I think it's because the accusation of "privilege" is conversation-stopping. There is no where to go once this is said, because it's a fundamental attack on who the person is, which is something that cannot be changed, discards any merit of a point being argued, and provides no solutions.
It essentially asserts that the person saying something is to be disqualified and/or the opinion is inferior without any logical proof. And it suggests "my position is inherently more correct than yours" because I'm not privileged. It signals the end of rational discussion.
Is it any wonder that many people (when their private opinions are polled, rather than asked to join shouting in a crowd) actually dislike the tactic?
>I think it's because the accusation of "privilege" is conversation-stopping.
I agree it signals the end of rational discussion, but not the end of the conversation. It's usually immediately followed up with all the ways privileged people need to give X, Y, and Z to everyone else, in perpetuity, to "make things even." Unsurprisingly, that's an unpopular idea.
It's not an attack, though, and it's not a reflection of who a person is. Privilege is about the circumstances the person is in, how lucky they are in the cosmic lottery of life. Being privileged doesn't make you a bad person. Failing to recognize your privilege may, depending on your moral framework.
I don't really see it that way? The history behind it can be pretty depressing, but basically it's saying you've benefited from good luck. Having good or bad luck is something that happens to you; the merit or blame comes from what do you do about it.
It's no wonder that people dislike it if people repeatedly ignore the subtleties of the concept and take the attack as a personal affront to their identity.
Would you prefer it to be rephrased? Should we spend the time to shield egos or should we encourage egos not to be so fragile?
White privilege absolutely exists, as does 'male privilege', 'health privilege' (mental or physical), 'preference/motivation privilege' (e.g. do you enjoy, or can you at least tolerate, doing things that are financially viable) and a whole host of other inherent advantages that a person can possess from birth, or obtain later in life and hold on to.
Quite literally, 'privilege' (less aggressively known as advantage) is obviously a thing. Even if you don't consider the 'white' variant, people win and lose the game of society based on pretty arbitrary attributes.
We generally don't run around speaking about those issues in those terms, though, because it's just not a very tactful way of addressing them (attacking core components of a person's ego), it's much more politically manageable to discuss equality/empathy/representation for example.
It would be equally unpopular to talk about e.g. the 'transgender plight', despite the struggles trans individuals face. Words are important.
And the same people who love talking about 'male privilege' tend to get offended at the mention of 'female privilege', even though there are numerous documented examples, eg people having to vacate seats on flights just because they were seated next to a child and were male and thus assumed to be a potential predator.
The experience of trans men in particular is filled with realizations that privilege isn't a one way street.
Absolutely. The majority of people do not like being guilted for an unfairness they have not directly contributed to or supported.
A far better spin is to simply address the same factors as equal opportunity violations because then the failure is something bigger and cultural where everybody is invited to contribute resolution.
White privilege absolutely exists, and it should absolutely be discussed, but in the context of politics, it’s an implied message of, “your problems aren’t significant and you should get over it.” Whether or not what’s objectively true has no bearing on how it makes people feel and how, then, they will perceive the person speaking.
A better approach is to focus on shared problems, but perhaps give a bit more attention to those with particular hardships or barriers.
Exactly, this is a "big numbers" problem, that says nothing about individual experiences, and should never be used as argument against an individual, but you'd be hard pressed to find an activist that bothers to clarify that.
Privilege has become a dirty word, and I suspect it is in no small part due to the fact that some people feel it is over-emphasized compared to other aspects of one’s status (especially on an individual level, of course,) and because it is sometimes used in a combative manner to cut others down, which perhaps unconsciously sends the message that instead of increasing the privilege of the underprivileged, we’d rather decrease the privilege of others instead, to even the playing field. And I can’t really attest to this, because I mostly stay out of political discussions, but it would fit with the American, and perhaps human, tradition of focusing on retribution instead of, but often under the guise of, improving the status quo, ignoring evidence that this is not the happening. I feel this kind of behavior is really evident any time human emotions run high, and it unfortunately describes how we handle a lot of problems in the U.S., especially crimes: we don’t really want to try to improve on the root causes, or to rehabilitate, often we want people to rot in prison.
The word privilege on its own should not bring all of this baggage, but it feels like it’s too late. The word is now tainted for many. Does this mean serious discussion about it has been pushed off a couple generations?
The word "privilege" has always been a thought-terminating-cliche. Its use in the present-day sense became well known with references to the "bourgeois privilege" of culture, literacy etc. among Maoist radicals in the 1960s and 1970s. (Of course, it was generally assumed that any such "privilege" ought to be abolished, and that a Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution would be a, well, great way to achieve that.)
