Perhaps. I ran into this issue with you earlier where you asked me if I wanted to be treated like black people are treated and you said this was an innocent question with no implications. Which is not an easy thing to believe but I supposed it was the truth. I'll accept I've misinterpreted you. — Judaka

It was not about you personally. Had I known at that time that you were not an American citizen, I may not have asked you.

That question is actually the most brilliant segue that I've ever heard leading into substantive conversations about otherwise non racist white individual's continued complicity in maintaining systemic racism simply by virtue of their non action, keeping quiet, and/or turning away from the injury suffered because one is non white.

That portion of the topic can be very offensive, particularly if one is already overly sensitive and feels as though they are being attacked. Everything begins looking like a nail. However, it's not about that at all. It's about the particular residual negative effects/affects that systemic racism has had upon white individuals. There was once a time when standing up for blacks could have horrible negative personal effects/affects. It could get one killed by those in power just for doing so, and did. That time has long since passed.

Turning away from the atrocities in plain sight is no longer tolerable or even possible. Now, the description and/or reporting upon the actual events has as much or more influence than the actual events themselves, particularly with those not directly involved.

If white privilege is to be viewed as a fact, and one denies facts, can it be called anything but ignorance? — Judaka

"White privilege" is a name.

Leftist identity politics... — Judaka

Is self defeating and self refuting. The term "leftist" is itself identity politics. I abhor such oversimplifications of political concerns. That's a big part of the problem in the States, on both sides.

"White privilege" stands on it's own merit. It neither relies upon nor need to rely upon such gross oversimplifications. Offhandedly dismissing all use of "white privilege" due to being believed to be connected with "the left" is itself identity politics at it's worst. It perpetuates closed mindedness. A refusal to actually listen because it's from someone on "the left". The operative presupposition is that anyone on the left is wrong because they're on the left. The same goes for such generalizations about the right.

Can we talk reparations yet?

Leftist identity politics is just a name, right? That's how things work, give names... Don't complain about my clearly biased framing, it's just a name.

I've written page after page of criticisms towards the white privilege framing, I'm not "offhandedly dismissing" it because of a connection the left.

I've said pretty much all I have to say on reparations, I am all for economic redistribution but not by race and not done by acknowledging racial histories.

I've written page after page of criticisms towards the white privilege framing, I'm not "offhandedly dismissing" it because of a connection the left. — Judaka

But, what other reason have you given for dismissing my use???

I think you've misunderstood my responses to you, what I wanted to acknowledge is that not everything about the white privilege framing is just senseless. That you are trying to use it to help educate people on an important issue. To summarise, in the 20th-century racism was in-your-face overt, that isn't how racism functions anymore, it's unilaterally condemned by almost everyone. Yet systemic racism persists, how do you explain that if people aren't seeing that 20th-century racism anymore? If they're convinced systemic racism is over and done with because they only understand systemic racism through what they know happened in the 20th century. A possible answer to that is the white privilege framing.

By acknowledging the need for adaptation in describing racism, I have not acquiesced on any of my previous points. It's a dreadful approach which only makes sense if you subscribe to left-wing identity politics. Even though your brand of white privilege specifically condemns a lot of what I dislike about it, it's nonetheless fundamentally the same. — Judaka

Here, you've acknowledged some utility for my use of "white privilege". You clearly recognize the difference between some uses... yet, at the end... somehow... still hold on to the false idea that it only makes sense if one subscribes to identity politics.

You do not subscribe to left wing identity politics, and yet my use made sense to you.

What is fundamentally the same?

Leftist identity politics is just a name, right? That's how things work, give names... Don't complain about my clearly biased framing, it's just a name. — Judaka

Do you realize that that is not at all what I was saying?

The bit about "white privilege" being a name was not flippant. That's important. The name picks out something that existed in it's entirety prior to the name being first used. What "white privilege" is used to pick out differs, and knowledge of what's being picked out is knowledge of all the different senses/meanings of the term. They are not all compatible with one another. Yet you claim that they're all fundamentally the same... which is false.

I don't think I said that white privilege can only be understood using the leftist identity politics ideology but it's no coincidence that posters like streetlightx, banno, fdrake are here defending the term, posters who I would call extreme left. I don't know about Isaac but certainly the way he talks, it seems very likely he's in a similar boat. I don't think I've ever tried to use the term against you because I haven't seen that it be warranted.

What I still don't like about your approach
(1) Emphasises the importance of race
(2) Contextualises systemic racism as a benefit for white Americans (privilege)
(3) Creates a simplified "non-white" experience which factors in nothing but race
(4) Divides people on important social issues such as economic redistribution by opinions on race issues
(5) Competes with a justice-based, humanitarian narrative which I'd prefer
(6) Legitimises race-based solutions to systemic racism and racial inequity

For the time being, I am prepared to say, the aspects of the framing you've criticised, I won't bring up. However, I am not entirely convinced that we won't see:

(7) White privilege being used to discriminate against the "white" experience and characterising white success in light of their advantages
(8) The privilege framing having an effect on causing things such as "white guilt", shame and so on.

