[screenager2004]

Okay first of all; I completely agree that in western countries, there is a lot of racism. And although there are exceptions, and anti-white racism can happen, generally speaking non-white people bear the brunt of most of the racism.

I can completely understand what proponents of 'white privilege' are trying to say, and if you're in the majority ethnicity of a country, it's easy to be blind to the extent of racism in the community.

But just the phrase 'white privilege' I find incredibly generalising. It is a blanket term that implies all white people are inherently oblivious to the existence of racism because of their race.

I type this because I came across this image today:


And just was shocked at it. It's not because they are white that they are oblivious to racism, it's because they are in the majority ethnicity, or because of a history of colonialist rule.

By using the phrase 'white privilege' we are assigning a characteristic (neglecting the prevalence of racism) to their innate biology (skin colour). Not their position as majority ethnicity. surely a phrase such as 'majority privilege' or 'colonial privilege' is much more appropriate, as it places the emphasis on the social production of racism.

Currently I live in a country in Asia, around 0.01% of the population is white in my town, generally I see maybe... 2 or 3 people of my skin colour each week (usually they're tourists in the city centre though rather than residents). Of course the majority of people are lovely, but naturally like any ethnic minority, I have experienced plenty of racial discrimination. Yet someone talking about 'white privilege' is completely sidelining my experiences of being an ethnic minority. It totally ignores the politics of ethnicity and minority status in non-white majority countries. In a globalised world, we can't consider the issues of race and racism from an anglo-centric perspective.

Can anyone see where I'm kinda coming from here? I'd call myself strongly anti-racist, but someone tagging a specific ethnicity to the complex social phenomenon of ethnicity representation just seems completely backwards to me.

[Antifazian]

What it really means is that it can be hard to actually fully understand racism when you're white, which I don't think is an unfair statement.

[madders94]

Basically suggesting that all white people are ignorant about racism?

[medbh4805]

It's annoys me because it ignores the fact that white people are not some sort of homogenous entity, and ignores the experience of different white groups who have experienced discrimination and even persecution (Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, white latinos in the US, Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland...). Basically it's just overly simplistic, and, as you say, anglocentric.

[QTpie118]

I think the term does fit its purpose. I do believe that, in general, in our modern day world, white privelege does exist. It is white privelege because white people, in general, do not experienece the same depth of racism as non-white people. The term is used to describe the situation in the predominantly white Western world. Having said that, the type of racial discrmination that white people face is non-white countries is non the same type or to the same extent as non-white people face. White people do not have the same negative connotations associated with their skin colour as a black or an Asian person-which is wrong, yes, but we cannot
deny. I'm sure you know that there are several places where a non-white person wouldn't visit for their safety, but very few places of this kind where this applies to a white person. White-privelege is a general term, but we cannot always include exceptions, because there will always be anomalies that don't fit the pattern, and this term is one that embodies the phenomenon best.

If we talk about racism, then deal with race and use race-related terms.

[screenager2004]

(Original post by Antifazian)
What it really means is that it can be hard to actually fully understand racism when you're white, which I don't think is an unfair statement.

I think it's an incredibly unfair statement.

If you were the only white person living in a town in rural China, for example, you'd probably face some discrimination purely because you look so different to everyone else. Are you suggesting that that white person is incapable of fully understanding racism, just because they're white?

[screenager2004]

(Original post by QTpie118)
I think the term does fit its purpose. I do believe that, in general, in our modern day world, white privelege does exist. It is white privelege because white people, in general, do not experienece the same depth of racism as non-white people. The term is used to describe the situation in the predominantly white Western world. Having said that, the type of racial discrmination that white people face is non-white countries is non the same type or to the same extent as non-white people face. White people do not have the same negative connotations associated with their skin colour as a black or an Asian person-which is wrong, yes, but we cannot
deny. I'm sure you know that there are several places where a non-white person wouldn't visit for their safety, but very few places of this kind where this applies to a white person. White-privelege is a general term, but we cannot always include exceptions, because there will always be anomalies that don't fit the pattern, and this term is one that embodies the phenomenon best.

If we talk about racism, then deal with race and use race-related terms.

I thought the whole point if fair language was that it should accommodate exceptions.

That's the same reason we don't use heteronormative language, because it excludes non-heterosexuals.

We don't use androcentric language, because it excludes women.

Just because the exceptions are a minority doesn't mean it's okay to use blanket language and make generalisations.

[tibbles209]

I imagine this campaign/term was intended to highlight racial ignorance in predominantly white, western countries. Of course it can not apply worldwide, but it seems unlikely that whoever is responsible for it intended for it to be applied to Asia for example.

I understand why this annoys you as it is a generalisation, but I think the overall message is that it can be hard to fully appreciate racism if you are an ethnic majority, and simply for the purposes of this advert they are referring to predominantly white countries.

[screenager2004]

(Original post by tibbles209)
I imagine this campaign/term was intended to highlight racial ignorance in predominantly white, western countries. Of course it can not apply worldwide, but it seems unlikely that whoever is responsible for it intended for it to be applied to Asia for example.

I understand why this annoys you as it is a generalisation, but I think the overall message is that it can be hard to fully appreciate racism if you are an ethnic majority, and simply for the purposes of this advert they are referring to predominantly white countries.

I completely agree with you, for example the image I posted in my OP was originally from a local campaign focused at Twin Ports in Minnesota. However the problem is that it's been pasted on international blogs online, and is being re-appropriated to generalise an entire race. That's why terms such as 'majority privilege' would serve the exact same message, without being racist.

