One is free to study racial groups and one may in so doing produce a perfectly sound study of racial groups.
The problem is, if one disbelieves that society is rightly divided into competing racial groups, then a study pointing out that one racial group is so far behind another in a putative competition is about as useful for producing social guidance as is a study counting the hairs in the tail of the average unicorn.
What do you mean by "rightly"?
If these studies produce a clear difference between racial groups, doesn't that say that such divisions do exist, whether we like it or not?
(I'm setting aside the word "competing" because that was not part of your point 1)
Consider the game of bowling. The maximum score is 300. If player A scores 270 and player B scores 150, player A is the winner. However, bowling is not even an approximate zero-sum game. Player B can still reach player A. The mere existence of winners and losers doesn't necessarily denote zero-sum or anything close to it.
You're right about this; the assertion that the game is zero sum is too strong of a claim. It is only required for the argument that the game have winners, losers, or ties. I've modified the original post accordingly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
"Rightly" means, in this case, that:
1) There is a function from the set of all people into the set of proposed tribal identities that is well-defined in the mathematical sense. (Is the basis for assigning tribal identities unobservable or ambiguous? Is it possible for someone to lie undecidably on a borderline between two categories? Then you haven't rightly classified.)
2) The proposed set of tribal identities can be shown to be correct or optimal. (Say we're trying to study race. To what extent do we subdivide the tribes by distinct continental origin? distinct cultures? Is there a rational argument that shows that one subdivision is right and the other wrong? If you can't answer those questions, then you haven't rightly classified.)
3) The proposed mapping from people to identities can be shown to be the correct choice out of all such possible maps. (For instance, if I wanted to propose a different labeling where, say, some of the white people get labeled as black, would my labeling be "worse" than yours, and why? If you can't answer that, then you haven't rightly classified.)
Note that, obviously, none of the reasons given should be reducible to "because it would give me the result I want," since that would be circular.
If these studies produce a clear difference between racial groups, doesn't that say that such divisions do exist, whether we like it or not?
Ontologically circular. In order to derive differences between racial groups, you must already have agreed that humanity can be rightly subdivided into racial groups. In fact, in the course of any proper study you would have to exhibit and defend your methodology for so subdividing before you can even state your results.
Needless to say, most studies don't do this, and even amongst the ones that do, I've never seen one that does it convincingly. It's treated as a premise that whatever classifier the examiner pulled out of his rear end (usually self-reported race on a census form or survey) is an optimal classifier.
"Rightly" means, in this case, that:
1) There is a function from the set of all people into the set of proposed tribal identities that is well-defined in the mathematical sense. (Is the basis for assigning tribal identities unobservable or ambiguous? Is it possible for someone to lie undecidably on a borderline between two categories? Then you haven't rightly classified.)
2) The proposed set of tribal identities can be shown to be correct or optimal. (Say we're trying to study race. To what extent do we subdivide the tribes by distinct continental origin? distinct cultures? Is there a rational argument that shows that one subdivision is right and the other wrong? If you can't answer those questions, then you haven't rightly classified.)
3) The proposed mapping from people to identities can be shown to be the correct choice out of all such possible maps. (For instance, if I wanted to propose a different labeling where, say, some of the white people get labeled as black, would my labeling be "worse" than yours, and why? If you can't answer that, then you haven't rightly classified.)
I don't understand why it's necessary that categories not have edge cases or gray areas or be loosely defined. None of this seems necessary to assert the existence of privilege.
Surely it makes sense for me to say that black people in the US have a higher risk of diabetes, even if you can find some people who are difficult to classify, and even if you can provide a slightly different classification that yields slightly different results.
Note that, obviously, none of the reasons given should be reducible to "because it would give me the result I want," since that would be circular.
Ontologically circular. In order to derive differences between racial groups, you must already have agreed that humanity can be rightly subdivided into racial groups. In fact, in the course of any study you will have to exhibit and defend your methodology for so subdividing before you can even state your results.
I disagree. As long as we are not using the data we're studying to define the groups, a finding of difference gives some amount of credence to our proposed grouping, because it indicates that we have managed to create a grouping which has predictive value.
Needless to say, most studies don't do this, and even amongst the ones that do, I've never seen one that does it convincingly. It's treated as a premise that whatever classifier the examiner pulled out of his rear end (usually self-reported race on a census form or survey) is an optimal classifier.
Surely it doesn't matter if it's an "optimal" classifier - just because our feature set might be noisy doesn't mean it's entirely without value.
On debating strategy concerning privilege:
I'm directing this mainly at billydaman, but I think it's good general advice for anyone that wants to take an anti-privilege stance. Don't bother labelling privilege theorists as racists, even when they are. I've learned from a lot of experience talking about this stuff that the best you can hope for when you take this angle is a side debate about racism that doesn't address the issue.
Theseus, with his sword and godlike strength, was able to force Procrustes to lie in his own bed. We who are armed with only thoughts and writing -- and perhaps not even those for very long, if our culture continues its current trend of stripping people of their livelihoods for holding particular opinions -- lack the force do so.
Attempts to label privilege theorists as racists only results in endless attempts to manipulate that label, to pin on one side and to squirm away from on the other. It distracts from the simple question that is really the heart of the matter, which is whether or not privilege theory makes any sense. Force people to engage on the real issue. The debate can be won, and won easily, on those grounds.
Now on to the the debate; over the years I've collected dozens of arguments that bear on the concept of privilege theory; I'm just going to give one here for length reasons.
First, I'd love to know how you focus the argument so precisely. People who are able to do this amaze me.
I currently do not have the extraordinary ability to articulate this issue to the degree you do (and have done on multiple occasions). I had to look up half the words in your post. People like me have to rely on logical arguments that appeal to emotion because that's what strikes home for a lot of people like me who are smart enough to see bull***** when they see it but are not educated enough to explain why. The racist argument is simpler to make. With that said, I had no intention on "winning the debate". To me, its important to demonstrate the racism involved and let other people make moral determinations on the concept known as privilege once I've demonstrated it as racist. The opposing argument is almost irrelevant and only provides fodder for my cannons to prove my point. They will never accept their ideology as racist which I understand and accept. I can only hope other people read this thread and acknowledge what I've have. Of course I understand many will dismiss my words as some right-wing zealot but those who make that statement are lost causes anyways. Unfortunately, I have to do what I do best and that's troll what I believe to be a racist ideology.
The second reason is that if you replace "losing tribe-monolith" with "proletariat" and "winning tribe-monolith" with "bourgeoise" in those premises, you get exactly the premises of political Marxism, and the word replacements are not relevant, because in political Marxism, everyone ultimately loses no matter what camp they start in. You may say "so what if I affirm premises that are effectively indistinguishable from those of political Marxism" and that's fine -- but if you do so, then keep in mind that when I say you're a postmodern leftist it's not Procrustean, or a straw man, or a shibboleth, but a straightforward description of premises that you affirm. Furthermore, it allows those who oppose you to simply incorporate by reference not only a voluminous body of philosophy that impales your premises, but also the empirical observation that societies that have conducted themselves in accordance with these premises have never achieved anything that any reasonable party in this debate -- on either side -- would think to call equality or justice.
