Alright. I'm going to be honest, this conversation is getting cyclical and it's kind of frustrating me.
I'm going to ask you to define the "it" I'm hinging skin color on, or vice versa. Again -- white privilege is not synonymous with economic privilege, though it can contribute to it and often does. White privilege isn't even the same as (intentional, pre-meditated) racism; the system to which it contributes is "racist" by way of discrimination based on race. White privilege is not the problem, it is a SYMPTOM of the problem, which is the ongoing institutional racial discrimination in favor of whites in America.
The term hinges on being born white, and therefore assumed to automatically have privileges other races don't in regards to safety, voting rights, fear or lack thereof and other advantages.
No, it assumes you are given those privileges by other people (most commonly other white people) because of the color of your skin.
It also automatically negates your right to point out it's a race-based term if you happen to be white.
I have no idea where you got this, honestly. Can you explain why?
Because that's autmotically taken as a refusal to accept responsibility for the damage your race has done to other races over the course of history.
...or this.
Even if you do acknowledge that things have got to change, and treating anyone in certain ways based on the color of their skin is dead wrong.
Well yes, it is. Positively or negatively, intentionally treating person x a certain way because of physically difference is discrimination, which technically means "the act of discerning or noting differences". But just "discrimination" =/= racism.
no subject
I'm going to ask you to define the "it" I'm hinging skin color on, or vice versa. Again -- white privilege is not synonymous with economic privilege, though it can contribute to it and often does. White privilege isn't even the same as (intentional, pre-meditated) racism; the system to which it contributes is "racist" by way of discrimination based on race. White privilege is not the problem, it is a SYMPTOM of the problem, which is the ongoing institutional racial discrimination in favor of whites in America.
The term hinges on being born white, and therefore assumed to automatically have privileges other races don't in regards to safety, voting rights, fear or lack thereof and other advantages.
No, it assumes you are given those privileges by other people (most commonly other white people) because of the color of your skin.
It also automatically negates your right to point out it's a race-based term if you happen to be white.
I have no idea where you got this, honestly. Can you explain why?
Because that's autmotically taken as a refusal to accept responsibility for the damage your race has done to other races over the course of history.
...or this.
Even if you do acknowledge that things have got to change, and treating anyone in certain ways based on the color of their skin is dead wrong.
Well yes, it is. Positively or negatively, intentionally treating person x a certain way because of physically difference is discrimination, which technically means "the act of discerning or noting differences". But just "discrimination" =/= racism.