Dear Violet Baudelaire: Why White Privilege Doesn't Exist

I read an article that one of my good friends shared with me recently, and it set me on edge a bit. The article was an op-ed by Violet_Baudelaire that more or less amounted to a profanity laced misrepresentation of the American reality, marred with blatant racial slurs and assumptions regarding the notion of "white privilege" -- I felt compelled to dismantle and inspect the argument in a bit more detail in an attempt to shed some light on why it just isn't moral, or realistic really, to make such all encompassing assertions about entire communities of people, based solely on race. I'll admit, the op-ed irked me a bit -- which you'll see show through at points later on in the reading. As an American who is both understanding and proud of our nations history and the triumphs we've overcome as a people, I feel that is is counterintuitive to our goals, as well as a slap in the face of our history, to attempt to segregate folks based on race for any reason -- this sentiment is one reason that I feel most sentient human beings don't adhere to the notion of white privilege. The "white privilege" assertion negates the realities of individual circumstance, and in the end, amounts to a rather vague and somehow universally applicable form of new aged segregation, regardless of ones actual background or experiences. 

I'll say too, that as I poured through the jargon of the op-ed, it scared me a bit to think that such an f-bomb filled, racism ridden article garnered so many likes and shares, despite being nothing more than an abstract nod to the plausibility of an otherwise unpopular and rather obscure opinion -- "privilege based on ones race". Reading some of the comments at the bottom of the article, I began to feel that, compared to Donald Sterling, there were around 500 individuals who read and commented on that article that would make Sterling look more like Mother Theresa, than the racist individual that he has shown himself to be. The most disheartening realization for me though, came as it began to settle in, just how many people are out there among us who are this oblivious to the reality of the individual circumstance. How radically and racially charged must an individual be that they conceptualize these nazi like utopian ideologies as factual and plausible? Let me make it clear, these weren't the kinds of normally misguided yet naively innocent comments that I hear some folks make in support of the "privilege" ideology, rather, these were blatant mentions of the death and bodily bodily harm of other human beings, coupled with the proposed downfall of our current social structure as a whole. 

Needless to say, I had to post a rebuttal in an effort to stem the hemorrhaging of disinformation and the obvious lack of understanding this individual displayed, and also to show that my generation isn't one who can only formulate progressive, racist ideologies into profanity laced pseudo-intellectual Facebook posts, described as op-ed's. So, without further adieu, here is the reality:     

Dear Violet_Baudelaire and everyone else who preach the misconception of "white privilege:" 

Let me start off by saying, the reality is that this whole ideology is so Darwinian in nature that to attempt to study evidence of it's legitimacy/existence becomes less a matter of the dissection of solid factual examples, and more a matter of simply keeping up with the evolution itself – which is exhausting. I also wouldn’t be the only one I’ve heard state that this is in fact that intended purpose, to make the ideology so abstract that it's hard to ascribe any one particular belief or reasoning to it. This opens a world of opportunity for anyone who wishes to use the ideology in a devious way, such as to mute anthers voice based on a proposed privilege which makes them incapable of understanding another's situation, and so, invalid as an opinion regarding said situation -- this is devastating for many reasons when we consider how much emphasis we place on our opinions and freedom to express them, as Americans. I hear and read so many different conceptualizations of the term "privilege" that it's hard to tell what the facts are, and where it's actually applicable. If you do happen to read the article, you will notice the mention of "reverse racism," and I wanted to make it clear, as not to confuse anyone: There is no such thing as “reverse racism,” by it's modern day definition, so the writers assertion to what is in fact, simply, racism, is a moot point, and in my opinion is indicative of the lack of understanding this individual actually possesses regarding matters of fundamental vocabulary. The term, “reverse racism,” is theoretical, and improperly formulated. A colleague of mine wrote a Yale Press published paper on the topic, for a regional call for papers -- I’ll try and see if I can find it somewhere for you and post it at a later date.

I think what we have here is a matter of misinterpretation, the existence of which I do not feel is an outcome entirely undesired by it's proponents. That aside, the long and the short of the issue is that the word itself is misleading, insofar as it motivates one to believe that the outcome of a “privileged” individuals life – should the outcome to whatever point be a positive one – is not the cause of the summation of his/her choices, or the adherence to a particular moral obligation, rather, that the individual has only reached said point because of the privileged nature of his/her upbringing, and that such a scenario of privilege is absolutely amplified significantly by ones color -- white being the best of "privileged" skin tones, and black being the worst.

Now, despite what you want to believe, absolutes are neither common nor very applicable in a situation as ever changing as life. So, when you say this to an individual who is "white", light skinned, tan, or what have you, your automatically implying that he/she is in fact less than the reality of his/her deeds, work and overall ethic coupled with the randomness that is life, and moreso a product not of their own. While some do have luxuries because of the work that their lineage pursued, or other various reasons, such situations are not an absolute in thew majority of cases and so, one cannot argue that such a privilege is universally applicable. I hate to break it to anyone who would say otherwise, but what one would call my “privilege,” I would call the aggregation of all the hard work and right choices my lineage and I have made to this point, which is merely a standard amongst normal individuals where I come from.

