" If white privilege is true, then if everyone is white in a given society everyone has privilege. Who would want to upset that state of affairs? Any politician making such a decision on behalf of his nations’ population, and their children, would be working directly against their interests, as well as those of the non-European immigrants they are bringing in."
Left wing social justice warriors, and even moderate liberals, seem remarkably comfortable with the idea of “white privilege”, considering that it is essentially a warning for majority white countries to not permit more immigrants.
If proponents of “white privilege” are to be believed, then there are some inherent advantages to being of the “white” race, and inherent disadvantages to being a member of the “non-white” races, a category that has most recently manifested in the PC term “people of colour”.
Rather than targeting with the more conventional notions of “privilege”, such as inheriting the wealth of ones’ ancestors, “white privilege” specifically targets the phenotypical differences between “white” people and “people of colour”. This is target is clear in the arguments that proponents of “white privilege make”, including the founder of the discourse herself, Peggy McIntosh’s. According to this terrifyingly influential thesis, the privileges of white people, and disadvantages of anyone else, derive from the way in which society defaults to the normative hegemony of white people and whiteness. As
Everything from being bombarded with ads featuring white people rather than your race, to the near exclusive presence of white people in tv shows and media, to learning primarily about white people in school history lessons, to hair products tending toward white person hair, to having the even to the colour tone of band-aids, all these things advantage white people and disadvantage everyone else.
In this respect, the opinion of White people on whether or not this privilege is widely considered irrelevant in white privilege discourse, since white privilege derives from that thing which White people could never gain and non-White people could never lose”, which is to say phenotypical racial differences. Unlike the privilege of wealth, in which a poor person may choose to appear poor to test whether or not they are treated differently, or unlike the experiences of non-English speaking Polish or Jewish immigrants who may learn English and thus pass as “white”, no white person could ever understand, criticize, or even corroborate, the theory of “white privilege”, since it can only be experienced by those who are not white. The unique disadvantages experienced
Indeed, the privileges of white people, and disadvantages of anyone else, as argued by the theory of “white privilege”, derive directly from racial differences in phenotype. These differences range from the colour of ones’ skin, to ones’ type of hair, nose shape, or any other features that differ between races. Those white people who refuse to acknowledge race, or believe society should NOT even recognize these differences are regularly accused of advancing the cause of “white supremacy” and further entrenching “white privilege”, by refusing to acknowledge that western societies have implicit white “biases”. It is amusing that leftists are perfectly comfortable describing in no uncertain terms the obvious links between Western societies and people of European descent, but only when it serves their purposes. If white nationalists to precisely the same thing to advance the case that the unique ethnic European heritage of the West is central to the definition of what we understand to be the “West”, they are guilt of high racism, but I digress.
The focus on visible phenotypical differences between races may be seen to have become such a central focus of various western societies tacitly buying into the “white privilege” argument, by observing the terms they use to describe those who are disadvantaged. Whether, “people of colour”, or in the case of Canada, “visible minorities”, all these terms neatly distinguish between people not based on their languages, cultures, or minor ethnic differences, but differences their racial characteristics. Such terms clearly refer to the unique challenges experienced by those from other races in Western society. These PC terms also restrict poor white people, or non-English speaking white immigrants, from benefiting from the unique victimhood status reserved for racial minorities, as “visible minority” is clearly designed to describe the centrality of phenotypical differences behind alienation in Western society. Such a decision could only be justified because on the grounds those with clear racial differences to the majority of a Western country who suffer from “white privilege”, and the governmental problems designed to target this particular social ill. Such problems would be different, and maybe even worse, than those experienced by those who only lack economic, cultural, or linguistic advantages.
It is worth mentioning at this point that race, and the physical differences that different races have, is what leftists rely on to make their “white privilege” arguments. This is despite liberals and leftists being the first to jump on the “race doesn’t exist”, or “race isn’t important”, or “worrying so much about race makes you a racist”, bandwagon, when those right of centre rely on racial categories to make their arguments.
