Ok. Privilege is the proper word to use then. Glad this is cleared up. So men, heterosexuals, white people, etc, have privileges, like being relatively immuned from discrimination.No, I have a problem with the concept.
Nope.Wait. Let me understand you completely. You are saying that if a minority is overrepresented in one area, failure to maintain the overrepresentation in management of that area is evidence of discrimination?
you know that most Muslims live in Asia, right? Most Muslims live quite peacefully in democratic nations that have or have had female heads of state, etc. Iran and the Saudis dont actually represent the "Muslim world"' it turns out.
And because of that you would include the policies of Egypt's secular military regime in Islamic History? By your logic, this means that because some laws were affected by Christianity in South Africa that Apartheid is part of Christian History.
The Sikh Empire conquered parts of Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire
Because it is irrelevant. My point is that it isn't Islamic History just because Muslims are involved in an event. Now you seem to believe so. The problem isn't the definition of Islamic History, but that you seem to think that Muslims are always motivated by Islam.
So your bias is that you feel that every bad thing done by a Muslim must be linked to Islam by labelling it Islamic History, whether or not Islam was a motivator?
Let's see. A population that constitute 11% of lawyers and only 3% of them ge to be patners. It would seem they are. And that is just one example.
Why? They are inextricable. White privilege is, in essence, the lack of racist oppression and the attendant inability to notice. Privilege isn't something outside of racism, it was conceived as a tool to study institutional racism.Stop conflating racism with white privilege. They are related and have similar effects, but they're not the same.
No, that's racism. Privilege would be that whites don't have to worry about racism.White privilege means that nearly any white person- but for those seriously dressed down (see the infamous and probably apocryphal Sam Walton story)- walking through the doors will be thought of as a potential customer. It means that a Caucasian shopping for a car doesn't have to think all that seriously about how he or she is dressed when shopping for a BMW.
To be correct, Gates was arrested for lipping off to the officer. While I'll agree that still reeks of racism, it's important to get the particulars correct, else you open yourself to specious arguments based on your factual misrepresentations.Harvard prof Henry Gates was arrested for B&E and questioned for four hours...despite providing photographic ID that proved the house he was perp-walked out of was his own.
I would argue that 'white privilege' is a direct product of systemic racism, but would agree that likening the two is conflation. I find people stating that it's the baseline to be rather disturbing. The centre is clearly skewed.
The complaint about privilege being the improper word to you was your argument. I'm super happy to see that, after a number of posts back and forth, that you've decided to disagree with yourself and paint it as me suddenly becoming reasonable.Ok. Privilege is the proper word to use then.
Yes, that's the concept I reject. Glad you finally caught up.Glad this is cleared up. So men, heterosexuals, white people, etc, have privileges, like being relatively immuned from discrimination.
Now you're arguing in bad faith, as you just answered differently to Maxperson when you said that 3% of partners out of 11% of lawyers is discrimination, but here, where I clearly state the implication of that argument, you've flip-flopped.Nope.
Because it was ridiculus. No one except him is talking about deliberately under representing a race.You never answered Ovinomancer's question.
In what way shape or form is it accurate economic profiling for a car salesman to ignore someone wearing $3k+ in clothing or another who is wearing full-on business attire, better than most of the people employed in the dealership?
Stop conflating racism with white privilege. They are related and have similar effects, but they're not the same.
White privilege means that nearly any white person- but for those seriously dressed down (see the infamous and probably apocryphal Sam Walton story)- walking through the doors will be thought of as a potential customer. It means that a Caucasian shopping for a car doesn't have to think all that seriously about how he or she is dressed when shopping for a BMW.
In contrast, based on past experience, if my father or I go car shopping wearing one of our $800 sports-coats and otherwise sporting our best, we can still expect to be ignored by at least a couple salesmen. This even happened at a dealership in which one of my relatives worked- he was the first one to talk to us. (He had to finish with another customer before he got to us...and made the sale.). What we wear is largely immaterial.. The sales personnel don't see the quality of our finery.
Where privilege comes in is that it is extremely rare for such things to happen to whites, and thus, that possibility isn't part of their mental state when shopping, whereas members of the black community have those scenario in mind almost every time.