RockTurtle
Member
i can relate! you aren't alone!
9 clueless things white people say when confronted with racism
- Status
i can relate! you aren't alone!
vas_a_morir
Banned
Then move on. No use ever discussing everything with someone who is admittedly and defiantly hard-headed.
ExplodingKetchup
Member
Either you're joking or you haven't read the thread because oh my god dude.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
My response might be this--imagine that the same people make the same ignorant arguments day in, day out. Imagine that every day in discussions, people basically make uncharitable, hurtful arguments towards you. And after a while, you get fed up having to defend yourself and walk them through their own assumptions, when you're the one that's actually hurting. So you sort of develop a short-cut because you don't really want to deal with it fully anymore. And then when you are dismissive, the same people who say things to hurt you basically tell you you're the hurtful one, because you aren't respecting their position as an ignorant person and helping them overcome it. Well, that's basically reality for a person of colour or a disadvantaged person or in many cases a woman attempting to deal with or draw attention to issues of inequality. This isn't a phrase that people came up with in a vacuum because they wanted to turn off discussion, it was something that emerged out of a context of seeing the way in which pre-conceived notions born out of privilege poisoned people's cognitive ability to empathize with victims in social issues.
In other words, I'm basically saying to ... yes, I recognize the irony here... check your privilege with respect to the reasons that people say the expression check your privilege.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
- All white people?
- They always say these 9 things?
Come on, that's straight out generalisation and patronising.
Yes I read the article.
Yes i largely agree with the content.
I just wish it was better written. - it comes across as click-bait.
Iggy is a big star. she's also a white rapper. Why not use her as a lightning rod for your articles?
Kind of funny when it was "white people" who made the differentiation themselves to separate themselves from all the other "races" so they could engage in centuries of enslavement, killings and oppression.
That doesn't negate my point. It's an issue of semantics. White people a have "color" too.
Also, again, it lumps dissipate people together. I dislike "brown" for the same reason.
I think it's time we moved away from color coding people. Disuse of "people of color" would be a first step. Saying "non-Europeans" would be more precise anyway.
Well, I said in my post I wasn't going to touch on privilege, but that's all this thread has become about, so whatever. I'll at least try to keep it short.
Stumpokapow says above that, to him anyway, the idea of "check your privilege" is to solicit empathy.
But "Privilege" has only really been used in this context in the past decade or so. You know how people used to get empathy before that? They'd talk about a group being disadvantaged. The shift in focus from a minority's disadvantage to a majority's privilege resulted in a shift from empathy to hostility.
"Check your privilege" is completely substanceless and counterproductive. It assumes ignorance where there may be none. It doesn't educate why their claim may be wrong or misguided. It doesn't identify the privilege that's supposed to be checked. And on top of that, it's a phrase that's extremely prone to abuse to hand-wave away arguments one disagrees with.
The idea of privilege may, at its root, be intended as a reminder to be empathetic to the plights of others. But it's terrible at its job. A much better way to remind people to be empathetic to the plights of others is to tell them about the plights of others. There's no ad-hominem, it's much better for soliciting empathy, it doesn't assume ignorance where there may actually be none, and if there is ignorance, it educates without incriminating.
Yes, telling people about the plights of others doesn't always work to solicit empathy, but in my experience, it has a far, far higher success rate than "check your privilege"--which I've never seen someone respond to with, "Oh, you're right, and I now know how I was wrong."
Stumpokapow says above that, to him anyway, the idea of "check your privilege" is to solicit empathy.
But "Privilege" has only really been used in this context in the past decade or so. You know how people used to get empathy before that? They'd talk about a group being disadvantaged. The shift in focus from a minority's disadvantage to a majority's privilege resulted in a shift from empathy to hostility.
"Check your privilege" is completely substanceless and counterproductive. It assumes ignorance where there may be none. It doesn't educate why their claim may be wrong or misguided. It doesn't identify the privilege that's supposed to be checked. And on top of that, it's a phrase that's extremely prone to abuse to hand-wave away arguments one disagrees with.
