White Privilege

[TenEightyOne]

And the bad guys, Mr. Big (and I would put a spoiler alert, but it's a 32-year old film) and Baron Samedi, were black - for the only time I can recall across all Bond films. They even had a villain called Mr. White, in several films, who was also white.

I'm going to guess that all of the white supervillains and movie villains I listed will be explained away as White Privilege, because the villains are all wealthy/intelligent, which is due to White Privilege. And the corresponding white heroes previously listed are good and honourable (and wealthy/intelligent) due to White Privilege.

For those Bond villains you can probably point towards a man from a very closed white upper class circle writing about people like him (and his acquaintances) in the 40s, 50s and 60s for a predominantly white, educated readership.

Basically all fiction is a long list of White Privilege. Or something.

Of course not, as you know, but there's a strong element of a majoritative social discourse. If you find that black people are strongly under-represented in the material you mention then that falls into the sort of area that one would discuss as white privilege. Pulido says "White privilege is a form of racism that both underlies and is distinct from institutional and overt racism. It underlies them in that both are predicated on preserving the privileges of white people (regardless of whether agents recognize this or not). But it is also distinct in terms of intentionality. It refers to the hegemonic structures, practices, and ideologies that reproduce whites' privileged status". That reproduction of status, authorised heritage by another name, is part of the phemonenon.

Many of the explanations of white privilege in this thread (including those who define it in order to argue that it doesn't exist) are missing the point, at least it seems that way to me.

 

[Danoff]

Pulido says "White privilege is a form of racism that both underlies and is distinct from institutional and overt racism. It underlies them in that both are predicated on preserving the privileges of white people (regardless of whether agents recognize this or not). But it is also distinct in terms of intentionality. It refers to the hegemonic structures, practices, and ideologies that reproduce whites' privileged status".

So... racism then. In some cases, subconscious racism.

 

[BobK]

So anybody who is white is automatically a racist since they're a beneficiary of white privilege. Okay, got it.

 

[Danoff]

I'm the product of institutionalized racism which in turn gave birth to white privilege.

I have to say, I hope this is tongue-in-cheek. Because it's really an unhealthy form of thought if it's serious. "I'm a product of..." is basically a terrible way to start a sentence. Whatever follows that is you refusing to take responsibility for your life. It's your life, you're a product of the contents of your mind, which is yours to control.

 

[huskeR32]

So anybody who is white is automatically a racist since they're a beneficiary of white privilege. Okay, got it.

Who on Earth said that?

--

Whatever follows that is you refusing to take responsibility for your life. It's your life, you're a product of the contents of your mind, which is yours to control.

Your overstatement in the opposite direction is no more instructive than his. Surely you would admit that there are some things beyond a person's control that can have significant effects on their life?

 

[Danoff]

Your overstatement in the opposite direction is no more instructive than his. Surely you would admit that there are some things beyond a person's control that can have significant effects on their life?

Yes, but to characterize yourself as "a product of" that thing, is to relinquish responsibility for your life. You can be affected by things beyond your control and still not characterize yourself as "a product of" that thing. Whatever you are, it's your doing. Note I said "whatever you are", not "wherever you are". I doubt Stephen Hawking would like to refer to himself, or have others refer to him, as a product of ALS. I'm having trouble thinking of extreme examples of your argument that result in me having "overstated" anything.

You can't control everything about your life, but if you're in control enough to say "I'm a product of...", you're in control enough to control what you are.

 

[SagarisGTB]

Way to miss the point entirely. Dismissing white privilege does not mean that minorities are treated well.

What? The concept of white privilege basically is racial minorities being treated significantly worse by society than the white majority. That's what it is and it doesn't have to much more complicated than that. As @TenEightyOne posted, there seems to be an element of creating a particularly specific definition for the term here just to prove it doesn't exist.

This is not a zero sum game, something you seem incapable of comprehending.

And you seem incapable of comprehending that white privilege doesn't require a zero sum game. Where did you get the idea that it does?

