The White Privilege Conference Global is an annual conference organized by the Ryerson University. As you might guess, the topics of this conference include all the anti-white social justice rhetoric you can imagine. It's an entire almost week-long conference dedicated to nothing else than to talk about white people and how horrible they are.
One has to really wonder how exactly they think that any of this is going to help anything. What they are doing is teaching black people that they are oppressed, and that all white people are guilty of it, every single one of them, even if they aren't personally oppressing anybody. They aren't teaching "some white people are being racist against black people". What they are teaching is "all white people are guilty; all of them benefit from this system, and you are oppressed by it." What they are teaching is to hate all white people. All of them. Even those who haven't done anything wrong in their entire lives (which is the vast majority). They are teaching hatred, they are creating a rift, and only making things worse.
And the tickets for attending this conference are extraordinarily expensive. If you thought it's a free conference, open to anybody, or that tickets would cost something like $10 to $20, you would be sadly mistaken. Multiply those by ten, and you wouldn't even reach the cheapest ticket prices (which range from about $300 to $700).
The Toronto Star newspaper interviewed two of the organizers, Denise O'Neil Green and Rinaldo Walcott, asking them what "white privilege" is, and to give examples.
I think that perhaps the term that most closely describes what she's talking about is "classism" (prejudice or favoring one group of people over another due to societal class). She's taking that concept and renaming it "white privilege".
And what exactly does "anything that is white North American or white European is the absolute standard to reach" mean? What is this "standard" he's talking about? What does "anything that is white" mean, exactly? This answer makes no sense.
He continues:
Apparently just being white is not enough to reach this "standard" (according to him you are just assumed by society you have "reached" it, even if you haven't), so the "standard" clearly isn't just skin color, but something else. What, exactly? I have no idea. Could this answer be any more vague and non-descript?
The second question is about concrete examples of "white privilege". He gives this:
But ok, let's say it's completely 100% true. Let's say that this kind of discrimination in American and Canadian stores is real (this conference is held in both countries), and happens all the time. I don't know if it does, but let's assume that it's true.
What is the suggested solution to this discrimination problem? Is it to go to the authorities to make a complaint that this particular store is discriminating against black people? After all, anti-discrimination laws exist for this exact purpose.
No. The solution is to guilt all white people because they don't have to suffer from this kind of paranoia.
That makes no sense. It's like if someone's home gets robbed, rather than go to the police, he instead starts guilt-tripping his neighbors because their homes didn't get robbed. Guilt-tripping them because they have the privilege of not having experienced burglary.
In fact, it's even worse than that. It's like if someone whose home has not been robbed, starts guilt-tripping his neighbors because he himself fears that it might be, while his neighbors don't live with such a worry. "You all have an unearned privilege because you don't constantly worry that your home will get robbed, while I have to live with that fear every day."
Ultimately, what this all boils down to is power and control over other people and society, as I have written in previous blog posts. All this is just a charade, and the ultimate goal is to gain power by guilt-tripping people and make them do what you want. All these organizers and speakers probably don't deliberately and consciously do all this in order to seek power and control, but that's the underlying motivation behind it, even if not explicitly stated or thought of.
One has to really wonder how exactly they think that any of this is going to help anything. What they are doing is teaching black people that they are oppressed, and that all white people are guilty of it, every single one of them, even if they aren't personally oppressing anybody. They aren't teaching "some white people are being racist against black people". What they are teaching is "all white people are guilty; all of them benefit from this system, and you are oppressed by it." What they are teaching is to hate all white people. All of them. Even those who haven't done anything wrong in their entire lives (which is the vast majority). They are teaching hatred, they are creating a rift, and only making things worse.
And the tickets for attending this conference are extraordinarily expensive. If you thought it's a free conference, open to anybody, or that tickets would cost something like $10 to $20, you would be sadly mistaken. Multiply those by ten, and you wouldn't even reach the cheapest ticket prices (which range from about $300 to $700).
