To take the 25
raised here in sequence, and just touch briefly on each one, to avoid this being longer than it likely already will be:
"25+ Examples of Western Privilege
September 10, 2014 by Sian Ferguson
7.3k176
Source: Serial Liars and Sleaze Bags
Source: Serial Liars and Sleaze Bags
In social justice activism and feminist circles, there is a lack of discussion on Western privilege.
And this is becoming a huge problem for social justice activism.
A beautiful thing about living in the digital age is that activism is made more accessible because it can happen online. The Internet allows for people all over the world to exchange ideas, learn from one another, and demonstrate solidarity with others.
But the efficiency of this activism is limited if we don’t acknowledge the ways in which we have privilege over one another, as well as the ways in which Internet access is limited.
I often see discussions about Western privilege being dismissed or derailed.
Unsurprisingly, those who dismiss these discussions usually live in Western countries. Surprisingly, and perhaps sadly, many of the people who dismiss Western privilege or demand “proof” of it are social justice activists – the same people who would say that it’s wrong to demand that oppressed people prove their oppression.
Sometimes, people argue that Western privilege doesn’t exist because people in the West still experience oppression.
Here’s the thing: Experiencing a form of oppression does not erase the privileges you have.
Certainly, it might change the way in which you experience those privileges, but it doesn’t mean those privileges do not exist.
For example, male privilege exists, but it certainly does not mean that all males experience privilege in the same way. It will depend on their class, race, sexual orientation, (dis)abilities, and so on.
Men experience privilege based on their gender, but this definitely does not mean that men can’t experience oppression based on other aspects of their identity.
Similarly, the acknowledgement of Western privilege should not mean that nobody in the West experiences oppression.
It also doesn’t mean that all people in non-Western countries experience oppression in the same way.
For example, I live in South Africa, and I’m white. This alone means that I am way more privileged than most people in my country, and Western privilege does not affect me in the same way.
We should interrogate the ways various oppressions and privileges interact with Western privilege, not deny its existence entirely.
Through conversations with (mainly African) academics and activists, I’ve managed to compile a list of examples of Western privilege. Because of my own geographic location, this list is skewed to an African perspective. Please feel free to add more examples in the comments – especially if you feel that your continent, region, or country is underrepresented here!
"1. People from other countries don’t enter your city, town, or country to try to “save” you"
True, but on the whole, wouldn't that be because, while Western nations are by no means perfect and free from oppression--as the Black Lives Matter protesters would rightly remind us--they're not nearly in such a state of turmoil as contemporaries? None of us are experiencing a Syria-style civil war right now, or the issues with ISIS and Boko Haram, revolutions in Mali, and then there are autocracies and downright dictatorships, as (ALMOST) everyone here would agree we've got it better than the Orwellian nightmare made true that is North Korea?
So while I don't disagree that those intentions could go off the rails and be demeaning or misguided, there ARE plenty of people and nations which arguably do "need saving" (the Yazidi in Iraq and Syria being just example of a people in a place who definitely do need saving now, as they face rape, torture, and genocide at the hands of ISIS.)
"2. People don’t go to your country to do voluntourism, a well-intended, but often dehumanizing and harmful practice."
True enough, see the above.
"3. Articles – even articles about neo-colonialism – are more likely to gain traction if written by someone based in a Western country, on a platform based in a Western country."
Also somewhat true--I actually think some would accord more authority to, say, a Syrian writer writing on Syria than a Western writer, but that will vary from person to person and there definitely is the potential for Western bias there--but I would argue that's more due to an issue of wealth than location. Publishing in languages and centers of power and commerce will get you more readership, and while that is starting to shift somewhat with the rise of India and China, a lot of those centers are still in the West.
"4. You’re able to assume that everybody knows your national traditions and cultural norms."
That one I have to disagree with...heck, T.S. Eliot was starting to lament this coming undone 100 years ago. The days of everyone in the West knowing Homer, the Bible, Dante, Shakespeare, Victor Hugo and *Insert White Male Greek/Roman/Christian Writer Here* are gone...I think there are some ways that's good and in some ways I'm with Eliot and lament common cultural touchstones being lost, but regardless, as the West becomes more diversified and teaching likewise becomes more diversified, to say nothing of how focuses on new mediums come at the arguable expense of older ones, I don't think this one's entirely true.
