Meghan speaks about racism

[DaisyChain31]

I was watching the news a few minutes a go and watched Meghan (Markle, Duchesss of Sussex), speaking about racism.

She has faced a lot of racism but she didn't mention her plight or go into it. It's palpable on Facebook for example. People saying things like she doesn't fit into the royal family, is she white or black, Harry should have married English rose Cressida because she's a better fit etc. All pretty disgusting to be honest. The latest is that her looks are being compared to Cressida's so it's a mix of underhanded racism, sexism and just nastiness really.

Do you think that Meghan deliberately never spoke about what she has faced because she doesn't think she faces the same issues that general citizens of the US and other countries around the world face? Because she is in a privileged position compared or others (security, respected by a lot of non racists etc).

Do you think that this issue, right now, should focus on racism that will lead to brutality which will most likely be experienced by non celebrities or do you think that it should focus on racism against black people over all, even though the racism is sometimes just words from trolls and idiots on social media? Words still hurt but I can see why Meghan would perhaps not want to try and liken herself to George Floyd for example as it's unlikely Meghan would ever find herself in the hands of police to do as they please.

Do you think black celebrities should speak up because their voices often reach further or do you think it might come across as insensitive to the general population of black people because celebrities are much less likely to experience racial police brutality for example?

Do you think that class is playing a major roll in all of this along with racism?

Chocolately

www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

A collection of articles showing how differently Meghan is treated by the press.

phoenixrosehere

I don't read the Mail and certainly didn't hear the BBC say that.

So, do you think the press were like this from the start with her?

I am really trying to think back but from memory it feels like there was a definite point where opinion about her changed.

For me, definitely part of the reason I didn't warm to her was her public persona. There was just something that didn't feel right but when I saw her appearance at a school in Dagenham she was like a different person. It was clearly her being very natural and she came across so well. Such a shame we didn't see this side of her more. She was so engaging with the students that she spoke to and seemed very approachable.

Whoever Harry was going to marry was gonna get stuck for simply existing, providing she was a woman (because patriarchy etc) - I think we've forgotten how much the media hounded and harassed Kate Middleton in the early days (a woman who they now fawn over). However, like with anything POC face there's the added extra of the thinly veiled racism which Kate never had to go through. Meghan can't win - and wherever she goes racism has followed

*stick not stuck

Considering MM can’t even breathe without somebody questioning her motive, it’s brave of her to speak out. I felt for her when she said she was worried about speaking out. Good for her.

I don't read the Mail and certainly didn't hear the BBC say that

It was one of the big news networks here and I could have sworn it was the BBC. It was during the breaking news of their engagement. They were also talking to historians and interviewing black Britons on their thoughts on if it would change anything. Her father’s heritage was barely mentioned. I remember it was what stuck out to me and I found it strange that it was reiterated, especially since she wasn’t the first nor was she the first foreigner who married into the royal family.

Everyone was in love with her when she and Harry were engaged and got married, as far as I remember

You remember wrong. The press coverage was so abusive and racist that Harry felt the need to release a formal statement about it. That was in November 2016, nearly a year before Harry and Meghan made their first public appearance together, and a full year before their engagement.

The abuse and open racism and just obsessive hatred and lies about her on MN during the engagement was unreal.

The press said some of the same things about Kate but they said extra things about Meghan including overt racial references.

I’m definitely not trying to suggest that Kate got an equally hard time of it as Meghan. Clearly the hounding of Meghan has been worse and had the additional element of racism. The reason I compare the two is because a lot of posters believe everything the press say about Meghan.

For example I’ve seen soooooo many posts here use the fact a couple of Sussex staffers left as proof Meghan must be a nightmare. But objectively, factually, more staffers quit the Cambridge household during Kate’s first year than quit the Sussex household during Meghan’s first year. And the press at the time covered the “mass Cambridge staff exodus” in a very negative way and explicitly stated the staff were quitting because Kate was a diva who refused to follow protocol. Many of the Meghan haters love Kate, and don’t believe a bad word about her. If you hate Meghan because a couple of staffers quit, and believe the tabloids when they say her behaviour drove them out (which I don’t), you can’t ignore that the same was true for Kate.

Or take clothes as another example. Meghan’s been slated for tiny breaches of non-existent protocol, like wearing black or not making her bridesmaids were tights, but Kate has worn black loads and Zara’s bridesmaids also had bare legs. Hell I remember when Kate flashed her naked backside at royal events by wearing a flimsy dress without weights with only a thong under it - numerous times, and continued to wear thongs under non-weighted dresses even after her bare butt was photographed. Surely flashing your naked backside at solemn royal events is “worse” than wearing a black dress to the BAFTAS?

