White Privilege

We recently read an article for group therapy on white privilege and had to post our thoughts and responses to it. I posted last week as assigned, but went back tonight and reread the article and the responses from my classmates and discovered that I was incensed because the majority of them completely misunderstood the whole point of the article. So I posted again. I hope some of them read it. I'm going to post it here for you to read, just because I think that it has been far too long since I've posted anything here that would lead you to think that I have half a brain. Basically, here's the premise. The author was saying that inherent in the American system is white privilege, which whites are, for the most part, oblivious to, and that to enact systemic change, more whites need to be consciously aware of that fact. People in my class thought apparently that she was speaking directly to them, calling them racist because they're white (nowhere in the piece does she say "If you're white, you're racist"), and blaming them for the state of things. They got angry. Then they felt guilty. Then the one guy in class (who admitted to not understanding the article or the big words in the article) commented that since she started off by talking about male privilege, that he thought she would say in the end that she understood and felt almost sympathetic to the construct. (Incidentally, here are the difficult words I found in the article: taxonomy, differentiated, meritocracy, conferring and unsought. Not even all of those are difficult, but I do think that they are above a fifth grade reading level.) I didn't even get through all the important points I wanted to, but that's all right. I think this is fuel enough...for now.

***

I've gone through this article again as well as responses from my classmates and at the risk of beating a dead horse or just pissing someone off, I want to comment once more on the topic.

First of all, it astonished me how many people expressed anger with the article. The entire purpose of the article, in my opinion, was to bring awareness to a group that is seldom forced to be aware - not to embitter. I think that so many people becoming upset about the topic reinforces exactly what McIntosh said about whites being oblivious to their privilege. But ah, something else first...

McIntosh defines privilege as a "favored state, whether earned or conferred by birth or luck" (2) and nothing more. Nowhere that I could find through the article does McIntosh declare that because Caucasians are privileged, they are, as a whole, also minority-hating racists. I believe the following paragraph sums it up nicely:

It seems to me that obliviousness about white advantage, like obliviousness
about male advantage, is kept strongly incluturated in the United States so as
to maintain the myth of meritocracy, the myth that democratic choice is
equally available to all. Keeping most people unaware that freedom of
confident action is there for just a small number of people props up those
in power, and serves to keep power in the hands of the same groups that have
most of it already. (4)

Indeed, she is not stating that whites are born and bred to be racist, simply that America's system of privilege is so ingrained and so deeply rooted that it is invisible even to those who control it and whom it benefits. These "invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance" (4) are not merely the system of racism. Rather, they are the myriad systems that surround and drive American society, such as government, education and the workforce, to name a few. These systems are all intertwined and mingle with each other, so much so that they are virtually indistinguishable in many aspects.

For instance, let us consider for a moment the poor white man and the rich black man. The question is posed: Who is more powerful? To many, it appears obvious that the rich man, regardless of race, will be seen as more powerful. To others, it appears obvious that the white man, regardless of socio-economic status, will be seen as more powerful. The truth is that these two men will most likely not come into contact with each other unless deemed necessary by their situation, in which case the situation will determine who is more powerful. If the rich, black man breaks down in front of the poor, white man's farm, he is at the mercy of the white man's assistance (assuming he has no outside immediate resources). On the flip side, the poor, white man could be the employee of the rich, black man, answering his commands based simply on employment status. In each instance, issues of class and race are apparent, but they are dictated by extraneous factors.

But this all deals more with power than with privilege, which was McIntosh's focus. When examining this article it does appear that McIntosh is generalizing American whites when what she is doing is stating facts about America's majority culture. It is true that when a white person walks into the store to purchase a doll, that person will easily be able to find a doll representing their own race. It is true that any white person can easily find white people spoken about in history books. These are not personal attacks at the reader, but merely true statements about the treatment of the white race in America. Yes, they are generalizations. Yes, they are broad statements. No, they are not meant to anger individuals. The fact that someone could assume the author created this list for them personally - arrogance aside - completely reinforces and upholds McIntosh's argument about white oblivion.

These statements were meant to be seen on a broad spectrum.

As McIntosh states, "Describing white privilege makes one newly accountable" (1). She in no way demands a feeling of guilt from her readers. She does not blame, she does not present an air of defensiveness, she does not scold. All she merely does is report what happens to be true about the majority race in America. I suspect that she presents hard facts in her full paper, exerpts that were undoubtedly left out of this small selection.

Finally, I was shocked to read that the author was expected to have a better understanding of male privilege through the article entitled "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." Male privilege is exactly what promoted her to begin thinking about white privilege in the first place. It is not the place of the minority, as women have historically been, to be sympathetic of the majority cause. The minority need not be simple and complacent while the majority continues to reinforce its superiority without fault. To think that she needs to be understanding of male privilege indicates a sincere oblivion not only to the tenants brought forth in this article, but to American life in general.

For further reading on the interconnectedness of race, class and gender, I highly recommend Audre Lorde's The Cancer Journals.