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.
— creativesoul

↪Pro Hominem

That's it.

:smile:
— creativesoul

Ok, I understand what you are saying. I believe that the effect you are describing is real. Please keep that in mind - I am not saying that the effects of what you are describing don't exist.

Here are my concerns:
1. I see this as inexact. Specifically overbroad. It assumes that the experiences of all white people are more or less the same, it assumes that the experiences of all non-white people are more or less the same, and it assumes that the experiences of whites and non-whites are mutually exclusive - one cannot have the experience of the other. I think that individual experiences of racial prejudice are usually much more specific than this - one is mistreated for being black, or latin, or asian, etc - as opposed to the generalization of non-white. But that is in the realm of individual racism. In terms of systemic oppression, I think it is far more complicated than this model, which glaringly excludes economic factors and ignores that on the broadest scale, race is simply a tool of the oppression, not its object. — Pro Hominem

"White privilege" can be effectively used to shed light upon each and every injury suffered by non white individuals because they are non white. White people avoid suffering such injury because they are not non white. That exemption from liability, that immunity... is white privilege. This holds good regardless of any further particular discrimination.

Names assume nothing. They are not the sort of thing capable of doing so.

Semantic quibbles such as charges of "inexact" and "specifically overbroad" simply will not do here. They are just plain wrong on their face. All black, latin, and asians are non white.

Beside that, the very attempt to further discriminate between non whites is - in and of itself - prioritizing further discriminating based upon race. That renders you guilty of doing precisely and exactly what you're arguing against below.

...This statement is in itself racist, and supports a racially derived view of the world. I mean racist here in the sense of prioritizing race above all other factors... — Pro Hominem

Aside from the special pleading, hypocrisy, self-contradiction, and/or double standard being employed here...

Statements are not the sort of things that are capable of devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin(race) alone.

...It's a hard sell... — Pro Hominem

Perhaps for people who do not draw and maintain the actual and meaningful distinction between being racist and talking about race. Seems that such individuals abound.

I noted the lack of presence of a black voice... — Banno

:brow:

That's odd. I'm made up of sooo many different ones.

"White privilege" when used in the best way, puts a white in the shoes of non whites...

Is that what's meant - or close at least - to perspective-taking?

I think you've misunderstood my responses to you... — Judaka

I see that there has been some misunderstanding. Patience and genuine desire to understand one another will go a long way. I appreciate all the effort of those so engaged, yourself included. Have you been reading Isaac's recent additions?

I appreciate you being here.

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. — creativesoul

That's it.

:smile:

...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). — Pro Hominem

The above is almost acceptable, as it is written. I would remove the implied uncertainty accompanying the use of "ish". I would continue by properly accounting for situations where a white individual suffers because they were/are believed to be non white. That results in a much stronger claim.

When you further critiqued the above, you went sorely astray...

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)... — Pro Hominem

The rest of that post, beginning with the falsehood quoted immediately above, is based upon a gross misunderstanding. One cannot properly critique that which is not understood. Trust me when I kindly say that you're misunderstanding. What follows below is clear undeniable prima facie evidence thereof.

Talking about all of the different negative effects/affects that non whites suffer because they are non white does not place focus upon some perceived misconduct of 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. — Pro Hominem

The above is a textbook example of how to employ and argue against a strawman. None of what you're arguing against above is what I've claimed. Nor does any of it follow from what I've claimed

I completely understand what you're saying. I swear. Let me see if I can reframe this so we can get somewhere.

I say that BLM is the way to go. It highlights the problem of detrimental treatment of people of color.

You say white privilege is the way to go. — Pro Hominem

That's neither, what I said, nor does it always/necessarily follow from what I said. Unfortunately, too much of what followed the seven sentences in the above quote was based upon a gross (mis)understanding put on display by the last in the group.

:meh:

When you return, if you'd still care to tease out some subtleties by responding to what I've actually written, and what follows from that(the above most certainly doesn't), may I suggest that you scroll back through this thread paying particularly close attention to the clear unambiguous definition that I offered earlier for "white privilege"? That would go a long way with me, because doing so could help us to complete a bridge(of sorts) of mutual understanding. The sheer amount of misunderstanding that has shown itself(from my vantage point anyway) is immense. Your initial objection was met with valid rebuttal, and everything went askew from there it seems.