The first person to point this out to me was a well-educated black person while we both were working minimum wage at a polling center. He had a master degree and gave me insight as to how college has become a breeding ground for this stuff along with a long winded dissertation on the history and propagation of Marxism in universities.
The first person to point this out to me was a well-educated black person while we both were working minimum wage at a polling center. He had a master degree and gave me insight as to how college has become a breeding ground for this stuff along with a long winded dissertation on the history and propagation of Marxism in universities.
Well if a black guy said it, and one with a master's degree no less, it must be true!
I claim the message underlying this cartoon has the following hidden premises, and you must believe all of these premises in order for the cartoon to make sense:
1) Human culture is rightly divisible into tribes or interest groups, and those tribes can be rightly regarded as if they were monolithic entities.
It's not rightly divisible, they are societal constructs. "White people" don't exist except as a societal construct, IE ask a "white person" what they are and they will not describe themselves as "white" they will tell you they are English, Irish, Italian, etc. Ask an Asian if what they are and they will tell you Korean, Hmong, Japanese, Chinese, etc.
Now here in America, you can ask a black person what they are and some will identify as "black" or "African-American", others might identify as Somali, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Jamaican, Haitian, etc. Some black people might identify as black or African-American because a few hundred years ago, Africans were taken from their countries and brought into the United States and had their cultural identities stripped away through slavery.
Do you think these societal constructs don't actually exist?
Quote from Crashing00 »
2) The monolithic-tribe-entities are engaged in a game, race, sport, contest, or struggle in which there is, at any given time, a winner and a loser, or possibly a tie.
There's a struggle, but there's always struggle in life. I think you misunderstand what privilege actually is, privilege theory (at least none that I've heard of) doesn't say that white-straight-males are winning and everyone else is losing. It's talking about equality within society and/or how societal views/constructs can affect individual views about others based on race.
This doesn't mean that there aren't poor white people or enough poor white people nor does it mean that there aren't rich black people or enough rich black people.
What it does mean is that American Society tends to favor white people over other racial groups statistically speaking in many different aspects of life, of which there are TONS and TONS of studies that reflect exactly that (I will provide links upon request).
Do you disagree with this?
Quote from crashing00 »
3) It is morally wrong when this game is in a state where one monolithic-tribe-entity is winning and the other is losing and it is morally good when this game is at, or close to, a tie.
I have no idea what you mean by "one monolithic-tribe-entity is winning and the other is losing". What does that mean? You said that in premise 2 and I took a stab at what I thought you meant, but I'd like you to clarify.
If I go back to what I think you meant, then I think you have the complete wrong idea about what "privilege theory" is. You seem to think that privilege arguments are talking about the end results or the "winners" or "losers" (which you haven't really defined what winning or losing means). Privilege arguments are talking about the struggle, not the end results.
Now if I understand what you mean by "winners" and "losers" you are defining winners as the one who got the job and the losers the one who didn't. Privilege arguments are not talking about white people getting the job, but rather are pointing out that being "white" gives white people an advantage over black people, and that this is morally wrong - not that they got the job and therefore won.
If you want to use a game analogy, then it's not about who wins and who loses, it's about having a level playing field and an equal chance for everyone to win or lose.
Quote from crashing00 »
It's easily seen that falsifying any one of these premises immediately renders the message of the cartoon utterly senseless. Suppose you believe that (1) is false. Well, then the cartoon's imputation that there is an avatar or effigy or totem representing "white people" and another one representing "black people" is nonsensical and the message becomes gibberish.
Suppose you believe that (2) is false. Well, the cartoon depicts the monolithic race-avatars as being engaged in a competition to climb up on to some sort of plateau. If you don't believe human culture constitutes such a competition, then the cartoon makes no sense.
Suppose you believe (3) is false. Then, because it's morally irrelevant who wins or loses, neither the depiction of the white race-avatar pushing the black race-avatar down, nor his position above the black avatar, nor his refusal to help him up later, will discommode you. The moral of the cartoon evaporates, and its message ceases to make sense.
White people were allowed to be naturalized citizens from the start while other races had to struggle for their citizenship. White people benefited from committing genocide and marginalizing Native Americans, they benefited from slavery, they benefited from marginalizing other races. Where I'm from (Twin Cities, MN), black people couldn't even walk on rice street in the 1970s and 80s because they would be attacked or harassed by the majority of white people that lived there.
The whole point of that cartoon is to show that when white people make that type of claim, it is complete bull*****. White supremacy exists here in the United States and those that benefit from it do so, not just because they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and worked hard and struggled for it, but also did so because of societal constructs and practices that white supremacy helped to create and facilitate in the first place.
The whole point of that cartoon is to show that when white people make that type of claim, it is complete bull*****. White supremacy exists here in the United States and those that benefit from it do so, not just because they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and worked hard and struggled for it, but also did so because of societal constructs and practices that white supremacy helped to create and facilitate in the first place.
Ummm with all due respect Bull *****, very few Americans believe white people are a superior race and should thus rule as a result. Just look at whats happening to Donald Sterling. 99.9% of the people argueing against what's happened to him care about free speech, they are not argueing against it because they support what he said.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Just to be clear, you're saying that such a study is nonsensical on its face because it doesn't make sense to talk about racial groups? That seems more than a bit absurd, so maybe I'm not following you.
No, it's certainly not nonsensical on its face. In combination with the denial of that premise, however, it's nonsensical as evidence in a privilege argument.
One is free to study racial groups and one may in so doing produce a perfectly sound study of racial groups.
The problem is, if one disbelieves that society is rightly divided into competing racial groups, then a study pointing out that one racial group is so far behind another in a putative competition is about as useful for producing social guidance as is a study counting the hairs in the tail of the average unicorn.
Just read your original post, and may as well start on the first premise. I'm still not sure what you're getting at. How ELSE would you feasibly find evidence in a privilege argument? That's how you can know whether or not you have actual statistical significance. It is the way you avoid anecdotal evidence involving pointing at someone like Cliven Bundy and calling it a day. The way I'm reading your post, it looks like you deny being able to look at different racial groups as a group, at which point there wouldn't even be a way to discuss race, regardless of the type of evidence presented.
Ummm with all due respect Bull *****, very few Americans believe white people are a superior race and should thus rule as a result. Just look at whats happening to Donald Sterling. 99.9% of the people argueing against what's happened to him care about free speech, they are not argueing against it because they support what he said.
I am not arguing that Americans believe white people are a superior race, but rather that society perpetuates the belief that being white is better than being non-white and in doing so maintains the dominance of white people in media, politics, business, and social attitudes within American society.
The purpose of pointing out privilege is to draw attention to where equality might be needed...
But you skipped over one of my main points, which is that privilege doesn't do that. It actually draws attention away from issues of equality by creating smokescreens and false oppositions between people who would agree on any real issue. In my humble opinion, that argument deserves a response, much moreso than anything that follows. It ought either to be objected to or conceded in my favor.
Okay so lets look at your sentence because I think you do some slight of hand tricks:
I don't know what relevance sleight of hand has in a debate. I think you will find that I understand your objections better if you frame them in terms of logical or factual errors that you think I've made.