The Toronto Star newspaper interviewed two of the organizers, Denise O'Neil Green and Rinaldo Walcott, asking them what "white privilege" is, and to give examples.
Green: In very basic terms, it is an unearned benefit or "perk" that one receives simply because of their skin colour. A more multi-layered way of looking at it is that white privilege operates in terms of a system that benefits particular groups over others. It's a system structure that all of us operate in - whether we're aware of it or not.This answer is rather baffling. She seems to be, quite literally and explicitly, saying that any system that benefits a particular group of people over others is "white privilege". Apparently regardless of the characteristics of those groups. I can't interpret that answer in any other way than even in a situation where eg. black people are systematically advantaged over white people in some particular situation, it's still "white privilege". Or any similar situation that has nothing to do with skin color or race.
I think that perhaps the term that most closely describes what she's talking about is "classism" (prejudice or favoring one group of people over another due to societal class). She's taking that concept and renaming it "white privilege".
Walcott: For me, what the term "white privilege" seeks to allow people to understand is the way in which societies, like the one that we live in, are default white societies. Everywhere we look in these societies, all of the ways in which people are accorded, important, respected and so on centre around the idea that anything that is white North American or white European is the absolute standard to reach.Could this answer be any more vague, abstract and non-descript? What exactly is a "white society"? What does that mean? Does it mean a society where the majority of the inhabitants are white? Or does it mean something else? What?
And what exactly does "anything that is white North American or white European is the absolute standard to reach" mean? What is this "standard" he's talking about? What does "anything that is white" mean, exactly? This answer makes no sense.
He continues:
But what that means is that many people who are not white can never, ever achieve that standard, and many people who are simply born white are assumed to have reached that standard, even if they themselves can't reach it either.What "standard"? What exactly is this mythical "standard" he's talking about? And whatever this "standard" might be, what exactly stops people from "achieving" it (whatever that means)?
Apparently just being white is not enough to reach this "standard" (according to him you are just assumed by society you have "reached" it, even if you haven't), so the "standard" clearly isn't just skin color, but something else. What, exactly? I have no idea. Could this answer be any more vague and non-descript?
The second question is about concrete examples of "white privilege". He gives this:
Walcott: Let's say (a Black person) enters a department store and they want to buy a pair of pants in the men's section and a T-shirt for their child in the children's section. They will make sure to pay for those pants in the men's section and then go to the children's section. Meanwhile, you see many white people who have piles of clothes, they walk all through the store and all kinds of floors, and they don't have to think about it. The reason we pay before going to another floor is because we know that the possibility of being accused of shoplifting exists for us.So the example is all about paranoia. No actual crime or discrimination is actually happening in this example. It's all about the person fearing what might happen.
But ok, let's say it's completely 100% true. Let's say that this kind of discrimination in American and Canadian stores is real (this conference is held in both countries), and happens all the time. I don't know if it does, but let's assume that it's true.
What is the suggested solution to this discrimination problem? Is it to go to the authorities to make a complaint that this particular store is discriminating against black people? After all, anti-discrimination laws exist for this exact purpose.
No. The solution is to guilt all white people because they don't have to suffer from this kind of paranoia.
That makes no sense. It's like if someone's home gets robbed, rather than go to the police, he instead starts guilt-tripping his neighbors because their homes didn't get robbed. Guilt-tripping them because they have the privilege of not having experienced burglary.
In fact, it's even worse than that. It's like if someone whose home has not been robbed, starts guilt-tripping his neighbors because he himself fears that it might be, while his neighbors don't live with such a worry. "You all have an unearned privilege because you don't constantly worry that your home will get robbed, while I have to live with that fear every day."
Ultimately, what this all boils down to is power and control over other people and society, as I have written in previous blog posts. All this is just a charade, and the ultimate goal is to gain power by guilt-tripping people and make them do what you want. All these organizers and speakers probably don't deliberately and consciously do all this in order to seek power and control, but that's the underlying motivation behind it, even if not explicitly stated or thought of.
Comments
Post a Comment