No that it is not the tree I'm barking up at all. If, say, a bank lends money to qualified Black applicants at a lower rate than it lends to qualified white applicants, that bank is in effect racist. It gets to be that way because some loan officers made some racist decisions. If you worked at the bank for thirty years and only made one such decision, you contributed some tiny amount to the bank being racist, not just because you worked there, but because of something you did. Maybe once or twice you wondered why someone was being turned down by another loan officer, but didn't raise the issue. More, but still smallish, responsibility, and so on.

Maybe I could be convinced by some argument about enabling __, or supporting __, or contributing to __, or participating in __, or whatever, but I'm certainly not making any such claim now. I'm just talking about what people actually do that's actually in itself not okay. And making one indefensible decision also doesn't make you responsible for the decisions of the virulent racist in the next office, or for the whole bank, just your part.

We could keep messing with this, but I'm not sure it's much help. What suspicions did you have? Did you act on them in any way? Was there an incident which, if you reflected on it, might have led you to check that guy next-door's numbers to see if there's a pattern? I don't need all this for the tiny point I'm making. — Srap Tasmaner

I still see you conflating systemic and interpersonal racism. I think this is the thing causing the biggest problem in this whole thread. I might even go so far as to accept that "white privilege" is a real thing in interpersonal situations. If the cop gives you a pass because he's racist but you happen to be white, then I suppose you garnered a benefit there whether you meant to or not. If the individual loan officer sees you in the lobby and denies the black person ahead of you because he only needs to sign you to reach his quota, then you received a benefit whether you meant to or not. I mean, I suppose "white privilege" is as good a description of that as any. But so what? What's the utility of having a term for that? If you don't even know it's happening, there's little you can do about those instances of racist activity. If you do know, what do you expect people to do? Demand the officer ticket or arrest them? Tell the bank they refuse the loan? There's no way you'd convince anyone to do that, and it still wouldn't even help anything if they did.

If the scope of what you are saying is that people sometimes racially discriminate against each other, and that's undesirable, and it happens way more often to non-whites than whites, and we could call that disparity "white privilege", then fine. Sold. I don't see how it makes a difference, but I accept it all.

But what happened to George Floyd (and so many others) was so very much more than a "discriminatory act." It was the result of explicit and implicit racist thought and policy at multiple levels, from the individual officer on up. Those policies are quietly defended and extended by racists in positions of wealth and/or power because they are very intentionally trying to derive some benefit from it, or because they are simply morally bankrupt cretins. These people are a minority, but they align themselves with others who are blind (intentionally or not) to their activities. To defeat this system of racism, it must be isolated and dragged out into plain view. Those perpetrating it need to be clearly identified and made example of. To make this happen, the majority of people that have no interest in racism (whether or not they actively oppose it) have to find common cause and change the systems at fault. Even after this is done, it will take some time and that coalition must be maintained.

Calling a huge chunk of these people out by painting them with "white privilege" is not going to help this at all. Especially when you try to sell it as part of the systemwide problem, not just something that could pop up in a given situation. Now you've taken these people who are not exactly allies to begin with, and you've made them defensive. Are they going to agree to go along with you now? Are they going to support your efforts to remove certain people from power? Hopefully they will, but a lot of them would be doing it despite being told they have "white privilege", not because of it.

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is.

This is where someone usually trots out how I'm all personally upset about the term. Besides being false, this is just an attempt to avoid the issue. "Al Gore is a knob, therefore global warming isn't happening." No one here has successfully defended "white privilege" in a systemic context, they keep being forced to return to interpersonal acts of racism. Most of the "white privilege" apologists readily admit that it irritates and sometimes infuriates people they speak to about it, and yet no one can seem to respond to my point about there being no demonstrable benefit, but more likely a cost, to this use of the term. No one has explained why it is beneficial at a time when "Black Lives Matter" is gaining traction to point out, "yeah, but white privilege..." In short, no one has offered a meaningful rebuttal to any of the points I've made on the issue.

I am readily aware of both systemic and interpersonal racism. I have witnessed both up close in person. I am acutely aware that there are differences in the way people are treated based solely (in many cases) on the color of their skin. I doubt that concepts that imply that "all black people are x," or "all white people are y," are likely to help end this state of affairs. I doubt that "all white people" benefit from racism. I doubt that anyone "benefits" from racism except for a limited few in a purely economic way. I don't think most racism is about benefits at all. It is hurt for the sake of hurt. I doubt that finding one more way to focus that hurt is helpful at all.

