LogFAQs > #909049890

nemu posted...

The problem comes with people trying to declare it as something on the individual level. No single person has privilege simply from being a certain skin color. Im fine with someone decalring it to be a thing when you group all people together by skin color. Though it is also a bit dishonest in that application too. It would make more sense to describe the groups that arent privileged.

This used to be a much more common thread in these arguments, actually. Years ago, before race became such a public and controversial issue and politics was so omnipresent in our lives, when I had these conversations it was easier to get people to understand that black people are disadvantaged in our society. But the label white privilege was seen as divisive, because it makes it sound like white people get stuff unfairly whereas the 'real' problem is that black people get treated unfairly. So people would say we should call it black disadvantage or minority disadvantage instead.

I think that is too easy. White people don't just get treated fairly, we get treated unfairly but in a way that favors us. This study is a good illustration of what I mean:

https://qz.com/355345/white-privilege-is-real-scientists-say/

This research, Ayres believes, is some of the first to focus on discretionary accommodations. Thats important for two reasons. On a basic level, quantifying bias with data can go a long way toward convincing skeptical or ignorant. But, Ayres notes, it can be especially hard to find authority figures blatantly discriminating against minorities, something the Queensland researchers capture. Usually, its more subtle, involving the granting of extra privileges to non-minorities, not taking them away.

The research was conducted in Queensland, Australia, a place its authors liken to the American South. The studys decision to study transportation was also an intentional nod to the now famous discrimination experienced by Rosa Parks on a Montgomery, Alabama bus in 1955.

The researchers found that out of 1,500 people, bus drivers were twice as likely to allow white subjects on the bus who claimed they didnt have the $3.50 fare required to ride (on average 72 versus 36%) than black test riders. Passengers of Indian or South Asian descent were allowed on the bus without the correct fare 51% of the time. East Asians meanwhile were allowed on the bus in percentages at or above those for whites....

Importantly, this most recent study also speaks to the intersectional nature of biaswhile white privilege tends to dominate the conversation, socioeconomic status can also be a factor, particularly for black people. Black subjects in the bus study wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase were more likely to be let on the bus without correct fare, for example. There was an even bigger jump for blacks wearing a military uniform: 77% were let on the bus ( for comparison, whites in army uniforms were accepted 97% of the time).

The study did not draw any hard conclusions about the motivations of the bus drivers, but Mujcic said they were most likely motivated by unintentional biases driven by past experiences or actions involving the given racial/ethnic groups.
---

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.