![]() | 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I have noticed on several Wikipages (Christian privilege, eugenics, Male Privilege, Feminism) there is some sort of an opposition or criticism sub-section. Is there any particular reason why this page doesn't have one? Would I be wrong in adding it, even if it were to be properly sourced? R00b07 ( talk) 15:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The only reason affirmative action exists is to counteract the effect of privilege. Pointing out that AA exists doesn't constitute meaningful criticism. ChiveFungi ( talk) 02:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused. While I understand this isn't a forum, I don't understand how valid criticism of a subject is not deemed worthy of inclusion into an otherwise biased article. I understand the view might not be popular, and that it isn't correct to imply that affirmative action is just another form of racism, and that white privilege no longer exists because of it. And with several clear examples already given in this very talk page, and repeatedly erased, this smacks of bias.
Is this encyclopedia article, or an extension of the black lives matter movement? 2.29.89.166 ( talk) 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. You make two points - that the source is unreliable and that Dr Peterson is not a reliable source. Firstly: You are confusing source with medium. Youtube is not the "source". Youtube is the medium. The source is a direct quote from Dr Peterson, which is preferable to hearsay. This is the best source for direct quotes from Dr Peterson. Can you name another, better, source of direct quotes from Dr Peterson that the words which come out his mouth?
You then question Dr Peterson's status as a psychologist. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto who is directly addressing the meaning of the term White Privilege, which is precisely the subject of this article. What else do you need? You have not (I suspect because you cannot) directly address why you feel Dr Peterson is not qualified. Quite apart from that his views are important because there is precious little critique of the term white privilige in the article. The vast majority of commentators in the article use the term uncritically. So this recognises a viewpoint which has a impeccable source, is useful for readers to know about, and is held by an expert.
Please address these two points 1) Can you name another, better, source of direct quotes from Dr Peterson that the words which come out his mouth? 2) why you feel Dr Peterson is not qualified? Keith Johnston ( talk) 08:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
After reading the full archive I regret can now see there is no further point in pursuing this discussion with Greyfell. I am taking this to the wider community Keith Johnston ( talk) 10:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
In this context I am using "Reception" as a neutral synonym for critique/criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz You are quite correct. It was an error on my part to propose the word Reception. I do mean a Critique section. My intention was to chose a word which is neutral. The wikipedia essay on criticism advises to use the word Critique rather than criticism. Let me close this discussion and begin a new threat with the correct wording. Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is that the article should not contain a "Critique" section.
RfC should this article contain a "Critique" section? Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
What exactly would be in the section? If there is enough materials for such a section then let us start collecting them here. Carptrash ( talk) 17:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@ChiveFung Agree that all drafts can be trimmed. Many of the RS refer to popular usage and criticism although some anticipate this by attacking the concepts behind the theory as inherently wooly, and therefore cannot be dismissed as mere ignorance. Again without specific criticism of the RS I cannot defend it.
@William Avery thanks, we can debate RS. However if the existing section entitled "Contrasting Concepts" is intended to be a repository of critique then it fails because a) the title does not suggest critique but rather contrast, which has a different meaning. b) Does not offer any insight into popular usage and criticism (see RS below) c) Does not adequately represent the seriousness of Arnesen's critique of the scholarship
@Carptrash thanks, please be specific in relation to RS. I cannot defend "stuff" but I can make a case for the RS as a) popular usage and criticism and b) academic criticism not currently covered or represented in the article.
@Lord Mondegreen Can I be clear, are you arguing that only peer-reviewed academic publishers are RS in the context of this page? if that is the case then we would need to remove a significant number of references to be consistent. Keith Johnston ( talk) 13:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
There is very little critique of the theory of White Privilege in this article, and what there is is limited to technical debates within academia, not the concept as a whole. Nevertheless, outside very limited academic circles, the theory is contentious. This should be reflected in the article. While in theory critique can be woven into the body of the article, in practice this has not happened. A Critique section would bring balance to this article, which is my view is currently little better than propaganda for neo marxist postmodernist theories. Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That the term is meaningless and harmful to miniorities http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431393/white-privilege-myth-reality
That its legally-codified racism http://hlrecord.org/2016/02/racism-justified-a-critical-look-at-critical-race-theory/
University of Toronto Psychology Professor Dr Jordan Peterson has stated that use of the term "White Privilege" is itself racist, noting: “The idea that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime, regardless of the specific innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, there is absolutely nothing that is more racist than that…The idea of collectively held guilt at the level of the individual as a legal or philosophical principle is dangerous. ” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UL-SdOhwek 52.03 onwards
That there is significant controversy about the term outside of a small number of academics. Writing in Canada's National Post, Chris Selley, stated that Jordan Peterson's opponents had: “underestimated the fury being inspired by modern preoccupations like white privilege and cultural appropriation, and by the marginalization, shouting down or outright cancellation of other viewpoints in polite society’s institutions.” http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/chris-selley-jordan-peterson-hero-of-the-anti-pc-crowd-just-keeps-winning/wcm/41eae965-36ba-4b9e-a6af-b49d03f7b9b1
Sadly, I can assure you none of these sources will be deemed acceptable by the editors who habitually police this page, hence the request for outside editorial input. I would encourage others to post well sourced critiques. Keith Johnston ( talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That "checking your privilege" is a religious ritual which is part of a process harmful to liberal democracy. Andrew Sullivan: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/is-intersectionality-a-religion.html Keith Johnston ( talk) 20:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Greer says the way privilege is now tied to race has created a new moral culture of victimhood. http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/09/white-privilege-victimhood-race-issues-college-campuses/
America’s New Racial Segregationists Are On The Left http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/23/americas-new-racial-segregationists-are-on-the-left/ Keith Johnston ( talk) 21:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Scott Greer's book, No Campus for White Men: The Transformation of Higher Education into Hateful Indoctrination, how white privilege is creating an intensely hostile and fearful atmosphere
https://www.amazon.com/Campus-White-Men-Transformation-Indoctrination/dp/1944229620
Keith Johnston (
talk)
21:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Attack on white privilege as a concept and argument that whiteness scholars' extreme and essentialist formulations make their categories and contributions analytically quite useless. Also that the study is ideologically driven by marxists - Professor Eric Arnesen https://newrepublic.com/article/91844/paler-shade-white Keith Johnston ( talk) 06:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The left’s rhetoric about “unconscious bias” and “white male privilege” has been a hoax. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-white-male-privilege-myth-busted/news-story/f3f6f12ef75add0be2efecbf0e4723b1 Keith Johnston ( talk) 06:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Article lampooning "white privilege" by creating whites-only privilege fund https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/conservative-provocateur-milo-yiannopoulos-starts-white-men?utm_term=.jgKvQb5xlL#.bjlVpD2e1Y Keith Johnston ( talk) 07:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Article accusing "white privilege" purveyors as being thoroughly self-interested and entirely without real virtue. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/01/the-scourge-of-self-flagellating-politics Keith Johnston ( talk) 08:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Article about "A controversial new course at the University of Notre Dame on “white privilege” launched recently despite a tidal wave of criticism from conservatives, Catholic groups, and even many students and alumni who suggested the subject matter is biased, inflammatory, and meant to shame white people and indoctrinate students." https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21197/
Article about how white privilege" has "become a powerful tool to silence certain voices entirely" (sound familiar?) http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/privilege-leftist-critique-left/ Keith Johnston ( talk) 08:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Article about how notions of white privilege has been used silence or discredit speakers and how that perpetuates the very injustice it seeks to expose. http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/privilism-when-having-privilege-becomes-an-insult/ http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/privilism-when-having-privilege-becomes-an-insult/ Keith Johnston ( talk) 09:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. So long as you are using RS where you can demonstrate that its an interpretive issue, thats fair enough. Let the sources speak for themselves. Keith Johnston ( talk) 13:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I reviewed a few of the linked websites and found that the summaries here aren't particularly accurate. The alleged complaint above that white privilege is legally codified racism makes no such argument; it argues that advocates of critical race theory call for legally codified racism, which is quite a different argument. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 13:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
On your specific query see http://hlrecord.org/2016/02/racism-justified-a-critical-look-at-critical-race-theory/ QUOTE" By now, most of you have heard of Critical Race Theory. Its narrative, ideology, and even vocabulary have become a familiar refrain. “Systemic oppression,” “institutional racism,” and “white privilege” have become common topics of debate...To teach Critical Race Theory is to teach the latest in a sad line of theoretical justifications for legally-codified racism."
