It isn't white privilege

[L777]

AIBU to think white privilege should be BAME disprivilege?
I think the majority of the time, white people are treated as everyone should be treated, and BAME are treated badly. So white aren't privileged, BAME are disprivileged?
I of course think everyone race/demographic should be treated equally. This should be achieved by treating BAME better, not white worse? If it was white privilege, we would have to treat white people worse for everything to be as it should... for example, I don't think people get job offers because they're white. I think black people dont get job offers because they're black.

I know this isn't very significant or going to change the world, just thinking out loud

No @PlanDeRaccordement you have totally messed up your numbers here and misunderstood the statistics you're quoting! There are proportionately far less Black applicants, and Black people in the population to begin with!

[quote CheddarCheesey]**@L777* The racist selector doesn't think 'I'll choose one of the white ones* 'He thinks 'I won't chose the black one'

This is why I think BAME are being discriminated against and white are not privileged.

With all due respect you need to think a bit further into this one. You haven't done enough reading in this to justify starting this thread. Your view is incredibly simplistic and totally overlooks all manner of social issues including unconscious bias (which includes towards privileging others as well as acting against others) and social capital.

Look up Bourdieu's habitus and social capital for example. White students (in this Oxford interview example) are privileged by a whole host of unwritten unspoken rules, networks, norms, and shared understandings which are legitimised and reinforced by the ruling hegemony / dominant group (in this case the largely white university professors / chancellors)- thus the white people are benefitting from this system.

[/quote]
So if that's true, why are statistics being quoted on this thread that 1 in 10 white British students go to university compared to 3 in 10 black students? If what you say is true then surely more white students than black would go to university?

So, my question is that
Is 1 in 10 white students getting into university compared to 3 in 10 black students, and 7 in 10 Asian students really just a lack of white privilege or equality that just “feels like oppression”? Or do we have a society where white privilege is not universal? With BAME privilege in some small oases?

Because equality should mean that the x in 10 should be close to equal for all races, right? How can anyone look at 1 in 10 compared to 7 in 10 and then say, oh thats Equality, it only feels like oppression. You would not say that if the positions were reversed. 1 in 10 Asians versus 7 in 10 whites.

'it's a privilege to have every single system skewed in your favour" tell that to white working class boys living on council estates. No, I don't agree with this white privilege crap, it's extremely reductionist and massively over generalising and I'm sick if all this identity politics I think it's extremely divisive. Now I await being accused of racism for having the gall to speak out on such a matter.

@CheddarCheesey

No *@PlanDeRaccordement* you have totally messed up your numbers here and misunderstood the statistics you're quoting! There are proportionately far less Black applicants, and Black people in the population to begin with!

No, I have not “messed up the statistics” these are the official ones from the gov.uk page and they are adjusted to reflect the proportionality of the population. They are even adjusted by income levels so we’re not comparing privately tutored or educated people against every day state school students.

Go to Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission
Ethnicity, Gender and Social Mobility, p26
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579988/Ethnicity_gender_and_social_mobility.pdf

Young people from different ethnic groups but comparable socio-economic backgrounds, participate in Higher Education at very different rates. The socio-economic gradient in HE access is also steeper for White British students. Of White British children in the poorest quintile, only 1 in 10 will go to university. This is compared to 3 in 10 for Black Caribbean children, almost 5 in 10 children from Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black African ethnic groups and nearly 7 in 10 for Chinese ethnic students.

Are you a towering intellectual, L777? Do you think this is a good idea that just hasn't occurred to the people who study, analyse and experience these issues? Or is there an outside chance that this whole thread was inspired by an ignorant brainfart of yours?

No. It's white privilege. Stop trying to take the spotlight off the privilege white people have. We have to acknowledge it, and work to better things.

[quote RosesandAnts]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras Honestly you are not listening. You are reading but not assimilating anything. You keep asking about positive discrimination, I did not mention positive discrimination anywhere (HRM is not my field) every solution to removing discrimination isn't about positive discrimination. However, positive discrimination does not mean hiring unqualified people not does it mean disregarding recruitment numbers. So ask yourself, how do they currently select between able-bodied white people and a disabled white people if both groups are applying for the same job?
Personally, I will be happy if my CV can get as much attention as my white counterparts who is similarly qualified and not have my application thrown in the rubbish pile just because I have a foreign name. See..no white disabled people need be affected! no positive discrimination, just fairness infact.[/quote]
I am reading but clearly I'm not understanding. Some posters did talk about positive discrimination in relation to jobs, even saying there should be quotas and caps on white employee numbers. That's what I was questioning and you replied to me so not sure why you're saying you didn't say it - I didn't say you said it, but you responded.

I also didn't say that positive discrimination involves hiring unqualified people.

You ask how do they deal with considering an able bodied person via a disabled person - the answer is no doubt they discriminate against the disabled person in many cases. Of course it would be denied and many excuses given for why the able bodied person was best for the job that has nothing to do with being able bodied.

What many companies do is to guarantee an interview to a person with disabilities but many disabled people don't declare their disability, if they can avoid it, because they know that it goes against them, so it might guarantee an interview but means they won't get the job.

