White privilege and other matters

[Slick]

those with Asian names had to make something like 70%

I think this is an issue that hasn't really been touched upon in this thread and with the wider BLM movement. Asians make up a much bigger percentage of the ethnic minority in the UK than black people but seem to be vastly less represented across TV, music, sport, just about anything.

[notfatcat]

I'd disagree with that statement, the fact that the validity or even the existence of white privilege is being questioned shows, to me at least, that people do not know where they've come from in this regard.

Hang on, white privilege began as just an assertion. It hasn't been quantified, measured, tested or proven in any way, and it never will be. It's been a propaganda tool up to this point. You seriously think that I don't know where I've come from because I question the validity of white privilege?

I'm saying that equality of opportunity is a myth, whilst all ethnicities face economic problems, if you are not white you face another barrier. There was a recent study done which showed that job applications from people with "white names" were far more successful in getting a call back from prospective employers than those with non-white names - those with Asian names had to make something like 70% more applications to get the same number of call backs, this rose to about 90% for those with North African or Middle Eastern names.

I would expect this to happen in every country in the world where non-indigenous minorities exist.

The use of the word "natural" here makes me very uneasy, it's a choice, not a natural phenomenon.
I'm tempted to reiterate my first response in this post, that there is a need to acknowledge the existence of white privilege is pretty obvious.

Disparities, hierarchies and discrimination happen in all societies and are pretty much everywhere we look. If you don't think they're naturally occurring things and that you feel duty bound to check your white privilege then I don't know what to say but carry on.

[notfatcat]

those with Asian names had to make something like 70%

I think this is an issue that hasn't really been touched upon in this thread and with the wider BLM movement. Asians make up a much bigger percentage of the ethnic minority in the UK than black people but seem to be vastly less represented across TV, music, sport, just about anything.

That's because BLM is concerned with black lives. I also don't think there's as much embracing of victimhood status in Asian communities.

[Tichtheid]

I'd disagree with that statement, the fact that the validity or even the existence of white privilege is being questioned shows, to me at least, that people do not know where they've come from in this regard.

Hang on, white privilege began as just an assertion. It hasn't been quantified, measured, tested or proven in any way, and it never will be. It's been a propaganda tool up to this point. You seriously think that I don't know where I've come from because I question the validity of white privilege?

I'm saying that equality of opportunity is a myth, whilst all ethnicities face economic problems, if you are not white you face another barrier. There was a recent study done which showed that job applications from people with "white names" were far more successful in getting a call back from prospective employers than those with non-white names - those with Asian names had to make something like 70% more applications to get the same number of call backs, this rose to about 90% for those with North African or Middle Eastern names.

I would expect this to happen in every country in the world where non-indigenous minorities exist.

The use of the word "natural" here makes me very uneasy, it's a choice, not a natural phenomenon.
I'm tempted to reiterate my first response in this post, that there is a need to acknowledge the existence of white privilege is pretty obvious.

Disparities, hierarchies and discrimination happen in all societies and are pretty much everywhere we look. If you don't think they're naturally occurring things and that you feel duty bound to check your white privilege then I don't know what to say but carry on.

White privilege is, fundamentally, the absence of discrimination based skin colour.

For there to be no white privilege there would have to be no racial discrimination.

[Hugo]

I'm saying that equality of opportunity is a myth, whilst all ethnicities face economic problems, if you are not white you face another barrier. There was a recent study done which showed that job applications from people with "white names" were far more successful in getting a call back from prospective employers than those with non-white names - those with Asian names had to make something like 70% more applications to get the same number of call backs, this rose to about 90% for those with North African or Middle Eastern names.

I would expect this to happen in every country in the world where non-indigenous minorities exist.

Fully agree.

I would want to know how white people fare in countries where they are an ethnic minority in order to make a like for like comparison. What this sounds like to me is the advantage of being the indigenous majority in a given country rather than something that is peculiar to white people. You would expect locals to get the nod over foreigners or people with foreign sounding names.

[Hugo]

It was first introduced by this piece. https://nationalseedproject.org/Key-SEE ... e-knapsack

It’s not too long, about 7 or 8 pages of a4.

Tl;dr version is that the author thinks about why she is more privileged compared to black people. She produced a long list of things - for a flavour, here’re the first 5

1- I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2 - If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

3- I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

4- I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

5 - I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

Thanks for posting that. Read the whole thing & there's some good stuff in there.

Essentially what you had was a white, woman academic who, in 1989, had the self awareness to recognise that she had lived a charmed life and the reason her life turned out as good as it did was largely due to circumstance and luck. That is being born white, presumably going to good schools and living in nice places which were the preserve of white people of her social class at that place and time. She was the product of a system and society that gave her better odds of being successful than a counterpart in the black community with the same talents. For someone who presumably grew up in the 50s and 60s in the USA that seems like a fair shout.

I take from her comments at the end that she doesn't profess to speak for other white people and that her experiences cannot be extrapolated across the entire race. She notes that there are many other factors that influence whether someone enjoys privilege. She seems to present her analysis with far more nuance and far less assertiveness than I have seen other proponents of white privilege do.

Overall I think her article is mostly a statement on class. Blacks were an under educated, poverty stricken class of people who were denied access to good schools, housing & jobs in the United States. I just don't think the phenomenon can be applied across the board to other societies and to all whites because there are too many other variables that you have to factor in.


TLDR - She makes good points but USA =/= the world & the white experience is not homogeneous.

No probs

I remember exchanging with you on another thread explaining that this is why I like npr- it’s a pleasant place to exchange thoughts.

On that, our thoughts are pretty much aligned. The piece is a really decent read but overly simplified, because (and this is my own feeling) she’s trying to narrow it all down to a simple direct struggle for power, which is often an outcome of social science publications.

On that wider point - the piece is produced and held up as ‘social science’ and is one of the more intelligible ones out there. As interesting as it is, there’s fuck all scientific method in there, and so really shines a light on why social scientists should be regarded with a bit of suspicion with their evidence base fir their claims.

It is one of the things that I agree with Jordan Peterson on; social science has more of a philosophy feel rather than a science feel, and should be really well examined when being used to set policy.

On that note there was an article I read over Christmas about a Russian scientist who finished studying beetles (which he had spent his whole professional life doing) and who began studying history. He heavily criticised the approach of social science which is to hyper focus on certain flashpoint events such as revolutions, wars etc because he said by definition those events were outliers. Basically he said that history is too narrative driven rather than an attempt to establish facts and truth.

His approach to the study of history was much more thorough and rigorous than social scientists and I believe he got a decent amount of flak because he ruffled quite a few feathers.

[notfatcat]

White privilege is, fundamentally, the absence of discrimination based skin colour.

For there to be no white privilege there would have to be no racial discrimination.

I know what it's supposed to be, I want to know what it accomplishes and so far I haven't heard anything convincing.

Your second line could be said of any colour and/or ethnicity as racism isn't peculiar to whites.

[Tichtheid]

White privilege is, fundamentally, the absence of discrimination based skin colour.

For there to be no white privilege there would have to be no racial discrimination.

I know what it's supposed to be, I want to know what it accomplishes and so far I haven't heard anything convincing.

Your second line could be said of any colour and/or ethnicity as racism isn't peculiar to whites.

Your second line is whataboutery, as was the earlier attempt at distraction from the topic at hand.

The topic is about those areas where the white ethnicity holds power, .

If you agree that there is discrimination on the basis of ethnicity then it must follow that there are those who are not subject to it, they benefit from not being discriminated against, ie they are in a position of relative privilege.

This exists, it does not mean that we are all racists, that is a whole different discussion.

[Random1]

White privilege is, fundamentally, the absence of discrimination based skin colour.

For there to be no white privilege there would have to be no racial discrimination.

I know what it's supposed to be, I want to know what it accomplishes and so far I haven't heard anything convincing.

Your second line could be said of any colour and/or ethnicity as racism isn't peculiar to whites.

Your second line is whataboutery, as was the earlier attempt at distraction from the topic at hand.

The topic is about those areas where the white ethnicity holds power, .

If you agree that there is discrimination on the basis of ethnicity then it must follow that there are those who are not subject to it, they benefit from not being discriminated against, ie they are in a position of relative privilege.

This exists, it does not mean that we are all racists, that is a whole different discussion.

I like the way you’re describing the theory you’re driving at - it makes some sense.

But you’re making two assumptions that I’m not convinced are based in fact;

1 - the definition of racism you’re using seems to include a power differential between those perpetrating it (whites) and those befalling it (blacks). Am I assuming correctly, or reading too much into the way you’re wording things?

2 - the absence of racism has a demonstrable impact upon life outcomes. Can you point me to the evidence please, as I’ve been trying to find some for months, and can’t find any, except for stuff like Peggy Macintosh’s work, which is based on personal, subjective experience.

Cheers

[Tichtheid]

I like the way you’re describing the theory you’re driving at - it makes some sense.

But you’re making two assumptions that I’m not convinced are based in fact;

1 - the definition of racism you’re using seems to include a power differential between those perpetrating it (whites) and those befalling it (blacks). Am I assuming correctly, or reading too much into the way you’re wording things?

2 - the absence of racism has a demonstrable impact upon life outcomes. Can you point me to the evidence please, as I’ve been trying to find some for months, and can’t find any, except for stuff like Peggy Macintosh’s work, which is based on personal, subjective experience.

Cheers

1. You are correct in your assumption, but I'd add that the power differential might not actually be overt or deliberate, it is very difficult to point to someone and say, "They are to blame", which leads on to..

2. It's almost impossible to measure what effect the absence of racism has on someone, but you can can look at what has happened others who have been subjected to it, be it quite subtle, institutional, systemic or full blown violent racism.

[Random1]

I like the way you’re describing the theory you’re driving at - it makes some sense.

But you’re making two assumptions that I’m not convinced are based in fact;

1 - the definition of racism you’re using seems to include a power differential between those perpetrating it (whites) and those befalling it (blacks). Am I assuming correctly, or reading too much into the way you’re wording things?

2 - the absence of racism has a demonstrable impact upon life outcomes. Can you point me to the evidence please, as I’ve been trying to find some for months, and can’t find any, except for stuff like Peggy Macintosh’s work, which is based on personal, subjective experience.

Cheers

1. You are correct in your assumption, but I'd add that the power differential might not actually be overt or deliberate, it is very difficult to point to someone and say, "They are to blame", which leads on to..

2. It's almost impossible to measure what effect the absence of racism has on someone, but you can can look at what has happened others who have been subjected to it, be it quite subtle, institutional, systemic or full blown violent racism.

Ok - just one more question on the power differential thing - does that impact on the sort of evidence you’ll accept in arriving at your conclusions?

I ask because the power differential idea is rooted squarely in post modernism, and subsequently critical race theory.

It has the explicit result of allowing personal subjective evidence holding sway over empirical data, as empiricism is a white, western method that apparently reinforces existing power structures.

Is that your take?

On the second point on it being almost impossible to measure the impact of absent racism; I’ll refer to a hero of mine Christopher Hitchens;

Section taken from Wikipedia;

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

End quote.

The proponents of white privilege are making significant claims and should be required to prove their case.

Now comes the insidious part of white privilege in my eyes; the evidence base is poor, but it is combined with the re-definition of racism to include a power differential.

This is actually a really clever rhetorical twist, as it means anyone criticising white privilege from a white population is “punching down”. And that never feels right and can be dismissed; as denying white privileged is actually a demonstration of white privilege itself. It’s a feedback loop.

This then leads to the evidence base for the concept being remarkably low, as criticism generally has to be confined to the daily mail and rugby forums, as dissenting the theory is taboo.

It’s clever, but insidious for me.

I could go on and on about this sort of philosophy driven rhetoric: It’s a fascinating but, ultimately, divisive mechanism.

I suppose my overarching point is; the case is unproven for white privilege . The theory has merit, but also has some deep flaws and needs proper scientific study.

And here’s the rub; it is counter productive and creates division where unity should be sought.

[notfatcat]

White privilege is, fundamentally, the absence of discrimination based skin colour.

For there to be no white privilege there would have to be no racial discrimination.

I know what it's supposed to be, I want to know what it accomplishes and so far I haven't heard anything convincing.

Your second line could be said of any colour and/or ethnicity as racism isn't peculiar to whites.

Your second line is whataboutery, as was the earlier attempt at distraction from the topic at hand.

The topic is about those areas where the white ethnicity holds power, .

If you agree that there is discrimination on the basis of ethnicity then it must follow that there are those who are not subject to it, they benefit from not being discriminated against, ie they are in a position of relative privilege.

This exists, it does not mean that we are all racists, that is a whole different discussion.

Sure, you can class it as whataboutery if you want to dismiss racism perpetrated by non-whites, but I don't see why the topic is necessarily about places where whites hold all the power. I'm not sure such places exist. I suppose it depends on what you call power and how readily you'll dismiss power held by non-whites.

If people benefit from not being the victims of racism then all races have ethnic privilege.

I'm still waiting to hear what the concept of white privilege accomplishes and how.

[Random1]

Thanks for posting that. Read the whole thing & there's some good stuff in there.

Essentially what you had was a white, woman academic who, in 1989, had the self awareness to recognise that she had lived a charmed life and the reason her life turned out as good as it did was largely due to circumstance and luck. That is being born white, presumably going to good schools and living in nice places which were the preserve of white people of her social class at that place and time. She was the product of a system and society that gave her better odds of being successful than a counterpart in the black community with the same talents. For someone who presumably grew up in the 50s and 60s in the USA that seems like a fair shout.

