• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Revelations about White privilege

C

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm writing this post admitting my prior ignorance of the large body of work on "White Privilege" in the Social Sciences. After some research and meditation on the topic I decided to put forward some questions that I hope would spur better discussions about this. Let me start by saying I'm still a skeptic of the validity of pursuing white privilege as a social science inquiry over other inquiries that are more targeted in their inquiry and more specific in their intended result.

Admittedly I now recognize the validity though in asking "what benefits do whites have?" vs "what disadvantages do non-whites, particularly blacks endure?"

That said i first wish to confirm my understanding of "white privilege" by attempting to define it in short:

White privilege is the benefit that whites have in society today because of a cultural trajectory of privilege that's been defined by the superior place in society that whites have occupied over other groups. Meaning that since whites have been the dominant group in the cultural evolution of society, privileges have been shaped based on what that dominant group's interests and goals have been over time. What this implies is that other groups have been subordinate to a culture shaped by one groups interests and ideals, and which naturally follows that that one group remains the dominant group insofar as the other groups aspire towards acquiring "privileges" defined by the main group. This also implies that whites will ultimately have an easier time pursuing and benefiting from those privileges since they inherit the interests, successes and benefits of their group from birth.

So first I ask if this adequately summarizes white privilege? If so, and I think this is an adequate, if not overly simplistic definition, then let me pose these questions:

Is America in fact shaped by the interests of whites alone or can a case be made that it's been shaped equally by blacks or other groups?

Do the statistics that we use to demonstrate white privilege adequately represent proof of the white privilege hypothesis?

Are the privileges afforded to whites universal? (in part referring to the argument that privileges and rights are separate)

Does white privilege encompass too broad and multi faceted an inquiry that omits more complex societal relationships that could yield more precise results and prescriptions for actions going forward?

Ok, have at it? Kick my ass...
 
Crispy said:
........
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I want to delve into another thread on this.
With that said, be very careful when reviewing research in this area.
There is an ongoing issue within psychology, particularly social psychology.

Where the methodology, bias, and other factors have produced results that can't be repeatedly generated.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not sure if I want to delve into another thread on this.
With that said, be very careful when reviewing research in this area.
There is an ongoing issue within social psychology, particularly social psychology.

Where the methodology, bias, and other factors have produced results that can't be repeatedly generated.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, i wasn't sure if I wanted to post this, but, I was discouraged by other threads that I followed on this because they all, including my own replies, lacked substance. I was thinking a more thoughtful discussion could spur some more interesting and convincing results.

Thanks for the advice though ;)
 
Crispy said:
I hear ya, i wasn't sure if I wanted to post this, but, I was discouraged by other threads that I followed on this because they all, including my own replies, lacked substance. I was thinking a more thoughtful discussion could spur some more interesting and convincing results.

Thanks for the advice though ;)
Click to expand...

There is a lot of "junk science" that end up in the news.
The "e cigs cause cancer" is one example of it.

That doesn't mean they don't cause cancer, but that the methodology in the study was crap.
The researchers did things that caused the ecigs to operate outside their normal range.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There is a lot of "junk science" that end up in the news.
The "e cigs cause cancer" is one example of it.

That doesn't mean they don't cause cancer, but that the methodology in the study was crap.
The researchers did things that caused the ecigs to operate outside their normal range.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Social Science to me has always been very subjective because the science aspect doesn't and really can't conform to the a provable reproducible scientific method the way other sciences do. I acknowledge the value in pursuing social science inquiry but It's hard to acknowledge findings as Law.
 
Crispy said:
Agreed, Social Science to me has always been very subjective because the science aspect doesn't and really can't conform to the a provable reproducible scientific method the way other sciences do. I acknowledge the value in pursuing social science inquiry but It's hard to acknowledge findings as Law.
Click to expand...

I think social science is a science, but one that is right now, littered with ideologues, using faulty tools (the racial bias test).
There are subgroups within it that are a minefield for researchers, see race, IQ and Charles Murray.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think social science is a science, but one that is right now, littered with ideologues, using faulty tools (the racial bias test).
There are subgroups within it that are a minefield for researchers, see race, IQ and Charles Murray.
Click to expand...

