10 ms·

I'm from an Eastern Europe and my family never was rich, I had to put in a tremendous effort to even get into the industry. Assuming I got an easy ride

• obstacle1 11y ago
  >We need better language. No, 'we' don't need that. You want better language so that you can better advocate for your pet cause. There is a big difference between need and want, and also between "everyone" and "this interest group that I identify with".
  • skrebbel 11y ago
    By "we" he meant "this interest group that I identify with", and you know it. No need to heat up the fire under a topic that's already so prone to flamewars.
    • obstacle1 11y ago
      He was responding to someone who was offering a disagreeing POV, on a public web forum that anyone can read or participate in. In that context, typing "we need better language" implies identification with the whole audience, i.e. all readers. 'We' does not mean 'my group of political activists' when used in that way. Hence why the correction is important. Especially given that he was advocating for the redefinition of language in service of a political ideology. If you are going to suggest that 'we need' to clarify and standardize the words we use to refer to things, then you should probably be extremely precise with your own language, no? Otherwise you are just being a patronizing e-tyrant.
      • JohnBooty 11y ago
        What a strange stance to take. "I don't agree with this concept, so I want it to have an ineffective or misleading name!" If icepick lobotomies were called "happy sunshine treatments," or if breaking into peoples' homes and killing their pets was called "saying hello to your neighbors" I'm sure we could agree that those are wildly misleading terms and that we should find more accurate ones, even if we didn't agree with those practices.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• mhurron 11y ago
  > basic rights we take for granted (for example, walking into a store and not being treated as a potential thief, or having prospective interviewers assume we're professional/literate/presentable) are actually privileges that many people or color don't have. You are aware that Irish and Eastern Europeans, and on and off through history Greek and Italian, have had all those same problems right? You know that 'White Privilege' you talk about is really just for those of Germanic origin, right? Because I'd hate for you to look like an idiot telling someone who could have faced all those issues when they moved to Western Europe, the US or Canada that it's all wine and roses for them. White Privilege should just be called White Devil. It jsut paints such a simplistic view of the world, not a real one, but one that is useful for rhetoric.
  • lbebber 11y ago
    Indeed, various groups of white people have suffered varying levels of prejudice, but 1- it doesn't compare to what, for example, black or chinese people or native americans suffered historically and 2- most of the prejudice against these groups has been forgotten, whereas prejudice against "people of color" is still very much alive.
    • maratd 11y ago
      > but 1- it doesn't compare to what, for example, black or chinese people or native americans suffered historically And that doesn't compare to what Jews went through 50 years ago. What's your point? There's always a bigger sob story around the corner. You deal with it and move on. The moving on part is important. > whereas prejudice against "people of color" is still very much alive. And that prejudice will amplify if you continue treating people of color differently. By providing special privileges to make up for the sins of the past, you are fomenting racism today. Every white guy who didn't get a job because of the color of his skin is now a newly minted racist. And while he really should direct his ire toward misguided leftists, in the end, he'll blame the person of color instead ... which is sad.
      • lbebber 11y ago
• alexc05 11y ago
  Sorry, but try being Romani (colloquially: gypsy) anywhere in the UK and tell me it is "white" that makes the difference.
  • ant6n 11y ago
    The idea of white privilege doesn't mean there can't be groups that are white who are discriminated against. Gender discrimination is another possible dimension of discrimination. Talking about the notion of white privilege doesn't implicitly dismiss their plights.
  • Chris2048 11y ago
    That's a totally different issue. Gypsies lead totally different lifestyles that rub people the wrong way, and I'd be careful to dismiss their negative perception by the rest of the UK population as "racism". Most people couldn't care less what their race is, but it sure is an easy card to play.
  • kaitai 11y ago
    Lots of people don't really think the Romani are white, frankly. But as generations of "white" Americans have learned, if you dress from the JC Penney or Sears catalogue, forbid your children from learning their ancestral language, and forget your cultural traditions, you can be white too! It works!
    • mortenjorck 11y ago
      I was astonished when I first learned that in the United States, it wasn't until partway through the 20th Century that people of Italian or Jewish ancestry were considered "white."
      • htns 11y ago
        Isn't that a myth? Like pink and blue supposedly previously having been associated with the reverse genders.
• kelukelugames 11y ago
  I don't like the term privilege either. Switching to a more digestible word will help. For example, corporations now refer to sensitivity training as unconscious bias training. On the other hand, some people will be offended no matter what we call it.
• JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Agreed. The term is just too loaded, designed to irritate. For instance the 'privilege' part. A word loaded to mean 'undeserved advantage'. The advantages are supposed to accrue to everyone; being white means being a whole person. Being black means having less than that. But the differences aren't undeserved; they are owed to everybody. So the term seems to call out white people for stealing stuff they aren't entitled to. Instead of just having what everybody should have. I detest the term; I bridle every time I hear it. And annoying the hell out of the people apparently in power, people able to do something about the problem, is a very crappy start to a conversation about race.
