Gillibrand: "As A White Woman Of Privilege..."

It's important to refuse to play along with the leftist ploy of introducing Trojan-horse terminology. White people in the U.S. typically don't face nearly as many obstacles because of their race--compared to, say, blacks. In some rather atypical cases, this might reasonably be described as "white privilege." But that's not the best nor most accurate way to think of the situation. It's better and more accurate to think in terms of advantages and disadvantages--and, where appropriate, discrimination. "Privilege"--especially "white privilege"--isn't a very good way to think about it, as I've noted many times. 

   Why does the left even push such terminology? Why is it constantly revising its jargon and insisting that the rest of us play along? Why introduce "privilege" as their main conceptual category in such cases? It's their standard pattern. First, it refocuses discussions, emphasizing allegedly unfair benefits allegedly "given" to whites--and, of course, the progressive, identity politics left is more interested in complaining about whites than eliminating the disadvantages of, say, blacks. Bashing the man is more important than fixing the problem. The latter goal is secondary at best. (That's yet another difference between liberals and progressives.) It's amusing, incidentally, to hear progressives try to explain why Asians have advantages in college admissions--advantages over both blacks and whites--in terms of "white privilege"... 

   Eh, I've complained about all this before. The real issue is disadvantage--and, in some cases--discrimination suffered by e.g. blacks. "Privilege" talk is just more inaccurate, theoretically-loaded, wedge-driving crap.

   For other specific criticisms, see previous posts.