I take from her comments at the end that she doesn't profess to speak for other white people and that her experiences cannot be extrapolated across the entire race. She notes that there are many other factors that influence whether someone enjoys privilege. She seems to present her analysis with far more nuance and far less assertiveness than I have seen other proponents of white privilege do.

Overall I think her article is mostly a statement on class. Blacks were an under educated, poverty stricken class of people who were denied access to good schools, housing & jobs in the United States. I just don't think the phenomenon can be applied across the board to other societies and to all whites because there are too many other variables that you have to factor in.


TLDR - She makes good points but USA =/= the world & the white experience is not homogeneous.

No probs

I remember exchanging with you on another thread explaining that this is why I like npr- it’s a pleasant place to exchange thoughts.

On that, our thoughts are pretty much aligned. The piece is a really decent read but overly simplified, because (and this is my own feeling) she’s trying to narrow it all down to a simple direct struggle for power, which is often an outcome of social science publications.

On that wider point - the piece is produced and held up as ‘social science’ and is one of the more intelligible ones out there. As interesting as it is, there’s fuck all scientific method in there, and so really shines a light on why social scientists should be regarded with a bit of suspicion with their evidence base fir their claims.

It is one of the things that I agree with Jordan Peterson on; social science has more of a philosophy feel rather than a science feel, and should be really well examined when being used to set policy.

On that note there was an article I read over Christmas about a Russian scientist who finished studying beetles (which he had spent his whole professional life doing) and who began studying history. He heavily criticised the approach of social science which is to hyper focus on certain flashpoint events such as revolutions, wars etc because he said by definition those events were outliers. Basically he said that history is too narrative driven rather than an attempt to establish facts and truth.

His approach to the study of history was much more thorough and rigorous than social scientists and I believe he got a decent amount of flak because he ruffled quite a few feathers.

To be fair, it’s one of the reasons people like Peterson and Harris get grief - they expect robust evidence as a basis for policy making. Unfortunately political science falls within the social science orbit, and so the theories and methods are now pretty engrained in the political classes.

[Enzedder]

I appreciate you trying to answer the questions. I'd be interested to hear from people who are fully behind the idea that the concept is actually beneficial in some way.

The concept is grand - or grandiose. I'm not too sure which.

There are so many more things that show privilege and advantage or discrimination and disadvantage:

- Good looks will get most people a long way

- Athleticism

- Health (particularly poor health)

- Position of the parents / family

- Money (or lack of it)

The list could go on but certainly the colour of one's skin could be added to that list in many instances.

[Tichtheid]

@notfatcat, it's not about dismissing racism from non-whites, it's about trying to stay focussed on the topic. If racism exists in non-white cultures and if that leads to non-white privilege in those areas then that does nothing to nullify or ameliorate the existence of white privilege in the West.

@Random1, the Hitchens quote is a useful device in a discussion, but there is evidence - does racism exist? What is the evidence for it?

If it exits, is it a Good Thing(TM) or a Bad Thing?

I'm going to take a leap here and suggest it's a bad thing, none of us would want to experience it for ourselves or for the people we care about.
Why is it a bad thing? Does it impact on mental or physical health? Does it impact on life chances in education or job prospects? We can all quote examples of success of one or two people, or indeed some groups, but does that really mean there is no institutional or systemic racism?

https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/how-s ... -people-uk

[Openside]

notfatcat, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

You’ve logged in with your teenage girl Twitter persona again

out Outstanding! What a massive fanny.

[I like neeps]

Poor white youngsters in England's former industrial towns and those living on the coast are among the most likely to miss out on university, warns the watchdog for fair access.

"These are the people and places that have been left behind," says Chris Millward of the Office for Students.

The watchdog has used a new measure to see which groups are likely or not to go to university.

MPs are investigating low attainment among white working class pupils.

The Office for Students has looked at overlapping factors - such as poverty, race, gender and where people live - which are indicators of whether someone is likely to go to university.
'Successive generations'

This combined measure found white youngsters on free meals or from disadvantaged areas were 92% of those in the bottom fifth, in terms of the likelihood of going to to university.

Why do so few white working class boys go to university?
Half of universities have fewer than 5% poor white students
Target of 50% in university reached

These were particularly concentrated in some areas - such as parts of Nottingham, Great Yarmouth, Barnsley, Sheffield, Stoke and Hull.

Mr Millward, director of fair access, warns that these communities, "over successive generations", have missed out on the rise in access to universities.

"The expansion of educational opportunities, and the belief that equality of opportunity would flow from this, have not delivered for them. So they are less likely to see education as the way to improve their lives," writes Mr Millward.
The rise in take up of university places has not reached all groups

The research emphasises the importance of place, identifying particularly low entry rates in "former industrial towns and cities across the north and midlands, or coastal towns".

But white students on free meals in London seemed to have bucked the trend, with an the entry rate that "has pulled away from that in other parts of the country" - and the capital overall has higher rates of going to university.
Who is getting places?

Figures from the Department for Education last year reported that "male white British free school meal pupils are the least likely of all the main ethnic groups to progress to higher education".

Across all pupils eligible for free meals 26% went on to university by the age of 19, but for white pupils on free meals the figure was 16% - and only 13% for boys.
In comparison, 59% of youngsters from black African families on free meals went to university and 32% of black Caribbean youngsters eligible for free meals.
Among youngsters from Indian families on free meals, 57% went to university and 47% among Pakistani youngsters on free meals.
Although they have a lower entry rate, white students are by far the biggest group, representing more than 70% of students in England.
In 2019, across all groups, the proportion of people going to university by the age of 30 crossed 50% for the first time.

The Education Select Committee is investigating why "left behind white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds" seem to be underachieving in education.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55804123

Interesting how they’ve tried to control the economic variable by limiting it to free school lunches.

But again, I really don’t get the value of splitting it on racial lines.

What do we now do with these stats that ends up with anything but animosity and division?

These stats end up with division because instead of saying "gosh poverty is wrong, we should do something about it" you get "well it's because of racism/white privilege/woke overcorrection" etc. And the people driving the stories: press, politicians get away with it safely knowing people are too distracted to be angry that kids both black and white are suffering because of economic choices we make as a country.

[Random1]

@notfatcat, it's not about dismissing racism from non-whites, it's about trying to stay focussed on the topic. If racism exists in non-white cultures and if that leads to non-white privilege in those areas then that does nothing to nullify or ameliorate the existence of white privilege in the West.

@Random1, the Hitchens quote is a useful device in a discussion, but there is evidence - does racism exist? What is the evidence for it?

If it exits, is it a Good Thing(TM) or a Bad Thing?

