White Privilege

Jamie Stick wrote: I can appreciate where this sentiment is coming from, but I'm not really sure it can be called discrimination. People of color don't have the institutional power to systematically exclude white people from anything.

If you can divorce the criticisms of whiteness from yourself as a white person, to realize it is not a personal attack but an attack on whiteness as a social and economic institution, then it might make more sense.

Where I'm at racism is most definitely discrimination, no matter whether it is systematic or not, cultural or otherwise. Other countries have their own systematic discrimination who are not white, and it can be seen in Asia and Africa.

If the term is indeed reverse racism, then I think in effect it is perhaps trying to make perpetrators of racism become targets of racism, so they can see what its like and develop empathy enough to stop being racist!? If so then my concern is it seems like it is making more people victims of (a type of) racism so (other types of) racism can be reduced.... and it probably would work if it were targeted to people who were racist, but such a large generalization is my concern. Ms Adder worked in gender anti-discrimination policy and education for nearly 10 years so I end up having opinions about things which probably don't concern me
:pinch:
Though the only aborigine I really know is doing better then me :lol:

Jamie Stick wrote: I can appreciate where this sentiment is coming from, but I'm not really sure it can be called discrimination. People of color don't have the institutional power to systematically exclude white people from anything.

i understand this is what the sociology book says, but the sociologists are disregarding a tangible aspect of reality

every single act of discrimination is the act of an individual personality, acting out on their individual, personal perceptions and biases

when there is a clear majority in a society, these individual acts will have higher levels of complicity WITH OTHER INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITIES

but anyone can discriminate within some context, even if the context is more limited for some, and the attempt to define discrimination as an event which can only happen at the broadest sociological levels, is disregarding the reality of the many individual moments and circumstances which must accumulate to create those broad sweeping levels

its like saying "its not assault if the person to hit you is smaller than you are - assault can only happen when a larger person attacks a smaller person"

and that is just not true

every victimization creates a valid grievance on behalf of the victim, regardless of their demographic

also, as i said before, power is relative to circumstance, and while you may demonstrate statistical disproportions of power along racial lines, that does not at all invalidate the abuses of power done by individuals who do not conform to the statistical average

ANY employer is capable of discrimination, for example, regardless of their race, because every employer has POWER over their employees

Jamie Stick wrote: If you can divorce the criticisms of whiteness from yourself as a white person, to realize it is not a personal attack but an attack on whiteness as a social and economic institution, then it might make more sense.

except that toby mcguire is PERSONALLY WHITE

he cannot remove the whiteness from himself - it is fundamental to his biology - to his PERSONHOOD

so, if you use the words "white" and "whiteness" to refer exclusively to the tyrannical and oppressive elements of western society, then you implicitly assert that toby mcguire is PERSONALLY responsible for those elements, irrespective of his actual personal history or beliefs

when people speak of the "blackness of culturally celebrated violence", do you think that black people should have to "divorce the criticisms of blackness from themselves as black people"?

no, of course not
because that argument does what all racism does - it ignores certain aspects of reality and emphasizes others in order to paint the picture that RACE is the primary cause of some social trend

you are only focusing the oppressive elements of society - you dont seem to acknowledge that the roads, automobiles, computers, grocery stores, schools and universities, stadiums, hospitals, libraries, telephone and electric lines, museums, laser tag studios and bowling alleys, are ALSO all results of the system that we live in

so its all wealthy white devils creating this evil patriarchy and oppressing minorities - but where did you, and how were you able to learn all these clever ideas?
from, and as a beneficiary of, the very system you denigrate

which is vast, and complicated, and self contradictive, and absolutely not wholly evil, any more than it is wholly good

once you deliberately justify racism, you defeat your own position:

racists dont want equality, ever

they only want to be the one holding the whip

some of the people on the position that you are expressing are more concerned with attacking "white" than they are with countering "the oppressive elements of the power structure", never grasping that these two things are not dependent upon each other

charles taylor



saddam hussein



pol pot

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: I can appreciate where this sentiment is coming from, but I'm not really sure it can be called discrimination. People of color don't have the institutional power to systematically exclude white people from anything.

i understand this is what the sociology book says, but the sociologists are disregarding a tangible aspect of reality

I doubt that.

