It’s hard to swallow the idea of white prívele for the white kid born into multigenerational welfare, who grew up watching mom and/or dad literally kill and destroy themselves at their work every day just to have what little they were able to, who didn’t have the money or grades or grants or opportunity to go to college or travel, who maybe works minimum wage or is killing/destroying themselves in harsh and dangerous labor to provide. When you feel like you’ve never caught a break in your life, maybe been in and out of trouble with the law, or maybe just lived a modest middle class life that wasn’t particularly harsh or cinematic but also carried the pain and boredom of just skimming day to day trying to eek out that joy was to be found in world where lots have it worse and lots have it better and your life is just moderate vanilla permitted by low moments and anxieties without any grand success or wealth or adventure to offset that. Those people especially hear the term and laugh.
But here is the thing- good odds that it is true.
It isn’t something to be personally ashamed of. It isn’t some great wrong you did or your parents did necessarily. The thing about privilege is that often it is in what we don’t see.
I’ve been in hiring sessions where I’ve seen men toss away applications because a name most likely belonged to a certain type of person.
I’ve been there when people were Frank and open about helping members of “their group” or not helping others as much as they could because of who they are. I’ve had friends get married and change their last names and suddenly have the world in general treat them differently and seen what a name or zip code or school affiliation etc. can do.
Many of you have too, and even the ones who say you haven’t probably have but didn’t notice. It’s many things you can’t know. All the times you didn’t get pulled over or didn’t get a ticket because of how you look or the name on a registration or address, all the times that…
Those interactions could have gone differently. You’ll never know all the times your race or gender or some other thing benefited you. Sometimes it is obvious for any to see and other times we don’t know. We can speculate- sometimes evidence supports it and sometimes it is a guess or a feeling. Maybe that traffic stop would have gone exactly the same white or not, or maybe that officer doesn’t have a problem with whites or some other groups but maybe if you were Asian it would have gone badly or better that time. That’s a bit of a what if game. What is not a what if game is that “white privilege” is simply a polarizing word for a very well known and obvious concept.
In many countries, I’ll specifically speak to America- “white people” had a monopoly on most aspects of social and business opportunities. In most areas of these places, even if one’s family didn’t build its way to where it is generationally and even if we ignore the possible opportunities squandered or otherwise not capitalized by your ancestors and that hypothetical mess- there are still the elements and aftermath of pre existing systems and social customs that benefited whites. Various segregation soft or hard- redlining and gentrification and such for example- which have shaped our modern world and thusly shape the future.
Cause and effect.
You can feel how you want about the effects of it- but it isn’t debatable by the reasonable mind. Where you are born and the circumstances of your birth tend to shape the paths available or accesible to you.
It is not impossible to become an gold medal skier if you come from a desert without snow but the number of people let alone people without the privilege to travel or access snow from such places who become Olympic medal skiers probably is not going to equal those born where snow is easily accessed and a culture and generational knowledge and reverence if the sport exists. Anyone from anywhere in the world can make millions of dollars but more people on average making that sort of money will come from certain places and backgrounds. It just is how things work. Your genes play a part- sorry to say the obvious but you don’t see a lot of people with Downs syndrome in the annuls of history among our greatest thinkers and speakers.
People with downs can be brilliant and creative and they aren’t any less worthy or capable in general- but it is what it is. Let’s not get into the weeds on this one. Whatever you have to say doesn’t matter. Wether it is social stigma and prejudices or misconceptions, superstitions and such, developmental this or that and what different types of people are best at or not as good at or what societies value or whatever else. Doesn’t matter. Not relevant. What is relevant is that if you’re born with Downs your odds are slim of standing atop a self built empire be it political or social or economic or what. If the tallest you ever grow is 4’2” you probably won’t ever be a competitive top basketball player in open leagues at the global elite level. Sorry. It can happen. You can want it that bad and be that good. Hasn’t happened yet. Doubt I’ll see it, hope you price me wrong if that’s your dream but it is not likely and even if it happens your road will almost certainly be a tougher one..
.. to get there and stay there than a 6’4” or 7’0” player. This is just reality, it’s harsh and it doesn’t care about feelings or political correctness. Trans people face it everyday. The M>F trans person will likely never carry a baby inside them without seriously advanced medical procedures and the same is true of the F>M trans person who wants to impregnate a female partner using their own genes shot from their own equipment. You cannot fly like a bird under your own power without assistance no matter how much you yearn to, nor could you run as fast as a cheetah with your natural unassisted body or stay under water like a fish. Where you are born, who your parents are, who your ancestors are- these things, all over the world, throughout time, they’ve mattered.