I am not going to assure you that I've listed all of my objections but the list is already pretty substantive.

The name picks out something that existed in it's entirety prior to the name being first used. — creativesoul

I'm not sure why you think that matters but I don't.

Yet you claim that they're all fundamentally the same... which is false. — creativesoul

Hmm, it depends on what is meant by "fundamental" right? When I say that, I am sure what I mean is not the same as what you would mean if you said it.

It's just not what word means, like we know what the word table means and when and where it is applicable.
— ChatteringMonkey

My dictionary has 'privilege' meaning

an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich:
— Cambridge

a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor
— Merriam-Webster

I'm struggling to see how it is so obvious that its use in 'white privilege' is "just not what word means". Its meaning seems quite congruent to me, it's saying that freedom from certain types of oppression and restriction, the opening of certain opportunities is an advantage which white people have.

Being able to go about one's daily business with a lower chance of being arrested or shot by your own police force in certain parts of America is an advantage afforded to white people simply because they're white is it not?

That's right there in the dictionary definition. I'm not sure what your objection on semantic grounds is. — Isaac

"Only one person or group of people" - the syntax of this indicates a group of relatively limited size and uses the examples of wealth or position as opposed to large scale qualifiers like race or gender.

"A peculiar benefit" - again, peculiar here indicates something out of the ordinary. An isolated or unusual case. "Whiteness" is not a peculiar trait, it is exceedingly common. Both of these definitions clearly imply a limited scope. If a benefit is granted to a huge group of people, a category of people, the term used would likely be a "right", not a privilege.

I wasn't going to keep posting, but here I am again... I'm not sure I would have replied to someone other than you. If you want to take issue with the efficacy or impact of the term, I'll grant that the jury may still be out on that. The fact that the term is a misnomer is not in question, however. It is not an accurate description. Period.

The accurate way to describe what people like creative say they are talking about is that there are human rights, and the rights of white people are generally observed but the rights of blacks are quite frequently not. This is racial discrimination, and when we see its prevalence in our culture, we acknowledge that the racism is systemic.

Human rights are not privileges because people are supposed to have them. If anyone is denied them, ever, that is wrong. If it is done on the basis of race, then that is a specific strain of this wrong behavior. The most certain way to prevent these particular abuses is to educate people away from viewing the world through the lens of race. "White privilege" explicitly reinforces that race-bound view of the world and perpetuates the most necessary condition of racist thought, the very concept of race itself.

The enumerated list is good. I want to set it aside momentarily and clear up what I see as pivotal aspects to understand...

I don't think I said that white privilege can only be understood using the leftist identity politics... — Judaka

You certainly did. I quoted you by clicking on your avatar and perusing the comments icon. That's a nice feature of this site. The statement was false at the time and remains so. You're the proof. You understand and do not use leftist identity politics. You falsify the claim.

The name picks out something that existed in it's entirety prior to the name being first used.
— creativesoul

I'm not sure why you think that matters but I don't. — Judaka

It matters because we're comparing/contrasting all of the different uses of "white privilege", and that's a unique aspect of each one; what - exactly - is being picked out.

Yet you claim that they're all fundamentally the same... which is false.
— creativesoul

Hmm, it depends on what is meant by "fundamental" right? When I say that, I am sure what I mean is not the same as what you would mean if you said it. — Judaka

Not exactly. "Fundamental" is different than "fundamentally". Sure though, it depends upon what counts as being fundamentally the same. Here's the catch though...

Neither you nor I determine that.

The term had sense long before either of us ever learned to use it. All uses of "white privilege" are not fundamentally the same, and that much is easily understood by anyone and everyone capable of previously understanding that the same name can refer to different things.

You ought know by now what I'm using the name to refer to. You ought know by now that others use it to refer to things other than what I'm referring to. Thus, they are not fundamentally the same aside from consisting of the same marks and being names.

It is not an accurate description. Period. — Pro Hominem

Agreed. It's a name. Names are not descriptions.

I suppose I could have been more precise in my language, I think most of the support for the white privilege framing comes from the same people who peddle leftwing identity politics and it's easy to understand why. I accept that you are not arguing from the position of that ideology and anything I said in the past to the contrary, I acquiesce.

It matters because we're comparing/contrasting all of the different uses of "white privilege", and that's a unique aspect of one. — creativesoul

All iterations of white privilege framing are framings and I won't accept a justification of "its a name". I accept that you have your own brand and I'm happy to respond to it but I think the major differences between you and someone like banno, isn't the actual framing itself, it's about how you act. Most of what I see as being different is that you have different intentions, different rules, different goals.