If what is meant is that, say, Homer, Shakespeare and the Bible are more well-known on the world stage than, say, African literature, then that's probably fair to say overall, though I think there are exceptions (as popular as he was, I'm willing to bet more citizens of Latin/South America know Gabriel Garcia Marquez than they do Dickens or Victor Hugo, for example.)
"5. If you don’t know others’ national traditions, you won’t be dismissed as ignorant."
...That's pretty a pretty broad generalization...I'm willing to bet most of us would dismiss someone who, say, didn't know at least the basics of what Islam was or who Gandhi was as being ignorant, and that religion and figure, respectively, loom large in the respective traditions of their nations/regions.
What's more, maybe I'm overoptimistic, but I don't think too many people today would dismiss someone from the Congo who didn't know Shakespeare or what the Declaration of Independence says. I don't know much about the Congo (go ahead folks, cue the meme here) so why should I expect the reverse?
"6. Your country is better represented in the media. This includes written media, television, and movies."
100% true, no question. That should change, and hopefully it will as the means of producing those mediums become more cost-effective.
"25+ Examples of Western Privilege
September 10, 2014 by Sian Ferguson
7.3k176
Source: Serial Liars and Sleaze Bags
Source: Serial Liars and Sleaze Bags
In social justice activism and feminist circles, there is a lack of discussion on Western privilege.
And this is becoming a huge problem for social justice activism.
A beautiful thing about living in the digital age is that activism is made more accessible because it can happen online. The Internet allows for people all over the world to exchange ideas, learn from one another, and demonstrate solidarity with others.
But the efficiency of this activism is limited if we don’t acknowledge the ways in which we have privilege over one another, as well as the ways in which Internet access is limited.
I often see discussions about Western privilege being dismissed or derailed.
Unsurprisingly, those who dismiss these discussions usually live in Western countries. Surprisingly, and perhaps sadly, many of the people who dismiss Western privilege or demand “proof” of it are social justice activists – the same people who would say that it’s wrong to demand that oppressed people prove their oppression.
Sometimes, people argue that Western privilege doesn’t exist because people in the West still experience oppression.
Here’s the thing: Experiencing a form of oppression does not erase the privileges you have.
Certainly, it might change the way in which you experience those privileges, but it doesn’t mean those privileges do not exist.
For example, male privilege exists, but it certainly does not mean that all males experience privilege in the same way. It will depend on their class, race, sexual orientation, (dis)abilities, and so on.
Men experience privilege based on their gender, but this definitely does not mean that men can’t experience oppression based on other aspects of their identity.
Similarly, the acknowledgement of Western privilege should not mean that nobody in the West experiences oppression.
It also doesn’t mean that all people in non-Western countries experience oppression in the same way.
For example, I live in South Africa, and I’m white. This alone means that I am way more privileged than most people in my country, and Western privilege does not affect me in the same way.
We should interrogate the ways various oppressions and privileges interact with Western privilege, not deny its existence entirely.
Through conversations with (mainly African) academics and activists, I’ve managed to compile a list of examples of Western privilege. Because of my own geographic location, this list is skewed to an African perspective. Please feel free to add more examples in the comments – especially if you feel that your continent, region, or country is underrepresented here!
1. People from other countries don’t enter your city, town, or country to try to “save” you.
2. People don’t go to your country to do voluntourism, a well-intended, but often dehumanizing and harmful practice.
3. Articles – even articles about neo-colonialism – are more likely to gain traction if written by someone based in a Western country, on a platform based in a Western country.
4. You’re able to assume that everybody knows your national traditions and cultural norms.
5. If you don’t know others’ national traditions, you won’t be dismissed as ignorant.
6. Your country is better represented in the media. This includes written media, television, and movies.
"7. When your country is represented in the media, you get an informed, nuanced portrayal. As such, nobody reduces your country to Hollywood tropes. Your country is not reduced to a single story."
