Talk:White privilege (sociology)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

AFD 2005

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/White skin privilege. dbenbenn | talk 09:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition

The definition on the main page is lifted from WhitePrivilege.com, which is under a Creative Commons 1.0 license. Though a "dictionary definition" isn't the encyclopedic by nature, it's a starting point for further elaboration. -- Cleduc 05:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised that in the article there is no mention of Dr. Peggy McIntosh's work "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" where she lists specifically the privileges associated with white privilege. Dr. McIntosh is a professor at Wellesley College, who works at the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women. Her list... (http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/mcintosh.html). It might be worth adding at least a couple of items from her list to the article to illustrate what exactly white privilege is. --24.16.234.149 10:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because she has a doctorate doesn't make what she writes worthwhile, notable, well-argued, or citable. --24.95.155.73 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been using Wikipedia for awhile, and made an account just so I can discuss this article. I've removed the last paragraph under "Background" because it did nothing but serve to try to establish people who believe white privilege exists as "lunatics" and people "on the fringes of society" by unnecessarily (and with no documentation whatsoever) associating people who believe it exists with people who want to destroy the white race. It had nothing to do with the actual background of white privilege. SuzySteamboat 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Debate

Comment, I'm not sure even White privilege would work as an encyclopedic title for an article on this topic. I'd also be concerned any such article could devolve into a rantish fork. Wyss 18:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • If it did devolve into a rantish fork, somebody will have to establish NPOV. I don't think censoring which ideas are explained is a good idea -- Cleduc 00:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Censorship? Naw, I just think it's a crummy title for an article about racism. Wyss 02:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to explain how I see white privilege as distinct from racism. Racism is a general term. White privilege refers specifically to preferential treatment usually experienced by people-without-color. A good analogy would be that white privilege is a social credit where racism is a social debit.

As far as whether White privilege works as an article title, it is a common term in race relations, and it is seen as distinct from racism in general -- like it or not, want it or not.

In terms of my waving the bloody shirt of censorship, I think preventing an article from developing because of where we think it might go is antithetical to the practices and principles of WP. -- Cleduc 05:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the line about eminem's "slight modicum of rapping ability" stinks of bias
Fixed. -Willmcw 19:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Leftist criticisms

are there any sources of criticism of "white privilege" coming from the left? as a leftist myself, i have long contested white privilege for precisely the reasons stated in the article (its removal of focus from class). it'd also be helpful, in keeping things NPOV, to include the rather obvious criticisms from the right..even though these are less personally interesting to me... User:128.54.78.199 (2005)

There are criticisms of the idea of "white privilege" coming from the left. However, they tend to get pushed aside as the liberal movement has gottem themselves the power to comment on such. Liberals promote the neo-tribalism/identity politics that has gotten us to the situation now. Yes, it takes away from class conciousness to promote the idea that being "white" conferrs special staus in life. Rubbish, of course. This is not the Antebellum time, nor Jim Crow, nor even the later part of the middle of last century. Unfortunately, the liberals wish to continue to act as though it is, to keep their power of course. As for the main topic, I'd say the whole idea smacks of POV from the get-go. JBDay 01:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What has white privilege done for the whites of Appalachia? White privilege is a concept promoted by black supremacists to secure government entitlements. It is not a legitimate sociological phenomenon. It is only seen through the critical lens of race, therefore only racists will have that perception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbaish (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that inflammatory and inaccurate language that cannot be proven by credible sources should not be included in wikipedia. Therefore, I think that the following "The whites promoting this propaganda are usually upper class liberals who no longer struggle to make ends meet." should be deleted. I would like to see this topic updated and discussed in a respectful and thoughtful manner. GF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

^^Thank you. It sucks for white people here in Appalachia. The only families not living at poverty level are the ones that build houses and move in from New Jersey. If "white privilege" exists outside of the racist mind, why doesn't it take effect here? Out here, everyone is seen and treated as equal, even the less-than-1% or the population that is black or Hispanic. Why don;t we see the "white privilege" putting them down? Why aren't they complaining about any advantages they think we have? Sorry, but this article is pretty racist in itself. It almost seems like it was written by somebody who would refer to a person of different skin color as "it" when speaking about them. My changes should not have been erased in favor of the former biased writings. This is where Wikipedia fails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.221.68 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved

After the improper creation of White privilege (royalty) the discussion for this page was lost. Re-establishing it here, history remains at Talk:White privilege (royalty). Cleduc 03:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Steve Sailer

This doesn't belong here. I doesn't enlighten the discussion. Sailer appears to be a front-man for neo-nazi types; he has some affiliation with the VDARE site, which is considered by many people to be virulently racist. The VDARE entry on wikipedia has some details, though it's suggestive that it's presently under some dispute. I added some leavening to the Sailer paragraph instead of just yanking it, but I'd really be happier removing it all.

Kendallgclark 19:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. It's not a paragraph on him, it's one quote from him which is directly on the topic. The rest of the paragraph discusses the topic, not Sailer. -Willmcw 21:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The "sailer paragraph" means "the paragraph in which the sailer quote appears", not the "paragraph about sailer", so that's a moot objection to my point, which is more that Sailer's quote may be "directly on topic", but there are lots of things that are "directly on topic" that don't belong in an encyclopedia article because they are absurd, wrong, misleading, speculative, biased, or otherwise inappropriate. It's perfectly fine -- I don't agree with it, but it's within the bounds of the conversation -- to make the point that the benefits of white privilege were earned, in some sense. I just think the conversation is better served if that claim doesn't come from an obvious racist! --Kendallgclark 13:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps having it come from Sailer makes apparent the kind of people who engage in those arguments. As for the rest of the paragraph, it seems to head into specuclation, particularly at the end. I don't think we can comment, without attribution, about what is unjust or just. We're editors, not judges. -Willmcw 19:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I feel that if this section is to be included it is only right to either balance the article out with a quote from a noted radical racist against white people or note that Sailer is a Neo-Nazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.221.68 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Neologism

The reference to White Privilege being a Neologism has been added, removed, and added again. I'd like to discuss this here on the Talk page and get consensus if possible.

Generally, neologisms are not listed as such in Wikipedia (Internet, Political correctness), particularly not in the first sentence, as it is placed in this article. It seems that it has been placed prominently in this article in order to discredit the concept, as evidenced by Kaibabsquirrel's edit comment: "this is a rather fringe theory even within the left, isn't it? why give it more credibility than it deserves?" As such, I tend to agree with Willmcw that the use of "neologism" is POV in the first sentence.

My proposal is to create a separate section on the origin of the phrase. I'm not sure who coined the phrase, but it seems to have been in the 1960s. That's almost 40 years ago. What's the expiration period for neologisms? Cleduc 22:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It *is* POV to call "white privilege" a neologism. Might as well call "class" and "male privilege" and "sexism" and every other criticism of the status quo a "neologism" -- none of whic are called "neologisms" in wikipedia! As for a separate section on the origin of the term, that's do-able. I remember reading a few years ago about the person who is thought to have coined the term, sometime in the late 1960s, I remember 1969 but can't confirm, -- this usage grew out of the black power movement, as I recall. At any rate, I removed "neologism" again because if it's going to be put into this article, which I oppose, it should at least be in the article in a gramatically correct form. Which it wasn't by whomever (kaibabsquirrel?) put it back in. So I took it back out. :> (Oh, I'm Kendallgclark) 17:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

How is this not a neologism since it meets all the definitions of a neologism? Coined, as you say, in 1969; still used only by a subculture and not widely used within the broader culture; and refers to a concept that some consider to be nonsensical or prejudicial on the face of it. That's a neologism by definition. Move it to the criticism section if you like. If it's not a neologism does this mean I can look in a sociology text from, say, the 1930s and find "white privilege" discussed?
By comparison "class" is not a neologism, it's a long-accepted term and concept. "Sexism" may or may not be more modern in origin but it is a nearly universally accepted term.
Here's a better neologism to compare white privilege to, since like white privilege it is an entirely modern concoction, used only by some subcultures and not the broad mainstream culture, the very use of which promotes a concept that many consider nonsensical: Meme. Kaibabsquirrel 18:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I find the analogy faulty. Whereas meme was a completely (and recently) created word, "white privilege" is a phrase made of two words, has a great deal of support in race studies, and has long since fallen into common vocabulary. Ask an actual black person. "Kerfuzzle" is clearly a neologism -- brand new, can't find it in the dictionary. The argument doesn't hold water, and the edit notes prove the intended POV to me. Cleduc 02:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge with giant article titled "Media and ethnicity"

The article media and ethnicity covers this same subject in much more detail and with far more sources.

Justin Alvarez Jr. 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The concept of "white privilege" is not solely a media phenomenon, it is also an economic force and a factor in human interaction. That's clear in the introduction to the article, though the article later goes on to elaborate influence on the media (which is a digression in my opinion). Removed merge tag. Cleduc 02:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It should be a stand-alone article. futurebird 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Read the discussion in Talk:Media_and_ethnicity. You'll know why it should be merged. Even though 'White privilege' is not solely a media subject, the big plan is that media and ehtnicity will be merged via media bias, then eventually to the main article racism. 'White privilege' is a racist issue.