The idea of privilege may, at its root, be intended as a reminder to be empathetic to the plights of others. But it's terrible at its job. A much better way to remind people to be empathetic to the plights of others is to tell them about the plights of others. There's no ad-hominem, it's much better for soliciting empathy, it doesn't assume ignorance where there may actually be none, and if there is ignorance, it educates without incriminating.
Yes, telling people about the plights of others doesn't always work to solicit empathy, but in my experience, it has a far, far higher success rate than "check your privilege"--which I've never seen someone respond to with, "Oh, you're right, and I now know how I was wrong."
ExplodingKetchup
Member
You do realize that there are people in Europe who aren't white, right?
And anyway, people of color is an agreed upon term among POC as well as in academia. It's not going to change. I'm sure white people will be just fine.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
That the article is click-bait is obvious; it's a numbered list (using a non-round number) that uses its title to generalize and states the core point in the strongest possible terms with loss of nuance, and uses a celebrity in its image to rely on pre-existing associations with that celebrity and her fame to attract attention. That's the definition of click-bait, it's literally the definition.
But given that we know that, and given that it's posted, the better way to get something out of the thread might be to ignore the article's presentation of its own thesis and focus on more sincere attempts to communicate the same thing: that privilege results in a set of common arguments from ignorance which are used to dismiss or minimize the nature, impact, prevalence, of racism, or defend against reasoned criticisms of practices, acts, or speech as racist. Those arguments include distancing or othering language, blame-avoidance, co-opting the criticism, linguistic games and sophistry, patronizing faux race-blindness, individualization of one's own identity while generalizing the identity of others, and privilege, among other arguments. They can easily be grouped together because of their cause, intent, and impact on discourse. Learning to identify these arguments as canned, not novel, and flimsy is important both to become more critical about oneself when considering making them, and to dispatch with them when others make them so as to move on to more substantial arguments and a deeper conversation on the subject.
Okay, there, I've rewritten the article, now the discussion doesn't need to focus on the fact that it's a click-bait blog article
But given that we know that, and given that it's posted, the better way to get something out of the thread might be to ignore the article's presentation of its own thesis and focus on more sincere attempts to communicate the same thing: that privilege results in a set of common arguments from ignorance which are used to dismiss or minimize the nature, impact, prevalence, of racism, or defend against reasoned criticisms of practices, acts, or speech as racist. Those arguments include distancing or othering language, blame-avoidance, co-opting the criticism, linguistic games and sophistry, patronizing faux race-blindness, individualization of one's own identity while generalizing the identity of others, and privilege, among other arguments. They can easily be grouped together because of their cause, intent, and impact on discourse. Learning to identify these arguments as canned, not novel, and flimsy is important both to become more critical about oneself when considering making them, and to dispatch with them when others make them so as to move on to more substantial arguments and a deeper conversation on the subject.
Okay, there, I've rewritten the article, now the discussion doesn't need to focus on the fact that it's a click-bait blog article
Vermillion
Banned
That is number two on the list in the OP.
Point is that just because you may not like it doesn't mean that we aren't separated that way by society. In order to talk about our grievances, we display them as a group.
I obviously mean indigenous Europeans. Which is a term I'm more than happy to useby the way.
So? Still doesn't mean my point is wrong.
Also, I know loads of non indigenous Europeans who dislike the term.
Also, it has less to do with NIEs and more to do with not lumping disparate people together.
And_Gignac
Member
I just think the statement itself creates a condition where the responsability for the social structures that sustain white, straight, male, cis, wealthy, abled and all the spectrum of privilege are "personalized" or inserted into the persona who is already unaware of them, so it is almost a given that you will receive an emotional response, since the person will feel personally attacked, and a rational discussion will be severed.
Deified Data
Banned
Good post, Pogi.
No it isn't. I'm not saying "I don't see race". I'm saying "people of color" is a terrible term because it is inaccurate and divisive.
God Dayumm
Banned
"Check your privilege" is a dangerous phrase since almost everyone has privileges and the moment you tell someone to check his/her privilege you'll have to check yours first because hypocrisy does not gather any sympathy.
