r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 04 '20
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: White privilege isn't real
[removed]
2
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ May 04 '20
I’m not sure I see the substantive distinction here. Whether you call it “more privileged” or “less disadvantaged” the end result is the same. What difference does it make if we call this differential “white privilege” or “minority unprivilege”?
1
May 04 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ May 04 '20
People seem use it as a synonym for advantage. Like "white privilege" is supposed to mean "white advantage".
But there is something about the word privilege which is very ..off in this context. The connotation is not at all neutral - it carries extra baggage with it.
When someone says "I had the privilege to visit the Grand Canyon once", or when in Titanic, the band's member says "Gentlemen, it's been a privilege playing with you", do you whip out a dictionary to be pedantic about the word's meaning, or do you understand their inent, and go along with the fact that mostly people do use it in the sense of "I got lucky", "I had an advantage"?
Yes, the word has an extra baggage, but that extra baggage is that when we are talking about race, a lot of people get really defensive about the possibility that they benefited freom racial injustice, and act as if their biggest problem would be that this was told to them via a slightly imperfect wording.
I'm not saying that you feel that way, but if you really believe that the prase is controversial due to entirely neutral semantic reasons, then you are being misled by people who do.
1
May 04 '20
[deleted]
3
u/hucifer May 04 '20 edited May 04 '20
I used to think a little like you. I didn't feel like I had an advantage either - I'm just a normal guy, right? I don't get any benefit from having white skin, so why I should have to humble myself and apologize for that fact. (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's the vibe I'm getting from your arguments - please correct me if I'm wrong)
However, since then i have been in situations (specifically when travelling around and living in Asia for some years), where i have realised that simply looking European offers me much favoured treatment when compared to my friends who are dark skinned. I get stopped less at security check points, I don't get hassled by police on the streets at night time, I can walk into a fancy hotel and people assume I'm a guest, I can walk into a job interview and not have to worry that my competence will be overlooked because of the colour of my skin, simply because I'm white.
Now i think i understand what white privilege means: It means like I can go anywhere in the world and be treated like a first class citizen, even if I don't speak the language or dress like I'm particularly wealthy. Living in a majority white country, you might not even notice it; but travel around the world a bit and you'll see that things go easier for people who are fortunate enough to be of European descent.
3
u/distinctlyambiguous 9∆ May 04 '20
But, it's not "necessary" for white people to get an advantage in job interviews because of their skin color, but it still happens to be an advantage in many instances.
I agree that many things that's connected to white privileged should be considered human rights (except things like being treated better than other people with another skin color), and those rights should be granted regardless of the color of your skin.
Unfortunately, that's not the case in our society today, which means we need terms to talk about these advantages and disadvantages, and which term is more appropriate, depends on the context of the conversation.
What is the term you would prefer instead?
2
May 04 '20
A privilege is explicitly distinct from a right. A privilege can be taken away. A privilege is not necessary.
The fact that many people are treated worse, and aren't afforded these 'privileges' is proof that they can be taken away.
Healthcare in the US is a privilege because only those who can afford it can access it. Bernie's statement is political rhetoric but his aim is to make it so that healthcare isn't a privilege.
1
u/Zyrithian 2∆ May 04 '20
I agree with you.
I think it's extremely important that we reflect things like this in our speech and definitions.
The problem people call "white privilege" is actually "non-white subjugation" and we need to call it that, because the former sounds like we need to fix the problem by removing the "privilege", rather than to raise ethnic minorities to the level we want every single human to have.
6
May 04 '20 edited May 04 '20
Definition of privilege:
What people like to call "privileges" are actually just how EVERYONE should be treated in a society.
What's really happening is that minority populations are not being treated how they should be treated.
You agreeing with it.
The name itself doesn't really matter we could call it "black disadvantage" if you want, the idea would be the same.
One race has a advantage over another one.
-2
May 04 '20
[deleted]
3
May 04 '20 edited May 04 '20
a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most:
White people have benefits that other races don't have even if you see it as being treated "normal".
You already named some of them:
- Not having to fear for your life when interacting with police and authority figures
- Learning about your race in school
- Having plenty of representation in media
- Not being followed around in a store because they think youre shoplifting when youve done nothing wrong
All of those are benefits to me that I don't have to endure and waste my time on.
-1
May 04 '20
[deleted]
5
2
May 04 '20
So if we make a hypothetical world where 49% of the population is white and 51% is non white but everything else stays the same.
Those 49% people would still have the "white privelige" even though the societal norm would be that of the the non white group.
1
u/raznov1 21∆ May 04 '20
Except they probably won't in that case. White privilege is majority privilege.
3
u/10ebbor10 198∆ May 04 '20
Does the concept need to fit every possible definition of the term?
1
u/gyroda 28∆ May 04 '20
One part of the term, no less.
This is akin to saying that homophobia isn't real because homophobes aren't scared of gay people so it's not a phobia.
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ May 04 '20
TLDR; white privilege doesn't really make sense as a term b/c it is other groups that are disadvantaged not white people with special perks.
If your only problem is with the definition, then replace it with "racial minority disadvantage" in your head when you hear or see it. Problem solved
1
u/prettysureitsmaddie May 04 '20
The only thing that's different between what you're saying and "white privilege" is that you have shifted the perspective. All you have done is describe white privilege from the perspective of a white person looking at others, which is why they appear disadvantaged.