I have already stated that the summaries are not polished - as you can see there is so much critique and so little time! The intention was to demonstrate volume, prominence and scope of the criticism. Assume good faith. Keith Johnston ( talk) 14:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
and article in The American Conservative which inspired the (above) response in the Washington Post http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/white-privilege-in-our-time/ Keith Johnston ( talk) 10:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
A piece from the National review noting the polarisation of the debate around white privilege between Democrats and Republicans "One side sees white privilege while the other sees anti-white racism. There is no room for agreement or even understanding."Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439431/race-relations-getting-worse-america-why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
So, after going through all the criticism above, in summary the theory of white privilege has come under critique from multiple angles. Some criticisms are of the theory itself and some are based on popular interpretations and usage. I have gone through the articles above in some detail and the arguments justifying these criticisms fall under the following thirteen headings (In no particular order):
I have no doubt that these categories can be reviewed and synthesised. They are certainly broad and fundamental enough to suggest to me that a critique section would be useful. Equally, we should include appropriately sourced responses to the criticism. I will begin to draft a critique section and post that in due course. Keith Johnston ( talk) 23:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I have started with the criticism that white privilege is deployed rhetorically to shut down debate. Here is my first draft which I shall update as time allows.
I will list additional sources as I come across them here and use them as additional sources for argumentation where appropriate:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/06/06/white-privilege-transparent-nonsense/10100723/ "Americans must resist the pernicious efforts of the left to divide us into racial and economic factions. Storylines such as white privilege are in themselves bigoted and prejudiced. I believe racism does exist, but instead of meaningful efforts to find and eradicate real racism, the left creates a false narrative. The only evidence required for guilt is a white skin color.
What happened to us? In the past we confronted our problems head-on; not so today. Divide and conquer seems to be the mantra of the left. Let's not fall victim to the insidious efforts of a radical few." Keith Johnston ( talk) 15:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/09/why-white-privilege-is-not-the-problem/ David Marcus Rejecting the colorblind society model- The idea behind colorblindness was never that we should ignore sensory perceptions or pretend they’re not there, but rather, that we should understand that the color of a person’s skin, in almost every circumstance, tells us absolutely nothing about them. Basically, unless you are their doctor you get no useful information about an individual based on their skin color. As such, there is no rational basis for behaving differently towards anyone based on their skin color. It has nothing to do with denying racism, rejecting heritages or invalidating perspectives. One can desire and even fight for inclusiveness and equality in all three of those areas while still trying to hold their personal interactions to a colorblind standard.Ultimately, the rejection of the colorblind society model and the embrace of privilege theory has stifled discourse. Keith Johnston ( talk) 15:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
http://old.seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003661182_matt11.html "By promoting the "white privilege" canard and by designing a student indoctrination plan, the Seattle School District is putting retrograde, leftist politics ahead of academics, while the perpetrators of "white privilege" are minimizing the capabilities of minorities.That diminishes us all." Matt Rosenberg is a Seattle writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory's Attack on the Promises of Liberalism, Jeffrey J. Pyle "This Note criticizes CRT [critical race theory] as nu unprincipled, divisive and ultimately unhelpful attack on the liberal tradition in America." First, race-crits fail to offer replacements for liberalism's core values.'• Rather, their postmodern rejection of all principles leaves them entirely "critical," while their narrow, interested stance renders them mere advocates within the liberal legal system, not theorists who might offer better alternatives. 20 Second, despite their undeniable energy, the raceemits are remarkably unhelpful as legal and political advocates within the liberal system...in the process, the race-crits' racialist, blame-game rhetoric does much to alienate potentially helpful whites." 22 https://www.scribd.com/document/85213095/Race-Equality-and-the-Rule-of-Law-Critical-Race-Theory-s-Attack Keith Johnston ( talk) 16:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Response to Eric Arnesen Adolph Reed, Jr. International Labor and Working-Class History No. 60 (Fall, 2001), pp. 69-80 The lierature produced under this rubric [whiteness studies] is generally marred by conceptual ambiguities, ahistorical formulations, and lack of interpretive discipline. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27672738?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2015/02/excerpt-shame-by-shelby-steele/ "We can't admit today that the lives of minorities are no longer stunted by either prejudice or "white privilege." And we can't afford to acknowledge that the same is true for American women. Contrition and apology are "correct"; honesty is "incorrect.In this way, today's great liberal-conservative divide puts correctness at odds with the kind of forthright self-examination that societies need to do in order to understand the true nature of the problems they face. Frank self-examination puts one at risk of transgressing correctness. So issues like free markets versus redistributive economics, educational reform, immigration, and global warming become battlegrounds in which correctness and the actual truth fight it out-but with most of the moral leverage seemingly on the side of correctness, which has the power to shame and stigmatize all who oppose it. Correctness constitutes a power in itself, a power substantial enough to prevail easily, much of the time, over the actual truth. Yet regimes of correctness (even the softer American variety) always stifle the human imagination and lead to cultural stagnation because they are inherently repressive.They impose an empty and often tyrannical conformity on society. One need only think of communism and socialism in postwar Europe-entire peoples policed into a socialist form of political correctness by autocrats and their henchmen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/the_lies_of_white_privilege.html "The difference is significant because a “white privilege” assertion as pertaining to all whites masks the base cause of lack of privilege which is poverty and lack of access to quality education to break the bounds of poverty." Frank Ryan
https://thoughtcatalog.com/dave-nappi/2014/04/a-logical-case-for-the-non-existence-of-white-privilege-and-institutional-racism/ My opinion is because the core of critical theory is reliant on a logical fallacy itself. Author Dave Nappi
Subotnik, Daniel (1998) "What’s Wrong with Critical Race Theory: Reopening the Case for Middle Class Values," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 7: Iss. 3, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol7/iss3/1
