“White Privilege”?

In my state of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota (at Duluth) has recently begun a new campaign. Inherently, this is nothing new, except for that it is aimed at combatting “white privilege.”

First, the required definition of “white privilege”: though it is a rather self-explanatory term, it may be summed as the natural privilege that whites have in our society. There are numerous “examples”—at least, in the minds of supporters of this. Some examples of this include being viewed merely as a person—rather a black, Hispanic, Indian, or Asian—, not having stereotypes widely used as judgments against them, or exemption from police “brutality” or “harassment.”

There was a video released from this campaign. Here is the oxymoron and delusion of the cesspool from which these opinions were plucked: it is all done in a spirit of anti-racism, yet Caucasians are not viewed merely as people. Rather, they are shown to be the unaware and numb to the struggles of the “non-whites”—perhaps in a similarity to how Marxists how the rich, in relation to proletarian struggles. Even though I dislike identifying people by their race—a completely unimportant factor—it will be necessary to use such identification in this instance.

As a student of philosophy, one thing becomes apparent after viewing this video. Apart from the previously noted qualities that whites apparently possess—although with some Progressive exceptions, one should reason—then it must also be true that the whites are the main aggressors against other races. This is rather racist, is it not? If this was a different situation and a national campaign was started in response to, say, blacks, the reaction would be completely different. The force of the confused, yet gleefully violent thugs, known as the New Black Panther Party would be put into play. The soundtrack to all of such would—of course, apart from Bob Marley—consist of the glorified conspiracy theories of Louis Farrakhan, the quasi-intellectual speeches of Jesse Jackson, and the megaphone rants of Al Sharpton. In a sense, then, it is only the whites that are racist, and that have committed innumerable acts of aggression against all others.

Perhaps the most dangerous—and deranged—part of this campaign is the assertion that “…society was set up for us ….” First, the base premise is completely invalid. In the United States, at least, there was no societal “setting up.” No matter how far one wishes to go, whether to the early colonists or the United States before the advent of the Progressive infiltration, society was never manipulated. The United States acknowledged the inherent liberties of all people, and thus left them alone. Therefore, society was “set up” by the actions of free individuals—not a grand plot, or manipulation of some shadowy group. (This was not Franco’s Spain, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or Lenin’s Russia.) Further analysis also brings to light an absurdity. If, then, there was no organized effort to “set up” a “racist” society, then there must be something naturally racist in either white people or Western culture—both ideas have been both proposed and argued for by the left.

The University of Minnesota—no matter at Duluth, Minneapolis, or its other locations—has a liberal reputation. The status of the University of Minnesota as a state school, and thus receives tax-payer funds, also complicates matters. Say, for example, that the hypothetical Marcus Garvey College—a completely private school—wished to institute a similar policy, would such be a problem? Most likely not. They are a private institution and may do as they wish.

The entire campaign to “end white privilege” is an example of a much deeper problem in politics, education, and ideas in general. In spite of an overall posture of “fairness” people are still divided up into groups. The KKK and Nazis divide the very same people up into groups, and they are vilified—with good reason. In spite of this, there is no general outcry over the actions in the name of “fairness.” Why is this the case? While a number of factors may be attributed to such, I believe that it, like so many other issues, may be traced back to education. The public school system, though there are many good teachers (and right-wingers), has been completely overtaken with Progressive ideas. Because of this, students have been exposed to concepts such as “white privilege”—many of them simply accept these.

“White privilege” is merely another example of the paradox of liberalism. Liberals decry seeing a person first by their race, yet gladly do this with whites. They claim to be “anti-war,” yet desire to turn the United States into a peace-keeper and handmaiden of the United Nations. Liberals maintain that they support individual liberties, but will violate those rights whenever convenient. In short, there is no difference between “white privilege” and something like “black privilege.” The fallacy of “white privilege” continues the great liberal paradox, and denies viewing humans as people. In this manner, I ask “What of people?” When will liberals give up their racial opinions, view race as a meaningless amount of melanin, and simply look at the people (not their race)?

Related News

13 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Jose martinez
    Jun 29, 2012 - 02:41 PM

    I recently was forced to take a class “Oppression and Poverty:undoing racism” or more popularly know as “oppression theory” it was rather disheartening because the unintended result has been catastrophic to the African-american community.It has enabled them to blame all the deficits in their community on “white people”.The lack of education, employment, rampant drug use .The break down of the family structure 7 of 10 children born out of wedlock, absent fathers,high murder rates ( black on black)an all the other ills besetting this community are easy blamed on others.It has turned a whole community into victims and to be a victim supposes that “some one”is doing some thing to you and it removes any responsibly for a person plight from themselves to another

    Reply
  2. Mike D.
    Jun 27, 2012 - 11:40 AM
  3. Jesse
    Jun 27, 2012 - 04:13 AM

