The final paragraph is a bit cryptic. The answer, of course, is that everyone should be privileged. But if that last remark refers to a call for "restitution", this sort of thing fuels the flames, creating more division and confirming the suspicion that minorities just want to mooch off whites. The reverse might be the case, and difficulty in explaining this to whites should be telling, but it is hard to see how a privilege (private legal right) can be institutionally enforced or redressed. We cannot entirely rid judgments about what we each deserve of subjectivity because such decisions are almost always made in private. More public accounting would be helpful, a bit of ventilation often clears foul air. It might be better to just make government responsible for some modestly decent lifestyle for everyone, rather than creating programs that single out groups. "Special treatment" is what opponents will call it. But this will still not address the issue of earned opportunities denied. Keep in mind, this denial is done in private, often tracelessly. And it is arguable, evident to some, that it is done explicitly to restrict opportunities within a loose grouping. But the plain fact is, where private decisions lead to socially toxic outcomes the public sector must intervene. Not by heavy handed intrusion in private institutions, but by providing opportunities in the public sphere that tend to restore a balanced potential to all. What we do with our lives is our business, but if there is no fear of destitution and a reliable expectation of seeing a reasonable rate of earnings for our efforts, then violence will subside. But as long as we have a culture that relies on cheating working people of their earning power racism will serve as a smokescreen for the real target that earning power is. In 1628, I think it was, a colonial leader near Boston tried to get rich by selling some of his followers into slavery in Virginia. They were white. This at a time when slavery was on the wane in England. Ten years later preachers spoke of a contrast between a "covenant of work" and a "covenant of grace". At the time of the American revolution a preacher in England (Jeremiah Burroughs) divided the world between "saints and worldlings". The theme that some of us bear the stamp of the divine and others of the "worldly" or profane runs deep in our culture, even in black culture. Racism is a most atrocious part of this theme that some are more deserving than others, but it is not the whole story, and going at that monster piecemeal gives it ample avenues of eluding our efforts to kill it, and time to reemerge in another form.

How about Cornel West for Scalia's vacancy?

I'll not go into all the ramifications of the storied history of these United States of America. Yes, we have gotten a lot of it wrong and will, no doubt, continue to do so for the forseeable future. As a people, though, we are not much worse than most, and only little better than certain others in this world. Rights are commonly viewed as inherent in all free societies. Perhaps some would disagree, saying: if you want to have rights, you have got to fight for them. Maybe so. Most consider freedom a right and we know we have to fight for that. But, this is only because there are those who would deny freedom to anyone who they believe does not deserve it. And so, freedom is not an absolute. We have to earn it, one way or another. And, if we are unable or too pacifistic to do so, it, like the Tao, of which John spoke in a different blog posting, just disappears---goes away, evaporates. Privilege may be earned. Earning it is often difficult, requiring us to be or do things we may find insulting or downright repugnant. In one sense then, earning a privilege may also require us to fight for it. Privilege can be inherited, along with sufficient wealth to more-or-less ensure its longevity.Inheritance does not mean that the privilege is deserved. We inherit many things for which we are blatantly undeserving. But, some ancestor just could not (or would not) deny our right to the privilege of the inheritance he or she wished to leave us. It really is complicated, isn't it?
Privilege may be seized, violently or surreptitiously. Despots are especially adept at wresting privilege for themselves and ensuring that no one under their influence has a ghost of a chance. If there is no will, no where with all on the part of the oppressed, the oppressors always win. Look around, though. The oppressed in this country are not so dramatically oppressed as they used to be, Racially, we are an imperfect society. But privilege is not exclusively white nor is it any other color or national origin. I might think that some people whose heritage is Asian or Indian have been accorded undue privilege in attaining education and employment in the United States. If that were true, it would still be only what I think. And that would be my right and privilege, right or wrong. Yes, it is complicated. Cornel West is a lovable intellectual. Witty, outspoken and all-in-all, an iconic figure. But, his stature is of his choosing and would not necessarily qualify him as Supreme Court Justice. Call me crazy, but he would not mesh well with the likes of Clarence Thomas. Or Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. I doubt that the suggestion was all that serious. But everyone has the right to an opinion. Freedom of speech is a freedom. But, it too requires fighting the good fight.
Neuman.

I see no reason the members of the court should be pals. Problem is, of course, that judges tend to stay out of the public eye, so we have little awareness of available talent. I'm sick and tired of "respect" for nice guys pursuing vile agendas. I'd rather see vile people pursuing a worthwhile agenda. Scalia's philosophy was that of the monster Chronos, a past that consumes its children lest they have a future not of its ordaining.
Tell those working double the forty hour week, and paying more than half their gross wages on housing, they are less oppressed than in former times! If anything, feudal serfs had more autonomy than the working poor today. There really is a shocking lack of appreciation about just how bad life is in America for low wage earners.
It is not complicated at all, all negotiations are asymmetrical, and that asymmetry is entropic. That is, unless governments exert a countervailing effect against it, it tends to increase until unsustainable without "oppression", that is, without the force of law to sustain it.

Can I take that as a "like"?

