"Privilege"

[narya]

If you are not actively working to alleviate the wrongs in your society, then you are supporting them. Ignorance of them is no excuse. The real problem here is all the people who are supporting the racist status quo without knowing or accepting it. Open debate about privilege is a first step.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

It is my problem in that I live in a society which some members do not enjoy the same, yes, privileges, that I enjoy.

Meaning it's your problem because you care about the well-being of others which should be true regardless of whether you point to "white privilege" or "white racism" as the problem.

[Frelga]

I venture to say that I have the luxury of ignoring the way society treats some of its members unless I am on the receiving end of that treatment.

[yovargas]

Indeed you do. We all have the luxury of ignoring other people's sufferings if we so choose. What we're really talking about is what's the best way to talk about that in a way that both makes them aware of injustices they might not be aware of and also makes them at least have some sympathy about those injustices.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It is my problem in that I live in a society which some members do not enjoy the same, yes, privileges, that I enjoy.

Meaning it's your problem because you care about the well-being of others which should be true regardless of whether you point to "white privilege" or "white racism" as the problem.

In theory, yes. But it would be very condescending for me to say to my black friends "you have no right to talk about 'white privilege' because you should enjoy the same freedom from harassment, discrimination, police profiling, etc. that I do." Of course they should, but they don't. From their perspective, what I take for granted as my right, is a privilege. I think it is helpful, and therefore an effective use of language, to keep that in mind.

[yovargas]

Anybody has the "right" to talk about whatever they want but if one actually wants to be heard, one should use words that mean what you intend.

[Cerin]

Of course black people have the right to talk about anything they want, and frame the discussion in any way they choose. I thought the issue of the conversation here, was, how do we (I'm assuming most of us are white?) make white people more aware of the systemic oppression of black people in this country. Some seem to think a good approach is to talk to white people about the way black people are oppressed. Others seem to think a good approach is to talk to white people about the way white people aren't oppressed (and call that 'privilege').

I believe we're all on the same page about what needs to be done, we just differ on what we perceive as an effective way to go about it.

[Griffon64]

Being irritated is not that terrible. In a forum such as this, it must be expected that people will have differing and strong opinions. As long as a post is respectful and doesn't personally attack anyone, it should be acceptable to state whatever opinion you have. If it irritates some people, well - I don't think you can have any kind of fruitful and meaningful dialogue about these kinds of issues without ticking *somebody* off.

And if you say that you are "not part of this community" again, I may have to come out to where you are myself and set you straight.

This community is quite homogenous. ( Predominantly liberal. ) Over time the conservative voices, especially the more extreme ones, that used to post here have been driven out by the clique piling on, and the remaining handful ( who tend towards the moderate ) do not often post in this forum because the experience is usually less than pleasant ( possibly because of what's gone before ). So I'll support the statement that voices that differ from the liberal lockstep have a harder time feeling part of the community.

But it would be very condescending for me to say to my black friends "you have no right to talk about 'white privilege' because you should enjoy the same freedom from harassment, discrimination, police profiling, etc. that I do."

Yes, it would be. Why would you suggest that? I am baffled by this comment, despite having followed along in this thread since its start. Is this a point that follows from white privilege vs racism discussion in this thread somehow? I'm didn't form the impression that any statement was made that non-whites ( or anybody ) can't talk about "white privilege". I do believe it was said call racism racism when that is what it is, and likewise for other inexcusable things like police brutality. Mostly, the point that Cerin just made was made - in this thread, people agree that there is uneven treatment of white and black in this country, and something needs to be done about it, but preferred methodologies differ and that's what people are going back and forth on.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course black people have the right to talk about anything they want, and frame the discussion in any way they choose.

What I hear when I read this statement (and maybe I am reading it incorrectly) is "it is okay for 'them' to talk about 'white privilege' but it is not okay for 'us' to talk about it. No. The concept either exists or it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist for 'them' but not for 'us'. The point of white people talking about 'white privilege' is not to talk about "the way white people aren't oppressed" it is to help see the world as it really exists for too many people.

[Inanna]

I don't think we are even going back and forth on methodologies to fix it, we seem to be going back and forth on terminology which feels...wasteful to me. The kind of core issues that Faramond highlighted, those are the ones you can talk about fixing. Because they are concrete.

Of course, educating others is also concrete and important - and if the back and forth of the "words to be used" is being used in that context then it makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

Of course black people have the right to talk about anything they want, and frame the discussion in any way they choose.

What I hear when I read this statement (and maybe I am reading it incorrectly) is "it is okay for 'them' to talk about 'white privilege' but it is not okay for 'us' to talk about it.

That was a direct response to your comment, "But it would be very condescending for me to say to my black friends "you have no right to talk about 'white privilege', etc." I had no idea where that came from. No one, as far as I know, had suggested any such thing and I wanted at least to disown it for myself.

Of course, we, here, and everyone everywhere, also have a right to discuss the issue in any way we choose. As with any other discussion, we offer our opinions on the merits of an idea. Of course you are free to espouse this notion of white privilege, and any other ideas that ring true to you, and call yourself privileged, and think of yourself as privileged. In the same way, I am free to reject this notion of white privilege (which I emphatically do; I find it unsound on many levels).

I would have thought these things went without saying.

No. The concept either exists or it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist for 'them' but not for 'us'.

Certainly, if you find a concept valid, it would apply across the board.

The point of white people talking about 'white privilege' is not to talk about "the way white people aren't oppressed" it is to help see the world as it really exists for too many people.

Which is just what I said: "I thought the issue of the conversation here, was, how do we <snip> make white people more aware of the systemic oppression of black people in this country."

I was attempting to set up a parallel construction (are oppressed, aren't oppressed), to illustrate the fact that we all have the same aim, we just prefer different approaches:

"Some seem to think a good approach is to talk to white people about the way black people are oppressed. Others seem to think a good approach is to talk to white people about the way white people aren't oppressed (and call that 'privilege')."

Perhaps you would prefer the parallel in your words:

We can help white people see the world as it really exists for too many people, by talking about how the world really exists for too many people.

OR

We can help white people see the world as it really exists for too many people, by talking about "white privilege."

Same goal, different approaches.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Earlier in the thread you said you thought that using the term 'white privilege' was not just wrong, but downright damaging (or words to that effect). So I guess what you are saying is we can use the term, but we just shouldn't?

In any event, I think our perspective about this is so different that there is no reasonable chance that there is going to be any productive exchange of ideas, so I am going to withdraw.

Sent from my LG G2 with Tapatalk

[yovargas]

Earlier in the thread you said you thought that using the term 'white privilege' was not just wrong, but downright damaging (or words to that effect). So I guess what you are saying is we can use the term, but we just shouldn't?

That's exactly what I would say and I'm sure it's what Cerin is saying. I thought that was pretty obvious. I think the term is problematic and harmful for both the supposed privileged and "unprivileged".

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I could have as easily amended my earlier post to say:

it would be very condescending for me to say to my black friends "you have no right are wrong to talk about 'white privilege' because you should enjoy the same freedom from harassment, discrimination, police profiling, etc. that I do." Of course they should, but they don't. From their perspective, what I take for granted as my right, is a privilege. I think it is helpful, and therefore an effective use of language, to keep that in mind.

I don't think that will be any more acceptable to you, Cerin, or anyone else in this thread who objects to the use of the term. As I say, we are talking past each other. But I did think it was worth clarifying that statement for the record, before I do withdraw.

[yovargas]

I could have as easily amended my earlier post to say:

it would be very condescending for me to say to my black friends "you have no right are wrong to talk about 'white privilege' because you should enjoy the same freedom from harassment, discrimination, police profiling, etc. that I do." Of course they should, but they don't. From their perspective, what I take for granted as my right, is a privilege. I think it is helpful, and therefore an effective use of language, to keep that in mind.