Many(all but one, I think) of the 'objections' that followed and claimed to be about that definition were not even based upon it. That's a problem, and I'm not interested in pointing out each and every time that that occurred. All one needs to do, if they are so inclined, is to compare the actual definition I offered to each and every subsequent use of "white privilege" that you offered afterwards. The disconnect becomes quite clear.

You've made it abundantly clear that you do not believe that talking in terms of "white privilege" is helpful for accruing additional support(particularly from potentially malleable white people) for the cause of redressing systemic racism. As you've noted, that seems to be where our disagrement is. There have been some fair points in support of your view made by several different participants. Isaac has even offered an expert opinion on the potential and/or actual negative effects/affects that talking in terms of "white privilege" can result in, the like of which could possibly be a negative personal conclusion about poor white people based upon the idea that they had not taken advantage of the privilege that they've had since birth. I've actually witnessed that very same sort of conversation as it was happening.

Poor whites very often equate privilege with wealth. That is a source of offense at the use of "white privilege" as well. There's much to be unpacked. I ask only that you - at the very least - look into the box I've presented.

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. — Judaka

Right. So you're choosing to no longer agree to all we've agreed upon(changing your mind) because you now see where those agreements have led?

If you admit that some use of "white privilege" is necessary(which is precisely what happens when you grant my framework), you'd have to reconsider and appropriately amend your pre-existing belief that no use of "white privilege" is.

You've already agreed to that, haven't you?

Cheers.

I am a bit disappointed though, because we barely scratched the surface regarding the offense that some feel at the very mention of "white privilege". Unpacking that offense was key for me to realize that not all talk of "white privilege" warranted being offended. In other words, unpacking my own offense - by talking to those who use the term "white privilege" as I've set out here - was part and parcel to understanding my own misunderstanding...

I completely understand what you're saying. I swear. — Pro Hominem

I believe that you believe that you completely understand what I'm saying. I, however, do not share the belief that you do, because there are some things you've written that prove otherwise.

We are close, though, it seems in our aim.

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. — Judaka

I do not necessarily think that you are lying. I do think that given the facts that - you've claimed to agree with some of my premisses, and also claimed to disagree with all of my premisses - it is the case that you've either said something that you do not believe, or you've arrived at self-contradiction by holding conflicting beliefs about the utility of "white privilege"(which speaks to the premisses I've used here).

You've claimed both that you agree with my premisses(certain statements as written), and that you disagree with all of my premisses. Those two claims are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. The one is the negation of the other. If the former is true, the latter is not, and vice-versa.

We do still seem to agree on much. Some of that agreement could be rendered in simple basic statements. We would both agree that they were true. Then, they could be used as premisses that we would also both agree on. But I digress...

If you earlier believed that talking about white privilege was not necessary or helpful for ending systemic racism, but have since come to believe otherwise, then continuing to maintain the broad-based opposition to "white privilege" makes no sense. Better to incorporate this new understanding regarding the previously unknown(and much better) way to talk about white privilege(use "white privilege"). That move to incorporate requires no longer believing that no use of "white privilege" is helpful andor useful for helping to end systemic racism.


Some more agreement that seemed to prove helpful could(and should) definitely be further unpacked later. It barely touches upon the offense aspects. Those effects/affects from some uses(talk) of "white privilege" are important to properly understand.

I readily agree that some people talk in terms of white privilege that includes attacking whites. I readily agree that some people use "white privilege" in ways that are counterproductive. I do not readily agree with the implicit presupposition that that's the only way to use "white privilege". Such applications of "white privilege" are to be denounced, but we ought not simply denounce all uses of "white privilege" simply because some uses fail miserably. It does not follow from the fact that some people use "white privilege" in unproductive and/or counterproductive ways that all notions and/or uses of "white privilege" are equally unproductive and/or counterproductive. They are most certainly not.

The only way for a white individual American to become aware of the extent of that which they are exempt from experiencing and/or suffering as a result of being white is to seek counsel from those who are not. If non whites use the notion of "white privilege" as a means to denigrate and/or devalue an individual simply because they are white, then they are doing an injustice to their own cause, if that cause is to end racism. Such talk further perpetuates racist beliefs. It is actually a practice thereof. The practice of devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin(race) alone is racism. "White privilege" can be used to do exactly that.

