FrugalToque, when you say things like:
No matter what term we use for this effect, the people who are invested in maintaining white privilege will get angry about the term and conflate it with insults to white people. ... The truth is that there is no possible term we could use for this effect that wouldn't lead to someone vilifying the term and forcing us to choose another. We just have to accept our opponents will do this and fight to spread the unfairness of the effect itself.
It sounds to me like you think all of the people you are arguing with are doing so in bad faith, and that it's a question of a fundamental disagreement of values where changing the language without changing the ideas isn't going to change anything.
No. I think there is a core of media personalities who intentionally misconstrue the intent of social justice movements and use their fame and celebrity to spread their intentional errors.
"Feminists hate men and want to destroy them."
"White privilege is about making me feel guilty."
"Black people blame everything on white people."
Certainly, once this gets out, a lot of people soak into the righteous rage and start getting upset on their own, but only the principle marketers of the original, intentional error are acting in bad faith.
In my own experience, changing the framing matters a lot. I can make two equivalent statements: "black people are much more likely than white people to get shot by the police, and it needs to stop" and "white people are less more likely than black people to get shot by the police, and it needs to stop" but I will get a much more positive reaction from the sort of midwestern swing voters I grew up with if I use the first framing than the second, because to them it sounds like the first case is pointing out an injustice to be corrected and the second is arguing the police should treat white people worse. Now, don't get me wrong, some people will chose to be offended or disparage the idea with either framing. It's just that it's a lot fewer people with the first framing.
I think, when we use the second framing, we will simply open a different can of worms. Whether it's quantifiably larger than the first is up for argument. What we'll see in that case is countless long lists of things "black people should do" if they don't want to get shot. I don't know that that framing works out any better. If you want an example, ask a woman for a list of all the things she has been told to do to avoid sexual assault (the list is long, ridiculous and contains contradictory entries).
Now I suppose there is no way for me to prove that I'm not arguing in bad faith myself. All I can do is say that, in my experience, it is so much easier to make progress when you use language that emphasizes the need for people to be treated equally, regardless of the color of their skin, rather than language that makes it sound like some people have life too good and it needs to be made harder (because of the color of their skin).
I never meant to suggest that
you were negotiating in bad faith, only that the central impetus for the bad reputation "white privilege" has is coming from those marketing such ideas in bad faith. Certainly, many white people are sensitive to the idea that they are getting a better deal than average, and that makes the idea harder to swallow, but they still have to swallow it if we're going to get anywhere.
I'm going to say it one last time, and then I'm out of the thread and you can listen, or call me names ,or ignore me as you will:
I'm working towards the exact same goals that I think most people in this thread want to achieve.* All I'm saying is that thinking about the emotional connotations of language make it a lot easier to keep a majority of the country on the side of supporting those same goals.
*Again, I guess there is no way for me to prove this. *shrug*
I haven't called anyone names, as far as I can tell, and I will trust that your goals are as you say. But white privilege is just something we have to accept exists and move on with our lives.
Part of it, perhaps, is that I was taught at a very young age that I'm privileged to live in the country I live in, with the parents I have. My family were pretty much post-WW2 worker/immigrants (not quite refugees, per se, but close), so they saw some shitty times and knew what it was they'd found in Canada. They made sure I knew how good I had it too, so I've never begrudged anyone saying to me, "You've got it pretty lucky to live where you live and be who you are." It's not an insult, it's a fact.
Toque.