They aren’t always insurmountable to those with the will and skill and dedication, but IF is it feasible or even possible in a specific circumstance to overcome your obstacles to your goal, the fact that you face hurdles others don’t, that’s an inequity. Cal it a handicap if you will, privilege, advantage, disadvantage, whatever. It’s all relative and the words are more about feelings anyway and what appeals to your perception. The unarguable fact is that all men are not created equally. Many societies strive to create a world where that is somewhat true and there is equality amongst mankind, but your life was shaped by events out of your control long before you were born.
Opportunities were created or denied through a chain of events on a global political scale yes. If France had controlled the Americas then the globe might look very different right now. If the USA didn’t control California then so much of the opportunity and modern world created in the gold rush would likely have gone differently. But more directly, your parents built your future to some extent. We don’t get to choose our parents as far as we know. The fact your parents made certain decisions set up the wealth available to raise you, their knowledge and resources and outlook, the things and people and places and ideas you were exposed to at a young age, the quality of nutrition and early education you received,
Their decisions may have led to being able to provide you things you might take for granted, a phone or pager, a car or trendy clothes, class trips, the current toys and fads, movies or games, college funds or help in school, hobbies and work ethic, funcional education, discipline. You may have inherited or inherit a home or money or property. You might have been stuck with their funeral and other bills because they planned poorly too. Parents can be assets or liabilities to success. They can help instill habits and knowledge for success and contribute resources to our goals and futures or they can instill bad habits and misinformation and cost us time and money that we could use to build our future but need to use to clean their messes or supplement their shortcomings to even provide basic needs without our help.
And it turns out that certain groups are historically more likely to experience one outcome over the others in general.
Now again- not all this applies.
White privilege and wealth privilege are often conflated while certain ethnic groups and their cultures are often conflated with low socioeconomic status. The truth is that while there can be some differences in traditions and values between ethnic groups of the same generational socioeconomic status- what we often see is that many elements of so called ethnic culture are less so intrinsic to the ethnic group and more so linked to economic status. For example “white trash” exhibit many similarities in traditions and values and culture or generalized/stereotypical behaviors that are often attributed to certain ethnic groups.
The link is that certain cuisines for example aren't strictly an ethnic food- comparing for example black Americans and “white trash” Americans who both historically had little money and faced (varying) degrees of social prejudice, teasing or othering and exclusion, and often lived in close proximity and shared influences while developing their culture in the same places and country with the same resources generally. So you will find many dishes in both American cultures to be shared or similar.
You will find all manner of stereotypical behaviors shared between groups who share certain socioeconomic similarities that are not generally shared with members of the same larger racial or ethnic group but generationally come from a higher status of wealth or social standing/integration in general society or among high society.
That’s where things can get slippery. The “Oakies” are a white group of the 21st century who can claim to have been un welcomed many places- signs hung at town entrances and such making it clear that “Oakies” weren’t wanted and should pass on through, businesses that refused to serve or allow Oakies in, people who wouldn’t hire Oakies or would exploit Oakies and treat them worse or compensate them worse than other groups of workers. Of course we know Irish and Italians are another example of white people who faced prejudices and prohibitions. The height of such sentiments were closer to the turn of the century, but…
Anyone from or very familiar with places like Chicago and New York or various other enclaves around the USA is aware that while it generally isn’t as bad as it was at one time and while society at large had mostly moved on from these prejudices- Old School Italian and Irish cliques and cristinos still exist. The Polish and certain Eastern Europeans have faced this too- especially on the East coast of the USA. the heyday of unions and gangsters and such with their clear ethnic lines of Italians and Irish and Poles, blacks and Dominicans and such forming clear distinctions and staking clear claims have eased up quite a bit. NYC is not the NYC of the 70’s today- but there are still examples in the modern day and still the clear evidence that those practices and their effects linger.
Put simply- if you’re born into a family of a certain background you will likely find it easier to get into certain unions or jobs.