I consider Social "Sciences" as much of a misnomer as calling a Progressive-Left Socialist a "Liberal." ;)

I look at those studies of human behavior as more philosophical than scientific, despite all attempts to create the impression they are hard sciences. They tend to be various theoretical systems based on observation of behaviors via statistical methodology; which is seldom if ever applicable to all members of the various cultures of the Human Species. Simply put, these "studies" are rarely if ever repeatable using the scientific method.

As often as not they are tainted by assumption bias which may skew the results of their statistical models.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I consider Social "Sciences" as much of a misnomer as calling a Progressive-Left Socialist a "Liberal." ;)

I look at those studies of human behavior as more philosophical than scientific, despite all attempts to create the impression they are hard sciences. They tend to be various theoretical systems based on observation of behaviors via statistical methodology; which is seldom if ever applicable to all members of the various cultures of the Human Species. Simply put, these "studies" are rarely if ever repeatable using the scientific method.

As often as not they are tainted by assumption bias which may skew the results of their statistical models.
Click to expand...

Some of the things are reproducible, but given the uptick in ideological driven subfields and the shaming of those who engage in "wrong science," there is a lot left wanting from the field.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I consider Social "Sciences" as much of a misnomer as calling a Progressive-Left Socialist a "Liberal." ;)

I look at those studies of human behavior as more philosophical than scientific, despite all attempts to create the impression they are hard sciences. They tend to be various theoretical systems based on observation of behaviors via statistical methodology; which is seldom if ever applicable to all members of the various cultures of the Human Species. Simply put, these "studies" are rarely if ever repeatable using the scientific method.

As often as not they are tainted by assumption bias which may skew the results of their statistical models.
Click to expand...

Right, so does the narrow focus of the statistical models on certain aspects of society (crime, employment etc...) that point to white privilege omit other statistics that must be included like statistical models that measure the impact of black music on culture. Including the impact of black music on culture necessarily implies black privilege in as much as it could be statistically proven that it dominates american culture and gives advantage or hidden privilege to African Americans. Is it unscientific to exclude an offsetting statistic like this in the final hypothesis?
 
Crispy said:
Right, so does the narrow focus of the statistical models on certain aspects of society (crime, employment etc...) that point to white privilege omit other statistics that must be included like statistical models that measure the impact of black music on culture. Including the impact of black music on culture necessarily implies black privilege in as much as it could be statistically proven that it dominates american culture and gives advantage or hidden privilege to African Americans. Is it unscientific to exclude an offsetting statistic like this in the final hypothesis?
Click to expand...

I don't believe in "white privilege" so I am not prepared to argue the merits.

I think people confuse economic privilege with race, since anyone who is wealthy in our or any other society can be shown to have all the alleged privileges being attributed to White people.

Moreover, it can be shown that poor White citizens, much like any other citizens of the lowest economic classes, have fewer "social privileges" than any member of the wealthy classes despite their race.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I don't believe in "white privilege" so I am not prepared to argue the merits.

I think people confuse economic privilege with race, since anyone who is wealthy in our society can be shown to have all the alleged privileges being attributed to White people.

Moreover, it can be shown that poor White citizens have fewer "privileges" than any member of the wealthy class regardless of race.
Click to expand...

I don't believe or disbelieve it, I question the relevance and the motives of those who advance its narrative. I can subscribe to an inquiry that seeks to discover whether the evolution of a society dominated by white thoughts, goals and ideals has led to an inherent white advantage. It's as valid as "protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism." But, if the goal of the inquiry is biased and ignores other relevant statistics, which I tend to think is true here, then it discredits the efforts to begin with. I take science as the pursuit of truth vs the pursuit of substantiating a bias and I think you're right, the bias has led to less science and more philosophy.
 
I guess I'll go ahead and answer the questions.

Crispy said:
Is America in fact shaped by the interests of whites alone or can a case be made that it's been shaped equally by blacks or other groups?
Click to expand...

