"Privilege"

[yovargas]

So Anthy's excellent post has rolled around my head for the past couple days. After some thought, I realized that the way Anthy used it is the more common, traditional way of applying the idea of "privilege". The notion of privilege of course extends well before it started to become common in "identity politics" discussions. Outside of those discussions, it is still (as far as I can tell) most commonly used as: some person or group being given nice things that other persons/groups can't get, often with the resentful implication that those extra nice things are undeserved. This is probably happening to Anthy's beautiful daughter.

But in the realm of identity politics, the meaning is often flipped - instead of "a group being given nice things" it becomes "a group not being given bad things". That latter concept may be a valuable one worth noting but to merge it with a word that kinda means the exact opposite is problematic and confusing. Context makes it hard for people to know which one you mean, especially since many people still aren't familiar with the latter use. It's especially problematic when that newer use of the word is still often heard with that resentful implication of undeserved treatment. So when someone says something like, for example, "it is white privilege to not fear the police", it will sound to many, many people - and frankly still does to my ears - like they're saying that it is unfair that whites don't fear cops like blacks do. As if in a fair world, whites would be worried about random police violence. Of course people are going to get defensive about such a strange, aggressive implication! It sounds like one group saying to another, if we get treated like crap, you should too!

Even if that isn't the intention - and frankly sometimes I'm not so sure it isn't - that's what is very often heard. It's a bit of a mess. They are two distinct ideas that should have two distinct words. Squishing them together has led to a lot of unnecessary confusion and anger and defensiveness, even when enlightenment was legitimately the goal.

[Primula Baggins]

But, yov, you are describing "nice things" that privileged people have and others don't get. "White people don't have to fear the police" includes a lot of nice things, such as "white people can be sure their teenage son will come home safely every day" and "white people know they won't be arrested when they get pulled over in traffic" and "white people can expect to be treated politely by authorities." Just because it can be phrased as a negative extended to one group of people doesn't mean it isn't a real positive extended to another.

[River]

Why are you assuming that fairness equals=everyone's afraid? What if what black people really want is to NOT be afraid? Because when civil rights activists speak up after a shooting or beatdown, I don't hear, "This is should happen to whites too!" I hear, "This should stop happening to us!" When black leaders talk about "driving while black" and "fitting the description" and all the other b.s. things that blacks encounter and I don't, I again don't hear, "This should happen to whites too!" I hear, "This should stop happening to us!"

It's sort of like how when women talk about how much getting hollered at or groped sucks. We don't want men to experience it too. I mean yeah, there probably are some vindictive types out there who'd love to see men endure that crap, but what most of us actually want is for those things to stop happening to us.

[yovargas]

No, Prim, I gotta disagree. There is an important difference between saying "a group is being given nice things, possibly undeserved" and "a group is not being given bad things, possibly undeserved". The implications are very different there.

Why are you assuming that fairness equals=everyone's afraid? What if what black people really want is to NOT be afraid?

That's fine but that's not what the word usually means!



If someone says to you "Hi, I'm not going to punch you today" you don't usually say "Thank you, how nice!".

[River]

Okaaay...so what does the word actually mean? You seem to be implying that fair = equally crappy, not equally nice, and I see no reason why it should/has to be that way. But hey, I'm just a random idiot on teh internets so I checked a dictionary.

fair:

1: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
2: superficially pleasing : specious <she trusted his fair promises>
3a : clean, pure <fair sparkling water>
b : clear, legible
4: not stormy or foul : fine <fair weather>
5: ample <a fair estate>
6a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>
b (1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share>
c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>
7a : promising, likely <in a fair way to win>
b : favorable to a ship's course <a fair wind>
8 archaic : free of obstacles
9: not dark <fair skin>
10a : sufficient but not ample : adequate <a fair understanding of the work>
b : moderately numerous, large, or significant <takes a fair amount of time>
11: being such to the utmost : utter <a fair treat to watch him — New Republic>
— fair·ness noun

So, yov, tell me, what does fair actually, factually, really mean?

**patiently waits to be shoved back into her corner

[yovargas]

It's not about what "fair" means, it's about what "privilege" means. I'm saying privilege often feels like saying "getting XYZ undeserved". If XYZ = "not getting punched in the face", you can seem to be saying, or at least implying, that your lack of face-punches is undeserved!

[River]

True, but where's the step from "your lack of punches is undeserved" to "you should also be getting punched in the face"? Why are you assuming there isn't a "my punches are also undeserved" in the discussion?

[yovargas]

where's the step from "your lack of punches is undeserved" to "you should also be getting punched in the face"?

That seems tautological to me. Like, they're the same statement. They mean the same thing. "You don't deserve to not get punched" = "You do deserve to get punched".

Also a point of confusion, "privilege" usually means receiving something. You can say "I received punches". You don't normally say "I received non-punches". When you get a privilege, you can thank the person/s giving you that privilege. Who do you thank for non-punches?

Why are you assuming there isn't a "my punches are also undeserved" in the discussion?

That would perhaps be "I am underprivileged" or something but that is a distinct, separate statement from "You are privileged". Like Faramond has said several times, if what you wanted to say "I am getting treated badly", you should just say that. It's far clearer.

