Intersectionality is the idea that various forms of privilege and circumstance interact with each other to make an individual. Certain influences are more impactful upon a particular person's circumstances, and thus influence privilege to a much greater extent. The non-linear nature that DinosaurThussy is talking about can better be shown with examples.
If you're homeless and white it's clear that you're in a worse off situation than a billionaire who is black. Class status has a far greater influence on this situation. It would be fair to say that the black billionaire has more privilege due to his class status but not his ethnic identity. That being said, it's unlikely that the white man was denied a job due to his race in a way a homeless black person may be. Being poor and white and poor and black have many commonalities, but intersectional analysis allows us to understand the different ways and avenues that particular characteristics influences the ways that a person may end up in a particular circumstance.
The idea continues on. A person who is a billionaire may be significantly shielded from a lot of racism, or face it in a less extreme way. For example, that proverbial black billionaire likely wouldn't have many run ins with racist cops in impoverished neighborhoods. However, he still might face the unifying characteristic of being called a slur by his peers in the way that a poor black person might. His privilege of wealth may not complete inoculate him facing racism at all, even if he faces it in a less extreme way.
In essence, this situation is viewing individuals dialectic-ly. It seeks to understand how all of a person's identity and circumstances relate to the struggles and oppression certain groups or people may face in society.
I empathise with most of this and thank you for bothering to respond without resorting to 4chan energy.
The problem that remains unresolved is the refusal of some people to acknowledge that, like in science, observation is not without cost. What ends up happening is the observation of these trends then causes casualties of blame - in your example we could say the huge population of white people who dont fundamentally see black people in any light other than equal. An insult based on a black billionaire being a greedy billionaire gets called racially charged, when actually, it's entirely class based. This reliably means that (for example) white working class boys/girls are left to rot.
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad, to the extent now that its difficult to untangle.
America has prejudicial issues at astonishing levels compared to the rest of the developed world. Obviously its an absurd statement to say there is no predujude abroad in the western world, but the US has the controlling stake in it, and happens to be an infectious cultural juggernaut.
there is literally a genocide being perpetrated by israel right now what do you mean america has prejudicial issues at astonishing levels comparatively
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad
Have you forgotten who colonised most of the world, including America? This is in no way an American centric issue. Racism exists in most countries on earth.
Intersectionality is the idea that various forms of privilege and circumstance interact with each other to make an individual. Certain influences are more impactful upon a particular person's circumstances, and thus influence privilege to a much greater extent. The non-linear nature that DinosaurThussy is talking about can better be shown with examples.
If you're homeless and white it's clear that you're in a worse off situation than a billionaire who is black. Class status has a far greater influence on this situation. It would be fair to say that the black billionaire has more privilege due to his class status but not his ethnic identity. That being said, it's unlikely that the white man was denied a job due to his race in a way a homeless black person may be. Being poor and white and poor and black have many commonalities, but intersectional analysis allows us to understand the different ways and avenues that particular characteristics influences the ways that a person may end up in a particular circumstance.
The idea continues on. A person who is a billionaire may be significantly shielded from a lot of racism, or face it in a less extreme way. For example, that proverbial black billionaire likely wouldn't have many run ins with racist cops in impoverished neighborhoods. However, he still might face the unifying characteristic of being called a slur by his peers in the way that a poor black person might. His privilege of wealth may not complete inoculate him facing racism at all, even if he faces it in a less extreme way.
In essence, this situation is viewing individuals dialectic-ly. It seeks to understand how all of a person's identity and circumstances relate to the struggles and oppression certain groups or people may face in society.
I empathise with most of this and thank you for bothering to respond without resorting to 4chan energy.
The problem that remains unresolved is the refusal of some people to acknowledge that, like in science, observation is not without cost. What ends up happening is the observation of these trends then causes casualties of blame - in your example we could say the huge population of white people who dont fundamentally see black people in any light other than equal. An insult based on a black billionaire being a greedy billionaire gets called racially charged, when actually, it's entirely class based. This reliably means that (for example) white working class boys/girls are left to rot.
Personally I see most of these prejudicial issues being an exclusively American problem that has been exported abroad, to the extent now that its difficult to untangle.
Prejudice being exclusively a domain of America is a crazy hot take
America has prejudicial issues at astonishing levels compared to the rest of the developed world. Obviously its an absurd statement to say there is no predujude abroad in the western world, but the US has the controlling stake in it, and happens to be an infectious cultural juggernaut.
I wonder if there was material historical precedent that could explain this, and explain the state of the modern world?
Nah, systems aren't real I forgot, nevermind
there is literally a genocide being perpetrated by israel right now what do you mean america has prejudicial issues at astonishing levels comparatively
This is what happens when you view the world through liberal idealism instead of doing any material analysis whatsoever
Systems aren't real, they're just imaginary, they can't hurt you, there's no such thing as systemic oppression just a few bad apples
Lmfao shut up
Have you forgotten who colonised most of the world, including America? This is in no way an American centric issue. Racism exists in most countries on earth.