Lets Talk About White Privilege

In this blog post, I’m going to talk about the often misunderstood issue of white privilege. Before I do so, I want to briefly mention a few things about racism which many of you will already be aware of. 

It is important to understand that notions of race and racial difference are constructions first and foremost, based on human invention as opposed to any biological or scientific fact.  Instead, racial differences have been constructed socially and discursively in an attempt to serve the political interests of a particular section of society.  In After Empire (2004) Paul Gilroy asserts that ‘“race” refers primarily to an impersonal, discursive arrangement, the brutal result of the raciological ordering of the world, not its cause’.  Racism then is the ideology that sustains discrimination on the grounds of perceived racial differences, claiming that these constructions are true.  Some of you might question my inclusion of these facts, for it seems as though I am merely stating the obvious.  However, the fact remains that countless numbers of well-meaning individuals are unaware that race is a historical construct and not a biological fact, and so I feel it is something worth mentioning.  

There are numerous obvious manifestations of racism with which we are all familiar including hate crimes, racial slurs and the most insidious – systemic racism.  Yet, there is another more subtle manifestation of racism that continues to sustain the continuation of the racial status quo.  It is called ‘white privilege’ and is representative of the societal privileges benefiting white people in Western countries.  Such privileges are not usually experienced by non-white people under the very same social, political, and economic circumstances.  In a collection of essays entitled Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil (1920) Sociologist and Civil rights activist, W.E.B. Du Bois critiqued white supremacy as a system of exploitation, oppression and violence.  In his essay, he asserts that white people are associated with the creation of a global racial hierarchy, creating horrendous conditions that must be endured by black people.  Almost a century later, the Western society critiqued by Du Bois remains a hierarchical one.

It is important to mention that white privilege is not necessarily something that people consciously create or do in their day to day lives.  The thing about white privilege is that people remain oblivious to the wealth of unearned assets and perks that are so freely available to them, and which can be drawn on daily without a second thought.  While white privilege does not imply guilt for injustices you have not created, nor choose to benefit from, the fact remains that if you have white skin, you benefit.  Peggy McIntosh’s famous essay “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” contains a list of the daily effects of white privilege experienced by her.  Included among this list are some of the following:

‘When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my colour made it what it is.’

‘I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.’

‘If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.’

‘I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.’

‘I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.’

‘I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.’

If you are a white person living in the Western hemisphere, as you scroll through the list, you will undoubtedly find yourself adding to it as you discover the numerous unearned perks/advantages you did not realise you experience daily.  This proved to be true in my case, at least.

It is very easy to see clear incidences of systemic racism and white privilege in countries like South Africa or America, for instance.  One need only think about Michael Brown of Ferguson, John Crawford and Tamir Rice of Ohio, Eric Garner of New York, and most recently Freddie Gray of Baltimore, all of whom were killed by members of the police force.  Their deaths have put a global spotlight on the racial disparities inherent in America’s criminal justice system.  Is it so easy to spot white privilege closer to home though?  I recently had a discussion with a friend who insisted that white privilege is not an issue in Ireland.  It surprised me and reinforced my belief that our lack of awareness regarding privilege is something that needs to be challenged head-on.  It also led me to think about the difficulties inherent in addressing such a subtle yet ingrained form of racism.  In order to address this kind of privilege, we must first acknowledge its existence.  In her essay, McIntosh states that ‘as a white person, [she] realised [she] had been taught about racism as something that put others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which put [her] at an advantage.’  If we are to create space for the open and frank discussion of white privilege, we need to do so through education and awareness.  With that, comes accountability.

 

Additional Note:

While writing this blog post, I came across a fascinating project being carried out by researchers at Harvard.  It is called Project Implicit and assesses thoughts and feelings that occur outside of conscious awareness or control based on a series of tests.  For anyone interested in taking part, follow the link: [https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html]

 

Ruth Daly

 

References

DuBois, W.E.B. Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil (Dover Publications, 1999)

Gilroy, Paul. After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture? (Routledge, 2004)

McIntosh, Peggy. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” (1988) [http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html]

Marriage Referendum 2015; Vote YES for Equality and Progression

by Michelle Mitchell
                                                                                                
I don’t think there is anyone in Ireland by now that is unaware of the upcoming marriage referendum on May 22^nd.  If this referendum is passed what will occur is that homosexual couples will gain the right to have the same status of marriage that heterosexual couples in Ireland presently obtain.  With this referendum of course those for and against it passing have implemented a very visible and vocal campaign on their respective opinions.

All of the major political parties are calling for a yes vote and associating it with inclusivity in society, along with equality and fairness for all Irish citizens. Many celebrities are also advocating for a yes vote such as Hozier, various Irish rugby players and Sir Ian McKellen, which is showing a strong backing for the yes campaign. I have to say I am one such advocate and simply struggle to understand how anyone can comprehend or defend their decision to vote no. If two people in a relationship that I am no way involved in, decide to get married then how exactly does that affect me? Why does this issue even give cause for a referendum, as by even doing this we are essentially in some respect deciding as to whether or not gay and lesbian people deserve the same rights and status as anyone else in society?  We would also do well to remember that we also voting for the right of our children and their children to marry. So any future relationships our children may enter into, we are therefore influencing its legal and social standing on May 22^nd. I currently have no children but when or if I do and if any of them should be born gay or lesbian well then I would like to think they would be equally valued in Irish society and that I have played a small role in contributing to that by voting yes on May 22^nd.