Allow me to put this in perspective, and really freak some people out: Let’s say that I wanted to give a term to the hierarchy of poverty – just because I have nothing better to do but push people’s buttons. Let's start the line with the most impoverished, and end it with the wealthiest category. In order to describe this disparity of economic outcome, we want to invent a term -- or better yet, use one with an already universally understood negative connotation -- to describe this obviously important phenomenon; let's use the term “desirables.” When you step back and look at this from a logical, or dare I say “rational” point of view, you should say out loud, “Wait a minute, what? As a minority, this makes me feel like less than a human being! I’m not less than desirable!” -- and I don't think anyone would argue with your angst. As we go on to explain, your "crazy assertion" that the use of this word to describe you and your place in society is "in no way intended to belittle minorities, their achievements/lack thereof, or mock their situation." (As it just so happens the majority of the lower end of the income scale is made up of minorities -- based on census data. I wrote an article about this on my blog as well. Back to the story..) No! rather, the term "desirable" merely alludes to the relationship one's FINANCIAL POSITION has to others on the scale, in order of "desirability." The fact that the majority of minorities would be described as being “less than desirable” according to this made up conceptualization/distortion of reality, is in no way indicative of their desirability as human beings, or as members of society, no -- I hope you're digesting the sarcasm.

How do you think Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, President Obama and the majority of the minority community would react? Sure, there would be sympathizers in said communities, just as there are some folks who are ok with being dehumanized based on race, but it's safe to say, it wouldn't go over very well, would it?. Then, why do we tolerate it? Didn’t slavery do something similar to the black community? -- albeit to a much greater order of magnitude, of course. That said, is dehumanizing not still dehumanizing? Do you not suppose that there would be some unfettering notion among certain communities, that the term “less than desirable” is not indicative of all or even some minorities, and should therefore be replaces with a more endearing term, one that is less, shall we say, deceptive in it's assertion? Perhaps, “Less fortunate” or “Socioeconomically Challenged”?

To that end, do you suppose the word you've chose to describe a tier system of skin tone would lead some to believe -- as it clearly has/does -- that dehumanizing the participant whose situation is “privileged” is for some reason ok? Is wrong only wrong sometimes?

One could also argue that this article gives the example of a one legged man running a race against a two legged person, and states that the two legged person is “privileged,” and that the one legged man is not, but the reality of such a scenario, from a less abstract perspective, is that the two legged man is “normal,” or “handicap free,” and the one legged man is, well, handicapped, but no less a human. So, if proponents of the word “privileged” as it related to a racial hierarchy wish to use a particular set of words to describe individuals they know nothing about, how about we relate the one legged race example in a more realistic way by saying that what you define as “privilege” is merely an example of normalcy, and that the further away from “normalcy” you deviate, the less “normal” you are, as compared to the standard? That seems to me to be more fitting, no? But you see, this would never happen, because it is offensive. The word is obscure in this abstract context, and is offensive to those who merely live up to the standard of civilized society, and that, folks, is wrong.

So, in closing: If the overall message I’m getting from proponents of this "privilege" and the ideology behind it -- as it applies to the specific context of the hierarchy of skin tones and the benefits/disadvantages of them -- is that the reason the word is ok to use is because it really means something a bit more obscure than the standard definition in it's normal context, I move that we make strides to better assimilate the ideology with a more practical term -- normalcy, for instance. Growing up in a two parent home, graduating high school, going to college, finding a good job, marrying, then having children, etc., these are all normal, holistic and morally righteous aspirations. They do not make anyone better, and there are obviously extenuating circumstances to any situation -- remember, noting is absolute -- but those extenuating circumstances should never become the "norm," and the other side punished for the repercussions of a normal reality -- from a societal perspective. We can argue what normal is, sure, but in this present time, one would reasonably assume that it is simply a more beneficial route for one to attend school, find a good job, marry -- and not only traditional marriage should be sought, but gay marriage as well -- have children and so on, and any term used to describe an event that which would duly serve to single out an entire category of people based solely on color, should never be condoned under any circumstance. 

About Me: I am a Computer Scientist, more specifically a Database Administrator, a business man (Holding a Bachelors in Business with a focus in Enterprise Administration from Fordham University, Magna Cum Laude), a writer, a blogger, as well as a philosopher, a philanthropist (as much as one with limited finances can be..) a veteran, and in general, an all around thinker and do'er. My purpose is to point out that there is a reason for everything and an opinion for every reason. I am designed to interpret what I see and dictate what I've interpreted. My hope is that my words will not be seen as harsh, rather as liberating, and at very least, thought provoking. I enjoy everything from technology, to race relations, biology, genetics and economics.. for a start..