Yeah...I'm calling "generalization" on that one, too--in GOOD movies and literature that's the case...but there are plenty of films out there that reduce Americans to rednecks, or the French to snooty cowards, or *insert stereotype here.* I'll freely admit it happens WAY more with non-Western nations and that the racism and bigotry on display there is WAY worse, but stereotypes abound in bad media, period.
"8. Movies about your country usually cast people from your country, rather than people from other countries who often do not look or sound like the people they’re meant to represent."
I'm looking at YOU, Ridley Scott...if you really felt the need to film the story of Moses vs. the Pharaoh again, would African/Middle Eastern/Jewish actors REALLY have been too much to ask for? Or was Christian Bale just so incredibly necessary?
"9. Novels about your continent, country, or geographical region don’t get the same book cover treatment."
...I don't even know what that means...? O.o That all book covers for novels in the same region look alike if they're non-Western but printed in the West? Take "Disgrace" by J.M. Coetzee of South Africa and "Things Fall Apart" by the great Chinua Achebe and set in Nigeria...the covers look pretty different...so...? If I'm missing something here, please let me know.
"10. Your country isn’t treated as “exotic” or fetishized by the rest of the world."
Exotic? No. Fetishized and coveted? Well, "Paris Syndrome" is a thing, and for a reason...and there are other examples...I'll concede that no Western nation I can think of is exoticized in the negative sense of that word, but I think it's fair to say there are plenty of people from around the world who fetishize/have an overly-romantic notion of, say, France for example.
"11. Your country isn’t treated as “backwards” by the rest of the world."
This is true, and no more really need be said, so, moving on...
"12. People don’t treat your entire continent as if it’s one monolithic country."
Also very true...if I were to nitpick I'd say terror organizations like ISIS seem to depict and treat the West as one monolithic evil, but that's a nitpick as I said, so this one I agree with overall. The implication there being that other regions are treated like this, however...
Who here really treats Venezuela and Brazil as if they were the same entity?
China, the Koreas, and Japan?
What about Egypt and South Africa?
Does ANYONE here really think of or treat the Middle East (not a continent technically, but a distinct region nonetheless) as if it were monolithic?
Maybe I'm being overoptimistic again, but I'd like to think those sorts of generalizations are disappearing in the Internet age...speaking of which...
"13. Most of your population is likely to have a strong, stable, relatively inexpensive connection to the Internet..."
Yes, go on...
"14. …which means that your country is better represented on social media and in digital activism."
Social media?
Yes.
Digital activism?
The Palestinians were preeeeety well represented here and elsewhere during the 50 Day War...you can make the argument that there were more non-Palestinians voicing support for them (or otherwise making anti-Israel statements) than Palestinians themselves, but still...I would ask here what constitutes genuine digital activism (are we talking hashtags, petitions, groups, articles, etc?)
"15. “Global” platforms are more likely to acknowledge your national traditions and rituals, while those of other countries are ignored."
There are nearly 200 nations at present...so not *all* can be represented in every global platform, which is as true as it is unfair. I think every nation SHOULD be represented, and I again think that with nations like China and India rising we're going to see more diversity in the future...
That being said, I need to ask what a "global platform" here constitutes. Are we talking a news show, like BBC World News? An online forum such as ours here? A genuine global platform such as the UN? Again, the term seems pretty general, so while I can agree, I can only generally as a result...more specifics would help.
"16. “Global” platforms will publicize your national tragedies and ignore or marginalize the tragedies that occur in other nations."
Given that the Syrian Civil War/ISIS and the Malaysian Air disasters have taken up so much airtime in the past few months--and those just being two tragedies--I'm going to have to disagree on those being marginalized, though there are exceptions (ie, unrest in South America or the fighting in Africa.)
"17. When a national tragedy occurs, you can expect people from all over the world to show solidarity with your nation."
-_-
Malaysian Air disasters? Everyone shows support.
The Charlie Hebdo tragedies? Plenty in the Arab world and elsewhere applauding the ATTACKERS.