Names matter, I don't even know why I'm having this conversation. If I decided to call you sillysoul instead of creativesoul and you thought "hm Judaka, I guess he prefers to call me sillysoul, guess its just a name so whatever" without thinking there's any meaning behind me calling you sillysoul then I guess your new nickname would seem very appropriate wouldn't it? My objection has a lot to do with the name you've chosen, having exactly the same understanding with a new name would make me a lot happier and I don't think there's any way to convince me to think otherwise.

Overall, I have done my best to show that I recognise there are differences between your concept and others of the same name, to acknowledge your intentions and motivations, to show I understand the logic behind why the framing is a good idea. I just think there are things we can disagree on where I can understand and respect your decision and things I can disagree with and be really upset about and critical of your approach.

First, you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism. — Number2018

I do.

The notion implies the institutional, systemic discrimination of a particular group of people. — Number2018

No, it reflects that the concept of race and attitudes or beliefs about specific racial groups are woven into the fabric of our culture and its institutions. Racial discrimination is any action that follows from these embedded ideas. Do not conflate the racist ideas in the system with the individual acts of discrimination. Not all members of a culture must adhere to every one of that culture's constituent beliefs. It is possible to be American and not be racist, even though American culture is rife with racist attitudes and symbols. On the whole, the culture may be racist, but not every member of the culture participates in or is responsible for that racism. Many reject it. I do.

One may not be a racist consciously, but as a member of society, one unintentionally takes part in the discriminatory practices and benefits from their outcomes. Next, since one has not been discriminated, but has been benefited, as a member of the majority of the unjust and oppressing society, one necessarily bears responsibility for the beneficiary results of discriminatory practices. — Number2018

I don't see why any of this MUST BE true. If you are riding in a bus, and the bus runs over a person crossing the street, do you bear responsibility for that event because you are a beneficiary of the bus ride?

Are you responsible for George Floyd's death? Are you responsible for Trump's stormtroopers firing on peaceful protesters?

How much benefit do you need to get to be a beneficiary? I (and most other people in this country, including blacks and members of other minority groups) benefit from the security and stability of this country's institutions and services. On some occasions, individuals receive less of the benefit of those institutions than is normal and expected. Sometimes that's because of race. When that happens is everyone else in the country responsible? Or only the white people?

What if you are the only white kid in a minority community and you are routinely discriminated against? Do you still have white privilege? Are you responsible for your own discrimination?

@creativesoul has tried to articulate a formulation of white privilege that avoids placing blame and is meant to make people aware of differences in treatment through this lens. I can understand the intent, I just don't think it's the best way to go about ending racism (and may actually reinforce a race based view of society). What you are suggesting is far worse. If you think it is appropriate to make every white person "responsible" for every racist act that occurs in this country, you need to think some more. That is facially unjust. Also, extremely racist.

Consequently, we come to the "white privilege" concept. You cannot embrace the notion of institutional racism and, at the same time, argue that "white privilege" is counterproductive and unnecessarily. — Number2018

Sure you can. If you've been reading this thread, you've already seen me do it several times. Institutional racism is about ideologies of race permeating our cultural institutions. I don't believe that introducing another idea that relies on race-based generalizations is an effective (or even rational) way to combat those ideologies.

Agreed. It's a name. Names are not descriptions. — creativesoul

It is not. It is highly descriptive. Steve is a name. If you stop calling it white privilege and call it Steve, that would remediate a lot of my objections. But you won't do that because you have specifically chosen to use these words to describe what you are talking about.

You believe that a privilege accrues to all white people by virtue of their whiteness. You call that phenomenon "white privilege". It could hardly be a more explicit attempt to be descriptive. Or a more explicitly racist concept.

Let's say I hand you a red brick. You say, "what's this?" I say, "red brick." You say, "why did you hand me a red brick?"

Let's say I hand you a red brick. You say, "what's this?" I say, "Sergio." You say, "why did you name this red brick Sergio?"

See the difference?

People super uncomfortable with the claim get more uncomfortable when the discomfort is pointed out, and super duper uncomfortable if it's psychologised. — fdrake

Just out of curiosity, do you have the impression that I am made personally uncomfortable by the term? Or are you speaking to the larger suggestion that it causes discomfort in some people?

Anyway the meaning of the word become quite clear if you look at its etymology, privi lege... private law. A law is generally applicable to everybody with exception. Privi leges then are private laws or rights that specifically only apply to certain individuals or small groups. The majority of whites don't have privileges in that sense... so it's just not accurate to say they do. — ChatteringMonkey

I think you know that's not how it's used. It's not just about the law, though there absolutely is a component of privilege associated with the law; apartheid, Jim Crow, the Windrush scandal... Another aspect - unwarranted police violence splits along racial lines, and it's almost impossible to prosecute them successfully for it - by design.

