Racism and racial privilege exist everywhere in the world.. It just western democratic society like to put it in center of attention. I am chinese descent and I find many Chinese living in China are racist again black people and look down on Cauasians but government just don't allow racist become such a main topic of discussion..
Do you believe in privilege? White privilege, etc?
- Thread starter Jenesis
- Start date
Yes, there are different types of privilege for different people but White people definitely are privileged. So privileged most don't realize it because society is built for White comfort. And everyone else has to learn how to maneuver a system not for them.
Like the entitlement when booking they mention they are "white " so they are safe and don't need to be screened..Or are offended... Smh lol
I know every single provider no matter what ethnicity has run into this type of person in SW. It's a problem.
I have soooooo many emails and texts from entitled people I'm numb to the bs. Just reply professionally
Like the entitlement when booking they mention they are "white " so they are safe and don't need to be screened..Or are offended... Smh lol
I know every single provider no matter what ethnicity has run into this type of person in SW. It's a problem.
I have soooooo many emails and texts from entitled people I'm numb to the bs. Just reply professionally
The impact of racism is about power though. If I go for Indian food and they laugh at me for asking for spicy simply because I'm white, it is racism but it has very little impact on my life. Same goes if I can't get a discount in some mom and pop shop. Meanwhile POC have to deal with things like job access which in my mind is a little bit more serious.
Last edited:
You asked why people were even talking about this stuff but what you really mean is you want people to stop sharing opinions that you disagree with.
As for definition, how about a skin tone that allows you to pass as part of mainstream Canadian (white-Christian) culture and not being identified as an outsider?
And sorry but the stats are what they are. Visible minorities are on the losing end of pretty much any metric in Canada and it's not because they are inferior. Sure, in Japan it would be Japanese privilege, in Qatar it would be Arab privilege, but we're talking about North America here.
Things have improved but especially in a high stress institutional environment like support services, black people are subject to the same subconscious prejudices we see in stats about schools and hospitals.
Evergreen University is a typical example of this. The black students held hostages and had one of the white professors fired for being white. The leader of the revolt received a university job to help with "anti-racism" teaching while the Jewish, but white professor who most students thought was a great professor, but had to because he was white. But using the power of being white he did win a law suit against the university later.
Several Canadian jobs are listed as not hiring whites in some variation, some will not hire other minorities as well - since they are targeting some specific quota.
U of T law school is rumoured to reserve roughly double the population of black students spots -that is far more sports are reserved than there population indicates.
Regardless Two poor students, one white Syrian refugee from a war zone, and one black from a rich family that lost its fortune on the stock market, the black student has the advantage at U of T sine there are programs for the black student and not the war damaged refugee.
The only power that really matters is access to education and wealth - at least in Canada. Promoting racism that appearance can and genes generate mystical power is right of racist books of the 20s and 30s where the Blood is all.
I remember a black person screaming at a Chinese merchant for being racist until I explained that the Chinese merchant had poor English skills and was not mocking him with is accent and slow service - it was what all none Chinese speaking customers received. It appeared the man assumed ever negative he contented was systematic racism which in effect turned him into an accidental racist - at least that day.
So wealth is power, racism is tied to the pocket book, assuming your statement has merit. The philsopical liberal version of racism is to assume anyone has greater value than another because of their race or nation - and to give them special treatment not on there character but on their racial background. Personally I prefer the rationalist version vs the Neo-Marxist interpretation - and the evne crazier one which seperates class altogther - the facist version of racism retooled to sound liberal - well that a pretty dark road.
As an aside my Canadian history book refereed to the English, French and Canadian races. The Canadian race would include any Canadian with Canadian citizenship no matter what there colour, and the English would be German, Normandy race as well as Celtic among others. The race concept in general is nuts. In Toronto , No Irish and no Dogs where once around the city in public areas. French Canadians used to be the horrible race etc. Its all insanity.
Race is a social construct you clearly do not know your history. Alfred Ernst Rosenberg helped form Nazi race theory with a made up fairytale of racism - the "Nordic religion of the blood" which modern anti-racism groups have ironiclly copied and pasted into there own theories.