Of course one can argue that being the child of a union member is what makes that true- that if the local 564 was once an exclusively Irish union but has been more integrated for 30 years, that the son of an Irish person is no more likely to get in than the son of a Polish person. Seems to make sense except…
If it was exclusively Irish until 30 years ago, there can only be one generation of long term non Irish members, so statistically of course you’d have more potential Irish family members to join going forward. And what happened to all the old school guys who were there when it was all Irish and liked that? Did they all retire? Die? All at once? Roll over a new leaf? Or would they like to see a majority Irish union and even perhaps prioritize Irish applicants that weren’t relatives if they could, to keep the “balance,” or even prioritize non Irish
applicants so long as those applicants weren’t Polish, to keep the Irish advantage.
So if the union has 100 members and each has one child, and 70 members are Irish and 30 are polish, if you have 40 old Irish guys retiring and needing replaced soon- that would make it 30/30 polish/Irish. So if you get 20 polish and 10 Irish the polish now dominate the union. If you only have 10 Irish kids trying to get in, if you hire those ten to have 40 Irish and then hire 10 Dominicans and 10 Italians and 10 others- it’s now 40 Irish, 30 polish, 10/10/10 neither.
So the Irish keep the majority.
Now let’s look at the question of stats for new hires.
Again, say you have 100 union members.
Say that 70 are Irish and 30 are polish. Each has one child.
If every single members child follows after them, you’d have 70 possible Irish new hires and 30 polish.
If you have 40 openings over 10 years and each child has 50/50 odds to get hired, you will no matter what have a minimum of 0 poles and 10 Irish for those 40 positions. If the other 30 go half to poles and half to Irish you’d end up with 15 new poles and 25 new Irish.
So say that in 1970 the union had 100 members, all Irish.
In 1980 they were forced to hire 30 poles when 30 Irish retired and it became a mixed union.
In 1990 it’s 70/30 and you have 40 Irish and 0 poles retiring so they hire in 25 Irish and 15 poles and now the union is 55/45.
In 2000 it is 55/45 and you have 30 Irish retire and 0 poles. They hire in 25 Irish and 5 poles and now the union is 50/50.
In 2010 you have 0 Irish retire and 30 poles. They hire in 20/10 and now it’s 60/40.
We can keep going…
The point is that while this is a simplified example it shows to underlying concepts. Because I’m out example the Irish had controlling monopoly in the union for a long time first, the numeric advantage and of course the power advantage of having all Irish senior leadership provides advantage.
Even as the older Irish retire, they have the ability to break the “tie” in union membership and bring in a new generation of Irish to replace them. Because the senior leadership was Irish. It is most likely that the majority of senior leadership going forward for some time will be Irish outside of a dynamic upset or external forces.
It isn’t going to be about race for all or even most of them. It isn’t some assumption that the hypothetical Irish here (use any group you like, it isn’t specific just a place holder), are Irish supremacists who just want to have the Irish “win.” It’s about family.
Parents almost always want their kids to succeed. Someone with a good union job is often likely to want their kids to get in to the union too. Someone with a good corporate or government job will often what the same etc etc. so it isn’t exactly that our Irish remasters in the example have the goal to hire Irish- they want to hire their kids, nephews and nieces, brothers and cousins etc. who, being related to an Irish person, are most likely some parts Irish. Now you can be Irish and polish mixed, but you don’t find entire extended generational families of half Irish half polish folks every day. As far as I know there isn’t a massive thriving isolated community of them in the Tri state area.
So the polish don’t have to be polish, it’s any group that isn’t your relatives. Because those people likely want to hire their relatives too. The more people who aren’t your relatives, or the more and more distant those relatives are, the less opportunity you have to get your people in. Or if not relatives you may widely keep different social circles. Americans and Canadians- what percentage of your town population is Tibetan? How many close Tibetan friends or family do you have…?
So here’s the thing- much of the world and society os a lot more integrated than long ago. We have diverse si la groups and many towns and cities have diverse make ups, but there are still some broad generalities about various communities and their interactions and some groups are just generally fewer in number so statistically less likely to be commonly associated with.
So when an opening comes up at work and you get to recommend someone and that recommendation will carry weight- it’s probably not going to be a Tibetan person because most of you probably don’t have any close Tibetan friends and relatives unless you are Tibetan American- which statistically you probably aren’t.
Meaning that you’re already less likely to see Tibetan people represented at various jobs because there are relatively few in the country by percentage to begin with, but then compound that because fewer potential advantages exist to help provide opportunity for those persons.