Just out of curiosity, do you have the impression that I am made personally uncomfortable by the term? Or are you speaking to the larger suggestion that it causes discomfort in some people? — Pro Hominem

I get the impression that you get offended by the term. Perhaps it was a misreading, but I found your prose in this thread had a wounded narrative voice. Albeit a wound dressed with abstractions. Analysis written with the urgency of a deep felt wound, defending yourself from the (alleged) accusations inherent in the idea. I imagine that you feel scared because you believe if it's true that makes you racist and complicit in oppression and there's not much you can do to change it.

I think you know that's not how it's used. It's not just about the law, though there absolutely is a component of privilege associated with the law; apartheid, Jim Crow, the Windrush scandal... Another aspect - unwarranted police violence splits along racial lines, and it's almost impossible to prosecute them successfully for it - by design. — fdrake

Yes I know privilege is not used only to refer to the law, it wasn't my intention to imply that, though I can see you could interpret what I wrote in that way, I could have been more clear. The important part is that it's a (positive) exception for an individual or small group to some kind of norm, legal or otherwise.

Although some whites no doubt have privileges in that sense, that's not really what we mean with the concept 'white privilege'. What I think the concept seeks to point to mostly, is discrimination of other groups... i.e. (negative) exceptions to the norm for non-white groups.

You might argue that this is essentially the same, because in the effects a negative exception for one group ultimately also amounts to a positive exception for another group. But I don't think that argument really holds up, the fact that some things have similar effects doesn't imply they have the same meaning.

And I think the difference in meaning matters, among other things for how we are going handle the problem. You typically revoke or take away privileges whereas you try to prevent and forbid discrimination etc... I don't think it makes much sense to say for instance that we should revoke the privilege of "freedom from oppression".

It's just confusing to speak about it in this way. It's hard enough as it is without these subtle shifts in meaning for political or moral purposes.

If you are riding in a bus, and the bus runs over a person crossing the street, do you bear responsibility for that event because you are a beneficiary of the bus ride? — Pro Hominem

That's a reasonable question.

1. If my rights are not violated, but another's are, is that properly described as a benefit I receive that the other does not?

I think you say "no" here. (I'm inclined to think it's a dumb question, "semantics" in the pejorative sense.)

Let's suppose instead there's something we'd agree to call a benefit on the table, like getting to work on time by being on the bus that some other guy isn't on because the bus left early.

2. If I receive a benefit, or have the opportunity to receive a benefit, through the actions of others not through my own, that another does not, am I responsible for that person being denied that benefit or that opportunity?

Again, I think you say "no", because of course you're not responsible for anyone's actions but your own. So far as it goes, I agree.

But now suppose, as you board the bus, the bus driver decides to leave a few minutes early so that you, one of his favorite regulars, still get to work on time, despite this morning's traffic.

3. If I receive a benefit, or have the opportunity to receive a benefit, and this benefit or opportunity is derived at least in part from others, not I, denying another that benefit or opportunity, am I responsible for that person being denied that benefit or that opportunity?

Again, not your responsibility, right? There may be some injustice here, but it's one you may not even be aware of, much less one you have brought about through your own actions.

What if the bus driver does tell you what he's doing?

4. If I receive a benefit, or have the opportunity to receive a benefit, and this benefit or opportunity is derived at least in part from others, not I, denying another that benefit or opportunity, but with my knowledge and consent, am I responsible for that person being denied that benefit or that opportunity?

That's different, isn't it? You're not the bus driver, and it's not your decision; it's possible the bus driver is so settled in his choice that he wouldn't even listen if you tried to talk him into waiting until the scheduled departure time. Who knows?

But does whatever responsibility you have here derive from the benefit you are to receive? Isn't this just a matter of knowingly allowing injustice? Imagine an old-timer, waiting for a different bus, noticing the driver closing the doors and getting ready to pull out. He might rap on the door with his cane and say, "Hey! You're not supposed to leave for two more minutes!" Are you in a different position just because you, unlike the bystander, will benefit from the driver's unjust action? Even if that action is undertaken specifically to benefit you?

Supposing everyone aware of an injustice has at least some duty to oppose it, do you have a greater duty if you happen to benefit from that injustice?

Consider the range of action available to you and the bystander: the old man can complain, but will likely be ignored; you could demand to be let off the bus, thus mooting the driver's intention to grant you a benefit at the (potential) cost to another. By knowingly accepting the benefit, you do something no bystander does, and you endorse the driver's decision.

