White Privilege

[twitcher]

What actually defines a "white person"? Is this like a Harry Potter, pure blood / mud blood type of thing? Or is the sorting of people by race more nuanced?

In Canada, I think the rule for applying for Native Status cards is that you need to be 1/16th Indigenous (or Metis, which is a bit of weird one from a certain perspective). Is 1/16 a good cutoff point? So if you're less than 1/16 "non white", you get to enjoy white privilege. If you're more than 1/16 "non white", you're obviously oppressed by systemic racism.

And since it's not always easy to tell what race someone is by looking at them (eg Steph Curry ), I think the only logical way to determine what percentage of whiteness a person has in them is by DNA testing. Then we could just put a little computer chip under everyone's skin that signals to everyone whether or not they are an oppressor or oppressed, based on their family history.



Another problem I foresee with sorting people by race is, ok an Etheopian is pretty black, and Swede is pretty white. But what about all those wierdos in the middle. Like, what is an Armenian? Or Georgian? Khazakstanian?

What about Palenstine (don't want to turn this into a palenstine debate)? In this photo, who is the oppressor, who is oppressed?

%5BURL=http://s1069.photobucket.com/user/Twitcher_6/media/IMG_0737_zpsdti3vzq9.png.html][/URL]
Just to be clear, I know what the photo is from. It was an Israeli story about how Palestinians rile up their youth to then harass the soldiers, who are kind of helpless to fight back against children. A completely 🤬 situation on all sides. But I think it's a bit of an ironic and interesting photo to look at in the context of "white privilage".

Edit: can get the link to work. I'll try to fix it later. Photo is of a white Palestinian girl, maybe 10-12, throwing fists at Israeli soldiers.

Edit 2: never mind, photo works

 

[Danoff]

What actually defines a "white person"? Is this like a Harry Potter, pure blood / mud blood type of thing? Or is the sorting of people by race more nuanced?

In Canada, I think the rule for applying for Native Status cards is that you need to be 1/16th Indigenous (or Metis, which is a bit of weird one from a certain perspective). Is 1/16 a good cutoff point? So if you're less than 1/16 "non white", you get to enjoy white privilege. If you're more than 1/16 "non white", you're obviously oppressed by systemic racism.

You're over-thinking this. The notion of white privilege is not that it's a government regulated program. The assumption is that people are racist against non-white people. If you look white, the assumption is, you enjoy white privilege.

 

[twitcher]

You're over-thinking this. The notion of white privilege is not that it's a government regulated program. The assumption is that people are racist against non-white people. If you look white, the assumption is, you enjoy white privilege.

Do albinos enjoy white privilage?

 

[Danoff]

Do albinos enjoy white privilage?

In the US? The assumption would be yes.

 

[zzz_pt]

Skin color comes behind so many other factors that I think the concept of "white privilege" is ludicrous. Class status, level of education of one's parents, personality, where you are born, etc come before imo. You can be white or black, if you're born to wealthy, PhD educated parents who foster your curiosity and freedom in New York, Amsterdam, Paris or Berlin your skin color will be the last thing I'd point too to say you have some inherent luck or privilege.

Money, education and place of birth are, imo, the most important factors for anyone to thrive in life. Money being the nr1 factor. You can live like a king in the poorest countries on earth if you happen to be the child of a dictator or someone who holds lots of power.

 

[Danoff]

Money, education and place of birth are, imo, the most important factors for anyone to thrive in life.

I don't really understand your message here. Nobody is born with money. Sometimes people have rich parents, who might even give them some. Place of birth is a big one if you're talking about all of the nations of the Earth. But if you're talking about within a given country, it may not matter much. In the US, for example, it doesn't matter much which state you're born in. Education is out of your hands at a young age. But as a child you have a right to an education. If your parents refuse to educate you (regardless of which nation they are living in) they are abusing their child, so it's not luck or privilege, it's a right. Beyond that, education is yours to control and isn't luck or privilege.

