“White privilege” is clearly a core concept of wokeness. So what does it mean?
It can be a very elastic idea. I thought the NYT was coming to my rescue when it ran a lengthy article about it yesterday. Unfortunately, the article was windy, tedious, and of little assistance.
To the best of my knowledge, “white privilege” is typically used in these contexts:
- White people live off wealth created by, and stolen from, African-Americans as a result of slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, etc.
- White men typically feel they have the right to dominate in social situations.
- White people demand, and typically receive, better service from both public and private sector providers than African-Americans.
- White people get more lenient treatment from law enforcement and the criminal justice system than African-Americans.
#1 is the case for reparations, which I have discussed on many occasions and will not repeat here. #2 and #3 revolve around particularized situations and don’t lend themselves to my analysis; all I can say is that I personally don’t ever remember demanding or receiving special treatment from anyone. #4 is a serious and legitimate problem, but calling it “white privilege” is a conceptual mistake.
“White privilege” assumes that unfair treatment by the police and the judicial system is the baseline, and that people who are actually treated properly are being given a special break. Our system is not designed to work that way; everyone is legally entitled to the same level of treatment. If, as it seems clear, African-Americans are being singled out for unfair treatment, instead of fatalistically attributing that to “white privilege,” we all should be demanding improvements to the system. Using “white privilege” as an explanation for the inevitability of unequal protection is both obnoxious and a guarantee that things will never get better.