... to wonder why some people think there's no white privilege?

[IAmAnAlienHumansfrightenme]

Of course there is. Why do people correlate white privilege with economic opportunities and financial status?

Privilege is the same thing as 'Advantage'.

A white person is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a black person and or person of ethnic minority.

A poor white person is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a poor black/BAME person.

A rich white person is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a rich black/BAME person.

A white person with disabilities or poor mental health is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a BAME person with the same condition.

Having white privilege doesn't mean you have no other problems in life neither does it mean you're financially comfortable, it means your skin colour isn't one of your problems. It's not something you're conscious of.

My answer is this is why I've written "generally". Meaning, generally speaking a white person doesn't have to think about their whiteness in the world. Yes there are exceptions to every rule. You may be one...just like not every black person experiences (overt) racism but the majority do.

White privilege is similar to:

Male privilege. A man is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a woman in many ways. It's a man's world for now.

Able-bodied privilege. An able bodied person is more privileged (at an advantage) than a person with a disability. It's an able bodied person's world (for now).

Financial privilege. A rich person is more privileged (at an advantage) than a poor person. It's a rich person's world (for now).

Extrovert privilege. An extrovert is generally more privileged (at an advantage in society) than an Introvert. It's an extrovert's world.

Those with privilege just means society caters much more to them and others are trying to be heard or noticed as equals or gain the understanding, acceptance, provisions, etc that those privileged in their category have.
Some who are underprivileged (in whatever category) can and do face serious issues with safety, violence, etc.

A person can be both financially privileged and underprivileged as a woman or a BAME person. A person can have white privilege and also be underprivileged as a person with disabilities. There's plenty of privileges and lack of to go round.

When people say "I can't have white privilege because I've never noticed being treated differently"...that's the point. A privileged person almost never notices that advantage till they face the opposite disadvantage. Ever heard of a person born rich never realising how privileged they were till they faced hardship or witnessed other people's financial hardship? Or rich people sending their children to poorer places so they can experience a different lifestyle and value their privilege?

Sometimes, knowing that others are suffering is different from empathising with/feeling the effects of their suffering. The latter is what gets you to understand and accept the privilege you have.

Oh and lastly (a different point), being underprivileged in one or more areas doesn't automatically make you a good person. There are good and bad people in every category.

I've deliberately not mentioned my race, sex, ability, etc because it doesn't matter, my argument stands regardless.

What do you think?

@forsucksfake

I am not a reactionary, so I am not "triggered." I am black, and while I agree that white skin offers privilege in some situations, I believe arguments around power and privilege are much more nuanced than they are presented by you here.

And for goodness sake, it is caste.

And I have repeatedly agreed that they are much more nuanced than that, it's a Mumsnet thread though, the time it would take to debunk EVERY single aspect of Racism, privileges and any other issue at length would be unbearable, especially when there are plenty of books and articles from scholars and other people who know a lot on the topics who have beautifully written about it and included data.

Thanks for correcting me, I genuinely appreciate it but English isn't my native language so you might find yourself getting upset more than once at Typos I make throughout the thread, due to my inability to know every single English word by hard (plus it's 5am here), anyway, Caste, though, noted, and will make sure I type it in correctly next time.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

I am not going to go into another debate with you, we aren't talking about BLM here, we are taking about RACISM full stop.

Oh, my mistake. I thought we weren't allowed to talk about anything other than BLM right now, because that's the focus.

You ask how you could start to end racism,

No I didn't. The thread is about white privilege. I'm asking what we do about white privilege. And if you were talking about racism why include all the things about tackling homophobia, sexism, etc?

So far, the only suggestion I've seen for ending white privilege centres around defunding the police. Seeing as that doesn't even apply in the UK I'm wondering what can we change here.

Re-read my answer to you, again, the answers are already there.

Re-read my answer to you, again, the answers are already there.

No they aren't but 🤷

White privilege isn't racism, homophobia, sexism etc. It's also systemic is it not? Given you clearly aren't in the UK how much do you know about systems here?

forsucksfake, I agree that there is nuance in the world and that absolutes aren't always helpful.

However, having seen all the ways in which white people are constantly shamed or coerced by other white people into either ignoring or denying structural racism, I don't find any of the arguments on this thread for why white privilege is a myth, or needs to carry disclaimers, at all compelling.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Re-read my answer to you, again, the answers are already there.

No they aren't but 🤷

White privilege isn't racism, homophobia, sexism etc. It's also systemic is it not? Given you clearly aren't in the UK how much do you know about systems here?

🙄

Whilst I agree white privilege exists I think the term is badly coined (a bit like the defund the police hashtag going around now). And as a BAME person I also don't like the use of the word 'privilege' or even advantage as you put it to describe it.