Sorry for necroing this thread, but rarely do I read such hogwash on white privilege. Clearly, the author lacks an understanding of how white privilige is designed and defined in America. I quote the author here, "So far, we haven’t really found a good example of white privilege in action." There is no reason to read any further. Had the author written, "So far, I haven't really found a good example of white privilege in action" I could work with that. But this is utter subjective nonsense. One need only Google "how is white privilege defined in America" to find innumberable objective examples. Clearly, the author was not going to research before contributing to the very thing they pronounce as "hard to find". Anyway, should the author or any future visitors wish to clarify "what is white privilege" that they might recognize it rather than claim its invisibility, here are 26 objective examples: https://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-....

Well. We are about to get a new Supreme Court justice. We are not yet 100% sure of this, but, it looks as though it will happen tomorrow, torpedoes be damned. He will be very white, and may be a sound jurist, for those of the same persuasion. I don't know what may happen next. Maybe nothing truly perilous, but maybe something more. Qualifications for the job appear to be somewhat flexible. Political background and ideology are key. As is the case with most any professional job in Washington, D.C. All of this is as transparent as plate glass and no one seems to question that. Why should they? It is how the game is played---the swamp is not there for draining; it is an ecosystem, unto itself. Sure, there is white privilege, alive and well in these United States. Everyone knows it and those who would change it had better think twice.

I know that the dictionary defiition of privilege indicates a sense of entitlement, but I have long held that privilege is a distinction that is earned, and that elitism is what should be used instead of privilege in the context of race relations.

Being still somewhat new to Philsophy Talk, I think I sent this message as an email via the "contact" page, when I only wanted to make a comment here (I could not find this comment page for this particular broadcast). I copied the text of my comment, but then lost it. I admit it. I'm a klutz.

So I am trying to recall exactly what I said in my earlier message and transcribe it here, so be patient with me for a moment.

I should think that if one has the distinction of parking in the special parking space reserved for the employee of the month, that disctinction came because that individual parking there either showed up on time for work, was exceptionally cooperative and efficient every day that month, i.e. earned that distinction, or that individual feels that he or she IS the best employee in the workplace and deserves such a distinctive and convenient parking place by force of his or her own will, or he or she does not care at all about employment, or workplaces and merely feels meritorious of that parking place simply on the basis of immediate desire to obtain and make use of it.

The use of privilege in race relations stems, from my perspective, from the language of supremacy, a language and an intention that confuses gift with merit, possession with earning, that posits reward without effort.

Now there are those who might object that the efforts of past generations, who came over on the Mayflower, let us say, and were subjected to harsh conditions in the New World and oppression in the Old World and so on, have guaranteed to succeeding generations the privilege of benefiting from whatever social advantages those initial settlers may have earned by sweat of brow and perseverence of spirit.

But hold on. I suggest that privilege is earned by commensurate committed effort. A natural-born athlete does not have the privilege of being honored in a sports hall of fame, that is an expected honor of that individual's exceptional inbred talent and physical dexterity. The less talented and gifted athlete, on the other hand, would have earned the privilege of such an honor by means of his or her dedicated effort to reach, or even exceed, what was generally judged to be the highest achievable level of athletic excellence for that individual. In another sense, the fact that yet a third individual athlete's parent, obviously of a previous generation, was an excellent performer and accomplished great feats of skill on the field of play is not, and should not be, a factor in considering whether or not to bestow such an honor on the athlete of the present generation.

In the comment I emailed earlier I made mention of riding a city bus. If I present my magnetized card and pass it under the scanner, or sensor, I have the privilege of jumping the line, as it were, and going immediately to a seat or open standing place, while another rider may be fumbling about in his or her pocket, or purse, or wallet, or brief case, or back pack, for the appropriate amount of money required by the transit authority to ride this bus at this time. I earned the privilege of jumping the line because I bothered to pay for a month of rides ahead of time online. Now another rider may have a host of reasons for not using the online system, or he or she may just decide that it is easier to track daily expenses when paying for each ride as it occurs and would find it a greater inconvenience to remember to pay online every month.

But had I not paid in advance, and had no magnetic pass to gain access to ride the bus at that time, and did not present the amount of money that would afford a ride on the bus, but merely boarded the bus and took the first open seat I happened upon, perhaps even taking that seat from someone elderly or disabled, I would not be acting out of earned privilege, bur from a presumed elitist conviction that an object, or a situation becomes my possession by means of my desire alone. Perhaps I felt I could board the bus without paying because I believe I pay enough in taxes already and am owed this means of transportation from a grateful municipality, or because my parent owns the transportation company contracted by the city, or because I consider myself good looking, or for any number of motives completely unrelated to the transit authority's mission to provide transportation service to paying passengers only. In such an instance my ridership is not a privilege at all, but is the result of my presumption of my status as an elite member of society.

When honor or distinction is not earned, but is expected as a matter of course, that is not an earned privilege, that is rather the sense, either inherited or invented, of an elitist conviction of entitlement based entirely on presumption; a presumption that one is entitled to unique status, beyond any and all evidence asserting the contrary: that the human social condition is one of altruism and egalitarian concern for one's fellow citizens.

Wait, chandellier of what? Can we have a clip of that quoteplease? maybe a gif?

Where can we get more of this lady? Naomi Zack is her name?