This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Black privilege
Scroll to see replies
Unless you're talking about Liberia (and even there it's more "Americo-Liberian privilege" than "black privilege") or maybe Zimbabwe, then no, it's a silly idea.
Original post by Durhamgirl96
What? Are you out of your mind?
Denying that white people can be on the receiving end of racism literally proves it exists. All races and colours can be subject to racism, it's like you're implying that white people have to just take abuse because they're not a minority.
Denying that white people can be on the receiving end of racism literally proves it exists. All races and colours can be subject to racism, it's like you're implying that white people have to just take abuse because they're not a minority.
That's exactly what I'm saying, idk why people are so surprised. This has literally been the way for years, racism is about discrimination based on the belief that your race is superior to another race. White people do that because we are the superior race (status, not quality) that's why we have privilege. It has always been this way hence the black lives matter movement, white people don't have to take abuse, it just wouldn't be labelled as racism. Following?
Original post by BigYoSpeck
Why unnecessarily complicate language and communication like that? There is already a word that covers it, and the word is racism. Racism is a universal prejudice that all races are capable of exhibiting towards all other races.
I'm not complicating it, it's true
The only privilege that exists is rich privilege.
Original post by matwillis
If Black privilige doesn't exist then how does white privilige exist? The same things occur only in different settings with the roles reversed. In our society whites dominate and so there is an assumed bias towards whites, in another society blacks dominate and so there is an assumed bias towards whites. This can be shown through the judicial system or whether certain groups are discriminated against. I give you again Zimbabwe and the seizure of farmland. Is that not an example of black privilige.
Such a society could certainly theoretically exist, but there aren't really any examples of it at present. As far as I'm aware, there are no societies where a black population is clearly (and disproportionately) dominant over a marginalised significant non-black population.
Zimbabwe's a questionable case, though not because of the land seizures. The land seizures were the follow-up to the earlier land redistribution efforts that everyone had agreed needed to take place. Initially, this took place on a "willing seller" basis - while it was official policy for the government to buy up and redistribute the land of wealthy white farmers, they could only do so if the farmers were willing to sell. The vast majority of white Zimbabweans actually left during this period - when the economy was actually doing quite well, and land was only being voluntarily sold, not seized. The British government had also agreed in the 1979 peace agreement to provide half the funds for the land purchases.
This changed in the 1990s, partly because the economy went downhill and Mugabe wanted to turn the anger away from him towards someone else, but also because when Blair came in in 1997, he immediately ended the British funding of the land purchases, which gave Mugabe the opportunity to say "OK, Britain reneged on the deal, so deal's off, land transfer is compulsory now." Still, by definition this could only happen because White Zimbabweans were richer, and even through most of that Zimbabwean whites still punched above their weight in terms of representation in things like politics, economics and sports (and still do to an extent). We're only really now approaching the point where the small number of whites aren't significantly better off than Zimbabweans in general.
Other than that, outside South Africa and Namibia white communities in Africa typically make up very small proportions of the population, often have a high proportion of expats who keep to themselves rather than those who genuinely regard the country they live in as their homeland and participate in its society, and are typically noticeably wealthier than their non-white countrymen.
If white privilige exists then logic suggest black privilige must exist somewhere else.
Why?
I agree that it means black privilege could exist, and we can imagine a hypothetical society where it would, but I don't see how you conclude that it must exist somewhere in the here and now simply because white privilege does.
Original post by Profesh
Sure it does: unlimited discretionary use of the n-word. Although, granted, that's really more of a consolation-prize.
Lol the unlimited use of the n word isn't a privilege in the slightest. If that's all that can be named, then we have a problem here ahah lol
Original post by Boredom101
Lol the unlimited use of the n word isn't a privilege in the slightest. If that's all that can be named, then we have a problem here ahah lol
I couldn't believe what BS I read. Which is why I didn't even reply to him.
Original post by loveleest
I couldn't believe what BS I read. Which is why I didn't even reply to him.