Privilege implies extra. Things that are a privilege are going on foreign holidays, going for meals out, having money for hobbies and luxury's ect - things no one needs or deserves (as in no one should pay for them except that person with their own earnings) but that make life more pleasant and enjoyable.

Being white isn't a luxury, it isn't an extra that makes life more enjoyable than it needs to be, it just means that no one looks down on or makes your life harder because of the colour of your skin - that shouldn't be a privilege, it should be a basic right.

White people aren't actually privileged because of the colour of their skin, it's more accurate to say that BAME people are actually dis-privileged by the colour of theirs. And as BAME people we aren't asking for the privilege of our skin colour not defining us, we're asking for the basic human right of it.

Another way of saying it is being white doesn't give you an advantage in life like being born an aristocrat does (I.e. an active advantage above the majority), it more means that people who aren't white are actively disadvantaged so the white people are just advantaged by comparison.

I hope that makes sense. It's just a very long winded way of saying yes white privilege (the concept of it) does exist, but I think as a concept it's very badly named and the language around it confusing.

I hope that makes sense. It's just a very long winded way of saying yes white privilege (the concept of it) does exist, but I think as a concept it's very badly named and the language around it confusing.

I completely agree.

On another thread a poster said that any term that requires extensive explanation for people to.understand it isn't fit for purpose and I think that's true.

Sorry been out all morning.
What I was trying to point out is that each country has their own version of privilege .
Every country has an under class.
While BLM is saying the B part are the ones who feel oppressed.
I am sure there are people in India who feel the same way. Not allowed on buses, refused jobs, not allowed to inter marry.
In Saudia it is the women who were oppressed.
There is not one country in this world where each and every person is equal.
No it is not fair, no it is not just, but I didn't know how you change it, I do know that violence is not the answer.

Seriously though Linning have you lived in the UK?

Plus the idea of dismantling nuclear family, what's that going to achieve?

Aren't some of the family structures part of the problem in the first place?

White people aren't actually privileged because of the colour of their skin, it's more accurate to say that BAME people are actually dis-privileged by the colour of theirs

But that depends on perspective.

White people as a class don't appear privileged when they are centred in a discussion, because as the dominant class, they are the 'default'. So it doesn't look like white people have 'extra' because they just have the standard for white people.

However, if you centre BAME people as a class and look at what counts as extra, never having to think about your race looks like something extra that white people enjoy that BAME people don't.

It's only perceived as the disadvantage of the oppressed class when viewed from the perspective of the dominant class.

I don't find any of the arguments on this thread for why white privilege is a myth, or needs to carry disclaimers, at all compelling.

Well, of course you wouldn't. I mention the horrific systemic violation and injustice of thousands of white girls because of their race, sex, and class (not their national origin as was so ignorantly suggested above) to the benefit of Pakistani grooming gangs as an example of why nuance is necessary in the discussion of white privilege. Your response? An accusation that I must be of the ilk of a dodgy American comedian.

@LonginesPrime

But it's something BAME people (and all people) should have, it's not an extra that makes life more pleasant than necessary, the lack of it makes life actively unpleasant.

People who have just enough to eat (not those who eat extra or excessively) aren't actually privileged to be able to do so, no one should be going hungry as the 'right to food' is one of the basic human rights. The people who don't have enough are actively dis-privileged because they don't have enough. And the way to fix it isn't to take away food from the person who has just enough, it's to find more food for the one with not enough. You could however fix it by taking food from someone who is actually privileged (has too much food). But having enough to live on isn't a privilege, it's a basic right everyone should have and the fact that some people don't means we should be bringing these people up to the same level.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

I hope that makes sense. It's just a very long winded way of saying yes white privilege (the concept of it) does exist, but I think as a concept it's very badly named and the language around it confusing.

I completely agree.

On another thread a poster said that any term that requires extensive explanation for people to.understand it isn't fit for purpose and I think that's true.

LOL! You completely agree? Correct me if I'm wrong but all the ring-a-ring-a-roses and roundaboutery you've been doing here, this is the summary of it? Have you written something that you think white privilege exists anywhere here and I missed it?

Others have mentioned similar before, yet you took pages and pages away from the conversation just to go from one random point to the other and you actually agree with this too (and others have said it)?

Why didn't you say it all the while?

To borrow from your last paragraph, if all your roundaboutery was to say what the other poster said (that others have also said), then all you've written isn't fit for purpose because it was a whole heap of unnecessary explanations, arguments, etc just to make this point or have you just reached this conclusion?

it more means that people who aren't white are actively disadvantaged so the white people are just advantaged by comparison.