In effect, CRATs [Critical Race Theory Advocates] are saying: It's a black-or race-thing; you wouldn't understand. In an atmosphere heady with the prospects of a total surrender, CRATs lost interest in compromise and collaboration. The old guard had to go; and go it largely did. With control of race discourse in their hands, CRATs could turn their attention away from the academy and toward American culture in general. And this they have done with enthusiasm. Developing and then applying new methods for the purpose, and scouring the broad landscape of American life, they have found race and racism implicated in a terrifying array of institutions and practices. Author: Subotnik, Daniel Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Bauer, Susan Wise. “Examinations of White Privilege May Be Counterproductive.” Racism. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Current Controversies. Rpt. from “Whiteness.” Books & Culture 6 (Sept.-Nov. 2000): 18. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. Unfortunately I cannot find a link to the text. Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Beyond All Reason The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law By DANIEL A. FARBER and SUZANNA SHERRY Oxford University Press- Book review in New York times- criticism of CRT - the underlying theories and academic approaches supporting white privilege: "We can now summarize the fundamental tenets of the new radical multiculturalism. If the modern era begins with the European Enlightenment, the postmodern era that captivates the radical multiculturalists begins with its rejection. According to the new radicals, the Enlightenment-inspired ideas that have previously structured our world, especially the legal and academic parts of it, are a fraud perpetrated and perpetuated by white males to consolidate their own power. Those who disagree are not only blind but bigoted. The Enlightenment's goal of an objective and reasoned basis for knowledge, merit, truth, justice, and the like is an impossibility: "objectivity," in the sense of standards of judgment that transcend individual perspectives, does not exist. Reason is just another code word for the views of the privileged. The Enlightenment itself merely replaced one socially constructed view of reality with another, mistaking power for knowledge. There is naught but power." http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/farber-reason.html Keith Johnston ( talk) 18:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Minnesota Law Review article by DANIEL A. FARBER and SUZANNA SHERRY in response to criticims of their book Beyond All Reason The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law (see above review) http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3051&context=facpubs They are attacked on the basis that: "We are "simply among those who are fighting back on behalf of white supremacy, power, and privilege,"11 Keith Johnston ( talk) 19:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Anne Coughlin's review in Minnesota Law Review of DANIEL A. FARBER and SUZANNA SHERRY book Beyond All Reason http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/hein/coughlin/83minn_l_rev1619_1999.pdf Keith Johnston ( talk) 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/whiteness-a-nonsense-category/20198#.WZyAnpOGNp8 Indeed, those who protest that they are not racist, or do not even perceive themselves as white, are denounced for failing to come to terms with their white privilege. Whiteness is the equivalent of original sin, and white racism inescapable. Frank Furedi is a sociologist and commentator. His latest book, Populism And The Culture Wars In Europe: The Conflict Of Values Between Hungary and the EU, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Critics have commented that the theoretical framework of “white privilege’ can be too easily deployed rhetorically to dismiss arguments of persons based on features of their personhood— ad hominem arguments. [1]. Writing in the Harvard Political Review, Nishin Nathwani [2] argued: “Rather than serving as immanent critique of the ideological content of discourse, the rhetoric of privilege has become a means to divert attention away from the substance of arguments to their immediate origin.” [3]. They argue that, in practice, the theory has been transformed into a rhetorical argument to mute rivals. Writing in the Harvard Political Review, Taonga Leslie argued: “A little awareness of the privileges we are allotted by society is a good thing. It helps us to empathize with others who have not shared our advantages. However, when left uncontrolled, awareness of our privilege can quickly transform into a new form of prejudice. Instead of using privilege as a tool to understand different perspectives, too often we use it to silence and shame our opponents into submission.” [4] They note that discussion on privilege has become a powerful tool to silence certain voices entirely. [5] and those who question it are delegitimized as backwards, privileged bigots whose opinions should be at best ignored and at worst banned. [6].
Moreover they claim that white privilege has been deployed as an insult, encapsulated in the popular use of the term “Check your privilege”. Writing in Time Magazine, Tal Fortgang stated: “There is a phrase that floats around college campuses, Princeton being no exception, that threatens to strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them. “Check your privilege,” the saying goes, and I have been reprimanded by it several times this year.” [7]
In her book, The Perils of ‘Privilege’: Why Injustice Can’t Be Solved by Accusing Others of Advantage, Phoebe Maltz Bovy argues privilege has become “the word and concept of our age . . . our era’s number one insult.” whose “…role as an aide in online bullying exceeds its utility as a theoretical framework.” [8] Keith Johnston ( talk) 08:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics have further claimed that the framework of ‘white privilege’ and its application is a distraction from real efforts to change society. In particular critics question the utility of sessions, modules, readings, and talks commanding whites to reflect on their privileged status.
“Privilege workshops and introspections abound in higher education, yet there’s scant evidence that increased awareness will reduce the underlying financial obstacles. In other words, checking everyone's privilege at Harvard won't somehow increase the economic diversity of its students. Only real policies, not hand-wringing workshops, can accomplish that. It's time the conversation about privilege shifted accordingly.” [9]
Critics claim such 'white privilege sessions' are counterproductive as they “shunt energy from genuine activism into—I’m sorry—a kind of performance art?” [10]. They recommend a more productive way of reducing bigotry is to focus on financial inequality. Bovy ( Phoebe Maltz Bovy) states: “If “privilege” hasn’t worked—and it hasn’t—…It’s time, more to the point, to step away from the question of individual motivation altogether, and to approach questions of injustice from more productive angles.” [11] “Addressing unconscious bigotry — never the most effective strategy — is altogether hopeless against the conscious variety,” Bovy concludes. “And it’s the conscious one we’re now up against.”
To counter it, Bovy calls for a greater focus on differences in financial capital rather than cultural capital, and more awareness of lingering macro problems over microaggressions. Bovy also yearns for more socioeconomic diversity in media organizations and "a return to traditional reporting over all those clickbait personal essays and knee-jerk anti-privilege screeds". [12] Keith Johnston ( talk) 09:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics claim that that the practice of publicly declaring your privilege – so called ‘privilege awareness’ - exacerbates existing inequalities while offering the powerful the means to assuage their guilt. [13]. More specifically: “what whites are seeking is the sweet relief of moral absolution. Inside they are pleading, “Please don’t hate me!” And I wouldn’t be surprised if there is an accompanying feeling of purification (redemption, even) that comes with such consultant-given absolution”. [14]
The idea is that “Privilege awareness has become a status symbol.” and Angela Nagle argues that: “Publicly declaring your sins makes you appear a better person than those who have not declared them” and such rituals “escalate in absurdity” until ” one has to turn inward and denounce oneself with the same ferocity.” [15] Thus white people “must cultivate a guilt complex over the privileged status your race enjoys.” [16]
Nagle argues such propositions are problematic because “It is difficult to think of any positive political movement past or present that has changed the lives of human beings for the better based on misanthropy and radical performances of self-hatred.” [17] Keith Johnston ( talk) 10:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics maintain that the racial conversation, born in part out of theories of white privilege is tribalistic and is seen by some as being anti-white racism.