I think I'm done with this topic. I already was once, but then a couple new people popped in and I wanted to hear them out. Thanks to most of you for the discussion. Cheers.

Yes,i t's partly a Buffy reference. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Cool.

I agree that many of the effects of racism are socio-economic, and those will remain ever if the underlying racism diminishes. We are seeing that currently. I observe that systemic racism has reduced significantly in this country over the last few decades, with the criminal justice system as the pernicious exception. Mostly racism is interpersonal now, although Trump clearly would be open to allowing it to creep back into our institutions (sorry for the bias if you're not American). The larger problem is wealth disparity and the stranglehold the very wealthy have on power. The only answer is education. For any of it.

I guess that insight is ultimately an intersectional one, no? You've got enough white signifiers to count as white in most contexts, you'll live absent systemic discrimination in some ways; you're not gonna get racial profiled like a black man will in the US. But you're gonna be lumped in with a global conspiracy that motivates white supremacist terrorists. Being racialised as white doesn't exempt you from being racialised as Jewish and vice versa. — fdrake

Maybe it's an intersectional one? I'm not sure.

Yes, I'll be lumped in with a global conspiracy that motivates some on the far right. According to some on the right/far right Jews aren't even white. They're imposter white people and they fall on the bottom of the racial hierarchy. They attack us by undermining our whiteness and seek to alienate us from other white people.

On the left/far left the Jews get victimized often due to our apparent whiteness and its association with oppression/colonization. In Israel we're often described in left-wing circles as white colonizers brutally suppressing an indigenous population despite the fact that Jews consider themselves the indigenous population and many Jews are not white. Even apart from Israel anti-Semitism is often just seen as "punching up" and "stickin' it to the man" or "speaking truth about power" and this can come from both sides of the political spectrum. See the recent examples with Nick Cannon and DeSean Jackson.

No. I mean what "systemic" means. Embodied in a system. Systemic racism is a formal, structural phenomenon whereby institutions deny services or discriminate against people based on race. Systemic racism has been reduced in the aggregate over the last few decades, but it still remains, particularly in the criminal justice system. — Pro Hominem

Every system has emergent properties which therefore do not require them to be formal.

Maybe it's an intersectional one? I'm not sure. — BitconnectCarlos

Intersectionality refers to the fact that one and the same person can belong to several distinct groups, each of whose members are victimized by widespread discrimination. This overlapping membership can generate experiences of discrimination that are very different from those of persons who belong to just one, or the other, of the groups — from SEP's article on discrimination

Originally introduced to highlight that "being black" and "being a woman" interact together to produce different issues for black women than black people regardless of gender and women regardless of race.

So you'll have white privilege in some regards, be discriminated against for being a Jew in some regards.

On the left/far left the Jews get victimized often due to our apparent whiteness and its association with oppression/colonization. In Israel we're often described in left-wing circles as white colonizers brutally suppressing an indigenous population despite the fact that Jews consider themselves the indigenous population and many Jews are not white. — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

Wherever you'll find criticism of Israel by many people, you'll find anti-semitic bollocks spouted by some.

Many people make the mistake of analysing these issues in terms of intention towards a skin colour, deliberately granting or harming people is some way because they have one skin colour or another. This is only one aspect of racism. Much of it is just a relation of how a body exists or is treated. A black body does not need someone to deliberately act upon it because it is black, the general systems of society can act to produce an unjust relation without any mention of skin colour-- e.g. a capitalism in which the black bodies are overwhelming in poverty compared to others, a justice system in which black bodies are overwhelming incarcerated, etc.

Just because these systems might act with reasons of employment/profit or in response to crimes, rather than because someone has a skin colour, it doesn't change the impact upon the bodies. Certain bodies, the black ones, are still overwhelming poor, incarcerated, etc. For us to forget concepts of race entirely doesn't alter these circumstances. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:up:

In the UK, people talk about race less, but there's still all kinds of racial discrimination. EG, during corona, people currently on limited leave to remain don't have access to any benefits whatsoever. That's about 1.4 mil people suddenly made destitute. Add that to illegal deportations. and the usual racial distribution of poverty, disproportionate rates of state sanctioned violence, and the historical sacking of black neighbourhoods by white supremacists (white working class brits elevating themselves symbolically by "punching down" - hashtag union politics) and it's same shit different smell.

Instead of talking about race, the UK talks about immigration. Racism is always close to the surface in that kind of discussion, and it shows when it boils over into hate crimes.