If that analysis is right, your duty does not derive from your receiving a benefit, but the form it takes, what specific actions you might be obligated to undertake, might.

I haven't addressed whether you are in fact obligated to do more than a bystander, but it seems clear that you can, so there is at least a question here raised for the beneficiary of injustice that is not raised for everyone.

Names matter, I don't even know why I'm having this conversation. If I decided to call you sillysoul instead of creativesoul and you thought "hm Judaka, I guess he prefers to call me sillysoul, guess its just a name so whatever" without thinking there's any meaning behind me calling you sillysoul then I guess your new nickname would seem very appropriate wouldn't it? My objection has a lot to do with the name you've chosen, having exactly the same understanding with a new name would make me a lot happier and I don't think there's any way to convince me to think otherwise.

Overall, I have done my best to show that I recognise there are differences between your concept and others of the same name, to acknowledge your intentions and motivations, to show I understand the logic behind why the framing is a good idea. I just think there are things we can disagree on where I can understand and respect your decision and things I can disagree with and be really upset about and critical of your approach. — Judaka

I appreciate your continuing to engage with me here, especially given the depth that your heels were dug in when our exchanges began. Had your understanding of systemic racism not been so well articulated, I would not have even bothered talking much with you regarding this topic. Because it was, I had a very hard time understanding how you had arrived at such deeply held convictions against the use of "white privilege". I think that we've both come quite a ways in understanding of one another.

Here's why I keep bringing up the fact that "white privilege" is just a name used by different people to refer to different stuff...

Knowing that much ought temper the offensiveness of it's very mention/invocation. Knowing that much is cause for paying particularly careful attention to exactly how it's being used, what it's referring to and/or picking out, in addition to the overall attitude and/or demeanor of the speaker themselves - rather than immediately discounting it's use based upon the unsavory ones. Knowing that "white privilege" has more than one use ought compel one to further discriminate between the uses.

It's going to be used again and again, and it only makes sense for those of us who want to see it used to effect/affect positive change to show how it can as well as showing how it does not, because it can do both. We show it's positive use by using it to pick out injuries that non white individuals suffer from as a result of being non white, and nothing else. Srap just detailed one of many nuanced instances of this without ever mentioning "white privilege". We do this by condemning it's being used in counterproductive ways. We insist that it be used in the former way by refusing to allow another to change what's being referred to and/or picked out. We remain vigilant in our consistent terminological use, and in doing so are well prepared for arguing against those other uses(which has yet to have been actually performed here as a result of the opponents' resistance to acknowledge the different uses).

This is particularly applicable for conversation with people who have watched and/or heard it's being used as a weapon to belittle, berate, and/or minimize a particular white individual's personal accomplishments in American society, or even worse - by my lights - to berate poor whites for a lack of successful accomplishment(given the "three hundred year head start"). Some people do in fact use the term "white privilege" for such purposes. Some major media outlets highlight and focus solely upon the worst case examples without ever comparing or contrasting those with the better ones. White individuals who've been attacked in such a way will tend to remember that attack and all that it entailed with each successive mention of "white privilege", and quite understandably so if it's the only exposure they've had to it.

However, not everyone uses "white privilege" to pick out the same things, Some do use it as a means to degrade white people because they are white. That is racism. Devaluing all white people because they are white is racist belief practiced in the exact same way that devaluing all black people because they are black is. Neither is acceptable or helpful if our goal is to end racism and it's residual effects/affects(systemic racism). Neither is acceptable or helpful if our goal is to generally improving racial relations, which is part and parcel for gaining members in the ever-growing ever-expanding coalition against the residual effects/affects of systemic racism.

Could you imagine yourself engaging another who uses "white privilege" as a means for devaluing a successful white individual if you were armed with the ability to fully grant the existence of white privilege as the immunity from any and all injuries sustained by non white individuals because they are non white? Could you imagine yourself defending and/or advocating my use of "white privilege"?

Agreed. It's a name. Names are not descriptions.
— creativesoul

It is not. It is highly descriptive. Steve is a name. If you stop calling it white privilege and call it Steve, that would remediate a lot of my objections. But you won't do that because you have specifically chosen to use these words to describe what you are talking about.

You believe that a privilege accrues to all white people by virtue of their whiteness. You call that phenomenon "white privilege". It could hardly be a more explicit attempt to be descriptive. Or a more explicitly racist concept. — Pro Hominem

It's never a good sign when an interlocutor insists upon telling me what I believe, despite my explicitly saying otherwise.

If "white privilege" counts as being an explicitly racist concept on your view, then I suggest you clearly explain to me what you mean by "racist", because I would be more than willing to wager that you're working from an utterly inadequate criterion. If "white privilege" counts as being racist, then the scope of your notion is much too broad, anything would count as such. Tell me, what does it take? Talking about race? Mentioning race? Using "white"?

