The conclusion though is something I’ve noticed as well and matches the title. This is exacerbated by the very people arguing for equality, they lose support of would-be supporters in the majority groups by misdefining privilege. Causing resentment by would-be supporters who feel their valid struggles are neglected and invalidated.
and that latter usage definitely loses supporters from the voting bloc that could do anything about it
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/privileg...
> an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich:
eg.
> * Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.
> * Senior management enjoy certain privileges, such as company cars and health insurance.
Privilege means special advantage. Not “default” behaviour. Which is why it’s very difficult to be told a person is advantaged when they do not feel that they are.
I guess the sad part here is that many influential people promulgating the term "privilege" actually believe(d) that was relevant amorphously to all white people, who as a class theoretically enjoy(ed) some certain privileges (such as moving to Oregon, not being conscripted as a slave, access to credit), but as individuals did not necessarily become beneficiaries of them.
And as the relevance of those extreme explicitly codified exclusions disintegrated, it moved to hyperbole - an exaggerated reality that ignores class based inequality. But with such heavy segregation many people believe the exaggerations.
and finally, some academics are trying to retcon what the word "privilege" means by incorporating additional information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, retconning is typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.
how do we make this more obvious to people? I think there is a wide degree of support for programs that would disproportionately support disenfranchised people, as long as they are acknowledging its more of a class system now (and includes people of all race/ethnicities/colors in the program). And that's not the direction things currently are going, with the wrong words being used. Many would-be supporters are instead believing that there is an organized movement and threat to exclude them, as a form of payback, which is such an ironic and huge distraction, all from a failure to communicate. To that, I would just say its not organized.
Its just such a large potential population of support. "disproportionately affecting minorities" still leaves extremely large numbers of white people affected. whether its poverty, university admissions, dubious assaults and killings by law enforcement, domestic violence.
I’ll only add that a lot of the class issues that affect white people seem to disproportionately affect black people, which is why a lot of “black issues” are shared with poor white people too, though certainly not all.
The men/woman thing is much more nuanced than that though.
Many Americans understand slavery through color, though this view is US-centric. European history indicates slavery was theft of people when the opportunity was available. See "From Baltimore to Barbary: the 1631 sack of Baltimore". https://www.historyireland.com/from-baltimore-to-barbary-the...
>>> more of a class system now
That is a useful perspective on the current issues faced by poor in US.
If you're interested in this topic I would suggest continuing to study it.
Yes as your article mentions, the "Barbary" slave trade was briefly bigger than the transatlantic slave trade, so what happened? Why did the obsession with subsaharan Africans prevail?
Is there another word to convey this concept more universally?
It doesnt matter how you feel about acknowledging it, consensus wont shift if the approach doesnt change.
In any case, the abstract reads funny to me:
"Nine preregistered studies (n = 4197) demonstrate that advantaged group members misperceive equality as necessarily harming their access to resources and inequality as necessarily benefitting them."
Can we really blame exceptionally selfish people for not wanting to give up anything in a world where not everyone can live like a king at the expense of the vast majority? We only have one planet and they know it.
Fair enough, some defenestration needs to happen every once in a while, but being divisive and going for open war might not be the best long-term strategy from a societal context, as opposed to some consensus and common goals.