privilege
- Thread starter Mary Shelley
- Start date
very good video! i have seen this sort of thing happen, not necessarily to black people, but we have a high native population here and they go through basically the same crap.
i do take exception to the use of the term 'white privilege' however.
that seems racist to me, even if it's meant in a non-nasty way. we are not privileged to be white. it's got nothing to do with privilege. i am white by accident. no one gave me the gift of whiteness, and i didn't 'achieve' it in any way. white skin is just as irrelevant to anything as any other color.
it's shameful that some people behave in this manner, but the advantage her sister in law had in the situation is not a 'privilege'. it's a disgusting indication of how narrow minded and intolerant some people are, and i don't think the sister in law was thinking to herself, hey i look white so i'm going to speak up here. more like hey you just cashed my check you bitch, what's the problem??
i do take exception to the use of the term 'white privilege' however.
that seems racist to me, even if it's meant in a non-nasty way. we are not privileged to be white. it's got nothing to do with privilege. i am white by accident. no one gave me the gift of whiteness, and i didn't 'achieve' it in any way. white skin is just as irrelevant to anything as any other color.
it's shameful that some people behave in this manner, but the advantage her sister in law had in the situation is not a 'privilege'. it's a disgusting indication of how narrow minded and intolerant some people are, and i don't think the sister in law was thinking to herself, hey i look white so i'm going to speak up here. more like hey you just cashed my check you bitch, what's the problem??
This is just semantics. It's the same outcome with only the difference in how the word makes a you feel. You could look at it from a different angle and say that minorities are underprivileged. If you still don't like the word, you have to understand that there is an underlying concept here, and denying it a label is harmful to the recognition of its existence. So call it what you will.
I think you, as well as many other white people don't like the word because it implies you have a special right that is better than the standard. Something better than you already have. However, you have already declared that being yourself is the standard, or at least you feel it should be standard. It's all relative. I understand that you would ideally want all races to be a standard. I understand that you would ideally expect that being treated like a human being should be standard. I understand that you didn't go out of your way to be white, but the cashier went out of her way to be shitty. We're not disputing that any of this is your fault, but you are privileged, because considering a wider context, minorities aren't privileged.
unfortunately terms get 'coined' and then they themselves become a problem.
i do not see myself as a standard. perhaps others do, but then that's their filter not mine.
my exception is the word privilege. i do not feel privileged to be 'white'. and i don't see anyone being privileged or not according to skin color. what i do see are many ignorant intolerant people (of many skin colors incidentally) who hold onto and display an astonishingly backward way of seeing the world.
the cashier is one of these people. she does not represent 'white people' she represents 'ignorant intolerant people'. if people stopped playing the skin color card every time some injustice is done perhaps we as a society could move forward past it.
just sayin'
btw i have no idea what your skin color is and i couldn't care less.
Racism exists for all races, but to demonstrate that it's not evenly distributed, as an example, it's disproportionately against blacks. The point here is to assert that there is a general advantage to being white, and to a lesser extent, non-black. And the point that I am saying this is because we have to address this as a premise to arguments made about racism. For example, I cannot let anyone imply that we're all treated the same despite race. I cannot let anyone imply that a few shitty people as the source of hatred and ignorance refutes the point at which disadvantage is delivered.
I'm pretty sure that we're not going to move past racism if a few people stop playing the race card.
Every time racism is discussed, the one consistent thing that is expressed is "please stop talking about racism".
If you feel uncomfortable talking about it, you don't have to continue, but don't you think it's unfair that simply talking about it is akin to playing the race card? I know you didn't explicitly say I'm playing the race card, but the undertones are implying I'm (or anyone) a bad person if we continue to talk about race.
Also, please be aware that I wont equate arguing about racism with being racist. So feel free to express your opinion.
Last edited:
no it doesn't make me uncomfortable. it's quite simply not productive. i'd rather focus on the direct problem than chalk it up to yet another 'race issue'. as a customer, the second woman had the right to be treated in the same manner as the first one. the end. had she said that right off the bat the whole situation would have played out differently. think about it.
re: what i highlighted in your post - i would think that after all the posts i have made at this forum you would know better than to think there would be undertones to what i say. i am very direct and literal in my wording.
I suppose it has always been the duty of the privileged to look after the less priveleged.
So, if the premise of the video is right, "white privilege" should be used to help other races.
So, if the premise of the video is right, "white privilege" should be used to help other races.
I completely agree. But your idealism isn't represented in reality. So in the mean time, people are talking about the underlying problem. Obviously this wouldn't be a recurring topic if there weren't a problem. This is the way of the world - the oppressed will speak out on their problems until the issues are gone. Just as there are feminists and gay rights activists, there are others telling them to shut up, and that they are tired of listening to their shit.
Suggesting that we take the appropriate action is no more productive than discussions of race that assert racism is wrong. Do not confuse actually taking the right action with talking about taking the right action. It would be like me saying that racism doesn't exist, and it suddenly vanished from earth.