And assuming that everyone that isn't part of the minority is oblivious, ignorant or indifferent is just ridiculously obtuse.

Who said that? I don't think anybody stated (or implied) that in this thread.

Well, besides the defensive sarcastic ones.

Yes. So? They're all a product of marketing. Historically, the people with the most disposable income have been white males. Still probably are. It's changing, but I'm not sure it's racism for companies to try and make money.

The inference here is that either the producers of major films are employing racist tactics to not cast more racial minorities or the white male population is racist for not consuming films that cast racial minorities in the lead roles. Either way, something is amiss.

That said, it's not as simple of a problem anymore now that the majority of major films are made with a worldwide audience in mind. Nor is it a particularly common or widespread issue anymore in Hollywood, but films like Gods of Egypt (Northern Europeans and Australians who look northern European dominating the cast of a film set in Egypt) do look ridiculous.

 

[JKgo]

films like Gods of Egypt

...Cough... the movie is definitely not set in Egypt... I should know - I sat through it after all.

 

[McLaren]

Just out of pure curiosity, since the topic was brought up (which had a fair point in Gods of Egypt since, to my understanding, no one was even remotely close to what an Egyptian should've looked like (and that the movie bombed for other reasons)), is it an equal argument if the same is reversed? Not talking about Ghostbusters or the new Ocean's movie since they aren't seen as originals, but an example of backlash was Fantastic Four when Michael B. Jordan was cast as the Human Torch/Johnny Storm even though his sister Sue Storm was still white. It was an odd decision that many attributed being done just for the sake of it to appeal to a wider audience, unlike the new Spider Man that is black, but is Peter Parker's successor.

Of course, that was forgotten about after the movie released since it bombed horribly, but just after your thoughts if it white washing (as they called it) can be reversed as similar a case of the Fantastic Four?

 

[Com Fox]

What? The concept of white privilege basically is racial minorities being treated significantly worse by society than the white majority.

Privilege doesn't necessarily come with disadvantages though. For example Guy A get overpayed while Guy B gets normal pay is different to if Guy A gets normal pay while Guy B gets underpayed.

 

[Mr Tree]

Because, traditionally, men have held those occupations. It doesn't mean that one's ability is doubted if they are not male.

That's why a female friend of mine was told by a teacher he would do everything in his power to stop her from becoming an engineer beczuse woman can't perform propperly in techinical jobs...

That's why that same teacher said the same thing to the daughter of one of my coworkers?

Seriously I don't believe we as men should feel guilty but the way you frame it is just so shortsighted

I'll say it again.

White privilege - the dignity to suffer life's universal woes without whining, rioting, looting or blaming others.

Yeah like the idiot of a president meurica has elected?

Or the favourite nesstation of lot's of people with your sentiment? You know FOX news, tge newsstation with a victimscomplex?

Seriously mate selfreflection would go a long way a little more context to your posts could clarify a lot but I geuss not for the better?


My 2cents on the subject it exists but we shouldn't be talking about white priveledge but about the disadvantage other get to suffer or as a qoute:

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

I myself am a bit of a metalhead/the dude kind of guy so I do stand out in a crowd... Well it's not ok but I had to get used to always beeing looked at the moment I walk into a store. I'm always perceived as the druggie stealing to get his next fix...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Privilege doesn't necessarily come with disadvantages though. For example Guy A get overpayed while Guy B gets normal pay is different to if Guy A gets normal pay while Guy B gets underpayed.

The privilege exists either way, it doesn't require any affirmative or negative action (or even a conscious action) by any agent in the arrangement.

 

[Mr Tree]

The privilege exists either way, it doesn't require any affirmative or negative action (or even a conscious action) by any agent in the arrangement.

Priveledge is alsways compared to someone in a less advantagous position.

Whithout that it wouldn't be priveleege but normality...

Look those denying priveledge completely are beeing willfully ignorant. That beeing said again tye priveledged are not the problem the system setting people up for disadvantages is.

But also let's not drag this into things that make no sense whatsoever... One can not yave priveldge without the disadvantaged existing...