It’s just more examples of the hypocrisy. Look at the fuss the Meghan bashers make about the acting job she did wearing jeans and a belly top, people act like it was hardcore porn!

White privilege has nothing to do with America and it certainly has nothing to do with Instagram. The term “white privilege” was coined by an academic and women’s studies scholar in the 1980s, but the concept dates back to the early 20th century and European political and academic discourse on “the race problem.”

The concept of white privilege (and educating people as to what it really means, since there’s a lot of ignorance about it) is absolutely crucial to understanding and overthrowing white supremacy and the many forms of structural, systemic and coded racism that exist within society.

And yes MN has a problem with racism and with white supremacy.

No, I am absolutely not going to stop talking about racism, no matter how many snide nasty little condescending jabs you make.

When it becomes used to mean "white supremacy" as it now has, it is merely a term of abuse, no matter who coined it and why. We ALL need to work against racism, but a pop culture concept of an quasi-magical "original sin" of all white people is not a lie I'm prepared to swallow just because it is politically expedient. If people are really irredeemable just because of the colour of the skin then how on earth can we move forward? Genuine question, and no one (least of all me) is trying to stop people talking about the most serious issue of our time.

It isn’t a term of abuse. The fact you think being asked to question systemic racism and systemic privilege makes you feel abused says more about you than it does anything else.

And it certainly isn’t a “pop culture” term. That’s an offensive and condescending way to demean and put down something you don’t want discussed, and is a form of censorship.

quasi-magical "original sin" of all white people

I have no idea what this word salad means, but you obviously don’t understand what white privilege means, or anything about its history and usage.

“White privilege” doesn’t mean “white people are evil” or “all white people have great lives.”

The definition of white privilege is that your skin colour alone does not create additional barriers or hardships on top of whatever barriers or hardships you face through your own life circumstances. That’s it.

I can't stand the woman but I commend her learning basic PR and for once, not making it all about herself.

ChocolatelyAsFuck - Have you read, 'An American Marriage?'

One of the points for discussion, can't remember where I stumbled across it, was a specific scene in the book where the author does not mention the race, and one of the questions was what your impression of the person who committed the crime...

It was an interesting point - that image in your head that probably can be justified for a million reasons how ingrained racism can be,.

"The definition of white privilege is that your skin colour alone does not create additional barriers or hardships on top of whatever barriers or hardships you face through your own life circumstances. That’s it."

I very much appreciate that, and thank you for taking my reply head on. I do get what you are saying but I would counter that not having additional barriers is not a "privilege" but simply that, a lack of additional barriers. If we reversed that sentiment, it wouldn't sound nice. And for huge areas of working class Britain it is actually quite insensitive. But I know what you mean. Unfortunately, the danger with this shorthand is simple and counter-productive - if you can shut down any debate or counter any point just by saying "but that's your white privilege talking" then that debate is no going to last long, if it even gets started - and we desperately need debate now.

I would counter that not having additional barriers is not a "privilege”

But it clearly is. Just like not having additional barriers because you aren’t disabled, or not having additional barriers because you’re not a woman, or not having additional barriers because you’re gay, or not having additional barriers because you’re working class, are all forms of privilege.

And for huge areas of working class Britain it is actually quite insensitive.

It honestly isn’t. And that kind of thinking just sets people apart. Black people are more likely to be from lower income brackets and more likely to be working class. It’s not an either/or situation.

I’m threads like this people always hypotheticals comparing a fictional black hedge fund investor or black neurosurgeon to a fictional white street sweeper as a kind of “gotcha” designed to debunk white privilege. That’s a false analogy.

White privilege doesn’t mean that white people automatically have better lives, it means that if a white person and a black person both come from identical backgrounds and have identical jobs and incomes, the black person will likely have a harder time and suffer more oppression.

That should say “not gay” and “not working class” obviously.

But it clearly is. Just like not having additional barriers because you aren’t disabled, or not having additional barriers because you’re not a woman, or not having additional barriers because you’re gay, or not having additional barriers because you’re working class, are all forms of privilege.

It's the term " privilege" that forms a barrier in trying to discuss this. It might well be fine in academic discussion when everyone understands the definition and all emotion is removed but I think when talking to the general public, who will have varying levels of understanding on the subject, how do you remove the very natural reaction of "how do I have privilege"?

That's surely understandable isn't it? How does a long term unemployed 50 year old man living in an HMO in the arse end of nowhere understand the concept of white privilege when comparing himself to say a black judge or a black Hollywood film star?