When women or feminists are talking about things that are a 'male privilege' it's to draw attention to how women are generally treated compared to men in everyday society. The' privileges' are advantages men have over women in the similar situations.
This is retreading old ground. The idea of gender privilege fails in this respect because it is too general. Marissa Mayer is way more privileged than Joe Homeless White Guy in every conceivable situation. You don't actually correctly identify the problem by calling it male privilege -- in fact, in this particular example you have actually erased the problem.
Men in jail are not representative of everyday society, logically we can also not include women in jail either, for the same reason.
Again: jails and the treatment of people within them are parts and parcel of modern society. I drive past a jail every day on the way to work. There are people in there living their everyday lives under the constant threat of rape. Some of those people are not even guilty of any crime. You keep saying that they aren't important or representative of whatever "equality" issue you're trying to address. First, I don't see any argument, I just see you saying it again and again. Second, if you are trying to address equality for all but you exclude some people from your analysis, I almost don't even care what your argument is because you are suffering from moral turpitude.
If we're talking about preventing rape in jail, what good would it do to include statistics from outside of jail?
We're not talking merely about rape in jail, or even rape. We're talking about the theory of privilege, which is supposed to be a theory that helps solve issues of equality for all persons, not just some particular set that you happen to pick out at the time.
But if we were talking about preventing rape in jail, I would bloody well expect someone in the debate to say "Why just jail? What about all the people outside the jail that are getting raped? Don't we have a moral obligation to them? Shouldn't our theories account for them in some way? And if we could come up with a way to reduce or prevent rape full stop, wouldn't that potentially be very helpful to rape inside of jail as well?"
The second reason...which I touched on before is that this is an advantage men in everyday society have over women. In other words, its an advantage that a man has over a woman, not other men.
It's an advantage that some men have over some women. For all those women who don't get raped, there is no advantage. For all those men that do, there is no advantage. "The set of all raped women (not in jail with red hair at 7am on a Tuesday when Cassiopeia is waxing) is larger than the corresponding set of all raped men" is a morally useless statement.
Now you're right in saying that not all males are going to have this privilege, maybe there might be one or one million that do not have this advantage.
Knew you'd get there eventually.
Now if I can get you to stop calling it "male privilege" and call it instead "males-who-meet-the-appropriate-conditions privilege," that will be something.
And then when you realize that the word "male" is doing no work in that claim, since some non-males have the conditions too, and it's really the actual conditions that matter rather than the maleness, you'll call it "appropriate-conditions privilege."
And then you'll realize that the word "privilege" is hurting you rather than helping you, because it inverts the sense of what you actually want, which is to elevate the unprivileged rather than to harm the privileged.
And then you will stop using "privilege," highlight actual social issues in your discourse, have obtained the Buddha-nature, and this debate will no longer be necessary between us.
Now this is a slight of hand.
It may be a sleight of hand, but is it a logical or factual error?
Let me be a little clearer about what I was getting at: postmodern liberals are often very sensitive about the use of "normal," "normative," and so forth in their discourse. An argument of the form "the normal state of affairs for a person is to not be gay, so we can safely disregard gay people" is formally equivalent to and has the same formal fallacies as one of the form "the normal state of affairs for a person is to not be in prison and so we can safely disregard imprisoned people."
The former argument is heteronormative; the latter is "not-in-prison"-normative (I don't know the greek word for that.) I expect someone who pounces on the former case to be at least dimly aware of the latter.
Now I may have made the mistake of putting you too far in the postmodern liberal camp on this, but you are rather staunchly defending privilege theory, so at the very least if I made that mistake it was an honest one. (And I don't think it could rightly be called sleight of hand; the appropriate term would be "straw man" in this case.)
So here's the thing, like I said above I'm not sure why we should include Men/women in Jail, if we're trying to look at equality issues between men and women in every day society.
Why should they be included?
Because jails are part of society. Our tradition of equality informs how we treat our prisoners, and vice versa. A prison sentence is not a sentence to be raped.
Another slight of hand, why did you add in an extra variable to the imprisoned male? How do we know he's wrongly imprisoned?
I added "wrongly imprisoned" to forestall the argument that all people in jail are criminals and the "rapey" atmosphere of jail is a part of the intended deterrent. Indeed, this is a meme and/or trope in pop culture and media. I think it is important to keep in mind that there are wrongly imprisoned people being mistreated in there.
As for how we know he's wrongly imprisoned -- because it's my made up example and I said so?
What do we do about the 'rightly imprisoned' male(s) who is getting violated in his cell nightly?
An excellent question. I wish the "privilege" portion of your argument wasn't so insistent upon dismissing it.
Right, but we're not talking about prevalence of rape...
Right, we aren't. But that's a problem, and the problem is entirely your fault for attempting to cast this whole thing into a form that is consistent with privilege theory. It causes you to ignore interesting social questions and bias the ones you do ask toward a predefined perspective that tends to affirm a presupposed result.
And seriously, why are you insinuating that I don't think rape is morally evil irrespective of the victim? I'm was pretty sure that this is something you and I can easily agree on.
Believe it or not, I'm actually not insinuating that you think that -- although I know it can easily come off that way. I know that you are not a moral monster. My point is that because you for some reason view yourself as required to defend boneheaded privilege theory rather than just drop it, you are forced to make statements that make you look like one. Because privilege theory is morally monstrous, even though you're actually not.
Seriously, follow your better nature. It won't lead you astray.
I'm not talking about erasing these people from existence. If you want to know how to help people in the United States, you don't need to know the statistics of people in China.
If there were a problem affecting both the US and China, why would I want to help people only in the United States? Possible answer: because I think Chinese suffering is less important than US suffering. Analogue in our prison scenario: because I think prison rape is less important than non-prison rape. But we've already agreed that that analogue is morally bankrupt. So is the whole analogy.
Like, if anything, I'd hope this illustrates what I'm talking about. You are making all of these unjustified moral decisions which entail that certain people get more consideration than others. It's wrong.
Weren't you just saying that the part of the problem with these privilege lists was that they were too general? Now that I'm making it more specific (which I'm not even making that much more specific), you start down a slippery-slope about all the conditions?
...What? I'm saying that once you add the conditions (as you should if you want to draw conclusions), it ceases to be "male privilege" and it's now "(insert ist of conditions)-privilege."
No I'm not. I'm arguing that we look at them separately because each problem requires a different approach.
Somehow this argument has transformed into questioning methods of solving an already-identified problem. I'm not talking about that. You can, of course, use specific methods for specific situations if that is called for.
My objection is this:
- A thing is not properly called male privilege if it doesn't generalize in some sense to all males. If only males outside of jail have it, then it is more properly called unimprisoned-male privilege.
- Suppose you agree to call it that. Then I move down to item #2 on the privilege list. I don't even care what it is, make something up, call it X. No matter what X, we find that there are quite a lot of males that don't have it, and therefore, we must not use "unimprisoned-male privilege" anymore. We must use "unimprisoned-male, has-X, privilege."
- This process can be rinsed and repeated until we've exhausted all the privilege lists.
- At the end, we find it was the individual X's -- never any large group of them and certainly never the maleness -- that were underwriting the privilege concept. Maleness was an overgeneralization and a red herring.
If everyone is super, then no one is. If everyone is beautiful, then no one is beautiful.