If you google French race you get:
"People also ask
How many races are there in France?
Major ethnic groups are Germans (1.4 million), Bretons (1.2 million), Flemish (400,000), Catalonians (200,000), Corsicans (140,000), and Basques (130,000). France has had many ethnic and religious minorities, including Germans, Swiss, Italians, Protestants, Jews, Gypsies, and Mennonites."
One person says of the French:
"First there was the Basques, then they got invaded by Celts, who got invaded by Romans, who got invaded by germanic peoples (Franks, Burgundians, Alans, Wisigoths, Vandals, etc.), who got invaded by other germanics (Danes, Norwegians…), and then Europeans from the other kingdoms immigrated to France (just think of last names such as Godon or Lallemand or Lespagnol or L’Italien), and then France had colonies and imported foreign stock from all around the world (Africans, Vietnamese, Maghrebis, Levantines, North American indigenous, etc.), who after some generations were culturally French like the others… "
So pre worrld war II the French race was one of culture and language, with the kind of accent determing who "French" you were. Fast forward to Quebec and we have Quebec people fighting to protect bloodlines and starting to reject language as part of their group identity. Race is whatever someone wants it to be and thus is meaningless.
Last edited:
To me, the answer to the poll question is an unequivocal yes, though I will acknowledge I still had hesitation answering that way. The complexity of the issues involved here makes it very difficult to boil down a response to a binary choice.
Consider discrimination in hiring an employee. It may manifest as "I will not hire this person, even though they are the most qualified, because they are (fill in the blank)." I expect this continues to happen, though I would hope we've progressed enough as a society that it is relatively rare. Discriminatory behaviours and systems, on both individual and systemic levels, do not have to be so overt however; they can be subtle, subconscious and/or unintentional. Further, they might go unnoticed. The example of names on a CV impacting the likelihood of getting an interview is a prime example of these attributes. On the employer's side, such discrimination might occur without any conscious intent or maliciousness, and neither a person denied an interview nor the person ultimately being hired need be aware it occurred. I think there would be naivety in assuming oneself immune to this. We all routinely engage in judgment, which is in some respects an essential aspect of functioning, but has negative consequences requiring self-awareness to mitigate.
One issue here is choice of language. Terms such as privileged, underprivileged, oppressor, oppressed, agent group, target group etc. all exist and have closely related meanings in use. There is debate in academic circles about which are most appropriate. There can be associations of blame, guilt, defensiveness and so on that can actually be counterproductive to the intent behind such discussion: to improve social justice. This can be very subjective. I, for example, wouldn't take issue with the statement "White privilege exists," though I do take some issue with reframing it into "All White people are privileged," which I've heard. In part this is due to a subtle shift in tone that connotes more intention, conflict and blame. Further, I see it as invoking the logical fallacy of overgeneralization. Variables of this nature are inherently probabilistic. So, even if White privilege exists, that does not imply all While people benefit from it, at least not in any universal or consistent sense. I think a general awareness of such issues is vital to understanding how we can better function as a society, but it is important to remember that the broader experience of a class of people need not reflect the experience of an individual belonging to that class, and vice versa. Always, a person is an individual first and foremost.
If I take myself as an example, I identify as White, male, straight. I would think it reasonable to suggest those identifiers may have eased my relationship with society in ways throughout my life. I also identify as having a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, something which I have addressed in other threads before. Largely by definition, this identifier means that I do not fit neatly within many cultural norms, and that can definitely create tension in my relationship with society. I am aware that acknowledging this aspect of myself brings about certain judgments in others, some of which will not accurately characterize the identifier generally, let alone me specifically. But without this self-identification, it is in many respects invisible, as most people I encounter will have no idea it applies to me. This is both a blessing and a curse; while I might never be exposed to the associations people would have if they knew, the discrimination that does exist can also be more problematic for its invisibility.
