Definition Argument-Thenaturalist201

Definition Argument -Thenaturalist201

When a person is born their childhood is already defined what jobs their parents have and what they have. As they grow older they are more and more defined by whatever their parents are able to give them. they are influenced by what their parents go through, because until they are old enough to understand what they have or who they are they are defined by the previous upbringing of their parents.

When a child is brought up in a multiracial household don’t they face the discrimination that both parents endure. They see the struggle of each race or skin color faces. They are told stories of the oppression and have to hold that on their back for the rest of their life.

So what nobody dares to talk about is the possibility of other ethnicities having the privilege or is privilege even a real thing.

Privilege is believed to be an advantage that you are born with you are not acquired privilege, this advantage varies from being hired over other based on skin color to have an easier time buying groceries at a grocery store. Having privilege also includes the ability to receive welfare and more affordable healthcare.

Privilege is not even brought up when being raised because privilege is what your parents can provide you. Privilege has nothing to do with skin color and multiracial people are being more discriminated against as they are believed to have more of an advantage over someone else who is part of one of their races.

6 thoughts on “Definition Argument-Thenaturalist201”

  1. You ask good questions, TN, but that’s all you’re doing here. I suspect that you’ve been going around in circles for some time trying to ground your brainstorming in something firm and concrete, something you could push off from to take your first leap into a theory of your own.

    Here’s what I suggest. Start with a close reading of a substantial source. Identify the claims made there and do your first bit of writing IN RESPONSE to what you find. That will focus your attention (which is currently all over the map) and get you started making claims of your own, either in support of, or in refutation of the source.

    I did a quick search for “myths privilege bi-racial”:
    Oppression of the different: impact and treatment.”
    If you’re logged into the Rowan library, the link should open right to the source.

    To counteract the vulnerability of the human condition, which contributes to tribal bonding and competition for limited resources, societies become stratified. Attaining power and retaining it become substantial motivating forces and those in power establish rationales and justifications for the status and privilege they enjoy. The most basic of these is the story of innate superiority over those who have less power and fewer resources. Power allows dominant groups to tell the story on their terms, with their people as heroes and their cultural characteristics as good, right and normal. Throughout the course of history white, Christian, heterosexual, able-bodied, males with economic resources have grasped power and have thus come to represent “the mythical norm” (see Lorde, 1984/2007, p. 116) or “the prototypical person” (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008, p. 378). Social forces of privilege become constructed around this norm or prototype and those who embody it are most likely to enjoy the full benefits of membership in US society (see McIntosh, 1998). However, those who depart from this norm or prototype, “the different”, have less access to these advantages and are thus constrained in various ways. Entrenched social systems that endow advantage upon norm members oppress, injure and subordinate the different.

    Permit me to recap and shape the claims made here (always a good exercise):
    —Societies become stratified to counteract the vulnerability of the human condition.
    —Meaning: we seek social order so everyone understands her role.
    —Bonding occurs to build a competitive advantage for resources.
    —Humans strive for power out of fear of deprivation.
    —Once in power, the powerful create rationales to justify why they should remain there.
    —One such myth is that those who have the resources DESERVE those resources (by Divine Right, say, or because of their genetic superiority)
    —Because the powerful dominate, they get to write the narrative of society.
    —In our lifetimes, white, Christian, hetero, able males scored early successes and consolidate their power by dealing with their own “kind” to further the myth of their right to dominate.
    —They are the “mythical norm.”
    —Anyone who deviates from the norm deserves less.
    —The opposite of privilege is deprivation, oppression, subordination.

    That story is CHOCK FULL of very clear, concrete claims you can relate to ground any story you want to tell about the evolution of privilege or “progressive” political efforts to re-balance the scales by favoring “the others” in some social circumstances (with admissions or hiring quotas, for example).

    Do you accept the notion that you’ll be better off REACTING to source material than trying to build your own narrative, at least to get started?

    I thrive on interaction, TheNaturalist.
    If you respond, I’ll quickly learn that you appreciate feedback and are willing to engage.


  2. Based on this one paragraph from a strong academic source, you could, for example, start with a startling opener like:

    Privilege begins its life as pure accident. Nature, the environment, or perhaps a small biological advantage, permits a group of people to control a larger share of resources than the rest of its neighbors. Its ability to command resources gives it power over everyone else. And everyone who can claim participation in that group, out of fear of deprivation, strives to do so. Power once possessed is not willingly relinquished.

    And so on.

    Once you start writing like this, TN, telling the tale of privilege, you can drop the Rhetorical Questions and start making your claims about how hard it is to not know whether you belong to the power group or the powerless group. And whatever else it is you want to say about the peculiar situation of being wrongly perceived to be in the power group when you’re not.

    Is this connecting for you?


  3. Naturalist, I’ve tried to encourage you to ground your argument in academic sources. Until you do, your claims remain entirely too vague and unpersuasive. I don’t doubt the intentions and goodwill in your approach, but you show no evidence of having done research into your topic—or, if you’ve done the research, you’re not making use of it here, citing it, reacting to it—and the lack of research is fatal to a Research Paper.

    I don’t know how much more I can do to guide you than I have already done in my comments of February 15. Please experiment, and soon!, with the benefits of incorporating the work of other authors into your own essays. Without other voices in the mix, you aren’t applying Core Value 1. Writing is a recursive social process that depends on the CONVERSATION we conduct with other voices and points of view. You’re working in soliloquy here.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: