Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Malthus]

I replaced and bolded the part of my quote that is most relevant to what you just said.  If white folks think they have a lived experience that causes them to think they have it tough, they should probably reflect on how much more difficult it would have been for them in the same circumstances, with dark skin.

Why would you want to make white folks who dont understand the principle of white privilege feel better?

Because it makes it sound like you are going to take something away from them. They have privileges that should be removed. When that is not the point at all. The term used is misleading. I don't think anybody is saying "wow that white guy in prison for a non-violent charge should have it rougher! That privileged motherfucker!!11" when actually addressing White Privilege would probably help those people, not hurt them.

And when you want to create change to make a more just society what branding you adopt is important. And when your branding fails you shouldn't turn to the public and berate them for being too stupid to understand your branding

But this is just more about the term itself, not this meme which is mostly about having to pay taxes...which last I checked don't change depending on what color your skin is.

Same answer I gave to BB, a white person misunderstanding what white privilege means is all the more reason to continue to use the phrase.  Maybe one day they will understand what it means.

I also reject your notion that this is a mere branding exercise that needs to be accepted by whites who are really part of the problem.

The concern is that misbranding ideas has the potential to convince the people you want to convince of the exact opposite of what you want. Which is usually considered a bad idea.

What's the benefit of that?

[crazy canuck]

I replaced and bolded the part of my quote that is most relevant to what you just said.  If white folks think they have a lived experience that causes them to think they have it tough, they should probably reflect on how much more difficult it would have been for them in the same circumstances, with dark skin.

Why would you want to make white folks who dont understand the principle of white privilege feel better?

Because it makes it sound like you are going to take something away from them. They have privileges that should be removed. When that is not the point at all. The term used is misleading. I don't think anybody is saying "wow that white guy in prison for a non-violent charge should have it rougher! That privileged motherfucker!!11" when actually addressing White Privilege would probably help those people, not hurt them.

And when you want to create change to make a more just society what branding you adopt is important. And when your branding fails you shouldn't turn to the public and berate them for being too stupid to understand your branding

But this is just more about the term itself, not this meme which is mostly about having to pay taxes...which last I checked don't change depending on what color your skin is.

Same answer I gave to BB, a white person misunderstanding what white privilege means is all the more reason to continue to use the phrase.  Maybe one day they will understand what it means.

I also reject your notion that this is a mere branding exercise that needs to be accepted by whites who are really part of the problem.

It's a public debate where we are trying to convince people to change their mindsets about public policy.

Feeling superior is super awesome for you, but is actually counter productive in nearly every way.

dumbing down the concept so it is palatable should not be a goal. 

[crazy canuck]

I replaced and bolded the part of my quote that is most relevant to what you just said.  If white folks think they have a lived experience that causes them to think they have it tough, they should probably reflect on how much more difficult it would have been for them in the same circumstances, with dark skin.

Why would you want to make white folks who dont understand the principle of white privilege feel better?

Because it makes it sound like you are going to take something away from them. They have privileges that should be removed. When that is not the point at all. The term used is misleading. I don't think anybody is saying "wow that white guy in prison for a non-violent charge should have it rougher! That privileged motherfucker!!11" when actually addressing White Privilege would probably help those people, not hurt them.

And when you want to create change to make a more just society what branding you adopt is important. And when your branding fails you shouldn't turn to the public and berate them for being too stupid to understand your branding

But this is just more about the term itself, not this meme which is mostly about having to pay taxes...which last I checked don't change depending on what color your skin is.

Same answer I gave to BB, a white person misunderstanding what white privilege means is all the more reason to continue to use the phrase.  Maybe one day they will understand what it means.

I also reject your notion that this is a mere branding exercise that needs to be accepted by whites who are really part of the problem.

The concern is that misbranding ideas has the potential to convince the people you want to convince of the exact opposite of what you want. Which is usually considered a bad idea.

What's the benefit of that?

Exactly and calling it something other than what it is would be misbranding the idea for the sake of appealing to the very people who are the problem.

After all what is so hard about understanding the concept that being white brings with it inherent privileges.  What do we really accomplish if we dumb it down and make it more acceptable to those who need to learn the concept.   We probably end up where we are now, with white folks thinking they do not enjoy white privilege. 

