slug.com slug.com

1 2

White privilege, a problem of perspective?

Setup paragraph of the article...

what are the 3 key points?

How is ...

A few sentences about the above. A few sentences about the above.A few sentences about the above.

What is the...

A few sentences about the above. A few sentences about the above.A few sentences about the above.

What to...

A few sentences about the above. A few sentences about the above.A few sentences about the above.


Discuss further

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 recognise 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 privelege 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 doesn’t offer any solutions. In a meritocracy unearned priveleges are considered unfair at least which is a way to demonise whites for factors beyond their controll(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 WP.

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 wether this is actually true(It isn’t as positive action and hate laws are the only legal destinction 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 just advocates bring up(Professional losers would be a better title) you will see similar outcomes from this thought proccess, it is purely to destroy and not create, nobody will gain from this and I don't see it ending well.

CookieMonster 8 June 16
Share

Be part of the movement!

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

Create your free account

1 comment

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

0

What rational person wants to justify condemning anyone by group, or especially by cultural difference - which is all “race” is?

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:104616
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.