OB1Shinobi wrote: every single act of discrimination is the act of an individual personality, acting out on their individual, personal perceptions and biases

when there is a clear majority in a society, these individual acts will have higher levels of complicity WITH OTHER INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITIES

I couldn't have said it better myself. White people act in complicity with other white people even though they may not personally have an active interest in supporting those other individual persons. The average white person may not have any desire to be racist, but they still benefit from the racism of people who actively perpetrate and perpetuate racism.

OB1Shinobi wrote: but anyone can discriminate within some context, even if the context is more limited for some, and the attempt to define discrimination as an event which can only happen at the broadest sociological levels, is disregarding the reality of the many individual moments and circumstances which must accumulate to create those broad sweeping levels

If that is how I came across that's not what was intended so I apologize for the imprecise means of conveying my meaning. But as you aptly pointed, the actions of individual have a ripple effect into upper echelons of social order. The Klan member who puts burning crosses on the lawn of a black neighbor is committing a personal act of racism, but it has larger implications for the community and for power structure between white and black people across America.

OB1Shinobi wrote: every victimization creates a valid grievance on behalf of the victim, regardless of their demographic

Valid but not equal. That's the key distinction. Your hurt feelings may be valid, but they are not equivalent to the experience of being born into a world that was set up to fail you.

OB1Shinobi wrote: also, as i said before, power is relative to circumstance, and while you may demonstrate statistical disproportions of power along racial lines, that does not at all invalidate the abuses of power done by individuals who do not conform to the statistical average

You're right, however the use of power by people of color in institutional positions does not equate to the same institutional power white people wield by virtue of their whiteness. A person of color in an institutional position of power can wield that power because of the position whereas a white person can utilize institutions to their benefit regardless of their position within said institution by virtue of their whiteness.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Jamie Stick wrote: If you can divorce the criticisms of whiteness from yourself as a white person, to realize it is not a personal attack but an attack on whiteness as a social and economic institution, then it might make more sense.

except that toby mcguire is PERSONALLY WHITE

he cannot remove the whiteness from himself - it is fundamental to his biology - to his PERSONHOOD

Yes, which makes him responsible for his own participation in the larger schema of whiteness as social and economic institution. He may not have asked for it, but neither did people of color. In this way, white people who desire not to harm others by means of their institutional access to white supremacy can sympathize with people of color who do not want to be harmed by institutional whiteness.

OB1Shinobi wrote: so, if you use the words "white" and "whiteness" to refer exclusively to the tyrannical and oppressive elements of western society, then you implicitly assert that toby mcguire is PERSONALLY responsible for those elements, irrespective of his actual personal history or beliefs

Well, I've been trying to use whiteness as a way of distinguishing from the white individual and the institution of white supremacy which all white individuals are members of to some degree. The complexity comes from ways in which whiteness as an institution interact with other complex systemic injustices such as gender, physical ability, mental health, neurotype, etc etc. I'm trying to explain a complex, often irrational, system of injustice that deserve nuance which is hard to get into on a forum post.

OB1Shinobi wrote: when people speak of the "blackness of culturally celebrated violence", do you think that black people should have to "divorce the criticisms of blackness from themselves as black people"?

Speaking of racialized stereotypes as being equal to institutional inequality is farce, pure sophistry. I will not engage with this nonsense.

OB1Shinobi wrote: you are only focusing the oppressive elements of society - you dont seem to acknowledge that the roads, automobiles, computers, grocery stores, schools and universities, stadiums, hospitals, libraries, telephone and electric lines, museums, laser tag studios and bowling alleys, are ALSO all results of the system that we live in

You mean the stuff that a lot of black people invented or improved upon over the last couple centuries and rarely get credit for? Gee, what other things have white people taken credit for that weren't really all their own?

OB1Shinobi wrote: so its all wealthy white devils creating this evil patriarchy and oppressing minorities - but where did you, and how were you able to learn all these clever ideas?
from, and as a beneficiary of, the very system you denigrate

Education is a liberatory kind of power. As I study to become an educator myself, my ability to help others increases exponentially. It is true that I have benefited from my own whiteness in education as an institution controlled by whiteness as an institution. I bear that responsibility and hope to do something meaningful in the process rather than being immobilized by guilt.

OB1Shinobi wrote: racists dont want equality, ever

Of course not, that would mean giving up power. It becomes even more interesting to watch passively complicit white people turn into active racists at the prospect of having to give up that power even if they aren't cognizant of the fact that it is power they would be giving up, they sense they losing something they hold dear.

OB1Shinobi wrote: some of the people on the position that you are expressing are more concerned with attacking "white" than they are with countering "the oppressive elements of the power structure", never grasping that these two things are not dependent upon each other

There's a bit of double-thinking happening here. Attacking whiteness as an "oppressive element of the power structure" is exactly what needs to happen. Criticizing the institution of white supremacy is not an attack on white people as individuals, however some racist white people can be used symbols of larger institutional whiteness (i.e. Trump ).

Closing remarks: Listen, OB1Shinobi, I feel like we've had a productive and thoughtful discussion but I need to stop before we begin going in circles, before one of us (it has about an equal chance of being me) begins attacking the other on a personal level. Feel free to respond and know that I will read it, but I will not respond. I don't expect complex discussions like this one to be resolved in one thread, two threads, or even ten threads; in one day, one month, or even a year. I appreciate your continued willingness to engage with me in these discussions and I feel like we're definitely progressing towards mutual understanding which is what I've been hoping for. I suppose I should have said that first, huh? I don't expect to convince you of my perspective. I can't convince you of anything you don't want to believe. I do think there is benefit to having these discussions even if we continue to disagree.

There's something I'd like to say that I feel like needs to be said in regards to whiteness as an institution of power. At some point theory breaks down. There are many reasons for this, but of these is that racism is an irrational and soul-shattering thing. You cannot reason racism. You can gather data about its effects, you can document historical trends, and you can create working theories to help articulate the complex ideas of racism, but it is imperfect because racism is not an entirely rational thing. Nobody sat down and weighed the pros and cons of institutional whiteness. No matter how tightly-knit the theory, it will always contain inadequacies that speak to the inverse of medieval philosophers: humans are irrational animals. Racism didn't happen overnight but was a slow progression of various different things and therefore those different events that contributed to what I now describe as racism are pieces to a puzzle.

And with that I leave you with a meme that is meant to be light-hearted and in reference to idea that nobody sat down and weighed the pros and cons of institutional whiteness.

Jamie Stick wrote: ....

i respect your right to your opinion, and i thank you for your cordiality.

we are not going to agree, thats ok

you are justifying racism, and i think that you do it because of resentment that you feel, and i think that you justify that resentment primarily as a result of your life experiences, and that's your right

you may not believe this, and i may not express it well, but i am genuinely regretful that you have had those experiences, and i hope that, in time, you can reconcile your pain

and i hope that we both get to see society improve

Locksley wrote: How many people who are posting here are people of color?

I am half POC.

OB1Shinobi wrote: ...

It's clear that you don't actually understand. The two white men that you gave examples of have either raised or lowered their standard in life due to their own actions, skills, or ability to amass wealth. These factors, however, were not determined by their race. As white individuals they both began life with the same basic standard of white privilege. What they then did with it is all on them. It's like how if 2 people were to have a race, you could place one 2 metres behind the other but if that person is exceptionally skilled and worked hard at improving their body and speed, they can still win. However they won with a handicap. And that's what white privilege compared to the lack of privilege of poc is. White people start the race on the line and poc start the race a metre to two behind the line. And you have idiots like Dahmer who started on the line but 4 metres down the race they saw something to murder over near the stands and so they ran off to do that.

Shakespeare said it well "methinks thou dost protest too much"....

Locksley wrote: How many people who are posting here are people of color?

good question, but lets not discriminate:

are there any colorless people (CP) posting here?

or people of indeterminate color (POIC)?

i KNOW we have some people of a color not yet specified (POACNYS)?

any people of a color not yet mis-labeled by society (POACNYMLBS)?

what about people whose color seems to change with sun-exposure or diet (PWCSTCWSEOD)? *

any who feel their color has not been included in the conversation?

* was amended to "PWCSTCDTEF" people whose color seems to change due to environmental factors"

Akayuki wrote: It's clear that you don't actually understand. The two white men that you gave examples of have either raised or lowered their standard in life due to their own actions, skills, or ability to amass wealth. These factors, however, were not determined by their race. As white individuals they both began life with the same basic standard of white privilege. What they then did with it is all on them. It's like how if 2 people were to have a race, you could place one 2 metres behind the other but if that person is exceptionally skilled and worked hard at improving their body and speed, they can still win. However they won with a handicap. And that's what white privilege compared to the lack of privilege of poc is. White people start the race on the line and poc start the race a metre to two behind the line. And you have idiots like Dahmer who started on the line but 4 metres down the race they saw something to murder over near the stands and so they ran off to do that.

i appreciate what your'e saying, ok, i dont want to seem hostile,
but i wonder if youve read the whole thread?

i talk a lot so its hard to read all of my posts sometimes

as i understand it, what you described - everything that you have described - is racial discrimination

as legal citizens, everyone should "start at the line"

the efforts to see that made into a reality are collectively referred to "civil rights" or "equal rights" or even "the civil rights movement" (but that wording specifically conjures up the era of the dr king marches for a lot of people)

the instances where the recognition of equality is refused to a person based on their demographic are called "discrimination"

when the discrimination happens as a result of race, its called "racial discrimination"

some context to that: whites are, and have historically been, the majority in several prominent nations of the modern world

the legal status of "citizen", and especially the psychological recognition of the validity of that status by the majority, was at one time simply not available to non whites, under any circumstances

people, including white people , have been working to change the legal status and the psychological recognition of its validity by the general population, since the 1700's

this work resulted in the end of black slavery, the official recognition of non whites as full fledged citizens, and the many battles of the civil rights movement in general since the 1700s

there is still a lot of work needed to counter the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination, work which requires honest evaluation of the facts and realities, and must be predicated on mutual respect

lately, there has been a shift in the language by certain elements within the civil rights movement

this represents a paradigm shift from focusing on "racial discrimination" towards focusing on"white privilege"

the white privilege movement suggests that all racism, in the entire world, is white racism oppressing minorities, (which its not) and attempts to place the responsibility for the entire history of the white oppression of other races, onto the lap of every white person, particularly every white man, alive today, regardless of their individual views or histories

i have no doubt that these links are going to be interpreted by some to be no more than another white mans attempt to hijack the work and ingenuity of minorities

but i believe that is because, once a person become ideologically driven, they interpret all of the nuance of the world as evidence of their own ideology

and every scrap of being correct about anything convinces them they are correct about everything, and they become unable to see the world in any terms other than the strict ideological lines of "us" and "them" which they have drawn

but i want to point out that white people have always played pivotal roles in the civil rights movements of society

http://www.class.uh.edu/gl/abol3.htm

http://www.biography.com/people/groups/abolitionists

i also want to say that i am absolutely on the side of equality, racial equality, gender equality, orientation equality, i dont even know all the words for all the equalities that may be out there but i believe that people should be judged based on their actions and intentions, and even then, not judged all that harshly in most instances

but i see the "white privilege" as just another face of racism, bigotry, and a threat to actual racial equality, and that is the position i take

OB1Shinobi wrote: ...as legal citizens, everyone should "start at the line"

Should is the important part of that sentence though. One would have a difficult time proving that we all do.

OB1Shinobi wrote: ...but i see the "white privilege" as just another face of racism, bigotry, and a threat to actual racial equality, and that is the position i take

It is, to an extent. One that I do grow weary of, but that doesn't mean that "white privilege" doesn't actually exist. Just that those talking about it need to be careful not to blame all white people for it's existence. But to pretend that it doesn't exist is foolish.