JD Vance argues that "On one side are primarily white people, increasingly represented by the Republican party and the institutions of conservative media. On the other is a collection of different minority groups and a cosmopolitan — and usually wealthier — class of whites. These sides don’t even speak the same language: One side sees white privilege while the other sees anti-white racism. There is no room for agreement or even understanding. [18]. Others argue the idea the proposition that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime, regardless of the specific innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, is racist.
Brendan O'Neill argues that: "The idea that all white men have a certain kind of life or outlook is as dumb, and foul, as saying all black men are criminals." [19]. University of Toronto Psychology Professor Dr Jordan Peterson has stated that use of the term "White Privilege" is itself racist, noting: “The idea that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime, regardless of the specific innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, there is absolutely nothing that is more racist than that…The idea of collectively held guilt at the level of the individual as a legal or philosophical principle is dangerous. ” [20].
Popular reaction to the theories application includes the view that it is racist. The New York Times reported that, after a diversity committee in Westport, USA asked students to reflect on the role of “white privilege” in their lives the reaction from residents included: “This is nothing more than race baiting,” and “Make no mistake, the idea of white privilege is just as racist as saying there is black privilege.” [21] Writing in the Harvard Law record, Bill Barlow noted "By now, most of you have heard of Critical Race Theory. Its narrative, ideology, and even vocabulary have become a familiar refrain. “Systemic oppression,” “institutional racism,” and “white privilege” have become common topics of debate...To teach Critical Race Theory is to teach the latest in a sad line of theoretical justifications for legally-codified racism [22]. Keith Johnston ( talk) 10:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics state that arguing that white privilege applies to the great majority of whites is inaccurate, since many of them are underprivileged and that the reality is more complex that the theory allows. [23] They argue "No reasonable person can argue that white privilege applies to the great majority of whites, let alone to all whites." [24] and that the purveyors of the theory use the "sweeping terms ‘white men’ or ‘male privilege’, as if whiteness and maleness were inherently beneficial. As if loads of white men aren’t dirt poor and awfully underprivileged." [25]
JD Vance argues the segregated white poor facing destitution are unlikely to recognize 'white privilege' as meaningful since they know few blacks and "Poor whites in West Virginia don’t have the time or the inclination to read Harvard economics studies" Going on to say. "...the privileges that matter — that is, the ones they see — are vanishing because of destitution: the privilege to pay for college without bankruptcy, the privilege to work a decent job, the privilege to put food on the table without the aid of food stamps, the privilege not to learn of yet another classmate’s premature death. That working-class whites have failed to rise to the challenge is perhaps regrettable. But in a world where many poor whites know very few blacks of any class, it is not especially surprising." [26].
Eric Arnesen argues that, in many cases, "whiteness scholars' extreme and essentialist formulations make their categories and contributions analytically quite useless. [27]. In Whiteness and the Historians’ Imagination: Arnesan criticises scholars for "arbitrary and inconsistent definitions of core concepts...offering little concrete evidence to support many of their arguments, these works often take creative liberties with the evidence they do have; they also put words into their subjects' mouths to compensate for the absence of first-hand perspectives by the historical actors themselves. Too much of the historical scholarship on whiteness has disregarded scholarly standards, employed sloppy methodology, generated new buzzwords and jargon, and, at times, produced an erroneous history." [28] Keith Johnston ( talk) 11:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics claim that neo-Marxists have replaced frameworks of ideology with frameworks of privilege. [29] It is generally acknowledged, including by the principle authors of the theoretical underpinnings, that they are "much influenced by Marxism." [30]
Critics such as Scott Greer writing in No Campus for White Men claim "the growing obsession with diversity, victimization and identity politics on today's college campuses...is creating an intensely hostile and fearful atmosphere that can only lead, ultimately, to ever greater polarization in American society." [31]
Some critics claim that this polarization is part of the political purpose of the "cultural Marxists" [32]. Dennis Prager argues the: "The political goal is to ensure that blacks continue to view America as racist. The Left knows that the only way to retain political power in America is to perpetuate the belief among black Americans that their primary problem is white racism. Only then will blacks continue to regard the Left and the Democrats as indispensable." [33] And: "For the Left to keep its investment in race alive, it must mortgage everyone to the notion that they’re not individuals, but members of a racial group, thus pitting everyone against each other." [34] Keith Johnston ( talk) 12:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Nishin Nathwani argues that the the privilege framework "mimics the identity-based exclusionary politics unique to totalitarian thinking, and that... the left, ought to be extremely wary of its uncritical use." [35] Keith Johnston ( talk) 12:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
David Marcus has claimed that in practice privilege theory is an attack on equality because it means contributors and their ideas must be “judged on the basis of their skin color” [36] Arguing that 'the basic American value that “all men are created equal” still means something. And replacing it with “all people are unequal and should be considered based on their privilege or lack thereof” is a destructive notion that should be confronted and defeated.' [37]
Conor Friedersdorf argues that a we should “strive for a future where all individuals can embrace or ignore their racial identity per their preference: rather than a “hyper-emphasis on everyone's racial or ethnic background, including artificially constructed majoritarian whiteness”. And that such practice is dangerous noting: “nothing in U.S. history leads me to believe that encouraging people to regard whiteness as the core of their identity will end well. [38]
References
Nishin Nathwani claims “The mode of argumentation associated with the privilege framework invokes an era of right-wing political thought that is both dangerous to democratic values and divergent from the ideals of inclusion, representation, and equality at the core of leftist politics.” [1] Keith Johnston ( talk) 13:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." Shouldn't it say "...for societal privileges that are alleged to benefit people" or "...are thought by some to benefit people". I mean this is a theory, not objective fact. Keithramone33 ( talk) 23:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This question has been discussed at length and was the subject of an RFC (see Talk:White_privilege/Archive_8#RFC: Neutrality of the first paragraph). To reiterate my position:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on White privilege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://data.psych.udel.edu/abelcher/Shared%20Documents/6%20General%20Diversity%20Issues%20%2815%29/Powell.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://data.psych.udel.edu/abelcher/Shared%20Documents/6%20General%20Diversity%20Issues%20%2815%29/Powell.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
'White privilege' is a theory and political concept, not a 'term for societal privileges.' The article immediately presupposes that these 'societal privileges' exist, but it is not for the authors of an encyclopedia to make that claim, regardless of whether or not it is accurate. This topic concerns subjective ideas and constructs, not unanimously agreed upon scientific conclusions and facts of life. Surely the whites facing extermination in South Africa and Zimbabwe are not benefiting from their racial characteristics, to give one example of where one might dissent. As usual, we have a preposterously biased entry here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.22.145 ( talk) 04:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and perhaps it was their brown/black privilege that caused the Moors to find themselves in a bit of hot water during the Reconquista and Inquisition, but we wouldn't quite put it that way, would we? Imagine if someone were to say that the Muslim immigrants in Europe are themselves responsible for the discrimination that they face? Two can play this stupid game. These are all politically motivated ideas. The point is that it is not for Wikipedia to pass those kinds of judgments.
