For anyone else; basically, I contended on the Biden president thread that the concept of white privilege is racist. Raggs (and almost all the other comments on the thread!), disagreed, some more politely than others
The below is the last exchange on it where raggs posed some questions. I went away to think on it. Thought it best to start a specific thread, as the other one has moved on, and to be fair is a different topic.
Raggs- your stuff is in normal text, my responses in bold.
Cheers
from the top then.
Central theme is that life is harder for someone who is black, than white, given all other things are equal (in the UK/USA for starters). There is plenty of scientific evidence for this, I've given you some. White privilege is not calling all white people racist
“all things being equal”...
As I’ve said above, there are thousands of variables beyond race that influence outcomes in life. Everything from education through to personality, and probably most importantly socioeconomic position, would need to be controlled to arrive at a robust evidence base.
The evidence isn’t supportive of white privilege from what I’ve seen.
For example the premise of BLM of black people being killed disproportionately in custody is not correct (at least not in the uk) If you look at the number of people in custody, white people are more likely to end up dead when compared to black people.
Another statistic that challenges the white privileged concept is the success of Indian heritage brits. They out perform everyone including whites in the uk on things like earnings and education.
If being white is the critical factor, then how is that explained?
I feel no guilt for my white privilege. You shouldn't really tell people their emotions are wrong, but in this instance I feel it's due to a misunderstanding. White privilege doesn't mean that you personally have taken advantage of a black person, or that you are racist, just that your life has been easier. Just as the child of a billionaire should feel no guilt for being the child of a billionaire, their life is going to be significantly easier than the child of a destitute family. It's not about guilt, it's about recognising that you had advantages, there's nothing wrong with recognising that. I was privileged as a child to have a reasonably stable home life, live in a nice area, be blessed with some intelligence, enough to get a scholarship at the local private school etc. I feel no guilt about these facts, but I can recognise that such things are advantages over many others. White privilege is the same thing. My life was made better by the colour of my skin.
This is the bit that took some time for me to work out why I disagreed. I don’t understand how you can believe in white privilege and not feel guilt, but ultimately you and I agree that neither of us are guilty.
It dawned on me that the difference is that you are looking solely at being the view point of the beneficiary. But the implication of white privilege as a concept is that the white population has stacked the deck against black people and so you are in part a perpetrator.
It’s a nuance that I hadn’t really thought about before; for me, i’d always taken for granted that for the concept of white privilege to be true, then there must be people perpetrating the bias. I’ll use a recent example to expand that point; the riots at the capitol building.
One of the memes following the aftermath was the idea that if the riots had been BLM, then the police reaction would have been different. That was something that even Biden subscribed to and spoke about in a speech.
In this example, the trump rioters were the beneficiaries of white privilege (the headspace you find yourself in when you describable your lack of guilt).
But in order for that privilege to manifest, there needs to be a perpetrator. In this instance, the police and/or national guard and/or government (local and national).
My point I was making about the principle of white privilege being racist, is that in order for BLM to have been treated differently, that means the police etc would have to be racist ie they vary their tactics due to skin colour of the rioters.
Assuming white people are racist because of the colour of their skin is racist isn’t it?
Hope that explains why I say that it’s a racist comcept, as to say whites privilege exists means that there is an assumption that enough of the populace enforce racism to disadvantage black people.
Systemic racism, such as cops, is more insidious than calling white cops racists, because all cops, regardless of colour, pull over black drivers more during the day. Imagine the thought that black people in general are more likely to be criminals, being so ingrained, that even blacks believe it when they're on the force? I'm not saying they're racist individuals either, but that the system they are part of imparts this. To bring it to another similar example, but one that has nothing to do with race again. When asked, young children are more likely to point to an image of a fat child, instead of a thin one, and say they're more likely to be a liar out of the two. All they see is numerous images of children of various sizes (line drawings, not photos etc), and inevitably, when asked who they think lies the most, they point to the fat kid. This is systemic. It's not saying that they are mean to every individual fat kid, or hate every one, but somewhere the idea has been planted that they are the most likely to be lying.
I agree to an extent - corporate or institutional racism is at least individual to one company/insitution’s culture. I can get on board with that concept, as it is demonstrable and challengeable at a local level. It is possible to change a business’ culture.
I'll be honest here. I felt exactly the same way as you when I first started hearing "White privilege." I have a few friends on facebook, one of whom I think takes the social justice warrior thing too far, but i learn a lot from them, and whilst I may disagree on some of what I consider their more niche views, at the same time, I come to understand these phrases better. I had the same reaction to when BLM first became a common phrase (before Flloyd), thinking All lives matter. Now I have come to understand that blm doesn't say ONLY blm, or BLM more than anyone else, but rather point out the fact that in the USA (and UK), that black lives, according to verifiable stats, seem to matter less than everyone else. All lives do indeed matter, and right now, it's the black lives that don't seem to be included in all lives matter in many situations.
I’m fine with cause of Black Lives Matter in terms of eradicating police killing black people in America. It’s an understandable cause (albeit not supported by the stats in the uk) and although I’d prefer if it was all races combining to stop people dying in custody regardless of race, I’m not going to criticise people for reacting to recent history. I’d emphasise my view is Uk based, not US.
No, white privilege probably doesn't apply in many countries. I've lived in countries where the colour of my skin has meant I was targeted by scams, pickpockets, abuse and rip off merchants, there the colour of my skin was not a privilege (though I had a great many other privileges over those people). However, we're primarily talking about the western world here, especially UK/USA.
Yeah, there’s a huge utilitarian argument here - the west is by far the least racist culture out there. Criticising people and demonising people who are already doing better than the rest, is not the best way to motivate change. But that’s my opinion, I don’t have evidence to support that.
A few questions for you to answer, please.
If I told you that you were privileged by being born the child of a billionaire, wouldyou instantly assume that I'm saying you hate all poor people?
really good example.
No, I wouldn’t say it means you are saying I hate all poor people, but, look at it from the other angle; for the white privilege analogy to work, then poor people would need tonsee me as perpetuating the concentration of capital in the hands of the few, essentially I’m part of the system and therefore guilty.
The analogy also teases out a couple of other things;
1- Money at least has a very clear, demonstrable, impact on life chances; private education, stability, focus on attainment rather than survival etc etc.
Being white doesn’t provide this. Poor White kids are being out performed by almost all other demographics. Being white does not provide opportunity in and of itself.
2- if I were a child of a billionaire, I could rid myself of the sin by giving away my money.
I can’t change my skin colour. This sin is with me at birth and won’t leave me until I die.
That’s a horrible concept and is predicated on skin colour; this is racist.
Do you think that underprivileged children that are raised in the poorest environments, have access only to the worst schools etc, are misnomered compared to those who are raised with access to far better facilities?
That’s precisely my argument. Socioeconomic status explains much more than skin colour.
And a repeat of my earlier question. Assuming you were raised in the UK. If you were black (let's a melanin genetic mutation that simply led to your skin colour being far darker, all other things are the same), do you believe your life would have been harder, easier or the same?
That’s ultimately the challenge. All things being equal ie I am exactly the same other than my melanin content, I don’t see any reason as to why my life would be different.