Turing my attention to the no campaign, whilst I do respect everyone’s right to promote their views and opinions in any referendum or poll, what I do not respect is using lies and children as pawns to do so. I think their argument essentially has proved counter-productive as the yes campaign has responded by making it clear that in no way is this referendum a vote for surrogacy. That is an issue for the legislature and the legalities surrounding surrogacy will not be affected by the result on May 22^nd.  As for the call to not redefine marriage, everyone’s concept of marriage is different. We have a tenancy in Ireland to associate marriage with the church. This is not the case, the Catholic Church nor any other church did not invent marriage, it is in fact a pagan tradition in this country before Christianity arrived and therefore they do not own the concept of this union. I do respect that the church are entitled to their own understanding and beliefs of marriage however it is not the only one and claiming ownership of this union is simply wrong. Finally in relation to the no campaign using child protection as a reason to vote no is simply ignorant, discriminatory, wrong and there is no justification for it. If we want to look at institutions and groups of people who have damaged the family unit and hurt children in inconceivable ways in this country then let’s turn our attention to the church and state. Mother and baby homes, forced adoption, clerical abuse, Magdalene asylums, arranged marriages, enough said!

To conclude this piece I would like to urge everyone to get out and vote yes on May 22^nd as by doing so we are showing the world we are a progressive, egalitarian and fair nation that values all of its citizens equally. We are closing a divide in society that currently exists and this need's to happen as when a social divide prevails in society it damages it. Social divides promote discrimination, prejudice and social isolation. However most importantly by voting yes we are showing all members of the LGBT community that yes we do value you as equal citizens in our country and we recognise your right to love and marry whomever you choose.  Finally, what I visualise should a yes vote occur, is that twenty years into the future  finding it so unbelievable and shameful that we once didn’t allow homosexuals to marry, just as now we find it hard to comprehend that blacks and whites were once not allowed to marry or the stigma attached to Protestant and Catholic unions. 

State Obligations in Dealing With Race Discrimination

by Lorraine Lally

The cases of the European Court of Human Rights have illustrated a willingness to articulate Article 8 in the language of the social model of recognition of nationality and ethnicity. The Roma cases are an excellent example of the treatments of migrants which concerned early cases brought against the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands. The groups involved suffered horrific marginalisation and social exclusion. In the case of Buckley -v- UK in 1996 there was reference made to the nature of the discrimination which consisted of layers of restrictions which had a cumulative effect of discrimination.  The addition of the case of Chapman v UK (2001) The vulnerable position of gypsies as a minority means that some special consideration should be given to their needs and their different lifestyle both in the relevant regulatory planning framework and in arriving at the decisions in particular cases   To this extent there is thus a positive obligation imposed on the Contracting States by virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the gypsy way of life.

The Dissenting opinion Judge Bonello. I consider it particularly disturbing that the Court, in over fifty years of pertinacious judicial scrutiny, has not, to date, found one single instance of violation of the right to life (Article 2) or the right not to be subjected to torture or other degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment (Article 3) induced by the race, colour or place of origin of the victim. 

Anguelova v. Bulgaria (2002)- Leafing through the annals of the Court, an uninformed observer would be justified to conclude that, for over fifty years democratic Europe has been exempted from any suspicion of racism, intolerance or xenophobia. The Europe projected by the Court's case-law is that of an exemplary haven of ethnic fraternity, in which peoples of the most diverse origin coalesce without distress, prejudice or recrimination. The present case energises that delusion

 

In  DH v Czech (2007) the Grand Chamber (13:4)  held that there was a violation of articles of the Convention.

The relevant legislation as applied in practice … had a disproportionately prejudicial effect on the Roma community. The Court is not satisfied that the difference in treatment between Roma children and non-Roma children was objectively and reasonably justified [or] … that there existed a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued.

Therefore there is a requirement based on the vulnerability and social isolation of Migrant on the State to enact legislation to protect against discrimination against Migrants living in the State where there status is that they are illegal residents seeking the protection of the Courts.

In the case of Timishev v Russia (2005) it can be distilled that there is a duty to combat racism: to reinforce ‘democracy’s vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a threat but as a source of enrichment’. The same case provided that there was a duty to combat racism: to reinforce ‘democracy’s vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a threat but as a source of enrichment.

Šečić v Croatia (2007) it was established that there was a duty to investigate racial motivated violence, Positive duty to investigate allegations of degrading treatment, Positive duty to investigate allegations of severe discrimination; Duty to protect vulnerable groups and to prioritise investigations involving violence against such; Duty to enable different lifestyles in the relevant regulatory frameworks and in arriving at the decisions in particular cases. The case law clear shows that there is a Recognition of indirect discrimination and the Recognition of need to reverse onus of proof and to accept statistical evidence. There is also a view that the case law establishing a duty to remove barriers from individuals, families and groups living within the State.

In conclusion the European Court of Human Rights case law has been very poor on the issue of race discrimination. Some of the reasons put forward are that it is largely indirect in nature and difficult to prove before a Court. There is an issue with Article 14 which is not a standalone article to prevent discrimination it is a parasitic Article so only argued with other articles in the Convention.

The other issue is what is defined by lawyers as the Strasbourg burden of proof which can be very difficult to reach at times.  There is a wonderful link discussing the cases that have been brought and the issues.

The European Roma Rights Centre has been spearheading and supporting litigation on the issues.

http://www.errc.org/article/european-court-rejects-uk-gypsy-applicants/692

-----------------------------------------------

1. Shtukaturov v. Russia (2008)
2. Chapman v UK 2001