White privilege isn’t economic. Example:
If I get a shave and a haircut, pick up a second hand, brand name suit, learn the right walk and talk and get my script ready, there’s almost no barriers for me in the USA.
Fake name and fake biography and I can go even further.
It’s a white privilege because if I was olive or brown skinned, walls would go up.
If I’m pulled over by US cops, how I look gives me an instant advantage.
So while it may or may not be true in other places, white privilege is 100% true in the USA.
That’s why there are EXPLICIT programs to assist those without white privilege: US racism is implicit.
Thing is Scott: it’s not compensation or protection per se.
That’s what you’d do for people who were lower and are expected to always stay lower.
t Equity. How many conversation stoppers do I have available to me in a conversation with women? How many conversation stoppers do I have available to me in a conversation with non-white Americans?
How many conversation stoppers do women have with me?
How many conversation stoppers do non-white Americans have with me?
Equity is: I’m not going to stop their conversation stoppers. I have a whole arsenal. It’s _nice_ that I choose not to use them, but they’re always available to me.
Funny thing about lack of equity, you can’t see it by yourself.
But once you can see, it HITS like a ton of bricks and makes you realize your own ongoing participation, DESPITE working hard at playing for the correct side of history.
It’s sobering. But it’s not guilt. There’s no such thing as “white guilt”. But there _is_ a “woke” moment.
It’s not just priority.
If any non-white man is in a situation with police, they are more likely to get shot and die than a white man.
If any non-white man is in a situation with a judge, they are more likely to get longer, harsher sentencing.
But the language is so subtle:
A 23 yr old white guy who molested a 9 yr old white boy he was babysitting several times got 30 days and he’s out.
Why the light sentence?
The defense attorney argued that the man was “just a boy himself” and you don’t want to put him in with “real, hardened criminals”.
I didn’t think anything about it. That sounded reasonable to my white ears.
But then I heard what’s wrong with it and I was thrown back.
I don’t know what the correct sentencing was in all honesty.
It is _how_ he got the light sentencing that I’m focused on.
Look at this boy. 23 yr old babysitter. A bit soft, awkward with the girls but he’s got great potential if just given a chance. He knows what he did was wrong and feels genuine remorse.
You don’t want to put him in with real criminals because that will just make things worse and he’ll come out worse than he went in.
We should release him to society and just monitor him and allow him to be a productive citizen that can contribute to society.
[I made that all up out of thin air because I’ve heard it all before. You’ve heard it all before. I don’t need the defense’s words because I ALREADY have them at my fingertips.
Do you see anything wrong with that defense?]
Do you see the white privilege code phrases?
Now, let’s switch:
Real criminals shouldn’t be allowed to be released because they’re a drain on society and are unproductive and lazy. They have no potential because they’re hardened and only know crime. They don’t feel remorse and are only guided by animal instinct and don’t know right from wrong.
We need to be protected from them.
What is “real criminals” code for?
I also just made this up on the fly. I did it just for you to illustrate this point. This language was also easy as it’s used all the time.
I know these are uncomfortable truths but you are a smart man who is usually removed and objectively able to assess things.
It’s because I know you are capable of rationally analyzing this that I hope you will at some point.
“and this is why Trump won” is probably the ultimate bit of proselityzing.
You have chosen a side right now. That’s fine that you did, but objective, it’s not.
You’re asking me to agree with you, for the sake of a discussion, “What it we refer to white privilege as ‘unfair brown disadvantage’?”
But I can’t as it’s inaccurate.
The definition of “who is white?” has shifted through the centuries.
People that are now considered white were not always afforded the category.
During early part of the 20th century, immigrants were sometimes categorized by country of birth. They were not all considered white.
Go back to Ben Franklin. Germans were outside of the white circle.
Eastern Europeans are probably the last to enter: in an all white hypothetical USA, I suspect they’d be the first to find themselves at a low rung.
Jewish is iffy. Sometimes white, sometimes not.
Orientals are often considered white if they are successful in entertainment: Recent example is a tennis cartoon from Australia.
I’d swap hypothetically, but that would be intellectually dishonest of me.
The wonderful thing about having white privilege is we don’t have to talk about it. We can make it a brown problem instead. But I’m an America for all Americans guy.
Now that’s me proselityzing.
In any case, thank you. Now to buy some Nike’s.