"Privilege"

[axordil]

Not at all. Because the only reason bikes are mixed with the cars at all is because we don't have the infrastructure to separate them effectively - the opposite of what we need to do about inequality.

Except the point, for purposes of the analogy, isn't that bikes and cars need different accommodation to be able to function equally well, or safer, or whatever. That's getting lost in the trees of the analogy. The point is that the culture (The Road) as it stands is built around one group of people (The Cars), and everyone else's (Bicycles, Boats, Pedestrians et al) participation is tolerated only within the parameters that favor the privilege group.

In other parts of the world, the culture is not a road (perhaps it's a bike path, or a canal, or stairs) and the "car drivers" do not possess the privilege. Americans in China are not a privileged group, for example.

[axordil]

Yov--I agree the word is problematic, given its other meanings.

[Frelga]

Ax, that only helps in discussion with someone who already understands how the term privilege is being used here. If you try to use that analogy to help someone new to the terminology, then a perfectly logical answer is, let's get the bikes off the shared road, then.

Better to keep the conversation real, in the final analysis.

[axordil]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Moving along, Gene, we've got this buddy movie with a cephalopod and a street mime...

[Cerin]

I agree that 'privilege' is not the correct word here, and using it obfuscates the issues. 'Advantage, advantaged' would be less problematic, imo.

[Dave_LF]

That's an improvement since "advantage" is a more value-neutral word. Still, "disadvantaged" would be better yet, IMO. Of course, if person A is disadvantaged relative to person B it follows that person B is advantaged relative to person A, but how you choose to frame it affects the way people think about it. And the right way to think about it, IMO, is that one group of people isn't being treated fairly; not that another group is being treated over-fairly (because there's not such thing).

[axordil]

Yes and no, Dave. The issue is not only that blacks are treated unfairly, but that white people, no matter what their views on race, benefit from the unfairness. A stark example: every year thousands of black kids get sent to jail, and generally have their lives ruined, for minor offenses. White kids committing similar offenses have a much lower incarceration rate. Those black kids rarely recover in terms of education and thus job prospects...which means fewer competitors for the white kids that got off scot free. Even the nice ones with black friends who don't laugh at racial jokes.

"Privilege" (though an imperfect term) describes the fact that you can be a fair, moral white person without a racist bone in your body--and you still benefit at black people's expense. But I agree it's ultimately a second order effect of what would might accurately be called ongoing institutional oppression.

[Passdagas the Brown]

What ax said (as usual).

[axordil]

Expanding on "Institutional Oppression" and what that means when, in theory, equality under the law is now protected: I now believe the War on Drugs was begun as part of the same overall grand design as the GOP's Southern Strategy, with the specific intent of undercutting opportunities for black youth and pulling them out of the voter pool in those states that do so for felonies, while diverting public money into the pockets of such luminaries as private prison operators and generally sliding us closer to a paranoid police state.

Thoughts on this from a former anti-drug warrior:

http://goo.gl/qPviLX

[Alatar]

I hope nobody minds me posting this here!

[Faramond]

The effect of saying "check your privilege" is that the target is informed they aren't wanted in the discussion, and they don't have anything of value to offer. You could pick a different word other than "privilege" but the effect would be the same. You might as well call a person a racist blatherbleeper rather than say "check your privilege" to someone. In my opinion it would be more honest of what the person saying "check your privilege" really thinks of the target and it would have the same effect of marginalizing the target's voice.

Of course privilege as a concept can be discussed without telling other people to "check" it. But why does it need to be discussed? This isn't meant in a rhetorical way. I'm seriously asking, in this Ferguson case, what is the value of discussing privilege? Does it help us understand why the policeman shot the victim? Does it help us understand the thinking of the police officer when he killed the victim? Does it help us understand the thinking of the police department when they resisted any kind of transparency and reacted like a totalitarian military force to the protests? I don't think so. I don't think privilige has much to do with the case at hand.