 

[zzz_pt]

I don't really understand your message here. Nobody is born with money. Sometimes people have rich parents, who might even give them some. Place of birth is a big one if you're talking about all of the nations of the Earth. But if you're talking about within a given country, it may not matter much. In the US, for example, it doesn't matter much which state you're born in. Education is out of your hands at a young age. But as a child you have a right to an education. If your parents refuse to educate you (regardless of which nation they are living in) they are abusing their child, so it's not luck or privilege, it's a right. Beyond that, education is yours to control and isn't luck or privilege.

Money, education and place of birth are all things related to decisions your parents made. Of course no one is born with money, literally, but you can inherit a fortune for example or have rich parents (that was what was talking about).

Also, even within the US - and I'm not a US citizen - I'd guess if someone is born in NY or in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming, the opportunities for a better career/life might be very different (?).

Again, I was referring to the level of education of someone's parents. If you're born to parents with PhDs you'll probably have a better life and more opportunities of personal development and follow "your dreams" than if you're born to parents who only finished high school.

And skin color won't have anything to do with it.

 

[Danoff]

Money, education and place of birth are all things related to decisions your parents made. Of course no one is born with money, literally, but you can inherit a fortune for example or have rich parents (that was what was talking about).

Also, even within the US - and I'm not a US citizen - I'd guess if someone is born in NY or in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming, the opportunities for a better career/life might be very different (?).

Again, I was referring to the level of education of someone's parents. If you're born to parents with PhDs you'll probably have a better life and more opportunities of personal development and follow "your dreams" than if you're born to parents who only finished high school.

And skin color won't have anything to do with it.

Where you're born in the US doesn't matter all that much. Your opportunities for NY careers when being born in Wyoming still exist. We don't prevent people from going to school or getting a job in NY just because they're from Wyoming (although now that you mention it...).

Education, beyond the level which you are guaranteed, is really within your control.

 

[zzz_pt]

Where you're born in the US doesn't matter all that much. Your opportunities for NY careers when being born in Wyoming still exist. We don't prevent people from going to school or getting a job in NY just because they're from Wyoming (although now that you mention it...).

Education, beyond the level which you are guaranteed, is really within your control.

With the student debt situation and how expensive it can get to get a masters or PhD in the USA, I'm not so sure if it's really within anyone's control to pursue their academic objectives.

I live in Portugal atm and a PhD here can cost you around 3.000-5.000€ / year in fees. That's crazy cheap compared to the USA and not a lot of people can afford a PhD here. Because it's not only paying for that but also having the money to sustain yourself during that period - not all PhD sudents can have a part time as assistant professors or a investigation scholarship and it's pretty much impossible to finish a PhD with a regular 9-17 low paying job.

 

[Danoff]

With the student debt situation and how expensive it can get to get a masters or PhD in the USA, I'm not so sure if it's really within anyone's control to pursue their academic objectives.

I live in Portugal atm and a PhD here can cost you around 3.000-5.000€ / year in fees. That's crazy cheap compared to the USA and not a lot of people can afford a PhD here. Because it's not only paying for that but also having the money to sustain yourself during that period - not all PhD sudents can have a part time as assistant professors or a investigation scholarship and it's pretty much impossible to finish a PhD with a regular 9-17 low paying job.

How is it not in your control whether you got an research assistant position or scholarship? Who is in control of that? Is it done by lottery?

 

[twitcher]

You're over-thinking this. The notion of white privilege is not that it's a government regulated program. The assumption is that people are racist against non-white people. If you look white, the assumption is, you enjoy white privilege.

Ok, that seems simple enough I suppose. So basically, an individual or group can decide for themselves who their oppressors are, based on who appears white to said oppressed group. Can't see how that system could go awry

I have a friend who is 1/8 indigenous (he has a status card, doesn't use it, except to sometimes buy cheap smokes for another, cheap, friend ). He looks 100% white (the rest of his family is Russian/Ukrainian, which actually have really similar facial features to some native Americans). So, based on your methodology, I assume he would have white privilage?