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. — Judaka

Good.

So, even here it seems to me that you, as an intellectual, are faced with a choice to make. There's a need for a refinement of your own belief system about white privilege. There are some good uses for "white privilege", as you've pointed out directly above. You are clearly aware of this since we've talked, but were not prior to. So, you were a bit mistaken earlier when you thought otherwise. Best to update your worldview, which is virtuous and honorable in and of itself, or you've arrived at facing self-contradiction(you're faced with conflicting beliefs about the utility of "white privilege").

Some uses of "white privilege" are not guilty of the things that you and I both agree are counterproductive.

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. — Judaka

So, then it seems that even here, you've begun to realize that some use of "white privilege" does indeed have some utility(good use).

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? — creativesoul

It is an exact statement of the actual meaning of the concept of white privilege. That is what is has to do with it.

You've literally just agreed that it is more effectual for people to be focused on uplifting people who are being oppressed than to be focused on shaming bystanders who are not actively participating in the oppression. You should agree with this because it's obviously true. Making people aware of oppression is not helped by trying to make the case that those people are wrong because they live in a world where oppression exists but they don't happen to be the object of it. — Pro Hominem

Step back a moment and pause to reflect on this...

I use "white privilege" as it was taught to me by non whites. I draw correlations between "white privilege" and the actual negative effects/affects(personal injury) that systemic racism has had and continues to have upon non white individuals. We language users who employ "white privilege" in such a way are not saying that white people should feel guilty. We are most certainly not demonizing white people when discussing white privilege.

Discussions about white privilege can be focused upon uplifting people who are being oppressed. Discussion about white privilege do not require shaming bystanders who are not actually voluntarily participating in the oppression. Discussions of white privilege do not require trying to make the case that whites are somehow 'wrong' by virtue of benefitting from systemic racism.

What's 'wrong', if you insist upon talking like this, is not acknowledging that whites born in America are exempt from the liabilities of being non white in America.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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 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...

Are you an American citizen?

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).

Nine months ago I was thinking about the liar and wrote the following...

"This sentence is false" is incapable of being false. It is also incapable of being true. What makes it so puzzling is the mistaken presupposition that it is even capable of being either.

Seems I agreed with some of those who are more qualified on that basic point.

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.

It can be the case that "white privilege" is used unfairly against any and all successful white people. It is sometimes used as a slight, implying that the only reason the individual is successful is because of white privilege(because they started off with the advantage of being white in a system designed to benefit whites). Some non whites not only say such things, but they strongly believe them as well. In this way, "white privilege" is often used as a weapon to personally attack white individuals, and/or deny any actual effort that that particular individual may have had to put forth in order to attain the success that they enjoy. That approach denies that that individual deserves their success. In America, given the popular idea that if one works hard, they can be successful, such an approach causes great personal offense to one who has worked hard for their success.

Not suffering from racist policies and practices does not guarantee a white individual's success, even if it does make things a bit easier. Convincing a white individual who has worked very hard to be successful to stand alongside non whites and fight racist practices is much more difficult to do if they are actually being attacked because they are white.

Some white people do have to work hard to become successful, particularly those born into much less fortunate socio-economic circumstances. While such people do not have to deal with racism and it's practices like non whites do, we cannot deny them their own personal dignity and expect for them to remain willing and able to stand up for and fight alongside non whites. 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.

Such frameworks using white privilege do not promote the kind of cohesion that's necessary for ending racism. It does little to create solidarity between people of different races to stand up and fight for one another. In fact, it can have quite the opposite affect/effect. It can lessen the desire to stand up for and fight alongside those who suffer from racism, because it ends up feeling like those people are fighting against the white individual because they are white.

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.

The history of systemic and institutional racism was not in all American history books. So many white Americans are clueless regarding it, even if they know that racism is still prevalent, and they openly admonish it. However, many of the common misconceptions born of racism still pervade American society, and such people are constantly being bombarded by different soundbites, misleading statements and statistics all of which further perpetuate false belief about non whites(blacks in particular). Those different misleading notions are used to deny that racism still effects/affects our society.

These aforementioned people have been and remain key to turning the tide in favor of ending racism. Appealing to these people's sensibility is key as well. It takes mutual respect. So many already know racism is wrong. 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.