Loool PRSOM😂
What about the added marks that black people get in America for applying to Universities, or the diversity quotas that some businesses have
racism is racism regardless of which race is saying it Black, white, Asian, Hispanic it doesnt matter if you are judging or treating a person a particular way based on the colour of their skin or their country of origion rather than them as an individaul human being then you are regardless of your own ethnicity partaking in racist activity.
Also and this is just my opinion I do think that in particular very specicfic situations Black people can be given precedent over those of white people as has been seen in a couple of affirmative action cases in which university places have been awarded to memebers of minority groups based purely on the fact that they are in a minority group most famously in the case of Grutter vs Bollinger.
Also and this is just my opinion I do think that in particular very specicfic situations Black people can be given precedent over those of white people as has been seen in a couple of affirmative action cases in which university places have been awarded to memebers of minority groups based purely on the fact that they are in a minority group most famously in the case of Grutter vs Bollinger.
Original post by loveleest
I couldn't believe what BS I read. Which is why I didn't even reply to him.
Commiserations on your levity bypass.
Original post by anarchism101
Such a society could certainly theoretically exist, but there aren't really any examples of it at present. As far as I'm aware, there are no societies where a black population is clearly (and disproportionately) dominant over a marginalised significant non-black population.
Zimbabwe's a questionable case, though not because of the land seizures. The land seizures were the follow-up to the earlier land redistribution efforts that everyone had agreed needed to take place. Initially, this took place on a "willing seller" basis - while it was official policy for the government to buy up and redistribute the land of wealthy white farmers, they could only do so if the farmers were willing to sell. The vast majority of white Zimbabweans actually left during this period - when the economy was actually doing quite well, and land was only being voluntarily sold, not seized. The British government had also agreed in the 1979 peace agreement to provide half the funds for the land purchases.
This changed in the 1990s, partly because the economy went downhill and Mugabe wanted to turn the anger away from him towards someone else, but also because when Blair came in in 1997, he immediately ended the British funding of the land purchases, which gave Mugabe the opportunity to say "OK, Britain reneged on the deal, so deal's off, land transfer is compulsory now." Still, by definition this could only happen because White Zimbabweans were richer, and even through most of that Zimbabwean whites still punched above their weight in terms of representation in things like politics, economics and sports (and still do to an extent). We're only really now approaching the point where the small number of whites aren't significantly better off than Zimbabweans in general.
Other than that, outside South Africa and Namibia white communities in Africa typically make up very small proportions of the population, often have a high proportion of expats who keep to themselves rather than those who genuinely regard the country they live in as their homeland and participate in its society, and are typically noticeably wealthier than their non-white countrymen.
Why?
I agree that it means black privilege could exist, and we can imagine a hypothetical society where it would, but I don't see how you conclude that it must exist somewhere in the here and now simply because white privilege does.
Zimbabwe's a questionable case, though not because of the land seizures. The land seizures were the follow-up to the earlier land redistribution efforts that everyone had agreed needed to take place. Initially, this took place on a "willing seller" basis - while it was official policy for the government to buy up and redistribute the land of wealthy white farmers, they could only do so if the farmers were willing to sell. The vast majority of white Zimbabweans actually left during this period - when the economy was actually doing quite well, and land was only being voluntarily sold, not seized. The British government had also agreed in the 1979 peace agreement to provide half the funds for the land purchases.
This changed in the 1990s, partly because the economy went downhill and Mugabe wanted to turn the anger away from him towards someone else, but also because when Blair came in in 1997, he immediately ended the British funding of the land purchases, which gave Mugabe the opportunity to say "OK, Britain reneged on the deal, so deal's off, land transfer is compulsory now." Still, by definition this could only happen because White Zimbabweans were richer, and even through most of that Zimbabwean whites still punched above their weight in terms of representation in things like politics, economics and sports (and still do to an extent). We're only really now approaching the point where the small number of whites aren't significantly better off than Zimbabweans in general.