"If everyone has a cellular phone, no one does."
"If everyone has a car, no one does."
"If everyone is well fed/clothed/sheltered, no one is."
"If every culture is well-represented in the media, no culture is."
"If everyone is taken seriously in math and science, no one is."
"If everyone has the same statistical chance of being raped, no one does."
Of course I can do this all night, so feel free to stop me when this stops making sense to you.
Do you think you would take the same approach to helping children stay safe as you would with an adult? Pretty sure Adults have a lot more advantages and resources than children do.
All the more reason, says I, to include children in my analysis when deciding privilege, if I'm going to use that term at all.
Wait a second, I remember someone saying they didn't count and that we should only be thinking about adults. That's a strange position to take; excluding the disadvantaged from an analysis of privilege, a theory designed (ostensibly) to help the disadvantaged. Who in this conversation said that? Refresh my memory.
This is why its ultimately pointless to engage in meaningful and intelligent debate on this issue. I find it just as futile as talking to a conspiracy theorist.
The first person to point this out to me was a well-educated black person while we both were working minimum wage at a polling center. He had a master degree and gave me insight as to how college has become a breeding ground for this stuff along with a long winded dissertation on the history and propagation of Marxism in universities.
Well if a black guy said it, and one with a master's degree no less, it must be true!
Not that his skin color has anything to do with his credibility but I wonder if you would say the same thing if he were to support concepts such as privilege. I included the persons race because I thought it was interesting that a person of color would be the one to point me to the Marxism connection not to mention he provided different perspective than the random white guy on the concept known as "privilege". Most of the people you hear talk about privilege are white liberals and yes, I know there are plenty of black people who talk about it too but in either case, the skin color does not add or take away from the credibility of the argument. You do not hear from too many black dissenters because they fear being called an uncle tom or worse they get ostracized. The idea that you would imply that I was using race to validate the opinion only validates my view of you. You seem to be more interesting in race baiting than anything else.
I am not arguing that Americans believe white people are a superior race
That's the definition of "white supremacy".
, but rather that society perpetuates the belief that being white is better than being non-white and in doing so maintains the dominance of white people in media, politics, business, and social attitudes within American society.
Whhhaaaattttt you believe it's better to be white then non-white in America. The other possible way to view this is just a rewording of what is above.
What it does mean is that American Society tends to favor white people over other racial groups statistically speaking in many different aspects of life, of which there are TONS and TONS of studies that reflect exactly that (I will provide links upon request).
Sadly the sociology community has its own bias and often produces one study that shows something in line with that bias and a large number refuting it and then just doesn't publish the ones refuting it. Leaving much of this suspect.
Publication bias refers to the fact that studies with null results are often not written up for publication or accepted for publication (Begg, 1994). This bias is a serious concern, especially if these results are being used to make recommendations for interventions.source...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
No, that is one definition of white supremacy, I am using the academic definition.
Quote from joandeMRA »
Whhhaaaattttt you believe it's better to be white then non-white in America. The other possible way to view this is just a rewording of what is above.
No, that is not what that sentence says.
Quote from joandeMRA »
Sadly the sociology community has its own bias and often produces one study that shows something in line with that bias and a large number refuting it and then just doesn't publish the ones refuting it. Leaving much of this suspect.
Publication bias refers to the fact that studies with null results are often not written up for publication or accepted for publication (Begg, 1994). This bias is a serious concern, especially if these results are being used to make recommendations for interventions.source...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
If you think that all studies are guilty of that, I think you have some work to do. I've listed a couple studies already, so I suppose you can start there.
I claim the message underlying this cartoon has the following hidden premises, and you must believe all of these premises in order for the cartoon to make sense:
1) Human culture is rightly divisible into tribes or interest groups, and those tribes can be rightly regarded as if they were monolithic entities.
It's not rightly divisible, they are societal constructs. "White people" don't exist except as a societal construct, IE ask a "white person" what they are and they will not describe themselves as "white" they will tell you they are English, Irish, Italian, etc. Ask an Asian if what they are and they will tell you Korean, Hmong, Japanese, Chinese, etc.
Now here in America, you can ask a black person what they are and some will identify as "black" or "African-American", others might identify as Somali, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Jamaican, Haitian, etc. Some black people might identify as black or African-American because a few hundred years ago, Africans were taken from their countries and brought into the United States and had their cultural identities stripped away through slavery.
Do you think these societal constructs don't actually exist?
I think the point where you and Crashing00 are talking past each other is where he uses the word "monolithic". It's important. He's not saying that these groups of people don't exist; he's saying that you can't reduce them and their diverse individual constituents to these singular figures who undergo a singular experience. It's fallacious anthropomorphization.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It makes it really hard to actually educate "privileged" people about the rights that the people around them do not have when you call those rights "privilege." I can completely understand when calling out on their "privilege" completely short circuits their brain because the word itself implies undeserved special rights and makes it sound like you're saying "You don't deserve the right to feel safe when you walk alone at night" or something. I have a real problem with the term, and it's really weird to me that people who claim to desire equality would label "society treating you a way that everyone would like to be treated" as something people will try to throw in your face as an insult. That this entire thread started because the main poster feels compelled to argue about how racist it is to claim that one group has a privilege over another is a proof of what I'm talking about.
Quite simply when you claim that a racial group has a privilege over another due to their skin color, that is racist. Its a generalization to start with and easy to disprove. You do not know if all of the individuals in that racial group have benefited or were harmed by racist policies or acts. In your opinion, the only qualification to get this privilege is to be born white. You can give all the reasons you want concerning why you believe this privilege exist but it does not stop your generalization and stereotyping from being racist.
I agree with you when you make statements about how it can racist to "check your privilege," but the core issue is that people are not communicating effectively by using this buzzword to put someone down instead of actually trying to explain to someone who has never had to deal with a certain problem why it is a real issue for people who don't have the ability to enjoy the same rights. In this way, it also looks like you have the wrong idea if you think "being born white" or simply being part of a certain group is all it takes to gain "privilege."
