3 ms·

I always hear this, but I'm never sure what the solution should look like. I mean this completely seriously: what is the expected stance to take? I'm white, mid

I always hear this, but I'm never sure what the solution should look like. I mean this completely seriously: what is the expected stance to take? I'm white, middle class, lived a life without serious struggles, college degree, living alone, big screen TV, new car, great neighborhood etc. So clearly, I'm one of the beneficiaries, and I mean that too, completely, seriously. Please don't take this as sarcasm; I'm merely trying to make sure we're on the same page about how many benefits I enjoy. That having been said ... What is expected of me? How should I act? How should I feel? When people get angry about this subject, I understand their feelings and I don't think for a minute that everyone was born with equal opportunity -- but, should I be throwing money at people? Should I give up my life dreams to go even the odds? I'm not sure what the expected response is? Is it enough if I hang my head at my ancestors, pay my taxes, and do my best to not sound entitled? I'm quite serious, because for all of the complaining about how good people like me have it, I never hear a series of actions that makes my life "acceptable" instead of "something that just causes seething rage in people when they think about it." EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, I don't understand what the appropriate response is when someone says, "You don't own slaves but that doesn't mean you didn't get the benefits from it!". Is the answer "yes", "no", "I see", "I'm sorry"?

kefka 13y ago
I see distinct parallels with your comments of "What can I really do in this situation?" as I do with people espousing "Rape culture". Someone says stupid at X convention, and they are 'MALE opperssers!' We all seem to be colored with this brush, simply because we are male. What can I do about men whom say rude things? Honestly, I think the answer is similar to your response... "I'm sorry?"
parasubvert 13y ago
Generally those who look to apologize for their white/male privilege say "I'm sorry" through support for a Rawlsian redistribution system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness:_A_Restatement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness:_A_Restate... Libertarians rightly believe this is incompatible with liberty, and thus reject this view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia On the whole, I love Nozick's argument but think ultimately anarchy is a utopian (unrealistic) end that ignores history and presupposes too much. Thus I lean Rawls.
- figglesonrails 13y ago
  Hmm, I've never heard of John Rawls (but I'm not too keen on political theory, either). Thanks, this the first time anyone has ever answered my query in a helpful way. I guess I'll have to see he has to say on the matter.
  - parasubvert 13y ago
    I took some political science and philosophy courses in college which exposed me to him. Among philosophers, his 1970's Theory of Justice is considered the greatest work of political philosophy and ethics of the 20th century, and the first real attempt at a foundational political ethics system since the 19th century with utilitarianism and Marxism. I linked to the shorter, updated book intended for a mainstream audience, as the original is a bit heavy going. Nozick's book can be said to be the definitive rejoinder to Rawls, and the ethical foundation of much of American libertarianism today. Most US political ethics debates still to this day boil down to Rawls vs. Nozick in my view, though many still harken back to 19th century ideas of utilitarianism and liberty as they go more "extreme" (eg. hard Marxists, or hard anarcho-capitalists). Rawls and Nozick at least attempt to deal with history and disadvantaged peoples. As usual, its hard to separate politics, justice, and economics, though we often try: the end result is intertwingled.
scarmig 13y ago
Self-flagellation is certainly not the answer. But when talking about issues like white privilege, it's important to realize that centuries of discrimination and mass theft have a lasting effect, and you can't simply say "well the offending laws themselves are gone, now it's all a clean slate!"
- figglesonrails 13y ago
  I'm not suggesting self-flagellation and I'm not suggesting everything is "all better now". I'm aware that there is a great disparity. Like I mentioned before, all of my questions were completely serious and not meant to demonstrate a point -- I really want to know what the answer(s) are / could be. In short, I'm saying "Help me understand what the right thing to do now. I can't undo history." I hear far too much debate about guilt assignment and not enough about practical advise.

kefka 13y ago

I see distinct parallels with your comments of "What can I really do in this situation?" as I do with people espousing "Rape culture". Someone says stupid at X convention, and they are 'MALE opperssers!' We all seem to be colored with this brush, simply because we are male. What can I do about men whom say rude things? Honestly, I think the answer is similar to your response... "I'm sorry?"

parasubvert 13y ago

Generally those who look to apologize for their white/male privilege say "I'm sorry" through support for a Rawlsian redistribution system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness:_A_Restatement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness:_A_Restate... Libertarians rightly believe this is incompatible with liberty, and thus reject this view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia On the whole, I love Nozick's argument but think ultimately anarchy is a utopian (unrealistic) end that ignores history and presupposes too much. Thus I lean Rawls.

figglesonrails 13y ago
Hmm, I've never heard of John Rawls (but I'm not too keen on political theory, either). Thanks, this the first time anyone has ever answered my query in a helpful way. I guess I'll have to see he has to say on the matter.
- parasubvert 13y ago
  I took some political science and philosophy courses in college which exposed me to him. Among philosophers, his 1970's Theory of Justice is considered the greatest work of political philosophy and ethics of the 20th century, and the first real attempt at a foundational political ethics system since the 19th century with utilitarianism and Marxism. I linked to the shorter, updated book intended for a mainstream audience, as the original is a bit heavy going. Nozick's book can be said to be the definitive rejoinder to Rawls, and the ethical foundation of much of American libertarianism today. Most US political ethics debates still to this day boil down to Rawls vs. Nozick in my view, though many still harken back to 19th century ideas of utilitarianism and liberty as they go more "extreme" (eg. hard Marxists, or hard anarcho-capitalists). Rawls and Nozick at least attempt to deal with history and disadvantaged peoples. As usual, its hard to separate politics, justice, and economics, though we often try: the end result is intertwingled.

scarmig 13y ago

Self-flagellation is certainly not the answer. But when talking about issues like white privilege, it's important to realize that centuries of discrimination and mass theft have a lasting effect, and you can't simply say "well the offending laws themselves are gone, now it's all a clean slate!"

figglesonrails 13y ago
I'm not suggesting self-flagellation and I'm not suggesting everything is "all better now". I'm aware that there is a great disparity. Like I mentioned before, all of my questions were completely serious and not meant to demonstrate a point -- I really want to know what the answer(s) are / could be. In short, I'm saying "Help me understand what the right thing to do now. I can't undo history." I hear far too much debate about guilt assignment and not enough about practical advise.