For most of the history of the nation the USA the percentage of population possessing general rights has dominantly been white, so statistically by the numbers the opportunities have been greater for white Americans. As we progressed through the 20th century non white groups grew as did their rights in society as did infractions like marriages and open friendships between groups which has opened…
.. some doors for those groups in terms that being Asian American or Black American or etc. can mean having family outside your race/ethnicity to help provide opportunity or advantage to you. Of course those who stay within their own groups when it comes to forming families and having children can be limited in those opportunities and there can be other factors and generalities that impact the available opportunities. It gets very complicated and requires a pretty good general and even local understanding of history and law- but we can summarize it with the no shit statement that for most of American history not all whites have rode the gravy train to the east life but there are very few and circumstantial places where it was more beneficial to be anything but white when it came to general social and business dealings.
Because these things linger and because we literally had codified discrimination in law within the lifetime of those here today, the legacy of those causalities hasn’t been eradicated. Due to the length and depth and scope of discrimination in the USA it will take likely centuries more of natural social progress to even begin to claim we have eradicated all vestige of privilege or advantage in the system based on race/ethnic group and that’s IF we don’t encounter any more major set backs to civil rights and harmony- which seems doubtful at this point.
So look, I get it. If you grew up poor or busting your ass or watching your parents busy theirs- you look around and it feels insulting to suggest you have some sort of privilege when your life sometimes feels like it’s the last shithouse at a cosmic all you can eat Chipotle and bouncy castle themed IBD conference.
And I get that the people who inherited and or were born into advantage, many worked hard on their own merits regardless to take what they were given and preserve it or grow it into more. I get that no one, least of all perhaps, those growing up with parents that achieved much, wants to feel like or been seen like someone who is just riding the coat rilas of greatness. Who or self respect demands you at least pretend to have made your own way. I get it. I do.
But do you REALLY think it is a coincidence that so much of Hollywood is full, from screen talent to design and admin and directors and music and art and more- full of the children and nieces and nephews and grand children etc. of the last several generations of Hollywood elite? Do you think the fact that the richest families in Europe today, more than 70% trace their roots back through the richest families for Mike 1000 years and that if you go to America or China or most places that you’ll find that the richest families tend to remain generationally for hundreds or thousands of years as the top dogs? Is that a coincidence?
Is it a coincidence that so many of Americas wealthiest people are white? No. It isn’t. There are historical forces afoot which denied or supplied opportunities and unequal privileges to various groups and individuals. People with power and money, people in systems that give them power and money- they tend to shape rules or break them to keep their power and wealth and power and wealth usually let them do that. That’s how it works. It’s how is bad pretty much always worked. If you believe otherwise you don’t need to debate it because you’ve already proven you either are ignorant on the subject or dissociated from reality. Go figure out why you’re wrong and come back and you can debate HOW those realities and inequities may or may not influence various groups- but you cannot debate that they do without self labeling yourself as ignorant of the basic working a and history of the world.
It isn’t something to be personally ashamed of. It isn’t some great wrong you did or your parents did necessarily. The thing about privilege is that often it is in what we don’t see.
I’ve been in hiring sessions where I’ve seen men toss away applications because a name most likely belonged to a certain type of person.
I’ve been there when people were Frank and open about helping members of “their group” or not helping others as much as they could because of who they are. I’ve had friends get married and change their last names and suddenly have the world in general treat them differently and seen what a name or zip code or school affiliation etc. can do.
Many of you have too, and even the ones who say you haven’t probably have but didn’t notice. It’s many things you can’t know. All the times you didn’t get pulled over or didn’t get a ticket because of how you look or the name on a registration or address, all the times that…
Cause and effect.
It is not impossible to become an gold medal skier if you come from a desert without snow but the number of people let alone people without the privilege to travel or access snow from such places who become Olympic medal skiers probably is not going to equal those born where snow is easily accessed and a culture and generational knowledge and reverence if the sport exists. Anyone from anywhere in the world can make millions of dollars but more people on average making that sort of money will come from certain places and backgrounds. It just is how things work. Your genes play a part- sorry to say the obvious but you don’t see a lot of people with Downs syndrome in the annuls of history among our greatest thinkers and speakers.
Now again- not all this applies.
White privilege and wealth privilege are often conflated while certain ethnic groups and their cultures are often conflated with low socioeconomic status. The truth is that while there can be some differences in traditions and values between ethnic groups of the same generational socioeconomic status- what we often see is that many elements of so called ethnic culture are less so intrinsic to the ethnic group and more so linked to economic status. For example “white trash” exhibit many similarities in traditions and values and culture or generalized/stereotypical behaviors that are often attributed to certain ethnic groups.