Here's what I do mean to say...

"White" is the name given to particular a group of people(typically of European ancestry) due to the color of their skin(fair complexion lack of melanin). "White" picks out such people. "Privilege" is the name given to an exemption from duty or liability granted as a special benefit, advantage, or favor. "White privilege" refers to the injuries and/or liability of being non white that whites are exempt from as a result of being white.

Your insistence here to keep arguing about these things is beyond me. The quoted terms are names. The rest further describes the names. That's how language works. It's a bit too pretentious for you to tell me what I mean and/or believe, especially after ignoring/neglecting the valid criticism I offered.

Let's say I hand you a red brick. You say, "what's this?" I say, "red brick." You say, "why did you hand me a red brick?"

Let's say I hand you a red brick. You say, "what's this?" I say, "Sergio." You say, "why did you name this red brick Sergio?"

See the difference? — Pro Hominem

Yeah. You seem to think that names only refer to people(or perhaps that only proper nouns are names?). Names pick something out of this world to the exclusion of all else. Not just people have names. The red brick has a name too. "Red brick" is the name we've given to red bricks. "Red brick" is not a red brick. Houses are made of red bricks, not "red bricks". When I name the object I want you to hand me, if it is a red brick, I call it by it's name. "Hand me a red brick".

"White privilege" is a name that refers to the immunity that all white individuals have from suffering injury because one is non white. Below are explicit descriptions of white privilege.

Whites do not get red bricks thrown at them for being too close in proximity to a white racist. Whites do not suffer from lynchings because they are black. Whites do not get stopped for walking black at night. Whites do not need to carefully explain to their teenage and/or young adult children how to not appear threatening to the police despite their physical stature. Whites do not have to deal with the sheer difficulty of hailing a taxi when one is black. Whites do not have the harshest sentences thrown at them for misdemeanor crimes. Whites do not have laws written for the explicit purposes of making them criminals as a means to continue to benefit from free slave labor. Whites do not get profiled as a criminal simply for being white. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Whites are exempt from the liabilities of being non white in America.

What I still don't like about your approach
(1) Emphasises the importance of race
(2) Contextualises systemic racism as a benefit for white Americans (privilege)
(3) Creates a simplified "non-white" experience which factors in nothing but race — Judaka

Let's tackle these first...

They are all true. They are all necessary.

Becoming increasingly aware of the effects/affects and injury that systemic racism has had and still has upon non whites(blacks in particular) requires talking about experiences that non whites share - as a result of being non white - that whites do not. The only way for an otherwise unknowing white individual to even become aware of that is for them to listen to non whites describe their own personal experiences. As soon as a white individual becomes aware of just some of all the different difficulties, injustices, and/or other injury based upon racial discrimination that non whites have to deal with on a daily basis, it's not hard at all to see that being white in America is better than not, in those specific regards. There is most certainly a benefit to being white in America.

White racism is the devaluation of an entire group of people because they are not white. The United States of America was founded and formed by mostly white racists. The result was/is systemic and/or institutional racism. White privilege is a result of that. To capture all of the relevant racial discriminatory practices that resulted in all of the different experiences of those who suffered from white racism, the "non white" term works best for it can be used to pick out each and every one.

In order to grasp all of this, an emphasis is placed upon race, as it must be because it's of pivotal importance to understand race-based issues. There is no valuation of someone because of race. I think that that's what you're arguing against. I would agree. I do not value or devalue someone because of the color of their skin. So, what's wrong with realizing the pivotal importance that race plays in identifying residual effects/affects of systemic racism? There is no other way.

No, I disagree with you. I think that your position is inherently controversial and inconsistent. First, you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism. The notion implies the institutional, systemic discrimination of a particular group of people. They are targeted and singled out as a specific community of colour.

Further, 'institutional' means the function of society's various institutions. They are culturally contextual; they are embedded in the social fabric and conventional everyday practises. It is the function of society as a whole. One may not be a racist consciously, but as a member of society, one unintentionally takes part in the discriminatory practices and benefits from their outcomes. Next, since one has not been discriminated, but has been benefited, as a member of the majority of the unjust and oppressing society, one necessarily bears responsibility for the beneficiary results of discriminatory practices... — Number2018

The last statement strikes me as too strong(maybe too broad a brushstroke)...

