What is white privilege? And why it’s not a thing

What is white privilege? According to University of Calgary, white privilege refers to: “The unquestioned and unearned set of advantages, entitlements, benefits and choices bestowed upon people solely because they are white. Generally white people who experience such privilege do so without being conscious of it.”

This Huffington Post article expands on it and explains it: The way “white privilege” works would be through “white supremacy” — racial hierarchy where “whiteness” sits at the top which results in benefits for whites:

White supremacy refers to a racial hierarchy in which whiteness sits atop of. The United States was founded on a system — legally, culturally, economically, and politically — of white male upper class supremacy. All of these remain today. Each can be confirmed through a number of outcomes and measurements — wage gaps, employment gaps, cultural influence, political power, economic power, incarceration rates, sentencing disparities… and on and on.

White privilege … is a reference to the myriad of benefits bestowed on white people stemming from the aforementioned system of white supremacy. … White supremacy refers to the system, white privilege refers to its benefits. The two are inexorably tied, but not the same thing.

While there’s plenty that could be said about the claims of “white supremacy” existing, including racial disparities which are used as a proof of it, that’s not what I’m going to focus on here; for anyone interested in that they can read the article by Quilette titled “The Racism Treadmil,” which explores the aforementioned racial disparities along with conclusions based on them.

With the definition of “white privilege” in mind, I’m going to list some of the examples that they use, some of which will come from the paper authored by Peggy McIntosh, titled “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” Obviously, it would take too much space and time to list all of them especially since they come up with new examples of “white privilege” all the time, so I’ll try to address the ones I consider the most important.

#1 “I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time,” similarly “I can enroll in a class at college and be sure that the majority of my professors will be of my race,” and, “I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented,” among others.

The examples are rather interesting, but they quickly fall apart due to various reasons. They don’t only assign value to race and imply that whites would care about race, but they also assigns value to race when it comes to non-whites specifically, such as the last example, “I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented” — we are supposed to take from this that whites seeing people of their race is a positive thing for whites (rather than a neutral one), and that because non-whites can’t “turn on the television or open the front page of paper” and see people of their race “widely represented,” that means whites are privileged and non-whites are oppressed.

But, should these arguments come as a surprise? After all, we’re at the point where “colorblindness” is considered racist, and in fact there’s a whole ideology that’s existed for several decades called “Critical Race Theory”, whose proponents reject “colorblindness,” “meritocracy,” and at times “liberalism” itself including free speech:

Critical Race theorists have called for “tort remedies for racist speech” and some theorists believe that “formal criminal and administrative sanction — public as opposed to private prosecution — is also an appropriate response to racist speech. … Concerns about free speech are interpreted by some Critical Race theorists as an expression of “white fragility,” which is “in and of itself an expression of white supremacy.”

But, I digress. Another issue with the listed examples would be the presumption that whites care about their race — however, most whites don’t care about race to that extent — in fact, it’s often whites that are pushing and promoting these and other far-left concepts, and more importantly, whites caring about race is frowned upon in our society, something that’s not the case when it comes to other races. In fact whites that care about their race are often labeled “racist.”

Further, even if we were to consider a “privilege” being able to arrange to be in company of the people whose race is same as yours, seeing professors with same skin color as yours, or seeing your race “represented,” that would be a majority privilege — not racial privilege, and nothing to do with “oppression” or “racial hierarchy.” In an Asian country people of Asian descent would be the majority and thus be able to do that. In an African country, similarly — etcetera. There are several other examples of “white privilege” relating to this all of which can adequately answered by this answer.

#2 I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

This example makes a false presumption that whites are “trained to mistrust,” and comes back to the points I made in response to the first argument; majority, along with presumption that such preference would exist. Even if we consider the second point — that blacks have “learned” to mistrust whites, even if it was a case it would hardly apply to everyone, wouldn’t necessarily result in such preferences, and further would likely be caused by identity politics and arguments such as the one at hand.

#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.

Bold claim, but it still would fall flat either way because it presumes racial disparities in wealth = oppression of non-whites, and privilege for whites. In fact, “The Racism Treadmil” article discusses some of it and terms the presumption that racial disparities are primarily caused by discrimination “disparity fallacy,” and further says:

Economic disparities that favor blacks have been reported for decades, yet they have rarely if ever been attributed to anti-white systemic bias. A 1994 New York Times article reported that, among college graduates, black women earned slightly more money than white women did. In addition, the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out that, as early as 1980, U.S. census data show black college-educated couples out-earning their white counterparts.

