I feel like the author is overthinking the issue here. People, in general, do not like to be corrected by other people, especially strangers, and see it mostly as the corrector being condescending or trying to show off how morally/intellectually superior they are. This is why many people do not like pedants. If something as trivial as "saying ATM machine is redundant, you should say ATM" pisses people off, imagine how much more butthurt people would be when your correction of whatever behavior they're engaged in attacks the very core of how they see themselves, that they're a shitty person who's more like Hitler than MLK. I think the real issue is that people close off advice and experiences from people for the sake of preserving their ego. This goes well beyond accusations of racism (and sexism/homophobia/transphobia/etc). I work in IT support, and I always feel like I have to say stuff like "you should probably do this" or "I wouldn't do that if I were you" because as soon as they pick up the slightest insinuation that what they did is wrong, that's when the defensiveness starts to pop up. "If what I did is wrong, then that's means I'm stupid. And I can't be stupid because I'm not stupid." And if there's one thing that will make people flip even more than insinuating that they're stupid, it's insinuating that they're a bad person.
I can agree with that but I think you make a good point here: The situation, I think, is distinct enough to warrant specific attention that is beyond an acceptance of people merely being annoyed at correction. That absolutely plays a role but the nature of the correction concerns their personal identity, and one that they're not used to having to defend or even made explicit/relevant in a discussion, and so they get defensive. This is partly why I feel that this issue is different (and maybe the author agrees) because I think the problem of "being corrected" largely comes down to things like how you approach them, the language you use, the attitude you take, etc, whereas with things like race issues, I feel like the problem isn't how you dress it up because no matter how you present it, they reject the very notion of things like them being privileged or society needing to change. So with your IT example, it's like their computer is on fire and no matter what words you choose or approach you take, they are just absolutely insulted at the suggestion that the billowing smoke from the monitor and melting keyboard could be described as the computer being on fire and refuse to accept that something needs to be done.I feel like the author is overthinking the issue here. People, in general, do not like to be corrected by other people, especially strangers, and see it mostly as the corrector being condescending or trying to show off how morally/intellectually superior they are.
...imagine how much more butthurt people would be when your correction of whatever behavior they're engaged in attacks the very core of how they see themselves, that they're a shitty person who's more like Hitler than MLK.
I work in IT support, and I always feel like I have to say stuff like "you should probably do this" or "I wouldn't do that if I were you" because as soon as they pick up the slightest insinuation that what they did is wrong, that's when the defensiveness starts to pop up. "If what I did is wrong, then that's means I'm stupid. And I can't be stupid because I'm not stupid." And if there's one thing that will make people flip even more than insinuating that they're stupid, it's insinuating that they're a bad person.
It takes time for people to change. You're not going to change some person's mind about something in one day. Certainly not from a random comment on the Internet. And I'm not quite sure if every single avenue of presenting the concept has been approached. Most articles about white privilege written by white people tend to be either condemnatory or exceedingly dry while those written by people who are not white tend to be seething with raw anger. What's strange to me is that you never see any articles written by a white person that starts off the conversation with, "I didn't realize that white privilege existed until my black friend got shafted by society yet again and did nothing but sighed, "just another day of being a black man."" On the other hand, every once in a while, you do see articles and comments of male feminists who go, "I didn't realize women had it that bad until I had a daughter of my own, and after seeing the bullshit she has to put up with, I wished I had done something about it sooner" or something to that effect. You've be surprised of what to me comes off as the computer is on fire while to the enduser, the computer is just uncharacteristically slow. It's obvious to me because this is my job, but I don't besmirch the enduser from lacking the general knowledge and intuition of knowing that something is wrong with their computer. I am cautious about assigning a knowledge floor to people, and in general, I don't believe that there is anything that every single person has to know and that a person who claims not to know that something is lying.This is partly why I feel that this issue is different (and maybe the author agrees) because I think the problem of "being corrected" largely comes down to things like how you approach them, the language you use, the attitude you take, etc, whereas with things like race issues, I feel like the problem isn't how you dress it up because no matter how you present it, they reject the very notion of things like them being privileged or society needing to change.
So with your IT example, it's like their computer is on fire and no matter what words you choose or approach you take, they are just absolutely insulted at the suggestion that the billowing smoke from the monitor and melting keyboard could be described as the computer being on fire and refuse to accept that something needs to be done.
White people don't need another buzzword for their psychosis. Seriously.
Fair point but I don't think the label is for them really, it's more for others understanding why white people (or privileged people in general) react so defensively and with so much hostility when the slightest race-based issue comes up. I think it's easy sometimes to dismiss people who misunderstand social issues as just being racists or bigots and have done with it, but it can be important to try to figure out what biases and processes are driving certain reactions. For some people it obviously can just be plain racism. But for others they usually have good intentions, accept the same basic goal (i.e. equality) but get stuck on the details because it's such a radically different way of looking at life than the way they've been taught.
We know why they act defensively, why they "misunderstand". We've known for decades, if not hundreds of years, if not millennium: It is because they do not want to face the darkness they have accepted, that they have become. This goes for white people or privileged folks. At some point the excuse stops being ignorance and it is wilful. If it is wilful ignorance or apathy in the face of it, then that is a type of psychosis. Especially with so much information about this. I'm over with the excuses for these people.
There is a way to fix it. For them to admit they have a problem, en masse, and then take responsibility for it, en masse.
Which is why the other obvious part of that solution is to do whatever the hell we need to do in spite of their ignorance and the systems we all built around it. We have all -- one way or another -- been coerced or brainwashed into a system that anyone will admit is completely fucked up. No reason to be in feelings about something so straight forward.
Lonely dissent is a scary business. Someone always has to start first, and people most often don't like to be - or feel - different. Can't be a celebrity, either: people start to think funny when it comes to someone on the pedestal - as if their personal ideal has been broken and not worthy of regarding any longer. I believe this happened to Lance Armstrong after he admitted taking... some sort of drugs that enhanced his performance.
Humanity has to evolve. Besides: most people are doing whatever they want, except they're being stupid about it.
Evolution, as we have already learned, is a very slow process. More than that, "has to" doesn't equate to "will". It's not to say that humanity has grim future - it's to say that it won't happen unless required actions are taken, and maybe, for us, those actions are spreading knowledge to reveal and abolish ignorance, even if a step at a time. "Us", in this case, being not a sort of the elite knowledgeable, but any person who knows something others don't. From what I've learned so far, this is simply not true. Doing whatever you want is a privilege for a human being, not a common way. We're all controlled by fears and instincts most of the time, and even the most knowledgeable and resilient of us can last for so long at a time before needing to rest. Most often, we abide by the unrecognized laws of our subconscious which dictates how we react to this or that without us having to spend time and effort figuring the situation out consciously. It is why many people spend years of their lives in an office instead of pursuing their passions, whatever those are: we're all afraid of being misunderstood ("You have a wonderful job which pays for incredible luxury - what's not to like?!"), of being alienated from the tribe we're in ("If that loony is going to quit his job, we're done: that would be a step too crazy") or of being unloved or hated. For all our progress in science and philosophy, we're still mostly animals. It doesn't make us better or worse, but recognizing this fact whenever we work with other humans - and ourselves as we introspect - makes those who do wiser to the circumstances.most people are doing whatever they want