Are you saying though, that he should be denied the oppression points he's earned by virtue of the struggle and oppression his ancestors endured?

I have an uncle from Bagdad. Actually looks quite white, but his brother looks much more Arabian than him. My cousin, his daughter, looks white...but has a very Arabic last name. So even though after 9/11, my uncle had to find employment in another city because people thought he might be a terrorist (even though his family is Christian, fled Bagdad in the 50s to escape religious persecution), and my very white looking cousin with an Arabic last name spent time away from school because of being harassed for her last name....they get to experience "white privilage" because they look the part? Seems rather oppressive to deny them them their oppression points, no?

Where you're born in the US doesn't matter all that much. Your opportunities for NY careers when being born in Wyoming still exist. We don't prevent people from going to school or getting a job in NY just because they're from Wyoming (although now that you mention it...).

Education, beyond the level which you are guaranteed, is really within your control.

I would disagree that birth place plays no role on opportunity. How many lumberjacks and farmers do you think come from NYC, verses how many fashion designers or investment bankers (per capita)?

How come there aren't more All Star NHL players from Florida or Louisiana? Why do so many come from Canada, Minnisoda, Sweden, etc? And then why do so many baseball players come from the American South and California, but not so many from Michigan?

How many marine biologists do you think come from North Dakota, verses Florida or Cali, or Washington?

 

[zzz_pt]

How is it not in your control whether you got an research assistant position or scholarship? Who is in control of that? Is it done by lottery?

You skipped the part that you need to pay 3000-5000 € per year in fees alone (plus accommodation, travel, food, etc) and most people can't afford it. On your question, there is a flexible budget from the national state's budget for investigation/scholarships and not everyone gets one. It depends on the criteria the government sets up that year and different academic subjects get different shares of that budget. If you want to take a PhD or start an investigation on a highly competitive field you might not get any funds at all even if your project is great. Also, there are not that many assistant professors. That can make people who don't have the money to give up regardless of having the talent and knowledge.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I would disagree that birth place plays no role on opportunity. How many lumberjacks and farmers do you think come from NYC, verses how many fashion designers or investment bankers (per capita)?

How come there aren't more All Star NHL players from Florida or Louisiana? Why do so many come from Canada, Minnisoda, Sweden, etc? And then why do so many baseball players come from the American South and California, but not so many from Michigan?

How many marine biologists do you think come from North Dakota, verses Florida or Cali, or Washington?

Is the question how many lumberjacks are there from New York City or can someone from NYC become a lumberjack if they choose to? The former is a matter of probabilities and proximity to that particular job market, the latter is a matter of barriers to entry of a particular profession.

 

[twitcher]

In the US? The assumption would be yes.

What if the person is living in the US, is albino, but is of African American decent with the corresponding facial features? Basically a white black guy. Does he get white privilage because his skin is white? Or would he be categorized as black?


Here's another one...what about people who change or disguise their race? Where would Michael Jackson have fit into this puzzle? Did he ever earn white privilage status? What about someone like Rachel Dolezal? Does her white privilage depend on her hair style and how much makeup she wears on any given day?

Edit:

Is the question how many lumberjacks are there from New York City or can someone from NYC become a lumberjack if they choose to? The former is a matter of probabilities and proximity to that particular job market, the latter is a matter of barriers to entry of a particular profession.

I think you're right, I was confusing opportunity with probability.

 

[PeterJB]

By basically every definition Rachel Dolezal is white. Even the left ridicule her for this which is yet another inconsistency since they seem to think you can choose and change your gender but you can't choose and change your race.

 

[Danoff]

What if the person is living in the US, is albino, but is of African American decent with the corresponding facial features? Basically a white black guy. Does he get white privilage because his skin is white? Or would he be categorized as black?

Still over thinking it. The idea is - how do people respond to this person. Look white, white privilege, that's the assumption.

Here's another one...what about people who change or disguise their race?