It seems like you're moving the goalposts a bit here. The original complaint was that the phrase is dismissive and non-productive. This reads like you now acknowledging that it's dismissive and non-productive but justifying it by saying that people get fed up enough to be dismissive. The later is most certainly true, but I don't think we should try and pretend that it actually contributes to discussions. There's also the fact that for that statement to have any meaning, the person on the receiving end has to be familiar with the concept of privilege, which is not something that most people are, especially those that are going to be spouting ignorant nonsense to begin with.
This is kind of my point. Saying that assumes that I'm privileged such that I haven't been in situations where you would consider that expression warranted.
Vermillion
Banned
You're effectively making the same argument (particularly in calling it divisive). Inaccurate is another story, but you're being incredibly literal with the term.
Being that literal, BlackGAF should be called Varying-shades-of-brownGAF. White people aren't really white. Etc.
That's a non-issue.
vas_a_morir
Banned
Practically every civilization has done the same. Egypt, Rome, Mongolia, China, Aztecs, Mayans, Native American nations, African nations, Caucasian nations, middle-eastern nations... all using ethnic differences to justify enslavement, killings, and oppression. If it's wrong, then why perpetuate it? When somebody is saying it's wrong to separate and generalize people based on ethnicity, you should applaud them, rather then doubling down on ignorance.
Cymbal Head
Banned
I've lost count of the number of times that phrase has completely derailed a conversation into being all about the person being told to check their privilege (there's a little of that going on in this thread). It's a shame, because it usually obliterates any chance at having a teachable moment. I wish we could teach some of the basics of this kind of discourse in schools, but I can't even begin to imagine how vociferously obstinate right-wingers would react to that being put into a state's standards.
Edit: because of the frequency and accuracy with which Stump is dropping truth bombs, I want to clarify that I'm not trying to tone troll and I get why we have the phrase and what it's good for.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
This is argument #2 expressed in the article in the OP.
The form of the argument is as such: color was historically used in an unfair way to create divisions between people. Ergo, the best way to make amends for that division is to discard color as a salient factor in identity. As a result, racism means not seeing colour. This also helpful resolves any anxiety the speaker might feel about their own "lack of identity" (because individuals in the majority do not see their majority characteristics as salient to their identity, in part because criticism over past abuses by those in the majority, and in part because white-ness, male-ness, straight-ness etc are seen as "normal" in culture, so differentiation only occurs through being a minority).
However, this has the impact of denying others dignity. When you argue that "we are all the same", you deny the richness that comes from difference. Historical oppression is bad, but that oppression led to interesting acts of resistance and interesting cultural forms which came from the oppression. Those do not deserve to be co-opted or discarded in an effort to unify us all into a "neutral" identity.
To be fair this is also an argument within progressive movements. For example, the gay rights movement has always struggled between whether to adopt a "normalcy", white collar, middle-class, rights-oriented approach (emphasize parity and access to previously straight-only institutions) or to also celebrate difference (to emphasize differing cultural practices that have emerged in the gay and lesbian communities as a result of historical othering by straight people). Or in race issues, the existence of things like awards celebrating diversity; there's always something torn between emphasizing the positive ways that those awards can call attention, while also recognizing that those things imply in some ways that the recipients could not compete in broader categories. In part resolving this tension means recognizing that although equality is the ultimate goal, equality doesn't magically appear overnight and in part a recognition of difference is important to help close gaps in equality caused by the lingering effects of historical divisions, even as laws today nominally reflect equality.
Perhaps a better approach for you personally, as someone who feels anxious about the use of color language, would be to find someone who is of a minority and ask them why they identify with color language, or what role they think it plays for them.
pants
Member
This guy is better and less abrasive at speaking my mind than I. Thanks for this
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I feel like this is at odds with the reason why the concept of "privilege" even entered the dialogue at all, namely that people were being shown the plights of others and were ascribing those plights to various racist/sexist/whateverist foundations. The problem wasn't that privileged white people didn't know that many blacks had problems with poverty, education, access to opportunity etc but that they didn't/don't recognize where those issues stem from.
