I think we are getting somewhere, you’re right - everything quoted above makes sense to me and we are definitely on the same page.
I do see where you are going with this. And I recognize that part of the argument I would use to support the use of the word “privilege” (it’s the definition of the word, being used in it’s dictionary-accurate form) is an argument other posters have used to support the use of the word “plantation”.
However. Where I disagree with conflating the two is historical context. If “privilege” were a word that was closely tied to atrocities committed against your ancestors, I would understand the sensitivity, and would endeavor to avoid the word even when used in a dictionary-accurate context. Because I can understand how much very understandable pain you have tied up in another common definition of that word, and I don’t want to rub salt in what will be an (understandably) open wound for a very, very long time.
Speaking for myself now, the word privilege doesn’t make me have a negative reaction because it’s related to my ancestors being treated badly. The word privilege makes me uncomfortable because I do not believe that it should apply to me. I do not believe that I should hold any amount of privilege over another human being due simply to a factor outside of my control (the color of my skin). But I recognize that I do, whether I like it or not, and so I try not to let my being uncomfortable with that truth get in the way of me recognizing it so that I can try to change it.
Perhaps the way to move forward with this is to try to discuss why the word privilege makes people have a negative reaction? The reason you feel that way may be different to the reason I feel that way, as laid out above. Even if we do not use that word, we need to find a way to talk about the difference in life experiences in this country that can be driven by differences in skin color, so that we can make things better for everyone.
Do you really not see how you are the one making the cancer comments in the situation? This thread was about how a word like “plantation” may be hurtful and not inclusive to people of color. You’re the one who walked in and starting whining about your Irish grandparents.
You are the one saying “but what about me?!” It’s exactly the same as when people say “all lives matter” in response to “BLACK lives matter”.
I was like that too when I was a petty, insecure, and uneducated child. Then I grew up and educated myself. You’re an adult.
Since my words seem to be being misunderstood, let’s add someone else’s.
Again, my objection to the use of the term “white privilege,” is that it is not useful. It has negative connotations to many whites and for this reason it’s use is counterproductive if your goal is to enlist whites in fighting racism and supporting actions that combat the effects of historic systemic racism. You don’t gain allies by making people feel guilty or angry.
These are some snips from an opinion piece by a professor at Skidmore College:
But you’d also have to be a fool to deny that the idea of privilege has been weaponized in contemporary discourse, often by people attempting to seize rhetorical advantage. The privilege call-outs increasingly common in the culture entail a readiness to rebuke people simply because their gender, ethnicity or rank makes them an apt target for shaming and condemnation. The charge of “privilege” is usually directed at its targets not with the prospect of enlisting them in some plausible action to combat injustice but instead to signal the accuser’s membership in the party of the virtuous. Accusations of “privilege” have become a form of oneupsmanship, and a charge against which there is no real defense.
… Those words – a kind of performance art – sharply identify what has lately happened and explain why many of us believe it is time to retire the term “privilege”…
From an opinion piece at the New Republic, talking about the use of “check your privilege:”
…But it has the effect of invoking guilt, in large part because the phrase is so often used ungenerously, as a weapon rather than a gentle reminder.
And here’s a guy from Psychology Today who gets exactly what I’ve been saying:
In “calling out” the unfair advantage of the privileged over the less privileged, the two senses of what it means to earn one’s success are often confused. The person being called out is not simply being told that he had advantages, he is also being told that because of those advantages, he didn’t earn what he has achieved. …To the extent that a person of privilege works hard to climb his personal ladder, to say he didn’t earn his personal rise through hard work is an error. Not only is this an error, but it backfires as a political strategy. It gives the very person one wants to reach—the person of privilege—a legitimate reason to become defensive. When this happens, it is easy to dismiss the demand that one “check one’s privilege.” In so doing, one loses the potential to recruit an ally in the fight for social equality.
And finally, from a Columbia Journalism Review article titled “How ‘entitlement’ and ‘privilege’ became epithets:”
…Then there is the weaponized “privilege,” the belief by one group that it or another has special “entitlements.” This “privilege” is nearly always negative, used to disparage one group for the advantages they are said to enjoy.
If that helps, great. If not, well, I’m done beating this dead horse, so you won’t have to hear about it from me again.
ohmyheck made the really good point that we all stood by silent(and thereby complicit) leaving EN to address this alone. And then the chorus of “you’re doing it wrong” when we did nothing.
So we had the chance to control how this was addressed, and we chose not to.
Hopefully I will be clear in my explanation. I have had MANY year of leadership related professional and academic experience, to which effective communication is a high light. This includes mentorship that went something like, “Ajierene, it isn’t that what you said was wrong or invalid. It’s just that the words you picked, how you chose to use them, the venue you chose to use made the message get lost before it got to it’s intended audience.” So I am a work in progress type person, but also a person that tends to think a lot about how to get my message to my intended audience. (One thing really appreciate about debates on the internet is that I can write, then read, then edit to make myself more clear).