Equally, I don't know.
I mean there is a base level of interests all humans want and need.
Food, water, shelter, etc.
With that in context, I think to that degree it has largely been met, although I wouldn't say "equally" but that isn't based on race, as there are plenty of White people living in ****ty homes, eating terrible food, etc. as there are minorities, save for AmeriIndians, but that's somewhat of a different situation.

Crispy said:
Do the statistics that we use to demonstrate white privilege adequately represent proof of the white privilege hypothesis?
Click to expand...

I definitely don't think so.
More often then not, the people using stats end up using fallacy of single cause, to "prove" White privilege and they're attributing correlation = causation.

Crispy said:
Are the privileges afforded to whites universal? (in part referring to the argument that privileges and rights are separate)
Click to expand...

I don't even know what those privileges are or if they even really exist.

Crispy said:
Does white privilege encompass too broad and multi faceted an inquiry that omits more complex societal relationships that could yield more precise results and prescriptions for actions going forward?
Click to expand...

Many of the people making the claims, often are doing so from a subjective experience.
Aka, "that guy was rude to me, because I was *insert minority here.*"

So far the only actions that I've seen when going forward, is to "destroy Whiteness" and to treat people with respect (which is what I thought was already being striven for).
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I guess I'll go ahead and answer the questions.



Equally, I don't know.
I mean there is a base level of interests all humans want and need.
Food, water, shelter, etc.
With that in context, I think to that degree it has largely been met, although I wouldn't say "equally" but that isn't based on race, as there are plenty of White people living in ****ty homes, eating terrible food, etc. as there are minorities, save for AmeriIndians, but that's somewhat of a different situation.



I definitely don't think so.
More often then not, the people using stats end up using fallacy of single cause, to "prove" White privilege and they're attributing correlation = causation.



I don't even know what those privileges are or if they even really exist.



Many of the people making the claims, often are doing so from a subjective experience.
Aka, "that guy was rude to me, because I was *insert minority here.*"

So far the only actions that I've seen when going forward, is to "destroy Whiteness" and to treat people with respect (which is what I thought was already being striven for).
Click to expand...

Hey thanks for answering the questions lol.

Here's couple links that I understood to be influential that speak to the privilege question:

https://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person-shesaid/


I largely agree with your perspective although I've given consideration to the academic literature. I want to get some opinions from the Social Science advocates here to see their take on these questions and see if a good debate could ensue.
 
Crispy said:
Hey thanks for answering the questions lol.

Here's couple links that I understood to be influential that speak to the privilege question:

https://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person-shesaid/


I largely agree with your perspective although I've given consideration to the academic literature. I want to get some opinions from the Social Science advocates here to see their take on these questions and see if a good debate could ensue.
Click to expand...

Those questions I've found I can not answer most of them to the affirmative or that they aren't excludable in regards to race.
I think Peggy McIntosh is oblivious to her wealth privilege, more than anything else.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Those questions I've found I can not answer most of them to the affirmative or that they aren't excludable in regards to race.
I think Peggy McIntosh is oblivious to her wealth privilege, more than anything else.
Click to expand...

Yea I thought her questions were less than adequate to prove her point and I've seen a lot of critics of those questions for exactly what your saying, many questions were class based not race based etc. It is an older view though which I'll give the pass on (1989). I think I see where she's trying to go "recognize the little things you take for granted" to illustrate that the privilege is at work without you realizing. I don't buy that it's that convincing though.
 
Crispy said:
I'm writing this post admitting my prior ignorance of the large body of work on "White Privilege" in the Social Sciences. After some research and meditation on the topic I decided to put forward some questions that I hope would spur better discussions about this. Let me start by saying I'm still a skeptic of the validity of pursuing white privilege as a social science inquiry over other inquiries that are more targeted in their inquiry and more specific in their intended result.

Admittedly I now recognize the validity though in asking "what benefits do whites have?" vs "what disadvantages do non-whites, particularly blacks endure?"