Many companies now use blind applications don't they, so identifying information like name, age or sex is hidden? Doesn't that achieve what you were asking for - your CV to get equal consideration?

I've just not seen a single practical change suggested across any site that I've been looking at as to how this can be addressed. I'm just wondering what people want to see changed within education, employment, policing, etc that will make the necessary improvements.

I don't entirely agree with you OP, but I do think that the term 'white privilege' is counter-productive, and needs replacing with a term that acknowledges the ways in which (white and black) lives labour under other forms of prejudice and lack.

It's not so much that I don't agree white privilege exists, more that I think it doesn't reach the people we might want it to reach.

The racist selector doesn't think 'I'll choose one of the white ones'
He thinks 'I won't chose the black one'

OP, unless you're racist, what is the point in giving your opinion on what's going on in a racist person's mind? It seems a bit arbitrary as no-one can dispute the fact this is merely your opinion but it still has absolutely no bearing on reality.

The fact that you're viewing the issue as black people having been disadvantaged in a number of individual scenarios (such as uni admissions) which don't acknowledge the effect of structural oppression based on race is an example of white privilege. It's not about each individual scenario and racist people being involved in each of them, because that's not what's happening. It's about the fact the whole system is geared towards white people being the norm and black people's perspectives haven't even been considered in the setting up of that system.

The fact that you believe the way white people are treated is how everyone should be treated centres white people and is another example of white privilege.

There's a difference between treating people equally and treating them equitably. There are loads of scenarios where treating black people the way white people are treated is not going to give an equitable outcome and will still disadvantage black people. Often this is because treating them equally doesn't acknowledge the structural oppression working against black people.

So in your university example, treating black people equally and saying 'right, we'll take people's personal details off of the applications' doesn't account for the fact that fewer black people will have applied or got the required grades in the first place because of the structural oppression that was acting on them throughout their childhoods.

I do understand your sentiment, it's just that the idea of treating black people more like white people is part of the problem - the pressure that black people are under to conform in a white world forms part of their oppression.

There is not going to be genuine equality for black people while white people continue to be centred, and white people will continue to be centred until they can acknowledge and address their white privilege.

There have been thousands of experiments done in various different ways on the job selection point in Western Countries and every single one has come back with the same results. A white man is more likely to be selected for a job interview than a Black man when they send out an identical CV to various companies. The only thing that changes is the name on the top of the CV (traditional Male British name vs traditional African name) If white privilege didn’t exist, there would each be an exact 50/50 split with callbacks. Same with university applications though this was a much smaller gap.

It is getting better though. Way better than 20 years ago for example. Exceedingly better. That gap is closing all the time especially with more and more BAME getting into higher or selector roles, more interracial couples, more mixed race people, more awareness. So much of it is unconscious bias.

No, I don't agree with this white privilege crap, it's extremely reductionist and massively over generalising and I'm sick of all this identity politics I think it's extremely divisive. Now I await being accused of racism for having the gall to speak out on such a matter

You are not the only one. I'm sick of it too :)

Black lives matter yes of course they do. My comment is I care
about all my patients or anyone same as I said before I have lots of black friends. What I dislike and it really irritates me at work is patients whom have lived here 20 years and dont want to speak english. Usually slovaks and the comment I cant work as I dont
speak English. 6 times last week I got asked if I could write to their
gp so they can have forever on sickness benefit so they do not need to look for work as they cannot speak english. Other than this I do
not treat anyone any different.

Can you not see the contradictory nature of your post. Do you know what I hate as a black woman? Someone who makes racist comments and in the same breath says they have black friends (even Donald Trump says he has black friends, doesn't make him any less of a racist). I don't know if you saying these things intentionally to goad people, but if not, you really need to either look for another job or ask your organisation for some equality/unconscious bias training.

Just by the by, unconscious bias training has not been shown to result in significant behavioural change, nor does implicit bias testing correlate with real world behaviours. There's a large for-profit industry in providing these services to workplaces, but there's just as large a hole where evidence of positive impact should be.

Even the designer of implicit bias testing has come to the conclusion that it's misused junk science.

Things take time though. DH's grandad went down the mine in 1922 aged 14. He joined the army aged 18 and left in 1947 after the war. He became a driver to a grand family, living on little money but in tied accommodation. He was denied an education. Each of his DC stayed at school until they were 18; the boys went into the forces, outranking their father. The girls became teachers and nurses. His grandchildren became Drs, Lawyers, accountants. His great children will have the choice to be artists and writers if they wish.

Look up Bourdieu's habitus and social capital for example.

Not to mention economic and cultural capital...

@Melia100

Thanks. I've had unconscious bias training and found it useful (just my opinion). Anyway, the points I made in my post still stand.

I am reading but clearly I'm not understanding. Some posters did talk about positive discrimination in relation to jobs, even saying there should be quotas and caps on white employee numbers. That's what I was questioning and you replied to me so not sure why you're saying you didn't say it - I didn't say you said it, but you responded.

I did not reply to you in fact it was you who started engaging me. You need to go back over the thread again.

I also didn't say that positive discrimination involves hiring unqualified people. I know you didn't but some white people think that's what it means so I was just putting it out there.