I understand what you are saying. I think the disconnect lies in how you are thinking about the feelings attached to these words. If I am reading your post correctly, you are thinking in a linear sense - as in let’s say the higher the number, the more hurtful. In this line of thinking, “plantation” is say a 4 where “privilege” is say a 2. Feelings are not linear, though. So it is better to say “plantation” is a 4 and “privilege” is a C. It is better to think of them as completely different and equally vaild. I say equally valid because without knowing someone’s history, you cannot know their struggles and “privilege” may hit a nerve you do not know about.
The feelings related to the negative reaction to “plantation” can be better surmised in terms of the concept of transgenerational trauma. It is a PTSD-esque reaction.
Pulling the definition from google: “a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.” This definition to many implies something was given to them, they did not earn it.
The people I know that take issue with “privilege” and “fragility” is better described as a cultural insult. Think about the culture we live in - doing your own work, pulling yourself up from you bootstraps, being strong. These are all considered positives. Being frail, especially a man being frail is considered a Bad Thing. Privilege, likewise to many implies that they did not earn what they have, rather it was given to you. If you are talking to someone that very much feels like they worked - they had tough parents, or had to work their way through school, or built their own business, or was in one of those careers with internship and junior apprenticeship is a 100 hour work week, and use words that have implications that they were somehow sipping cocktails while their business builds itself or those promotions are handed to them, it can hinder gaining them as an ally.
Quite often this is also because of how the message is delivered.
What comes to mind for many is that they somehow have manna falling from heaven. As if everything they want just falls at their feet. An example is from a conversation between two friends of mine. Friend A was telling Friend B he had white privilege because look at all he has. She also used the phrase “living life on the easy button” so I’m sure that didn’t help. Now friend B did grow up financially better off but he’s also extremely smart and a hard worker. Friend B is working 12-14 hour days building his business. But Friend A is teling him is life is easy. It sure doesn’t feel easy to him!
The issue is two-fold. While at the same time individuals are being told (whether directly or indirectly) they have live life easy due to something beyond their control, their lives are being compared to something they have no frame of reference for, or that they can control, so they cannot even defend their point. There are other times they do have a frame of reference but that is discounted - many came here as indentured servants, especially the Scottish and Irish, who were greatly persecuted by the English.
So not only is Friend B’s life easy, he’s gotta understand how hard some unnamed other person’s life is. Meanwhile, his software company employs 60% minorities. But he is left feeling like that doesn’t count because someone, somewhere is getting pulled over by some cop because of the color of his skin.
Going back to the cancer/heart issue. You tell someone who just had a heart attack that you had cancer and cancer is worse. He has no frame of reference for that. So now not only have you down played his condition but you left him no room to argue or make his point more clear. Now let’s say he’s had cancer and he tells you he had stomach cancer and his heart issues are worse and you reply with “well, no that’s just stomach cancer, it doesn’t count. Lung cancer counts.”
This is how many of these conversations go. In my ahem many years of experienced mentioned above, I learned that you do best to get your message across if you make the other person feel validated. Telling someone cancer is worse than heart issues can very much leave them feeling invalidated. Telling someone who tells you of trials and tribulations, “yeah but they have/had it worse!” can be construed as an invalidating.
I also learned to be careful with words and practice it almost daily. I have a master’s degree and am generally considered above average intelligence. My nextdoor neighbor on the one side, I’m not even sure he graduated high school; he grew up poor, with poor nutrition. So while he is not an idiot, between poor education and poor nutrition which effects brain development, I am constantly looking for words to replace ones more common in my speech. I need to replace my $5 words with nickel words in order to be understood by him. If I guffawed at his lack of intelligence, told him to pick up a dictionary or even just refused to alter my speech - we would not be on good terms like we are and then who would randomly mow my lawn for me?
So for me, I will say I prefer the term “advantage”. I’ll post the definition here: a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position.
The difference I see in the two definitions is where privilege uses the wording “granted or only available only to a particular group”, advantage uses the wording “circumtance that puts one in a favorable or superior position”. The difference for me is that where privilege evokes being bestowed upon. As if without even trying one has and one has not and that is where they all will stay. Advantage acknowledges inequities while still acknowledges that those inequities to not necessarily lead to a better final condition. I also find when I use the word advantage, I find I have to use more explanation.
If you use the phrase, “because of white privilege” it reads as a complete thought to me and implies the reader should know what that means.
If you use the phrase, “because of advantage” it reads to me as an incomplete thought - what advantage? how does that advantage relate?
Those are just my thoughts - someone else may receive another term better. I have found trial and error is sometimes necessary because none of us are perfect.