That said i first wish to confirm my understanding of "white privilege" by attempting to define it in short:

White privilege is the benefit that whites have in society today because of a cultural trajectory of privilege that's been defined by the superior place in society that whites have occupied over other groups. Meaning that since whites have been the dominant group in the cultural evolution of society, privileges have been shaped based on what that dominant group's interests and goals have been over time. What this implies is that other groups have been subordinate to a culture shaped by one groups interests and ideals, and which naturally follows that that one group remains the dominant group insofar as the other groups aspire towards acquiring "privileges" defined by the main group. This also implies that whites will ultimately have an easier time pursuing and benefiting from those privileges since they inherit the interests, successes and benefits of their group from birth.

So first I ask if this adequately summarizes white privilege? If so, and I think this is an adequate, if not overly simplistic definition, then let me pose these questions:

Is America in fact shaped by the interests of whites alone or can a case be made that it's been shaped equally by blacks or other groups?

Do the statistics that we use to demonstrate white privilege adequately represent proof of the white privilege hypothesis?

Are the privileges afforded to whites universal? (in part referring to the argument that privileges and rights are separate)

Does white privilege encompass too broad and multi faceted an inquiry that omits more complex societal relationships that could yield more precise results and prescriptions for actions going forward?

Ok, have at it? Kick my ass...
Click to expand...

If you were to look at socioeconomic indicators, you would probably be more interested in the fact that citizens of Vietnamese heritage do better than Whites and that new Black immigrants do better than indigenous persons of African decent.

Thoughts?
 
Crispy said:
Hey thanks for answering the questions lol.

Here's couple links that I understood to be influential that speak to the privilege question:

https://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person-shesaid/


I largely agree with your perspective although I've given consideration to the academic literature. I want to get some opinions from the Social Science advocates here to see their take on these questions and see if a good debate could ensue.
Click to expand...

Why don't you take it to the street level and see how things actually work in the real world.

If you act like a tool in the work place and do the bare minimum to get by, your ass is going to be the first on the chopping block when things get tight. If you want to do the bare minimum in this world and expect others to feel sorry for you when it doesn't go your way, then obviously you were screwed from the beginning. Tackling the issue of this supposed white privilege on theory and statistics alone, will leave you just as ignorant on the issue as when you started. There are millions of different reasons why people do not succeed, and from my experience I can honestly say that 99% of it is from associating with losers and picking up on their hatred & jealousy of anyone who gets ahead.

Why is it that are American Asians doing well, while many blacks and whites just sit around and complain?
 
Crispy said:
I'm writing this post admitting my prior ignorance of the large body of work on "White Privilege" in the Social Sciences. After some research and meditation on the topic I decided to put forward some questions that I hope would spur better discussions about this. Let me start by saying I'm still a skeptic of the validity of pursuing white privilege as a social science inquiry over other inquiries that are more targeted in their inquiry and more specific in their intended result.

Admittedly I now recognize the validity though in asking "what benefits do whites have?" vs "what disadvantages do non-whites, particularly blacks endure?"

That said i first wish to confirm my understanding of "white privilege" by attempting to define it in short:

White privilege is the benefit that whites have in society today because of a cultural trajectory of privilege that's been defined by the superior place in society that whites have occupied over other groups. Meaning that since whites have been the dominant group in the cultural evolution of society, privileges have been shaped based on what that dominant group's interests and goals have been over time. What this implies is that other groups have been subordinate to a culture shaped by one groups interests and ideals, and which naturally follows that that one group remains the dominant group insofar as the other groups aspire towards acquiring "privileges" defined by the main group. This also implies that whites will ultimately have an easier time pursuing and benefiting from those privileges since they inherit the interests, successes and benefits of their group from birth.

So first I ask if this adequately summarizes white privilege? If so, and I think this is an adequate, if not overly simplistic definition, then let me pose these questions:

Is America in fact shaped by the interests of whites alone or can a case be made that it's been shaped equally by blacks or other groups?

Do the statistics that we use to demonstrate white privilege adequately represent proof of the white privilege hypothesis?

Are the privileges afforded to whites universal? (in part referring to the argument that privileges and rights are separate)

Does white privilege encompass too broad and multi faceted an inquiry that omits more complex societal relationships that could yield more precise results and prescriptions for actions going forward?

