AmeriKKKa

[JimC]

You don't think "White Privilege" and "being white alone confers advantage" are close enough to avoid a charge of strawmanning?

--//--

Systemic racism is real. I don't see it as equivalent to "White Privilege".

Maybe I misread it, but I took "being white alone confers advantage" as meaning that being white is the sole reason (or even the main reason) for comparative advantage. It is certainly one of the reasons...

[Sean Hayden]

Furthermore, the privilege theory of causation – Black workers get less because white workers get more, and its corollary – flies in the face of American reality. Historically, wages, benefits and working conditions have always been significantly lower for working-class whites in the non-unionised South than for Black (and white) workers in unionised areas of the North. The higher union standard of living results not from racial privilege, but from the unity and solidarity of both Black and white workers in class struggle.

This is weird cherry picking. Why is she not comparing the conditions of black workers in the south to white workers in the south, and black workers in the north to white workers in the north? She may as well compare white workers in Siberia to black workers in Manhattan to demonstrate that white privilege doesn't exist.

Because she's highlighting the effect of unionization on raising conditions vs that of skin color alone (*other factors being ignored in both potential comparisons).

And she conveniently omits the fact that unionization is far more difficult in the south BECAUSE of white anti-black racism.

She probably considers that covered under capitalist use of racism to divide workers.

[Seabass]

If that is all that is meant by white privilege then there is nothing to argue really. Only the ignorant and or malicious would deny that it is easier to be white in the US than just about anything else in most places. --it is considerably less so --on account of skin color alone-- than it has been in the most recent past though.

But I think much more is intended by the term than that.

--//--

As an aside, I want to point out that in my opinion discussions like these and the thinking involved is never truly resolved, or finished. I hold no lasting convictions about my correctness.

As I understand it, "white privilege" simply refers to the built in advantages that white people have in racist countries like the US. The wiki entry seems to agree with me. The author of your article talks about it like it's something that white people "exercise" like in her example where white people "exercise" white privilege when they get better jobs than black people. Like it's something white people do rather than possess. I've never seen anyone else talk about it that way before. But it's not like I spend a lot of time around hardcore SJWs talking privilege, so what the hell do I know...

[Seabass]

Furthermore, the privilege theory of causation – Black workers get less because white workers get more, and its corollary – flies in the face of American reality. Historically, wages, benefits and working conditions have always been significantly lower for working-class whites in the non-unionised South than for Black (and white) workers in unionised areas of the North. The higher union standard of living results not from racial privilege, but from the unity and solidarity of both Black and white workers in class struggle.

This is weird cherry picking. Why is she not comparing the conditions of black workers in the south to white workers in the south, and black workers in the north to white workers in the north? She may as well compare white workers in Siberia to black workers in Manhattan to demonstrate that white privilege doesn't exist.

Because she's highlighting the effect of unionization on raising conditions vs that of skin color alone (*other factors being ignored in both potential comparisons).

She's deliberately obscuring the racism by throwing confounding variables into the mix so that you now have an apples to oranges comparison instead of an apples to apples comparison.

These are valid comparisons that can shed light on certain disparities:

black workers to white workers in the south
black workers to white workers in the north
overall workers in the south to overall workers in the north
black workers in the south to black workers in the north
white workers in the south to white workers in the north



But if you compare for example a black worker in Beverly Hills to a white worker in rural Mississippi, you've added another variable.

[Sean Hayden]

Yes, a variable which potentially embarrasses those who overstate the role of "white privilege".


--//--

Her comparison again:

Furthermore, the privilege theory of causation – Black workers get less because white workers get more, and its corollary – flies in the face of American reality. Historically, wages, benefits and working conditions have always been significantly lower for working-class whites in the non-unionised South than for Black (and white) workers in unionised areas of the North. The higher union standard of living results not from racial privilege, but from the unity and solidarity of both Black and white workers in class struggle.

She never denies racism in the piece.

[Seabass]

This would be like running an experiment in which you test drunk athletes against sober athletes to see who runs faster, but then you also also make the sober athletes carry a bowling ball while they run. It makes no sense. It's bad methodology. You learn nothing by doing this.

Yes, of course unionized workers will usually be better off than nonunionized workers, but this has nothing to do with whether or not white privilege exists. These are two separate, distinct issues.

[pErvinalia]

A Marxist critique of the theory of ‘white privilege’

Institutional racism; strategy

The privilege model locates much of the cause of oppression in competition between workers and individuals. It holds, for example, that Black applicants, regardless of qualifications, don’t get hired because white ones do. Marxism rejects the idea that Black workers are refused at the door because fellow white workers exercise “the privilege” of earning a living. Marxism instead maintains that the capitalists organise production and the labour market. They bosses pick and divide workers, both as a function of their own racism, and as a strategy to divide Black, white, Latino, Asian and other workers against each other. When a white applicant gets a job over Black applicants, it’s not because s/he exercised a privilege, but because discrimination is built into capitalist employment practices. (Note that the practice known as “job trusts”, in which white workers controlled admission to some skilled trades jobs, restricting them to family members and friends, discriminating against Blacks and other whites, was a relatively small exception to the general rule that the capitalists control hiring and firing.)

In holding white workers co-responsible for systemic racism, the privilege model attributed a power to white workers they manifestly do not have: control over the institutions of American capitalism – schools, jobs, housing, factories, banks, police, courts, prisons, legislatures, media, elections, universities, armed services, hospitals, sports, political parties – all of which function in a racist manner. These institutions are owned and controlled by the capitalist class. They engineer, manage and enforce the social, economic and political racism that serves the social relations of American capitalism. It is these institutions that make racism such a powerful and inescapable part of American daily life.

https://redflag.org.au/node/7254

Privilege isn't gained by a person "exercising" that privilege. It's inherent.

[pErvinalia]

It's not a privilege to have better conditions as a result of fighting for reform. Whites don't as a matter of fact just enjoy better conditions because of their skin color.

So, how do you intend to address the lack of "white privilege" in the south when compared to the unionized north? Is she just lying?

But white privilege still exists in the south (and the north).

[Sean Hayden]

She never denies "white privilege" defined in that way. Who would?

--//--

It's simply pointing out that "white privilege" cannot account for the better conditions of white workers where they exist.

[Sean Hayden]

It's not a privilege to have better conditions as a result of fighting for reform. Whites don't as a matter of fact just enjoy better conditions because of their skin color.

So, how do you intend to address the lack of "white privilege" in the south when compared to the unionized north? Is she just lying?

But white privilege still exists in the south (and the north).

--its effect being insufficient to overcome the problems unionization solved for white northerners

[pErvinalia]

So? White privilege still exists in the south.

[Sean Hayden]

So, I recognize that as significant. You don't. --so?

[pErvinalia]

The debate is about white privilege, not unionisation. I've said nothing about unionisation.

[Sean Hayden]

She doesn't deny this use of "white privilege", again, who would? In her piece "white privilege" does a lot more work:

“The US ruling class has made a deal with the mis-leaders of American labor, and through them with the masses of white workers. The terms...are these: you white workers help us conquer the world and enslave the non-white majority of the earth’s laboring force, and we will repay you with...the...privileges befitting your white skin [citing various examples of greater access to jobs, health care, education, etc.]. [Note: all emphasis within all quotations in this article appear in the original sources.]”

[Seabass]

It's simply pointing out that "white privilege" cannot account for the better conditions of white workers where they exist.

But it DOES account for white workers being better off than black workers, whether or not they are unionized, whether they are in the north or the south, whether or not they are vegetarians, whether or not they listen to jazz music, whether they prefer domestic beer to imported, whether or not they drive a sedan or an SUV, etc, etc...