Putting white privilege to good use as a means to help end systemic racism 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.

If you cannot see the need to do whatever can be done to remove president Trump from office, then there's not much more I can say to convince you to vote Biden/Harris.

In China, folk wear face masks to protect others.

In 'merica, folk wear face masks to protect themselves. — Banno

Telling isn't it?

At least act like to understand Bernie... seeing how you claim to be a supporter. Clearly you do not grasp what he has stood for all these years.

You wanna know what to do. Ask Bernie.

I didn’t claim to care. — 0 thru 9

So why ought any of us care what you think?

I'm sorry, but this thread - particularly the terminological use presented in the OP - hinges upon incoherent use of some key terms. That renders this discussion incoherent at best.

You're working from an utterly inadequate notion of truth.

Fact. Truth. Belief. Meaning. Interpretation.

Five different terms. Five different referents. Your use of them resulted in a word salad.

So taking white privilege as an example, you could the 'facts' of racism have been presented by the left in such a way as to sow harmful division. But the left haven't presented them in that way deliberately to sow harmful division have they? So if you're right, then this would give you, and they, some mutual ground for evaluating arrangements.
— Isaac

I think the same way, I've been trying to have this kind of conversation but to no avail. — Judaka

We'll see... I've replied to you in the privilege thread.

A white person recognising their privilege is about acknowledging how other races have it worse and so on. What's wrong with this conceptualisation? Let me start off by saying that this is an issue of framing and interpretation.

Systemic racism exists, statistics show wealth has been deeply affected by historical racism, statistics show you have better chances to be privileged as a white person than black or Hispanic. I am not arguing against these statistics. However, privilege is a warped framing with no nuance or depth, it characterises history through the oppression of groups over other groups. It is not simply saying "racism, hatred of homosexuality and sexism are wrong".

It is absolutely asking you to see individuals by the groups they belong to and in this case that is by their race, sexual orientation and gender. Which to my mind is completely fucked up, the parallels with racism and sexism are easy to make. It condemns the privileges of the advantaged groups as proceeds of a racist and sexist society. For white people would not have more if this were not true, women would be paid as much as men if this were not true... — Judaka

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.

This is good. There is something very real going on here. We need to poke and prod these disturbances. We need to unpack all of the offenses. We need to parse all these subtleties out. We need to listen to one another.

So, what exactly are we picking out of this world to the exclusion of all else when we say "white privilege"? What exactly are we referring to such that everyone involved can know - as precisely as possible - what we're all talking about?

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.

In this very real sense, the American system is not broken. To quite the contrary, it is still working to this day exactly as it was initially designed to work long ago. White privilege is but one part of the proof. White privilege affords whites the ability to avoid what blacks have to live through and think about day after day. Acknowledging the unjust suffering of blacks because of their race alone, acknowledging the lack of equal opportunity, acknowledging the everyday obstacles that blacks remain faced with to this very day because they are black, acknowledging the sheer lack of adequate representation in the American system is to acknowledge the plight of black Americans. Standing up and fighting for them and with them is to honor our black brothers and sisters.

Honoring them goes a long way towards building a movement to end racism. Ending the prevalence of racism and xenophobia(closely related) cannot and will not happen peacefully without the help of white people. Becoming aware of white privilege is one step towards acquiring knowledge of the current residual effects/affects of historical racism that remain extant in the American system to this very day.

The benefits to recognising you have been benefited by historical racism are very hard to see. What step they are in the plan to end racism is not something that can be seen, it isn't there. All I see is the encouragement of taking note of someone's race/gender/sexual orientation and making assumptions about them, their experience and their "history". It is more about hating the rich than helping the poor.

Unnuanced, vindictive and entirely unhelpful to the struggle to end racism or sexism. Yet those who argue hide behind their intent to end racism and sexism, that's their defence of it.

What good is coming from the use of "white privilege" when it comes to ending systemic institutional racism? — Judaka

The questions posed above are actually very relevant questions to be asking. However, it's not very helpful to begin introducing "rich versus poor" with a nuanced assessment and/or analysis of white privilege. Not all blacks are poor and not all whites are rich. While there is tremendous overlap between these considerations, until white privilege is better understood, it only adds unnecessary confusion to introduce "rich versus poor".