Other than that, outside South Africa and Namibia white communities in Africa typically make up very small proportions of the population, often have a high proportion of expats who keep to themselves rather than those who genuinely regard the country they live in as their homeland and participate in its society, and are typically noticeably wealthier than their non-white countrymen.
Why?
I agree that it means black privilege could exist, and we can imagine a hypothetical society where it would, but I don't see how you conclude that it must exist somewhere in the here and now simply because white privilege does.
Zimbabwe is a country in which their black population is dominant over the white minority. They are most certainly a marginalised community with many having to become expats out of fear from the criminal justice system against them. The whole theory of white privilige is that white people have advantages that non-whites do not experiance such as not having to fear the police from being searched. That is the opposite in Zimbabwe.
In recent years there has been a surge in violence against the dwindling white community and particularly against white farmers. On 18 September 2010 droves of white people were chased away from participating in the constitutional outreach programme in Harare at the weekend, in which violence and confusion marred the process with similar incidents occurring in Graniteside. In Mount Pleasant, white families were subjected to a torrent of abuse by suspected Zanu PF supporters who later drove them away shouting racial slurs. There have also been many illegal seizures of farm land owned by white farmers by the government and government supporters, this has nothing to do with Britain like you say but solely the fact that the black dominated state and government are using institutional powers to take away legally owned land otherwise known as theft . By March 2000, little land had been redistributed as per the land reform laws that began in 1979, when the Lancaster House Agreement between Britain and Zimbabwe pledged to begin a fairer distribution of land between the white minority, who governed Zimbabwe from 1890 to 1979, and the black population.
However at this stage, land acquisition could only occur on a voluntary basis. Little land had been redistributed and frustrated groups of government supporters began seizing white-owned farms, that sounds like a persecuted marginalised community to me. Most of the seizures have taken place in Nyamandhalovu and Inyati. After the beating to death of a prominent farmer in September 2011, the head of the Commercial Farmers' Union decried the attack saying its white members continue to be targeted by violence without protection from the government whose protection can be considered a privilige for black farmers. Genocide Watch has declared the violence against whites in Zimbabwe a stage 5 case. In September 2014 Mugabe publicly declared that all white Zimbabweans should "go back to England" and called for black Zimbabweans not to lease agricultural land to white farmers.
Zimbabwe is NOT a questionable case and it's ignorant to suggest it isn't. As mentioned by previous people just because black people dominate the NFL and there are plenty of wealthy black people that does not mean they do not suffer from white privilige so you mentioning about white people in these countries usually being wealthy means nothing because there is still a form of institutionalised power against them despite their representation in sport. Also of course they are a small community, the black population in the western world are also small and that is another factor as to why they suffer supposed abuse so again that supports my argument not yours.
I concluded that because white privilige exists so must black privilige because of human nature. It is NOT a phenomenon only attributed to whites, it is a part of the human condition and if you can see that a minority population on the whole gets treated any differenty to the dominant people in any way then it can be called a prvilige because there will always be some way in which the populations differ because we are not the same. And as long as there is 1 perceived privilige belonging to 1 race then it does exist so i think it is niave to believe that it must not when it must so exist.
White people don't really have privilege in general. What privilege does an average person on a council estate have?
I'm a white person who grow up and still live on rough council estate I don't feel underprivileged. I never wanted for anything growing up my father was an engineer and my mother work part time for the NHS. I worked full time since the age to sixteen I've never be arrested and went part time to university went I was 23 after taking an access course.
Please tell me why my life is so bad I got food to eat a roof over my head a full time job and friends and family. What else do I need?
I'm a white person who grow up and still live on rough council estate I don't feel underprivileged. I never wanted for anything growing up my father was an engineer and my mother work part time for the NHS. I worked full time since the age to sixteen I've never be arrested and went part time to university went I was 23 after taking an access course.
Please tell me why my life is so bad I got food to eat a roof over my head a full time job and friends and family. What else do I need?