[Josquius]

Except its not a special privilege for white people. In a majority white land the treatment of white people is the norm.
Rather the problem is that people who are not white get worse treatment.

[garbon]

Except its not a special privilege for white people. In a majority white land the treatment of white people is the norm.
Rather the problem is that people who are not white get worse treatment.

So that's the same thing.

It is a privilege the white majority is afforded and a disadvantage that the non-white minority have.

Here's a diagram:


I'll admit I'm at a loss at what is being agigtated for here as I don't think things would change all that much if focus was put on the fact that black people have disadvantages rather than white people have priviliges. In fact, I think a lot is said about black people having disadvantages (so not focused directly on white people getting advantages) and these poor whites you are talking about - seems like they are still concerned about lazy, welfare queens and unfair affirmative action policies.

[Josquius]

So that's the same thing.

It is a privilege the white majority is afforded and a disadvantage that the non-white minority have.

Not quite.
Free cake for everyone except people called Dave vs. free cake for people called Dave.

The implication from putting the focus on white privilege that the right are keen to grasp at is the latter. That white people are being singled out for getting special treatment.
In actual fact the problem is the former, non-white people are the ones being singled out for the sub-normal treatment.

[Tamas]

While I am not sure anything would substantially change if a better term was to be found, the term is for sure not good.


The term and the discussion here highlights one important advantage the right had over the left in recent decades: they understand they need to convince people to win. Since their views rely much more on base instincts than learned behaviour, they have an inherently easier time doing so anyways, but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to be in power to enact the policies you want, you need to have the majority convinced of your views, at least in a democracy.

"White privilege" is a great term to discuss the concept with people who accept it exists (not to mention how great to show you understand it), but really not good at convincing others. And convincing others matters.

[garbon]

So that's the same thing.

It is a privilege the white majority is afforded and a disadvantage that the non-white minority have.

Not quite.
Free cake for everyone except people called Dave vs. free cake for people called Dave.

The implication from putting the focus on white privilege that the right are keen to grasp at is the latter. That white people are being singled out for getting special treatment.
In actual fact the problem is the former, non-white people are the ones being singled out for the sub-normal treatment.

But their whiteness does afford them access to certain privileges not afforded to others. It might be hard for a majority group to want to critically examine itself for the benefits its group is afforded, but it is an exercise worth doing.

[garbon]

While I am not sure anything would substantially change if a better term was to be found, the term is for sure not good.


The term and the discussion here highlights one important advantage the right had over the left in recent decades: they understand they need to convince people to win. Since their views rely much more on base instincts than learned behaviour, they have an inherently easier time doing so anyways, but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to be in power to enact the policies you want, you need to have the majority convinced of your views, at least in a democracy.

"White privilege" is a great term to discuss the concept with people who accept it exists (not to mention how great to show you understand it), but really not good at convincing others. And convincing others matters.

But that would suggest that one should just dumb down to rhetoric to a part where it is not true or only scarcely true. The reality is that these are challenging and tricky subjects that our societies have been wrestling with for a long time. It is unreasonable for someone to hear 'white privilege' or 'white people are afford certain advantages' and take that to mean that all white people are better off than non-white people. Much as it is unreasonable to hear 'black lives matter' and assume that means that the speaker thinks white lives do not.

How would you go about convincing others about this topic?

[Josquius]

But their whiteness does afford them access to certain privileges not afforded to others. It might be hard for a majority group to want to critically examine itself for the benefits its group is afforded, but it is an exercise worth doing.

You may be missing the point.
Nobody here doubts that white privilege is real. The discussion is over whether thats the right term to use for the concept.

Out in the world the term is clearly causing a lot of knee jerk reactions and bringing moderates over to the reactionary's side.
The core of race problems in the UK and US is not white people getting special privileges, rather its people who aren't white getting especially awful treatment. Putting the focus on white people supposedly getting privileges will naturally lead many to knee-jerk react that they have things awful enough as it is and now you want to make it worse for them.
The goal afterall is to treat everyone as white people today get treat (or treating everyone better than that given all the other issues in the world), not to start treating white people like black people today.

[Tamas]

While I am not sure anything would substantially change if a better term was to be found, the term is for sure not good.