And rightfully notes:

Facts like these, however, are never explained in terms of discrimination in favor of blacks. Indeed, why progressives only commit the disparity fallacy in one direction is never explained.

And, as Pew Research notes, Asians are “the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the U.S.”

#4 I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

Unsubstantiated and rather preposterous claim that race would have a significant impact on it, and more so, that it’d differently vastly due to race. Unless you’re living in the middle of nowhere, there’s no guarantee nor you can be “pretty sure” that neighbors will be either neutral or pleasant.

#5 I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

So can non whites. In fact, just like the previous example it’s not dependent on race and it’s something that can happen to pretty much anyone, but mostly doesn’t. There are several similar examples which I will thus ignore.

#6 If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

Somewhat outdated given online publishing, and falls flat. Publishing isn’t restricted by race. Though we can discuss “disparities” again and if they exist presume racism, I’d argue that’d be disparity fallacy and thus foolish. Further, while publishing staff tends to be white, it’s also 78% female. Despite that, we have various narratives going on especially in relation to “sexism,” and preference for “male authors,” which only further shows the foolishness of such claims.

#7 I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

Now, this one is amusing. Especially given the progressive stack. Would perhaps the non-whites that have “learned” to mistrust whites (second point) let whites voices be heard? I’d say probably even presuming it was true. I don’t see why it’d be an issue either way.

#8 I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

There’s a lot to address here; it presumes that far-left belief that “systemic racism” exists (after all, that’s what ‘white privilege’ is about), and further ignores various other things, which I’ll leave out at this point.

“Police brutality” is one such example of “systemic racism” that’s often brought up in when it comes to “white privilege,” and an important point at that. However, the claims of such privilege are fallacious for several reasons. One such reason being the “disparity fallacy” — a presumption that different outcomes (in this case, treatment) between two or more groups are a result of discrimination, which ignores the bigger picture.

For a parallel, let’s look at men. According to Bureau of Justice, during 2011, 12% of male drivers were stopped, compared to 8% of female drivers. Police were more likely to search male drivers (4%) than female drivers (2%).

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, men are about 6 times more likely than women to be arrested for almost all crimes, while going by another study, women are 46% less likely to be held in jail prior the trial, and women released on bond were given 54% lower bond amounts than men had to pay. Further, women were 58% less likely to be sentenced to prison than men. When it comes to sentencing, a study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men get 63% longer sentences than women.

Should those “gender gaps” be considered female privilege? Well, I would say no. Not unless there’s an actual policy in place, and not if we don’t consider all the factors first that could and do lead to it. The main reason for such disparities when it comes to gender is the same as the one when it comes to race — just like when it comes to blacks, men commit disproportionately more crime — a small percentage of men and blacks, but disproportionately more crime regardless. For one such example, according to Department of Justice report, between 1980 and 2008 black people committed 52% of homicides.

Some view that as problematic as well and claim that blacks are arrested at higher rate than whites, and might even claim that’s another example of “white privilege,” but according to a “National Crime Victimization” study from 2001, blacks were the subject of arrest in 48.7% of the murders/nonnegligent manslaughters, and whites represented 48.4% of the arrests for those same crimes. Based on victims’ descriptions, around 48% of offenders for murder/nonnegligent manslaughter were identified as white, and 49% of the offenders were identified as black.

In regards to police shootings specifically, a study found that officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspect than armed White suspects, and they were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects. The study is a follow-up to another in which they found that active police officers, military personnel and the general public took longer to shoot black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects. Participants were also more likely to shoot unarmed white suspects than black or Hispanic ones and more likely to fail to fire at armed black suspects.

A different study, by Harvard, based on 1,332 police shootings between 2000 and 2015 concluded that blacks are 20 percent less likely to be shot at by police than whites, despite the fact that blacks and whites are just as likely to be carrying a weapon.

And so forth — study after study, example after example, and that’s without considering other contributing factors, such as living in high-crime neighborhoods which have higher police presence.

#9 I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

Although it doesn’t really happen much to begin with, from what I know, the ones that actually do tend to praise such things tend to be black, so… besides, why would it be an issue or a privilege?

#10 I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

“White fragility”. Although I’d presume that it means worrying about racism against blacks, especially due to re-definitions of racism. At which point I’d point out the term “Virtue signaling.”

#11 I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

Now, this is a good one. The people supporting “affirmative action,” “diversity,” or similar policies tend to see them as “leveling the playing field,” or “positive discrimination,” but regardless of how you call it or justify it, discrimination is still discrimination. The act itself — discriminating against someone on the basis of their color in favor of another person of different color — doesn’t change just because someone dresses it up to make it sound more acceptable.

What makes this example amusing is that people seeing literal privilege for blacks which results in discrimination against whites in turn, but not seeing it with whites — because there’s no affirmative action for whites — means that whites are privileged. If that’s not absurd, then I don’t know what is.

#12 If you benefit from white privilege, you’ll never be told to ‘get over slavery.’

Not much to do with race, at all. Whites were enslaved as well, as has been pretty much every other race on the planet. But, this is from Buzzfeed, so… I thought it was interesting anyway.

And… so forth. There are a lot of examples of “privilege” where it can be questioned if it’s a “privilege” to begin with, plenty which assign value to race or consider something that’s simply a fact due to majority, a “privilege,” along with others where disparities between groups are presumed to be caused by discrimination, thus committing disparity fallacy.

Are there any privileges, though? Well, I’d argue there are, but such privileges would be actual policies. For example in UK: “Judges told: ‘be more lenient to women criminals.’” Now, if such approach was applied and women were treated more “leniently” than men because of it, that’d be a form of privilege. Another example would be women getting 4x more scholarships than men, and similarly, way more scholarships for non-caucasians. That in itself, however, while it it could be called “female” and “non-caucasian” privilege respectively, would only apply to a small number of individuals just like the fact that women get 63% lower sentences — if we blamed it on sexism against men and considered it a privilege — would apply to some, and not to most. “Affirmative Action” and “Diversity” are definitely privileges that benefit blacks, but it would be wrong and unfair to claim that every black person benefits from them, or that some didn’t get their position on merit alone. But, given “Diversity,” both as a value and policy are used by more and more companies, there’s no doubt that it has an impact both in benefiting non-whites and discriminating against whites.

But, more on the subject at hand. Given their view that white supremacy is a thing which oppresses non-whites while benefiting whites, one of the goals is thus to spread awareness of the existence of “white privilege” in effort to get whites to acknowledge it, become allies to non-whites and support them in their fight against the white supremacy. Another goal would be to spread the belief that non-whites are oppressed and to get those “oppressed” to believe in it and to subscribe to far-left ideologies. After all, without enough people subscribing to them in the first place, fighting “white supremacy” would be impossible. That in itself, which I consider to be “consciousness raising,” a term used since 1970s among feminists, would be worth getting in-depth about but it’s better left for another article.

Another way “white privilege” is often used is in attempts to ignore experiences of whites or silence them, sometimes even employing kafkatrapping when a white person rejects the notion of “white privilege.” Kafkatrapping is a sophistical rhetorical device in which any denial by the accused serves as evidence of their guilt. While “white privilege” as a concept has been gaining more prominence recently, it has been around for a while as can be noted from the far-left group which existed during the 1970s, called “Weather Underground”:

The Weathermen used a style of “criticism-self-criticism” sessions, also called “Weatherfries,” which were described by the author of Bringing the War Home as “the most harrowing aspect of life within the collective.” Based on Maoist struggle sessions, these were used to root out subconscious racism and sexism within their own psyches. Individuals were reportedly hazed for up to twelve hours without a break until the white radicals confessed their deep white supremacism, homophobia and misogyny to their fellow white radicals thus achieving catharsis through their own admission of guilt. … In tone and substance, the sessions were part political trial, part hazing, part shock therapy, part exorcism, and, in a word used by more than one former member, part “brainwashing.”

Weather’s political theory sought to make every struggle an anti-imperialist, anti-racist struggle; out of this premise came their interrogation of critical concepts that would later be known as “white privilege.”

While arguably nowadays “criticism” of white people coming from those who believe “white privilege” is a thing doesn’t rise to the levels as shown above, the goals and effects have remained the same and it’s still an issue. To mind comes a Huffington Post article by Ali Michael, and in her own words:

I remember deciding that I couldn’t have biological children because I didn’t want to propagate my privilege biologically. … like Dolezal, I wanted to take on Africanness. Living in South Africa during my junior year abroad, I lived with a Black family, wore my hair in head wraps, shaved my head. I didn’t want to be White, but if I had to be, I wanted to be White in a way that was different from other White people I knew… [T]he lesson for me is remembering how deep the pain is, the pain of realizing I’m White.

Which leaves me with the following conclusion: Someone who wants to indoctrinate whites with such concept, to imbue them with guilt over their sin of being born white and get them to confess it; someone who does so by haranguing whites until they acquiesce to their far-left conspiracy theories all in an arguably bigger and more important goal of turning them into “allies,” is a person who clearly and demonstrably has no good intentions towards white people in their mind and someone whose assertions and haranguing should be taken seriously and called what they are — anti-white.