Original post by Anonymous
Err mate, racism is the systematic oppression of people based on race and/or ethnicity. The system is made by and in favour of white people, so how is reverse racism a thing?? That being said white people can face prejudice but I wouldn't go as far as calling it racism.
Nonsense. Racism, as the word suggests, is simply discrimination and/or abuse based on race. Systematic oppression is not a requirement of racism, so yes, white people can and do suffer racism.
Original post by Anonymous
Err mate, racism is the systematic oppression of people based on race and/or ethnicity. The system is made by and in favour of white people, so how is reverse racism a thing?? That being said white people can face prejudice but I wouldn't go as far as calling it racism.
What is "the system"? Racial prejudice is the definition of racism. If you choose to adopt an arbitrary definition, feel free to do so, but you will likely sound ridiculous. In the end, you're not talking about the same "concept".
(edited 6 years ago)
Reverse racism is not a thing just like, for instance, reverse singing is not a thing. Racism is a viewpoint, it cannot be couteracted. It is not a prejudice that white people have about darker skinned people, it is a prejudice that some people (of any race) have against another race.
Racism was not created by white people and is not enforced solely by white people, just because you know this one patch of history. During the evolution of humankind, darker skinned africans held lighter skinned africans less capable, indians thought light skinned girls to be better wives and in some parts of East Asia, the more narrow a man's eyes were, the less manly he was considered to be.
White privilege is a white man's idea that he is better than other races. Black privilege is a black man's idea that he is better than other races. I do not see the difference between a white man knocking down signs of "black lives matter" and a black man knocking down signs of "all lives matter". They are both in the wrong.
Veganism is today's fashion. So are short hair. So is hating on white people.
I completely understand that racism against black people is very much alive and that breaks my heart. But you cannot say black privilege isnt a thing just because black people have gone through a time of horrid discrimination. There are many cases of black privilege that no one dares to speak of. For instance, in the US, if a black person goes to a job interview against 2 other white candidates, the black person will most likely be hired, because as today's society is getting used to judging and hating on whites, if the black candidate had sued the company claiming he wasnt hired due to his race, he would have won the case. That is black privilege. When a white gets into an argument with a black person, the former can be accused of racism just like that. Even if the argument had nothing to do with race. That is black privilege.
Have you noticed that the groups that had at one time in history been oppressed, then liberated, are now taking a sort of revenge on society? People of colour. Muslims. Women. Mind you I am generalising quite a bit, but, as they say, you can only hear the ones that scream the loudest. Do you know that in order to "integrate" people from Syria to Europe, whenever these refugees (who are somehow mostly young men) rape, beat or rob someone, it is forbidden to disclose their race or religion? And no one is saying their race or religion should be the first things mentioned, but IT IS COMPLETELY FORBIDDEN TO EVER MENTION THESE THINGS. That is censorship. That is muslim/refugee privilege.
Women are now demonising men, stating the "I need no man" ideology. Many men in TV shows, movies are mucled baffoons, incapable of anything but salivating after tits and asses. Yet if some movie pictures a woman as a dependant bimbo, feminists all rise up to say "How dare you?! We arent like that!". That is female privilege.
Our society has become all about hating. "If you hated me in the previous century, I'll hate you in this one! Double as much!"
We should fight racism that still exists, not create more of it. If you hate me because of my stated opinions, fine, I am not seeking your approval. But if you start yelling "You say that because you are white and racist and have lived the life of privilege!", you are the one being racist because you just judged me based on the colour of my skin.
On a lighter note, that is my opinion and I fully understand it is not a popular one
Racism was not created by white people and is not enforced solely by white people, just because you know this one patch of history. During the evolution of humankind, darker skinned africans held lighter skinned africans less capable, indians thought light skinned girls to be better wives and in some parts of East Asia, the more narrow a man's eyes were, the less manly he was considered to be.
White privilege is a white man's idea that he is better than other races. Black privilege is a black man's idea that he is better than other races. I do not see the difference between a white man knocking down signs of "black lives matter" and a black man knocking down signs of "all lives matter". They are both in the wrong.
