If you simply remove the word "race", and insert "class", on half of those checklist questions than i would absolutely fail the test miserably. That woman is completely blind if she thinks that being white gave her all her advantage. being "chosen white" gave her her advantage----that's all.

I grew up middle class I guess, then I was poor, then I was middle class, and then I lived in my car, and then I lived in a neighborhood where my car was broken into, my house broken into, and someone was murdered in the alley, all in one week. For me, class and status, and all that BS have been fluid, and I too have lived in neighborhoods where I was the minority and right now I'm looked down on by my Haitian brother in law who is a doctor and makes much more money. We fight against grouping together via a certain quality and just end up grouping in another way. Makes no sense.
.-= Kristine´s last blog ..Come back. =-.

When blacks start referring to whites as European-Americans, I will start calling them African-Americans. I have never heard of the blacks who live in Europe as being called African-Europeans. To me, the term "African-American" is similar to calling a homemaker a "domestic engineer" so as not to belittle her. There is nothing wrong with being a homemaker, nor is there anything wrong with being black. I am not racist, I do not judge a person based on their color, but on their words and actions. I have friends from all different racial, religious and social backgrounds. I voted for Obama...lol But sometimes I think there is too much political correctness in this country when we are afraid to speak the truth/facts and openly debate issues for fear of being called racist. And let's not be blind to the fact that whites are not the only race capable of racism. There are racists in all races. When I lived in Korea I dated a lot of Korean men, and as soon as things started getting serious, I got dumped because they could never bring home a white girl to their mother. Let's face it, I think most people feel most comfortable when they are surrounded by people of similar social, racial and religious backgrounds as themselves. It's natural. Personally, I have always found people different from myself to be very interesting. I love meeting people from different backgrounds and learning more about them. In the end, we have more similarities than differences--we love, hope, fear, cry etc. We want what's best for our families. I just don't get how some people can instantly decide someone is a certain way based solely on the color of their skin or income, sex, nationality, sexual orientation, political views or religion. There are good and bad people from all walks of life.

Gina--I think you're an amazing woman--and I do not use that adjective indiscriminately like a lot of people do these days. To be where you are now, after all that you went through growing up is phenomenal. I can't even imagine working full time while going to school and raising two children. I am pretty sure I couldn't do that--well, maybe only if I absolutely HAD to...lol What you are doing takes guts and lots of hard work. You absolutely deserve your law degree--don't ever think you don't. I forecast a brilliant law career in which you help thousands of women and children and underprivileged people from a myriad of backgrounds. You are going to do great things--hell, you've ALREADY done great things. Best of luck to you, dear. :)

Very interesting. I know that recent US data is showing very little social mobility. So I'm glad that the author of this blog believes she is doing better.

Poor white women in the south, for instance, have similar SES challenges as their friends of color. I'm sure the readers are familiar with Barb Enhrenreich's work on this problem. She argues many Americans are born poor with little likelihood of changing their prospects.

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/books.htm

There is a group of academics called "Blue Collar Scholars" & I will look up their work for all.

All the best, KH

I found your blog recently, I'm not sure through whom, and I've been very impressed. This post in particular speaks very loudly to me. I also grew up in extreme poverty and it has been an interesting experience as I've 'moved up' in the world. I am also queer (though heterosexually married with a child) and that has changed my experience of privilege as well. I desperately wish people would bring considerations of socio-economic class into privilege conversations because I think it is quite relevant.

I probably should let this go, but the misinformation in one of the above responses is bugging me.

I just wanted to clear up the things said about the Rogers Park neighborhood for those who do not live in Chicago, and would never have the non-privilege of visiting the 7400 block of North Paulina (otherwise known as the Howard stop.)

First of all, to say that Rogers Park is "diverse" is like saying the South Side is diverse. Sure it is - because it's HUGE. Rogers Park is the size of many major metropolitan cities, and there are bound to be some parts that could pass as "diverse". There are even some wealthy parts of Rogers Park, that's for sure.

But not my old neighborhood. People got shot walking down the street in my neighborhood. Once, when I was 8 months pregnant, I walked through some gang brawl that resulted in one person being shot and killed - which, as police informed me the next day, was to commemorate somebody else getting shot and killed on the anniversary of that date the year before. We moved there because it was all we could afford, despite my husband's police officer mother warning us not to go anywhere near it. We were told the neighborhood was "up-and-coming" and hoped for the best.

But Again, hugely pregnant one day, I walked out of my house to be almost attacked by a giant pitball being led around by a gang banger. My husband had to yank me out of the way or I would have been mauled.

It was so bad, that I could not walk my own dog because the police would stop me and harass me, accusing me of only being there to buy drugs, because no other "white" people lived there or dared come there unless they were buying crack cocaine. On more than one occasion, I had to prove to police officers that I actually lived on my street.

Nobody was safe there. I would call that a slum.

