What is white privilege?

[silvagti]

It sounds like you agree with the outline of it, but would call it something different?

I agree that it's advantageous to be part of the majority group in a society. I don't see why that should require people to feel ashamed of their majority group status or should accept positive discrimination against the majority group.

Can you imagine in I went across to China and told them they had "Asian Privilege". Then suggested they should introduce "BWME" workplace quotas to ensure non Asian ethnic groups were given preferential treatment in terms of jobs/promotion and opportunities.

What do you think their response would be?

I think the term "white privilege" is disingenuous and quite frankly racist in its connotation. It's nothing to do with being white or having a pale complexion which provides an advantage. It's having been born in this country, looking like the majority of people, talking in the same language and having the same culture/religion/etc which provides that advantage. The same is true in any society or country.

Basically that's my take. We need to get rid of this needlessly deliberately racially charged language and rename it to "Indigenous Privilege" or "Majority Privilege". Then we can rationally discuss what, if any, steps should be taken to temper that bias.

 

[Mr Oblong]

I’m not interested in indulging your cult word-salad. Your posts reek of it. No doubt you think you’re too super-duper enlightened, and everyone else are simple philistines. In reality you’re just gullible enough to buy this fringe nonsense.

Yeah, I'm so high-minded with my swear words and emoji... because what? I mentioned some concepts common to this topic (it's just a common reference, like 'outrage culture'; the argument doesn't hinge on them and certainly shouldn't stop you from replying)?

I've said I understand the other view, but explained why I reckon there's a way of understanding my position as well. As these bun fights go it's pretty polite.

Maybe I'm not a man of the people like you- someone who accuses people of being in cults, being groomed, being gullible, being in thrall to 'evil spirits' (lol) but doesn't deign to reply to ('indulge', as you put it) even a single sentence edit of the point I was making?

You can dispute the legitimacy of 'white privilege' as a concept, plenty have and I've disagreed right back, but these projection tantrums are fooling no-one.

Yours in gullibility,
Mr enlightened evil spirit baddie.

 

[Mr Oblong]

I agree that it's advantageous to be part of the majority group in a society. I don't see why that should require people to feel ashamed of their majority group status or should accept positive discrimination against the majority group.

Can you imagine in I went across to China and told them they had "Asian Privilege". Then suggested they should introduce "BWME" workplace quotas to ensure non Asian ethnic groups were given preferential treatment in terms of jobs/promotion and opportunities.

Maybe we could have "white history month" to highlight this issue? Because as we know white history is Chinese history....

What do you think their response would be?

I think the term "white privilege" is disingenuous and quite frankly racist in its connotation. It's nothing to do with being white or having a pale complexion which provides an advantage. It's having been born in this country, looking like the majority of people, talking in the same language and having the same culture/religion/etc which provides that advantage. The same is true in any society or country.

I understand and respect that we don't fully agree so I mean this sincerely, but I think we're almost splitting hairs between 'look like the majority of people' and 'white privilege' (when we're talking about, in this case, the UK).

I'm not saying anyone should be ashamed, that's not the point, but recognising the many ways in which people have it harder than others (men with suicide, LGBT people with prejudice, whatever) is a path to understanding and helping each other out better than we do now. Call it bleeding heart but it's well intentioned.

And China etc. things would obviously work differently for white people, but China is pretty racist so maybe let's leave that one for now

Positive discrimination is another topic, but I see why you mentioned it.

 

[Theophany]

Whispers... Karl Marx...whispers...

I took a first year University course on sociology!

Marx is amazing I'll have you know!

He was literally wrong in everything he ever said but my gott..!! It wasn't real communism (marxism).

Tongue in cheek here but my lord some of the responses in this thread.

Just for a little colour context, there are just as many first year uni students parrotting Ayn Rand's garbage - I was one of them shouting down the Marxist lecturers thinking I was a little free thinker before I grew up

 

[Energize]

Whispers... Karl Marx...whispers...

I took a first year University course on sociology!

Marx is amazing I'll have you know!

He was literally wrong in everything he ever said but my gott..!! It wasn't real communism (marxism).

Tongue in cheek here but my lord some of the responses in this thread.

Racist by design? Probably not. Is that what you're getting hung up on?

Racist in it's effects, yes obviously. In the lords, inherited peerages structurally make it harder for people from the outside group to become part of the inside group.

It's entirely by design. The consequences are not equitable. You might not care about it, but the mechanisms are really straightforward and, if we're not playing daft, uncontroversial. I mean what else is inheritance if not a regulated control of familial power/resources? It's virtually the definition

So you are basically saying that every system that does not result in 100% equal representation in all of the 1 billion identity groups is racist/sexist/racist/whatever?

 

[Mr Oblong]

So you are basically saying that every system that does not result in 100% equal representation in all of the 1 billion identity groups is racist/sexist/racist/whatever?

No. I plainly said that even democracy (which is a lot better for representation than hereditary rule) is not perfect. But some systems are less perfect than others!

Some systems produce especially uneven results, either by design or by coincidence (it's not necessarily important which, though).

Inheritance is one of the most obvious (seriously, this shouldn't be controversial) because it designs to keep power/resource within a defined group (some more closed off than others).

So if you're not in that group, it'll work to keep you out. Not just for race, but class as well (and even beyond being upper class, based literally on who you knew at school). It's a model that applies elsewhere, and there is evidence that it at least exists, I'd hope we could spot it before we decide what we think about it.

That's all.

 

[Energize]

No.

But some systems produce uneven results, either by design or by coincidence. It's not necessarily important which, though.

That's a yes then.

 

[Mr Oblong]

That's a yes then.

No it isn't. If you're going to quote-ignore most of my post you'd do well to at least remember what your own question was.