If they're effective at it, that's all that matters. Look white, white privilege. That's the assumption. This is not complicated.

You skipped the part that you need to pay 3000-5000 € per year in fees alone (plus accommodation, travel, food, etc) and most people can't afford it.

You skipped the part where you can get your stuff paid for. When I was in grad school I had a research assistant position where I made enough money to pay for food and rent for myself and my wife, and they covered tuition and expenses.

If you want to take a PhD or start an investigation on a highly competitive field you might not get any funds at all even if your project is great. Also, there are not that many assistant professors. That can make people who don't have the money to give up regardless of having the talent and knowledge.

So... lottery then? Is it just luck? Who is in control of this?

 

[zzz_pt]

You skipped the part where you can get your stuff paid for. When I was in grad school I had a research assistant position where I made enough money to pay for food and rent for myself and my wife, and they covered tuition and expenses.

Are situations like yours the rule or the exception?

So... lottery then? Is it just luck? Who is in control of this?

Definitely not a single individual. So not every single individual can do it / get it. I've known of PhD applicants and lifetime science researchers who had to stop their careers because funds were cut for their specific projects or just highly reduced.

But this seems a bit of an off-topic on the whole white privilege thing. As you can see, we're starting discussing specific stuff that has nothing to do with skin color.

 

[twitcher]

Still over thinking it. The idea is - how do people respond to this person. Look white, white privilege, that's the assumption.



If they're effective at it, that's all that matters. Look white, white privilege. That's the assumption. This is not complicated.

But what is "look white"? Are we talking "white skin", or "European facial features"? Where does the black albino fit in this?

Furthermore, "look white" according who whom? Who is the final authority on what a white person is or is not?

From what I can gather, it's basically that every individual person can decide for themselves who or what is white, and therefor they can choose who is oppressing them (backed by the assumption all white people are oppressors). That's why earlier I brought up the notion of government programs and scientific testing to decide who is white. Because if it's not the government deciding who is white, then individuals will decide for themselves.

At what point in Michael Jackson's life did he earn white privilage?

By the way, I'm not posing these questions as though you're seriously defending this stuff...I'm pretty sure youre not. I'm just trying to hash my way through this by thinking out loud in a way.

 

[Johnnypenso]

But what is "look white"? Are we talking "white skin", or "European facial features"? Where does the black albino fit in this?

Furthermore, "look white" according who whom? Who is the final authority on what a white person is or is not?

From what I can gather, it's basically that every individual person can decide for themselves who or what is white, and therefor they can choose who is oppressing them (backed by the assumption all white people are oppressors). That's why earlier I brought up the notion of government programs and scientific testing to decide who is white. Because if it's not the government deciding who is white, then individuals will decide for themselves.

At what point in Michael Jackson's life did he earn white privilage?

By the way, I'm not posing these questions as though you're seriously defending this stuff...I'm pretty sure youre not. I'm just trying to hash my way through this by thinking out loud in a way.

My impression was always that WP only applied to those that were of relatively pure European descent or could pass for such without it being questioned. In MJ's case I think anyone that cared about this stuff would classify him as a phony or a pretender because he wasn't truly "white".

 

[PeterJB]

Black albinos can still be recognised as being black as there is more to race than skin tone, in most cases they are easily distinguishable from Caucasians.

 

[polysmut]

At what point in Michael Jackson's life did he earn white privilage?

His megastar privilege would have been more significant by that point.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But what is "look white"? Are we talking "white skin", or "European facial features"? Where does the black albino fit in this?

How hard is it just to look it up? Very first line of the wiki, source provided: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of "white privilege" to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people."

Furthermore, "look white" according who whom? Who is the final authority on what a white person is or is not?

A much better question. Imo the answer is, as you said, oneself.

At what point in Michael Jackson's life did he earn white privilage?

Never - the issue isn't as facile as the skin tone.

However, if you think as young black kids in music none of the Jacksons faced any issued of prejudice then the many accounts of black musicians from the era would suggest that you'd be wrong.