What else constitutes a slum? How about people being so poor that their 6 kids are killed in an apartment fire because they don't have any electricity, and they're using candles to light the house? This also happened on my block, while we lived there: http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/643321/chicago_apartment_fire_kills_6_children/index.html

That neighborhood looked like most of what Detroit looks like now. So no, we didn't live by the wealthy elite near Loyola. We lived in a gang-infested, drug-ridden, dangerous slum where normal-dressed person couldn't even walk down the street without being harassed by the cops. We gave up everything we had, and went tens of thousands into debt just to get out of that place (debt that we're still paying off to this day, which was only made possible by the help that my In-Laws gave us.)

Does everyone have the option of getting out of the slum? No, they don't. But not everybody was in the slum to begin with, and I think that deserves to be looked at too.

*Off my soapbox now.*

@Liz, thanks again for your intelligent response. I love the metaphor you used, and I think it can apply to so many things. I will use that to remind myself to continue doing more than just complaining about problems, and instead spend my resources fixing them.

Hi again, and right on! Thanks for the awesome feedback, Heather and Gina!

I hear you both on the point of the original post--when generalizations of identity occur, our unique human identities are denied, and that is no good for anybody (except maybe some egotistical scholars with tenure who want to intellectually masturbate while cheering themselves on for finding the one true path to peace and justice). :)

@ TFB I just want to thank you again for bringing this subject up and furthering the discussion in your online space. It takes courage and generally incites a lot of 'flame,' so yay for being daring and passionate. I love the work you are doing as presented in this blog.

To both again:

I heard once this: The activist is not the one who points out that river is dirty--the activist is the one who cleans it up.

I think some of the discussions of privilege are like this. To me, Patty McIntosh's article says "the river is dirty." And it's fine that she wrote that, because maybe not everyone knew the river is dirty. Now onto how to clean the river! So many people have different experiences with the river and say, "I didn't dirty the river" or "the corporations polluted the river" or "the river flooded my home" or "hey duh, I've been cleaning the river my entire life, now help me, you wanker" or whatever, but I think the point is that it is going to take a variety of creative ideas to clean the river and that we need to support each other in our struggles to clean it. (And when that river is clean, there are 1,000 other dirty rivers that need creative insight and hard work)

I'm full of unhelpful metaphors today, but my point is that I think it takes a lot of people doing a lot of different kinds of work to elevate the U$ mainstream reality out of the sexist, racist, classist mess that we are in. And I think that so many people learn about privilege and then feel totally paralyzed by it, so it is good to see people like you who can address it, speak their heart and mind and move through it with more fuel.

Thanks again for the feedback on my comment and helping me to more fully understand your perspective. I wish you well. Peace.

And there goes my lunch break... :)

Liz--
My comment about going back to the place of origin stems from a constant expression that I've heard "Well, when I lived in [country of origin]..." and then the person proceeds to tell me how screwed up we are here and how wonderful their own country was.
The slavery example was strictly intended to explain that specific thing, which I find many people get caught up in. It was terrible that slavery and it's adoption took place. It was a violation of the rights of an entire population, but it doesn't work like that now. (Although it still exists all over the world in different ways) The statement was not in any way meant to construe that oppression does not take place. Because it does, in all sorts of circumstances. I apologize, I should have worded it something like "oppressed by slavery". The comment was actually somewhat related to a link that another commenter had placed up. (It was taken down)
I agree with your other points. I think you make some great observations. I loved your analogy about "male privilege". I should have been clearer about the fact that I do believe "white privilege" exists, but that not every white person falls into each and every one of the checklist items.
I actually like learning about other cultures and customs, and I tend to ask a lot of questions of people who are willing to discuss their history. I just felt that there was a huge lack of respect shown to Gina in regards to something that seemed apparent to me, to be painful and personal to her. I took her intention of the post to be that she is frustrated with the assumptions made because of the color of her skin. Through the comments it morphed into more of an issue of race.
My main objective was to explain that nobody wants to be judged based on assumptions, it shouldn't matter what the color of your skin is, or what gender you are. People should be given credit based on their character.
I apologize to anyone that may have been hurt by my poorly worded comments.

@Liz - I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful comment. It's comments like these that give me hope that we can all work to come to a better understanding, rather than immediately attacking those who may not see the world as we see it.

I totally get what you're saying, and I do understand why so many people think that skin supersedes background. My pale skin may provide me with many hidden advantages that a person of color may not have. I realize that was the point of Peggy's article.

However, I don't like being labeled, and that was the basis for my response. Kierkegaard said "When you label me, you negate me." People deserve to be looked at as individuals. I would never wish my childhood on any human being. Nobody should have to be homeless, or alone, or abused the way I was. But why do we insist on denying that even "white" people can experience oppression, and be incredibly underprivileged? The people that do say Yes to all the items on Peggy's checklist are so completely unaware of how many of those things have to do with CLASS privileged, not skin privilege. It's just not that simple, and anyone who thinks that it is that simple must lead a very sheltered life.