[River]

You're missing the third option: to simply not have any punches being thrown in the first place.

[yovargas]

Sure. But I'm saying that option is not normally implied by the word privilege, a word tied to the idea receiving good things. If we want to talk about not receiving bad things, we should use a different term.

If we're calling something a "privilege", there should be a person somewhere to thank for the kind gifts.

[River]

Sure. But I'm saying that option is not normally implied by the word privilege, a word tied to the idea receiving good things.

To the disadvantaged group, though, that might be what it looks like. In the case of police conduct, the good thing might simply be the benefit of the doubt. In other areas though, whites have benefited from policies specifically designed for the purpose of benefiting one race over the other. Housing is a big one. Access to quality educational institutions is another. A lot of those discriminatory policies got legislated away in the past 50-60 years, but they left marks that will take more than a generation or two to fade. Socioeconomic mobility for an individual is one thing. Socioeconomic mobility for an entire group is another.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The distinction that you are making between anthriel's example the common usage of "white privilege" or "male privilege" does not make sense, at least to me. In her example, the members of the privileged group, women perceived to be attractive, do not have to deal with the negative consequences that members of the unprivileged group, women perceived to be less attractive, have to deal with it. It is the same thing, other than the matter of degree.

More troubling, it continues to appear to me -- and I emphasize that I am simply stating how it appears to me, not what you intend -- that you are repeatedly trying to invalidate the complaints made particularly by African-Americans about the different treatment that they feel that they receive from police in different ways. The other day, the case you were making was that the actual complaint that there is a difference in the way that African-Americans are treated by the police was due to a distorted perception caused by "a real, long-held prejudice" (even though it really is due to the fact that a very high percentage of African-Americans report having unduly escalated encounters with the police and a very low percentage of Caucasians report having such encounters, and the discrepancy is backed by statistical evidence such as the 538 article posted the other day, and the earlier studies that I had posted). Now you are saying that the claim of "white privilege" in this context is somehow an invalid use of the terminology whereas anthriel's example is valid, despite the fact that the two examples are quite similar, other than the degree of the privilege.

As I said before, I don't really care whether it is called "privilege" or not; what I care about is that it is vigorously opposed and not swept under the carpet, because I believe that it is a very real and very serious problem (and oe that I see every day). I'm sorry that this perception bothers you, but from my perspective it appears that the latter is exactly what you are trying to do, and that makes me incredibly sad.

Cross-posted with River.

[Alatar]

Interesting article:

https://mfaconfessions.wordpress.com/20 ... privilege/

[yovargas]

Sure. But I'm saying that option is not normally implied by the word privilege, a word tied to the idea receiving good things.

To the disadvantaged group, though, that might be what it looks like. In the case of police conduct, the good thing might simply be the benefit of the doubt. In other areas though, whites have benefited from policies specifically designed for the purpose of benefiting one race over the other. Housing is a big one. Access to quality educational institutions is another.

I totally think that the housing and school policies of pre-Civil Rights US could very accurately called white privilege.

[River]

Thanks to discriminatory housing and education policies, while whites were accumulating wealth and power, blacks weren't. Now the policies are gone, sun-down towns are a relic of the past, but the effects linger. Ever wonder why Oregon is so very very white? The whole territory and state were closed to blacks initially.

[yovargas]

I was reading a piece yesterday criticizing the idea of meritocracy where a study was done showing that for a majority of jobs (I forget the exact number) networking and connections and "who you know". An interesting observation (and one for me to take note of since I am the absolute worst at that kind of thing...) They astutely pointed out that this can, even if nobody has even subconscious ill intentions or ill will, lead to whites receiving considerations blacks may find difficult to get. Because of our country's history, of course whites will in general still have better connections in the business world. I think that is also something that could accurately be called white privilege.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

According to the sheriff of the Texas county where Sandra Bland died, racism doesn't exist in his county. Not at all.

Smith said he is also convinced that the county’s days of racism are over.

“The average citizen goes about their life seven days a week enjoying it, everybody working together, eating in restaurants together and socializing,” he said. “I just don’t think it exists.”

Of course, this is someone who himself was accused of racist behavior in a previous job and fired. And someone who thinks that the trooper who arrested Ms. Bland "did a fine job."

Sandra Bland’s death divides Texas county with ugly history of racism

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A white University of Cincinnati police officer has been indicted for murder for killing an unarmed black man after a bogus traffic stop. He is the first officer in Cincinnati to face murder charges for killing someone in the line of duty. As the prosecutor said:

"It's an absolute tragedy that anyone would behave in this manner," Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said after publicly releasing the video. "It was senseless. It's just horrible.

"He purposefully killed him."

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/20 ... /30830777/ (warning, the video included in the article is graphic)

[River]

I think this only came to pass because there was bodycam footage. The officer involved and the back up he called all claim he shot because he was being dragged. Without the footage, I'm not sure the prosecutor would have pressed the case. But he's not holding back now...

[axordil]

So here's the question: are the backup officers going to be charged as accessories after the fact?

The attitude has to be yanked out by the roots for us to be truly rid of it.