Well, the implicit connotation in the term 'privilege' is that it's been conferred as some sort of favour, perhaps even a temporary one (e.g. it's a privilege to be awarded a prize).
Compare with, say, 'advantage'.
Underprivileged, and disadvantaged, are also often used as synonyms within the social context, whilst outside of that they're not at all the same thing.
White privilege and other topics are largely academic topics that are statistical and general in nature. Take that to an individual and tell them about their privilege based on some stats, they're going to feel like it doesn't fit... and really it doesn't on an individual level.
Obama had a speech near the end of his presidency, he talked about situations talking to individuals who have real struggles, real problems in their lives and don't feel like anyone handed anything to them.
Then someone comes to them who doesn't know them, and talks to them about their privilege? That's not going to help convince them of anything.
Even to a further extent, talk to anyone you don't know .. and tell them what you know about them based on just their race? That's probabbly not going to go well.
You're not getting far, and frankly on an individual / non academic level it seems off the mark for an individual or audience.
I feel like concepts like white privilege and such sort of escaped academia and more general conversations, and are swung around a bit wildly and inaccurately by some folks.
Not a big surprise. In the simple world of white privilege white people have an advantage and black people are disadvantaged from birth. Policies must balance this out.
In the real world life people don't fit into these simple boxes. Where do half white / half black people fit in. Are they slightly privileged?Should someone 100% black feel disadvantaged over someone with lighter skin? Are brown people more privileged?
Does it matter if they are from Mexico vs Arab vs Southern Italian vs Indian? Who has more or less privilege?
Where do the Obama daughters fit in? They have more privileges and a bigger leg up over anyone reading this site. Do they suffer from white privilege?
It would be interesting to see if the Obama daughters have more or less advantage than other comparable President's family members. But I don't see a way to do a valid comparison; too small a sample size and the subjects don't really have many constants.
> Political scientists have long known that major shifts in a nation’s racial makeup or in its racial policies can provoke a right-wing response among some portions of the electorate. Since the 1960s, the Democratic Party in the U.S.has staked out a position as the party of racial liberalism (Carmines and Stimson 1989). Democratic support for civil rights legislation helped the party secure the long-term loyalty of a majority of African American voters, but alienated many of the party’s white voters. This led to Republican gains in new areas of the country, especially the South (Black and Black 2002.)
That's historical revisionism. Four Civil Rights Acts were passed in the 1950s and 1960s, plus the Voting Rights Act. Each passed by overwhelming majorities in the House Republican Caucus, and much narrower majorities in the House Democratic Caucus. In fact, the 1960s were a time of the Democratic Party toeing the line on civil rights to appease southern Democrats. Indeed, while people talk about Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," Nixon won the South only because George Wallace. Wallace, running on a segregationist platform, split the Democratic vote with Hubert Humphrey. Wallace outright won 5 deep southern states, and beat Humphrey in several others. Nixon--who had helped shepherd the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress--didn't carry a majority in any southern state.
In 1976, Carter won the Presidency with the traditional coalition of conservative Southerners and liberal north easterners, while Ford won the west and most of the midwest. Reagan won both the south and most of the northeast, and so did George H.W. Bush in 1988. It wasn't until the 1990s, with Bill Clinton, that the now-familiar alignment of the south with republicans and the northeast with democrats took shape.
I'm very interested in this topic. Do you have a "favorite" (most accurate, least revisionist) writeup of the causes of the political realignment that happened between the 1940s and the 1980s? Specifically, if you don't think it was largely about civil rights, what do you think was happening?
I don't understand how the facts you've cited establish either of these two sentences as "revisionism": "Democratic support for civil rights legislation helped the party secure the long-term loyalty of a majority of African American voters, but alienated many of the party’s white voters. This led to Republican gains in new areas of the country, especially the South (Black and Black 2002.)"
As you say, the traditional (pre-1960s) coalition of the Democrats was (white) conservative Southerners and liberal Northerners. That explains the messy partisan alignment of the five bills you mentioned. (The voting patterns are clear if you look at geography, not party affiliation[1].)
In the aftermath of those bills, we find evidence that something strongly alienated the white, conservative Southern Democrats, and resulted in Republican gain. While the national politics you mention are confusing, there is a clear visual pattern in the presidential voting records of a southern state like North Carolina [2]: blue prior to the 1960s, and red afterwards.