The term and the discussion here highlights one important advantage the right had over the left in recent decades: they understand they need to convince people to win. Since their views rely much more on base instincts than learned behaviour, they have an inherently easier time doing so anyways, but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to be in power to enact the policies you want, you need to have the majority convinced of your views, at least in a democracy.

"White privilege" is a great term to discuss the concept with people who accept it exists (not to mention how great to show you understand it), but really not good at convincing others. And convincing others matters.

But that would suggest that one should just dumb down to rhetoric to a part where it is not true or only scarcely true. The reality is that these are challenging and tricky subjects that our societies have been wrestling with for a long time. It is unreasonable for someone to hear 'white privilege' or 'white people are afford certain advantages' and take that to mean that all white people are better off than non-white people. Much as it is unreasonable to hear 'black lives matter' and assume that means that the speaker thinks white lives do not.

How would you go about convincing others about this topic?

I am honestly not sure. But by default "privilege" is an advantage to take away. That's hard to stomach for someone who has lived on the bottom of the (white) pecking order. There are different levels of "white privilege" as well - you have the wrong accent, come from the wrong type of/too poor family, you see your chances in life dwindle.

Sure, they will still be about a 100 times better than if you had the same background with a non-white skin giving people a free societal pass to discriminate against you, but still you tell such people they ought to dial their "privileges" back to make the world a better place and it's hard to blame them for being resentful of the idea.

[garbon]

But their whiteness does afford them access to certain privileges not afforded to others. It might be hard for a majority group to want to critically examine itself for the benefits its group is afforded, but it is an exercise worth doing.

You may be missing the point.
Nobody here doubts that white privilege is real. The discussion is over whether thats the right term to use for the concept.

Out in the world the term is clearly causing a lot of knee jerk reactions and bringing moderates over to the reactionary's side.
The core of race problems in the UK and US is not white people getting special privileges, rather its people who aren't white getting especially awful treatment. Putting the focus on white people supposedly getting privileges will naturally lead many to knee-jerk react that they have things awful enough as it is and now you want to make it worse for them.
The goal afterall is to treat everyone as white people today get treat (or treating everyone better than that given all the other issues in the world), not to start treating white people like black people today.

The reality is that improvement in the situation for minorities will actually have a negative impact on some white people. After all, there are only so many university places, so many houses, so many job openings.  Similarly, I do think if cops stopped profiling minorities, there would be some added level of discomfort for all.

What evidence do you have that if 'white privilege' were removed from the equation that everyone would be all, okay great black people are oppressed, let's change that. From what we know of history, it doesn't look like things were more equitable before the term was invented.

And frankly, this sounds like the same bullshit thing that Democrats/the left always have to phrase things perfectly while Republicans/the right can be putting out such rhetorical gems as 'brexit means brexit' and 'grab 'em by the pussy'. At the end of the day, some people will not be reached as they don't want to be reached.

[garbon]

I am honestly not sure. But by default "privilege" is an advantage to take away. That's hard to stomach for someone who has lived on the bottom of the (white) pecking order. There are different levels of "white privilege" as well - you have the wrong accent, come from the wrong type of/too poor family, you see your chances in life dwindle.

Sure, they will still be about a 100 times better than if you had the same background with a non-white skin giving people a free societal pass to discriminate against you, but still you tell such people they ought to dial their "privileges" back to make the world a better place and it's hard to blame them for being resentful of the idea.

We know people have strong feelings about that term but isn't a bit of a fig leaf to say that term is what is what makes you fee resentful about wanting to make the word more equitable?

Also, maybe it is important to look at some of the privileges and whether it is a big ask to tell someone to dial back their privilege (aka recognize that not everyone is afford that same reality).

https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2017/07/24/10-examples-that-prove-white-privilege-exists-in-every-aspect-imaginable/

I Have The Privilege Of Having A Positive Relationship With The Police, Generally
I Have The Privilege Of Being Favored By School Authorities
I Have The Privilege Of Attending Segregated Schools Of Affluence
I Have The Privilege Of Learning About My Race In School
I Have The Privilege Of Finding Children's Books That Overwhelmingly Represent My Race
I Have The Privilege Of Soaking In Media Blatantly Biased Toward My Race
I Have The Privilege Of Escaping Violent Stereotypes Associated With My Race
I Have The Privilege Of Playing The Colorblind Card, Wiping The Slate Clean Of Centuries Of Racism
I Have The Privilege Of Being Insulated From The Daily Toll Of Racism
I Have The Privilege Of Living Ignorant Of The Dire State Of Racism Today

That one in bold might be iffy from being generalizable as strictly more about wealth (as long as we set aside any correlations between socio-economic status and race).