But that's exactly what's been said, making like for like comparisons.

Those who don't understand just don't understand. Many do. There are so many words and concepts people don't understand, doesn't make it less true or usable.

That was supposed to say "Have you written anywhere here that you think white privilege exists and I missed it?*

Trust me I well understand. I have seen white privilege all my life and experiences all the negatives of it as a BAME person.

I am still allowed to think that it is a badly named concept.

I am not fighting for privilege I am fighting for the basic right to not be written off by the colour of my skin. White privileged is already having this rights. But rights aren't a privilege, they are a basic thing everyone should have as a default. Hence why I think the term is bad even if the concept/ideology is correct.

IAmAnAlienHumansfrightenme

I agree that the term "white privilege" doesn't describe what is happening, nor is fit for purpose.

I've said on other threads that racism is definitely a problem in the UK and we need to address it. I got called a white supremacist, repeatedly told that it's not about racism but about BLM and that racism isn't the issue.

This is the problem - no one can agree the terms of the conversation. Are we talking about white privilege or racism? If we are talking about racism then we aren't talking about white privilege are we because there are ethnic groups who are white but who experience racism - Travellers, Roma, Jews - for example.

So, are we talking about racism or are we talking about white privilege?

I mention the horrific systemic violation and injustice of thousands of white girls because of their race, sex, and class (not their national origin as was so ignorantly suggested above) to the benefit of Pakistani grooming gangs as an example of why nuance is necessary in the discussion of white privilege. Your response? An accusation that I must be of the ilk of a dodgy American comedian.

Well, there has been enough whataboutery on this thread that there was no point in repeating myself as this thread is already going round in circles.

And because your 'what about the white people?' comment was framed in the context of "where was those girls' white privilege, then?", as if white privilege is something white people should be able to invoke if it exists, it sounded very similar to Louis CK's "where's my white privilege?".

Using whataboutery to detract from the issue under discussion is a common tactic for denying that structural oppression and dominant class privilege exist. It's also common for the person using whataboutery to accuse anyone who ignores or calls out that whataboutery of trivialising whatever issue they're trying to misdirect with.

It's awful what those girls went through and it's not that I don't care about it. It's just not relevant to a discussion as to whether white privilege exists, especially when it appears to be being used as proof that white privilege isn't as simple as it seems.

White privilege is simple. The complexity arises when it intersects with the vast number of other power systems at play whereby any individual person will sit within the dominant class in some ways and the oppressed class in others. Structural racism is simple, white privilege is simple. It's people and reality which is not.

No no @confusedbymyheritage I get you. As I mentioned before, others have also written this and I see where they're coming from. It's okay to say it's badly named and I agree to some extent to that (which is why I've tried to add more words instead) but coming from people who refuse to acknowlege the concept at all (not you), suddenly claiming yes it's because it is badly named🙄, I'm sure a badly named concept doesn't stop it from being true.

repeatedly told that it's not about racism but about BLM and that racism isn't the issue.

Not seen this said anywhere, don't think I've seen anyone taking about blm and not also about racism but will take your word for it.

To me racism doesn't = BLM. BLM is an organisation (one of) fighting racism, etc. It's an organisation to which some people belong.

Black lives do matter. This isn't an organisation. It's a statement, something that should be but currently isn't. This is my focus.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an organisation that also says black lives do matter. You can choose to support it or not.

So when I'm talking about racism, one can also talk about BLM if they choose to but that isn't the whole case. I can talk about racism and ending racism without mentioning BLM but I can't talk about BLM without mentioning racism.

This idea we are all walking around judging and assuming about people because of their skin colour is so off. Some people might do that, I don't know who you people know. If I make a judgement someone I don't know it is by how they dress and carry themselves, how they speak if I hear it, class. With the white guy, black guy, Chinese guy example given before, if all presented the same way I wouldn't know who did what, I'd ask them what they did. If I had to guess I would say for white guy electrician, black guy business man and Chinese guy maths man. That is based on what I have seen more of in my life but I would only make that guess if I had to and if it was not clear from clothes and manner. This game being played with race right now is a losing battle and it's dividing people into skin colour and causing rifts when some of us got along quite happily before.

it's a basic right everyone should have and the fact that some people don't means we should be bringing these people up to the same level

Yes, absolutely. I'm not suggesting that white people should be treated worse - obviously it should get to a point whereby BAME people don't experience any oppression and enjoy the same freedoms as white people.

And in terms of the oppressed class gaining new rights and protections from the dominant class, it absolutely needs to be expressed in terms of the standards that the dominant class enjoys - if the dominant class aren't centred in the discussion (at least initially), they're never going to start listening and get to a point where they recognise the oppression.

