I edit the word analogy to be the word example, will you address the whole remainder of my post?

And no. By denying your "example" I've held out an articulation of why your "example" is not an accurate depiction of the problem at all. Can you use chopsticks? Are people who can use chopsticks "chopstick privileged?" Should they support broad legislation to uplift those poor souls who don't share their privilege, and meanwhile publicly flagellate themselves to show how sorry they are for the unintentional but undeniable advantage in eating rice in a world without forks? This is nonsense.

Everyone who can walk a flight of stairs does not need to spend any time thinking about the fact that there are some who can't. There is no injustice to being able to walk.It is unfortunate that some can't walk, and there is a time and place to show concern and/or provide assistance to those people, but there is absolutely no rational argument to be made that everyone should walk around every day feeling bad that their legs work.

The same goes for being white. I do not need to be shamed for being white in order to know that it matters to me that people of color are being unfairly treated by a society that I am a part of. Those two things are not correlated and are definitely not causal.

Everyone who can walk a flight of stairs does not need to spend any time thinking about the fact that there are some who can't. There is no injustice to being able to walk. — Pro Hominem

Fucksake.

Yes, you don't see the problem. Repeating that you don't see the problem does not help.

Go talk to @creativesoul. He may have more patience than I.

The generic flaw in liberalism is that in seeking to treat everyone as equals it inadvertently seeks to minimises cultural differences. In the end this looks like white males arguing that the solution to the world's problems is for everyone to act more like white males. — Banno

Just like streetlightx, anti-racist but racist, talking in this way is racist, how can you be blind to that? If someone came and started talking about how "black males act" would you accept that?