Racism isn't just the KKK. It isn't just outward hatred. The power of racism is in its subtlety. The subconscious decisions we make that places one person ahead of another. I wouldn't be surprised if that cashier didn't even know she was doing anything wrong until she was confronted by her white peers.
actually it is represented in reality. i am one person who is an example of that, but there are countless others who have also moved past the labeling game.
you are arguing a different point than i am oq. i hear what you're saying but you are missing my point, or you are choosing to disregard it
either way, is ok with me. if you want to talk about racism all day that is your prerogative but i won't argue it with you. i go about my life without that blanket label. i look at each individual injustice for what it is in that situation. that is the way problems get addressed, not by putting a label on it and speaking out about the label. racism causes a lot of problems that's true. talking about how it does isn't the answer. taking direct action is.
for example, if that second woman had immediately called the cashier on her bullshit and demanded to see the manager she would have gotten the result she wanted without all the racism stuff. she did not need the so called white privilege of the first woman at all. it just played out that way. was the cashier being racist? seems that way. did it have to end up with the daughter crying and the woman feeling like she didn't know what to do? not as far as i'm concerned.
What many people complain about as "labels," I like to call "language." Language is incredibly useful. It has been shown in numerous studies that the best way for attitudes to adapt and change is through narrative. It's difficult for many people to understand the implications of things or to imagine the difficulties other people go through without seeing it. Television and film have enormous impact on social change for this reason.
To me, "shut up," is never the answer to progress. "If they would just stop complaining about it, the problem would solve itself," is frankly a BS answer that can only be spoken from a position of privilege. This is an example of blaming the victim. Speaking out specifically against injustice is not something one should ever shame the victim of injustice for doing. It is never a racist's fault for being a victim of racism any more than it is an assault victim's fault for wearing a skirt.
The first step to solving a problem is stating it. You may think that this problem has already been stated. It has in fact been stated many times. However, not everyone has acknowledged it or concurs that it is a problem. This is mostly because it's not a problem FOR THEM. To deny that people of privilege lack privilege is a form of denial that invalidates the complaints of injustice by the victims of the injustice. The complaints are valid. The racism is real. The video is only one example and you don't need to travel back to the Civil War to see it. You just have to open your eyes, you ears, and your mind, and listen to what the people being hurt by it are saying. Should we not all deserve at least this much?
ok again, i hear what you are saying but you are misunderstanding what i am saying.
i will leave you with this example, which is one way of indicating what i'm referring to
http://voices.yahoo.com/rosa-parks-black-woman-changed-nation-10029.html
this woman made incredible changes by acting against an injustice. she did not sit there and talk about privilege or racism, she simply acted according to her right as a human being, regardless if that was acknowledged by anyone. she took her right.
that is what i'm talking about.
i'm not suggesting that no one ever talk about racism, but i guess that is what you read. i can't control that.
i will leave you with this example, which is one way of indicating what i'm referring to
http://voices.yahoo.com/rosa-parks-black-woman-changed-nation-10029.html
this woman made incredible changes by acting against an injustice. she did not sit there and talk about privilege or racism, she simply acted according to her right as a human being, regardless if that was acknowledged by anyone. she took her right.
that is what i'm talking about.
i'm not suggesting that no one ever talk about racism, but i guess that is what you read. i can't control that.
She did. In no way would I seek to discredit Rosa Parks. I just don't see the mutual exclusivity. Martin Lurther King spoke. He used the power of language to push change similar to the way Rosa Parks made a nonverbal statement. There is room in this world for both things.
This is a forum. Forums are good for discussion. I would encourage anyone to make as many nonverbal statements against injustice in real life as they can. How does a discussion in a forum in any way negate this?
how did this become a discussion about my opinion? i never said discussions about racism shouldn't happen. i simply stated my opinion that rather than be a victim of it, this woman could have taken action against the injustice. i believe there would have been a much more positive outcome, not only with regard to how people are treated at that store, but also that woman would have empowered herself and made a real difference in the eyes of her daughter.
she chose not to, and now it's a video about racism rather than a video about one woman defending her rights and leading a very excellent example for her daughter. do you now understand?
you are picking me apart for something irrelevant to what i've been trying to say.
i can't be bothered anymore to explain it. if you don't get it that's fine, but don't misconstrue ok?
she chose not to, and now it's a video about racism rather than a video about one woman defending her rights and leading a very excellent example for her daughter. do you now understand?
you are picking me apart for something irrelevant to what i've been trying to say.
i can't be bothered anymore to explain it. if you don't get it that's fine, but don't misconstrue ok?
First of all, I would like to acknowledge that institutionalized racism most definitely exists. Racism doesn't have to be an overt demonstration of prejudice. Racism, at its core, is the sum of subconscious preconceptions that have been largely shaped and represented by societal attitudes towards race. These preconceptions contribute to subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) providing advantages for one race over another. Most of the time, this is entirely subconscious. I invite you to take the Implicit Association Test. No matter how tolerant you think you are, the results may surprise you.