There are a host of examples from my life I could bring forward, though I think one of the most useful is the subject of academic petitions. At times during my university education, my mental health status made it effectively impossible for me to complete courses, leaving fails on my record. Having those addressed through academic petitions could be extremely difficult due to a variety of regulations and requirements. Navigating the bureaucracy involved was practically no more reasonable at the time than completing the courses would have been. Now, the intent behind this bureaucracy may not have been discriminatory. Nor would it have been universal in its impact; some people with mental health concerns might experience no undue burden, and some people without might struggle with the bureaucracy regardless. But I have little doubt there was a disproportionate effect on those dealing with mental health. The system for judging an academic petition was more difficult to access for reasons not related to the actual merit of such a petition, and in that way the system was discriminatory. It is a case where treating people equally does not mean treating them equitably.
Consider discrimination in hiring an employee. It may manifest as "I will not hire this person, even though they are the most qualified, because they are (fill in the blank)." I expect this continues to happen, though I would hope we've progressed enough as a society that it is relatively rare. Discriminatory behaviours and systems, on both individual and systemic levels, do not have to be so overt however; they can be subtle, subconscious and/or unintentional. Further, they might go unnoticed. The example of names on a CV impacting the likelihood of getting an interview is a prime example of these attributes. On the employer's side, such discrimination might occur without any conscious intent or maliciousness, and neither a person denied an interview nor the person ultimately being hired need be aware it occurred. I think there would be naivety in assuming oneself immune to this. We all routinely engage in judgment, which is in some respects an essential aspect of functioning, but has negative consequences requiring self-awareness to mitigate.
One issue here is choice of language. Terms such as privileged, underprivileged, oppressor, oppressed, agent group, target group etc. all exist and have closely related meanings in use. There is debate in academic circles about which are most appropriate. There can be associations of blame, guilt, defensiveness and so on that can actually be counterproductive to the intent behind such discussion: to improve social justice. This can be very subjective. I, for example, wouldn't take issue with the statement "White privilege exists," though I do take some issue with reframing it into "All White people are privileged," which I've heard. In part this is due to a subtle shift in tone that connotes more intention, conflict and blame. Further, I see it as invoking the logical fallacy of overgeneralization. Variables of this nature are inherently probabilistic. So, even if White privilege exists, that does not imply all While people benefit from it, at least not in any universal or consistent sense. I think a general awareness of such issues is vital to understanding how we can better function as a society, but it is important to remember that the broader experience of a class of people need not reflect the experience of an individual belonging to that class, and vice versa. Always, a person is an individual first and foremost.
If I take myself as an example, I identify as White, male, straight. I would think it reasonable to suggest those identifiers may have eased my relationship with society in ways throughout my life. I also identify as having a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, something which I have addressed in other threads before. Largely by definition, this identifier means that I do not fit neatly within many cultural norms, and that can definitely create tension in my relationship with society. I am aware that acknowledging this aspect of myself brings about certain judgments in others, some of which will not accurately characterize the identifier generally, let alone me specifically. But without this self-identification, it is in many respects invisible, as most people I encounter will have no idea it applies to me. This is both a blessing and a curse; while I might never be exposed to the associations people would have if they knew, the discrimination that does exist can also be more problematic for its invisibility.
There are a host of examples from my life I could bring forward, though I think one of the most useful is the subject of academic petitions. At times during my university education, my mental health status made it effectively impossible for me to complete courses, leaving fails on my record. Having those addressed through academic petitions could be extremely difficult due to a variety of regulations and requirements. Navigating the bureaucracy involved was practically no more reasonable at the time than completing the courses would have been. Now, the intent behind this bureaucracy may not have been discriminatory. Nor would it have been universal in its impact; some people with mental health concerns might experience no undue burden, and some people without might struggle with the bureaucracy regardless. But I have little doubt there was a disproportionate effect on those dealing with mental health. The system for judging an academic petition was more difficult to access for reasons not related to the actual merit of such a petition, and in that way the system was discriminatory. It is a case where treating people equally does not mean treating them equitably.
Why are you so condescending and insulting? it's right here in orange, whether or not you intended it to read this way has nothing to do with my comment. My comment wasn't a slight towards you it was an observation, what's with the attack?
