I'm rather ashamed to admit that I am baffled by the fact that privilege, namely white privilege is a concept that has long been acknowledged, and yet it's still widely disregarded and ignored. When it has come up in topic, most white folks that I know roll their eyes and act annoyed, or simply haven't heard of it. It's just those First Nations people complaining again. When will an apology ever be enough. Sure, let's throw more money on it. That happened a long time ago. Those people are just lazy. I've worked hard for what I've earned; it wasn't from any ancestors of mine. Privilege? Are you kidding me?
I am reading a book called On Truth, a collection of lengthy quotations by George Orwell in his various works under the theme of "truth." The subject of human beings' ability to brush truth to the side on certain occasions (primary examples being privilege and treatment of other human beings) is thick. That white privilege is fact doesn't matter if people discredit it. If we refuse to empty our pockets, nothing will ever change.
An example of wilful ignorance is seen in Orwell's review of Upton Sinclair's World End, who wrote about deplorable conditions in American slaughterhouses for the people working there. His aim was to draw attention to the foreigners working in these conditions, but all people were concerned about was that it was an unclean workplace for the meat entering their stomachs. The treatment of the human beings or why certain humans were working there while others were not was not deemed valuable enough information by the public to do anything about it. For whatever reason, it was accepted as the way things are. Systemic, if you will. Inequality is the norm; it has always existed and always will continue to exist.
Orwell points out that England as a nation was built on the backs of foreigners, "half-starved Asiatic coolies" (Orwell 71) as he puts it. This is well known, as well known as it is about North America. To possess this information there needs to be two opinions (that Orwell argues could have been expressed in the press, but were not): the first opinion would side with Hitler in that we are the superior race and so we should "live by exploiting inferior races" (72), but that wasn't said, and isn't said today, even though our exploiting other nations in order to maintain our level of comforts, all the while knowing others do not have the same comforts, expresses this ideology in action. On the other end,
The other possible policy was to say something like this: We cannot go on exploiting the world forever, we must do justice to the Indians, the Chinese and all the rest of them, and since our standard of living is artificially high and the process of adjustment is bound to be painful and difficult, we must be ready to lower that standard of living for the time being. Also, since powerful influences will be at work to prevent the underdog from getting his rights, we must arm ourselves against the coming international civil war, instead of simply agitating for higher wages and shorter hours (72-73).But are we willing to lower our standard of living for the sake of equality? To empty our pockets to balance the scales? Obviously not. We hold onto the possessions and rights we have as tightly as a toddler demanding mine of a possession a parent has given. We teach children to share to make friends and be socially acceptable creatures, all the while denying others the same rights we hold by refusing to acknowledge privilege itself, let alone making any effort to give any of it up. The fact is that truth does not guarantee change. We hear truth and fact and may choose to ignore it. Privilege gives that option. Meanwhile, our pockets remain full with clean water and sound housing, good schooling and credibility in courtrooms and what not, accepted as the way things are, truth be damned.
I love your writing. This was so good.
ReplyDelete