That video reflects purely on skin colour and I feel that can be harmful. My skin is white but I'm descendant from the Australian Stolen Generation (google it if you want to see more). I was raised in a poor country town and I literally joined the military to escape that life. Compare that to the experience of this Youtuber. He was a golfer at 10 years of age... I don't even know how you could ask parents to spend that sort of money on you at that age. His story screams privilege (professional ultimate frisbee for one). I make decent money now since I used the military for a CS education but when I go shopping I choose to go to the low socioeconomic area. I don't fit in culturally at the upper middle class shopping centers. I don't dress the same, talk the same, hold the same values, etc. Not feeling like you don't fit in isn't just linked to race.

That being said, poor black African Americans (and Aboriginal Australians) have horrible life outcomes, far worse than any I could expect. Second generation black immigrants from Nigeria and Ethopia have better life outcomes than the general US population so it's not just about skin colour. I feel that there is a whole host of intergenerational related issues impacting the African American community. In addition, I feel that mainstream culture is quite hostile to African American culture.

You are accurately identifying that he uses his identity to hide his class in order to increase his profits. This is what modern corporate diversity initiatives are in a nutshell.

My issue is the way the media talks about "white" and "non-white". Being born white isn't some ticket to a silver spoon, and with so much emphasis on purely race there are negative repercussions.

i.e. I just googled it [1]. The fourth link talks about the relationship between usage of White Privilege and how it impacts peoples view of poor white people. There is so much emphasis on skin colour that the guy in the Youtube video literally won the privilege lottery at birth (compared to ~95% of other Americans) and still feels oppressed enough to make a video about it.

If his video had of been purely about solidarity for the Americans born porn and black I would have supported it since that demographic needs solidarity to help get out of the hole they were born into. Instead, he made it about himself and his rich boy problems.

[1] - https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-22926-001

> Being born white isn't some ticket to a silver spoon, and with so much emphasis on purely race there are negative repercussions.

This is also not new information. Again, this is the basis of intersectional analysis. Activists have been talking about this and working on this for decades, yet people use this as some sort of argument that modern analysis is broken. "White Privilege" only means "being born white is a ticket to a silver spoon" to people who haven't been involved in this discussion before.

I'd argue that it's the way the term is being used every day in both the media and social media. The academic term might be different but it's not that definition that's driving discussion.

I have already seen that video. I think not having a first doesn’t have to be discriminatory. The courage to not be dissuaded by that is actually a positive character trait.

See this interview https://youtu.be/3RG5pXTpLBI 18 minutes in. He was short and was failing out of spacewalk training so he figured out a way to make it work.

>I think not having a first doesn’t have to be discriminatory

What do you mean by this more specifically? If you're a part of a minority with a history of oppression, which I hope we can all agree is true for black people in the US, are you saying there's zero things questionable about constantly pointing out that someone is black when they enter a "typically white" area of sports or other activity?

I have always taken for granted that the definition of "racism" is not necessarily the same as "hating someone due to their race", but more generally "defining someone primarily by their race in a situation that does not call for it and only secondly by individual attributes". Examples of where it may be "called for" is obviously up for debate, could be highly relevant in medical trials for example.

I mean that there are two groups of people involved.

The first is the person or people who is/are potentially the first of a particular ethnic group to achieve a position. If you are that person or people, you will need courage to not let that dissuade you. I don’t see any discrimination there. If you are dissuaded because there is no one before you, then you need more determination because for most people bad things happen in life and you need to deal with it.

The second is everyone else. It would be discriminatory if others defined the first by their race in that situation. But that discrimination doesn’t necessarily happen.

It's little bit like the tragedy of the rich people's kids: No matter how brilliant you are, many people would simply assume that you have been given the easy route thanks to daddy.

Surely it is annoying and may make achievers to prove themselves over and over again, I don't think that it is big enough of an issue to dismiss programs that are designed to tackle real issues in the society. It's just that people should know where to stop and don't try to implement these in communities where less than perfect but good-enough status is achieved.

I honestly don't have much sympathy for that particular plight. Living in the shadow of your parents is the tax you pay for being born into tremendous wealth? Sign me up.

See, you assume that just because they are kids of rich people, they must be some kind of leech. It's deeply similar to all kind of discrimination but at least they can cry in their summer mansion sipping some nice French wine.

It's well known fact that kids of alumni traditionally get accepted in their fathers ivy-league alma matter, but god forbid if few minority kids get an easy way in, then you have viral videos about how it's impossible to get into SOMETHING unless you are black asian gay.

Apple makes a summer coding camp for girls, and you have men crying all over the internet that it's now impossible for men to make career tech anymore.

I mean, I myself have some macho pride(in a sence that men should have some qualities, like not crying when something is not happening the way they want and so on) and makes me cringe when I see an able bodied man crying about how a school girl got an easy way and she is not better than him but he got left out. I think Greta Thunberg struck a cord there, it was hard to watch grown up men having their egos crushed by a teenager.

Look, I think you have an axe to grind and I'm probably not the right person to talk to about this. Yes, I think sipping wine in the Hamptons is better than worrying about your next rent payment in the Bronx.

Everything is relative, worrying about your next rent payment in bronx gives you tremendous security, opportunity and wealth compared to most people in the world.

This has to be a joke.

Oh come on

It can be put simply like where the struggle for rich kids start; that is the zenith of success for poor kids.

I think it's a good summery. Just remember that, when interpolated more widely, it applies to everybody in all kind of settings. Getting into a position where they can worry about paying the rent in Bronx is the dream of many people who have much more serious things to worry. It doesn't even need to be about material things.

> No matter how brilliant you are, many people would simply assume that you have been given the easy route thanks to daddy.

Probably still easier to pretend that you come from nothing than being successful while actually coming from nothing.

There seems to be a real tradeoff in how the Americas vs the old world see 'coming from a good family'. Our mythology on this side of the pond is so focused on the idea that everyone is inherently equal and capable of achieving great things, that we celebrate and even embellish when someone successfully changes their social class.

The downside is that we lack a sense of nobless oblige. the idea that much will be demanded of those to whom much is given doesn't mesh well with our values of universal humanism - people born to privilege on this side of the pond seem to have more of a sense of guilt than duty about that fact.

Yeah, this is a seriously under appreciated effect in Silicon Valley founder culture. “Just send it bro,” and “failure is totally cool,” are both much easier beliefs to hold when you’re getting an allowance and, in the absolute worst case scenario, could get your rent, phone bill, and healthcare paid for by mom and dad for even a few months.

It seems to me, despite the issues we're seeing with their offerings, that society gained a lot of value from what those lucky few were able to do. It is an unacknowledged reality worth thinking about, but I hope the discussion centers around how more people can be afforded the opportunity to fail.