  • naasking 11y ago
    > A word loaded to mean 'undeserved advantage'. "Undeserving" is not part of any definition of privilege I've ever seen, not even the dictionary definition. I think that's just your personal bias against a meaning that isn't the same that others are intending.
    • JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      n. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right. n. Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others
      • naasking 11y ago
        Like I said, whether they were deserving of those benefits does not feature in any of of those definitions.
  • MisterBastahrd 11y ago
    Designed to irritate? Good. Maybe it's a start of a conversation. What white people have SHOULD not be an undeserved advantage, but that's not the reality we live in. Imagine being black with a black sounding name, or latino with a latino sounding name, and having to deal with people making fun of the name you didn't choose while growing up, and then having to deal with the consequences of discrimination when it comes to just getting your foot in the door. You only have to deal with the annoyance when you hear the term. Other races and ethnicities don't get that luxury. Seems to me that the term is perfectly, and ironically, apt.
• gedy 11y ago
  > you know what? We're doing it wrong. How about you just call it "privilege" and leave it at that? This skin color labelling is pointless in the context of real privilege. A "woman of color" who grew up with servants in her birth country, went to private schools, top colleges, etc has a better chance at the C-suite than a Eastern European "white guy" who grew up poor and went to state schools etc.
  • kaitai 11y ago
    But the discussion is trying to be about a different topic, which is why the earlier poster is asking for different language. It's not about having any privileges in terms of money or education, at all. It's about what people say about generic people who look like you when money and education are taken out of the picture -- when actual privileges are subtracted.
  • kelukelugames 11y ago
    Just like a white man can suffer from socio-economic disadvantages, a woman of color can benefit from class privilege. Who do you think it's going to have an easier life? Obama's daughters or some boys from the Appalachia region? It's unfair to discuss gender and race without considering class. It is also unfair to claim disadvantage in one without acknowledging benefits from the other two. This is also the biggest criticism against mainstream feminism. It doesn't address class issues as most of the popular causes are upper-middle class issues.
    • jazzyk 11y ago
      Agree on the class aspect, but it is a bit more nuanced: It really is a question of your family's values, not finances. I know a few affluent families who don't really value education, and there is enough money for the kids to live off of the family fortune (aka "trust fund kids"). Kids born into white trash families and black-ghetto families are equally fucked, not because they are poor (though it does not help), but because they don't have the values and successful role models to follow/ motivate them. It is not an easy problem to solve - but that's a whole other discussion.
    • 11y ago
• AudaIbuTayi 11y ago
  > misunderstand the term in such spectacular ways Who could have guessed that identifying and singling out a particular race for correction and self-abasement would entail some push-back? [1] > This just isn't working. Actually, I think it is working as intended. A thriving industry has arisen around the elimination of "white privilege". The term has served that industry well as marketing. > I'm a firm believer in the existence of this thing we currently call "white privilege." Are you a firm believer of "Han privilege" in China? Are you a firm believer of "Japanese privilege" in Japan? Are you a firm believer in "Jewish privilege" in Israel? If so, that might assist you in your search for better language. > basic rights we take for granted We have hundreds of years of high-quality race-neutral rights language to pick from. Why was that language eschewed? [1] I'm trying to cut down on snark in my diet but failed. Mea culpa.
  • JohnBooty 11y ago
    We have hundreds of years of high-quality race-neutral rights language to pick from. Why was that language eschewed? Do we have equality today in America? The answer to that might assist you in your search for understanding. Who could have guessed that identifying and singling out a particular race for correction and self-abasement would entail some push-back? As a white male in America, I just don't feel that recognizing my privileges makes me feel abased or persecuted or anything like that. I don't feel the need to push back. Why does it make you feel that way? Are you a firm believer of "Han privilege" in China? Are you a firm believer of "Japanese privilege" in Japan? Are you a firm believer in "Jewish privilege" in Israel? Yeah absolutely! There are privileged groups everywhere. It's not always white people. If your understanding of "white privilege" is that it's a belief that white people magically have it easy all of the time, everywhere on planet Earth, I'm happy to let you know that literally nobody is saying that. If your point is that we should be simply talking about "privilege" and not "white privilege" or other privilege, I understand the sentiment. I think that would be a naive and ineffective approach because on any practical level we can't discuss privilege without also discussing the source of that privilege.
    • AudaIbuTayi 11y ago
      > Do we have equality today in America? You're being parochial. This is an international forum. Do "we" have equality in Israel? In China? In Saudi Arabia? > I don't feel the need to push back. You've stated that the phrase "white privilege" is resulting in "spectacular" misunderstanding. I'm agreeing that it is a fatally fraught phrase. I wish you luck in replacing it (if that's what you meant by "we need better language"). > Why does it make you feel that way? Signaling that _you_ are thinking while _they_ are emoting is a bad-faith tell. > I think that would be a naive and ineffective approach [simply talking about "privilege" and not "white privilege" or other privilege] So where does that leave your search for better language?
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• james1071 11y ago
  Was he privileged when he was in Eastern Europe or only when he arrived in the US?