Ok, have at it? Kick my ass...
Click to expand...
Addressing the question I put in bold, I'd say America is not shaped exclusively by and for white interests. It's a melting pot, and the pot is full of other cultures, and other interests are indeed protected. However, it still leans heavy to the white side of the equation since the pot is and has always been mostly white.
 
joG said:
If you were to look at socioeconomic indicators, you would probably be more interested in the fact that citizens of Vietnamese heritage do better than Whites and that new Black immigrants do better than indigenous persons of African decent.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yea, I've experienced that often in my field, software engineering, where Asians, Indians, Blacks and Hispanics enjoy just as much benefit economically as I do and in many cases more because they're more aware of the benefits available to them than many whites (thus the reason many of them are here)

In some of the academic literature that I've read about this though they speak to this through Intersectionality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

where they attempt to explain the privileges vs lack of privileges due to the intersection of multiple groups that someone can belong. So in my case the black success stories could be explained based on those black folks having intersecting membership in other groups that avail them to a career in Software Engineering. I think introducing Intersectionality though might be indicative of how weak "white privilege" as a hypothesis itself is when subjected to scrutiny like the points you and others have made on these posts.
 
calamity said:
Addressing the question I put in bold, I'd say America is not shaped exclusively by and for white interests. It's a melting pot, and the pot is full of other cultures, and other interests are indeed protected. However, it still leans heavy to the white side of the equation since the pot is and has always been mostly white.
Click to expand...

This is a question that compels me too. The white experience in America is inextricably linked to the black experience, and many other groups in America, Native Americans, Irish, Italian immigrants, Latin Americans etc. Since the US is considered the first of the Great experiments in democracy, freedom and liberty, there's been a continuing reaffirmation of those values whenever they're threatened, starting from the American Revolution, then the Civil War, then Civil rights movement and much of the discussions today. And the reaffirmations have always resulted in a cultural adjustment among the whole nation where a new shared identity necessarily emerges.

White identity as it could be understood through the lens of white privilege has largely been marginalized by that infusion of other culture, experience and ideas. To me one of the most important aspects of our society is the arts and there's no denying that in the arts black culture has played a dominant role. Jazz, Blues, Rap, Reggae, Movies, sports etc.. In this area, African Americans have made so much of a difference as to imply a black privilege in the arts that whites just can't have.

I don't think the rich southern white guy has any skin in that game and that's just as important to our society.
 
Crispy said:
Does white privilege encompass too broad and multi faceted an inquiry that omits more complex societal relationships that could yield more precise results and prescriptions for actions going forward?
Click to expand...

You're overcomplicating it.

White Privilege is the social construct that allows a young white man to walk safely through the streets of any black inner city ghetto at 10 p.m. on a Saturday night.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Why don't you take it to the street level and see how things actually work in the real world.

If you act like a tool in the work place and do the bare minimum to get by, your ass is going to be the first on the chopping block when things get tight. If you want to do the bare minimum in this world and expect others to feel sorry for you when it doesn't go your way, then obviously you were screwed from the beginning. Tackling the issue of this supposed white privilege on theory and statistics alone, will leave you just as ignorant on the issue as when you started. There are millions of different reasons why people do not succeed, and from my experience I can honestly say that 99% of it is from associating with losers and picking up on their hatred & jealousy of anyone who gets ahead.

Why is it that are American Asians doing well, while many blacks and whites just sit around and complain?
Click to expand...

I think what you're saying is completely valid. My reality from my upbringing in NY, through school, and ultimately work and career has informed me to be aware of the exact opposite of what "White Privilege" puts forward. Stated simply, I can't take my whiteness as an advantage. I always have to be vigilant in whatever I do because when i haven't been vigilant, the benefit went to others, and those others often weren't white.

I think there's value in looking at inequality from a social science perspective and from that I'm willing to give it a fair hearing. But, like you're saying the view from Columbia University or Berkeley or any academic circle is far removed from the reality on the street and when that reality is lost i think you're right, it leaves you just as ignorant to the object of the inquiry as when you started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom