But you have to make the narrative something they can relate to and understand. If people are blinded by their own perceptions of how a certain race/class/gender behaves then a narrative like Trevyor Martin won't have any effect. A talk show guest once called him a wanna-be gangster because that is how that person perceives black men. Examples have their own problems.
But by all means let's talk about semantics, words to use, the right ways to educate people. And avoid the real issue.
But what is the real issue? If you really think the real issue is white privilege, I must disagree strongly. That was my whole initial point in this thread, that the real issue is being ignored.
The real issue is not white privilege. It is police brutality, and police acting like the army, and racism by the police -- and -- but it's not all about the police. The real issue is also pervasive black poverty caused by systemic racism, in the courts, and the education system, and financial institutions. The real issue is not white privilege. For heaven's sake. The real issue is white
racism. Talk about not wanting to feel uncomfortable -- why do people prefer this abstraction of privilege to the ugly reality of what is happening?
And it's going to take generations, I fear, to address these real issues. And part of the solution will be education, or changing minds. So yeah, that needs to be talked about. And axordil's relatives notwithstanding, I don't think the best approach in most cases is to go right to white privilege. Seriously, if that works, great, but I'm just -- very skeptical.
Like I said earlier, fiddling while the city burns. In this case, Ferguson. Because what the disadvantaged/under-privileged/<whatever makes you most comfortable> groups really need is coaching in how to talk about their disadvantages/lack of privileges/<whatever makes you most comfortable> without making the advantaged/privileged/<whatever makes you most comfortable> feel bad. Because feeling bad, like, feels bad and stuff.
In the context of Ferguson, to my knowlege no one in this thread is disadvantaged or under-privileged. It is interesting that in the link I provided the author didn't talk about white privilege. I mean, the ingredients were there -- she could have talked about it if she wanted to -- she certainly gave enough examples to prove it exists -- but that wasn't the point.
And now I'm going to get chewed out for making someone uncomfortable. But you know what, these conversations are SUPPOSED to be uncomfortable. That's the bloody point. It's hard to make changes from a position of comfort. And yes, being nudged out of your comfort zone can make you resentful. Such is life. Even if you personally chose to depart your comfort zone you can get resentful. It wasn't supposed to be this hard, I didn't think I'd have to sacrifice this much, this is much scarier than I was led to believe, I wasn't supposed to be here alone, etc. Such is life. And yes, being nudged out of your comfort zone can make you want to shut down or flee. Even if you chose to do the thing that put you in that position. Such is life. You either face and push your limits or you get boxed in. Your call.
Feeling uncomfortable is not the point. How does feeling uncomfortable help anyone? You imply that feeling uncomfortable is a pre-requisite for making changes, but I don't see why.
My argument against using 'white privilege' as a tool is not because it makes people uncomfortable. It is because it doesn't address the real problems and the psychology of it is all wrong if you actually hope to get through to people.
I explicitly said that the truth should be told even when it makes people uncomfortable. So yes, these conversation are supposed to be uncomfortable in the sense that discomfort is a product of telling the truth. But there's no intrinsic utility to anyone else in simply being uncomfortable.