Has anyone stopped to think about how privileged we ALL are to even live in a country with clean water? Talk about privilege - most people here will never experience the horror seen in other parts of the world. Americans, regardless of race, cannot even imagine it.

The problem we have here is that most of the educated, thoughtful people who WOULD dissect the term "white privilege" live the exact privileged life Peggy was talking about. So all the academics jump on board and say "Yes! That's what it's like to be white!"

The people who don't experience that brand of "whiteness" are probably not even privileged enough to have the education to know who Peggy McIntosh is, let alone that she's labeling them.

So these middle class "white" people sit around patting their own backs, thinking they've solved the racial divide, when there really is so much more to this story, and SO much more work to be done.

I have never, ever denied that racism exists. It absolutely DOES. And I try just as hard as any other thoughtful person to be aware of what I am, or am not doing to help heal that problem. But trying to solve the problems by continuing to label people based on race is a huge step in the wrong direction. If we're denying class privilege exists, then we're ignoring an 800 lb gorilla in the room.

And once again, Liz, thank you for thoughtfully and respectfully engaging me and my readers. That shows class.

I think it's important for we who promote feminism and women's and family health to really look at these issues in an open and heartfelt way and I think it's great that TFB has opened up this discussion, even though she admits the concept is new and relatively unexplored to her. It takes guts to go there and explore and these types of topics and discussions can be both transformational and revealing. I encourage people to talk about these concepts because, even though it's hella hard and often frustrating, it's good and it helps people grow and understand each other.

What always gets me though, in these types of discussions, is the defensiveness of people's backgrounds. Hear me out: I'm always surprised when people who "pass as white" say things like "white privilege doesn't apply to me, because I experienced t, u and v not x, y and z." OK fine, you've experienced t, u v, and discussions like this really illuminate the fact that we all truly have distinct experiences. However, I think the key on the white privilege discussions, especially if you pass as white, is to acknowlegde that the "observed privilege" exists without saying "but my background is actually..." and then use that to make equality more of a reality.

It's kind of like good men: male privilege exists for them, even if they are actively working on feminist issues. I think most feminists agree that a man who takes responsibility for his male privilege and then works to dismantle sexism is AWESOME. I think the same is true with white privilege: people who appear white--regardless of their background and experience--have a responsibility to help dismantle racism. Saying "I am pale but I don't think I really experience privilege" isn't doing anything to help dismantle racism. And unfortunately, a lot of times in these discussions, the racism/bias that some people have really shines through (as illuminated through some of the commentary, like the "if [the place of your ancestry is] so great, go live there" comment, and the comments that deny our rich tapestry of history (the comment about how if you're not a slave, you're not oppressed). Sheesh! That just shows me that we have a lot of commmunication and education to do with each other. We cannot deny our shared histories--no one is blaming anyone for anything--but there are some really f'd up present-tense manifestations that are a direct result from the historical power disparities. Let's keep working to fix that.