Privilege, when correctly invoked, only occurs after the actual display of ignorance, because the whole concept is intrinsically tied to ignorance of the circumstances of others
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
Pretty much. I'm no angel, but it's beyond irritating when these lists always preface it with 'white people'. I'm not sure the writer lives in a melting pot city, but here in Houston you'd hear this kind of shit from every ethnicity living here. This kind of thing has no hope of creating productive conversation and only serves as to help blow some steam by using a known guilty party (but not the only one) as a punching bag. (See: comedians that use white people jokes as half their material)
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I'm asserting that as a three-word response it is non-productive and dismissive, but probably justifiably so, but it is rarely used as a three-word response, it typically accompanies a more full-throated argument which is similarly ignored, and by emphasizing that the victims of prejudice and cruelty need to do more to combat it rather than recognizing the primary responsibility of people not to be the perpetrators and cruelty, you place the burden on the wrong side. If someone says something that makes them a jerk, and someone else calls them a jerk, the issue is the first speaker, not the second, even if the second isn't notably being productive and you catch more flies with honey.
But I also do think the statement has meaning, because if nothing else, most people confronted by it ask for an explanation of privilege and typically get it, which exposes them to it conceptually even if they still resist it.
Here, for example, I'd given a fairly lengthy position of my explanation, but also included with palpable irony a sense that this very conversation was an example of one that was difficult to have because it seems like your perspective was coloured by your own experiences with the issue. I don't think your perspective, critiquing the use of the phrase, came with an empathetic understanding of why people use it to begin with.
Pinko Marx
Banned
Duuuuuuuuuuude. Race is a real thing, ya know. You're white. I'm black. We are indeed different in that way. With that comes some different experiences. Its time to accept that/
Eppy Thatcher
God's had his chance.
I consider myself ridiculously lucky that in all of my life (Oregon - portland/salem area) i've never had a single friend as boneheaded/clueless as to utter anything this ridiculous.
I've known a few people via school or extended family that were shamefully stuck in the past as far as their worldview goes but i've never had to deal with someone I considered close to me being this stupid.
I've known a few people via school or extended family that were shamefully stuck in the past as far as their worldview goes but i've never had to deal with someone I considered close to me being this stupid.
EscoBlades
Ubisoft Marketing
Head ---> brick wall.
I'm done. Enjoy yourselves.
I'm done. Enjoy yourselves.
I am not saying anyone NEEDS to do more. I am saying that they can do more by being more selective with their word choice. That said, I realize that's quite idealistic and that in real life people have limited amounts of patience, especially when confronted with ignorance. The original post I replied to said that the phrase is sometimes "necessary" though, which is something I disagree with.
From what I've seen, it generally just makes people more defensive.
What issue do you take with the article?
Some people think that the concept of race is the product of racism in the first place.
That it's a sociological construct rather than a kladistic reality.
That's not what I meant. It's not about cartoonish imagery or the strength of the language, it's about the accuracy of the language and the ability to describe a situation without including an implicit accusation.
Racism is is a belief / philosophical stance.
Racial Discrimination is an action.
Racial Inequality is a state.
The difference between these terms is important, and conflating them all as "racism" makes it impossible to frame complex arguments.
The best example of this is Affirmative Action. AA is a policy defended through liberal racism ("Having more racial diversity will increase the diversity of ideas on campus" - the implication being that race is a prime determinant of one's world view). AA is implemented through racial discrimination, by including race in the decision process. However, the goal of the AA is to reduce racial inequality.
If you can't untangle the difference between racism, discrimination, and inequality, you cannot possible have an intelligent argument about this topic. Because people can't separate these ideas, they are unable to articulate the difference between racial discrimination with the goal of increasing disparity vs discrimination with the goal of reducing disparity. Instead what we have is "discrimination = racism = bad" and each side accusing the other of being racists.
I'm not. I'm taking issue over a term. I'm not saying there are no divisions amongst people. I'm saying the way that division is expressed is inaccurate and divisive.