Your question is about equality of outcome. My point is about equality of opportunity, which is impossible to get perfect (and political roles/jobs aren't perfectly divisible amongst the population according to a million different characteristics, like you mention), but some things are really imperfect and hereditary rule is a (supposedly...) simple example of unequal opportunity.

Not the main point, but to express it another way: life isn't fair, but some things are particularly unfair and it's worth addressing those if you care about fairness.

 

[Energize]

No it isn't. If you're going to quote-ignore most of my post you'd do well to at least remember what your own question was.

Your question is about equality of outcome. My point is about equality of opportunity, which is impossible to get perfect (and political roles/jobs aren't perfectly divisible amongst the population according to a million different characteristics, like you mention), but some things are really imperfect and hereditary rule is a (supposedly...) simple example of unequal opportunity.

Not the main point, but to express it another way: life isn't fair, but some things are particularly unfair and it's worth addressing those if you care about fairness.

The house of Lords should be abolished I agree, but it's not racist because only 12 lords at black.

 

[Gray2233]

Just for a little colour context, there are just as many first year uni students parrotting Ayn Rand's garbage - I was one of them shouting down the Marxist lecturers thinking I was a little free thinker before I grew up

Rarely the focus to be fair, and I would argue more pointless and complex at a brief glance. There's very much a slant with most vocal in house academics of the past decade or two.

 

[Mr Oblong]

The house of Lords should be abolished I agree, but it's not racist because only 12 lords at black.

We can agree that it is, by virtue of being partly based on birthright, exclusionary and designed for a small, highly privileged group.

That group is mostly white, rich, etc., so if you fall outside of that group then you're structurally disadvantaged from joining. I think we still agree there?

But yes, 12 black lords by itself doesn't confirm anything, but it does suggest there's something at play that's worth exploring if you care about fairness- lords are powerful members of society and they wield significant influence over our lives.

Ditto for other areas of life, particularly those with a lot of influence, money or prestige (because that's where the effects of exclusion are most impactful).

 

[Theophany]

Rarely the focus to be fair, and I would argue more pointless and complex at a brief glance. There's very much a slant with most vocal in house academics of the past decade or two.

Academia has always been that way, you can't very well be a right wing or libertarian when you're deeply entrenched in state sponsorship. Luckily most graduates grow out of it upon receipt of their first payslip.

 

[robgmun]

I absolutely love this and i really hope it goes viral:

She's 100% correct and i hope more people from the black community who don't agree with BLM speak out

 

[Fubsy]

I also agree with her. I am however expecting some sort of backlash against her sadly

 

[stockhausen]

I find it remarkable that some posters on here seem to doubt that racism exists and is not particularly unusual in the UK.

I do wonder whether they actually approve of racism, are so accustomed to it that they just don't notice it or if they live such remarkably sheltered lives that they have never observed it.

 

[mmj_uk]

She'll largely be ignored and likely demoted in search rankings of social media, BLM and their corporate backers only celebrate career criminals who are useful to incite riots when they die whilst being arrested. BLM's goal is to overthrow capitalism they couldn't care less about black lives.

What BLM are doing is akin to Al Quaeda changing their name to Muslim Lives Matter and continuing to wage their Jihad, accusing anyone who objects to them of not supporting the lives of Muslims.. the organisation is given a marketing slogan a 5 year old can understand which suggests one thing but that is used to mask the true purpose of the movement. It's basically a way to attack anyone who can see past your slogan and doesn't go along with your movement as a racist.

 

[Caracus2k]

So we've got 8% BAME vs 14% of the population being BAME (as mentioned the hereditary aspect is structurally racist).

33% being women isn't great either.

Whats so interesting about the all to common use of stats to support social engineering attempts is the staggering levels of ignorance deployed by thoose arguing for said engineering.

The only argument is whether it's deliberate or not.

Whether it the 'gender pay gap' or the racial makeup of the lords you can almost always be guaranteed to find an obvious howler in the arguments deployed by the zealots.

Lets look at the lords for example.....

The average age of a sitting member of the house of Lords is 70


And the demographics of the UK are such that non white people are overwhelmingly represented in the younger cohorts of the population.....

For example aged 65 to 69.....

4.8% of the overall population....

And the numbers for this age bracket by race

Blacks 32,032
Whites 2,543,742
Asians 77, 482

So almost 25 times more whites than asians and blacks combined for this age range.

any proper analysis of the Lords would show that 'BAME' people are massively over represented as entrants to the Lords when controlling for their age which is relevant for all entrants because Lords are typically much older than the average age of the population as a whole......

 

[Jokester]

Indeed, the House of Lords isn't representative of society, to argue that is just ignorant. How many working class white people are in the HoL?

 

[stockhausen]

She'll largely be ignored and likely demoted in search rankings of social media, BLM and their corporate backers only celebrate career criminals who are useful to incite riots when they die whilst being arrested. BLM's goal is to overthrow capitalism they couldn't care less about black lives. . . .

Let me get this right, Corporate backers of the Black Lives Matter movement support it because its sole objective is to overthrow Capitalism - is that your special conspiracy theory

Indeed, the House of Lords isn't representative of society, to argue that is just ignorant. How many working class white people are in the HoL?

Yes, quite so; the last thing that we want in the Second House is another aged Archbishop, especially if he doesn't support Boris Johnson AND is Black. What is needed is more tax dodging White Van Men.

 

[GGizmo]

I absolutely love this and i really hope it goes viral:

She's 100% correct and i hope more people from the black community who don't agree with BLM speak out

She is right in what she says. Identity politics just plays one group off against another. It destroys the individual identity of a person, and those people that 'step out of line' come under attack from their own group for not adhering to the 'group think' mind set. It is a backwards way of thinking.

She is also entirely correct to make the distinction between American and British history. Both white people and black people in Britain have led a totally different history than white/black people in America.