Plain and simple, I'm looking for pictures from history and wars that negate the stance of white privilege.
I showed someone a photo from Normandy on Dday today and that actual finished the discussion. They made a gripe about how white men started world war two, but then conceded that minorities in this country would be in complete different position if those white men didn't fulfill their responsibility.
i will dump what I have that's relevant.
...
Personally for me, you cannot beat this one. Look into this dead mans eyes and tell me he has White Privilege, I can't and I'm not even white.
damn, that's not what I thought it was.
and I don't have more material on this computer.
will try to report back from my desktop later.
...
...
...
...
...
>They made a gripe about how white men started world war two
This is a completely wrong way to look at things. Europeans never identify themselves as white or not white. It was GERMANS and their allies who started WW2. POLAND and POLES became their first victim.
They were all white.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
not to mention what happened in the pacific.
Mexico city would be a very different place if the japanese made it to california
...
...
...
...
So whats the point of this thread again?
If you play on their "terms" you should have no trouble convincing them slavs were, and are still oppressed
kek
>none were white
Ftfy
I don't think fighting in wars goes against the concept of white privilege, what is your definition of it OP?
American racial politics and the way they construct race only applies Iin America.
You can't apply that stuff to other countries with different cultures, different histories, where they construct race differently if at all.
It's not about white or black, it's about rich or poor (Or are you a Fortunate Son)
he died in that battle, the picture was taken after 2 days of constant warfare. He died the next day.
what scares me the most about this picture is: you can see that he knows he's going to die there.
OP you quite literally don't understand what white privilege is. I'm not even arguing for it but for God's sake at least read about it from an academic sociological perspective before you have this knee-jerk reaction trying to 'disprove' it.
It's the idea that in white society, we give special rights and preferences to other whites. Those born with white skin get dealt a different card than others by mere chance. This flies in the face of some democratic ideals that we are all "equal."
The position I maintain is that any discernable privilege is a consequence of discerning not of it's existence. Meters and miles exist because of the ruler, not the other way around. If these soft-science types want to make an argument about different qualities, they need to look at the full scope of the situation. The fact of that situation is whites/Anglos have privilege because they have/had responsibilities and leveraged those responsibilities for their posterity. This behavior is present in all demographics, whites simply did it best in the worst situations, with the most to win on the line. Any entitled psued that argues that today's whites have an unfair advantage is arguing against yesterday's white's sacrifices for their family, country, and values.
This coupled with the practical fact that all races, whites include, treat those in their perceived same-race, because it's a quick way to judge whether someone has similar cultural values and will act in a copesetic, predictable way.
The problem is that due to globalisation people, especially blacks are picking up on American ideas of race because of TV and social media. These ideas are not sustainable for good race relations
In the case of WWII there was White American privilege. American soldiers were better fed, armed, and clothed than their opponents, especially the Japanese.
Take the average Marine WWII experience, multiply it by 10, and you get the Japanese experience.
>white privilege
whether you're for or against it, this is a clickbait meme that has nothing to do with history or humanities
/pol/ is the clickbait containment board
Sounds very cringey
Not the guy you responded to, but I don't understand - so you're arguing privilege does exist, but it's a consequence of forward-looking sacrifices made by older generations? I don't really understand how that stance undermines white privilege as a concept, you've just provided a theory for why it exists.
It's an argument saying it does exist insofar as you want it to exist, but if you want it to exist, you should measure it correctly
So you're saying it needs to be quantitatively measurable rather than just qualitatively?
Apologies - misread you again, but how would pictures of white guys having a shit time in war undermine this? Presumably a lot of people have had a shit time in war - but soldiers aren't representative of a whole population, and they're certainly not representative of the power structures that underlie modern western society.
I don't have a great grasp on white privilege mind you - I was just under the impression that the privilege was systemic.
I AIN'T NO FORTUNATE SON
>mfw the British BLM protests involved shouting 'Don't Shoot!' at a police service famous across the world for not carrying guns.
I have no idea. Apparently experiencing suffering means no privilege ever existed. I suppose a wealthy person experiencing suffering would also not be privileged.
Not really. It's near impossible to measure something like that quantitatively, let alone the relative value of those quantities might change over time.
I'm suggesting if we look at the qualitities, it's more effective to look at all the qualities and the relationship between them.
To use a food metaphor, it's foolish to assert something's too spicy without also understanding the parts that are sweet and the carbohydrates that go with it.
I'm not undermining the fact that everyone night have a shit time in war, but I'm underling the fact that these white guys had the privilege of fighting in a war to secure a country for their children that wasn't ran by fascist Germans or Japanese. The implication being that the black casualty rate in world war two was negligible in comparison, yet they still largely benefit from the white man's responsibilities.