White privilege, a problem of perspective?

By CookieMonster 1 year ago

A traditional view of the world would deposit people into 2 groups, the successful and those who fail. In successful western societies the majority to an extent by definition are successful and then take a look at those who “fail” to see what the problem is. For some they may not recognize the definition of failure, home makers, beatniks and artists, a few groups who would not fall into the career/financial success dichotomy. For other groups the problems can be diverse and complex, for example racism, and its up to lawmakers and policy makers to work through to find solutions.

What the theory of white privilege does conceptually is flip the script on this standard view of the world. No longer taking the perspective of success and looking down to help others or help others help themselves, this theory takes failure as the baseline and looks up at the standard of success and calls this group privileged. In this world view the winners are white and losers non white. As well as the arguments that this is not always the case between these 2 groups as there are white losers and black winners but it omits other groups who have higher levels of success as a group, Jews and Asians for example.

The problems with this theory beyond its conceptual ones are that it does not offer any solutions. In a meritocracy unearned privileges are considered unfair at least which is a way to demonize whites for factors beyond their control (Another word for this is racism.) it also implies that success is a bad thing at the very least for white people who have not “earned“ it. This world view that snears at success and wants to pull people down could be better described as the philosophy of losers or by a more common name, Nihilism. The belief in nothing, which is a philosophy that purely seeks to destroy but offers nothing of substance in its place. No doubt the proponents would disagree, and its working towards a fairer and just world however they define it. This is why I have dealt with the basic concept and perception of white privilege with as little detail as possible because from this point it can then be mapped onto any argument with details about white privilege.

Lets take a standard definition of "White Privilege".


the fact of people with white skin having advantages in society that other people do not have:

The concept of white privilege explains why white people have greater access to society's legal and political institutions.

Setting aside whether this is actually true(It is not as positive action and hate laws are the only legal distinction I can find) how would you go about dealing with this problem from the perspective of WP? As this is a bottom up view it would be about reducing access for white people to legal and political institutions. Think this is far fetched? Listen to its advocates telling white people to shut up and listen or that their opinion is downgraded due to their race. This is destructive nihilism coming into play, it censors or tries to censor free speech it would also reduce the number of arguments and ideas coming into play and is purely regressive as well as promoting a type of segregation that most people had though was just a facet of history. When you apply this perspective to all the issues the social justice advocates bring up (Professional losers would be a better title) you will see similar outcomes from this thought process, it is purely to destroy and not create, nobody will gain from this and I don't see it ending well.

Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website or its members.

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


In any country the native people are enjoying the heritage from their ancestors in that country. The ancestors built the country not only themselves but also for their descendants. That is true for countries that are basically white too. Newcomers who are not white have to work with a system of business, government and culture that was not built for them specifically and develop, through several generations, a heritage of their own in that country. The experience of white people in southern Africa is an example.


#WhitePrivilege is undeniable.

How can being the #MasterRace not be a privilege?


OK some facts here.
There re more "whites" in jail in the US than Hispanics... is that "white "privilege"?
There re more "blacks in jail than "Hispanics"... is that "white Privilege"?
There re more "blacks" in jail than "whites..." is that white privilege" or is there some other reason?


Well, our discussion brought me here to actually read your article, and the comments you referenced, which appear to be gone, so I can't comment on those.

This article is very well reasoned--well thought out. I have to say, I agree with it completely. Your article could, however, do with a going over. There are so many missed punctuations and words as to be distracting. All too familiar, in my case, because I'm very guilty of the same.

An article like this is more than just a post or a comment, so paste that puppy into Word or Grammarly, and run a grammar check and such; it won't catch everything (the wrong version of "its," for example--well, not every time, anyway) but it will keep it down to a dull roar--suggest a few rewordings, etc. Or you could even have a friend look at it first. A real editor, even an amateur one, is usually better than any machine.

This is the other article, click on mag for the white guilt one.

I'll try to edit them better next time... sorry 🙂


The Cambridge definition is ridiculous: people with white skin having advantages in society that other people do not have

Advantages in what society, exactly? In Chinese society? In Somali society? In Iranian society? Isn’t it true that in many societies, having white skin would be a disadvantage that could result in injury or even death?

Like most woke propaganda, the Cambridge definition doesn’t distinguish between “majority” and “supremacy”. Further, the dictionary’s own racism is revealed by a false assumption that the group with the largest numbers will automatically win benefits and privileges.

The dictionary’s bias completely ignores the rule of law and judicial recourse as potential remedies to real or perceived “racism”, in white majority countries, which in the eyes of a woke bigot, are racist nations by default.

I agree with you, I also think that a lot of sjw types believe majority=supremacy, you just need to work that one through to its conclusion.

I agree that the confusion between 'majority' and 'supremacy' is ridiculous. It's well known that in non white societies where a minority with better business/ STEM abilities reside besides a less talented majority, it's the former (Chinese, usually) that has 'supremacy'.

Write Comment