![]() | 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I have noticed on several Wikipages (Christian privilege, eugenics, Male Privilege, Feminism) there is some sort of an opposition or criticism sub-section. Is there any particular reason why this page doesn't have one? Would I be wrong in adding it, even if it were to be properly sourced? R00b07 ( talk) 15:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The only reason affirmative action exists is to counteract the effect of privilege. Pointing out that AA exists doesn't constitute meaningful criticism. ChiveFungi ( talk) 02:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused. While I understand this isn't a forum, I don't understand how valid criticism of a subject is not deemed worthy of inclusion into an otherwise biased article. I understand the view might not be popular, and that it isn't correct to imply that affirmative action is just another form of racism, and that white privilege no longer exists because of it. And with several clear examples already given in this very talk page, and repeatedly erased, this smacks of bias.
Is this encyclopedia article, or an extension of the black lives matter movement? 2.29.89.166 ( talk) 18:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. You make two points - that the source is unreliable and that Dr Peterson is not a reliable source. Firstly: You are confusing source with medium. Youtube is not the "source". Youtube is the medium. The source is a direct quote from Dr Peterson, which is preferable to hearsay. This is the best source for direct quotes from Dr Peterson. Can you name another, better, source of direct quotes from Dr Peterson that the words which come out his mouth?
You then question Dr Peterson's status as a psychologist. He is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto who is directly addressing the meaning of the term White Privilege, which is precisely the subject of this article. What else do you need? You have not (I suspect because you cannot) directly address why you feel Dr Peterson is not qualified. Quite apart from that his views are important because there is precious little critique of the term white privilige in the article. The vast majority of commentators in the article use the term uncritically. So this recognises a viewpoint which has a impeccable source, is useful for readers to know about, and is held by an expert.
Please address these two points 1) Can you name another, better, source of direct quotes from Dr Peterson that the words which come out his mouth? 2) why you feel Dr Peterson is not qualified? Keith Johnston ( talk) 08:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
After reading the full archive I regret can now see there is no further point in pursuing this discussion with Greyfell. I am taking this to the wider community Keith Johnston ( talk) 10:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
In this context I am using "Reception" as a neutral synonym for critique/criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz You are quite correct. It was an error on my part to propose the word Reception. I do mean a Critique section. My intention was to chose a word which is neutral. The wikipedia essay on criticism advises to use the word Critique rather than criticism. Let me close this discussion and begin a new threat with the correct wording. Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is that the article should not contain a "Critique" section.
RfC should this article contain a "Critique" section? Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
What exactly would be in the section? If there is enough materials for such a section then let us start collecting them here. Carptrash ( talk) 17:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@ChiveFung Agree that all drafts can be trimmed. Many of the RS refer to popular usage and criticism although some anticipate this by attacking the concepts behind the theory as inherently wooly, and therefore cannot be dismissed as mere ignorance. Again without specific criticism of the RS I cannot defend it.
@William Avery thanks, we can debate RS. However if the existing section entitled "Contrasting Concepts" is intended to be a repository of critique then it fails because a) the title does not suggest critique but rather contrast, which has a different meaning. b) Does not offer any insight into popular usage and criticism (see RS below) c) Does not adequately represent the seriousness of Arnesen's critique of the scholarship
@Carptrash thanks, please be specific in relation to RS. I cannot defend "stuff" but I can make a case for the RS as a) popular usage and criticism and b) academic criticism not currently covered or represented in the article.
@Lord Mondegreen Can I be clear, are you arguing that only peer-reviewed academic publishers are RS in the context of this page? if that is the case then we would need to remove a significant number of references to be consistent. Keith Johnston ( talk) 13:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
There is very little critique of the theory of White Privilege in this article, and what there is is limited to technical debates within academia, not the concept as a whole. Nevertheless, outside very limited academic circles, the theory is contentious. This should be reflected in the article. While in theory critique can be woven into the body of the article, in practice this has not happened. A Critique section would bring balance to this article, which is my view is currently little better than propaganda for neo marxist postmodernist theories. Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That the term is meaningless and harmful to miniorities http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431393/white-privilege-myth-reality
That its legally-codified racism http://hlrecord.org/2016/02/racism-justified-a-critical-look-at-critical-race-theory/
University of Toronto Psychology Professor Dr Jordan Peterson has stated that use of the term "White Privilege" is itself racist, noting: “The idea that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime, regardless of the specific innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, there is absolutely nothing that is more racist than that…The idea of collectively held guilt at the level of the individual as a legal or philosophical principle is dangerous. ” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UL-SdOhwek 52.03 onwards
That there is significant controversy about the term outside of a small number of academics. Writing in Canada's National Post, Chris Selley, stated that Jordan Peterson's opponents had: “underestimated the fury being inspired by modern preoccupations like white privilege and cultural appropriation, and by the marginalization, shouting down or outright cancellation of other viewpoints in polite society’s institutions.” http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/chris-selley-jordan-peterson-hero-of-the-anti-pc-crowd-just-keeps-winning/wcm/41eae965-36ba-4b9e-a6af-b49d03f7b9b1
Sadly, I can assure you none of these sources will be deemed acceptable by the editors who habitually police this page, hence the request for outside editorial input. I would encourage others to post well sourced critiques. Keith Johnston ( talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That "checking your privilege" is a religious ritual which is part of a process harmful to liberal democracy. Andrew Sullivan: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/is-intersectionality-a-religion.html Keith Johnston ( talk) 20:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Greer says the way privilege is now tied to race has created a new moral culture of victimhood. http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/09/white-privilege-victimhood-race-issues-college-campuses/
America’s New Racial Segregationists Are On The Left http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/23/americas-new-racial-segregationists-are-on-the-left/ Keith Johnston ( talk) 21:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Scott Greer's book, No Campus for White Men: The Transformation of Higher Education into Hateful Indoctrination, how white privilege is creating an intensely hostile and fearful atmosphere
https://www.amazon.com/Campus-White-Men-Transformation-Indoctrination/dp/1944229620
Keith Johnston (
talk)
21:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Attack on white privilege as a concept and argument that whiteness scholars' extreme and essentialist formulations make their categories and contributions analytically quite useless. Also that the study is ideologically driven by marxists - Professor Eric Arnesen https://newrepublic.com/article/91844/paler-shade-white Keith Johnston ( talk) 06:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The left’s rhetoric about “unconscious bias” and “white male privilege” has been a hoax. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/mark-latham-white-male-privilege-myth-busted/news-story/f3f6f12ef75add0be2efecbf0e4723b1 Keith Johnston ( talk) 06:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Article lampooning "white privilege" by creating whites-only privilege fund https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/conservative-provocateur-milo-yiannopoulos-starts-white-men?utm_term=.jgKvQb5xlL#.bjlVpD2e1Y Keith Johnston ( talk) 07:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Article accusing "white privilege" purveyors as being thoroughly self-interested and entirely without real virtue. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/01/the-scourge-of-self-flagellating-politics Keith Johnston ( talk) 08:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Article about "A controversial new course at the University of Notre Dame on “white privilege” launched recently despite a tidal wave of criticism from conservatives, Catholic groups, and even many students and alumni who suggested the subject matter is biased, inflammatory, and meant to shame white people and indoctrinate students." https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21197/
Article about how white privilege" has "become a powerful tool to silence certain voices entirely" (sound familiar?) http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/privilege-leftist-critique-left/ Keith Johnston ( talk) 08:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Article about how notions of white privilege has been used silence or discredit speakers and how that perpetuates the very injustice it seeks to expose. http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/privilism-when-having-privilege-becomes-an-insult/ http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/privilism-when-having-privilege-becomes-an-insult/ Keith Johnston ( talk) 09:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. So long as you are using RS where you can demonstrate that its an interpretive issue, thats fair enough. Let the sources speak for themselves. Keith Johnston ( talk) 13:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I reviewed a few of the linked websites and found that the summaries here aren't particularly accurate. The alleged complaint above that white privilege is legally codified racism makes no such argument; it argues that advocates of critical race theory call for legally codified racism, which is quite a different argument. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 13:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
On your specific query see http://hlrecord.org/2016/02/racism-justified-a-critical-look-at-critical-race-theory/ QUOTE" By now, most of you have heard of Critical Race Theory. Its narrative, ideology, and even vocabulary have become a familiar refrain. “Systemic oppression,” “institutional racism,” and “white privilege” have become common topics of debate...To teach Critical Race Theory is to teach the latest in a sad line of theoretical justifications for legally-codified racism."