The qualifications for "privileges" wildly vary on circumstances. They are not inherent for all people of any given group because it is a societal construct and not all members of a group will be members of a specific society where they are afforded the rights we have labelled as "privilege." Since you're talking about white and black people in your example, I will too. What's actually happening is that a person happens to be white in a society where any number of factors are in play to have "White" be considered normal enough in so many situations that there is seldom any serious baggage associated with the "White" label. I'm black, and everything I do when as a participant of American society is filtered through the lens of my ethnicity--every person in every society is perceived through any number of filters representing all sorts of things about who they are as a person, but white people in American society have less "All you people do this" moments. I constantly worry that my actions will be perceived as "how black people are" so I'll do things like be a half hour early to events because of the stereotype about black people being lazy and late to everything (and it gets me labelled as having a positive trait despite the apparent shortcoming of being black as though I had to work extra hard to deny my true nature); I can't just be a metal fan--I'm a black person who likes metal (which is sooo weird, I guess); I'm not just well-spoken--I'm well spoken for a black person, etc. I've never heard a person say "You white people are always late," and that's the point. Being able to participate in society without worrying as much about your actions and beliefs being tinged through the lens of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is the right that we're calling "privilege." Of course, there are places within American society where white people are at the disadvantage, so the whole notion that one group just enjoys being objectively better through "privilege" is wrong. There are some number of places where you can be in serious danger just for being white; white people aren't marked as frequently tardy but there are plenty of negative stereotypes about them, as well. The fact is that these rights vary depending on the lens you're being viewed through, the society you're in, and the situation/circumstance within that society. Here's another example: I live in Japan. All of the orientations that I had to go through before coming here were basically about adjusting people who have lived most of their lives in a society where their race doesn't define them so heavily to living in a place where almost every interaction they have will be based principally on their race since more than 90% of the people here are Asian (and therefore, gain the "privilege" here). Many people think that people who aren't Japanese are not actually capable of reading and writing Japanese, so you always get this really condescending praise for being able to say even a basic greeting; I'm often given forks in restaurants without being asked because no one assumes that I can use chopsticks, etc. This is the same for all non-Japanese who don't go out of their way to prove that they are more than capable of doing things like eating fish and rice, and even then it becomes a matter of proving that you're as capable as the people around you instead of people giving you the benefit of the doubt that they grant the people in the majority group here. Other than a few MTV-informed stereotypes about black people, white people are treated exactly the same where I am living now, so it definitely isn't a case of color. In fact, my predecessor here was a small white woman but everyone constantly judges me based on her beliefs and interests because we're both American and the only things that the people in my area know about Americans come from interacting with her.
In the end, I think we all want "privilege" because it shouldn't be a special right at all. I hope that conveys my message and clears things up a bit--I used my personal experiences as examples but my main point is that there is a group of social systems that are in place that give each person advantages and disadvantages based on all kinds of things, and these social systems with be definitely be different based on the society; you can look up Kyriarchy if you want a better explanation.
It makes it really hard to actually educate "privileged" people about the rights that the people around them do not have when you call those rights "privilege." I can completely understand when calling out on their "privilege" completely short circuits their brain because the word itself implies undeserved special rights and makes it sound like you're saying "You don't deserve the right to feel safe when you walk alone at night" or something. I have a real problem with the term, and it's really weird to me that people who claim to desire equality would label "society treating you a way that everyone would like to be treated" as something people will try to throw in your face as an insult. That this entire thread started because the main poster feels compelled to argue about how racist it is to claim that one group has a privilege over another is a proof of what I'm talking about.
Quite simply when you claim that a racial group has a privilege over another due to their skin color, that is racist. Its a generalization to start with and easy to disprove. You do not know if all of the individuals in that racial group have benefited or were harmed by racist policies or acts. In your opinion, the only qualification to get this privilege is to be born white. You can give all the reasons you want concerning why you believe this privilege exist but it does not stop your generalization and stereotyping from being racist.
I agree with you when you make statements about how it can racist to "check your privilege," but the core issue is that people are not communicating effectively by using this buzzword to put someone down instead of actually trying to explain to someone who has never had to deal with a certain problem why it is a real issue for people who don't have the ability to enjoy the same rights. In this way, it also looks like you have the wrong idea if you think "being born white" or simply being part of a certain group is all it takes to gain "privilege."
The qualifications for "privileges" wildly vary on circumstances. They are not inherent for all people of any given group because it is a societal construct and not all members of a group will be members of a specific society where they are afforded the rights we have labelled as "privilege." Since you're talking about white and black people in your example, I will too. What's actually happening is that a person happens to be white in a society where any number of factors are in play to have "White" be considered normal enough in so many situations that there is seldom any serious baggage associated with the "White" label. I'm black, and everything I do when as a participant of American society is filtered through the lens of my ethnicity--every person in every society is perceived through any number of filters representing all sorts of things about who they are as a person, but white people in American society have less "All you people do this" moments. I constantly worry that my actions will be perceived as "how black people are" so I'll do things like be a half hour early to events because of the stereotype about black people being lazy and late to everything (and it gets me labelled as having a positive trait despite the apparent shortcoming of being black as though I had to work extra hard to deny my true nature); I can't just be a metal fan--I'm a black person who likes metal (which is sooo weird, I guess); I'm not just well-spoken--I'm well spoken for a black person, etc. I've never heard a person say "You white people are always late," and that's the point. Being able to participate in society without worrying as much about your actions and beliefs being tinged through the lens of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is the right that we're calling "privilege." Of course, there are places within American society where white people are at the disadvantage, so the whole notion that one group just enjoys being objectively better through "privilege" is wrong. There are some number of places where you can be in serious danger just for being white; white people aren't marked as frequently tardy but there are plenty of negative stereotypes about them, as well. The fact is that these rights vary depending on the lens you're being viewed through, the society you're in, and the situation/circumstance within that society. Here's another example: I live in Japan. All of the orientations that I had to go through before coming here were basically about adjusting people who have lived most of their lives in a society where their race doesn't define them so heavily to living in a place where almost every interaction they have will be based principally on their race since more than 90% of the people here are Asian (and therefore, gain the "privilege" here). Many people think that people who aren't Japanese are not actually capable of reading and writing Japanese, so you always get this really condescending praise for being able to say even a basic greeting; I'm often given forks in restaurants without being asked because no one assumes that I can use chopsticks, etc. This is the same for all non-Japanese who don't go out of their way to prove that they are more than capable of doing things like eating fish and rice, and even then it becomes a matter of proving that you're as capable as the people around you instead of people giving you the benefit of the doubt that they grant the people in the majority group here. Other than a few MTV-informed stereotypes about black people, white people are treated exactly the same where I am living now, so it definitely isn't a case of color. In fact, my predecessor here was a small white woman but everyone constantly judges me based on her beliefs and interests because we're both American and the only things that the people in my area know about Americans come from interacting with her.
In the end, I think we all want "privilege" because it shouldn't be a special right at all. I hope that conveys my message and clears things up a bit--I used my personal experiences as examples but my main point is that there is a group of social systems that are in place that give each person advantages and disadvantages based on all kinds of things, and these social systems with be definitely be different based on the society; you can look up Kyriarchy if you want a better explanation.
I agree, individuals in society will be in unique social circumstances to which they will have disadvantages and advantages based on their race and any number of other societal constructs however we can not draw broad conclusions of benefit based on a specific race with any degree of accuracy. I do not think anyone would disagree with how you presented this however it's NEVER explained or presented this way. The proponents of the concept work to create stereotypes and as many other better spoken and intelligent people have pointed out it does nothing to actually address the issues its designed to fix.
With that said, I think a lot of times our perception is not necessarily reality. I'll point out a few examples...
Chopsticks: Is it unfair for an Asian restaurant to respect or to treat its customers according to American/western customs? Maybe this a mere acknowledgement that you are different and they are prepared to serve your unique culture. What if you did not know how to use chop sticks and they did not have a fork? They would essentially force you to embrace their culture, instead of respecting yours. It seems you rather they not even acknowledge your culture. To me that is primitive and the epitome of bad service.
Reading/Writing Japanese: From their perspective I imagine (I pretty much know) its rather rare for a westerner to read or write Japanese. People tend to react strongly to unique things. Maybe they are proud you took the time to learn their customs unlike other Westerners. You have to be rather cynical to find this condescending.