You said;
Sure people should be saying thank you but the fact that brown and black men feel the need to thank me for even entertaining the idea of seeing them when so many providers in this industry are RACIST is heartbreaking, they shouldn't have to thank me for not being racist....it's literally the bare minimum.
I said;
I don't see the correlation between having sex with black people and that defining you as nonracist.
That's a fair statement for me to make based on your post. I put some thought and deliberation into what I said, your angry visceral response is just odd.
MD
There is significant privilege across many categories.
The question for an individual trying to be successful in life is “so what?”.
Life isn’t fair, but you have to learn how to overcome it.
It is more unfair for some vs. others. BUT you only have one life and you have to do your best within your circumstances to figure it out.
This is why I have more respect for those successful people who have had to overcome more….’I started from the bottom now I’m here’.
One can fight to improve the inequities, but I think it is more effective to fight for your own success, and show others that it is indeed possible to overcome.
The question for an individual trying to be successful in life is “so what?”.
Life isn’t fair, but you have to learn how to overcome it.
It is more unfair for some vs. others. BUT you only have one life and you have to do your best within your circumstances to figure it out.
This is why I have more respect for those successful people who have had to overcome more….’I started from the bottom now I’m here’.
One can fight to improve the inequities, but I think it is more effective to fight for your own success, and show others that it is indeed possible to overcome.
This is more then just “life isn't fair” This is having a non-white name gets your resume tossed before even being a looked at. That is not simply “unfair”
So what?
You can say it is unfair, evil, criminal, etc., but you can either apply for the next 10 jobs or spend your time complaining about how wrong it was that your resume got tossed.
The person complaining will still be complaining weeks later, while the person that applied to 10 other jobs will be collecting a pay cheque.
THAT is how to succeed, and why I get frustrated with those who spend so much time saying the world is broken and ‘someone’ should fix it.
How do you not see? Seriously? You think it is just one place not hiring non-whites? If that was the case ok but it is not. It is those 10 places.
And when you can't get a job, a good job, you have to go for a usually a lower-paying service job which is not always paying the bills because we don't have a living wage here in Canada. And it certainly doesn't leave much room for job improvement and therefore no real success
It is a total snowball effect. How do you not see that?
Let's go further. You can't get an apartment in a good safe neighbourhood either because your rental application is tossed for your non-white name. So now you have a crap job because it was all you could get and now you live in a high crime area because that is all you could get.
Now, being black, you are constantly checked by police, pulled over more frivolous things because cops want to “card” you. All because you live in that high crime area.
The list goes on and on. This is more the just “unfair”
So what do you do about it?
You say all 10 places toss your resume?
What if it was 9 out of 10? That would be awful….but the 10th didn’t? And you got the job from the 10th place. Then you worked hard and were promoted and all of what you wrote no longer is the reality for that person.
Your view of the world assumes everything is closed to a person of colour. It does not have to be that way. The more you view the world as impossible to overcome, the more you give up and suffer.
Your view of the world could be true, but it can still be overcome - ask many immigrants from dozens of countries.
First - open communication about the problem is a start to change. Education about why these things are wrong and how to be more inclusive is another start.
There are millions of people going though this and remember it is not just “Black” people that experience this. And privilege is not just about race. I listed a bunch of different types of privilege.
Able bodied vrs disabled for example.Try being in a wheel chair and going to any DT Toronto event for example. There are still WAY to many places that are not accessible for disabled. Not just wheelchair but blind, deaf, etc.
Discussion and Recognizing privilege is where change happens. It happens over time. We are much better off now then 30 years ago and with open minded discussion, things can continue to change. Opening and educating minds is the only way to make change. I mean we can pass laws and we have. Hiring is suppose to be a fair process but how to go after those who just toss resumes based on name? You need to ensure the mind of the person going over those resumes is fair and looking at qualifications over name.
I’m not saying it is easy but it is possible. Only when recognizing what privilege is though.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Of note, I never once used the word Black.
Also, do you not concede that any of what I am saying is valid?
You switched from one big problem to another but have never accepted that the individual facing these large challenges has a role to play in figuring out how they are going to go make it work despite it all.