The biggest perpetrator is mainstream media. While the last decade has seen a gradual increase in the representation of people of colour in the media, some of the associations are still often problematic. Representation either comes across as contrived in effort to appear politically correct or morale boosting (often having the opposite effect in underscoring that this is the ideal versus a natural reality) or it succeeds in propagating stereotypes. The problem would be better resolved if there was simply more diversity in the media to better represent the diversity of the world population. As it stands now, we have a lot of race-based tropes that, frankly, should promote a few ugly laughs out of people. ( See: Token Minority, Token Enemy Minority, Positive Discrimination, Black Best Friend, Informed Judaism, Magical Negro, Black and Nerdy, and really, the list goes on).
That all being said, I must say that I personally have a problem with how the race issue is being approached. There is no denying that racial privilege exists and efforts must be made to draw attention to the issue and balance all checks, but I somehow cannot help but wonder if there are psychological repercussions to painting someone as disadvantaged. It's one thing when it's subtle, but another thing when it's consciously threaded into their identity that it comes from an aspect of the person that they cannot change about themselves: their skin colour. On one hand, it is drawing attention to the issue that it can be resolved, but on the other hand, I'm wondering if there is another, more empowering way to resolve the issue without introducing language that, to me at least, comes across as subconsciously victimizing. I can see how that might breed a type of resentment in congruence with trying to find a solution that might cause additional problems. (This, in particular, is the stuff that scares me. And it's talked about openly on mainstream media)
The issue, of course, is that I don't have any other suggestion other than to shine a bright light on it. The road to equality is going to be a bumpy one.
The biggest perpetrator is mainstream media. While the last decade has seen a gradual increase in the representation of people of colour in the media, some of the associations are still often problematic. Representation either comes across as contrived in effort to appear politically correct or morale boosting (often having the opposite effect in underscoring that this is the ideal versus a natural reality) or it succeeds in propagating stereotypes. The problem would be better resolved if there was simply more diversity in the media to better represent the diversity of the world population. As it stands now, we have a lot of race-based tropes that, frankly, should promote a few ugly laughs out of people. ( See: Token Minority, Token Enemy Minority, Positive Discrimination, Black Best Friend, Informed Judaism, Magical Negro, Black and Nerdy, and really, the list goes on).
That all being said, I must say that I personally have a problem with how the race issue is being approached. There is no denying that racial privilege exists and efforts must be made to draw attention to the issue and balance all checks, but I somehow cannot help but wonder if there are psychological repercussions to painting someone as disadvantaged. It's one thing when it's subtle, but another thing when it's consciously threaded into their identity that it comes from an aspect of the person that they cannot change about themselves: their skin colour. On one hand, it is drawing attention to the issue that it can be resolved, but on the other hand, I'm wondering if there is another, more empowering way to resolve the issue without introducing language that, to me at least, comes across as subconsciously victimizing. I can see how that might breed a type of resentment in congruence with trying to find a solution that might cause additional problems. (This, in particular, is the stuff that scares me. And it's talked about openly on mainstream media)
The issue, of course, is that I don't have any other suggestion other than to shine a bright light on it. The road to equality is going to be a bumpy one.
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
Your proposed premise is not required for the conclusion.
I doubt you fully understand the impact of not being white. Regardless, I don't understand why you're comparing these randomly selected privileges. It's arbitrary unless you're suggesting non-whites should be happy the're alive, and not be unhappy for the millions of other things that typically cause people to be unhappy. Ironically no one is unhappy when they're dead, so are you suggesting we should force ourselves to be happy? And to do so without taking the required steps? Or are you telling minorities to shut the fuck up?
What you just said:
"Getting shot in the face is worse than being black (although on rare occasions, they're coincidentally equal), so shut the fuck up"
To shake things up, and to hopefully have you think, you said this while your friend is holding a gun, and you swear you have no control over what he does.
Last edited:
+1
Privilege is so relative anyway. Someone is only privileged insofar as they have some benefit others don't.
White people may have privileges among other white people, but seem to have disadvantages in settings where other races are grouped.
In terms of the video, imagine the white check-out-chick and relative, but located in an African, or Muslim country. They would be disadvantaged.
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
That's not what I said at all, stop being so defensive. Firstly when I said we're privileged to be alive I meant that we were lucky to be born, to be the one of millions of sperm that penetrated the uterus.
Being white is as random a privilege as any other. I'm fortunate in numerous aspects of my life . Perhaps we differ in opinion, but I see being white as far less important than my mental and physical health or the love of my family.
And if I admit my race is a privilege, then what? Should I also admit being male and straight(ish) are privileges? Should I mire myself in guilt and sorrow and mourn how disadvantaged everyone else is?
The fact that she has to defend it at all still says something.
If she had to defend it herself, it would still have been a good example of racism.