Late/Lazy: That's pretty much racism.
"white baggage": You assume this. We all have our unique place in the world and have to deal with advantages and disadvantages. I do not doubt minorities face difficult circumstances. Even if you can do it accurately I do not think it brings any value to measure the difference in advantages or disadvantages between races. Advocates of privilege will swear up and down they don't measure, they are just acknowledging. You do the same thing. You say there are difference in how we are treated based on surroundings. I agree but then you go on to essentially say black people in the US have to deal with this more than white people. To me, it serves no purpose to measure but I'll indulge but first, I'd like to point out, we all have our unique societal constraints. A black person does not have to worry about having their property stripped from them for saying something racially insensitive. Racism against white people is often trivialized. Not too many intelligent white people would say in a general sense that white people are treated worse than minorities nor would they say, generally, they are treated better than minorities. They would say there are circumstances where people have been treated better and worse due to their skin color in certain situations and no broad conclusion can be made as to the extent that all or most white people or all or most black people are treated
I can acknowledge there are situations where minorities are treated unfairly due to their skin color. Lets attack that specific circumstance and not try to broadly paint it across all of society and create pointless stereotypes that really only create animosity and resentment.
A black person does not have to worry about having their property stripped from them for saying something racially insensitive.
lolololol
If a black NBA majority owner (there's only one - Michael Jordan) said that he didn't want someone to bring white people to games, you really think everyone would just let it slide?
A black person does not have to worry about having their property stripped from them for saying something racially insensitive.
lolololol
If a black NBA majority owner (there's only one - Michael Jordan) said that he didn't want someone to bring white people to games, you really think everyone would just let it slide?
My honest answer is, I do not know and its impossible to tell. I do know M. Jordan self-admittedly hated white people at one point in time.
I'm glad you took the bait....I knew you would.
Lets put your privilege theory to the test....
Do you believe black people are held to a lower standard than white people when it comes to communicating racist thoughts or ideas.....or is this a racist statement? It does not surprise me you'd find objection with that comment considering it uses the same logic and principals used in "privilege".
I worded that quote purposely aiming to get you and ECP to respond in the manner you did. Its amazing and so damn funny how you come out guns' a blazing at the concept of "black privilege". Which is also bull*****.
Do you believe black people are held to a lower standard than white people when it comes to communicating racist thoughts or ideas.....or is this a racist statement?
Read my edit and answer my question. I'm not going on a wild goose chase of you stonewalling and asking all kinds of trivial questions you already know the answer too just to avoid answering mine. I already know though, you object to the theory known as "black privilege" for the same reasons I object to "white privilege" and I think it's awesome.
I'm amazed that you "don't know" whether people would be upset if Michael Jordan said not to bring white people to games.
and answer my question.
I'm not clear on what your question is asking. But I'll give it a go. There are definitely people who hold white people to a harsher standard. There are even some people who promote the crazy idea that only white people can be racist. There are also some people who are just itching to catch a black person say something racist. I would say that overall, white people are held to a bit of a harsher standard, but not by anywhere near the degree that would let a black person get away with saying the stuff Sterling said. Any instance of racism that is severe enough to cause a major controversy will do so regardless of the race of the person saying it.
I'm not going on wild goose chase of you stonewalling and asking all kinds of trivial questions you already know the answer too. I already know though, you object to the theory known as "black privilege" for the same reasons I object to "white privilege" and I think it's awesome.
I don't object to the idea that there are instances of "black privilege". Surely there are situations in which being any race or gender or whatever will have its advantages. Why did you think I "object" to this idea?
I'm amazed that you "don't know" whether people would be upset if Michael Jordan said not to bring white people to games.
and answer my question.
I'm not clear on what your question is asking. But I'll give it a go. There are definitely people who hold white people to a harsher standard. There are even some people who promote the crazy idea that only white people can be racist. There are also some people who are just itching to catch a black person say something racist. I would say that overall, white people are held to a bit of a harsher standard, but not by anywhere near the degree that would let a black person get away with saying the stuff Sterling said. Any instance of racism that is severe enough to cause a major controversy will do so regardless of the race of the person saying it.
I'm not going on wild goose chase of you stonewalling and asking all kinds of trivial questions you already know the answer too. I already know though, you object to the theory known as "black privilege" for the same reasons I object to "white privilege" and I think it's awesome.
I don't object to the idea that there are instances of "black privilege". Surely there are situations in which being any race or gender or whatever will have its advantages. Why did you think I "object" to this idea?
Because you believe "white privilege" to be omnipresent (such as "I'm male and know I've benefited more than a woman" with no other qualifications) and as soon as "black privilege" is presented as omnipresent you want to start adding qualifications such "situations".
EDIT: BTW I dont know because I don't pretend to speak for everyone. I refute the entire premise of doing that.
Because you believe "white privilege" to be omnipresent (such as "I'm male and know I've benefited more than a woman" with no other qualifications) and as soon as "black privilege" is presented as omnipresent you want to start adding qualifications such "certain situations".
White privilege is obviously not omnipresent if there are situations in which it's worse to be white.
EDIT: BTW I dont know because I don't pretend to speak for everyone. I refute the entire premise of doing that.
And yet, you had no problem saying "A black person does not have to worry about having their property stripped from them for saying something racially insensitive.".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What do you mean by "rightly"?
If these studies produce a clear difference between racial groups, doesn't that say that such divisions do exist, whether we like it or not?
(I'm setting aside the word "competing" because that was not part of your point 1)
You're right about this; the assertion that the game is zero sum is too strong of a claim. It is only required for the argument that the game have winners, losers, or ties. I've modified the original post accordingly.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
"Rightly" means, in this case, that:
1) There is a function from the set of all people into the set of proposed tribal identities that is well-defined in the mathematical sense. (Is the basis for assigning tribal identities unobservable or ambiguous? Is it possible for someone to lie undecidably on a borderline between two categories? Then you haven't rightly classified.)
2) The proposed set of tribal identities can be shown to be correct or optimal. (Say we're trying to study race. To what extent do we subdivide the tribes by distinct continental origin? distinct cultures? Is there a rational argument that shows that one subdivision is right and the other wrong? If you can't answer those questions, then you haven't rightly classified.)
3) The proposed mapping from people to identities can be shown to be the correct choice out of all such possible maps. (For instance, if I wanted to propose a different labeling where, say, some of the white people get labeled as black, would my labeling be "worse" than yours, and why? If you can't answer that, then you haven't rightly classified.)
Note that, obviously, none of the reasons given should be reducible to "because it would give me the result I want," since that would be circular.
Ontologically circular. In order to derive differences between racial groups, you must already have agreed that humanity can be rightly subdivided into racial groups. In fact, in the course of any proper study you would have to exhibit and defend your methodology for so subdividing before you can even state your results.
Needless to say, most studies don't do this, and even amongst the ones that do, I've never seen one that does it convincingly. It's treated as a premise that whatever classifier the examiner pulled out of his rear end (usually self-reported race on a census form or survey) is an optimal classifier.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I don't understand why it's necessary that categories not have edge cases or gray areas or be loosely defined. None of this seems necessary to assert the existence of privilege.