You ask how do they deal with considering an able-bodied person via a disabled person - the answer is no doubt they discriminate against the disabled person in many cases. Of course it would be denied and many excuses given for why the able-bodied person was best for the job that has nothing to do with being able-bodied.

Well if you've identified that then that's disability discrimination that has to be fought elsewhere. Why do you want to pitch it under racial discrimination? When people are talking about womens rights, do we pipe up and say what about Child rights?

What many companies do is to guarantee an interview to a person with disabilities but many disabled people don't declare their disability, if they can avoid it, because they know that it goes against them, so it might guarantee an interview but means they won't get the job.

As above.

Many companies now use blind applications don't they, so identifying information like name, age or sex is hidden? Doesn't that achieve what you were asking for - your CV to get equal consideration?

It's a small step but like you said not all companies are doing this yet and there's still the hurdle of the discriminatory interviewer, the unfair manager etc....

I've just not seen a single practical change suggested across any site that I've been looking at as to how this can be addressed. I'm just wondering what people want to see changed within education, employment, policing, etc that will make

You're looking in the wrong places. MN is not going to tell you the answers to all those questions. These are things that need to be answered at government level where policies are created and effective measured put in place across all sectors of society to ensure they are implemented and monitored.

So in your university example, treating black people equally and saying 'right, we'll take people's personal details off of the applications' doesn't account for the fact that fewer black people will have applied or got the required grades in the first place because of the structural oppression that was acting on them throughout their childhoods.

So if this is true how are the figures presented up thread correct? If black students arent applying or getting the necessary grades how come they outnumber white students? It would suggest that they are applying and are getting the grades and actually it's the white students who are disadvantaged, wouldn't it?

This is a very interesting thread (as is the other one). It seems, to me anyway, that there is a blurring between white privilege, the UK class system and social mobility.

If you are working class then, for the majority, there ain’t no-one giving you a leg up or advantage whether you are white, black or purple. Educational opportunities (lack of) plays a huge part in this.

Once you start looking further up the social mobility/class ladder then I think there is a case for calling white privilege.

I think to apply it as a generalisation to all is not helpful.

I fear (although I hope unfounded) that we are in danger of moving backwards.

Well if you've identified that then that's disability discrimination that has to be fought elsewhere. Why do you want to pitch it under racial discrimination? When people are talking about womens rights, do we pipe up and say what about Child rights?

I'm not pitching it under anyone's fight. You asked me how it works.

I asked how do we address competing protected characteristics, competing disadvantages. Is it possible to address only one disadvantage and positively discriminate for that or will that further disadvantage other already disadvantaged groups? Why is that not a fair question?

You're looking in the wrong places. MN is not going to tell you the answers to all those questions. These are things that need to be answered at government level where policies are created and effective measured put in place across all sectors of society to ensure they are implemented and monitored.

Ok. So it's for government to solve then. Thanks for answering.

Some posters did talk about positive discrimination in relation to jobs

I was a little confused by this, unless posters from outside UK? As I understood it positive discrimination is still more or less illegal under the 2010 Equality Act - unless reasonable adjustments are being made for someone with a disability - and positive action is the approach that is favoured. Is it that people are not in favour of positive action? Or that they think that positive discrimination might be more effective?

@StormzyinaTCup

This is a very interesting thread (as is the other one). It seems, to me anyway, that there is a blurring between white privilege, the UK class system and social mobility.

If you are working class then, for the majority, there ain’t no-one giving you a leg up or advantage whether you are white, black or purple. Educational opportunities (lack of) plays a huge part in this.

Once you start looking further up the social mobility/class ladder then I think there is a case for calling white privilege.

I think to apply it as a generalisation to all is not helpful.

I fear (although I hope unfounded) that we are in danger of moving backwards.

I agree, though prepared to be shouted down.

I think white privilege is more class privilege or wealth privilege, for the most part.

@YounghillKang

Some posters did talk about positive discrimination in relation to jobs

I was a little confused by this, unless posters from outside UK? As I understood it positive discrimination is still more or less illegal under the 2010 Equality Act - unless reasonable adjustments are being made for someone with a disability - and positive action is the approach that is favoured. Is it that people are not in favour of positive action? Or that they think that positive discrimination might be more effective?

No, it was on this thread. A poster said that they should have quotas for the number of black employees and also a cap on the maximum number of white employees.

What I don't understand is that intersectionality is supposed to be good, right up to the point it intersects with...what?

I mean, it's pretty clear that sex and class intersect with race. I'm aware that the way a black woman experiences sexism can be compounded by racism, for example. But apparently it's taboo to discuss the way that class, or ability intersects with whiteness?

That makes no sense to me.

Unless we go back to a very clear and limited understanding of intersectionality, which is as a concept to explain the oppression of poor black women specifically, and those who consider themselves progressive stop using the concept everywhere else it suits them and nowhere it doesn't. I'm equally happy with it remaining a way to discuss the discrete experience of being black, female and poor.

But it's one or the other. Either it's a moral lens through which we view all human interaction, or it's specific to one particular community for whom it was conceptualised.