I am writing this in light of your post yesterday. I commented on it, so this is just a follow up. Including some of the things that I was tempted to say yesterday, but thought better of it...now I wonder.
What the hell are people thinking? I did not in any way construe what you were saying to be insulting or degrading to anyone. I was appalled by some of the comments you got. Seriously, falling off the couch astonished.
What you wrote was a heartfelt post that was extremely raw, and put you in a very vulnerable position. I couldn't believe you were attacked like that. How on earth do people get the idea that they can judge you and your experiences in such a manner? Your post stated facts, facts that have affected you in your life. Where better to air those than on your personal platform?
I admit to living relatively sheltered. I grew up in Utah, but I have lived in Memphis and California, and now I am back in Utah. The discrimination that I have witnessed has been mild to say the least. I am not naive enough to believe that my experience is the norm throughout the world though. Moving to Memphis was culture shock. I was amazed at the poverty and desperation that I saw there.
While I have heard the term "White Privilege", I have never been privy to its definition. Mainly because I do not operate with the mentality that I am better or worse off than anyone else. My experiences are unique to me. I've had my own inferiority complex because of my childhood, but it has nothing to do with race. I don't believe that I can be included in that sort of label just because of the color of my skin. These are stereotypes, and while some can be accurate, not all of them fit. Not all blondes are stupid, not all MIL's are nagging bitches, not all Asians are bad drivers, not all Black people are poor...just like not all White people are rich and privileged. It's wrong to claim that they are.
I read the link that a commenter put up. And I disagree with it. I took it to imply that we are the problem because we have the same white color skin. The fact of the matter is, I have never owned slaves. Another fact is that there is not a single Black person that I know that has been a slave. I did not oppress them, and they were not oppressed. End of story. That’s not an excuse…that’s reality.
I will not deny that many of the points in the White Privilege Checklist were true. It is eye opening to read something like that and digest the fact that there are general beliefs and feelings that are held by an entire population of people. No, I don't feel the need to apologize if a member of my race commits a crime. But guess what? I don't feel the need to apologize when a member of my race acts like a racist jerk either.
My opinion is that things like The Negro College Fund, Ebony Magazine, and the BET Music Awards contribute to the mentality that we are separate and clearly not equal. Many African-Americans do not seek equality, they seek special favors. Could you imagine the uproar if we were to adopt a White Person College Fund, Ivory Magazine, or the Caucasian Music Awards?
Blacks are not the only group of people to ever suffer at the hands of another race. What about the Jews? Holy Crap! They were slaughtered! Nobody is going around screaming about reimbursement for them. Blacks are not the most oppressed race, they are the most vocal. There is nothing wrong with that, until it gets to the point where I am being accused of crimes that I have not committed.
I believe that we are where we were born. If you were born here, in the U.S. or born to citizens, then you are an American. I am a descendant of Scottish ancestry, I am not Scottish-American. I've never even stepped on Scottish soil. I am not opposed to you embracing your heritage or practicing the customs of your ancestry. But truly, if it's so great, go live there.
What confuses me was the argument that not all Black people are black. Well, not all White people are white. The Black argument is the same as "not all Blacks are from Africa". You can hardly agree with one statement and not the other.
Mixed ethnicity's have their own issues, and that's a problem all its own. The issue of being Black is the fact that it is more commonly obvious that you are, or are partly so. If people are so insistent on embracing their culture, why do they get upset when others acknowledge that cultural difference? You can't have it both ways. The color of your skin is just as apparent as the color of mine. I have freckles and red hair…oddly; I actually look like I am of Gaelic ancestry.
Why is it that every single White person has to mark the box "Caucasian"? Clearly we have been conditioned to believe that the color of our skin is what separates us from others. At the same time, Asians are lumped in the same category, and most Asians get upset when you mistake them for being Chinese, or Japanese, when they are Korean or vice versa. Tongans and Samoans are the same way. Nobody likes to be labeled on assumption.
It's your blog, and if people are going to take your thoughts, your experiences and turn them into something that you clearly did not intend...that's their problem. This is all about you...that's why it comes up as The Feminist Breeder.
For the record I always ask any Black person I get personally acquainted with what they prefer to be recognized as, more because I'm curious. Every single time I have been told "Black". That's dozens of times BTW. My aunts GF told me "I don't really care...just don't call me negro or colored." And then she shuttered...which made me laugh. I would never intentionally insult someone by assuming anything about their race, upbringing, or religion…which is what I expect in return.
I would also never frequent a blog, or link to it, in order to belittle the writer or her feelings. You know where the back button is…
I thought this clip was interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO214IFRW1M
Thanks,
Heather Griffith Brewer

@Crystal - I'm glad you responded, and I'm glad to see that I have not actually said anything negative toward African American people. I'll respond to your points.

"You seemed resentful that the women in your family had to do manual labor, as if “White” women should be exempt from the sort of work Afrian-American and Hispanic women have been forced to do."

That is.. just. wow. My argument is that as an educated white person, people always ASSUME that I came from some rich, white background, and that I've never really experienced any struggle. When in reality, my grandmother was a roofer (and if you can tell me when you've ever seen another FEmale roofer, let alone a female roofer of color, then I'll quit blogging right now.) I just don't like people assuming things about me just because of the color of my skin - and I'm sure you don't either. I stand by what I said because I cannot imagine why anyone would take offense to the fact that I don't like being accused of coming from rich white stock when my family was anything but. I have NEVER implied that I don't think that "White Women should be entitled to NOT grow up poor or struggling" - I don't think ANYBODY should.

Now that I realize how offended you're going to be by me wanting to come up in the world, I'd suggest you stop reading or linking to my blog. I'm not going to put up with people of ANY color assuming anything about anybody else just because of their color - Black, White, Green, Brown, Pink, or Purple.

ALSO: "Oh, and Jimmy Carter never said “all white people are racist”, I have never heard anyone seriously say that. Actually, the only time I hear the word “racist” is out of the mouth of a White person as in “if you criticize a Black person, they’ll accuse you of being racist”. It’s rare to hear African-Americans even use that word."

Really? Well, Jimmy Carter did in fact imply that - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/jimmy-carter-wilsons-outb_n_288003.html

And if you ever want to hear an African American say racist every other word, go visit Elita @ Blacktating's blog. She once called me a "racist" and a "nasty bitch" on Twitter simply because I agreed with a DIFFERENT WoC about a feminist issue and wouldn't engage in a debate with her over it. Google her site along with the word Racist and you can find plenty. I'm not imagining it. That's her right, and I don't fault her for calling people whatever names she wants to on her own blog space, but just don't tell me it doesn't happen because it does. But from what I gather, you agree with Elita, so I think we're done here.