"18. It’s unlikely that tragedy and oppression in your country will be used as a derailment tactic to avoid discussing tragedies elsewhere...19. Conversely, conversations about tragedies occurring in your country are unlikely to be derailed to draw attention to another country’s problems."
I again have to disagree...both the Left AND Right present a "well, think about how much worse things are in Africa!" front when faced with questions of economic or social injustices in America, thus derailing the topic. The manner in which they derail it differs--ex., the Left might go after those enjoying White Privilege while the Right argues for a status quo by showing how much worse things could be--but either way, that's derailment of a social issue in favor of another, foreign one.
The War on Terror fits here, too. Discussions on US/UK immigration reform? Derailed by referencing the "War on Terror" and the possibility of ISIS slipping through the Mexican border.
"20. It’s relatively easy to get statistics and studies on certain things in your country. This may seem trivial, but consider how useful it is to have reliable statistics on, say, the job market, crime, income inequality, and accessibility to education."
True enough.
"21. You don’t have to learn all that much about other countries. People from other countries, however, have to learn about your country as a matter of survival."
This one I'll throw open to everyone--how much did you learn about other countries in, say, high school and college? I learned plenty, but it'd admittedly vary as to how much I know about where (far more time was spent covering the West, Middle East, and Asia than, say, Africa...which I admit is unfair, but at the same time, you *do* only have so much time to teach so much...I think Africa deserves more representation in curriculum, but I would be lying if I said that I think all regions could be taught equally and accurately in all curricula...if you're studying Anthropology, you're going to have an area of emphasis, for example...and if you're a Literature major like me, well, that's mostly Middle Eastern, Russian, and Western Lit, since those are the traditions which are most pertinent to the present Western canon, which is different from the Eastern canon...put another way, I'd expect every Lit major, East or West, to know the Mahabharata and Homer/the Bible in abstract at least, but I wouldn't expect a Japanese Lit major to have the same love and knowledge of Virginia Woolf, D.H. Lawrence and E.M. Forster I do. They're just different traditions--not better or worse, but different, which requires different emphases.)
"22. If you move to another country after obtaining an educational qualification, you don’t have to start your education from scratch, as your Western qualification will be seen as adequate."
That's true...my friend from Lebanon's father was a doctor there, but had to receive more qualifications to practice here, so that's a definite bias.
"23. People will often consider your educational and career experience to be superior."
I agree with the principle somewhat, but I again think that depends on your audience.
If you're looking to teach Shakespeare or Physics, are you more likely to be received warmly if you went to Oxford or MIT, respectively, than if you studied in Africa?
Probably so.
On the flip side, if you're teaching a course on South Africa or Japanese Literature, I'd have to think, say, UC Berkeley would probably want someone who actually has experience in those nations and traditions. I know for Anthropology positions especially one generally has to go and live/study in the areas they're planning on researching and teaching.
"24. Your culture is not equated to your continent. I often see people attribute quotations as an “African proverb.” Proverbs belong to people, cultures, regions, and tribes – not entire continents. Similarly, people discuss “African tribal” music, dress, and culture."
Didn't we already cover this, in the "continents being treated as monolithic" section?
"25. Ironically, most privilege-checking lists are specific to Western countries (more often than not, the USA)."
...How many "lists" did this author read, exactly? O.o I don't doubt that's true since, for one thing, "check your privilege" is a statement born of liberal college campuses (again, UC Berkeley and the like) so, yeah, more Westerners are likely to use and employ a Western-born trope than others...what was the point of this one?
I think it's to state that there's a lack of Western Privilege-checking...but that's just an odd way to put it, with "lists," as if the peak of intellectual discourse and representation of peoples and the political climate are to be found in lists.
Which is something I write to you after listing my reactions to this list, posting on the list on the Greatest People of All-Time Tournament, and now I'm off to fashion dating lists for my job with inspiration from Buzzfeed lists...
And you can list the ways this was an Obi-Length waste of your day. :p
Setting up a WD IX game, need players!
)
)
)