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
If white privilege is to be viewed as a fact, and one denies facts, can it be called anything but ignorance? — Judaka
Leftist identity politics... — Judaka
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
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
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
The name picks out something that existed in it's entirety prior to the name being first used. — creativesoul
Yet you claim that they're all fundamentally the same... which is false. — creativesoul
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
I don't think I said that white privilege can only be understood using the leftist identity politics... — Judaka
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
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
It is not an accurate description. Period. — Pro Hominem
It matters because we're comparing/contrasting all of the different uses of "white privilege", and that's a unique aspect of one. — creativesoul
First, you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism. — Number2018
The notion implies the institutional, systemic discrimination of a particular group of people. — Number2018
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
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
Agreed. It's a name. Names are not descriptions. — creativesoul
People super uncomfortable with the claim get more uncomfortable when the discomfort is pointed out, and super duper uncomfortable if it's psychologised. — fdrake
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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)... — creativesoul
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 recognizeWhat 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 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
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.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
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
There is most certainly a benefit to being white in America. — creativesoul
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
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
You believe that a privilege accrues to all white people by virtue of their whiteness. — Pro Hominem
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.