I haven't had time to go through your archives, but I remember it was a post where you talked about the pattern in your family of the women having children young and out-of-wedlock, and about how your grandmother had to do manuel labor. You seemed resentful that the women in your family had to do manual labor, as if "White" women should be exempt from the sort of work Afrian-American and Hispanic women have been forced to do. Basically, on all your Poverty Posts, it is clear you feel that White Women should be entitled to NOT grow up poor or struggling. Even when you classify Rogers Park as a "slum" just because it is not majority-White, I find that offensive, when indeed it is the most diverse neighborhood in Chicago with many many Middle-Class Young Families.

Roger's Park Demographics (wikipedia)
- White 31.8%
- Black 29.6%
- Hispanic 27.8%
- Asian 6.40%
- Other 4.48%

African-American children in some South-Side neighborhoods are likely to be in an evironment where 99% of the people are African-American, where 80% are poor, and where 50% are unemployed. "White Privelege" means never having to grow up in those sort of isolated bleak circumstances, and having "options" in life like Marrying-Up or presenting yourself (well-spoken, well-dressed) in order to "pass" as Middle-Class in order to get a better job. Even Suburban-Raised Upper-Class African-Americans get labeled with negative stigmas, and we can't just "pass" for Mainstream Middle-Class White.

When you state "not every single brown skinned person in the world is African-American. Can we not agree on that?", I'm confused. Having myself traveled to over 30 countries from Guatemala to Morocco to Tanzania to Thailand, obviously it's a fact that most brown-skinned people in the world are actually living in ASIA. People from India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Brazil, etc...many of them have dark brown-skin too, and who is labeling them African-American? It is obvious that "Brown Skin" is not what makes a person African-American, rather it is the cultural roots that make you African-American.

You know, one thing that confuses me is the label "Hispanic", because I've seen Mexicans and Argentinians who are just as White as a typical European (actually, most are "White" if defined strictly by race), and they do not all come from 1 country yet the media lumps them all together. Still, I do not demand that society tailer their language to my needs so as not to "confuse me".

Oh, and Jimmy Carter never said "all white people are racist”, I have never heard anyone seriously say that. Actually, the only time I hear the word "racist" is out of the mouth of a White person as in "if you criticize a Black person, they'll accuse you of being racist". It's rare to hear African-Americans even use that word.

@Zoe - sorry if it looks like you're replying to no one now. I deleted that person's comment without even reading it. That person is not welcome in my space. Thank you though.

momtfh: I disagree. I think it is very hard to disassociate discussions of class from discussions of race. Especially in the context of the United States, where people of colour have historically been marginalised both in terms of cultural recognition (respecting the moral worth of persons, whether they conform to the majority culture or not) and economic distribution. The intersection of race, class, gender, sexuality, etc, can be a useful way of analysing, as an African-American man will not have the same experiences as an African-American woman, nor will an upper class white woman have the same experiences as a poor white woman, nor will she have the same experiences as a poor African-American woman. That is not to say that these can (or should) be arranged in a hierarchy of "who wins" - but that being aware of all these different factors will hopefully bring more clarity to the discussion, although it does complicate things and make it harder to make general statements.

@Crystal - I don't understand where the hostility comes from. I'm not "singling out" your ancestry. I'm merely saying that sometimes terms cast too wide a net, and in my experience people don't like being called something they aren't. I never said you have to be called black, or African, or anything else. I specifically said you can be called whatever you want. All I know is that not everyone uses the same term, and frankly, it's confusing to me.

As far as why I refer to my roots as "Native American" - there are probably two reasons. Native American is a relatively finite term. Those who existed on this land before the arrival of the Europeans are Native Americans. There's no confusion about that. However, not every African is African-American and not every single brown skinned person in the world is African-American. Can we not agree on that?

Second, I can clarify that my family is actually Cherokee, but like other minority groups that have been exterminated by the white man, I know very little about my heritage. I know my grandmother was born on an a reservation in the Appalachian mountains. To to this very day no one knows exactly how old she is because there were no accurate birth records at the time. She believes she was born in '36, while other family members claim it was '37. It is said that my great-grandfather lost most of the land bestowed to him during the depression, and that is what forced my family north into the Chicago slums. Other than that, your guess is as good as mine.

I think it's fine if we don't agree over simple terms, but I find it incredibly bothersome that I'm being seen as some ignorant person who "resents" African-American peoples. Seriously, what did I ever do or say that was so awful? This is the third time I'm asking. Honestly, I'm not trying to be hostile, but I feel like I deserve a chance to defend that accusation. I cannot address your concerns if I have no idea what statements you're referring to.

What should we call ourselves then? “Black” is not really an appropriate term for people like Colin Powell (Jamaican ancestry) or Rihanna (Barbadian ancestry) or Mariah Carey (bi-racial Venezuelan ancestry), who have white skin with only a mild tan. What about Halle Berry or Alicia Keyes or Barack Obama, who are bi-racial but look just as dark as any person with 2 “Black” parents?