 

[Danoff]

Are situations like yours the rule or the exception?

Doesn't matter.

But what is "look white"? Are we talking "white skin", or "European facial features"? Where does the black albino fit in this?

Furthermore, "look white" according who whom? Who is the final authority on what a white person is or is not?

From what I can gather, it's basically that every individual person can decide for themselves who or what is white, and therefor they can choose who is oppressing them (backed by the assumption all white people are oppressors). That's why earlier I brought up the notion of government programs and scientific testing to decide who is white. Because if it's not the government deciding who is white, then individuals will decide for themselves.

At what point in Michael Jackson's life did he earn white privilage?

By the way, I'm not posing these questions as though you're seriously defending this stuff...I'm pretty sure youre not. I'm just trying to hash my way through this by thinking out loud in a way.

I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is, if someone looks white enough to the person declaring WP, that's "white enough".

 

[twitcher]

My impression was always that WP only applied to those that were of relatively pure European descent or could pass for such without it being questioned. In MJ's case I think anyone that cared about this stuff would classify him as a phony or a pretender because he wasn't truly "white".

Ok, so in Jackson's case, he was unable to "achieve" white privilage, despite multiple surgeries to give himself Caucasian facial features. In Dolezal's case, she is unable to shed her white privilage, even if she makes every effort to make herself look black (and in some photos I've seen, rather convincingly).

To me, this indicates (just following your reasoning, which seems sound enough within the context of what we're talking about) that white privilage is not then based on how a person looks on any given day, but rather on their racial ancesestey - what their parents looked like (or what they looked like at birth).

In the case of a black albino, their whiteness or blackness is determined by their facial features, and ancestry, as opposed to their skin colour.


Is this is a fair conclusion to make, that a person's white privilage is determined by their facial features and ancestry rather than skin tone? Based on what has been put forth in this thread so far.

His megastar privilege would have been more significant by that point.

That's an interesting twist. So, you're saying that megastar privilage can sort of trump white privilage? Or Jackson's megastar privilage overtook his lack of white privilage?

How hard is it just to look it up? Very first line of the wiki, source provided: "White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of "white privilege" to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people."



A much better question. Imo the answer is, as you said, oneself.



Never - the issue isn't as facile as the skin tone.

However, if you think as young black kids in music none of the Jacksons faced any issued of prejudice then the many accounts of black musicians from the era would suggest that you'd be wrong.

The wiki defijinition of white privilage, basically "white privilage is privilage experienced by people deemed to be white", which, to me, is a completely unsatisfactory explination that is far too open to personal interpretation. Which is exactly why I followed it up with, "well then who determines what is 'white'?"

I also it interesting that the wiki quote you provided says "some countries", as if to imply there are countries in the world where white people dont experience white privilege. I find that quite curious.



So back to the question, "what is white"? From the thread so far, I think we're proposing that a combo of skin colour, facial features, and ancestral history determines what is considered white. Light coloured skin, Caucasian facial features, European ancestry.

If that is the case, and correct me if I'm wrong, then where do people who's families come from the region between Europe and Asia fit in? Do we define "European Ancestry" as people who come from our modern geopolitical definition of Europe? Where does one draw the line between "white European" and "brown Arab"?

Where do the people who historically come from the regions that we currently call Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, Iran, Kazakstan, Uzbekestan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, or even Afghanistan, fit? Most pictures of Persian people that I've ever seen, they look like Spaniards or Greeks with a good tan. No joke, Syrian President Assad is like a doppelgänger for my Czech grandfather. So, based on having olive skin tone and European facial features, are Persians considered white, despite not being European? In the context of the questions "are Persians white," I think it's also important to keep in mind that the societies of Persia have been warring, trading, and intermingling with Eastern European and Mediterranean societies for thousands of years.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The wiki defijinition of white privilage, basically "white privilage is privilage experienced by people deemed to be white", which, to me, is a completely unsatisfactory explination that is far too open to personal interpretation.

The definition given is from Peggy McIntosh's writings on the subject. She's framed the references in which it's most often academically discussed in the modern day (although similar references go back a hundred or so years). If you want to change that frame of reference then that's fine but you'll be discussing something that's outside the White Privilege frame of reference.

Did you read any of the wiki sources or just the wiki itself? Start with "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack", see what you think to her argument.

Just to be clear, I know what the photo is from. It was an Israeli story about how Palestinians rile up their youth to then harass the soldiers, who are kind of helpless to fight back against children. A completely 🤬 situation on all sides. But I think it's a bit of an ironic and interesting photo to look at in the context of "white privilage".

Edit: can get the link to work. I'll try to fix it later. Photo is of a white Palestinian girl, maybe 10-12, throwing fists at Israeli soldiers

I missed that reference earlier and while it's interesting it's not really relevant - hopefully you'll see that after reading some of McIntosh's work and perhaps the other wiki sources. The scene you pictured wasn't uncommon in parts of the UK a few years ago, kids sent to attack armed soldiers.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so in Jackson's case, he was unable to "achieve" white privilage, despite multiple surgeries to give himself Caucasian facial features. In Dolezal's case, she is unable to shed her white privilage, even if she makes every effort to make herself look black (and in some photos I've seen, rather convincingly).

To me, this indicates (just following your reasoning, which seems sound enough within the context of what we're talking about) that white privilage is not then based on how a person looks on any given day, but rather on their racial ancesestey - what their parents looked like (or what they looked like at birth).

In the case of a black albino, their whiteness or blackness is determined by their facial features, and ancestry, as opposed to their skin colour.


Is this is a fair conclusion to make, that a person's white privilage is determined by their facial features and ancestry rather than skin tone? Based on what has been put forth in this thread so far.

No.

Ancestry is totally irrelevant. The whole notion of WP is how people treat you based on looking at you, not based on getting to know you, reading up on your genetic lineage, and doing DNA testing. Facial features are also irrelevant, but it's not as easy to explain as ancestry. You can be white and have people behave badly toward you because your face is strange looking to people. Your facial features are a separable characteristic that may cause people to react differently. White privilege is a super simple concept (and a misguided one for many reasons). The concept is this simple - people will be nicer toward you if your skin is white (in the US and select other nations), all else being equal.

 

[twitcher]

No.

Ancestry is totally irrelevant. The whole notion of WP is how people treat you based on looking at you, not based on getting to know you, reading up on your genetic lineage, and doing DNA testing. Facial features are also irrelevant, but it's not as easy to explain as ancestry. You can be white and have people behave badly toward you because your face is strange looking to people. Your facial features are a separable characteristic that may cause people to react differently. White privilege is a super simple concept (and a misguided one for many reasons). The concept is this simple - people will be nicer toward you if your skin is white (in the US and select other nations), all else being equal.

I'm not following, if ancestry and facial features have nothing to do with being white, and it's purely down to skin colour....wouldn't a black albino living in the US be classified as a white oppressor? I challenge you to find an albino black person living in the US and propose to them that they are oppressing their parents just because they were born without pigment in their skin.

If it's just skin colour, what's the difference between a Greek or Spaniar who spends all day in the sun, and a Korean who spends all day indoors?

Going back to Jackson...what if he wasn't famous? Because of his fame, everyone knew his history without needing to enquire about it. Despite having white skin and white facial fearures, he was considered a member of the black community until his death, and as we've unscientifically concluded in this thread, at no point in his life did Jackson have white privilage (despite having white skin).

So imagine you meet Jackson, let's say post 2000, but he's just a regular guy, no fame. Perhaps odd looking, but I'll assume that you would conclude he is was white, and afford him white privilage accordingly (if that's how you do things, hypothetically). Now, imagine 5 minutes of convo with him where he tells you he was born black. Upon learning that info, do you revoke his white privilage (bearing in mind the notion that we do not afford white privilage to famous Jackson, due to knowledge of his past).

Another, perhaps odd way to think about it. Jackson could not become white enough to earn white privilage, and Dolezal can not become black enough to shed her white privilage. Can Katelyn Jenner ever shed Bruce's male privilage?

@TenEightyOne, I haven't had a chance to go over those sources, I will later though.

I will point out though, that if that is some sort of "official definition", I find it problematic that it refers to "Critical Theory", which upon research, concludes that basically all modern science since the Enlightenment has be about propogating white privilage. Literally Newton invented calculus to oppress non whites - 2 asides, I wonder what Neil de Grasse Tyson or Michio Kaku think about that, and if calculus was invented to keep non whites down, then how come it is white men who cannot jump ?

 

[Danoff]

I'm not following, if ancestry and facial features have nothing to do with being white, and it's purely down to skin colour....wouldn't a black albino living in the US be classified as a white oppressor? I challenge you to find an albino black person living in the US and propose to them that they are oppressing their parents just because they were born without pigment in their skin.

That's not how this works. You're not going to be able to convince everyone who is white that they are oppressing people.

If it's just skin colour, what's the difference between a Greek or Spaniar who spends all day in the sun, and a Korean who spends all day indoors?

Are you asking me to defend WP on a rational basis? I can't do that.

Going back to Jackson...what if he wasn't famous? Because of his fame, everyone knew his history without needing to enquire about it. Despite having white skin and white facial fearures, he was considered a member of the black community until his death, and as we've unscientifically concluded in this thread, at no point in his life did Jackson have white privilage (despite having white skin).

So imagine you meet Jackson, let's say post 2000, but he's just a regular guy, no fame. Perhaps odd looking, but I'll assume that you would conclude he is was white, and afford him white privilage accordingly (if that's how you do things, hypothetically). Now, imagine 5 minutes of convo with him where he tells you he was born black. Upon learning that info, do you revoke his white privilage (bearing in mind the notion that we do not afford white privilage to famous Jackson, due to knowledge of his past).

Another, perhaps odd way to think about it. Jackson could not become white enough to earn white privilage, and Dolezal can not become black enough to shed her white privilage. Can Katelyn Jenner ever shed Bruce's male privilage?

Still over thinking it. It's just... all else being equal... the belief that people with white skin color are treated favorably. That's it.

 

[polysmut]

That's an interesting twist. So, you're saying that megastar privilage can sort of trump white privilage? Or Jackson's megastar privilage overtook his lack of white privilage?

I'm saying that his individual case isn't a useful point of reference because his life was very different from almost anybody else's ever and was already as such before his pigment lightened.

 

[twitcher]

Are you asking me to defend WP on a rational basis? I can't do that.

Not unless you want to try...I'll applaud the attempt though. I can appreciate if you've had enough of my silly questions, thanks for entertaining them though.

I guess what I'm doing in trying to work through this is take the "on paper" definition of WP, along with the thus far undefined condition of "being white", and apply it to "practical situations" to see how it holds up. I'll admit that examples revolving around Michael Jackson, Rachel Dolezal, and a black albino are a bit rediculous or extreme, but based on the responses in the thread so far, it seems that what determines whether or not a person is white or not is purely subjective. To me, this then indicates that any arguement being made with "whiteness", (for or against, and I would propose that "white" could be replaced with any other racial descriptive term) as an element of it is not a rational or logical argument

I will add though, that while I'll admit that the Jackson/Dolezal/albino discussion was a bit absurd, I am quite serious about my points or questions regarding Persians, and people who come from the area of land "between" Europe and Asia. If we're going to say WP is a real thing and apply it to the real world, what catagory do these people fit into? White, or non white?

@Earth, since you were the one who started the thread, would you care to comment on the assessment that the determination of "who is a white person" is purely subjective? Is there a non subjective method of determining whiteness that I/we have overlooked?

What are your criteria for determining if a person is white or not? Is it skin colour? Facial features? Ancestral history?