Those that are different always have some disadvantages. We should be working towards fair societies, not replacing one type of discrimination with another.
Can you explain in detail?
I could clamor for tall rich sportsmen to "send the elevator down for me". That it's their responsibility and so on. What you should do is reflect on exactly why you'd think I should feel silly for saying that, and the other guy to not. Would you tell Michael Jordan to check his privilege if he told a group of average white male nerds to reflect on theirs?
It's simply intractable to add up everyone's advantages and disadvantages
it's the wrong path to focus on group attributes/trends when you start talking about individuals.
As you say, every individual human being certainly is more than the some of their labels. But when gross inequalities between groups emerge, it's lunacy to suggest there are no greater group-wide forces at work on scales greater than the individual.
Would you tell Michael Jordan to check his privilege if he told a group of average white male nerds to reflect on theirs?
I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. He is a part of some privileged groups (rich people, people with one-in-a-million athletic ability, men) and not others.
I could clamor for tall rich sportsmen to "send the
elevator down for me". That it's their responsibility
and so on.
Gross inequalities between groups _can_ exist, but that tells us _nothing_ about any particular individual within the group, only that individual's chances _when no other information is available_. But other information _is_ available when looking at an individual.
You seem to be suggesting we somehow theoretically add up all one's advantages and disadvantages- But that means... Considering the individual. Great, I agree. Since we are doing that, phrases such as "recognize your male privilege" mean nothing to an individual male, because it is very possible that individual male has severe disadvantages that make singling out the maleness aspect ridiculous- It would be like telling a minority male shot by a cop to reflect on his privilege of not generally facing sexism like a woman does (setting aside that a "male" privilege here is actually a disadvantage, but you get the idea).
In general people have an obligation to help the less fortunate, I agree.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with your school example.
If Town A had a cancer rate 5 times higher than the national average surely you wouldn't say, "Well, look, those people are individuals, and an individual's cancer risk is affected by lots of things -- diet, exercise, genetic predisposition... to heck with looking for differences between Town A and Town B."
Clearly you'd want to start investigating things that affect Town A on a town-wide basis.
I wish this comment would be at the top instead of the ones talking about skin color. I just don't understand the United States obsession with looking at discrimination in a black vs. white way. Discrimination against minorities is what it really should be termed.
All over the world, politically dominant segments of population discriminate against the politically weaker. Sunni vs. Shite, Catholics vs. Protestants, Hindu vs. Muslim, Brahmins vs. Dalits, Western Europeans vs. Eastern, Chinese vs. Taiwanese, the list is endless. You can interchange the phrase "white privilege" or "is it because i'm black" with any of the above minorities, and the effect would be the same (in the relevant country of course).
Shifting the conversation from discrimination of minorities in general, towards discrimination specifically based on skin color is a very narrow minded view, and in my opinion, more likely to cause harm than trigger solutions.