The last statement strikes me as too strong(maybe too broad a brushstroke)... — creativesoul

It is not my position. I tried to reconstruct the implied consequences of the concept of institutional
(systemic) racism. Here is the exact example:
"Systemic racism is forms of oppression and privilege that affects almost every aspect of our society...The white majority often preserve and perpetuate this racism unconsciously through Complicity and Complacency. Racism Complicity: To consciously or unconsciously support, contribute or benefit from racism or racist systems. Racism Complacency: To support racism and racist systems by not challenging it."
https://saultonline.com/2020/06/letter-systemic-racism/

What you are suggesting is far worse. If you think it is appropriate to make every white person "responsible" for every racist act that occurs in this country, you need to think some more. That is facially unjust. Also, extremely racist. — Pro Hominem

It is not my position. I tried to show the important flaw in your line of argument against “white privilege”. You embrace the notion of institutional (systemic) racism, but you do not recognize
how the newest conceptualization of this framework implies “white privilege” as one of its necessary consequences. It probably occurs because your understanding of institutional racism is different from the latest and more conventional one.

it reflects that the concept of race and attitudes or beliefs about specific racial groups are woven into the fabric of our culture and its institutions. Racial discrimination is any action that follows from these embedded ideas. Do not conflate the racist ideas in the system with the individual acts of discrimination. Not all members of a culture must adhere to every one of that culture's constituent beliefs. It is possible to be American and not be racist, — Pro Hominem

Compare your concept with this one:
"“Today most people in the US and Canada negatively affected by racism are affected by systemic (also called institutional or structural) racism. Systemic racism is forms of oppression and privilege that affects almost every aspect of our society, our laws, institutions, schools, justice system, media, culture, economy, housing and everyday interactions. This form of racism, although often more harmful in the long term than explicit racism, is less understood or even recognized by the white majority, who often preserve and perpetuate this racism unconsciously through Complicity and Complacency. Racism Complicity: To consciously or unconsciously support, contribute or benefit from racism or racist systems. Racism Complacency: To support racism and racist systems by not challenging it.”
https://saultonline.com/2020/06/letter-systemic-racism/
This definition of systemic (institutional) racism implies “white privilege”. It supposes the racial character of the society as a whole and collective responsibility of the majority. You cannot counter it by bringing countless counterexamples.

If you are riding in a bus, and the bus runs over a person crossing the street, do you bear responsibility for that event because you are a beneficiary of the bus ride? — Pro Hominem

According to the logic of collective responsibility, yes. Unless I did not resist the existing system of administering the transportation system or did not participate in campaigns of public awareness about unsafe conditions, etc.- I am complicit in the accident. We cannot find the presumption of innocence here; instead, there is the presumption of guilt. Once again, it is not my position, it is my reconstruction (and deconstruction) of the newest perspective on racism. In principle, since we do not control the proliferated production, circulation, and a widespread understanding and significance of “institutional (systemic) racism”, any thoughtless use of the concept increases a risk of being inconsistent and controversial. The new definition of racism makes the refutation of “white privilege” almost impossible.

It seems to me that that account is an oversimplification based upon a couple of false equivalencies. Supporting X is not equivalent to not challenging X.

Complicity requires knowledge of that which one is an accomplice to and the intent to be an accomplice. Typically it is some illegal action and/or wrongdoing. Typically speaking many white people - particularly those lacking close relationships with non whites - are not aware of the everyday struggles that non whites suffer simply for being non white. White privilege is a benefit that many(perhaps most poor) whites do not realize that they have. To say that they are complicit in systemic racism is problematic to say the very least. To say that they are responsible for something that was otherwise completely out of their control, is wrong-minded to say the least. There are much better approaches.

I agree with you. If we take the exact meaning of "complicity,"
you are right. But let's look at a more elaborate definition:
Systemic racism obtains when a system(s) function (regardless of explicit rules) to favour certain racial groups over others. It doesn't require overt individual racists (though it may protect and even reward them) nor does it necessarily require any conscious acts of racism at all (and obversely you could have conscious acts of racism in a system where no systemic racism exists, only rather than being performative of the system, they would be antithetical to it). Systems are culturally contextual, they're embedded in cultures and how they function depends on their relationship to the culture they're in. So, often it's what the system allows rather than what the system demands that's important. E.g. if you've got a justice or policing system embedded in a culture that's only recently emerged from the acceptance of explicitly institutionalised racism, you need extremely strong safeguards to avoid the continuance of implicit racism in whatever ostensibly non-racist institutions are substituted. Not having those safeguards in place means the explicit racism of before doesn't just disappear but finds footholds in the new institutions and festers there looking for opportunities to express itself.

Systemic racism occurs in all areas of social life, policing, housing, education etc. And again, it's not primarily about explicitly racist acts or explicitly racist policies or legislation but how things work in practice to disadvantage communities of color."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us/p5
According to this definition, many people do not publicly exhibit or privately express any recognizable features of racist behaviour or racist beliefs and consider themselves non-racist, tolerant, and multicultural. They do not perform any conscious acts of racism. Yet, some of them are regularly involved in professional activities that could be qualified as maintaining systemic racism according to the above definition (cops, journalists, politicians, etc.) Therefore, individuals may exercise acts of systemic racism unbeknownst to themselves, or even contrary to their intentions, if alignments of power or culture subtly orient their actions. Should these people bear a kind of responsibility?
Also, as the result of recent debates, they have a lot of opportunities to learn about implicit consequences of their practices.