If an anti-open boarders advocate argues, for example, that a place like Poland would be better off remaining racially white and ethnically polish because of certain inherent advantages to homogeneity and common problems with racial heterogeneity, the liberals and the left immediately jump down their throat armed with scientific proof that race doesn’t actually exist and, as always, with the charge of “racism”. Yet, when it comes to advancing the cause of people who are not “white”, and creating systems by which white people may lose job positions, admittance to university, or specific protections from the government on the grounds that they are “white”, all of a sudden the obvious differences between races becomes very clear, and the advantages (privileges) to being white in a white majority society become unquestionable. In this respect the left not only applies a double standard, but reserves the existence of certain phenomena only for when the existence of said phenomena advances their ideology and permits them to work toward causes that make them feel good, like painting white people as permanent perpetrators and everyone else as permanent victims, or demanding an unwilling exchange of resources. In this case, the two phenomena in question include the existence/importance of race, as well as the benefit of living in a society filled primarily with people of your own race, which is to say, people who look like you and share common phenotypical characteristics.
To return to the statement I made at the beginning of the piece, those who argue for the existence of “white privilege” seem to be working precisely against their ideological interests either without knowing, or caring. Sure, making everyone see those inherent advantages (privileges) to being racially white helps advance the cause of granting victimhood to those who are not racially white, but it also does something else.
Firstly, the “white privilege” argument establishes that racial differences are important to consider in society, and presumably, the political decisions made about a society. Secondly, it establishes that there are powerful benefits to being a member of a racial majority within a specific country. If you encounter someone who argues that England should remain ethnically "English", and you want to find out how they justify in their minds being so "racist", you don't need to track down a copy of Mein Kampf. All you need to do is read Peggy McIntosh. She openly states that it is so advantageous as to be a "privilege" in and of itself to be able to "arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time", to turn on "turn on the television and see people of my race widely represented", or when one is told about their national heritage to be "shown that people of my color made it what it is".
This brings us to the inevitable conclusion that those who argue for “white privilege” would be horrified to discover is inevitable by their logic. This conclusion is that it would be inherently disadvantageous for a racial majority to increase the racial diversity in their society through immigration. This is because, it would:
1. Cause the white majority to lose all the privileges Peggy describes that derive from being a racial majority or being racially homogenous since, according to her, being able to live exclusively with ones own race is a huge privilege that should not be taken for granted.
2. Moving to a country in which one is not the majority would cause the new racial minorities to suffer from the “white privilege” of the indigenous inhabitants.
3. The presence of unequal distributions of "privilege" would now put the onus on the indigenous White people to diminish the advantages (privileges) that their children derive from being white. As Peggy McIntosh describes, these will include being white while living in a historically white country built by white people, and exclusively observing one’s own race in the history of the country. A multi-racial society would be forced to correct "white privilege" by doing things like redesigning their sense of national history and national culture to include fewer members of their own white racial group in favour of people of other races, which is to say, sacrificing what Peggy herself describes as being a huge privilege that one should not take for granted.
4. Finally, permitting non-white immigration into white countries, according to Peggy McIntosh, would create a situation in which the only ethical decision would be to combat the now unequally distributed "white privilege", by keeping white people perpetually aware of their "privilege". This would mean your children, and their children, and their children, will eternally be the bad guys whose privilege constantly needs to be checked. It would require that the state impose "affirmative action" policies causing your white children to become less likely to get admitted to universities and be selected for jobs, for no other reason than their race being over-represented in a specific professional or academic sphere. Causing all this to happen along side taking away your children’s' inherent benefits (as described by Peggy McIntosh) of being part of a racial majority in their nation, seems an irresponsible decision at best. However, that is precisely the decision liberals and leftists are making on your behalf if they remain committed to both immigration of different races, as well as the existence of “white privilege”.
In conclusion, one can't have "white privilege" in a society in which everyone is White, or better yet, if everyone is white in a given society then everyone has privilege. Who would want to upset that state of affairs? Why would any sane society choose to stumble through the awkward problems and trade-offs required to diminish the disadvantages of being a racial minority in a society, when those disadvantages can be prevented by ensuring there are no racial minorities who permanently live in your country? Would that not create a situation in which everyone in your country benefits from “white privilege”, while no one suffers the indignity of being a “person of colour” in a predominantly white society? Why would anyone choose to forgo the advantages of racial homogeneity and from living in a society where the majority of people share your phenotypical characteristics, which “white privilege” theorists argue provide such advantages? Any politician making such a decision on behalf of his nations’ population, and their children, would be working directly against their interests, as well as those of the non-European immigrants they are bringing in. Yet, this is precisely what European politicians have been doing for over 40 years. Time for a change?