The term “African-American” was adopted because it is more inclusive, and it doesn’t just refer to skin-color the way “Black” does, the term references our cultural roots which originated in Africa. My son is several shades lighter than the Pakistani family who keeps him while I work, because his white father is an immigrant from Serbia, and so he is technically not “Black” per se, but he is absolutely “African-American” and will be raised in African-American culture.

Interesting how you single out African-Americans while also stating you have part Native-American ancestry. Why not name the specific tribe? Why does the media use the term “Asian-Americans” or “Hispanic” instead of breaking it down to Korean-American or El Salvadorian-American etc. etc.? Are you opposed to this sort of expediency as well? Should we stop tracking national origin or race altogether and just say we're all "American", which of course marginalizes minorities even more?

I attended college at UIUC and dated guys from Chicago who were the children of Nigerian immigrants, and yes they did refer to themselves as "African-American", and they also socialized mostly with African-Americans. Many 2nd generation Africans marry Americans, and so surely their children (like Sasha & Malia Obama) will be indistinguishable from your typical “African-American” before long.

What do we call the Obama Girls or Nicole Richie's kids who are not Black or White? Ultimately, people choose their own labels.

Crystal

Honestly, I'm not sure I can comment intelligently on this. I feel as if my position precludes it. And it precludes it even more because I'm Canadian. While I wouldn't deny that I have experienced some sort of privilege due to my race and class, I think that things are different here than they are in the US. Policies like universal health care make it so.

What I do know for sure, though, is that what your people have or have not done is not a reflection of what they are capable of. It is not a reflection of what you are capable of, either. It is a reflection of a system that is chronically oppressive and unfair and working to keep people 'in their place'. Don't buy into it.

@Crystal, I think you've missed my point entirely. I think you have the right to define what term you apply to yourself, but I don't think any of us have the right to call all people of a certain color ANY term. If you are familiar with Rogers Park, then you should know the 7400 block of North Paulina is largely African, and no, they are not "African-American." They do know where their ancestors came from because they lived in Africa before they immigrated, and they return there to visit (or return their to live after they've made money in the U.S.) You also mention European-Americans, and I can tell you that I've never heard a direct immigrant call themselves "Polish-American" or "French-American." If they moved here directly from France, they are just "French." Their children may be "French-American" however.

The point is that calling every person of color "African American" may apply in the majority of the situations, but it does NOT apply in all. And I am especially cognizant of this because of the Africans I lived around/above/below. But you can call yourself whatever you want. Just be careful to recognize that not every single dark skinned person in the western world has your background, just like not every single white skinned person has mine.

However, I'm still waiting for some examples of why you think I "resent" people of color. I cannot imagine a time where I have ever even implied any hint of such a thing, mainly because I have never, ever talked about race on my blog before. But honestly, if you have that impression of me, I want to know what I could possible have said to make you believe that, and it's important for me to clear that up immediately.

When I lived in Chicago, I actually lived right in East Rogers Park, at 1419 Albion Ave. not too far from Devon Market and Loyola University. This Northside neighborhood as well as Edgewater and Uptown, is full of a vast mix of people, and YES many are "African-American" although some are Latino or recent African immgrants as well.

"White-Americans" do not get the right to define what terms minority communities wish to apply to themselves, just like I do not get to tell someone that they are Hispanic/Latino/Mexican-American etc. since I am not in that group. Caribbean and Central/South-American blacks are still from African-Descent, they are still descendants of Enslaved Africans, and all it really means to say "African-American" is that you are an Arican-Descended individual who cannot name the country your ancestors came from.

Chicago is full of Nigeran-Americans, and yes they call themselves that because they know for sure their ancestors came from that country, as many are only 1st or 2nd generation. Chicago is also full of Polish-Americans and Irish-Americans, and they are indeed very proud and have parades and will tell you that they are 'Greek' or 'Bosnian' or whatever. I cannot have this sort of identity, as it was taken away from me, and thus I am a proud "African-American".

We get to label ourselves, White people no longer get to label us (i.e 'Colored', 'Negro', 'Mulatto' were white terminologies).

@Crystal - I have serious doubts that Jenny McCarthy has anything in common with Feminist Breeder. McCarthy may have been from a diverse southside Chicago neighborhood, but she went to private parochial girls high school (mother mcauley), you know.... the sort you have to pay for. Additionally, Mother McAuley is a predominantly white school. I know this, because I've been there for my cousins' graduations.