But then as to the rest, what is so egregious?

[Josquius]

The reality is that improvement in the situation for minorities will actually have a negative impact on some white people. After all, there are only so many university places, so many houses, so many job openings.  Similarly, I do think if cops stopped profiling minorities, there would be some added level of discomfort for all.

I disagree there, kind of a mercantilist outlook of the type common with the modern hard right.
There are not a finite amount of jobs et al. The growth of society and expansion of opportunities to more people creates more trade and flow of ideas. Open up more opportunities for minorities and the particularly skilled/lucky amongst them will end up creating more jobs.
In the South African situation I can see this argument, a small minority living a first world life off the backs of a large developing world majority. You can see how equal rights there would have worsened things for white people and many would be keen to look beyond common decency to defend their own lifestyle.
But in the UK where black people are well under 5%?
Treating them with basic respect and equality isn't going to change much for the average white guy.

What evidence do you have that if 'white privilege' were removed from the equation that everyone would be all, okay great black people are oppressed, let's change that. From what we know of history, it doesn't look like things were more equitable before the term was invented.

The Irish/Catholics in general.
Once treat like shit and demonised; now its not an issue to tick those boxes at all.
The sky hasn't fallen, things being a bit less shitty for people in that group hasn't worsened things for those not in that group.
Or indeed gay people. Gay marriage has done nothing to hurt heterosexual marriage. Just let gay people get on with their lives without hassle and it doesn't impact the majority at all.

And frankly, this sounds like the same bullshit thing that Democrats/the left always have to phrase things perfectly while Republicans/the right can be putting out such rhetorical gems as 'brexit means brexit' and 'grab 'em by the pussy'. At the end of the day, some people will not be reached as they don't want to be reached.

Yes, as Tamas says its already an uphill battle.
The sane shouldn't make it even harder for themselves.
Its not a vitally important issue to crack down on use of the term white privilege, its getting into fairly pedantic stuff, but there should be a bit of an attempt to redirect the framing to a better place when it doesn't take any effort to do this.

[garbon]

I disagree there, kind of a mercantilist outlook of the type common with the modern hard right.
There are not a finite amount of jobs et al. The growth of society and expansion of opportunities to more people creates more trade and flow of ideas. Open up more opportunities for minorities and the particularly skilled/lucky amongst them will end up creating more jobs.
In the South African situation I can see this argument, a small minority living a first world life off the backs of a large developing world majority. You can see how equal rights there would have worsened things for white people and many would be keen to look beyond common decency to defend their own lifestyle.
But in the UK where black people are well under 5%?
Treating them with basic respect and equality isn't going to change much for the average white guy.

But then you are talking an overhaul of our capitalist system. Giving 'basic respect and equality' is not going to change much of the average black person. After all, people can be polite and still oppress you.

The Irish/Catholics in general.
Once treat like shit and demonised; now its not an issue to tick those boxes at all.
The sky hasn't fallen, things being a bit less shitty for people in that group hasn't worsened things for those not in that group.
Or indeed gay people. Gay marriage has done nothing to hurt heterosexual marriage. Just let gay people get on with their lives without hassle and it doesn't impact the majority at all.

So groups that were subsumed into whiteness (well maybe not the brown gays who also still face racial discrimination...)? I can't speak for the Irish or Catholics, but gay people definitely have talked ad nauseum about the privileges straight couples were afforded. Gay rights has been in large part about making sure straight people weren't the only ones to have state sanctioned marries.

Yes, as Tamas says its already an uphill battle.
The sane shouldn't make it even harder for themselves.
Its not a vitally important issue to crack down on use of the term white privilege, its getting into fairly pedantic stuff, but there should be a bit of an attempt to redirect the framing to a better place when it doesn't take any effort to do this.

I'll ask again, what is the ideal phrasing that will change hearts and minds?