I don't think that will be any more acceptable to you, Cerin, or anyone else in this thread who objects to the use of the term. As I say, we are talking past each other. But I did think it was worth clarifying that statement for the record, before I do withdraw.

Would it be condescending for me to say it to my gay friends?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I assume you mean if you said that they were wrong to use the term "straight privilege". Obviously, not in the same way that it would be for a white person to say that to a black person about the term "white privilege" since you are a member of the group being denied that particular set of "privilege" (e.g., for instance, not being able to be out in public and hold hands without it potentially making you, your date, or someone else uncomfortable). However, I do think that you would be wrong to tell that friend that they should not use the term. However, I reiterate that in my opinion the concept has more relevance when used by members of the group that have the benefit of the "privilege" because it helps them put into a context what members of the group that do not have the benefit of the "privilege" experience. I think without people who have the benefit of the "privilege" acknowledging that fact, it is unlikely that significant progress in eliminating the disparity will be made.

[Cerin]

Earlier in the thread you said you thought that using the term 'white privilege' was not just wrong, but downright damaging (or words to that effect). So I guess what you are saying is we can use the term, but we just shouldn't?

I'm not telling people what they should do, that isn't up to me. I'm giving my opinion, that it would be to everyone's advantage if this perspective/notion/term ceased to be used. I find it extremely problematic, and believe it will almost certainly hinder rather than help, wherever it is encountered.

I think without people who have the benefit of the "privilege" acknowledging that fact, it is unlikely that significant progress in eliminating the disparity will be made.

And I would say the same, with a slight variation: Without people who have the benefit of being white acknowledging that fact, it is unlikely that significant progress in eliminating the disparity will be made.

[Faramond]

Okay, I'll have another whack at it.

It is very easy to say "the real problem is not white privilege, it is white racism" because the corollary of that is "I'm no racist, so its not my problem."

This is a silly and selfish corollary and certainly was not the point of my post. And I suspect that any person who would leap to this corollary and believe it isn't going to think racism is his or her problem no matter how you approach it.

You end white privilege by ending white racism. Therefore, white racism is the problem, even if you want to start with white privilege.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond, I am not ignoring you. I was away for most of the last week, but I am also somewhat at a loss as to what else to say that could help bridge the gap between us on this issue. Certainly we are all in agreement that ending white racism (or any racism) is a primary goal. Where we differ, or at least seem to differ, is how to get to that goal. From my perspective, the terminology is not what is important. What is important is the empathy that is reflected by the terminology. From my perspective, one of the many ingredients necessary in ending white racism, or ending any kind of discriminating behavior, is for the group that retains the greater power base to be able to see things as they exist for the group that does not. Needless to say, that is not the only ingredient, but I think it is an important one. To use a different example, I believe (and I know that this might differ from others) that it is important that men try to understand what it is like for a woman to be vulnerable to attack by a physically stronger man. That doesn't mean every man is a rapist, nor does it mean that men or not also subject to attack, even to sexual assaults. But it is a simple truth that a man generally doesn't have same vulnerability that most women have to live with. Whether you call that "male privilege" or use some different terminology, acknowledging that that is true is the first step to alleviating it.

[Faramond]

What is the goal? That's what I always wonder. You can make the most heartfelt, true, angry condemnation of someone, call them out on their privilege, tell them that they just don't get it -- and you could be 100% correct, both factually and morally -- and still have made a terrible blunder if your goal was something other than telling the other person off. But usually, that is the goal, especially when people start debating politics. The goal is to win, to grind the other person into electron dust -- not to educate. And I just don't think that talking about white privilege or male privilege or whatever other kind of privilege as a starting point very often educates. ( Talking about the things behind the various kind of privilege is a different matter. ) It makes people defensive, and that isn't a good way to start educating. I know that you and Axordil and a bunch of other people disagree, and I'm not sure what else there is to say about that.