If “White privilege” means “the privilege of NOT being discriminated against by White racists”…which, as far as I can figure IS what it means; that implies that NOT being treated unfairly is a privilege, not a norm; which I don’t think is a concept we can reasonably apply in any other area of discussion.
Are we all supposed to, for instance, feel privileged by homicidal maniacs who have chosen to murder someone else rather than us? We are only alive, after all, because someone else was their victim (if we accept the White privilege logic).
I watched a small speech on this subject and the speaker was saying that the term “under privileged” must necessarily have an opposite, which he said could only be “over-privileged”, and that one group is only “over-privileged” BECAUSE another group is “under-privileged”. Which is sensible as long as you do not think about it very deeply.
What is meant by “under-privileged”, of course, is those who are deprived of their rights and of opportunities. But that does not mean that being given your rights and access to opportunities is something inherently corrupt, nor that your rights and opportunities are ONLY available to you because they are being denied to others.
The fact that you may not be discriminated against on the basis of your skin colour; i.e., that White racists do not target you; is not a privilege any more than not being the target of any hate group is a privilege.
This brings up the basic problem with “identity politics”. You can easily segregate the population into an endless number of sub-categories, and then begin to define as privileged anyone who is not a member of this or that sub-category if any form of discrimination or prejudice exists against that group.
So there can be “straight privilege”, there can even be “gay privilege” insofar as they are not subjected to the same type of prejudice that targets transgender people. This can go on and on ad infinitum.
No. Being treated unfairly does not automatically mean that it is a privilege to be treated fairly.