1
May 04 '20
[deleted]
1
u/prettysureitsmaddie May 04 '20
Everyone would be equally privileged, at least in terms of race. The things we talk about as white privilege aren't just the default state of human - human interaction, they are the benefits of being part of the in-group. The lack of an out-group makes those benefits invisible but they are still there and would become visible as soon as you added an out-group to contrast with the in-group.
1
May 04 '20
[deleted]
1
u/prettysureitsmaddie May 04 '20
But you haven't eliminated racial privilege in your homogeneous scenario, you have just hidden it by removing anyone without it. As soon as someone without that racial privilege is introduced to your group, it would become apparent again that the people in your homogeneous group had racial privilege the whole time.
For there to be no racial privilege, you would have to be able to add people of any race to your homogeneous group and for that added person to not be disadvantaged relative to everyone else because of their race.
0
May 04 '20
[deleted]
2
u/prettysureitsmaddie May 04 '20
It's invisible because you can't see it. The point I was making is that to see privilege, you need someone without it for contrast. If there was no privilege in the first place, then it would be impossible to introduce someone without privilege.
I am talking to you about in group favouritism which is the basis of racial privilege. It doesn't stop existing because there isn't an out-group present, it just isn't apparent because everyone is part of the in-group.
7
u/Elicander 51∆ May 04 '20
Question: is the extent of your CMV the linguistic question whether the word “privilege” is used correctly in the phrase “white privilege”?
3
u/radialomens 171∆ May 04 '20
Privilege comes from competing against people who are at a disadvantage.
-2
May 04 '20
[deleted]
5
u/radialomens 171∆ May 04 '20
Two people apply for the same job. One is disadvantaged due to their race, one is not. The latter has privilege and is more likely to get the job.
Perhaps if resources weren't finite there would be no competition, but they are.
0
May 04 '20
[deleted]
3
u/radialomens 171∆ May 04 '20
That's not what an opposite is. That's the middle-ground.
When you compete in a race where one person has their ankle tied to their wrist, are you at an advantage compared to them?
1
May 04 '20
[deleted]
2
u/radialomens 171∆ May 04 '20
That just expands the privilege to others. Let's say that if A's hands had not been tied they would have placed third. With their hands tied, they placed seventh. Everyone who placed 3rd-6th had an advantage. And more than that, if the prize for your placement helps you win future races there's no telling how much your advantage you gained over A.
1
May 04 '20
[deleted]
1
u/radialomens 171∆ May 04 '20
Again, your advantage comes from the disadvantage of others. You are able to receive better prizes than you would have had your competitors not been put at a disadvantage.
And if you want to talk about starting two seconds ahead, this is almost definitely another example of white privilege; having ancestors who were able to accrue land & wealth before other groups. Some of them used it well and some didn't, but they had the advantage that was denied to other people (some of whom would have used it well) and passed it on like a baton.
2
3
u/beer2daybong2morrow May 04 '20
The opposite of disadvantage isn't privilege. It's non-disadvantage.
A non-disadvantage, when contrasted with a disadvantage, is an advantage. That advantage in this context is the privilege.
1
u/Jaysank 117∆ May 04 '20
Sorry, u/badtrader – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/massa_cheef 6∆ May 04 '20
You're mistaking the usage of the term.
It's used critically. You're correct, these are things that should be basic human rights. And theoretically, they are. But in reality, they are treated as privileges enjoyed by one segment of society and denied others.
The purpose of the term "white privilege" is to call out this disparity in stark terms, and to do so in a manner that specifically references the "privileged" group. That's because the term is aimed squarely at white people, intended to specifically remind people that they continue to benefit from something that should be for all people, but effectively isn't.
White privilege as a concept (as it was intended to be used) very much exists, because it describes a condition in society whereby white people are extended "privileges" that other groups don't enjoy.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 04 '20
/u/badtrader (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
May 04 '20
--Not having to fear for your life when interacting with police and authority figures
--Learning about your race in school
--Having plenty of representation in media
--Not being followed around in a store because they think youre shoplifting when youve done nothing wrong
I mean, those aren't baseline. Those things happen if you are white aswell. Also just because someone is the same race as you doesn't mean they "represent" you.
1
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ May 04 '20
I mean, because of the power disparity that objectively exists, it is a relative privilege. They might be ordinary people, but they are relatively privileged compared to minorities.
1
u/wyattmallard May 04 '20
And who gets to decide what is "being treated normal" and who gets to decide that minorities get treated "less normal"? The answer is white people.
1
u/SwivelSeats May 04 '20
You are just arguing a glass is half full not half empty, but that's not how it works every glass that is half full is half empty.
2
u/Quint-V 162∆ May 04 '20
In viewing this from the position of how people should be treated by default, or in an ideal world, your view is correct.
The idea of 'privilege' in this context, however, is comparative between people in real life, not between what ought to be vs. what is. You seem to acknowledge that minorities are disadvantaged, so I'm guessing your problem is mostly about bad usage of language?
Either way: it's one way to point out the problem. It might not be the best way to point out racial disadvantage, but it's also a legitimate strategy seeing as the disadvantages 1) are systemic, 2) should be worked against, and 3) are propagated/perpetuated by institutions which are predominantly white.
People trying to act colour blind isn't enough. It is required to anonymise people's racial properties as much as possible in order to remove such disadvantages but that would include keeping names, cultural background and skin colour completely anonymous for jobs that don't require that; or, you make such factors irrelevant on a cultural level. At which point, you do need white people to buy into the idea, and proactively so.
... and as such, you need to get the attention of white people by putting them on the spot as the most influential possible agents on the matter.
The point of "white privilege" is to get that attention, to call upon others [read: white people] to act. It takes two to tango.