All this debate about Crash got me thinking about an article I read back when I was in grad school. I remember finding it fascinating at the time so I thought I would go back and read it again. Here's a link to it. I'll be interested to see what people think.
White Privilege
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/10/05
is that kinda related to Bourgeois (sp) Guilt? (i'm thinking of writing a paper on bourgeois guilt in my Milton class, cause he seemed to have a lot of it.
i am learning to wield my heretofore unknown power to oppress just about anyone anywhere solely due to my gender and complexion. be afraid.
oh, god. I just had to change what I was writing because PAPA beat me to it.
Opression? Unkowingly? Something about that strikes me as part of that bizarre brand of guilt some people, who see the disparity between segments of society, suddenly attribute to themselves simply for being who they are. IT seems ridiculous to say I'm oppressing people simply because I'm white.
I'd love to poke a hole in a few of her theories, too, but the one that makes me laugh the most is the first one about the workplace and remaining only in the company of white people.
There are 8 people in my corner of the office. 4 of us are white. Around the corner from me there are about 25 people, less than 40% of them are white.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/10/05
Stop oppressing me, papa!
oh please, you love it, sg.
bway, i am sad that you are still unwilling to embrace your power.
What was the name of that vacation spot, papa? Uncle Tom's Cottage, was it?
The problem with this: It's over-simplified.
If we lived in a world where the only difference between people was the color of their skin, that would be one thing. And it's not as if there is no truth in some of those statements.
BUT -- they could be used for ANY difference for majority/minority within a group. Fat vs. in-shape. Gay vs. straight. Ugly vs. handsome. Protestant vs. Wiccan. Well-dressed vs. slob. Intelligent vs. stupid.
Try reading those statements using any of those distinctions. They still, mostly, apply.
So, to boil everything down to purely a race issue, to me, is simplified and disingenuous.
i've quit boiling people and now go with barbecuing exclusively.
cottages, flit, cottages.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/10/05
I'm still feeling oppressed, papa.
And stop touching me there.
Well put Calvin!
thankfully, i realize that my new-found oppressor abilities allow me to interpret your negative response as merely a euphemism for, "make me squeal like the little piggy girl i am, oh great and powerful white man."
Papa, That phrase would make you very popular at the Eagle.
i heard how well it worked for you, so it must be true.
*cough*
so, I'm white. I'd like to know where my unspoken privilege is.
well, try to think back to the last place that you used it. maybe you left it there.
Considering the recent circumstances of my life, I'd say I used up all of my privilege some time ago.
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/3/04
Am I the only one who sees this article as speaking truth?
No...
I don't think some of the points in the article are so easily dismissed such as:
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
Again, I never said they weren't accurate or that there wasn't truth to it. It's just overly simplifying things. Just merely being white does not mean all those things are going to be universal truths for someone.
Even those three you listed wouldn't apply to me if I had to take a job in, say, Jackson, Mississippi.
Maybe if the premised were changed to "as a wealthy, attractive, well-educated, heterosexual (and I'm sure there are other necessary adjectives) white person, I can be sure..."
SO SIMPLIFIED. And simply not true.
3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
***Absolutely, 100% untrue. I am living in an area in which I can BARELY afford, but I wouldn't call it the white, affluent suburbia that my whiteness seems to insure me.
4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
***100% untrue. I could give examples but I might sound like a whiney whitey for saying that racism happens to the melanin-deprived.
5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
****Whoops. White lady's wrong again. Got called a fag the other day under the breath of a thug in a grocery store.
Well I don't think it's meant to be that simplistic. I think the article is trying to raise questions. It also mentions that there are many other factors such as economic status to take into account.
And there's its central problem. Taken at face value and read literally, it implies that her thesis is true simply because I'm a white man when I don't meet a single one of her points.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
But sexual preference doesn't meet you face to face. If I were applying for a job, my homosexuality would not be the first thing a homophobic employer sees. On the other hand if I were black and applying for a job, a racist employer would see a black face as soon as I walked through the door.
Chita, it might. I know a few people whose flames cannot be doused. The second they walk into the room, there's no question who and what they are. And they have problems getting jobs.
If my current office had been able to discern my sexuality in my interview, I would NOT be here. The rampant homophobia is astounding.
And, as stated, white people make up significantly less than half of the office staff, proving that the White Lady With a Guilty Conscience is wrong.
Videos