Again, not saying there is no division. Only that the way that division is expressed is poor.
Well, I'd preferably not use the term "black" at all to describe ethnic Sub-Saharan Africans, but absolutely.
Well if you think it's a non issue. But I do think the continued use of non-neutral words has a psychological impact on people.
I have only ever seen "check your privilege" used when people use anecdotal information or something they have experienced as a way to marginalized or a discount a minority's experience with racism.
One example I remember on GAF was the guy who compared not being able to open carry in certain stores to stores discriminating against people because of their race, gender or sexual orientation. "Check your privilege" was a correct response to such nonsense.
While I agree that we should try to educate people, there are some people who are not worth the time. No matter what you tell them or how much you explain your position, they will cling to their ignorance so there is no left but a hand wave.
I am pretty sure Esco is referring to the people complaining about the article.
EscoBlades
Ubisoft Marketing
None. I agree with it. I take issue with some of the responses in here, which were right on cue.
Silphonica
Banned
Morgan Freeman also said the same thing, sans the rapping part.
Anton Sugar
Member
Go with god, my friend.
And it wasn't any less idiotic when he said it.
Silphonica
Banned
That's not really the point i'm trying to make.
Freezasaurus
Member
This attitude kind of annoys me, too. No reason to be an apologist. Let people judge you by how you treat others. There are stupid, evil people of all races. Beating yourself up over what some members of your race do is just as dumb. It's a broad generalization, and generalizations are all too common when talking about racism.
Damn, one of the best posts about racial issues on race I've read here on Gaf. Good job.
I don't really disagree with what you wrote. But I don't think anything you wrote shows positive merits of the phrase "check your privilege."
The topic is the merits of the phrase "check your privilege," not whether or not it's understandable why someone gets frustrated to the point where they use it. I don't think it's fair to claim the poster you're responding to is displaying a lack of empathy, as he was discussing whether it's a good or bad phrase, not whether it's understandable why someone would use it even if it's bad.
On it's own, "check your privilege" is abrasive, dismissive, worthless and counterproductive. When it is accompanied by a detailed explanation of where their argument when wrong, "check your privilege" is still abrasive, dismissive, worthless and counterproductive. Why even include it, if your explanation explains the flaws in an argument?
"Check your privilege" is basically the "smh" of social causes. "smh" alone says nothing, except that you think they're ignorant or wrong. "smh" with a long explanation afterward still says nothing. It's not conducive to discussion, and it brings up the other party's defensive walls.
Are there instances where "smh" is an understandable reaction? Of course, we all get frustrated, and sometimes we don't have the energy to respond in full. But that doesn't change the fact that "smh" has no conversational merit. The same is true for "check your privilege"--even if it's understandable why a frustrated person would say it, when examining solely the merits of the phrase, it is counterproductive.
doomdazzle
Banned
Lumping all people of a race together and applying a sweeping generalization.. I swear there's a word for this.
I think that the fact that the name of this article is acceptable is an issue in of itself.
I'm going to use the same approach South Park used: "I don't get it."
I'm a white male, I don't know what women, black people, hispanic, etc had gone through.
When I was a kid I suffered prejudice for being white, but I understand that this isn't common so I not going to say that white people don't have privileges.
I try to avoid talking about racism, why white people can't say the n-word (being an non-american I really don't get it), women rights and other things because I'm ignorant to they situation and don't want to hurt anyone.
(Sorry for the poor english)
I'm a white male, I don't know what women, black people, hispanic, etc had gone through.
When I was a kid I suffered prejudice for being white, but I understand that this isn't common so I not going to say that white people don't have privileges.
I try to avoid talking about racism, why white people can't say the n-word (being an non-american I really don't get it), women rights and other things because I'm ignorant to they situation and don't want to hurt anyone.
(Sorry for the poor english)
white people generally don't have first hand experience when it comes to forms of institutional racism, which is the issue that the article is trying to articulate
doomdazzle
Banned
That's true but applying more racism certainly isn't the right thing to do.
Anton Sugar
Member
What's the problem with that article?
- Status