Surely it makes sense for me to say that black people in the US have a higher risk of diabetes, even if you can find some people who are difficult to classify, and even if you can provide a slightly different classification that yields slightly different results.
I disagree. As long as we are not using the data we're studying to define the groups, a finding of difference gives some amount of credence to our proposed grouping, because it indicates that we have managed to create a grouping which has predictive value.
EDIT:
Surely it doesn't matter if it's an "optimal" classifier - just because our feature set might be noisy doesn't mean it's entirely without value.
First, I'd love to know how you focus the argument so precisely. People who are able to do this amaze me.
I currently do not have the extraordinary ability to articulate this issue to the degree you do (and have done on multiple occasions). I had to look up half the words in your post. People like me have to rely on logical arguments that appeal to emotion because that's what strikes home for a lot of people like me who are smart enough to see bull***** when they see it but are not educated enough to explain why. The racist argument is simpler to make. With that said, I had no intention on "winning the debate". To me, its important to demonstrate the racism involved and let other people make moral determinations on the concept known as privilege once I've demonstrated it as racist. The opposing argument is almost irrelevant and only provides fodder for my cannons to prove my point. They will never accept their ideology as racist which I understand and accept. I can only hope other people read this thread and acknowledge what I've have. Of course I understand many will dismiss my words as some right-wing zealot but those who make that statement are lost causes anyways. Unfortunately, I have to do what I do best and that's troll what I believe to be a racist ideology.
The first person to point this out to me was a well-educated black person while we both were working minimum wage at a polling center. He had a master degree and gave me insight as to how college has become a breeding ground for this stuff along with a long winded dissertation on the history and propagation of Marxism in universities.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Well if a black guy said it, and one with a master's degree no less, it must be true!
It's not rightly divisible, they are societal constructs. "White people" don't exist except as a societal construct, IE ask a "white person" what they are and they will not describe themselves as "white" they will tell you they are English, Irish, Italian, etc. Ask an Asian if what they are and they will tell you Korean, Hmong, Japanese, Chinese, etc.
Now here in America, you can ask a black person what they are and some will identify as "black" or "African-American", others might identify as Somali, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Jamaican, Haitian, etc. Some black people might identify as black or African-American because a few hundred years ago, Africans were taken from their countries and brought into the United States and had their cultural identities stripped away through slavery.
Rightly divisible, hardly. But you should note that the U.S. government DOES divide it's human population into these groups and I would say generally, so does the rest of American society regardless of right or wrong.
Do you think these societal constructs don't actually exist?
There's a struggle, but there's always struggle in life. I think you misunderstand what privilege actually is, privilege theory (at least none that I've heard of) doesn't say that white-straight-males are winning and everyone else is losing. It's talking about equality within society and/or how societal views/constructs can affect individual views about others based on race.
This doesn't mean that there aren't poor white people or enough poor white people nor does it mean that there aren't rich black people or enough rich black people.
What it does mean is that American Society tends to favor white people over other racial groups statistically speaking in many different aspects of life, of which there are TONS and TONS of studies that reflect exactly that (I will provide links upon request).
Do you disagree with this?
I have no idea what you mean by "one monolithic-tribe-entity is winning and the other is losing". What does that mean? You said that in premise 2 and I took a stab at what I thought you meant, but I'd like you to clarify.
If I go back to what I think you meant, then I think you have the complete wrong idea about what "privilege theory" is. You seem to think that privilege arguments are talking about the end results or the "winners" or "losers" (which you haven't really defined what winning or losing means). Privilege arguments are talking about the struggle, not the end results.
If you have Bob who is going to hire someone and he has to decide on two equally qualified candidates, race shouldn't be a determining factor in hiring practices.
Now if I understand what you mean by "winners" and "losers" you are defining winners as the one who got the job and the losers the one who didn't. Privilege arguments are not talking about white people getting the job, but rather are pointing out that being "white" gives white people an advantage over black people, and that this is morally wrong - not that they got the job and therefore won.
If you want to use a game analogy, then it's not about who wins and who loses, it's about having a level playing field and an equal chance for everyone to win or lose.
Well I disagree with 2 and 3, but the cartoon still makes sense. That's because the cartoon is mocking a common argument that many white people have made (not all white people) and that is 'Well I got to where I am, I struggled, and I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps, why can't you?'
White people were allowed to be naturalized citizens from the start while other races had to struggle for their citizenship. White people benefited from committing genocide and marginalizing Native Americans, they benefited from slavery, they benefited from marginalizing other races. Where I'm from (Twin Cities, MN), black people couldn't even walk on rice street in the 1970s and 80s because they would be attacked or harassed by the majority of white people that lived there.
The whole point of that cartoon is to show that when white people make that type of claim, it is complete bull*****. White supremacy exists here in the United States and those that benefit from it do so, not just because they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and worked hard and struggled for it, but also did so because of societal constructs and practices that white supremacy helped to create and facilitate in the first place.
Ummm with all due respect Bull *****, very few Americans believe white people are a superior race and should thus rule as a result. Just look at whats happening to Donald Sterling. 99.9% of the people argueing against what's happened to him care about free speech, they are not argueing against it because they support what he said.
I am not arguing that Americans believe white people are a superior race, but rather that society perpetuates the belief that being white is better than being non-white and in doing so maintains the dominance of white people in media, politics, business, and social attitudes within American society.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/479643-privilege?page=8#quote
This is why its ultimately pointless to engage in meaningful and intelligent debate on this issue. I find it just as futile as talking to a conspiracy theorist.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Not that his skin color has anything to do with his credibility but I wonder if you would say the same thing if he were to support concepts such as privilege. I included the persons race because I thought it was interesting that a person of color would be the one to point me to the Marxism connection not to mention he provided different perspective than the random white guy on the concept known as "privilege". Most of the people you hear talk about privilege are white liberals and yes, I know there are plenty of black people who talk about it too but in either case, the skin color does not add or take away from the credibility of the argument. You do not hear from too many black dissenters because they fear being called an uncle tom or worse they get ostracized. The idea that you would imply that I was using race to validate the opinion only validates my view of you. You seem to be more interesting in race baiting than anything else.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
That's the definition of "white supremacy".
Whhhaaaattttt you believe it's better to be white then non-white in America. The other possible way to view this is just a rewording of what is above.
Sadly the sociology community has its own bias and often produces one study that shows something in line with that bias and a large number refuting it and then just doesn't publish the ones refuting it. Leaving much of this suspect.
Publication bias refers to the fact that studies with null results are often not written up for publication or accepted for publication (Begg, 1994). This bias is a serious concern, especially if these results are being used to make recommendations for interventions.source...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
No, that is one definition of white supremacy, I am using the academic definition.
No, that is not what that sentence says.
If you think that all studies are guilty of that, I think you have some work to do. I've listed a couple studies already, so I suppose you can start there.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I agree with you when you make statements about how it can racist to "check your privilege," but the core issue is that people are not communicating effectively by using this buzzword to put someone down instead of actually trying to explain to someone who has never had to deal with a certain problem why it is a real issue for people who don't have the ability to enjoy the same rights. In this way, it also looks like you have the wrong idea if you think "being born white" or simply being part of a certain group is all it takes to gain "privilege."
