Colin Hunt
Active Member
I liked your post because I agreed with almost everything you said. However I take issue with the bolded part. White privilege should not be an undefined term used to beat disadvantaged white people with. By adopting that approach (even in the pro-white working class way that you did) you're playing into the hands of those who seek to divide the working class.I was reading about Blaenau Gwent yesterday: another poor place abandoned once the pits went. 1 in 6 of the population are on medication for depression, youth suicides are disturbingly high, 25% of the population reported mental or physical health conditions that are life affecting in the census return, drug and alcohol dependency has exploded over the last 49 years with intergenerational links clear. What Raymond Williams called ‘the resources of hope’ appear to be entirely drained from the place. An odd kind of privilege I reckon.
Instead, I'd advocate seeing white privilege as a bundle of rights that white people have that non-white people of a similar status do not have, which obviously differs massively depending on underlying factors including class and geography. For example, a black woman living in Blaenau Gwent would, all things being equal, be more likely to die in childbirth or suffer a severe complication than a white woman. Similarly, a black man would, all things being equal, be more likely to die or be seriously injured in police custody.
I think such an approach is more helpful than your definition because it emphasises how much of white privilege is class-dependent, and how much of it emanates from the state and capitalism. In my view a 'working class first' approach has to account for white privilege in order to truly work for everyone that it needs to work for.
I'm not seeking an argument and I don't want to take this thread too far off-piste so I won't be talking about this topic again here. However if anyone has any thoughts on this I'd be interested in hearing them and my PM inbox is always available.