The critical tradition in the US regarding systemic racism is something very much to be admired, it's a massive achievement of activism and scholarship that it's so publicised and well understood. Not quite the same for the UK, in which approx 30% of the people believe the UK's former colonies were better off when they were colonised. Combine that with racism in the UK being to a large part colonialism brought home... And yeah. UK's got a long way to go on the consciousness of systemic racism front.

Edit: in case the context isn't clear, awareness of how racism works requires an understanding of race and its categories. It just isn't plausible that stopping being aware of race is going to address systemic racism, precisely it requires a critical awareness of race.

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is. — Pro Hominem

There are those whose aim it is to obfuscate, deny, distort, and refuse to hear the message... so it cannot be sold.

I suspect you are one.

in case the context isn't clear, awareness of how racism works requires an understanding of race and its categories. It just isn't plausible that stopping being aware of race is going to address systemic racism, precisely it requires a critical awareness of race. — fdrake

Awareness of race isn't going to address systemic racism either it seems to me, at least not on it's own. It's interesting you bring up the UK and compliment the US on it's awareness of the problem, because it isn't entirely clear to me that black people are better off in the US compared to the UK.

It's a bit of catch-22, right? The categories that are created are the origin of the problem, and then you have to take them into account because they have created a reality that you want to change. But in doing so you risk reinforcing made-up categories that tend to cause inequities by virtue of them existing. Then again they already exist, so it probably doesn't make all that much of a difference.

Still the root of the problem is the existence of the categories it seems. Apparently game-theoretic models predict these kind of inequities 'naturally' arising between separate identified social groups. I don't know how solid and applicable these models really are, I'm no expert, but it does intuitively makes perfect sense to me that this would be the case, especially if one group is a minority. And so if you can't do away with them, it's always going to be a bit of an uphill battle.

But maybe - if I'm allowed to make abstraction from the real world problem for a second - that is the more philosophical take-away from all of this.... that inequalities will arise between identified social groups no matter if there is overt or active racial discrimination or not (and there certainly is that too). And so we need something to correct for that... I'm not entirely sure what kinda of solution would do the trick though.

Awareness of race isn't going to address systemic racism either it seems to me, at least not on it's own. — ChatteringMonkey

Aye. That's why I said it was a requirement, rather than a solution.

Still the root of the problem is the existence of the categories it seems. — ChatteringMonkey

Red kool-aid would still stain clothes even if we did not call it "red". The root of the problem is not language. That misgiving has been addressed more than enough in this thread.

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is.
— Pro Hominem

There are those whose aim it is to obfuscate, deny, distort, and refuse to hear the message... so it cannot be sold.

I suspect you are one. — creativesoul

Because no one who doesn't agree with you can legitimately oppose racism? Because you have some special understanding of the issue that only you can possess due to the moral superiority of your particular experience? Because black people taught you about white privilege, therefore it must be real? You still have never been able to respond to anything I've said beyond to attack me personally in some way. It speaks to the weakness of your beliefs.

It's funny. Way back at the beginning of this thread, before I even posted, I tended to agree with your position. The longer you have defended it however, the less your goal seems to be equity. You seem to have been radicalized and to have some need that there is some sort of retribution and culpability leveled at all white people. I am starting to believe that you are a racist.

Deny it all you want. Your words speak otherwise.

20 pages in and this poor boffin still thinks white privilege is a matter of 'culpability' or some such. How embarrassing.

If you can't sell your message, it doesn't matter what your message is.
— Pro Hominem

There are those whose aim it is to obfuscate, deny, distort, and refuse to hear the message... so it cannot be sold.

I suspect you are one.
— creativesoul

Because no one who doesn't agree with you can legitimately oppose racism? Because you have some special understanding of the issue that only you can possess due to the moral superiority of your particular experience? Because black people taught you about white privilege, therefore it must be real? — Pro Hominem

No. It is for none of those proposed reasons that I suspect you are aiming to muddy the waters and deliberately confuse the issues. Rather, it's because I've assumed that you are capable of understanding what's been written.

I could be wrong about that.

You still have never been able to respond to anything I've said... — Pro Hominem

That's not true at all. What valid response and/or criticism have you levied that I've not given due attention to?

You still have never been able to respond to anything I've said beyond to attack me personally in some way. — Pro Hominem

Where have I attacked you personally? The reverse is easily shown, so...

Offer one criticism of white privilege that follows from what I've been setting out here. We can go from there. You'll have my undivided attention.

Got one?