Or did I misunderstand something?

 

[Com Fox]

The privilege exists either way, it doesn't require any affirmative or negative action (or even a conscious action) by any agent in the arrangement.

I wasn't denying the fact it is a privilege I was denying the fact of unfair disadvantages put on to someone isn't always to show when someone has privilege.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I wasn't denying the fact it is a privilege I was denying the fact of unfair disadvantages put on to someone isn't always to show when someone has privilege.

It does - people who don't suffer the same disadvantage are, by the very dictionary definition, privileged.

 

[Danoff]

It does - people who don't suffer the same disadvantage are, by the very dictionary definition, privileged.

Not really.

Do you consider yourself privileged for not being tied up and thrown in a jail cell every day? Or is that just a minimum level of treatment that you can demand from those around you. I don't call myself privileged every day for not being falsely imprisoned, and I think it would be an abuse of the term to do so. If someone walked up to me and said "consider yourself privileged that I don't punch you in the face", I'd be thinking "No, I consider myself not having been attacked"... threat aside. If I were falsely imprisoned, I wouldn't consider the rest of you privileged for not having had that done to you. I would recognize that you're being treated properly and I'm not.

 

[novcze]

What white privilege is
- numerous perks in everyday life, such as not having a laundry list of negative stereotypes associated with people of your skin color,

exchange 'skin color' with 'appearance' and think about it ... you will always be subject of prejudice, even if you are white as a wall.

It does - people who don't suffer the same disadvantage are, by the very dictionary definition, privileged.

Ok, so we have privileged and disadvantaged, why is it practical to talk about ambiguous/hard to grasp privilege and not to point out specific disadvantage?

That said, it's not as simple of a problem anymore now that the majority of major films are made with a worldwide audience in mind. Nor is it a particularly common or widespread issue anymore in Hollywood, but films like Gods of Egypt (Northern Europeans and Australians who look northern European dominating the cast of a film set in Egypt) do look ridiculous.

I think that worldwide audience don't care about identity politics in movies as much as you do. Do you also complain about Bollywood movies having too much Indians in them?

 

[huskeR32]

Yes, but to characterize yourself as "a product of" that thing, is to relinquish responsibility for your life.

If you grant that there are some things you can't control, then that means there are things that you aren't responsible for, either.

'm having trouble thinking of extreme examples of your argument that result in me having "overstated" anything.

Your argument itself contains extreme language - "relinquish responsibility for your life." Someone cannot talk about one or two things in their life that were beyond their control, without it constituting "refusing to take responsibility for your life?"

I don't see why people can't largely view the path of their life as theirs to navigate on their own, while still recognizing the occasional obstacle that they can't do anything about. It doesn't have to be all one way or the other.

 

[Danoff]

If you grant that there are some things you can't control, then that means there are things that you aren't responsible for, either.

I said as much.

Your argument itself contains extreme language - "relinquish responsibility for your life." Someone cannot talk about one or two things in their life that were beyond their control, without it constituting "refusing to take responsibility for your life?"

You're applying an argument to me that I didn't make. I did not say that someone cannot talk about things which were beyond their control without it constituting refusing to take responsibility for your life. I'm talking about characterizing yourself as a product of institutionalized racism (or anything really) as refusing to take responsibility for your life. That is not the same thing as talking about a few things which were beyond your control. I'm not sure why we're still talking about this since I made that clear in my previous post.

I don't see why people can't largely view the path of their life as theirs to navigate on their own, while still recognizing the occasional obstacle that they can't do anything about. It doesn't have to be all one way or the other.

Didn't say it did. If you largely view the path of your life as yours to navigate on your own, while still recognizing the occasional obstacle that you can't do anything about, then characterizing yourself as a product of those obstacles is inappropriate.

Edit:

Take a step back and think about my original post on this topic. It is unhealthy to characterize yourself as a product of the things in your life that are out of your control. I'd be surprised to see you argue against that. If you're not arguing against that, we should move on.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not really.