I'm just responding to you and your thoughts. I admit to not looking at the checklist (yet) and I haven't read any of the prior comments.
YOU DO NOT GIVE YOURSELF ENOUGH CREDIT. You are where you are because you looked at your childhood and decided that you were not going to do that. You were not going to live that way. Things were going to be better for you, better for your children, better for your future. You have and are taking steps to stop the idiodic legacy that was left for you. The feelings you have in regards to your history are clouding the light at the end of the tunnel. It's there, and not only are you kicking ass and taking names NOW, but you will continue to do so when you are done with school. When you have done what no one in your family has done before. I do not think that you talking about this issue is out of your realm of expertise. Your feelings and experiences are legitimate...you're not addressing nuclear science here! Not to mention, racist attitudes play a role in the areas that you do write about most often. The issues that you are most passionate about are directly linked to class and race. Anyone who believes that all women are treated equally in regards to prenatal care, breastfeeding support, and education is a moron.
I am not privilaged because of the color of my skin. I think it is racist for anyone of any race to say that...to assume that. I am also not so ignorant as to believe that things are as great elsewhere as they are in my little world. I know that different forms of discrimination go on in different regions. I think it's obnoxious to assume that just because someone has darker skin, they are on welfare, beat their kids, and deal drugs. Just as obnoxious as assuming that "white" people never do any of those things. Poverty, neglect, and abuse don't care what color your skin is. And people need to remove their blinders and stop contributing to that attitude.
Sorry for the long comment. I'll get off my soapbox now.

I totally hear you on the education part. I am stuck with just a few classes to go to graduate because no one else has done it before my generation. I am paralyzed by getting the damn thing done because deep down I keep feeling like they will pull the rug out from me at the last second and remind me what poor teen mom dropouts get, and its certainly not a college degree.

I grew up fluctuating between poor, poorer and well off depending on the job cycle my folks were in. Since I have been on my own at 17 I have always been in poverty. That list pisses me right off because I dont have those things and if I complain I feel like an asshole.

Thank you for saying it - I thought I was the only person who felt like this!

@Crystal - two things. Please tell me what you've read on my blog that would indicate to you that I "resent" African American people? I honestly want to know. That is an accusation that I believe warrants some proof. My feeling is Jimmy Carter can say "all white people are racist" and then we're all just guilty - whether or not that's true.

I also have to say that I've always had a problem with the term "African American" to describe every person of color in America. It seems very presumptuous. When I lived in Rogers Park, nearly every person on my street was black, and yet almost NONE of them were "African American." They were actual Africans (first generation, spoke little English, not descendants of slaves) or they were Caribbean or South American. Calling them "African American" did not accurately describe them, and I think they were insulted.

Second thing is that I agree with you about the marriage element, though it's hard for anyone with my skin color to mention something like that. If I were to say that it's "unfair" to WoC for Tiger Woods to have a harem of pretty white girls, someone would say it was a racist statement because black men should be allowed anything white men should. But I'm sure black/African American/WoC think that those things suck. It's just not my place to say so. It's not my place to say a lot of things on behalf of WoC, so I try not to. I only talk about my own personal experience having lived in neighborhoods that are 30% white.

@Haylay - thank you for the link, I'll look into it. And thanks for your comment. I think it is an epidemic among middle class white people who've experienced only one tiny region of the world to assume they can speak on behalf of all white people everywhere. The assumption is insulting.

@Zoe - I think you touched on something very important - whether or not we "look" underprivileged. I think this is what is so complicated for me. Growing up, it was obvious by looking at me that I had nothing. My shoes were always 2 sizes too small, and I wore dirty clothes to school every day, etc, etc, etc. When I exhibited maturity and intelligence, people treated me probably much the same way that any racist would treat a minority in that situation. "oh, the little hillbilly girl can spell! Who'd have thought!" I don't look underprivileged anymore, and I know that's why everyone assumes that I never was. I pulled myself up out of it - but on the inside, a part of me will always be that dirty little kid, and it colors my self-esteem, and my outlook on the world around me. And now that I am an articulate, nicely dressed, white American woman, it's easy for people to assume that's the stock I came from. Part of thinks that's a win (and I suppose that means white people ARE privileged, that we can change our status but never our color). But many things on that checklist cannot be changed with an increase in income (i.e. like the fact that I never feel like I "fit in" with middle class suburban white people) which is why I think this idea of privilege MUST encompass class warfare if we're ever truly going to understand and respect it.

@dcadona - thank you for bringing up kyriarchy. I've heard this term talked about a lot, and I should look into it more.

MARRIAGE is an important key to another benefit of "white privledge". As you point out, you were able to get a leg-up into a higher socio-economic status through MARRIAGE, and many poorer white women can marry their way out because men like Tiger Woods will date a cocktail waitress or retail clerk in a heartbeat so long as she's white & blonde.

Black women do not have this option, studies show over and over that White/Hispanic/Asian men have an aversion to dating Black Women as they do not find us attractive. Successful Black Men also prefer White or Hispanic women. What this means, is Black Women are unlikely to secure a husband or stable man who can support the children, hence Black Children are more likely to become stuck in poverty.

I have followed your blog for a while now, and it did not take me long to pick up on a mild simmering undercurrent of resentment that you seem to feel toward African-Americans in particular.