Becoming increasingly aware of the effects/affects and injury that systemic racism has had and still has upon non whites(blacks in particular) requires talking about experiences that non whites share - as a result of being non white - that whites do not. — creativesoul

To talk incredibly simply, systemic racism discriminates against the "blackness" of a black American, we want to hear about how this happened from the victim because it helps us to better understand the issue. Is that victim a nameless black American? Are they representative of every black American? No, we listen to a person with a name, a story, a personality, someone was trying to live their life and had to deal with injustice because of a stupid reason like racism.

There is no non-white experience, each non-white person has their own experience and each individual has their own story. When someone has a story to tell pertinent to racism, whether it be as a witness, perpetrator or victim, it's always the story of an individual.

I'm not saying you don't see black Americans as individuals but if we're going to look at the terminology you're using, it clearly divides between white and black rather than victim, witness and perpetrator. The key issue for me is that when you divide on white and black, it legitimises making assumptions about people based on skin colour. It reinforces the idea that because I know that you're white or black, I know more about you as a person.

People should be rejecting the notion of dividing people based on race in these incredibly important issues, not reinforcing and legitimising it.

There is most certainly a benefit to being white in America. — creativesoul

Much of the average black American's woes are economics, they make up a disenfranchised economic class which is constantly exploited and rarely given a helping hand. It actually doesn't matter whether you're black or white, making your way up in capitalism is rare and doesn't happen to many people. Sadly, you are more or less forced to choose your narrative.

Is the average black American a victim of American capitalism or a victim of systemic racism? Of course, the answer is both but even if you removed the latter, would anything really change? Would the average black American start to gain the means to economic privilege and achieve the American dream? No, he would not. He would still struggle to move into a different economic class, just like all who occupy the bottom economic class.

It's about competing narratives, it's about what actually needs to be done to challenge the status quo. Rather than reinforcing the racial differences as a result of an unspecified problem, we should challenge the actual issues themselves. When you talk about "white privilege" and I accept it, now we only just begin to talk about what I want to talk about. You are really only talking about getting people onside and educated. What are they actually educated about though? What are they onside with? You've gained a totally useless, hapless ally who doesn't know the first thing about what needs to be done to change things.

Actually the "white privilege" narrative doesn't only not help people to know how to change things, it instructs them on how to make things worse. It reinforces the importance of race, legitimises prejudice, leaves people to figure out the causes, characterises an injustice as a privilege for whatever reason.

I'm really excited to see a thread here about "challenging the mass incarceration", I think, that's something I want to see done, I am a huge supporter. It's so much better than reading about "white privilege" which is a totally useless conversation about characterisations, framing, interpretations, narrative and just a lot of not-actually-doing-anything useless bullshit.

I get the impression that you get offended by the term. Perhaps it was a misreading, but I found your prose in this thread had a wounded narrative voice. Albeit a wound dressed with abstractions. Analysis written with the urgency of a deep felt wound, defending yourself from the (alleged) accusations inherent in the idea. I imagine that you feel scared because you believe if it's true that makes you racist and complicit in oppression and there's not much you can do to change it. — fdrake

Ha! Ok, we are even. I told you a joke, and you made me laugh, although I don't think you meant to.

Is there any way it would be enough for me to simply say you are completely incorrect? Could you then engage my perfectly rational arguments without having to resort to ad hominem projections? Or are you going to demand my bona fides and waste a lot of time before we get back to the actual point of the conversation, which is the general poverty of the term white privilege as a tool to help end racism?

Up to you.

It's never a good sign when an interlocutor insists upon telling me what I believe, despite my explicitly saying otherwise — creativesoul

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

I am not "insist[ing] on telling you what you believe", nor do I think you can make the case you have said otherwise. Here are your own words. I was merely paraphrasing them for brevity and simplicity.

You believe that a privilege accrues to all white people by virtue of their whiteness. — Pro Hominem

Which part of this is so incongruent with your position that you feel I've done you a grave injustice? This statement wasn't intended to be the least bit controversial. I believe(d) it was a simplified. but correct statement of the case you've been presenting all along. If I I've offended you, it was not my intent.

You have previously in this thread made the case that being offended by things is good and we should try to understand why we are offended. Perhaps this is an opportunity to follow your own advice?

fdrake is just doing exactly what makes the criticism of the framing correct, by showing that those who see the world through it, are in fact most prone to race-based discrimination. How can something producing such an effect possibly counter racism?