@Marigold I also want to add that I do feel validated and respected when I read your posts. Had I been Mr. Walker and you been Leslie, I would have agreed to change the name of the venue where on page 1 of this thread, I did not support a name change.
@OfCourseItsAnAlter I’m glad I could help and I appreciate those quotes you posted.
Can I borrow this? I think this is one of the best explanations I have ever heard of why the phrasing ‘white privilege’ rankles and ‘advantage’ doesn’t. And the heart/cancer explanation is also useful. And I am about to dive into a five day conference that will largely revolve around these issues in the workplace, so I need all the help I can get!
I haven’t looked at this thread in a couple weeks and a couple dozen pages of posts.
All I have to say is that I’m struck by the irony that those arguing the hardest that changing the name of PF is ridiculous because a plantation is just property that is planted and obviously the property has no connection to slavery are the same ones that are most angered by the term “white privilege” because they believe the connotation is that they didn’t work hard for what they have.
I feel like you must be talking about me, as I think I have made the majority of the posts arguing against the use of terms like “white privilege” and “white fragility.” If you are, you are very mistaken. I have made zero posts arguing against changing the name of PF.
I totally agree. You won’t find me in a Facebook “debate” for this reason. I find this kind of forum much more appealing for discourse for just that reason. And I do find you clear in your communications, and appreciate that about your posts
Certainly I am known to think in a very linear sense, sometimes to a fault (it comes from being in a very numbers-based profession – just ask the people in our marketing department how much they like working with me). I do completely agree with your assessment – “plantation” can provoke a PTSD-type reaction, due to the transgenerational trauma you reference. “Privilege” or “fragility” can be taken by some people as cultural insults, and the way those words are delivered can also have an impact on how they are received.
All that being said, while I do think both are valid, I would not say they are equally valid. I consider a PTSD-esque response to transgenerational trauma to carry much more weight than a cultural insult. It’s not that the cultural insult carries no weight, but I do not consider them equal. More on the “insult” side of things in a moment.
I’m separating out fragility to respond to it differently, because IMO they are slightly different issues. White privilege is essentially just a statement of fact – based on the colour of your skin, you either have it or you don’t, and there isn’t much you can do about it other than to be aware of it and try to minimize the impact on others. Conversely, white fragility speaks to a defensive reaction to information about racial injustice or inequality that makes the person uncomfortable (which can be controlled/avoided/eliminated by adjusting how you receive information of that nature).
As a white person, there isn’t much you can do about your white privilege to make it go away. But you don’t have to allow yourself to participate in white fragility. I understand that the terminology (IMO moreso than “privilege”) signals that being fragile is a Bad Thing. But given what the term actually means, I think it’s meant to.
Now to your point, if someone is being defensive already, does it really help to point out to them that they are exhibiting white fragility? Probably not, and that’s where we come around to “how things are communicated” as opposed to “what things are called”. From an academic stance, I support the use of the term “white fragility”, and I think it clearly communicates what it is trying to say. But in a practical, make-the-world-a-better-place sense, I don’t think there’s much use in directing that term at someone in the moment if you are trying to bring them around to your side. It’s like if I had a friend who was acting childish, or overly angry. “You are acting like a child!” or “Why are you so upset?” aren’t likely to have much positive effect, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t correct ways to describe the situation. I just probably shouldn’t use them if I want to get anywhere in that moment.
Raises hand As someone who is….fortunate? enough to enjoy one of those careers that started with 100 hour work weeks, I can attest that they aren’t fun and you certainly don’t feel like anything is being given to you.
That being said, I recognize that everyone doesn’t start from the same blocks in this race. I am white. I worked hard to get where I am, I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, I am strong. I am far away from my starting blocks because of those things. But the average person of colour who has reached the same “point in the race” as I have has traveled a further distance. I didn’t earn my advance starting blocks, any more than they earned theirs way back there. I’ve earned other things in my life, but I didn’t earn my starting position relative to other people. I know this. I know this needs to change.
To me, I don’t see why that would be perceived as taking away from my accomplishments. It was difficult for me to get here, and I am proud that I made it happen anyway. No one has ever contested that. But it was even more difficult for my colleagues of colour to get here than it was for me, and that should also be recognized. A huge issue in my industry is the talent we miss out on because of systemic disadvantages. If I am good enough to work here, but a person of colour who “ran my exact race” (to continue the analogy) is still a mile back from the point where they might get hired, we are missing out on talent that we want and need to continue our business successfully. It’s not that I don’t count. It’s that we are missing out on more people who do count, and that’s a lose-lose for everyone.
I like the use of the word “advantage”. To be honest, even as you explain it, I just don’t see a huge difference between the two words. Both indicate that one group has something another group doesn’t. Both are accurate for the current situation in our country, IMO. A situation that we all seem to agree needs to change.