It's slightly worrying when taken out of it's local context and applied as a universal conceptual notion that one race is intrinsically blind by virtue of their race. or that one race is universally and globally privileged on a basis of their biology - not the context they are situated in. They've crossed the line.

[PhysicsGirl]

(Original post by screenager2004)
I thought the whole point if fair language was that it should accommodate exceptions.

That's the same reason we don't use heteronormative language, because it excludes non-heterosexuals.

We don't use androcentric language, because it excludes women.

Just because the exceptions are a minority doesn't mean it's okay to use blanket language and make generalisations.

Agree completely.

[blu tack]

All white people in white majority countries benefit from white privilege, and this often means they cannot fully understand racism- that's a fact. The phrase doesn't suggest that it's impossible for white people to see racism, and neither does the slogan you posted above. It just means it's harder, which I think is very true.

Fairly obviously, this campaign does not apply to non white majority countries, though even in some of these countries white people are venerated so people can get white privilege there too.

[willbee]

I think it's akin to saying "You could be in a situation where something racist took place and you wouldn't even notice because you're white", which is also akin to essentially saying "You're stupid and ignorant because you're white."

I think white people can experience discrimination and even if racial discrimination is more uncommon, there is still plenty of types of discrimination that white people endure, e.g prejudices against gingers, jews, catholics, disability, class, etc.

"White privilege" is racism in itself.

[Heavenly_Blues]

I find it quite silly, really, and I'm not likely to take someone seriously if they use it.

[ohirome]

I generally do agree, however I do find that a large percentage of people are completely and happily unaware of their privilege in society even beyond their race.

[TheSownRose]

I used to live in central east London - I know white racism. Whilst I can appreciate that this campaign was obviously not intended for non-white countries and more generally means it's difficult for the ethnic majority to understand racism, the fact that it is online makes it global and generalises all white people.

I find it incredibly offensive that people think I don't understand racism because I'm white, when I can remember my white friend being driven out of her all-girls school (Muslims liked to send their daughters there), and the white kid a couple of streets away who got his head kicked in, and my family leaving their home of twenty years because they didn't think it was safe to carry on living there.

[Nightstar-27]

(Original post by blu tack)
All white people in white majority countries benefit from white privilege, and this often means they cannot fully understand racism- that's a fact. The phrase doesn't suggest that it's impossible for white people to see racism, and neither does the slogan you posted above. It just means it's harder, which I think is very true.

Fairly obviously, this campaign does not apply to non white majority countries, though even in some of these countries white people are venerated so people can get white privilege there too.

I live in the UK. I am white. I have experienced racism towards me for being white (on several occasions) . I have seen (and stood up for) people of other races experiencing racism. So what part of racism don't I understand? How it feels? Well I have felt it, I have had people shout abuse at me down streets, had people throw eggs and glass at me for being white, I have had people tell me that every single member of a race should be killed off, I have been told I wasn't allowed to work in certain places because I was white and I have been told I was not allowed to go to certain events or trips because they were for 'blacks' or 'Asians' only. Half of my current family are not white (mother remarried) and I have seen them go through problems due to racism, some of the time I have even suffered myself because of racism directed at them. So what part can I not understand? This is not an attack by the way but a general question.

[ScheduleII]

inb4 "whites are the majority/ oppressor/ privileged group, racism cannot be against that, so what happened to nightstar is racial discrimination but not racism."

Anyone can suffer from racial hatred or prejudice, the phrase "WHITE privilege" is yet another piece of ammo for the people who claim that "anti-racist is just code for anti-white" and that usually leads to more intolerance on both sides, as such being counterproductive if it is used by people trying to expose and stamp out racism.

On "fair language" screenager, what do you mean? Plenty of people still use "heteronormative" language as heterosexuality is indeed the norm (different to homophobic language; I wouldn't call someone a "batty boy" or "fag" but equally wouldn't really care if someone complained at me using "husband and wife" for being non-inclusive to gay couples.)
Do you believe that husband, wife, male, female, he, she etc. all have to go and be replaced by fully neutral terms or we are being "unfair" on people?

[blu tack]

(Original post by Nightstar-27)
I live in the UK. I am white. I have experienced racism towards me for being white (on several occasions) . I have seen (and stood up for) people of other races experiencing racism. So what part of racism don't I understand? How it feels? Well I have felt it, I have had people shout abuse at me down streets, had people throw eggs and glass at me for being white, I have had people tell me that every single member of a race should be killed off, I have been told I wasn't allowed to work in certain places because I was white and I have been told I was not allowed to go to certain events or trips because they were for 'blacks' or 'Asians' only. Half of my current family are not white (mother remarried) and I have seen them go through problems due to racism, some of the time I have even suffered myself because of racism directed at them. So what part can I not understand? This is not an attack by the way but a general question.

You don't understand institutional racism, to have the system weighted against you. One off instances are very bad and everything but in the UK white people are primed to succeed, and people of colour to fail because the state and the system is still biased towards white people.

[SquaredCircle]

(Original post by screenager2004)
I think it's an incredibly unfair statement.

If you were the only white person living in a town in rural China, for example, you'd probably face some discrimination purely because you look so different to everyone else. Are you suggesting that that white person is incapable of fully understanding racism, just because they're white?

Not understanding racism. Just incapable of knowing the (emotional) effects of institutional and socially enforced racism.

And the term is taken in context of western society.

[SquaredCircle]

(Original post by madders94)
Basically suggesting that all white people are ignorant about racism?

It doesn't at all imply that all white people are ignorant to racism.