I have already stated that the summaries are not polished - as you can see there is so much critique and so little time! The intention was to demonstrate volume, prominence and scope of the criticism. Assume good faith. Keith Johnston ( talk) 14:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
and article in The American Conservative which inspired the (above) response in the Washington Post http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/white-privilege-in-our-time/ Keith Johnston ( talk) 10:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
A piece from the National review noting the polarisation of the debate around white privilege between Democrats and Republicans "One side sees white privilege while the other sees anti-white racism. There is no room for agreement or even understanding."Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439431/race-relations-getting-worse-america-why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
So, after going through all the criticism above, in summary the theory of white privilege has come under critique from multiple angles. Some criticisms are of the theory itself and some are based on popular interpretations and usage. I have gone through the articles above in some detail and the arguments justifying these criticisms fall under the following thirteen headings (In no particular order):
I have no doubt that these categories can be reviewed and synthesised. They are certainly broad and fundamental enough to suggest to me that a critique section would be useful. Equally, we should include appropriately sourced responses to the criticism. I will begin to draft a critique section and post that in due course. Keith Johnston ( talk) 23:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I have started with the criticism that white privilege is deployed rhetorically to shut down debate. Here is my first draft which I shall update as time allows.
I will list additional sources as I come across them here and use them as additional sources for argumentation where appropriate:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/06/06/white-privilege-transparent-nonsense/10100723/ "Americans must resist the pernicious efforts of the left to divide us into racial and economic factions. Storylines such as white privilege are in themselves bigoted and prejudiced. I believe racism does exist, but instead of meaningful efforts to find and eradicate real racism, the left creates a false narrative. The only evidence required for guilt is a white skin color.
What happened to us? In the past we confronted our problems head-on; not so today. Divide and conquer seems to be the mantra of the left. Let's not fall victim to the insidious efforts of a radical few." Keith Johnston ( talk) 15:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/09/why-white-privilege-is-not-the-problem/ David Marcus Rejecting the colorblind society model- The idea behind colorblindness was never that we should ignore sensory perceptions or pretend they’re not there, but rather, that we should understand that the color of a person’s skin, in almost every circumstance, tells us absolutely nothing about them. Basically, unless you are their doctor you get no useful information about an individual based on their skin color. As such, there is no rational basis for behaving differently towards anyone based on their skin color. It has nothing to do with denying racism, rejecting heritages or invalidating perspectives. One can desire and even fight for inclusiveness and equality in all three of those areas while still trying to hold their personal interactions to a colorblind standard.Ultimately, the rejection of the colorblind society model and the embrace of privilege theory has stifled discourse. Keith Johnston ( talk) 15:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
http://old.seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003661182_matt11.html "By promoting the "white privilege" canard and by designing a student indoctrination plan, the Seattle School District is putting retrograde, leftist politics ahead of academics, while the perpetrators of "white privilege" are minimizing the capabilities of minorities.That diminishes us all." Matt Rosenberg is a Seattle writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Race, Equality and the Rule of Law: Critical Race Theory's Attack on the Promises of Liberalism, Jeffrey J. Pyle "This Note criticizes CRT [critical race theory] as nu unprincipled, divisive and ultimately unhelpful attack on the liberal tradition in America." First, race-crits fail to offer replacements for liberalism's core values.'• Rather, their postmodern rejection of all principles leaves them entirely "critical," while their narrow, interested stance renders them mere advocates within the liberal legal system, not theorists who might offer better alternatives. 20 Second, despite their undeniable energy, the raceemits are remarkably unhelpful as legal and political advocates within the liberal system...in the process, the race-crits' racialist, blame-game rhetoric does much to alienate potentially helpful whites." 22 https://www.scribd.com/document/85213095/Race-Equality-and-the-Rule-of-Law-Critical-Race-Theory-s-Attack Keith Johnston ( talk) 16:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Response to Eric Arnesen Adolph Reed, Jr. International Labor and Working-Class History No. 60 (Fall, 2001), pp. 69-80 The lierature produced under this rubric [whiteness studies] is generally marred by conceptual ambiguities, ahistorical formulations, and lack of interpretive discipline. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27672738?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2015/02/excerpt-shame-by-shelby-steele/ "We can't admit today that the lives of minorities are no longer stunted by either prejudice or "white privilege." And we can't afford to acknowledge that the same is true for American women. Contrition and apology are "correct"; honesty is "incorrect.In this way, today's great liberal-conservative divide puts correctness at odds with the kind of forthright self-examination that societies need to do in order to understand the true nature of the problems they face. Frank self-examination puts one at risk of transgressing correctness. So issues like free markets versus redistributive economics, educational reform, immigration, and global warming become battlegrounds in which correctness and the actual truth fight it out-but with most of the moral leverage seemingly on the side of correctness, which has the power to shame and stigmatize all who oppose it. Correctness constitutes a power in itself, a power substantial enough to prevail easily, much of the time, over the actual truth. Yet regimes of correctness (even the softer American variety) always stifle the human imagination and lead to cultural stagnation because they are inherently repressive.They impose an empty and often tyrannical conformity on society. One need only think of communism and socialism in postwar Europe-entire peoples policed into a socialist form of political correctness by autocrats and their henchmen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/the_lies_of_white_privilege.html "The difference is significant because a “white privilege” assertion as pertaining to all whites masks the base cause of lack of privilege which is poverty and lack of access to quality education to break the bounds of poverty." Frank Ryan
https://thoughtcatalog.com/dave-nappi/2014/04/a-logical-case-for-the-non-existence-of-white-privilege-and-institutional-racism/ My opinion is because the core of critical theory is reliant on a logical fallacy itself. Author Dave Nappi
Subotnik, Daniel (1998) "What’s Wrong with Critical Race Theory: Reopening the Case for Middle Class Values," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 7: Iss. 3, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol7/iss3/1