I am so glad that’s true, and I feel similarly when reading your posts. Maybe that’s the most important takeaway of all of this.
@Marigold I am glad you are understanding me and in theory, agree that the mental/emotional associations with “plantation” are more negative than the mental/emotional associations with “privilege”.
I will only add that when working to gain an ally - “it isn’t about you”. Meaning, it isn’t about how you feel or think on the subject, it is about what the other person feels or thinks - no matter how wrong/weird/odd you think it is (within reason - like not illegal or anything - hope that’s clear!)
Just a reminder that we all grew up a little differently and hence have different frames of reference. If someone bristles at a word or phrase, why not reframe it? There is no need to say, “Well, I think that’s odd but yeah, let’s use this word instead.” Sometimes I think these types of things but then remind myself to consider if they bring anything productive to the conversation.
I was thinking about the other difference in “advantage” and “privilege”.
In my experience, the word “advantage” is often used in common vernacular in places like sports commentary and as a trade off, such as someone may comment that Michael Phelps has the advantage of body type that makes him suited well to swimming but Ryan Lochte has been training hard and won gold at the last world championships.
The word “privilege” is used to denote something that is not seemingly subject to change or negative effect - such as he is privileged to come from old money.
So “advantage is generally used as a step up but not a given. Such as Michael Phelps, who stands at 6’4” has an advantage over me in reaching the top shelf of the upper kitchen cabints, but I am capable of climbing the counters so I can reach them as well.
I have never heard a sentence like “Michael Phelps is privileged to be tall enough to reach the top shelf of the upper kitchen cabinets, but I am capable of climbing the counters so I can reach them as well.”
In the end, though - it doesn’t matter what you or I think. It matters what the person that we want to gain to our side thinks. If you want more than what they want, you have to meet them on their level. Willingness (like you have shown here) to at least attempt to get to someone else’s plateau is necessary in gaining allies.
For instance, with Mr. Walker, I would likely use a word like advantage were I to bring up race related reasons to change the name of Plantation Field. But hey, if he bristled at that word as well, I would come up with something else. I do not know him at all, so likely I would start with questions, which also has the side benefit of giving the impression I am interested/like him as a person, not just looking to use him.
For Denis Glaccum - I do not know him either but what I heard about him, I would throw any race related talk right out the window and come up with another reason a name change is a good idea. This would probably involve a lot of conversation to get to know him, which, again, generally has the trade off of him warming up to me, considering me somewhere in his sphere of friends, which would make the request easier for him to agree to.
I think you get what I’m saying so this may be superfluous to you, but I have an interesting story about this.
A friend of mine, Sgt X was in a deployed location out in the Middle East somewhere. Various leaders in the military were attempting to get something out of the local village leaders and failing miserably. So, eventually Sgt. X went to give it a shot. He got to the village and was invited to tea and dine and conversation and other such local traditions to lead up to conversation. He was there for several hours before getting down to business. The village leaders commented on his willingness to follow their traditions and meet them on their level so in the end, the Sgt got what the military leaders wanted. The military leaders made the error in apparently not paying attention to the local cultural awareness trainings military is required to take prior to deploying to a particular area. In the US, generally speaking - getting down to business is acceptable. While some people will want a bit of conversation first, it is not generally (yes, there are exceptions) an afront if tea/food/snack is refused. In the Middle East, however, generally speaking refusing tea/food/snack is very much an insult and will cause the break down of negotiations.
If you pay attention to Expedition Unknown with this in mind, you can see Josh Gates using it a lot and in some cases getting into areas that other journalists/researchers failed to get to.
On all of this, we absolutely agree. Bolding is my own, because I think that’s the crux of it.
I do understand how people get impatient when it comes to things they feel strongly about, especially when they are noticing people being hurt and want it to be resolved. As you point out, rushing and being blunt may be less productive in the long run (which is the problem here) but I also think it’s fair to feel that way. I understand your point about accomplishing the goal vs. wanting to be “right”, but on the other hand it doesn’t feel good to have to adjust yourself to suit the needs of someone you feel is causing harm.
Then again, if this was easy it would all have been dealt with years ago…
I agree with this, and this is the reason I would like to see the word continue to be used with respect to white privilege. White privilege is not subject to change (okay, hopefully it’s subject to generational systemic change, but it’s nothing you or I can change) and thus I think it’s an appropriate word. But as you say – it doesn’t matter what I think. It matters that people understand the concept, get on the same page, and work for change. I’m happy to call it a pickle if that’s what will accomplish that goal.
This is an interesting point. I actually fairly regularly hear the word used in this context, which may be why it doesn’t trigger such a strong response for me. I wonder if it’s somewhat regional in that way? I didn’t realize a sentence like that might be considered uncommon or unusual.
