Let's end the terminology of "white privilege"

I am not afraid to state my views that the term "white privilege" should be erased from this and all subsequent debates about Caucasians and people of color. I do not hold a view that the racial injustices seen in multiple police incidents or the flying of Nazi or Confederate flags is not blatantly racist. What I am saying is that the term invites a reality that should be banished for all Americans, the idea that a person is judged and found guilty simply by the color of one's skin.

The focus should be on the true causes behind such incidents: racial bias, racial discrimination, racial hatred, white nationalism, and other cancers on our society. Not all whites are biased, practice discrimination or hatred, but you can't talk about that with a group of white privilege believers. They know the guilty because they see skin color. Why do they stick so doggedly to such beliefs? It's easy. You don't have to know someone, talk with them about beliefs, and weigh their actions more than any other characteristic. That takes time and commitment, and most people are lazy when it comes to such things. It's as bad as a white nationalist who sees black skin and says they all are looters, rioters, and societal leeches.

The reliance on the term "white privilege" started in 1988 with the publication of a report by Peggy McIntosh, a women's studies instructor at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. The term was accepted widely, and it worked its way into other academic circles. Those academics passed it on to other educators, who passed it on to wave after wave of students, who embrace the notion because it was taught to them as academic truth. Who is a student to question that the foundations of the "white privilege" message are flawed?

What are some of those flaws? I could go on here, but I'll turn it over to Cory Collins, the senior writer for Teaching Tolerance, an organization that educates educators and is a committed follower of the white privilege ethic.

"White privilege is not the suggestion that white people have never struggled. Many white people do not enjoy the privileges that come with relative affluence, such as food security. Many do not experience the privileges that come with access, such as nearby hospitals. And white privilege is not the assumption that everything a white person has accomplished is unearned; most white people who have reached a high level of success worked extremely hard to get there."

I would counter that "high level of success" should be changed to "even a low level of success" because it takes work for anyone of any color to succeed to even a small degree. But all whites are guilty in Collins' world, but seeing things in something other than his myopic view would lead to enlightenment. Instead, I'll let Collins switch over to errant statements.

"It was only after discrimination persisted for years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that people like Peggy McIntosh began to view white privilege as being more psychological—a subconscious prejudice perpetuated by white people’s lack of awareness that they held this power. White privilege could be found in day-to-day transactions and in white people’s ability to move through the professional and personal worlds with relative ease."

Three things bother me here. First, if people aren’t aware of a power, do they indeed possess it and thus exploit it? Second, Collins argues against his previous statements about whites working hard to achieve things, saying here they "move through the professional and personal worlds with relative ease." Which is it? (My personal history argues against his statement. Deb and I saved $5 out of paychecks for years in order to build a small savings account. In Collins' world, I assume this means I was privileged simply because I could have a savings account because of my skin color.) Third, Collins is a former journalist, and thus should be attuned to the power of words. "White privilege" is misleading to the point of inaccuracy, and it uses a shotgun approach when a whole suitcase of scalpels should be used. Why? It's easy and Collins has a clientele to consider.

If teaching educators who pass on ideas to students is empirical, the idea of "white privilege" would be discarded because the main factor used contains errors, but educating educators is not empirical.

The fact there are errors within the system that is passed from generation to generation isn't the most hurtful part of this. It's the fact that these flaws have been weaponized. Again, I turn things over to another writer, this time to Tal Fortgang, who in 2014 was a freshman at Princeton and wrote a piece for Time magazine that ripped into the incorrect use of white privilege as it applies to him.

Fortgang is Jewish and his family history includes the loss of many relatives in concentration camps. Other ancestors worked in Siberian labor camps, or fought their way through Polish woods to escape. But what is Fortgang greeted with when he shows up on the Princeton campus? Repeated uses of that tired mantra of true white privilege believers: “Check your privilege, dude.” This, from Fortgang:

"Perhaps it was my privilege that my own father worked hard enough in City College to earn a spot at a top graduate school, got a good job, and for 25 years got up well before the crack of dawn, sacrificing precious time he wanted to spend with those he valued most—his wife and kids—to earn that living. I can say with certainty there was no legacy involved in any of his accomplishments. The wicker business just isn’t that influential. Now would you say that we’ve been really privileged? That our success has been gift-wrapped?"

Collins would agree with such thoughts, then disagree with them seconds later and charge that Fortgang is indeed privileged. Ah, truth, you are a fickle power.

I'll add that another major failing of this "white privilege" belief system is that it is being politicized. I've heard numerous candidates use it or seen multiple memes posted by far-left or liberal acquaintances that use the term. When you are trying to win votes or trying to steer people toward voting in a certain manner, easy is better.

Even worse is that I see top journalists use it with increasing frequency. That troubles me more than Collins' adherence to the term because Collins' audience is fairly tiny when compared to the tens of millions of viewers and readers who watch these national media representatives. But easy works well when you are trying to lure increased viewership, so why not follow that path? Hey, Donald Trump uses easy, emotional language and imagery all the time, and see where it got him.

I readily accept that affluence brings with it privilege. That is true from the time of the Sumerians who watched those with wealth rule kingdoms and live in palaces while regular folks guided small boats through reeds to catch enough fish to feed a family or tilled the soil to produce a small crop. Countless commentators through the ages knew it, including Marx. (I can't write the name Marx without thinking about the section in the movie Argo that has this exchange between John Goodman (John Chambers) and Alan Arkin (Lester Siegel): Siegel: The saying goes, “What starts in farce ends in tragedy.” Chambers: No, it’s the other way around. Siegel: Who said that exactly? Chambers: Marx. Siegel: Groucho said that?”)

I know I am Don Quixote tilting at windmills. My power is tiny when compared to the corporate giants with luxury condos on the Upper East Side, and those who have summer vacation homes or live in gated communities. I also know my complaints fall far short in urgency to those of color who have to worry about having a racist cop keep his knee on a man's throat, yet I persist.

If we are indeed working to end systemic ills, why not make room for one more scalpel in the suitcase? Maybe I've made you mad, but I hope I've made you uncomfortable enough to look at your own thoughts, words, and actions. After all, that is what we are being asked to do in these times of self-examination.