Can Someone Please Explain to me What White Privilege is?

All you proved in that post is that you yourself were a privileged white. There are also black families that are quite similar.

Not all whites benefit from "white privilege", any more than blacks do. What you are really talking about is different social classes, not "privilege".

Higher social classes have built communication networks they can tap into to benefit themselves in various ways- informal job referrals, etc etc.
It's not a matter of skin color; it's what people do together.

 

What affirmative action is achieving in some cases is elevating unqualified people that create disturbances on college campuses instead of studying or screw up the work of departments they head up on the basis of their ill-gotten degrees.

 

-It is incorrect to define this concept by race because the specific privilege to which you refer is socioeconomic. Every outcome that you recited was a function of your family's economic standing rather than their race. When assessing the privilege provided to the child that is born into the upper class, it does not matter how their parents became well off, it only matters that they have arrived. They receive the same privilege that their family's wealth and education provides regardless if their father came from poverty or opulent wealth. The same concept applies in reverse for a child born into abject poverty. How their parents arrived at being poor and uneducated is similarly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the child was born into poverty and uneducated parents. The poor black child and poor white child have FAR more in common than does a poor black child and a wealthy black child. What we are talking about is socioeconomics, NOT race. If you must create a term, it should be upper class privilege, OR middle class privilege. It is illogical to define it by "white privilege", because the disparity to which you are referring is socioeconomic in nature. There isn't a shared privilege amongst white people. There is a shared privilege amongst people of means.

Where did I get the idea that especially the left insists that we NOT paint Blacks with one broad brush ?.....It would be politically incorrect to call blacks fried chicken loving, watermelon eating, dancing, violent, lazy welfare collectors. While by percentage these are true to varying degrees, this type of stereotyping is about as politically incorrect as it gets, because the perception of the whole does not necessarily describe the individual.

I don't need YOU to explain the lefts position, because I have my own ability to observe society. If YOU believe that the left isn't vehemently opposed to stereotyping, you are an absolute fool that has no idea of which he speaks. In truth, deep down, you know as well as I that the left especially is vehemently opposed to stereotyping. Unless of course that stereotyping helps argue their position, then all of a sudden painting with a broad brush is completely fine.

You must not understand the meaning of a strawman argument, because responding to the notion that ALL blacks were poor during Jim Crow in the South by pointing out there there was in fact a black middle and upper class, is most certainly NOT a strawman to that notion. It in fact is a direct response to what you just said. You seem to be under the false impression that proactively calling something a strawman somehow magically makes it become so. The only thing that proactively calling the obvious response a strawman accomplished is revealing that you already knew your argument was BS and easily shot down. Since there was in fact a black middle and upper class even during the Jim Crow era in the South, you cannot paint with a broad brush that all blacks were poor and uneducated. The perception of the whole that blacks were all poor, does NOT necessarily describe the individual black whom was NOT poor during that era.

My father was born in Detroit into a dirt poor family in the 1930's. Because of the auto industry, there was a thriving black middle class in Detroit at that time. It is nonsensical to paint all blacks in Detroit as poor, and to somehow imply that my father was given educational privilege over the black middle class. For that matter, my father never went beyond the 5th grade. He did become a very hard working truck driver, and provided my family with an upper middle class upbringing. On top of that, my mother is 100% Indian from North Carolina, and she was not able to use white drinking fountains etc. They had to go to another state in order to get married because whites and Indians were not allowed to marry in North Carolina. I was the first to graduate from college in any of my extended family, and I now enjoy a lifestyle knocking on the door of the 1%. I don't say this to brag, but rather to illustrate that in one generation things can change drastically. My father had nothing when born and despite those obstacles, provided his family with a middle class upbringing. His son in turn took that middle class upbringing, got an education, and lives an upper class life. This took one generation. We are now 3 generations removed from the Jim Crow era in the South. The Jim Crow era never really existed in the North. It is time to stop using Jim Crow as a bogus explanation of why it is correct to use the term white privilege. There is a socioeconomic privilege that exists, and race does not determine who has that privilege.

-I most certainly DID read your post, and nothing in my reply indicates otherwise.Using the term "White Privilege" UNDENIABLY implies that lower class whites have a privilege that upper class blacks do not, because you are breaking things down by race and ignoring the real reason which is socioeconomics. The term "White Privilege" implies that whites have a privilege that blacks do not. Since lower class whites are in fact white, and upper class blacks are in fact black, the term White Privilege implies that whites have an advantage that blacks do not, hence lower class whites have a privilege that upper class blacks do not. This has nothing to do with my or your experience, and everything to do with proper usage of the English language. The elements that you are calling white privilege are actually socioeconomic in nature. It doesn't matter whether or not you or I can relate to those elements. It only matters that what you are describing is socioeconomic in nature, and not defined by race at all.