Justin Alvarez Jr. 02:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Merger cancelled

The decision to merge this article to the giant article media and ethnicity has been dropped (for now). This is mainly because the giant article media and ethnicity, although it covers more than just media issues, might undergo a title makeover (making it more than just an article about the media). After this happens (it might take time), don't be surprised that someone reinstates the "merger" tag again on the articles: white privilege, media bias, cultural imperialism. The big plan is for these smaller articles to merge with the giant article media and ethnicity (when or if re-titled), then from there, a super-merge will happen with the general article racism.


Justin Alvarez Jr. 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You have a new message in the "Media and ethnicity" discussion page

Talk:media and ethnicity


Justin Alvarez Jr. 05:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Asian privilege

Is there a study of Asian privilege in Asian countries? Obviously, it is a huge benefit to be Japanese in Japan, Chinese in China, Arab in the Middle East, etc. as it is to be White in the West, etc. Just a thought. Thanks.Yukirat 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"West" does not equal "White". It is not a huge advantage to be Native American in the west, or native Andean, which are the more relevant comparisons. Even within Japan there are ethnic preferences (see Ainu people). -Will Beback 21:03, 2 August 2006

(UTC)

Will, I'm not sure you make sense. Amerindian does not equal "White" or Western". Does it help to be Japanese in Japan, compared to being Filipino or Black? Of course. There is Japanese privilege in Japan, and Jewish privilege in Israel over Israeli Arabs. Of course. Whites founded the United States of America, not Amerindians. Yukirat 08:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, in Thailand, quite a few places practiced dual pricing. They'd write prices and instructions (say for parking) in English and Thai. The version in English would have the price be doubled (Thai has their own Thai numerals which is how they can get away with it). It's not exactly looking at your skin color so much as it is general taking advantage of foreigners. Dracil 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Intersting. That sounds like "Thai-prvilege", and outright anti-White (english-speaking) racism!! Thanks.Yukirat 08:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Dracil just said it was about taking advantage of foreigners, and somehow you took that to be anti-white. ColourBurst 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"Asians" don't have privilege in Asian countries (this implies in Asia, there's a racial construct that includes members of East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and West Asia, which there isn't.). Koreans and Filipinos are two of the most persecuted groups in Japan! Chinese are persecuted in Southeast Asian countries. So no. If you want to talk about what you really mean - majority privilege - there may be a case. However, I think some theorists believe that white privilege is international to an extent (see Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt's second adoption.), because of the proliferation of culture across the world, and wealth factors as well. ColourBurst 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit by Fab123

My collegues and I have significantly edited the content of this page as part of a graduate school project on multicultural issues. We would have preferred to discuss the revisions on this page prior to making the edit, but needed to get it up on a deadline and thus did not have the opportunity.

Existing content in the prior "Background" section was largely retained, although edited and moved about. We added a new "Definition and Discussion" section, retaining some of the original content, revising some, and adding substantial text.

We substantially revised a recent edit of the "Criticism" section. We felt this edit was written in a biased fashion which was not in keeping with the neutral point of view editorial rule of this publication. Statements such as "the whites promoting this propaganda [white privilege] are usually white upper class liberals who no longer struggle to make ends meet" seemed particularly out of step with a neutral POV. Also, footnote links to factual assertions such as that "most persons living in poverty in the U.S. are white" and "the only group with a growing poverty rate are likewise non-hispanic whites" were not completed--these seemingly controversial assertions were therefore unsubstantiated by references to authority. On the other hand, we put in references for our assertions that there remain statistical imbalances in major economic and social indicators in favor of Whites over people of color. Certainly, it would be welcomed to see additional references for either position added to the page.

We recognize White Privilege is a "hot button" topic that is difficult to discuss objectively or neutrally. In our addition to the "Criticism" section, we attempted to be balanced and neutral, although we recognize others, such as the person who drafted the prior edit, may disagree. We welcome any discussion of, reaction to, or criticism of our edit!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab123 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. No school project on multicultural issues should EVER involve editing wikipedia. I commend you and your colleagues for filtering out any existing statements are "facts" that shouldn't have been there. But I would like to quote something you said in the above, "our assertions that there remain statistical imbalances in major economic and social indicators in favor of Whites over people of color". This resembles a thesis paper, which should never be used on wikipedia. Rather than say that there are major economic and social indicators in favor of whites over people of color, you could say "The 2000 US Census reported that Caucasian individuals made 29% more income on average than people of other races when averaged" (those are random numbers I used for the example). Remember, wikipedia is about fact, and not opinion. Chris01720 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)