• NiftyFifty 11y ago
  "white privilege" is just a term to coup out of the economic slavery that liberals/progressives in power put upon their constituencies. Call it what it is. The democratic party needs to enable minorities in particular by creating middle class opportunity through deep education entrenchments in lower income enclaves - aka. inner cities. This isn't 1963 anymore. We are WELL past that, so if someone uses this term one more time ... you are just validating that you fail to motivate yourself around your situation. We all deal with them, so be of the belief you go around them, not over. To me ... Democrats to not serve me ... let alone their own base.
• logfromblammo 11y ago
  Just call it "tribal privilege". That pretty much covers all the "soft" prejudicial discrimination that happens everywhere around the world. If the tribe currently in power in your locale believes you are a member, your life is easier than it otherwise would be. If it believes you are a xeno, or even an enemy of the tribe, then it will be more difficult, whether it is by intentional impediment or by withholding assistance. This is why Jews are privileged in modern Israel, but unprivileged in Tsarist Russia. It is why Mexico had a disgustingly detailed race hierarchy imposed by Spain. It is why Rwandans massacred each other after Germany and Belgium explicitly favored one subtribe over another. It is why Shi'ite Muslims find it easier to live in Iran than in Saudi Arabia. It is why Chicago city government is corrupt to the core. Skin color is not the only possible tribal indicator. I would guess that the ruling tribe in the U.S. has not imputed membership to strangers based on their skin color for a long, long time--at least since Irish, Italians, Greeks, Iberians, Ashkenazi Jews, and Eastern Europeans were not considered members. Non-whites may see it as "white privilege", but that is only because the tribe in power is so incredibly bigoted that they have multiple, ranked categories of xeno, such that if you were on fire, they would have to ask you what you looked like before ignition in order to decide whether they would spit on you, piss on you, or just let you burn. I recall entering a Walgreens in New Orleans. As I watched, someone walked in with a backpack, indiscriminately shoveled several items from a shelf into it, and walked right back out. I glanced to the checkout, where an employee who had also seen the same thing shrugged at me. Tribal privilege. The clerk chose to favor the people of her city/neighborhood over her corporate employer. And you know what? Neither Walgreens nor the NOPD are in my tribe, either, so I shrugged right back. I wouldn't exactly let that guy into my house, but I'm not about to flip him to the cops over one measly bag of deodorant sticks, either. I am too well aware of how certain cities treat their poor people to wish one of them into a jail cell.
• mc32 11y ago
  It's not working because this phenomenon is not the privilege of a race of people. Go to China and you will find a "privileged class" (urbanites), go to Nigeria and you will find privileged people, Go to Japan and you will find privileged people (those lucky enough to go to the right universities) same with France and go to India and you find "privileged" people. So the problem people have is that it's framed as a "white disease" when most countries which have economies which cause a "sorting out" i.e. Not everyone is in the same subsistence mode, have this phenomenon, but it's used as a tool in an attempt to bring other people up by making other people feel (in this case whites) as if they are uniquely and artificially in a position where they are automatically parasitic. Basically it treats success as a zero-sum issue. It pits one class against another and both can feel aggrieved. Which probably is not the best way to engage people and get them onboard with ideas.
  • JohnBooty 11y ago
    Yeah, absolutely. Being white is not an advantage everywhere. There are some places where beig white is a distinct disadvantage. Like the examples you named. Or, try being a European male in ISIS-controlled territory! That'll get you killed pretty quick, right? No "white privilege" there. In Sunni-dominated regions, in fact, Sunni privilege is a thing. I mean, obviously, right? Sunnis in those regions have a lot of rights that Shia, Jews, Christians, and atheists don't. So the good news for you here is that the concept of "white privilege" does not involve the notion that white people have magical force fields that render them immune to problems everywhere in the world. In places like America where whites control nearly all of the wealth as well as the political establishment? For places like this, yeah, it's probably worth taking a look at things and asking ourselves if white people literally controlling almost everything in America might have some effect on equality in America.
    • mc32 11y ago
      Right but you're skirting right by. The thing is it is a pretty common phenomenon. It's something that isn't intrinsic to white people or any single class of people. It happens to be that in the US whites on average can experience advantage. But if the US had a different history and were colonized by other people there would be other people experiencing this "privilege". I mean, we don't go around calling the issue Sunny privilege to describe it, or urban Han privilege, Sciences-po privilege, yet it is the same phenomenon. Look at it this way, how would people X feel if we called crime instead of crime "people X" behavior as if only that group engaged in crime? And go around saying, well, true many peoples engage in crime but we wanted to highlight that people X engage in lots of crime too so that the people will be conscious of it and then kerb crime.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• alistproducer2 11y ago
  I agree. I support most, if not all, the racial justice initiatives of the last 10 years, but the left is in need of better intellectuals and leaders. The language and tenor of much of the discussion is unhelpful in gaining supporters. I rant all the time that it's really a shame that BLM never seems to protest or take issue with police shooting of non-black folks. If the goal was to win, and not just to make a point, we should come up with better language and strategy.
• ManlyBread 11y ago
  >We need better language. No, you need better arguments, you can start with the ones where there's no assumption that racism towards certain groups is okay.