What was it that alienated the white, conservative Southerners? Perhaps there is a more compelling answer to this than "civil rights", but your evidence does not establish that. You cite George Wallace, but his story is one of many that supports the quoted passage and its thesis that civil rights was a key issue. A long-time Democrat, he was one of many blue dogs who broke with the national party over segregation. His famous "segregation now, tomorrow, forever" speech in 1963 was arguably his moment of greatest acclaim by his electorate, and by 1968, he was sufficiently alienated from Democrats to make a third-party run as a segregationist. Many other Southern dems (eg Eastland, Thurmond) opposed the civil rights bills, and in their aftermath, switched parties in name or in spirit (supporting Republican national candidates), citing civil rights or segregation as a particular point of policy difference.
The title of the submission seems (intentionally?) misleading. It causes loss of support among white voters, conservatives and moderates in particular, the actual title of the paper being
"Losing Elections, Winning the Debate: Progressive Racial Rhetoric and White Backlash"
Even if the word isn't that bad inherently, the racist and dismissive way that its used in practice makes it a very foolish word to use if you're trying to connect with people rather than alienate them.
Framing an issue in one way may immediately get you half-way to the effective solution while another way would get you far away from it. "White privilege" immediately suggests a solution - "deprivileging". Not many would feel like having such a solution applied to them, it feels like an attack and triggers instinctive self-defense. The same issue can be framed as various groups/classes/races being "underprivileged". That triggers empathic response and calls to the sense of justice and equality.
The the phrase white privilege is an ingenious attempt by malicious people and their useful-idiots to divert attention from issues of class to issues of race.
These toxic propagandists have tricked millions of people into believing that the poorest white person is as responsible for the poverty of black people as the richest.
Transforming the political fight from the 1% vs the 99% into a fight of the racial majority vs a racial minority. If the 99% are fighting among themselves, they can't unite against the 1%.
Millions of powerless white people predictably take offense at the idea that they're responsible for an economic system rigged by the rich to oppress poor people of all races. Of course prejudice exists but the core issue holding people back is purely economic, not racial.
Ultimately the problem with the phrasing is that privilege is something given which can be removed. It's false because no one in particular decrees or gives benefits for being white - which would also be illegal.
Disparity and disadvantage are better words.
It's a social bias, and those cannot be changed by a decree. So not only is it attacking people, alleging guilt, it's also an ineffective stance to repeatedly point it out. Affirmative action also has connotation of failure to solve the issues black people face.
The framing around “privilege” is useful because it forces a reckoning that white people need to cede something in order for a more equitable society to emerge. Granted, I see the many problems with it, but a lot of that is just white people choking on the reality that they’ll need to give up some things.
"Some scholars suggest we can best understand these developments as a form of backlash against ongoing cultural, economic,and demographic trends (Kaufmann 2019; Norris and Inglehart 2019)"
Is the paper paper based on the premise that the right-wing views, or the rising success thereof, are an anomaly or "backlash" from some normal state?
ed: or not? Is there another interpretation of the first page?
I understand the usage of "backlash" here to mean a response in the other direction.
Cause: The political left begins discussing white privilege more than it did previously
Effect: The political right begins discussing their views on race more as well, in ways specifically counter to the ones raised by the left.
It's a cause and effect in the opposite direction. I think abnormality implies something other than a cultural response.
As far as I understand the term, white privilege means some kind of economical and political advantage of whites over other races. Meaning that the outcomes are different, depending on one's race. From a brief glimpse of the paper, it is quite clear that the authors push for equality of outcome and label their position as 'liberal'. However, many people disagree. The classical liberal position is granting every person equality of opportunity, saying nothing about equality of outcome. And for a good reason: you actually can't have both. Either everyone is equal at the start of the game and then the more successful achieve more, or everyone is equal at the end, and for that you have to make their opportunities unequal.
When you think about it this way, equality of outcome is essentially a Marxist rhetoric. So it's quite understandable why many people don't like politicians who advocate this controversial position.
If, the other hand, what politicians really want is a greater equality of opportunity, they really should make that clear. But I don't think they usually mean that, given that people who talk about white privilege are usually the ones who push for so-called 'affirmative action', which clearly reduces equality of opportunity in favor of equality of outcome.
[+] [-] supernova87a|5 years ago|reply
It essentially asserts that the person saying something is to be disqualified and/or the opinion is inferior without any logical proof. And it suggests "my position is inherently more correct than yours" because I'm not privileged. It signals the end of rational discussion.
Is it any wonder that many people (when their private opinions are polled, rather than asked to join shouting in a crowd) actually dislike the tactic?
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
Talk to anyone you don't know... and tell them what you know about them based on their race as if it is fact.
Generally, not a good way to connect, and you have a good chance of being wrong.
[+] [-] daenz|5 years ago|reply
I agree it signals the end of rational discussion, but not the end of the conversation. It's usually immediately followed up with all the ways privileged people need to give X, Y, and Z to everyone else, in perpetuity, to "make things even." Unsurprisingly, that's an unpopular idea.
[+] [-] Pfhreak|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skybrian|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gowld|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uoaei|5 years ago|reply
Would you prefer it to be rephrased? Should we spend the time to shield egos or should we encourage egos not to be so fragile?
[+] [-] esotericn|5 years ago|reply
White privilege absolutely exists, as does 'male privilege', 'health privilege' (mental or physical), 'preference/motivation privilege' (e.g. do you enjoy, or can you at least tolerate, doing things that are financially viable) and a whole host of other inherent advantages that a person can possess from birth, or obtain later in life and hold on to.
Quite literally, 'privilege' (less aggressively known as advantage) is obviously a thing. Even if you don't consider the 'white' variant, people win and lose the game of society based on pretty arbitrary attributes.
We generally don't run around speaking about those issues in those terms, though, because it's just not a very tactful way of addressing them (attacking core components of a person's ego), it's much more politically manageable to discuss equality/empathy/representation for example.
It would be equally unpopular to talk about e.g. the 'transgender plight', despite the struggles trans individuals face. Words are important.
[+] [-] klipt|5 years ago|reply
The experience of trans men in particular is filled with realizations that privilege isn't a one way street.
[+] [-] austincheney|5 years ago|reply
A far better spin is to simply address the same factors as equal opportunity violations because then the failure is something bigger and cultural where everybody is invited to contribute resolution.
[+] [-] seventytwo|5 years ago|reply
White privilege absolutely exists, and it should absolutely be discussed, but in the context of politics, it’s an implied message of, “your problems aren’t significant and you should get over it.” Whether or not what’s objectively true has no bearing on how it makes people feel and how, then, they will perceive the person speaking.
A better approach is to focus on shared problems, but perhaps give a bit more attention to those with particular hardships or barriers.
[+] [-] epx|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] luminaobscura|5 years ago|reply
Being black can also have advantages (affirmative action).
But no one uses "black privilege". Because everyone is aware that most of the blacks are, in sum, more disadvantaged compared to median citizen.
Some of the whites are also more disadvantaged. If I were one of them, i would be equally repulsed by "white privilege"
[+] [-] jchw|5 years ago|reply
The word privilege on its own should not bring all of this baggage, but it feels like it’s too late. The word is now tainted for many. Does this mean serious discussion about it has been pushed off a couple generations?
[+] [-] zozbot234|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esotericn|5 years ago|reply
Compare with, say, 'advantage'.
Underprivileged, and disadvantaged, are also often used as synonyms within the social context, whilst outside of that they're not at all the same thing.
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
Obama had a speech near the end of his presidency, he talked about situations talking to individuals who have real struggles, real problems in their lives and don't feel like anyone handed anything to them.
Then someone comes to them who doesn't know them, and talks to them about their privilege? That's not going to help convince them of anything.
Even to a further extent, talk to anyone you don't know .. and tell them what you know about them based on just their race? That's probabbly not going to go well.
You're not getting far, and frankly on an individual / non academic level it seems off the mark for an individual or audience.
I feel like concepts like white privilege and such sort of escaped academia and more general conversations, and are swung around a bit wildly and inaccurately by some folks.
[+] [-] wolco|5 years ago|reply
In the real world life people don't fit into these simple boxes. Where do half white / half black people fit in. Are they slightly privileged?Should someone 100% black feel disadvantaged over someone with lighter skin? Are brown people more privileged? Does it matter if they are from Mexico vs Arab vs Southern Italian vs Indian? Who has more or less privilege?
Where do the Obama daughters fit in? They have more privileges and a bigger leg up over anyone reading this site. Do they suffer from white privilege?
[+] [-] dariusj18|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whytaka|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samdamsamm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|5 years ago|reply
That's historical revisionism. Four Civil Rights Acts were passed in the 1950s and 1960s, plus the Voting Rights Act. Each passed by overwhelming majorities in the House Republican Caucus, and much narrower majorities in the House Democratic Caucus. In fact, the 1960s were a time of the Democratic Party toeing the line on civil rights to appease southern Democrats. Indeed, while people talk about Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," Nixon won the South only because George Wallace. Wallace, running on a segregationist platform, split the Democratic vote with Hubert Humphrey. Wallace outright won 5 deep southern states, and beat Humphrey in several others. Nixon--who had helped shepherd the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress--didn't carry a majority in any southern state.
In 1976, Carter won the Presidency with the traditional coalition of conservative Southerners and liberal north easterners, while Ford won the west and most of the midwest. Reagan won both the south and most of the northeast, and so did George H.W. Bush in 1988. It wasn't until the 1990s, with Bill Clinton, that the now-familiar alignment of the south with republicans and the northeast with democrats took shape.
[+] [-] shawndrost|5 years ago|reply
I don't understand how the facts you've cited establish either of these two sentences as "revisionism": "Democratic support for civil rights legislation helped the party secure the long-term loyalty of a majority of African American voters, but alienated many of the party’s white voters. This led to Republican gains in new areas of the country, especially the South (Black and Black 2002.)"
As you say, the traditional (pre-1960s) coalition of the Democrats was (white) conservative Southerners and liberal Northerners. That explains the messy partisan alignment of the five bills you mentioned. (The voting patterns are clear if you look at geography, not party affiliation[1].)
In the aftermath of those bills, we find evidence that something strongly alienated the white, conservative Southern Democrats, and resulted in Republican gain. While the national politics you mention are confusing, there is a clear visual pattern in the presidential voting records of a southern state like North Carolina [2]: blue prior to the 1960s, and red afterwards.
What was it that alienated the white, conservative Southerners? Perhaps there is a more compelling answer to this than "civil rights", but your evidence does not establish that. You cite George Wallace, but his story is one of many that supports the quoted passage and its thesis that civil rights was a key issue. A long-time Democrat, he was one of many blue dogs who broke with the national party over segregation. His famous "segregation now, tomorrow, forever" speech in 1963 was arguably his moment of greatest acclaim by his electorate, and by 1968, he was sufficiently alienated from Democrats to make a third-party run as a segregationist. Many other Southern dems (eg Eastland, Thurmond) opposed the civil rights bills, and in their aftermath, switched parties in name or in spirit (supporting Republican national candidates), citing civil rights or segregation as a particular point of policy difference.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_pa... [2] https://www.270towin.com/states/North_Carolina
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Barrin92|5 years ago|reply
"Losing Elections, Winning the Debate: Progressive Racial Rhetoric and White Backlash"
[+] [-] c3534l|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacefearing|5 years ago|reply
These toxic propagandists have tricked millions of people into believing that the poorest white person is as responsible for the poverty of black people as the richest.
Transforming the political fight from the 1% vs the 99% into a fight of the racial majority vs a racial minority. If the 99% are fighting among themselves, they can't unite against the 1%.
Millions of powerless white people predictably take offense at the idea that they're responsible for an economic system rigged by the rich to oppress poor people of all races. Of course prejudice exists but the core issue holding people back is purely economic, not racial.
[+] [-] linuxftw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AstralStorm|5 years ago|reply
Disparity and disadvantage are better words.
It's a social bias, and those cannot be changed by a decree. So not only is it attacking people, alleging guilt, it's also an ineffective stance to repeatedly point it out. Affirmative action also has connotation of failure to solve the issues black people face.
[+] [-] aklemm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _y5hn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunkenvicar|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lainga|5 years ago|reply
Is the paper paper based on the premise that the right-wing views, or the rising success thereof, are an anomaly or "backlash" from some normal state?
ed: or not? Is there another interpretation of the first page?
[+] [-] albntomat0|5 years ago|reply
Cause: The political left begins discussing white privilege more than it did previously Effect: The political right begins discussing their views on race more as well, in ways specifically counter to the ones raised by the left.
It's a cause and effect in the opposite direction. I think abnormality implies something other than a cultural response.
[+] [-] the_grue|5 years ago|reply
When you think about it this way, equality of outcome is essentially a Marxist rhetoric. So it's quite understandable why many people don't like politicians who advocate this controversial position.
If, the other hand, what politicians really want is a greater equality of opportunity, they really should make that clear. But I don't think they usually mean that, given that people who talk about white privilege are usually the ones who push for so-called 'affirmative action', which clearly reduces equality of opportunity in favor of equality of outcome.