But the reason white privilege is important as a concept is because many powerful members of the dominant class still believe that racism isn't as prevalent as the oppressed class is saying, because they haven't noticed it. It's not a priority for the dominant class because it doesn't affect them, and they only have to think about it when they consciously choose to engage with it, whereas the oppressed class obviously don't have that choice. The concept of white privilege helps to identify this blind spot and to explain to the dominant class how it arises.

White privilege can exist alongside BAME disadvantage - the two aren't mutually exclusive, and IMO they are both necessary concepts in tackling systemic oppression.

If we use the word advantage instead of privilege as I believe that is a more accurate word that might help. Certainly things give advantages in certain contexts and just about everyone has some kind of advantage. In the UK we are 3% black and 50% female so in terms of where we direct our efforts we will do more good fighting sexism. However that does not mean people in groups that fear they suffer a disadvantage such as the disabled can certainly argue for that cause.

I agree with Univentive that we do not all go around deciding what we think about people because of skin colour. I live in a London borough where most people are not white. I don't go down the street and put them into boxes in my head - very rich Indian, poor muslim, rich Jewish person, poor Eastern European, rich Albanian mafia person, Somali - probably had genitcal mutilation and not well off, white working class and then treat them all on those kinds of assumptions. None of the doctors at our practice of about 15 (except 1) is white and I don't decide I prefer one because she is female or that one because he is Indian. I assess them on their skills.

BLM has caused people to be more not less racist because of the breaches of the law and call to have no prisons and no police. it is not helping nor is criminal damage like taking down statues. it is making things worse. If you look at Companies House there are about 3 or 4 BLM companies and one is registered by someone - from I think a City financial firm whose colleague the internet says carried that ex policeman to safety but the problem with the Go Fund me page for BLM UK is it is not a limited company or registered charity or community interest company so people cannot even check where their money goes. That also means it is probably an unincorporated association in the UK which means all members are at risk if BLM is sued in the UK eg for damages to a statue. They probably need to set themselves up properly.

@UninventiveUsername

I think I understand what you mean.

FWIW I truly believe we should be aiming to live in an equal colourblind world, where people don't see colour and the best person for the job gets it, race isn't brought into criminal trials ect. However because of systematic years of oppression we currently can't live in colourblind world because if we did it would still be unequal.

Yes the white many applying for the job may have more relevant experience but that's because as a white man he was able to get the experience whether the Blackman was passed over for it because of the colour of his skin. Or the black man may have slightly lower grades but went to a school in a predominantly black area that was thus underfunded by the government. So actually the black man is the better person for the job but wasn't given the same opportunities as the white man so doesn't look it on paper iyswim. Once we deal with the route causes and eliminate these then we can live colourblind, but until then doing so fails to recognise people's disadvantages that are no fault of their own.

I would love to not wonder if me not getting a job or being the one randomly selected for a pat down on the way into a club is about race. I have no problem with these things in general - you don't get every job you apply for and random pat downs do catch things and also act as a deterrent as there's always a chance you'll be search. However when because society isn't currently equal I do have to wonder, when I've been selected for a pat down for the third time this month and my white friend has once in her whole life I do wonder. Now the pat down actually does me no harm but if the person selecting people for pat downs also votes, has any kind of position of authority or power, you have to think about how these prejudices hurt people in other areas of their life too, it's not just about the random pat downs, it goes so much deeper than that.

@IAmAnAlienHumansfrightenme

repeatedly told that it's not about racism but about BLM and that racism isn't the issue.

Not seen this said anywhere, don't think I've seen anyone taking about blm and not also about racism but will take your word for it.

To me racism doesn't = BLM. BLM is an organisation (one of) fighting racism, etc. It's an organisation to which some people belong.

Black lives do matter. This isn't an organisation. It's a statement, something that should be but currently isn't. This is my focus.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an organisation that also says black lives do matter. You can choose to support it or not.

So when I'm talking about racism, one can also talk about BLM if they choose to but that isn't the whole case. I can talk about racism and ending racism without mentioning BLM but I can't talk about BLM without mentioning racism.

And this highlights the problem. None of us know what frames of reference others are using.

Using your example, when you talk about BLM you are meaning black lives do matter and not the organisation.

Someone else talking about BLM is taking about the organisation.

I don't support the organisation because I oppose some of their views but people expect us all to agree withe the # of BLM - what is that referring to then?

Same as this discussion. People are using white privilege and racism interchangeably. So what are we talking about - racism or white privilege because they aren't one and the same thing given that some races suffer racism even though they are white.

Even deciding whether we are talking about the US of the UK is important. Many things are different between us and talking about problems or changes in the US and then applying them to the UK is ridiculous.