>> What's the functional difference between "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that is severely tilted" and "living in a system that has allegedly been repaired, but in practice will remain tilted for a number of generations until this alleged new-found fairness has a chance to propagate through the system?"
The second half of your second quote does not at all reflect the intention behind my statements. When people go around thinking that a 'system' is broken, it is all too easy to be sloppy in one's thinking about what _exactly_ it is that is broken. The definition of the 'system' is easily, dynamically changed to meet the emotional needs or political goals of the thinker or speaker at that moment; and they lose sight of (or intentionally hide) the logical fallacies (or dishonesty) that occur as a result.
My first point is this: At any point in time, manifest inequality of results does NOT logically require that there is necessarily either inequality of ability or, at PRESENT, inequality of treatment by 'the system'. This over simplifies the situation and you presented it as a nice, tight, seemingly irrefutable logical argument from which one _must_ conclude that the system is presently tilted. (Either that, or own the identity of the particularly terrible kind of racist who thinks one race is intrinsically superior to another). This is not just logically wrong onto itself, it forms the foundation for bigoted thinking on a larger scale.
To answer your question, the critical difference lies in developing an accurate understanding of the true nature of the problems. If we walk around thinking "group X has less money then group Y, therefore there MUST be a problem of Xism towards group X which benefits group Y" we are not only being irrational, we are missing out of important opportunities to more effectively improve the condition of the world for all involved.
> Long-term solutions do not preclude the need for short-term action.
I don't see how this really applies, on the face of it. If theoretically there were _no_ racism in the US, it would take generations for blacks and whites to have equal results, for a variety of reasons including the effects of inter-generational poverty and classism. But what types of 'short term' race-related actions might be needed in the hypothetical world in which there is no longer any racism? Reparations?
I mentioned the example of some poverty afflicted white male to emphasize the difficulties that _poor_ people have, not to draw attention to the plight of any white males as a group. I used a white male as an example to really drive the point home about the lingering consequences of generations of racism; the racism of the past has left many of today's black people in poverty, and not even a (presumed advantaged) white male can easily overcome some of the effects of poverty.
> please understand that it does not involve the idea that all things are always easy for all white people.
Who gets to decide the one true meaning of white privilege? I've discussed this topic with hundreds of people, and can confidently say there is a small but still frighteningly large group of people out there who disagree with you.
> The definition of the 'system' is easily, dynamically changed
Right. "The system" is merely shorthand for the totality of institutional and cultural factors that affect one's experience. Laws, cultural bias, hiring practices, etc. It's not meant to be a specific term, ever. I've never heard anybody claim otherwise.
> At any point in time, manifest inequality of results does NOT logically
> require that there is necessarily either inequality of ability or, at
> PRESENT, inequality of treatment by 'the system'.
Again, let me ask you: from the perspective of somebody experiencing this "manifest inequality of results," what's the difference?
To a young black woman in America in 2016 feeling every possible effect of centuries of (allegedly corrected) mandated inequality and familial discontinuity in America, what do we say? Do we just tell her that all those problems have been fixed, and it's terribly unfortunate for her that she was born before that effects of those (alleged) corrections bear any kind of fruit for the majority of black people in America?
> If we walk around thinking "group X has less money then group Y, therefore
> there MUST be a problem of Xism towards group X which benefits group Y" we
> are not only being irrational, we are missing out of important opportunities
> to more effectively improve the condition of the world for all involved.
Obviously, long-term solutions are key. Again: short-term action is often necessary unless you're willing to simply allow people to suffer in the meantime.
In the long run, sure, they really ought to improve the roads in my neighborhood so that I don't get so many flat tires. But in the meantime I'm not going to let my car sit there with four flat tires.
> I mentioned the example of some poverty afflicted white male to emphasize the
> difficulties that _poor_ people have
Right, you were very clear about that. Your point was obvious and I don't think anybody would disagree. I don't think anybody disputes the enormous amount of overlap between the problems of poverty (which obviously spans all races) and other problems such as racism.
And hey, just so we're clear: my car doesn't really have flat tires, and the roads in my neighborhood are pretty good.
> But what types of 'short term' race-related actions might be needed in the
> hypothetical world in which there is no longer any racism? Reparations?
What if people in positions of privilege, such as highly-paid white males working at places like Github, helped to ensure that members of minority groups enjoy the opportunity to become highly-qualified job seekers, and give qualified members of minority groups access to stable, well-paying jobs? Like those at GitHub?
> Who gets to decide the one true meaning of white privilege? I've discussed this topic
> with hundreds of people, and can confidently say there is a small but still frighteningly
> large group of people out there who disagree with you.
I think you said it yourself: a proportionally "small" group believe that all white people live inside a magical force field where literally everything is easy for every white person. Obviously with a large enough sample size you can find people that believe any damn thing. But that is generally not what people mean when they talk about white privilege.
Though I do question if maybe you misunderstood them. White privilege does not make everything easy, but it does actually suffuse most things. To take your theoretical example of an impoverished white male raised in an alcoholic household: while life certainly is not easy for that theoretical person, there are additional challenges he would face if he were black, female, etc.
And of course, one can certainly think of some situations where being white and male is actually a disadvantage. Again, not incompatible with the notion of white privilege or male privilege existing.
The second half of your second quote does not at all reflect the intention behind my statements. When people go around thinking that a 'system' is broken, it is all too easy to be sloppy in one's thinking about what _exactly_ it is that is broken. The definition of the 'system' is easily, dynamically changed to meet the emotional needs or political goals of the thinker or speaker at that moment; and they lose sight of (or intentionally hide) the logical fallacies (or dishonesty) that occur as a result.
My first point is this: At any point in time, manifest inequality of results does NOT logically require that there is necessarily either inequality of ability or, at PRESENT, inequality of treatment by 'the system'. This over simplifies the situation and you presented it as a nice, tight, seemingly irrefutable logical argument from which one _must_ conclude that the system is presently tilted. (Either that, or own the identity of the particularly terrible kind of racist who thinks one race is intrinsically superior to another). This is not just logically wrong onto itself, it forms the foundation for bigoted thinking on a larger scale.
To answer your question, the critical difference lies in developing an accurate understanding of the true nature of the problems. If we walk around thinking "group X has less money then group Y, therefore there MUST be a problem of Xism towards group X which benefits group Y" we are not only being irrational, we are missing out of important opportunities to more effectively improve the condition of the world for all involved.
> Long-term solutions do not preclude the need for short-term action.
I don't see how this really applies, on the face of it. If theoretically there were _no_ racism in the US, it would take generations for blacks and whites to have equal results, for a variety of reasons including the effects of inter-generational poverty and classism. But what types of 'short term' race-related actions might be needed in the hypothetical world in which there is no longer any racism? Reparations?
I mentioned the example of some poverty afflicted white male to emphasize the difficulties that _poor_ people have, not to draw attention to the plight of any white males as a group. I used a white male as an example to really drive the point home about the lingering consequences of generations of racism; the racism of the past has left many of today's black people in poverty, and not even a (presumed advantaged) white male can easily overcome some of the effects of poverty.
> please understand that it does not involve the idea that all things are always easy for all white people.
Who gets to decide the one true meaning of white privilege? I've discussed this topic with hundreds of people, and can confidently say there is a small but still frighteningly large group of people out there who disagree with you.