However, privilege does explain why many white people discount the black perspective on interacting with police officers. It explains why they don't understand the anger for what happened. Police officers don't typically treat white people like criminals without probable cause, while they often treat being black as probable cause in itself. So -- what then? Is the goal to take this privilege of not being treated automatically as a criminal away from white people? Of course not. The goal is for black people to have this same privilege. Except it's not really a privilege, and more of a basic human right. So I'm not sure talking about it as a "privilege" is the best approach. The thing is, as a word "privilege" is very often used to describe things that are in danger of being taken away. Parents usually talk about privileges as things that will soon be taken away if the child keeps misbehaving or making bad choices. Or a privilege is something that you are told you should be grateful for, and maybe ought to feel a little bit guilty about having.

I suspect that "privilege" was chosen exactly for this reason, to make the targets feel guilty and to warn them that it would soon be taken away. But I think in most cases of privilege the solution is not to take away from the privileged but to give to the unprivileged. The only sense in which something is being taken away is that a comparative advantage has been lost in some cases, such as the job market. But giving has proven to be very difficult.

If I may be blunt -- oh, too much bluntness already -- okay then, I'll stop here.

[Frelga]

Hey, good to see you around!

As for your questions, assuming they are not rhetorical, nel addressed them upthread.

Al, as usual, Stewart nails it.

[Faramond]

I don't really think my questions were addressed earlier. Even if they were, so what? Does that mean the subject is closed? No, it does not.

[narya]

Personally, I'm glad for the opportunity to be reminded of my privilege. And I think that is a good word for it. I need to be reminded more often, because it's easy for me to be complacent and forget how good I've got it as an apparently all-white American middle-class non-disabled straight cis woman. I've had several opportunities to see what it feels like to be the only one of a different race in the room, back in the 70s when races were much more segregated, and it really shook me up. I wanted to blurt out to people "hey, I belong here, too" but couldn't. I just got lots of questioning and not very friendly stares. I've also had plenty of opportunity to be the only woman in tech/math/science gatherings. I can't imagine what it would be like, what a burden on the soul it would be, to be the brunt of that stare every minute of every day, except when home among family.

I try to be welcoming to all people when I'm in a group now. Not in a patronizing way, but in an "I'm happy you could be here, and I hope to learn fascinating things about you" kind of way. But it's just a drop in the bucket.

[Frelga]

I don't really think my questions were addressed earlier. Even if they were, so what? Does that mean the subject is closed? No, it does not.

No, it just means that I cannot improve on nel's answer. Possibly others can.

But you know, I understand that it feels uncomfortable to be reminded that what some take for their god-given right feels like a luxurious privilege to their fellow Americans. I've had to work through that, and still am. I understand that people feel, and probably rightly, that they have done no wrong, and that they would be perfectly happy for other people to have those same rights, if only those other people do not upset the nice, innocent, simply born that way, privileged person (me, in some instances). I just... well, to be blunt, I have no sympathy with that sort of discomfort, not in myself, not in others.

As Stewart says in the clip Al linked, if you are tired of hearing people complain, imagine how tired they are of dealing with that crap every day.

[narya]

I spoke recently with an elderly lady from Kensington, and upscale neighborhood near Berkeley. She went on and on about how proud she was that her neighborhood was unincorporated and had no city government, no police and fire (they relied on county services), and no school district. Then she told me how awful it was in the 60s and 70s when those not-so-rich-folks from neighboring Richmond were bussed to her son's school, diluting its high standards. "That's great!", I said, "That those kids finally got the opportunity to go to a school with good teachers, facilities and supplies. They would have finally had the chance to have a decent education and perhaps go on to college." She was horrified at my response, expecting me to commiserate with her on how it affected her son, who had to be taken out of the neighborhood school and driven to a private school. Sigh. I don't think she would have understood the concept of privilege.

[River]

People have started talking about privilege because it's a piece of the puzzle that is American race relations and the events in Ferguson. In this context, privilege means that one group of people is not playing by the same rules as another group, even though the law says they should. It's a social construct but, like many social constructs, it permeates everything.