You will find all manner of stereotypical behaviors shared between groups who share certain socioeconomic similarities that are not generally shared with members of the same larger racial or ethnic group but generationally come from a higher status of wealth or social standing/integration in general society or among high society.
Of course one can argue that being the child of a union member is what makes that true- that if the local 564 was once an exclusively Irish union but has been more integrated for 30 years, that the son of an Irish person is no more likely to get in than the son of a Polish person. Seems to make sense except…
If it was exclusively Irish until 30 years ago, there can only be one generation of long term non Irish members, so statistically of course you’d have more potential Irish family members to join going forward. And what happened to all the old school guys who were there when it was all Irish and liked that? Did they all retire? Die? All at once? Roll over a new leaf? Or would they like to see a majority Irish union and even perhaps prioritize Irish applicants that weren’t relatives if they could, to keep the “balance,” or even prioritize non Irish
So if the union has 100 members and each has one child, and 70 members are Irish and 30 are polish, if you have 40 old Irish guys retiring and needing replaced soon- that would make it 30/30 polish/Irish. So if you get 20 polish and 10 Irish the polish now dominate the union. If you only have 10 Irish kids trying to get in, if you hire those ten to have 40 Irish and then hire 10 Dominicans and 10 Italians and 10 others- it’s now 40 Irish, 30 polish, 10/10/10 neither.
So the Irish keep the majority.
Now let’s look at the question of stats for new hires.
Say that 70 are Irish and 30 are polish. Each has one child.
If every single members child follows after them, you’d have 70 possible Irish new hires and 30 polish.
If you have 40 openings over 10 years and each child has 50/50 odds to get hired, you will no matter what have a minimum of 0 poles and 10 Irish for those 40 positions. If the other 30 go half to poles and half to Irish you’d end up with 15 new poles and 25 new Irish.
So say that in 1970 the union had 100 members, all Irish.
In 1980 they were forced to hire 30 poles when 30 Irish retired and it became a mixed union.
In 1990 it’s 70/30 and you have 40 Irish and 0 poles retiring so they hire in 25 Irish and 15 poles and now the union is 55/45.
In 2000 it is 55/45 and you have 30 Irish retire and 0 poles. They hire in 25 Irish and 5 poles and now the union is 50/50.
In 2010 you have 0 Irish retire and 30 poles. They hire in 20/10 and now it’s 60/40.
We can keep going…
Even as the older Irish retire, they have the ability to break the “tie” in union membership and bring in a new generation of Irish to replace them. Because the senior leadership was Irish. It is most likely that the majority of senior leadership going forward for some time will be Irish outside of a dynamic upset or external forces.
Parents almost always want their kids to succeed. Someone with a good union job is often likely to want their kids to get in to the union too. Someone with a good corporate or government job will often what the same etc etc. so it isn’t exactly that our Irish remasters in the example have the goal to hire Irish- they want to hire their kids, nephews and nieces, brothers and cousins etc. who, being related to an Irish person, are most likely some parts Irish. Now you can be Irish and polish mixed, but you don’t find entire extended generational families of half Irish half polish folks every day. As far as I know there isn’t a massive thriving isolated community of them in the Tri state area.
So here’s the thing- much of the world and society os a lot more integrated than long ago. We have diverse si la groups and many towns and cities have diverse make ups, but there are still some broad generalities about various communities and their interactions and some groups are just generally fewer in number so statistically less likely to be commonly associated with.
Meaning that you’re already less likely to see Tibetan people represented at various jobs because there are relatively few in the country by percentage to begin with, but then compound that because fewer potential advantages exist to help provide opportunity for those persons.
For most of the history of the nation the USA the percentage of population possessing general rights has dominantly been white, so statistically by the numbers the opportunities have been greater for white Americans. As we progressed through the 20th century non white groups grew as did their rights in society as did infractions like marriages and open friendships between groups which has opened…
And I get that the people who inherited and or were born into advantage, many worked hard on their own merits regardless to take what they were given and preserve it or grow it into more. I get that no one, least of all perhaps, those growing up with parents that achieved much, wants to feel like or been seen like someone who is just riding the coat rilas of greatness. Who or self respect demands you at least pretend to have made your own way. I get it. I do.