In effect, CRATs [Critical Race Theory Advocates] are saying: It's a black-or race-thing; you wouldn't understand. In an atmosphere heady with the prospects of a total surrender, CRATs lost interest in compromise and collaboration. The old guard had to go; and go it largely did. With control of race discourse in their hands, CRATs could turn their attention away from the academy and toward American culture in general. And this they have done with enthusiasm. Developing and then applying new methods for the purpose, and scouring the broad landscape of American life, they have found race and racism implicated in a terrifying array of institutions and practices. Author: Subotnik, Daniel Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Bauer, Susan Wise. “Examinations of White Privilege May Be Counterproductive.” Racism. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Current Controversies. Rpt. from “Whiteness.” Books & Culture 6 (Sept.-Nov. 2000): 18. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. Unfortunately I cannot find a link to the text. Keith Johnston ( talk) 17:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Beyond All Reason The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law By DANIEL A. FARBER and SUZANNA SHERRY Oxford University Press- Book review in New York times- criticism of CRT - the underlying theories and academic approaches supporting white privilege: "We can now summarize the fundamental tenets of the new radical multiculturalism. If the modern era begins with the European Enlightenment, the postmodern era that captivates the radical multiculturalists begins with its rejection. According to the new radicals, the Enlightenment-inspired ideas that have previously structured our world, especially the legal and academic parts of it, are a fraud perpetrated and perpetuated by white males to consolidate their own power. Those who disagree are not only blind but bigoted. The Enlightenment's goal of an objective and reasoned basis for knowledge, merit, truth, justice, and the like is an impossibility: "objectivity," in the sense of standards of judgment that transcend individual perspectives, does not exist. Reason is just another code word for the views of the privileged. The Enlightenment itself merely replaced one socially constructed view of reality with another, mistaking power for knowledge. There is naught but power." http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/farber-reason.html Keith Johnston ( talk) 18:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Minnesota Law Review article by DANIEL A. FARBER and SUZANNA SHERRY in response to criticims of their book Beyond All Reason The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law (see above review) http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3051&context=facpubs They are attacked on the basis that: "We are "simply among those who are fighting back on behalf of white supremacy, power, and privilege,"11 Keith Johnston ( talk) 19:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Anne Coughlin's review in Minnesota Law Review of DANIEL A. FARBER and SUZANNA SHERRY book Beyond All Reason http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/hein/coughlin/83minn_l_rev1619_1999.pdf Keith Johnston ( talk) 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/whiteness-a-nonsense-category/20198#.WZyAnpOGNp8 Indeed, those who protest that they are not racist, or do not even perceive themselves as white, are denounced for failing to come to terms with their white privilege. Whiteness is the equivalent of original sin, and white racism inescapable. Frank Furedi is a sociologist and commentator. His latest book, Populism And The Culture Wars In Europe: The Conflict Of Values Between Hungary and the EU, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Critics have commented that the theoretical framework of “white privilege’ can be too easily deployed rhetorically to dismiss arguments of persons based on features of their personhood— ad hominem arguments. [1]. Writing in the Harvard Political Review, Nishin Nathwani [2] argued: “Rather than serving as immanent critique of the ideological content of discourse, the rhetoric of privilege has become a means to divert attention away from the substance of arguments to their immediate origin.” [3]. They argue that, in practice, the theory has been transformed into a rhetorical argument to mute rivals. Writing in the Harvard Political Review, Taonga Leslie argued: “A little awareness of the privileges we are allotted by society is a good thing. It helps us to empathize with others who have not shared our advantages. However, when left uncontrolled, awareness of our privilege can quickly transform into a new form of prejudice. Instead of using privilege as a tool to understand different perspectives, too often we use it to silence and shame our opponents into submission.” [4] They note that discussion on privilege has become a powerful tool to silence certain voices entirely. [5] and those who question it are delegitimized as backwards, privileged bigots whose opinions should be at best ignored and at worst banned. [6].
Moreover they claim that white privilege has been deployed as an insult, encapsulated in the popular use of the term “Check your privilege”. Writing in Time Magazine, Tal Fortgang stated: “There is a phrase that floats around college campuses, Princeton being no exception, that threatens to strike down opinions without regard for their merits, but rather solely on the basis of the person that voiced them. “Check your privilege,” the saying goes, and I have been reprimanded by it several times this year.” [7]
In her book, The Perils of ‘Privilege’: Why Injustice Can’t Be Solved by Accusing Others of Advantage, Phoebe Maltz Bovy argues privilege has become “the word and concept of our age . . . our era’s number one insult.” whose “…role as an aide in online bullying exceeds its utility as a theoretical framework.” [8] Keith Johnston ( talk) 08:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics have further claimed that the framework of ‘white privilege’ and its application is a distraction from real efforts to change society. In particular critics question the utility of sessions, modules, readings, and talks commanding whites to reflect on their privileged status.
“Privilege workshops and introspections abound in higher education, yet there’s scant evidence that increased awareness will reduce the underlying financial obstacles. In other words, checking everyone's privilege at Harvard won't somehow increase the economic diversity of its students. Only real policies, not hand-wringing workshops, can accomplish that. It's time the conversation about privilege shifted accordingly.” [9]
Critics claim such 'white privilege sessions' are counterproductive as they “shunt energy from genuine activism into—I’m sorry—a kind of performance art?” [10]. They recommend a more productive way of reducing bigotry is to focus on financial inequality. Bovy ( Phoebe Maltz Bovy) states: “If “privilege” hasn’t worked—and it hasn’t—…It’s time, more to the point, to step away from the question of individual motivation altogether, and to approach questions of injustice from more productive angles.” [11] “Addressing unconscious bigotry — never the most effective strategy — is altogether hopeless against the conscious variety,” Bovy concludes. “And it’s the conscious one we’re now up against.”
To counter it, Bovy calls for a greater focus on differences in financial capital rather than cultural capital, and more awareness of lingering macro problems over microaggressions. Bovy also yearns for more socioeconomic diversity in media organizations and "a return to traditional reporting over all those clickbait personal essays and knee-jerk anti-privilege screeds". [12] Keith Johnston ( talk) 09:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics claim that that the practice of publicly declaring your privilege – so called ‘privilege awareness’ - exacerbates existing inequalities while offering the powerful the means to assuage their guilt. [13]. More specifically: “what whites are seeking is the sweet relief of moral absolution. Inside they are pleading, “Please don’t hate me!” And I wouldn’t be surprised if there is an accompanying feeling of purification (redemption, even) that comes with such consultant-given absolution”. [14]
The idea is that “Privilege awareness has become a status symbol.” and Angela Nagle argues that: “Publicly declaring your sins makes you appear a better person than those who have not declared them” and such rituals “escalate in absurdity” until ” one has to turn inward and denounce oneself with the same ferocity.” [15] Thus white people “must cultivate a guilt complex over the privileged status your race enjoys.” [16]
Nagle argues such propositions are problematic because “It is difficult to think of any positive political movement past or present that has changed the lives of human beings for the better based on misanthropy and radical performances of self-hatred.” [17] Keith Johnston ( talk) 10:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics maintain that the racial conversation, born in part out of theories of white privilege is tribalistic and is seen by some as being anti-white racism.