White privilege can result in one's being rich, but even the poorest of whites do not have to suffer the results of racist policies and practices. That is the white privilege in it's most basic 'form'. That is how it is instantiated.

...perhaps someone here can actually give a compelling argument for why it is important for people to understand their privilege and why thinking about things in this way is important or useful? — Judaka

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.

I'm asking you how you can agree that systemic racism exists, but reject that white privilege does. I'm doing so by incorporating, as best I can, the framework you've been employing.

There is a real life example of you and I agreeing on an arrangement of true statements about American history, particularly those regarding systemic racism, but disagreeing upon how to best further arrange those true statements as a means to resolve the problem of systemic racism.

I'm saying that one arrangement results in looking at the consequences of systemic racism, with a particular focus upon what white people do not have to deal with on a daily basis, but non whites do.

That is exactly the sort of hypothetical scenario you've been talking about, except it's not so abstract anymore. Rather, it's an actual real life everyday example.

What's wrong with taking the conversation out of the complete abstract and adding some actual substance? You've already agreed that it's a real life scenario that fits the abstract ideas being put forth in the OP.

Should we ask if it is true? Should we ask if it is reasonable? — Judaka

It makes no sense to ask these sorts of questions about white privilege. "White privilege" is all of the different benefits and/or privileges that whites have in the United States simply because they are white.

We both know that systemic racism exists.

Ask enough non whites about their own personal experiences regarding systemic racism. Ask them how racism has affected/effected them personally. Listen to all the stories, and then ask yourself if you have ever been treated in those ways simply for being white? If the answer is "no", then you've just learned a bit about your own white privilege.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

If white privilege is an arrangement of truth... — Judaka

That's where you go off the rails...

We agree that systemic racism exists. White privilege is an inevitable consequence of systemic racism(implemented by racist whites against non-whites).

Yes, much of my discussions about privilege get stuck at people failing to understand the concepts talked about in my OP — Judaka

I can see how that could be problematic. There are some very important 'concepts' being discussed. However, I'm stuck on the fact that you do not seem aware of the actual relationship(s) between systemic racism and white privilege.

And can you give examples of what your critique in the OP applies to? When do you believe it is especially relevant to bring up? When someone writes or speaks, what reminds you of it? — fdrake

I've been sitting back reading this thread with the hopes of better understanding what Judaka was getting at in the OP. You've found a way to tease it out quite a bit. Impressive actually... for me anyway.

So, if I have Judaka right, he's talking about situations where everyone agrees that a group of statements are all true, but he's also saying that the way those statements are used, and what they're used for(the arrangement?), can vary remarkably.

Is that about right?

Does the following count as one of those arrangements we agree on?

I think that one can reasonably prove that the US government has purposefully constructed the relevant laws in ways that they knew would disproportionately affect the races. You need to look at how the US governments handle politics, the major goal is getting the party re-elected and everything done takes this into account. The policies appeal to the racial undertones that have been present in the US and still are. Nonetheless, the result can't be argued to be racially neutral.

There's a lot of room for interpretation here but there's a level of inexcusable simplicity in thinking that because the government doesn't use language that targets race, they can't be racist. That laws that don't mention race can't be part of systemic racism. I encourage you to further your education on this vast topic, if you're going to be as involved as you have been in this discussion. — Judaka

So, I take it that you and I agree that systemic racism remains inherent, to some extent or another, within America.

However, when it comes to the notion of white privilege, it seems that we're nearly at complete odds.

So, to me... if I've got it right... that is a prima facie example of what the OP is getting at. Would you agree?

No argument here...

I did say "usurped" the idea. He mouthes the words.

The Democrats appear to have adopted much of Sander's rhetoric; I doubt it will translate into actual policy. But ever hopeful. — Banno

If history is any indication, with these two, the necessary changes will likely not be made any time soon. However, Those two are much closer to making those changes than Trump actually is. Trump has usurped the 'America first' idea, but unfortunately it is accompanied by xenophobia, which means white America first, and fuck everyone else(historical allies besides the UK) at the same time. That pains me, because I fear that the idea itself will continue to be correlated to Trump and xenophobia.

By changing the meaning of the terms...

I hold that there really isn't a clear distinction between invention and discovery of ideas... — Pfhorrest

This presupposes that all ideas already exist in their entirety prior to being discovered.