The qualifications for "privileges" wildly vary on circumstances. They are not inherent for all people of any given group because it is a societal construct and not all members of a group will be members of a specific society where they are afforded the rights we have labelled as "privilege." Since you're talking about white and black people in your example, I will too. What's actually happening is that a person happens to be white in a society where any number of factors are in play to have "White" be considered normal enough in so many situations that there is seldom any serious baggage associated with the "White" label. I'm black, and everything I do when as a participant of American society is filtered through the lens of my ethnicity--every person in every society is perceived through any number of filters representing all sorts of things about who they are as a person, but white people in American society have less "All you people do this" moments. I constantly worry that my actions will be perceived as "how black people are" so I'll do things like be a half hour early to events because of the stereotype about black people being lazy and late to everything (and it gets me labelled as having a positive trait despite the apparent shortcoming of being black as though I had to work extra hard to deny my true nature); I can't just be a metal fan--I'm a black person who likes metal (which is sooo weird, I guess); I'm not just well-spoken--I'm well spoken for a black person, etc. I've never heard a person say "You white people are always late," and that's the point. Being able to participate in society without worrying as much about your actions and beliefs being tinged through the lens of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is the right that we're calling "privilege." Of course, there are places within American society where white people are at the disadvantage, so the whole notion that one group just enjoys being objectively better through "privilege" is wrong. There are some number of places where you can be in serious danger just for being white; white people aren't marked as frequently tardy but there are plenty of negative stereotypes about them, as well. The fact is that these rights vary depending on the lens you're being viewed through, the society you're in, and the situation/circumstance within that society. Here's another example: I live in Japan. All of the orientations that I had to go through before coming here were basically about adjusting people who have lived most of their lives in a society where their race doesn't define them so heavily to living in a place where almost every interaction they have will be based principally on their race since more than 90% of the people here are Asian (and therefore, gain the "privilege" here). Many people think that people who aren't Japanese are not actually capable of reading and writing Japanese, so you always get this really condescending praise for being able to say even a basic greeting; I'm often given forks in restaurants without being asked because no one assumes that I can use chopsticks, etc. This is the same for all non-Japanese who don't go out of their way to prove that they are more than capable of doing things like eating fish and rice, and even then it becomes a matter of proving that you're as capable as the people around you instead of people giving you the benefit of the doubt that they grant the people in the majority group here. Other than a few MTV-informed stereotypes about black people, white people are treated exactly the same where I am living now, so it definitely isn't a case of color. In fact, my predecessor here was a small white woman but everyone constantly judges me based on her beliefs and interests because we're both American and the only things that the people in my area know about Americans come from interacting with her.
In the end, I think we all want "privilege" because it shouldn't be a special right at all. I hope that conveys my message and clears things up a bit--I used my personal experiences as examples but my main point is that there is a group of social systems that are in place that give each person advantages and disadvantages based on all kinds of things, and these social systems with be definitely be different based on the society; you can look up Kyriarchy if you want a better explanation.
I agree, individuals in society will be in unique social circumstances to which they will have disadvantages and advantages based on their race and any number of other societal constructs however we can not draw broad conclusions of benefit based on a specific race with any degree of accuracy. I do not think anyone would disagree with how you presented this however it's NEVER explained or presented this way. The proponents of the concept work to create stereotypes and as many other better spoken and intelligent people have pointed out it does nothing to actually address the issues its designed to fix.
With that said, I think a lot of times our perception is not necessarily reality. I'll point out a few examples...
Chopsticks: Is it unfair for an Asian restaurant to respect or to treat its customers according to American/western customs? Maybe this a mere acknowledgement that you are different and they are prepared to serve your unique culture. What if you did not know how to use chop sticks and they did not have a fork? They would essentially force you to embrace their culture, instead of respecting yours. It seems you rather they not even acknowledge your culture. To me that is primitive and the epitome of bad service.
Reading/Writing Japanese: From their perspective I imagine (I pretty much know) its rather rare for a westerner to read or write Japanese. People tend to react strongly to unique things. Maybe they are proud you took the time to learn their customs unlike other Westerners. You have to be rather cynical to find this condescending.
Late/Lazy: That's pretty much racism.
"white baggage": You assume this. We all have our unique place in the world and have to deal with advantages and disadvantages. I do not doubt minorities face difficult circumstances. Even if you can do it accurately I do not think it brings any value to measure the difference in advantages or disadvantages between races. Advocates of privilege will swear up and down they don't measure, they are just acknowledging. You do the same thing. You say there are difference in how we are treated based on surroundings. I agree but then you go on to essentially say black people in the US have to deal with this more than white people. To me, it serves no purpose to measure but I'll indulge but first, I'd like to point out, we all have our unique societal constraints. A black person does not have to worry about having their property stripped from them for saying something racially insensitive. Racism against white people is often trivialized. Not too many intelligent white people would say in a general sense that white people are treated worse than minorities nor would they say, generally, they are treated better than minorities. They would say there are circumstances where people have been treated better and worse due to their skin color in certain situations and no broad conclusion can be made as to the extent that all or most white people or all or most black people are treated
I can acknowledge there are situations where minorities are treated unfairly due to their skin color. Lets attack that specific circumstance and not try to broadly paint it across all of society and create pointless stereotypes that really only create animosity and resentment.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
lolololol
If a black NBA majority owner (there's only one - Michael Jordan) said that he didn't want someone to bring white people to games, you really think everyone would just let it slide?
My honest answer is, I do not know and its impossible to tell. I do know M. Jordan self-admittedly hated white people at one point in time.
I'm glad you took the bait....I knew you would.
Lets put your privilege theory to the test....
Do you believe black people are held to a lower standard than white people when it comes to communicating racist thoughts or ideas.....or is this a racist statement? It does not surprise me you'd find objection with that comment considering it uses the same logic and principals used in "privilege".
I worded that quote purposely aiming to get you and ECP to respond in the manner you did. Its amazing and so damn funny how you come out guns' a blazing at the concept of "black privilege". Which is also bull*****.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Way to dodge the question.
Held to a lower standard by whom?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I'm amazed that you "don't know" whether people would be upset if Michael Jordan said not to bring white people to games.
I'm not clear on what your question is asking. But I'll give it a go. There are definitely people who hold white people to a harsher standard. There are even some people who promote the crazy idea that only white people can be racist. There are also some people who are just itching to catch a black person say something racist. I would say that overall, white people are held to a bit of a harsher standard, but not by anywhere near the degree that would let a black person get away with saying the stuff Sterling said. Any instance of racism that is severe enough to cause a major controversy will do so regardless of the race of the person saying it.
I don't object to the idea that there are instances of "black privilege". Surely there are situations in which being any race or gender or whatever will have its advantages. Why did you think I "object" to this idea?
Because you believe "white privilege" to be omnipresent (such as "I'm male and know I've benefited more than a woman" with no other qualifications) and as soon as "black privilege" is presented as omnipresent you want to start adding qualifications such "situations".
EDIT: BTW I dont know because I don't pretend to speak for everyone. I refute the entire premise of doing that.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
White privilege is obviously not omnipresent if there are situations in which it's worse to be white.
And yet, you had no problem saying "A black person does not have to worry about having their property stripped from them for saying something racially insensitive.".