JD Vance argues that "On one side are primarily white people, increasingly represented by the Republican party and the institutions of conservative media. On the other is a collection of different minority groups and a cosmopolitan — and usually wealthier — class of whites. These sides don’t even speak the same language: One side sees white privilege while the other sees anti-white racism. There is no room for agreement or even understanding. [18]. Others argue the idea the proposition that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime, regardless of the specific innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, is racist.
Brendan O'Neill argues that: "The idea that all white men have a certain kind of life or outlook is as dumb, and foul, as saying all black men are criminals." [19]. University of Toronto Psychology Professor Dr Jordan Peterson has stated that use of the term "White Privilege" is itself racist, noting: “The idea that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime, regardless of the specific innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, there is absolutely nothing that is more racist than that…The idea of collectively held guilt at the level of the individual as a legal or philosophical principle is dangerous. ” [20].
Popular reaction to the theories application includes the view that it is racist. The New York Times reported that, after a diversity committee in Westport, USA asked students to reflect on the role of “white privilege” in their lives the reaction from residents included: “This is nothing more than race baiting,” and “Make no mistake, the idea of white privilege is just as racist as saying there is black privilege.” [21] Writing in the Harvard Law record, Bill Barlow noted "By now, most of you have heard of Critical Race Theory. Its narrative, ideology, and even vocabulary have become a familiar refrain. “Systemic oppression,” “institutional racism,” and “white privilege” have become common topics of debate...To teach Critical Race Theory is to teach the latest in a sad line of theoretical justifications for legally-codified racism [22]. Keith Johnston ( talk) 10:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics state that arguing that white privilege applies to the great majority of whites is inaccurate, since many of them are underprivileged and that the reality is more complex that the theory allows. [23] They argue "No reasonable person can argue that white privilege applies to the great majority of whites, let alone to all whites." [24] and that the purveyors of the theory use the "sweeping terms ‘white men’ or ‘male privilege’, as if whiteness and maleness were inherently beneficial. As if loads of white men aren’t dirt poor and awfully underprivileged." [25]
JD Vance argues the segregated white poor facing destitution are unlikely to recognize 'white privilege' as meaningful since they know few blacks and "Poor whites in West Virginia don’t have the time or the inclination to read Harvard economics studies" Going on to say. "...the privileges that matter — that is, the ones they see — are vanishing because of destitution: the privilege to pay for college without bankruptcy, the privilege to work a decent job, the privilege to put food on the table without the aid of food stamps, the privilege not to learn of yet another classmate’s premature death. That working-class whites have failed to rise to the challenge is perhaps regrettable. But in a world where many poor whites know very few blacks of any class, it is not especially surprising." [26].
Eric Arnesen argues that, in many cases, "whiteness scholars' extreme and essentialist formulations make their categories and contributions analytically quite useless. [27]. In Whiteness and the Historians’ Imagination: Arnesan criticises scholars for "arbitrary and inconsistent definitions of core concepts...offering little concrete evidence to support many of their arguments, these works often take creative liberties with the evidence they do have; they also put words into their subjects' mouths to compensate for the absence of first-hand perspectives by the historical actors themselves. Too much of the historical scholarship on whiteness has disregarded scholarly standards, employed sloppy methodology, generated new buzzwords and jargon, and, at times, produced an erroneous history." [28] Keith Johnston ( talk) 11:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Critics claim that neo-Marxists have replaced frameworks of ideology with frameworks of privilege. [29] It is generally acknowledged, including by the principle authors of the theoretical underpinnings, that they are "much influenced by Marxism." [30]
Critics such as Scott Greer writing in No Campus for White Men claim "the growing obsession with diversity, victimization and identity politics on today's college campuses...is creating an intensely hostile and fearful atmosphere that can only lead, ultimately, to ever greater polarization in American society." [31]
Some critics claim that this polarization is part of the political purpose of the "cultural Marxists" [32]. Dennis Prager argues the: "The political goal is to ensure that blacks continue to view America as racist. The Left knows that the only way to retain political power in America is to perpetuate the belief among black Americans that their primary problem is white racism. Only then will blacks continue to regard the Left and the Democrats as indispensable." [33] And: "For the Left to keep its investment in race alive, it must mortgage everyone to the notion that they’re not individuals, but members of a racial group, thus pitting everyone against each other." [34] Keith Johnston ( talk) 12:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Nishin Nathwani argues that the the privilege framework "mimics the identity-based exclusionary politics unique to totalitarian thinking, and that... the left, ought to be extremely wary of its uncritical use." [35] Keith Johnston ( talk) 12:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
David Marcus has claimed that in practice privilege theory is an attack on equality because it means contributors and their ideas must be “judged on the basis of their skin color” [36] Arguing that 'the basic American value that “all men are created equal” still means something. And replacing it with “all people are unequal and should be considered based on their privilege or lack thereof” is a destructive notion that should be confronted and defeated.' [37]
Conor Friedersdorf argues that a we should “strive for a future where all individuals can embrace or ignore their racial identity per their preference: rather than a “hyper-emphasis on everyone's racial or ethnic background, including artificially constructed majoritarian whiteness”. And that such practice is dangerous noting: “nothing in U.S. history leads me to believe that encouraging people to regard whiteness as the core of their identity will end well. [38]
References
Nishin Nathwani claims “The mode of argumentation associated with the privilege framework invokes an era of right-wing political thought that is both dangerous to democratic values and divergent from the ideals of inclusion, representation, and equality at the core of leftist politics.” [1] Keith Johnston ( talk) 13:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances." Shouldn't it say "...for societal privileges that are alleged to benefit people" or "...are thought by some to benefit people". I mean this is a theory, not objective fact. Keithramone33 ( talk) 23:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This question has been discussed at length and was the subject of an RFC (see Talk:White_privilege/Archive_8#RFC: Neutrality of the first paragraph). To reiterate my position:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on White privilege. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://data.psych.udel.edu/abelcher/Shared%20Documents/6%20General%20Diversity%20Issues%20%2815%29/Powell.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://data.psych.udel.edu/abelcher/Shared%20Documents/6%20General%20Diversity%20Issues%20%2815%29/Powell.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
'White privilege' is a theory and political concept, not a 'term for societal privileges.' The article immediately presupposes that these 'societal privileges' exist, but it is not for the authors of an encyclopedia to make that claim, regardless of whether or not it is accurate. This topic concerns subjective ideas and constructs, not unanimously agreed upon scientific conclusions and facts of life. Surely the whites facing extermination in South Africa and Zimbabwe are not benefiting from their racial characteristics, to give one example of where one might dissent. As usual, we have a preposterously biased entry here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.22.145 ( talk) 04:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and perhaps it was their brown/black privilege that caused the Moors to find themselves in a bit of hot water during the Reconquista and Inquisition, but we wouldn't quite put it that way, would we? Imagine if someone were to say that the Muslim immigrants in Europe are themselves responsible for the discrimination that they face? Two can play this stupid game. These are all politically motivated ideas. The point is that it is not for Wikipedia to pass those kinds of judgments.