-You aren't the arbiter of what your words imply. That is the domain of the reader. You are only the arbiter of what you meant, and perhaps you put forth the wrong implication. What a person means to convey and what they actually imply are often times two entirely different things. It is my contention that the term "White Privilege" has an implication that lower class whites have an advantage that middle and upper class blacks do not because it ignores the obvious socioeconomic aspects and only uses race for its determination. Whether or not you understand the relevant transitive logic is irrelevant to what is the actual implication of your words.

 

it's longer then 30 seconds so see if you watch for it for few minutes

 

What whites are they talking about, when they talk about "white privilege"?
White Ashkenazi Jews, or non-Jewish whites?

 

Yes

And you're a racist

 

Basically, hundreds of years ago white people, specifically men, from Europe sought to increase their nations' standing in the world. They industrialized and built first world civilizations that colonized the globe. The result of this action was that these nations controlled a significant percentage of global wealth. The descendants of those white men are still reaping the benefits of their ancestors actions. That's white privilege.

 

My points have everything to do with your (feeble) argument. You can't refute them, so you attempt to dismiss to save face.

 

That's silly because being older can be seen as advantageous. It depends on the job.

 

I'm talking about flat broke, non-English speaking, peasant refugees with no education of their own .. arriving in a white country ... often traumatised, totally unprepared, and yet within a single generation they produced doctors and lawyers.

They saw the enormous privilege that free education and decent living conditions is, and made the most of it.

 

I believe there is more. I only explained the point of view of a privileged white guy. It doesn't include the point of view of the black people who suffered it. I doubt that their testimonials will make the complaints more reasonable, though.

 

Once again, they became doctors and lawyers despite their parents being uneducated, not able to speak the language, and poor as church mice.

There have been no race-based impediments to success for decades. You either get over it for the sake of your kids, and take advantage of what's available (for free, for everyone), or you don't. It's a CHOICE.

 

Your privilege was parents who cared about your education.

 

I don't think they have just themselves to blame, but ultimately the solutions are going to require more effort on their part.

 

No, YOU don't 'need to fix it'. Stop telling POCs what to think, and attempting to control their destiny.

Each of us, in the Glorious Democratic West, is entirely free (in 2017) to make or break. Yet here you are attempting to control outcomes, assuming a position of authority over those you clearly view as less able than you.

 

"Telling them they are incompetent"??? What are you talking about

This is nonsense. Just a strawman. I'm not talking about marriage or LBJ or poverty. I'm talking about education.

Education in blacks has increased since the end of Jim Crow. That's the point. In 1960 the number of whites who graduated was 22% (vs 47% whites). Now it's 83% (and 87% of whites). 3.1% of blacks held college degrees. Now it's 20%. However, the gap between white and black graduates is still high. Which means that we have come a long way. But we are from from getting there.

 

Not your concern. Stay out of it. Stop trying to fix your pets.

 

And that is all I wished to prove.

I don't know why people keep insisting on "there are blacks that are similar" or "there are whites that are different" Of course there are!! But this type of situation is almost impossible in in families that did not receive a good education. And education received by blacks and whites was different during slavery, during Jim Crow, and only until a couple of generations ago. So it is a privilege that whites have had.

 

No!

 

What unqualified people are you talking about?

 

TODAY .. every parent is free to make the choice to support or disregard their child's education. There is nothing stopping any parent from making the choice to support education, in 2017. If uneducated, penniless, brown-skinned refugees could and did arrive in the west in the 1970's (and even earlier), and produce doctors and lawyers in a single generation, there are no excuses.

 

You really don't have a clue how this kind of white 'compassion' is viewed by many of those you think you're helping, do you.

 

School segregation was socioeconomic?

It wouldn't be "politically incorrect".

It would be racist!

Not to mention just plain incorrect.

Allow my to rectify my previous comment.

It is racist!

I can see that in the above BS. I have no time for racists....

And even less for racists who can't read.

 

So? You still haven't explained what that has to do with anything I wrote.

As I said: there are asians, hispanics, whites, blacks... who have made it from nothing. There are asians, hispanics, whites, blacks who have not made it even with an advantage.

I am talking about whites who made it because they or their family went to white-only schools, and blacks that did not make it because they were not allowed in white-only schools. Attending white-only schools was a white privilege. And it's an example (just one) of why allotting a number of spots in good universities is a good way to compensate for this particular historical injustice.

Period... That is all I am arguing. All this nonsense about Pol Pot, refugees, has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

 

Pol Pot/refugees has everything to do with it. You're claiming historical or personal trauma (due to discrimination) prevents blacks getting ahead. If people who actually had their lives and families threatened (by war etc), fled to the west in a leaky boat, and STILL made good .. you have no argument.

There are no white only schools in America. There hasn't been in decades. No excuses.

PS: There are few Asians (in the west) who don't 'make it'. They choose to avoid poverty.