An example of privilege I benefited from recently is what I think of as "screaming toddler" privilege. When you're holding a screaming baby, everyone just gets out of your way. Including, as it turns out, the TSA. Last month, S and I took our shrieking daughter through security (she wanted to run around). Not only did I skip the body scanner, I also skipped the pat down and just got my hands wiped. And then, even though they spotted a sippy cup full of water (forgot to empty it), a tube of bum paste (forgot it was there), and a tube of sunscreen (again, forgot) in her diaper bag and told me they were going to have to search it, they ended up giving it back a minute later with polite instructions to move along. Right now. I was stunned. I've never known the TSA to miss a chance to tear into my luggage. I almost had a rolling pin confiscated once because they couldn't decide if it was allowed or not. I actually had to explain why I had it. It was a gag gift for my cousin's wedding and I guess they decided that that explanation was so ridiculous it could only true. I've also had my bag thoroughly searched because a bundle of pens and pencils showed up as a cylindrical object on the scanner. Here, I had legit "contraband" and I was being shoved along because my kid was mad. Though, to be fair, she is loud. Everyone in the terminal probably heard her. But, still...contraband. And the thing is, this isn't the first time I've flown with my daughter and faced reduced scrutiny. This was just the most blatant occasion. Fair? No. Did I enjoy it? Well, ax once compared flying with a toddler to juggling nuclear hand grenades, but that little bit was very enjoyable indeed. I wish the security theater would just drop the act all around, but as a mommy I'll take what I can get.

[Faramond]

Frelga, I found your first answer insultingly dismissive and your second to ignore what I actually wrote and instead pretended that I was tired of hearing people complain.

I'm pretty convinced that people talk about privilege to make themselves feel better and not out of any desire to actually communicate anything.

[JewelSong]

You only have to live in a third-world country for a few months to understand that there is certainly a thing called "privilege" and that, as a resident in a first-world country, you have it in spades. Never mind a WHITE resident...which sometimes (but not always here) gives you even more privilege.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

Is the goal to take this privilege of not being treated automatically as a criminal away from white people? Of course not. The goal is for black people to have this same privilege. Except it's not really a privilege <snip>

This gets closest to the problem I'm having with the concept being discussed. We're calling what ought to be the norm for everyone, 'privilege', and that seems backwards. The deck is stacked against black people; that doesn't mean white people are privileged, it means black people are treated unfairly. The construct -- turning a negative for one group into a positive for another group -- is really bugging me. I think it's foundationally unsound (and therefore, will not lead anyone to understanding).

Privilege is exactly the idea that you have something that others have too little of but that everyone should have. E.g., as a man you are free to walk down streets without certain fears for your physical safety that women experience.

I don't believe this is a correct notion of privilege. I don't believe 'privilege' is something everyone should have. Yes, everyone should be able to walk down the street without certain fears, therefore, this is incorrectly called a privilege. This is something more fundamental than privilege -- a basic element of human experience? That women are denied a basic element of human experience, does not turn that basic element into a privilege to those who are able to enjoy it. Women aren't routinely doused with acid in this country by disgruntled lovers. Does that make us privileged? I don't take a freedom from fear of being doused with acid to be a privilege. No one should have to live with this fear.

It would be a privilege to have tea with Prof. Tolkien. Is everyone, therefore, entitled to have tea with Prof. Tolkien? It is a privilege of the extraordinarily wealthy to go where they will and experience the rare beauties of the world, or to go to whatever place of higher education they choose. Does this therefore mean that we should all be entitled to such choices? No. Everyone should be entitled to further their education, but not everyone is entitled to go to Oxford. Going to Oxford is a privilege. Everyone should be entitled to live free from squalor, but not everyone is entitled to have 12 vacation homes in the most beautiful places in the world. That is a privilege enjoyed by a relative few. That black people are massively disadvantaged in this country does not mean that white people are privileged.

People would do well to come up with a more accurate construct, if they're interested in promoting understanding among whites, of the disadvantages of being black in America, and the inherent advantages of being white.