Believe it or not, but having lived in Chicago just 3yrs ago, where many whites are fairly recent immigrants of Polish/Greek/etc. ancestry who are not well-off, and having grown up in a Military Community where many whites were lower-middle-class, I DO understand that most white people are NOT rich or college-educated or privledged. That said, only 11% of white children grow up in poverty, compared to 35% of black children, so there is definitely a gap there in the so-called level of privelege.

The NYTimes just did a great article about the Recession's Racial Divide (www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13ehrenreich.html), and there are tons of articles that show Black children overwhelmingly grow up in segregated neighborhoods whereby they can never become upwardly mobile (http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=54326), unlike the poorest White chidren who tend to grow up in neighborhoods with more of an economic mix.

Poor People in America are the unluckiest Americans, kicked around and beat down across-the-board, and I think no one discounts that whether you are White, Hispanic, Asian, or Black, life is hard when you are Poor. Sadly, the "powers that be" keep the poor poor by turning them against each other, stirring up White-Resentment towards so-called "Freeloaders" or Immigrants or whatever. And so all poor people lose out with social programs are cut in favor of more tax cuts for the rich.

p.s. Jenny McCartney also grew up in Chicago, very poor in a majority-Black neighborhood, and she also voiced a similar opinion as yours.

Before I get too deep into this response I want to preface that I am NOT going to deny your experiences. No one knows the life you had growing up and the life you have now better than you. The validity of your history is not for me to judge or to twist to support my beliefs and I take you at your word.

That said, I am a person who believes white privilege does exist both on a larger, social scale and personally experiences it. I grew up middle-class in a practically all-white city. Until my adulthood I remember knowing exactly THREE black people! And pretty much every one of the 50 items pertains specifically to my life experience.

So whats the difference between this white person, whose Indian/hillbilly history is several generations in the past, and you? You hit the nail on the head... economic and class differences.

I believe that learning about patriarchy (male privilege), white privilege and class* privilege should be a gateway to discovering kyriarchy.

Kyriarchy is the intersection of these and other "structures of dominance" into a complex power system. Check out this post: http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/word-of-the-day-kyriarchy/ and pop it into Google.

Simplified, kyriarchy is how someone who should be privileged by race experiences a slip in status due to a conflation of sex and class or how someone who should be oppressed gets an advantage over others in the oppressed class by also being a part of a privileged group - say a black person in a high economic class.

Anyway, I'm a lurker who totally loves your blog and only responded because I thought you might find the concept of kyriarchy personally interesting and something worth looking into further. If you don't, please don't hold it against this dear reader!

* I believe much less studied because I have found comparatively nothing on it and because a lot of it is seen as a result of other privileges and also easily escapeable with enough gumption and bootstrap pulling - a convenient lie borne out of idealized capitalism and meritocracy to assuage guilt

As someone who is studying this at a scholarly level, although I've just started dipping my toes in the foray of race - it's complicated. I completely get your point. There are intersections of race, class, gender (the holy triad) as well as culture, geography, health, etc etc etc that need to be considered. It's been a while since I read Peggy McIntosh's article and I also remember being very troubled by it, as even though I'm white it was aimed at a very specific context that did not really apply to me (I'm European).

But I guess there are two things to be looked at here, which may help explain the tension you experience in this discussion. One is people's background - where, as you describe, you definitely did not have a privilege background. On the other hand, there's moving in the world. Walking into the mall, people's background is not immediately visible, unless they exhibit some characteristics that can be associated with that (a typical homeless person may be dirty, someone who's poor may wear cheap and/or ripped clothing) - which includes race. When a person of colour walks into the mall people may look at that person and certain images will pop up in their minds. Exactly what those images will be depends on other characteristics of that person (is she "well" dressed, etc), the previous experiences of the observer, and the general structural relationship the observer has with regards to race. If a white person walks into the mall the ideas that pop up into people's heads are, arguably, different, than if that person were a person of colour. This may or may not influence how people treat that person - be it at the bank, in a job interview, etc. That kind of privilege a white person cannot escape, no matter how underprivileged she has been in other areas, as long as she "passes" (is dressed appropriately, and generally exhibits "appropriate" behaviour, whatever that may be).

I hope this makes sense.

Interesting discussion- class issues feel like the big taboo in feminist/ race discourse. There is always a white = rich, non-white = poor assumption. And while statistically, that may [or may not?] be the larger truth in this country, it does deny the experiences of many. There is only 1 book that comes to mind on this subject : http://www.amazon.com/Without-Net-Experience-Growing-Working/dp/1580051030/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260179895&sr=8-1 and might be worth checking out.
Being on the privileged side of the debate- it is an issue I can't bring up without sounding like a huge ass, but I do hope you continue to discuss here- it is so relevant to the birth/motherhood experience [i.e. my mom had two c-sections and didn't breastfeed, because that is what women of her status did.]
Cheers!