    Any chance you might be able to get someone to proof read for you next time? It might be a little easier to form an opinion about this video if you would address whatever its content was a little more specifically. Without having access to it, I can’t tell if there is really anything wrong with the video or if your reaction is over the top. My guess is that it’s probably a combination of the two.
    As a white person myself, I have experienced some occasions in which I was definitely being discriminated against because of my race in the forms of rudeness, dirty looks, and bad service. I know that it was discrimination because the people around me during those times who were minorities received considerably better treatment. I did not like it one bit. However, those occurrences have been so few and far between that, however uncomfortable it was for me, I really don’t feel that it is a major issue that needs to be addressed. Most white people simply don’t experience much REAL racism. I don’t feel that I bear much responsibility for sins committed against other races before I was born, but acting like we are really the ones who are experiencing oppression over a video seems, quite frankly, a little whiny.
    “No matter how far one wishes to go, whether to the early colonists or the United States before the advent of the Progressive infiltration, society was never manipulated. The United States acknowledged the inherent liberties of all people, and thus left them alone.”
    Acknowledged the inherent liberties of all people? Hmmm….. I hope this isn’t the liberal indoctrination kicking in again, but I seem to remember something about 3/5 persons…and something about separate but equal…slavery….no votes for women….?

    Reply
    • Shadi Sidarous
      Jun 27, 2012 - 04:21 PM

      It is your liberal indoctrination kicking in. The 3/5 rule was instated by anti-slavery advocates to keep the south from using slave votes to advance their pro-slavery agenda (if blacks were counted as full votes, the North would not have been able to instate the anti-slavery amendments to the Constitution). Equality as a state of being, changes with the times. Our forefathers understood this, and proved it by writing a Declaration of independence and a Constitution that is alive and evolves. When we as a society realize the “unjustness” of situation, we have an easy, legal way to right that wrong.

      The issue with the campaign is not that we feel oppressed because of the video, it’s what the video advocates. They want to reverse racism be elevating non-whites above whites, not leveling the playing field. This is not equality, and it will not bring healing to old wounds.

      Reply
      • Jesse
        Jun 27, 2012 - 05:27 PM

        That’s lovely and all, but I was actually responding to the writer’s assertion that we have been playing from a level field right from the start which is clearly and inarguably ridiculous.
        Equality changes with the times? Then what are you complaining about? If our society has evolved so that it is now acceptable to practice reverse racism upon whites, then, according to your logic, wouldn’t that make this new brand of equality just as justifiable as it was when slavery was legal?

      • Shadi Sidarous
        Jun 28, 2012 - 06:45 PM

        Most people would understand this, but I guess I need to spell it out for you. Equality does not change with time, to whom it applies does. At one time, Blacks were not equal to whites in America. That changed. Women were not equal to men, that changed. Someday, we may decide that unborn humans should have equal rights to born humans. and we will look back on the previous society with disgust and bewilderment for not seeing it before.

      • Not a racist, but....
        Jun 30, 2012 - 04:16 AM

        We just need to get some fetus congressmen into office.

  4. Publius
    Jun 27, 2012 - 03:20 AM

    “society was never manipulated. The United States acknowledged the inherent liberties of all people, and thus left them alone.”

    What about blacks pre-1865? And women pre-1920? Native Americans were put down a lot too and for a lot of our history non-WASPs were discriminated against.

    Sure, the Declaration of Independence said “all men are created equal” but it took a war and several amendments to make the Constitution say the same thing. In a way, society was indeed ‘set up’ for whites- specifically WASPs.

    Reply
    • Shadi Sidarous
      Jun 27, 2012 - 04:04 PM

      Equality as a state of being, changes with the times. Our forefathers understood this, and proved it by writing a Declaration of independence and a Constitution that is alive and evolves. Equality in pre-1865 did not include Blacks, but that was seen as unjust and was changed. Equality pre-1920 did not include women, that was deemed unjust and was changed. The best we can do is to right the wrongs for the future. The “White Privilege” Campaign is attempting to turn back the clock by elevating non-whites above whites. That is not equality, that’s racism in reverse. It does not make up for the past, it only destroys any future hope of healing.

      Reply
      • Publius
        Jun 30, 2012 - 11:31 PM

        “Equality as a state of being, changes with the times.”

        I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Can you explain?

        “The “White Privilege” Campaign is attempting to turn back the clock by elevating non-whites above whites. That is not equality, that’s racism in reverse. It does not make up for the past, it only destroys any future hope of healing.”

        Good point.

    • Lee Poteet
      Jun 30, 2012 - 02:24 AM

      If that were actually true, Publius, you would have already been hunted down and murdered. Instead, for the last thirty years the most discriminated against portion of our society has been white males, the victims of countless affirmative action programs run by other whites, male and female, convinced of their own moral and political superiority. These are the sort of people who once they comprise a majority in any institution refuse to open it to others because they recognize their own inferiority. Our college and university systems are the prime example.

      Reply
  5. The Political Informer
    Jun 26, 2012 - 10:19 PM

    It’s really quite annoying when people complain about racism against blacks and other groups, but put aside the racism that white people face as well.

    Reply
    • Sean L
      Jun 26, 2012 - 10:34 PM

      Amen! When a white person gets bullied or assaulted by a black person, people act like it is simply “repayment” for the oppression of the black man. I’ve actually heard black students use this excuse.

      Gandhi once said that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” If we were all held accountable for the actions of our relatives and ancestors, we would all be dead. It’s time to leave the past behind and forge ahead.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2014 THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE.

Facebook

Twitter