It's actually "majority privilege." It's just called white privilege in the USA because that has historically been the majority color. Go to any country, or geographic area, and you fill find a majority race/sect/tribe/religion that gives them more privileges/rights than the rest of the people who live in smaller numbers, because there are less of them in numbers to win a vote (or whatever.) You will also find that majority holding some sort of power over the minorities in the area. Can you think of a country where this hasn't been true at some point in world history? China? Russia? Nigeria? Mexico? Cambodia? Vietnam? Greece? Rome? Rwanda?
I totally agree with you. We were talking about the US.
In some cultures, the aspect of giving every single person inalienable rights and equality isn't explicitly valued like it is in the west. I wouldn't want to impose western values on those cultures.
However, your argument boils down to whataboutism. Yes there are other countries with other forms of privilege. Yes there are civilizations in the past with other forms of privilege. In the US we tend to value equality, and in the pursuit of that we must recognize all forms of privilege that exist in our society. It doesn't matter that it exists elsewhere.
FYI I am not at all talking about the original article. I was simply responding to this tangent comment thread.
An awesome take away from the comment you replied to may be: why call it white privilege? It’s seems better to call it majority privilege. It’s more accurate, more general, less inflammatory, less targeted, less convoluted. It seems better in every way. Focusing on whiteness just serves to entrench people (as anytime you call someone’s intrinsic traits harmful, you tend to offend). Why don’t we just call it majority privilege?