Do you consider yourself privileged for not being tied up and thrown in a jail cell every day? Or is that just a minimum level of treatment that you can demand from those around you.

Both are true. Of course we're privileged that we don't suffer that danger - that's part of how the actual dictionary definition works. Unless you're somehow redefining it to mean... something else?

 

[Danoff]

Both are true. Of course we're privileged that we don't suffer that danger - that's part of how the actual dictionary definition works. Unless you're somehow redefining it to mean... something else?

I'm not sure what dictionary you're using

noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.
6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person: It's my privilege to be here.

So you're taking what... definition number 5? Over definition number 1? Even number 5 doesn't really fit my example. 5 is really an extension of 1, the belief that being "a free people" is something that most do not have. There aren't many countries in the world where you'd treat not being falsely incarcerated as an example of something that was a benefit beyond those enjoyed by most people.

 

[huskeR32]

I'm talking about characterizing yourself as a product of institutionalized racism (or anything really) as refusing to take responsibility for your life.

One can be a product of it (read: "affected by it"), and still feel they are largely responsible for their own life. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Danoff]

One can be a product of it (read: "affected by it")

I don't think it's reasonable to interpret "product of" that broadly.

 

[ryzno]

the white male population is racist for not consuming films that cast racial minorities in the lead roles

May I ask why not watching a movie with minorities in a lead role is racist?
I watched the trailer for, The Three Stooges. I love Cedric and all of them, I didn't like their remake of it though. Does that make me racist cause I didn't watch it?

 

[huskeR32]

I don't think it's reasonable to interpret "product of" that broadly.

Why not?

I view myself as a product of many things; of a culture that makes it easier to be white, male, and heterosexual (or, I suppose more accurately, makes it harder to be the opposite of those things), but I'm also a product of my own choices, of my parents' choices, of happenstance and of hard work. I am a product of all of those things at once.

 

[Danoff]

Why not?

I view myself as a product of many things; of a culture that makes it easier to be white, male, and heterosexual (or, I suppose more accurately, makes it harder to be the opposite of those things), but I'm also a product of my own choices, of my parents' choices, of happenstance and of hard work. I am a product of all of those things at once.

...because you have reduced away the point of using that word by undefining it.

 

[huskeR32]

...because you have reduced away the point of using that word by undefining it.

What?

How does pointing out that people can be a product of more than one factor "undefine" the word?

 

[Danoff]

What?

How does pointing out that people can be a product of more than one factor "undefine" the word?

Again, you're attributing an argument to me that I didn't make. I did not say that being a product of more than one factor undefines it. I said that your characterization of it undefines it. Let's ride your train of thought for a moment.

You're a product of each of your experiences, and not only that, but also the decisions of others. Their decisions are then also a product of their experiences, and the decisions of others. Which means you're a product of their experiences, the experiences of those that influenced them. In other words, you're a product of reality. As a result, the entire concept is moot. You might as well have just said that you're you.

This is why I said it is not reasonable to interpret the term that broadly.

 

[huskeR32]

You're a product of each of your experiences, and not only that, but also the decisions of others. Their decisions are then also a product of their experiences, and the decisions of others. Which means you're a product of their experiences, the experiences of those that influenced them. In other words, you're a product of reality. As a result, the entire concept is moot. You might as well have just said that you're you.

This ignores the differing magnitudes of those factors from one person to another. I'm not affected by racism the same way that a black person is affected by it; to pretend otherwise is silly. Whatever proxy effect racism has on me via those minorities around me is far smaller than it has on them directly.

I think when someone speaks of the things they are a product of, they're identifying the factors that have had the largest impact on them. That's far from moot or unreasonable; it can be an instructive conversation to have.

we should move on

Okay. Feel free to stop responding then.

 

[Com Fox]

I'm not affected by racism the same way that a black person is affected by it; to pretend otherwise is silly.

It's also silly to assume that just because someone is black they're going to recieve the same amount of racism as any other black person is silly. There are also factors of where the person is, what people do they know, luck is a massive factor as well as timing.