So in light of yesterday...

[silverthorne]

I'm reading:

http://whiteprivilege.com/definition/ --the articles on the sidebar as well as the page the link goes to.

No comment at the moment other than yes, I'm resisting the idea of using 'white' vs. 'black' or 'minority' to describe the problem, which is honestly being shot down by the site itself.

But I am reading.

I think it's good for everyone to read, no matter where they fall.

Comments

[chiss.livejournal.com]

which is honestly being shot down by the site itself.

How so?

[silverthorne.livejournal.com]

Put simply:

'You were born into the priviliged race. Whether you want to be there and associated with it or not. and it is your race, ultimately, that defines the rest.'

[chiss.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how that is shooting down the idea, to be honest. Could you explain a little more?

[silverthorne.livejournal.com]

The idea that labeling it in racist terms is a bad idea; that in itself is said to be a form of blindness on the part of the people living with 'white privilege' according to the site.

[chiss.livejournal.com]

Call me dumb, but I'm not sure how saying 'white' and 'minority' for the sake of placeholders in a discussion is racist when there are no other words to describe it beyond "non-white", which could also be considered "racist".

And I don't understand how this has to do with your reply up there. That was about white people and not about how white people label non-whites, and how that's shooting down the idea of privilege being racially-motivated. What did you mean about that one?

[silverthorne.livejournal.com]

I went in working under the idea, which is not in agreement with the site, that the problem should not be addressed as a 'white privilege' problem, but an overall privilege problem, started by whites in the past but perpetuated by everyone who works within the system.

Because I honestly believe that attaching a race label of any kind to it only makes the racially-related part of the problem worse--as in it's another division made in a discussion supposedly meant to do away with such divisions in order to get rid of the unequal treatment for all people.

The site states that such a thought process is evidence of the problem of living, unknowingly, as a white person with the inherant privileges that brings.

I am noting the difference in thought process, is all, and further down in the article, the 'white privilege' part is expanded to a state of mind rather than skin color.

Like I said though, I'm still reading this, and still processing. Not denying or accepting at this point--just noting where the differences in opinion lie.

[chiss.livejournal.com]

...why should it not be addressed as a white privilege problem if what we're talking about is, specifically, whites getting preferential treatment because of the racial hierarchy they've established in the United States?

Just "privilege" by itself, 99% of the time denotes "economic" privilege. And while economic and racial privilege can certainly be connected, it's because of the presence of white privilege -- because when you talk about race and economic status, whites are, generally, the ones that enjoy the most economic success based on those stratifications by race. This goes back to the early 1900's, when people of non-white heritage were restricted to certain (usually poor) parts of town and tied up with red tape to prevent them from obtaining the tools/taking the steps they needed to get out.

I don't think recognizing there is a problem makes the problem worse. There would be no way to solve it if you didn't know about its presence in the first place.

How does it being a state of mind connect to your point?

[silverthorne.livejournal.com]

Nevermind.

[chiss.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what the problem is, but okay.

[silverthorne.livejournal.com]

None, other than me noting the difference in thought process? And acknowleging that I am/was indeed coming from a different viewpoint.

Not looking for a debate, just looking at differences, because I need to understand those first before I decide whether to stick with them or agree with the new information. Make sense?