I know I've chosen extreme examples there but the principle applies doesn't it? The white man will still have white privilege but how do you engage him in that conversation so that he understands the benefits to him of being white? Honestly, I think the term is such a huge barrier to the conversation.

White privilege doesn’t mean that white people automatically have better lives, it means that if a white person and a black person both come from identical backgrounds and have identical jobs and incomes, the black person will likely have a harder time and suffer more oppression.

In that case then, most people are using it in the wrong context. Repeatedly on here, and in other discussions I've seen, the term " white privilege" is being used to against any white person. But what you're saying is that white privilege only applies if all other factors are equal? So you have need to be comparing two identical people with the only difference being race in order to call white privilege?

That really isn't how it's being used is it? Every white person is currently being told they have white privilege regardless of any other factor.

One example from another thread

A black couple turned away from a hotel compared with a booking for a wedding from the Traveller community.

A poster said that the bride and groom from the Traveller community were benefitting from white privilege.

I can imagine it's a lot easier to behave naturally among school children from Dagenham than on the balcony at Buckingham palace with the stuck up Royals .

"White privilege doesn’t mean that white people automatically have better lives, it means that if a white person and a black person both come from identical backgrounds and have identical jobs and incomes, the black person will likely have a harder time and suffer more oppression."

Harder time, I can accept. And that applies to a lot of people. For a few years there it was perfectly acceptable in the UK for people of all races to give people with ginger hair a hard time, relentlessly, mercilessly, in schools, on TV, everywhere - call it a joke but it got nasty enough for kids to take their own lives. I appreciate about the harder time, especially if it's systemic, subtle and omnipresent. But you lose me with the term "oppression" if you mean here in the UK (unless you specifically mean the police - we've all had a little taste of that recently - but state oppression, no).

The concept in the end is not logical, but more a filter on reality:

Two equally intelligent boys fail their maths exam. One is black - he must have failed due to the unfairness white privilege in his society. The other is white - he obviously failed because he didn't study hard enough.

That's not a construct I'd saddle the future with, because it's not a way forward. Just my opinion, but I respect your own perspectives and wish you the strength to continue to get your message across.

I don’t personally care for the word “privilege” because of the connotations with wealth/good fortune, and the potential for misunderstanding.

But if you perceive the concept of white privilege as being “against you” then that’s kind of the point. White people often enter debates about racism from a defensive or sometimes hostile attitude, yet it’s BAME people who are accused of being “aggressive” and told we need to play nice and be calm, sweet and agreeable to avoid alienating white people. The same arguments that men make when tone-policing women for getting angry about feminist issues.

Is it a perfect term? No. But it clearly can be a valuable entry point to meaningful debate, as is the case here. Certainly more so than glib comments about Instagram and the Kardashians.

To go to your point about travellers. Of course anti-traveller racism exists and should be called out. There are many issues within racial discourse that are complex and require nuanced debate: The existence of colourism, and how racism and colourism intersect. The complex politics of “passing privilege” and how that relates to identity. The concept of “conditional whiteness” and how whiteness is constructed socially and legally. Racism between different ethnic minority groups. The fact it’s possible to be both a victim and a perpetrator of racism simultaneously, and that a person can experience privilege and dis-privilege at the same time in different contexts.

All these are important issues that are complex and nuanced and require nuanced debate.

But not while black people are being slaughtered.

In a crisis, where the situation has become urgent, combatting violent anti-black racism has to take priority, and if that means that there is temporarily less space for nuanced debate about conditional whiteness or passing privilege then that sucks but it’s racism that’s to blame for creating the crisis situation in the first place.

Two equally intelligent boys fail their maths exam. One is black - he must have failed due to the unfairness white privilege in his society. The other is white - he obviously failed because he didn't study hard enough.

But that’s a racist statement. Maybe you’re not aware of being racist but you clearly do hold, at the very least, subconscious racist beliefs. An awful lot of your posts have promoted racist beliefs.

In reality, the white boy is more likely to get a good job despite failing the maths exam than the black boy with the same results. The white boy is more likely to have his poor results excused, while the black boy will be accused of being lazy or stupid.

I think Megan is dammed if she does as dammed if she doesn’t. She could share about her experiences but then she’d just have a lot of people saying that she’s ungrateful for the position she’s in, her privilege etc. I imagine she probably doesn’t want to put her painful experience out there because people will just piss all over it so I can’t understand her not sharing. She doesn’t owe us her story and it’s there for anyone to see if they look for it