Veganism is today's fashion. So are short hair. So is hating on white people.
I completely understand that racism against black people is very much alive and that breaks my heart. But you cannot say black privilege isnt a thing just because black people have gone through a time of horrid discrimination. There are many cases of black privilege that no one dares to speak of. For instance, in the US, if a black person goes to a job interview against 2 other white candidates, the black person will most likely be hired, because as today's society is getting used to judging and hating on whites, if the black candidate had sued the company claiming he wasnt hired due to his race, he would have won the case. That is black privilege. When a white gets into an argument with a black person, the former can be accused of racism just like that. Even if the argument had nothing to do with race. That is black privilege.
Have you noticed that the groups that had at one time in history been oppressed, then liberated, are now taking a sort of revenge on society? People of colour. Muslims. Women. Mind you I am generalising quite a bit, but, as they say, you can only hear the ones that scream the loudest. Do you know that in order to "integrate" people from Syria to Europe, whenever these refugees (who are somehow mostly young men) rape, beat or rob someone, it is forbidden to disclose their race or religion? And no one is saying their race or religion should be the first things mentioned, but IT IS COMPLETELY FORBIDDEN TO EVER MENTION THESE THINGS. That is censorship. That is muslim/refugee privilege.
Women are now demonising men, stating the "I need no man" ideology. Many men in TV shows, movies are mucled baffoons, incapable of anything but salivating after tits and asses. Yet if some movie pictures a woman as a dependant bimbo, feminists all rise up to say "How dare you?! We arent like that!". That is female privilege.
Our society has become all about hating. "If you hated me in the previous century, I'll hate you in this one! Double as much!"
We should fight racism that still exists, not create more of it. If you hate me because of my stated opinions, fine, I am not seeking your approval. But if you start yelling "You say that because you are white and racist and have lived the life of privilege!", you are the one being racist because you just judged me based on the colour of my skin.
On a lighter note, that is my opinion and I fully understand it is not a popular one
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Anonymous
Err mate, racism is the systematic oppression of people based on race and/or ethnicity. The system is made by and in favour of white people, so how is reverse racism a thing??
At the institutional level, your definition makes a little sense but at an individual level, that definition falls apart. I'm not in a position of power over say my local Asian shop keeper. If I use a pejorative term to describe him, that isn't part of any systematic oppression. He's still a business owner and I'm still just a student. But you wouldn't argue that I'm not racist based upon our relative hierarchical status I assume?
Racism at the individual level only requires prejudice, bias, or intolerance. Any race can be racist towards any race, even their own.
That being said white people can face prejudice but I wouldn't go as far as calling it racism.
Why not? The word is clearly derived from the concept of race, not the convoluted Marxist concept you outline above of oppressor and oppressed. So if a white person faces prejudice based upon their being racially white, just call it racism and leave it at that.
Uhh... I would not say black privilege exists because sometimes you get more restrictions and people responding differently to you when you're black especially when comes to black men.
People living in good countries with freedom are privileged but some people are more privileged than others.
Some people are more privileged, and that is just life. It does not mean react badly and get offended when told you have more privilege in comparison to someone else.
People living in good countries with freedom are privileged but some people are more privileged than others.
Some people are more privileged, and that is just life. It does not mean react badly and get offended when told you have more privilege in comparison to someone else.
Why. These. Race. Threads.
Things like this are subjective so you're bound to find dumb answers.
Things like this are subjective so you're bound to find dumb answers.
Privilege can exist for any race/colour etc
Being black has benefits, so does being white.
Being black has benefits, so does being white.
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 minute ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 9 minutes ago
British Council English Language Assistants 2024/2025Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 11 minutes ago
Anyone else get an offer for a Rolls Royce degree apprenticeship in Derby (2024)?Last reply 13 minutes ago
Amazon apprenticeship 2024 offer holdersLast reply 15 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2910
Trending
Last reply 1 minute ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 hour ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 minute ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 hour ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