I'm going to take a leap here and suggest it's a bad thing, none of us would want to experience it for ourselves or for the people we care about.
Why is it a bad thing? Does it impact on mental or physical health? Does it impact on life chances in education or job prospects? We can all quote examples of success of one or two people, or indeed some groups, but does that really mean there is no institutional or systemic racism?

https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/how-s ... -people-uk

Ah, but now you’re doing what you said notfatcat was doing. You’re pivoting.

I don’t think anyone is seriously saying racism doesn’t exist. And it’s a horrible.

We aren’t discussing racism, we’re discussing the absence of racism enjoyed by whites (I’m paraphrasing what you said above to define white privilege).

It’s a subtle but important difference. The former has evidence, the latter doesn’t.

The desired outcome of the concepts are different too.

[Random1]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55804123

Interesting how they’ve tried to control the economic variable by limiting it to free school lunches.

But again, I really don’t get the value of splitting it on racial lines.

What do we now do with these stats that ends up with anything but animosity and division?

These stats end up with division because instead of saying "gosh poverty is wrong, we should do something about it" you get "well it's because of racism/white privilege/woke overcorrection" etc. And the people driving the stories: press, politicians get away with it safely knowing people are too distracted to be angry that kids both black and white are suffering because of economic choices we make as a country.

Yup - socio economic status is still the biggy for me.

I know we disagree on the Tory scum fred, but I do agree with you on the need to change the economic status quo.

Working out a way of proper redistribution of wealth on a meritocratic basis, with good quality education for all is a panacea for me.

I just don’t know enough about proper economics to work out what’s the best approach to achieve any of that.

[Tichtheid]

@notfatcat, it's not about dismissing racism from non-whites, it's about trying to stay focussed on the topic. If racism exists in non-white cultures and if that leads to non-white privilege in those areas then that does nothing to nullify or ameliorate the existence of white privilege in the West.

@Random1, the Hitchens quote is a useful device in a discussion, but there is evidence - does racism exist? What is the evidence for it?

If it exits, is it a Good Thing(TM) or a Bad Thing?

I'm going to take a leap here and suggest it's a bad thing, none of us would want to experience it for ourselves or for the people we care about.
Why is it a bad thing? Does it impact on mental or physical health? Does it impact on life chances in education or job prospects? We can all quote examples of success of one or two people, or indeed some groups, but does that really mean there is no institutional or systemic racism?

https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/how-s ... -people-uk

Ah, but now you’re doing what you said notfatcat was doing. You’re pivoting.

I don’t think anyone is seriously saying racism doesn’t exist. And it’s a horrible.

We aren’t discussing racism, we’re discussing the absence of racism enjoyed by whites (I’m paraphrasing what you said above to define white privilege).

It’s a subtle but important difference. The former has evidence, the latter doesn’t.

The desired outcome of the concepts are different too.

It’s not pivoting, it’s trying to establish an argument from a first principle.

Racism exists -> racism is a bad thing -> those who do not suffer racism are in a position of privilege compared to those who who do suffer it.

[Random1]

I appreciate you trying to answer the questions. I'd be interested to hear from people who are fully behind the idea that the concept is actually beneficial in some way.

The concept is grand - or grandiose. I'm not too sure which.

There are so many more things that show privilege and advantage or discrimination and disadvantage:

- Good looks will get most people a long way

- Athleticism

- Health (particularly poor health)

- Position of the parents / family

- Money (or lack of it)

The list could go on but certainly the colour of one's skin could be added to that list in many instances.

You’re tip toeing into the world of inter-sectionalism there enz. It’s another consequence of critical race theory.

Critical race theory believes that racism is baked into society. But it is based upon the assumption that the collective of society enforces a power structure that keeps black people oppressed.

The ramification is that, if you accept that one discrimination is baked into society, then why not others? Sexism, ableism, gingerism, ageism, sexuality etc, etc.

Then that surely leads to a hierarchy. Disabled, black women are more discriminated against than black men.

Which is logical if you accept the concept.

But what do we practically do with that? Do we have programmes for old, black gay women? Do we positively discriminate on that basis?

What about white women? More or less discriminated compared to black men?

Who the fuck knows.

[Random1]

@notfatcat, it's not about dismissing racism from non-whites, it's about trying to stay focussed on the topic. If racism exists in non-white cultures and if that leads to non-white privilege in those areas then that does nothing to nullify or ameliorate the existence of white privilege in the West.

@Random1, the Hitchens quote is a useful device in a discussion, but there is evidence - does racism exist? What is the evidence for it?

If it exits, is it a Good Thing(TM) or a Bad Thing?

I'm going to take a leap here and suggest it's a bad thing, none of us would want to experience it for ourselves or for the people we care about.
Why is it a bad thing? Does it impact on mental or physical health? Does it impact on life chances in education or job prospects? We can all quote examples of success of one or two people, or indeed some groups, but does that really mean there is no institutional or systemic racism?

https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/how-s ... -people-uk

Ah, but now you’re doing what you said notfatcat was doing. You’re pivoting.

I don’t think anyone is seriously saying racism doesn’t exist. And it’s a horrible.

We aren’t discussing racism, we’re discussing the absence of racism enjoyed by whites (I’m paraphrasing what you said above to define white privilege).

It’s a subtle but important difference. The former has evidence, the latter doesn’t.

The desired outcome of the concepts are different too.

It’s not pivoting, it’s trying to establish an argument from a first principle.

Racism exists -> racism is a bad thing -> those who do not suffer racism are in a position of privilege compared to those who who do suffer it.

That’s a very nihilistic way of thinking.

It’s like saying;

Paedophilia exists -> paedophilia is a bad thing -> not being raped as a kid is a privilege.

Fuck that - bad things not happening is not a privilege.

[Ymx]

I actually can’t believe the logic sequence for white privilege from what I saw on that YouTube and what I’ve heard on this thread. And then the final part being if you are white and deny it you’re by definition white privileged.

I’m sure it will fit in to a named logic fallacy in here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Or a similar debating falsehood list.

[Ymx]

A pillar of contemporary Leftism is the notion of “white privilege.” Given that a generation of high-school and college students are being taught that a great number of “unearned privileges” accrue to white Americans, the charge of white privilege demands rational inquiry.

The assertion turns out to be largely meaningless. And, more significantly, it does great harm to blacks.


First, no reasonable person can argue that white privilege applies to the great majority of whites, let alone to all whites. There are simply too many variables other than race that determine individual success in America.

And if it were true, why would whites commit suicide at twice the rate of blacks (and at a higher rate than any other race in America except American Indians)? According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, white men, who the Left argues are the most privileged group of all in America, commit seven out of every ten suicides in America — even though only three out of ten Americans are white males.

Whatever reason one gives for the white suicide rate, it is indisputable that, at the very least, considerably more whites than blacks consider life not worth living. To argue that all these whites were oblivious to all the unique privileges they had is to stretch the definition of “privilege” beyond credulity.

Second, there are a host of privileges that dwarf “white privilege.”

A huge one is Two-Parent Privilege. If you are raised by a father and mother, you enter adulthood with more privileges than anyone else in American society, irrespective of race, ethnicity, or sex. That’s why the poverty rate among two-parent black families is only 7 percent.

Compare that with a 22 percent poverty rate among whites in single-parent homes. Obviously the two-parent home is the decisive “privilege.”

#share#Another “privilege,” if one wants to use that term, that dwarfs “white privilege” is Asian privilege. Asian Americans do better than white Americans in school, on IQ tests, on credit scores, and on other positive measures. In fact, according to recent data from the Federal Reserve, Asians are about to surpass whites as the wealthiest group of Americans. Will the Left soon complain about Asian privilege?

And how about “gentile privilege?” For most of American history it was a lot easier being a Christian than being a Jew in America. Yet, I do not know a Jew — myself included — who doesn’t believe that to be a Jew in America has always been an unbelievable stroke of good fortune. It is not surprising that an American Jew, Irving Berlin, wrote “God Bless America.”

There are even times when there is “minority privilege” in America today.

Every high-school student knows that given similar scholastic and extra-curricular records, one’s chances of being accepted into a prestigious college are considerably greater if one is a member of a minority, most especially the black minority.

And the biggest privilege of all is American privilege. Unless you or your family make some big mistakes, the greatest privilege of all is to be an American. That’s why much of the world wants to live in America.

So then why all this left-wing talk about white privilege?

The major reason is in order to portray blacks as victims. This achieves two huge goals for the Left — one political, the other philosophical.

The political goal is to ensure that blacks continue to view America as racist. The Left knows that the only way to retain political power in America is to perpetuate the belief among black Americans that their primary problem is white racism. Only then will blacks continue to regard the Left and the Democrats as indispensable.

#related#The philosophical reason is that the Left denies — as it has since Marx — the primacy of moral and cultural values in determining the fate of the individual and of society. In the Left’s view, it is not poor values or a lack of moral self-control that causes crime, but poverty and, in the case of black criminals, racism. Therefore, the disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by black males is not attributable to the moral failure of the black criminal or to the likelihood of his not having been raised by a father, but to an external factor over which he has little or no power — white racism.

White privilege is another left-wing attempt, and a successful one, to keep America from focusing on what will truly help black America — a resurrection of the black family, for example — and instead to focus on an external problem: white privilege.

Clearly a bit right wing (possibly a lot), and not sure about the suicide relevance, but some interesting thoughts on the topic.

[Random1]

I actually can’t believe the logic sequence for white privilege from what I saw on that YouTube and what I’ve heard on this thread. And then the final part being if you are white and deny it you’re by definition white privileged.

I’m sure it will fit in to a named logic fallacy in here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Or a similar debating falsehood list.

It’s worth noting that the people that drive a lot of the white privilege concept are lawyers. Their arguments are really well thought out and they’re good at selling it.

Here’s a video by professor Crenshaw. She’s one of the founding members of CRT and so not some crack pot. She is well credentialed and obviously sharp. It’s a long video again, but reveals some of the ultimate ambition behind the concept of white privilege.

If you’ve only got a couple of minutes, the animation at the end (from about 46 minutes) is worth a squint to see the sort of thing being produced and shown to predominantly young black students.

[Tichtheid]

That’s a very nihilistic way of thinking.

On the contrary, it is meant to be optimistic, eventually. If we don't recognise a problem and identify it correctly then we won't change it.

It’s like saying;

Paedophilia exists -> paedophilia is a bad thing -> not being raped as a kid is a privilege.

Fuck that - bad things not happening is not a privilege.

I don't think that analogy works for two reasons, first (ymx wanted logical fallacies) because it's a form of reductio ad absurdum, we end up at "not breaking your leg is a privilege".

Second, all swans are birds but not all birds are swans - paedophilia and racism are both crimes but they are manifestly different, especially when the racism is embedded and difficult to see.

We all seem to be comfortable with the idea of poverty being a problem and that a more equitable society is a desirable thing. There are many disagreements about how severe the divide is and how best to address it, but mostly there is a consensus that the problem exists.
Systemic racism is another layer of obstruction that a section of the community faces, and I have to say that the animation at the end of that video clip was blunt, but it wasn't inaccurate.

As I understand it, the racism that White Privilege seeks to address isn't really the Union Jack T-shirt-wearing nutter with the sloping forehead, it's more the everyday barriers that make life that bit harder for non-whites.
If you (you as in "one") think that doesn't exist then I can understand why you would think there is no such thing as white privilege, but if systemic racism exists then so does the phenomenon of white privilege.

[Ymx]

Both of you guys have clearly spent a long time analysing this, so forgive my wet behind the ear thoughts to this. And big thanks for everyone who’s kept this a civil and interesting discussion.


Is the instance of finding work.

Are there instances where certain interviewers have an unconscious bias toward those people they feel most aligned with? I think there certainly was in the past. Although I personally think it was/is not a race thing but a cultural thing.

Are HR departments and senior mgmt extremely highly aware of any such perceived prejudice these days? They certainly are! Are they faced with concerns of balanced employment within the population to the boardroom level? Even more so to the extent they seek out to fulfil a perceived balance.

I don’t feel there is a significant problem in our society today in order to form a movement. I’m not saying there’s nothing.

But mostly I think the damage it does to acknowledge it as a problem which not only overstated it in relation to everything else, but to segregate a cohort of people and treat them differently, telling them they’re oppressed, and that they need to be treated specially. That’s the real oppression.

[/whitesplaining]

[Random1]

Both of you guys have clearly spent a long time analysing this, so forgive my wet behind the ear thoughts to this. And big thanks for everyone who’s kept this a civil and interesting discussion.


Is the instance of finding work.

Are there instances where certain interviewers have an unconscious bias toward those people they feel most aligned with? I think there certainly was in the past. Although I personally think it was/is not a race thing but a cultural thing.

Are HR departments and senior mgmt extremely highly aware of any such perceived prejudice these days? They certainly are! Are they faced with concerns of balanced employment within the population to the boardroom level? Even more so to the extent they seek out to fulfil a perceived balance.

I don’t feel there is a significant problem in our society today in order to form a movement. I’m not saying there’s nothing.

But mostly I think the damage it does to acknowledge it as a problem which not only overstated it in relation to everything else, but to segregate a cohort of people and treat them differently, telling them they’re oppressed, and that they need to be treated specially. That’s the real oppression.

[/whitesplaining]

Yeah, it’s the best, most civil exchange I’ve ever had on this topic, so thanks to everyone.

Tichtheid - I disagree with almost everything you’ve written in your reply.

But I’m going to delay responding, because the one thing it did achieve was to make me more curious of the uk’s black academic view on systemic racism.

I’ve read and watched a fair bit of American stuff on systemic racism and read a fair bit on Uk versions of CRT and white privilege. However, a combo of you and Hugo’s response earlier in the thread, made me realise I’m not as knowledgable on the concept of Uk systemic racism.

So I did a bit of Googling and found Akala. I’d seen him on question time over the years, and found him interesting, but I haven’t read any of his stuff.

Found this video and it has compelled me to buy his book.


The thing that piqued my interest was that he blames socio economic factors for today’s inequality on all sorts of demographics including the Irish, chavs etc. It’s well worth a watch if you have an hour.

Anyway, I’m going to have a bit of a read and then come back and explain why you’re wrong from a better informed position

Ps, I can’t stand the bloke interviewing him.

[Random1]

Both of you guys have clearly spent a long time analysing this, so forgive my wet behind the ear thoughts to this. And big thanks for everyone who’s kept this a civil and interesting discussion.


Is the instance of finding work.

Are there instances where certain interviewers have an unconscious bias toward those people they feel most aligned with? I think there certainly was in the past. Although I personally think it was/is not a race thing but a cultural thing.

Are HR departments and senior mgmt extremely highly aware of any such perceived prejudice these days? They certainly are! Are they faced with concerns of balanced employment within the population to the boardroom level? Even more so to the extent they seek out to fulfil a perceived balance.

I don’t feel there is a significant problem in our society today in order to form a movement. I’m not saying there’s nothing.

But mostly I think the damage it does to acknowledge it as a problem which not only overstated it in relation to everything else, but to segregate a cohort of people and treat them differently, telling them they’re oppressed, and that they need to be treated specially. That’s the real oppression.

[/whitesplaining]

Your final point of the segregation was what I took from that cartoon video at the back end of the Crenshaw video I posted. It just feels designed to divide.

[Hugo]

As others have said, great thread.

In light of this thread one of the things that I have been pondering over the past few days is the extent to which recent developments (of which the concept of white privilege is one) in the realm of race relations have been undertaken as a departure from the teachings and writings of Martin Luther King Jr. Character and the more substantive elements of someones person (their sprirituality, their beliefs and ideology) have been relegated to secondary importance. Now identity is front and centre.

Martin Luther King Jr was a big believer in the importance of economic justice and he was also a very firm advocate for poor people of all races, he made specific reference to the plight of poor whites in interviews. He saw the Vietnam war through the lens of class, it was in his eyes a war where poor blacks (who were denied political and economic justice in the US) and poor whites where sent to kill poor Asian peasants.

I think the concept of white privelege has been successful in keeping people divided. It prevents the emergence of solidarity between poor people of any race and it also drives a wedge between bourgeoisie whites and underprivileged whites.

Also, the other thing to consider is how the "woke" movement has been seized upon by capitalists. The civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's was grounded in religion and ideas of morality, whether it was the SCLC, SNCC or the Nation of Islam. Malcolm X hardly had a dollar to his name when he died and a wife and four daugthers (I think), he was a true believer.

This modern era of civil rights activism is secular in nature, founded in academia and supported and co-opted by capital. A lot of people are using it to enrich or empower themselves.

[Tichtheid]

Here's a quote from Dr MLK Jr, it's from a letter he wrote whilst in prison,

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

Personally I do not think I face the same day to day as someone who is not white, I've never been the subject of a Jim Davidson routine, "oh come on, it's only a joke".
I haven't faced deportation despite living here for most of my life, there is no hostile environment, no political parties campaigning with a manifesto pledge offering cash for repatriation, no profiling by the police, no sense of awkwardness around me, no over-compensating, no one would look at me and think I could possibly be a terrorist, I don't have to think about what to call myself when applying for a job, I could go on.

I don't think I can keep repeating what I said a couple of times, if there is institutional or systemic racism then there is a group, the majority in fact, who are not subjected to it, and that is where the privilege lies.

I can't go any further on this until someone tells me that there is no systemic racism in the West.

[Hugo]

Here's a quote from Dr MLK Jr, it's from a letter he wrote whilst in prison,

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

Personally I do not think I face the same day to day as someone who is not white, I've never been the subject of a Jim Davidson routine, "oh come on, it's only a joke".
I haven't faced deportation despite living here for most of my life, there is no hostile environment, no political parties campaigning with a manifesto pledge offering cash for repatriation, no profiling by the police, no sense of awkwardness around me, no over-compensating, no one would look at me and think I could possibly be a terrorist, I don't have to think about what to call myself when applying for a job, I could go on.

I don't think I can keep repeating what I said a couple of times, if there is institutional or systemic racism then there is a group, the majority in fact, who are not subjected to it, and that is where the privilege lies.

I can't go any further on this until someone tells me that there is no systemic racism in the West.

All good points but you are probably overlooking the class aspect of it.

That privilege you enjoy or that you feel that you are a recipient of does not in many instances extend to poor whites who don't live in nice areas, can't afford to send their kids to posh schools, don't have good career or life prospects. They are commonly depicted as stupid and racist. Anything bad that happens to them is more or less considered their just desserts for being so poorly educated and unsophisticated.

These people are subjected to hostility from wider society, they are do not benefit from great relations with the police or the political or judicial system. A prime case in point was the disregard for the white girls who have been caught up in the sex grooming gangs throughout England such as Rochdale. There's just no chance the authorities could have looked the other way if the victims were from wealthier, well connected families.

[Tichtheid]

Here's a quote from Dr MLK Jr, it's from a letter he wrote whilst in prison,

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

Personally I do not think I face the same day to day as someone who is not white, I've never been the subject of a Jim Davidson routine, "oh come on, it's only a joke".
I haven't faced deportation despite living here for most of my life, there is no hostile environment, no political parties campaigning with a manifesto pledge offering cash for repatriation, no profiling by the police, no sense of awkwardness around me, no over-compensating, no one would look at me and think I could possibly be a terrorist, I don't have to think about what to call myself when applying for a job, I could go on.

I don't think I can keep repeating what I said a couple of times, if there is institutional or systemic racism then there is a group, the majority in fact, who are not subjected to it, and that is where the privilege lies.

I can't go any further on this until someone tells me that there is no systemic racism in the West.

All good points but you are probably overlooking the class aspect of it.

That privilege you enjoy or that you feel that you are a recipient of does not in many instances extend to poor whites who don't live in nice areas, can't afford to send their kids to posh schools, don't have good career or life prospects. They are commonly depicted as stupid and racist. Anything bad that happens to them is more or less considered their just desserts for being so poorly educated and unsophisticated.

These people are subjected to hostility from wider society, they are do not benefit from great relations with the police or the political or judicial system. A prime case in point was the disregard for the white girls who have been caught up in the sex grooming gangs throughout England such as Rochdale. There's just no chance the authorities could have looked the other way if the victims were from wealthier, well connected families.

That'll be the first time I've ever been accused of overlooking the class aspect of anything , I mean that seriously.

What I'm saying is that on top of the class system, or as well as the class system, there is a racist problem that exists on every level of that class system. There is also a misogyny problem faced by a very large section of society as well, but I was trying to stay focused on the one issue.

There is a difference in the prospects facing a black female Oxbridge graduate and a white second or third generation unemployed guy from a big city estate, but that doesn't mean the problems particular to the Oxbridge graduate because of her skin colour don't exist or are lessened .

[Random1]

Here's a quote from Dr MLK Jr, it's from a letter he wrote whilst in prison,




Personally I do not think I face the same day to day as someone who is not white, I've never been the subject of a Jim Davidson routine, "oh come on, it's only a joke".
I haven't faced deportation despite living here for most of my life, there is no hostile environment, no political parties campaigning with a manifesto pledge offering cash for repatriation, no profiling by the police, no sense of awkwardness around me, no over-compensating, no one would look at me and think I could possibly be a terrorist, I don't have to think about what to call myself when applying for a job, I could go on.

I don't think I can keep repeating what I said a couple of times, if there is institutional or systemic racism then there is a group, the majority in fact, who are not subjected to it, and that is where the privilege lies.

I can't go any further on this until someone tells me that there is no systemic racism in the West.

All good points but you are probably overlooking the class aspect of it.

That privilege you enjoy or that you feel that you are a recipient of does not in many instances extend to poor whites who don't live in nice areas, can't afford to send their kids to posh schools, don't have good career or life prospects. They are commonly depicted as stupid and racist. Anything bad that happens to them is more or less considered their just desserts for being so poorly educated and unsophisticated.

These people are subjected to hostility from wider society, they are do not benefit from great relations with the police or the political or judicial system. A prime case in point was the disregard for the white girls who have been caught up in the sex grooming gangs throughout England such as Rochdale. There's just no chance the authorities could have looked the other way if the victims were from wealthier, well connected families.

That'll be the first time I've ever been accused of overlooking the class aspect of anything , I mean that seriously.

What I'm saying is that on top of the class system, or as well as the class system, there is a racist problem that exists on every level of that class system. There is also a misogyny problem faced by a very large section of society as well, but I was trying to stay focused on the one issue.

There is a difference in the prospects facing a black female Oxbridge graduate and a white second or third generation unemployed guy from a big city estate, but that doesn't mean the problems particular to the Oxbridge graduate because of her skin colour don't exist or are lessened .

I haven’t read the book I mentioned yet, but I can see we’re developing to an interesting point. In fact it’s one already visited in the thread, but you’ve put it more directly.

Yes, I think if systemic racism can be proven, then white privilege is a logical consequence of that.

I’m not convinced systemic racism exists in the Uk - but that’s why I’m going off to do a bit more research before I commit to that argument.

But then I come back to the point I made earlier to raggs; if one’s white privilege is gained as a consequence of a racist system, then the person benefitting, is complicit in racism. And so should bear the guilt of that.

Is that your take too?

[Random1]

Here's a quote from Dr MLK Jr, it's from a letter he wrote whilst in prison,

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

Personally I do not think I face the same day to day as someone who is not white, I've never been the subject of a Jim Davidson routine, "oh come on, it's only a joke".
I haven't faced deportation despite living here for most of my life, there is no hostile environment, no political parties campaigning with a manifesto pledge offering cash for repatriation, no profiling by the police, no sense of awkwardness around me, no over-compensating, no one would look at me and think I could possibly be a terrorist, I don't have to think about what to call myself when applying for a job, I could go on.

I don't think I can keep repeating what I said a couple of times, if there is institutional or systemic racism then there is a group, the majority in fact, who are not subjected to it, and that is where the privilege lies.

I can't go any further on this until someone tells me that there is no systemic racism in the West.

The mlk quote isn’t quite aligned with your argument. I don’t think anyone on this thread has denied the existence of racism. I also don’t think anyone has said BLM is something to discourage.

So we aren’t asking people to wait for anything as per the quote.

Go out, deal with the racism you encounter.

But for me it remains racist to allege all white people are benefitting and therefore complicit within a racist system/society.

[Tichtheid]

Here's a quote from Dr MLK Jr, it's from a letter he wrote whilst in prison,

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

Personally I do not think I face the same day to day as someone who is not white, I've never been the subject of a Jim Davidson routine, "oh come on, it's only a joke".
I haven't faced deportation despite living here for most of my life, there is no hostile environment, no political parties campaigning with a manifesto pledge offering cash for repatriation, no profiling by the police, no sense of awkwardness around me, no over-compensating, no one would look at me and think I could possibly be a terrorist, I don't have to think about what to call myself when applying for a job, I could go on.

I don't think I can keep repeating what I said a couple of times, if there is institutional or systemic racism then there is a group, the majority in fact, who are not subjected to it, and that is where the privilege lies.

I can't go any further on this until someone tells me that there is no systemic racism in the West.

The mlk quote isn’t quite aligned with your argument. I don’t think anyone on this thread has denied the existence of racism. I also don’t think anyone has said BLM is something to discourage.

So we aren’t asking people to wait for anything as per the quote.

Go out, deal with the racism you encounter.

But for me it remains racist to allege all white people are benefitting and therefore complicit within a racist system/society.

I used the quote from Dr MLK Jr because Hugo mentioned him, and to be honest I did shoehorn it in a bit. However I do feel it's a relevant quote, the racist extremists are what they are, they will never be convinced, their behaviours have been made criminal offences but that won't stop them, there is very little that can be done about them apart from hoping that their numbers dwindle as society progresses.

The moderates can be a great help towards that progression, but not if they refuse to listen to what the BME "community" (there is no one voice of course) is trying to tell them.
You can't really "go out and deal with the racism you encounter" if the racism we are talking about is covert, subtle, engrained so that white people don't encounter it.

Yes, I think if systemic racism can be proven, then white privilege is a logical consequence of that.

I’m not convinced systemic racism exists in the Uk - but that’s why I’m going off to do a bit more research before I commit to that argument.

But then I come back to the point I made earlier to raggs; if one’s white privilege is gained as a consequence of a racist system, then the person benefitting, is complicit in racism. And so should bear the guilt of that.

Is that your take too?

Nothing is achieved in name calling, it doesn't strengthen an argument and it alienates the person you're trying to bring over to your point of view. I don't think it's racist to be a in a position of privilege when you had nothing to do with making the system what it is, the system we live in is the result of thousands of years of societal change.
So no, I don't think being an unwitting beneficiary of white privilege makes one complicit in racism, at least not in a active sense, but I think it's vital to listen to what is being said by those who have identified where the systemic racism exists.

[Random1]

Here's a quote from Dr MLK Jr, it's from a letter he wrote whilst in prison,




Personally I do not think I face the same day to day as someone who is not white, I've never been the subject of a Jim Davidson routine, "oh come on, it's only a joke".
I haven't faced deportation despite living here for most of my life, there is no hostile environment, no political parties campaigning with a manifesto pledge offering cash for repatriation, no profiling by the police, no sense of awkwardness around me, no over-compensating, no one would look at me and think I could possibly be a terrorist, I don't have to think about what to call myself when applying for a job, I could go on.

I don't think I can keep repeating what I said a couple of times, if there is institutional or systemic racism then there is a group, the majority in fact, who are not subjected to it, and that is where the privilege lies.

I can't go any further on this until someone tells me that there is no systemic racism in the West.

The mlk quote isn’t quite aligned with your argument. I don’t think anyone on this thread has denied the existence of racism. I also don’t think anyone has said BLM is something to discourage.

So we aren’t asking people to wait for anything as per the quote.

Go out, deal with the racism you encounter.

But for me it remains racist to allege all white people are benefitting and therefore complicit within a racist system/society.

I used the quote from Dr MLK Jr because Hugo mentioned him, and to be honest I did shoehorn it in a bit. However I do feel it's a relevant quote, the racist extremists are what they are, they will never be convinced, their behaviours have been made criminal offences but that won't stop them, there is very little that can be done about them apart from hoping that their numbers dwindle as society progresses.

The moderates can be a great help towards that progression, but not if they refuse to listen to what the BME "community" (there is no one voice of course) is trying to tell them.
You can't really "go out and deal with the racism you encounter" if the racism we are talking about is covert, subtle, engrained so that white people don't encounter it.

Yes, I think if systemic racism can be proven, then white privilege is a logical consequence of that.

I’m not convinced systemic racism exists in the Uk - but that’s why I’m going off to do a bit more research before I commit to that argument.

But then I come back to the point I made earlier to raggs; if one’s white privilege is gained as a consequence of a racist system, then the person benefitting, is complicit in racism. And so should bear the guilt of that.

Is that your take too?

Nothing is achieved in name calling, it doesn't strengthen an argument and it alienates the person you're trying to bring over to your point of view. I don't think it's racist to be a in a position of privilege when you had nothing to do with making the system what it is, the system we live in is the result of thousands of years of societal change.
So no, I don't think being an unwitting beneficiary of white privilege makes one complicit in racism, at least not in a active sense, but I think it's vital to listen to what is being said by those who have identified where the systemic racism exists.

listening is indeed good, as that can provide leads on where to look for empirical evidence of the cause of their experience.

People experiencing things doesn’t mean they know the cause and certainly doesn’t mean we change policy at a national level based upon personal experiential information.

[Tichtheid]

listening is indeed good, as that can provide leads on where to look for empirical evidence of the cause of their experience.

People experiencing things doesn’t mean they know the cause and certainly doesn’t mean we change policy at a national level based upon personal experiential information.

I don't think anecdotes can be dismissed either, though. Empirical data is often the collection and analysis of anecdotes.

The Macpherson Report concluded that there was institutional racism at the Met, some twenty years on the experience young black men have with the police hasn't changed much.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47300343

[Tichtheid]

Systemic racism exists in the UK at every level of government and society https://www.varsity.co.uk/opinion/19419

How systemic racism affects young people in the UK (this is a repost of a link I put up earlier) https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/how-s ... -people-uk


Extent of institutional racism in British universities revealed through hidden stories https://theconversation.com/extent-of-i ... ies-118097

UK universities perpetuate institutional racism, report says https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... eport-says

[Hugo]

I brought KIng into the conversation because I think that the idea of white privilege (that ALL white people are beneficiaries) is contrary to what his beliefs were, especially in the last few years of his life when he really fleshed out his views on economic justice.

From Why We Can't Wait:

Many poor whites were the derivative victims of slavery. As long as labor was cheapened by the involuntary servitude of the black man, the freedom of white labor, especially in the South, was little more than a myth. It was free only to bargain from the depressed base imposed by slavery upon the whole labor market. Nor did this derivative bondage end when formal slavery gave way to the de-facto slavery of discrimination. To this day the white poor also suffer deprivation and the humiliations of poverty if not of color. They are chained by the weight of discrimination, though its badge of degradation does not mark them. It corrupts their lives, frustrates their opportunities and withers their education. In one sense, it is more evil for them, because it has confused so many by prejudice that they have supported their own oppressors.

In this regard, King drew on the writings of W.E.B. Du Bois, who once posited that poor and working-class whites gained nothing from Jim Crow but psychological “wages of whiteness.” In return for the psychological advantage that “whiteness” gave them, poor whites surrendered political and economic power to better-heeled white elites.

As the 1960s wore on, King increasingly viewed American politics through the lens of class. In his 1967 book, Where We Go From Here, he wrote, “In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: There are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white and Negro alike.” King appreciated, of course, that African Americans suffered a very specific and targeted form of discrimination. But he embraced a radical economic critique that viewed racism as a cultural touchpoint that prevented working-class white people from acting in their better economic interest.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... got-214637

King believed that even racist white people were themselves victims of racism and Jim Crow in that they were placated with feeling superior to black people all whilst being exploited by the same economic system that crushed black people. His vision of economic justice was one that was colour blind:

We've heard a lot of talk over the last few months of black power, and we’ve started hearing talk of white power. But I don't talk about black power or white power. I would prefer to believe in a kind of striped power, where black and white together, we work to achieve the legitimate power that all of God's children must have to function in life. The fact is that there is no separate black path to power and fulfillment that does not intersect white routes. There is no white path to power and fulfillment, short of chaos, that does not share that power with black aspirations for freedom and human dignity. What we must come to see is that we are tied together and every Negro is a little white and every white person is a little Negro. All of our music, our language, our material prosperity, even our foods, are an amalgam of black and white. So, the Negro needs the white man to save him from his fears. The white man needs the Negro to save him from his guilt. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. John Donne was right: "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." Then, he goes on toward the end to say: "Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind. Therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

In contrast, by my estimation the modern civil rights advocate tends to see things as highly compartmentalised and more strictly aligned to identity and intersectionality. In doing so (as per fatcat's post earlier) it seems to lead to divisiveness and alienation.

Now, I don't think King is the final authority on civil rights but I do believe him to be one of the most successful leaders in the field. He has a provable track record of success because I think his philosophies, teachings and writings were morally sound in that they originated from love. They were also logical and most importantly they were practical and effective. He believed in the principle of loving your enemy because he envisioned that in the long term that is how you won them over. I just don't see the current crop winning anyone over.