Yep. Your examples are fairly indicative of US society, I grant you that. It's a good positive thing that you recognise these experiences for what they are (racism: believing whites are superior) and publicly show your displeasure.
It means that
white privilege exists if you define it that way (some racist people you met valued you more because you're white = you experienced white privilege). You experienced it as microcosm as it's fair to say such experiences are relatively common. So it's understandable you expand that microcosm to an entire nation. Your nation happens to influence the rest of Western culture in huge ways. US leads, the rest follow.
Whether US-based or Europe-based: how fair is it to say every white person is automatically privileged in all ways, and every black person thus automatically disadvantaged? It's too simplistic, there will be counter-examples to offset it somewhat (positive discrimination, white trash poverty). Not every white person automatically has known this privilege status. Tho' you could argue all white people have some automatic privileges just because they're white: the most obvious US example is not being insanely brutalised by police. But this is one aspect of potential privilege (not being shot by police). The contemporary concept of White Privilege is being sold as privilege in all aspects (a
"head-start in life"), but this is firstly unprovable and secondly has enough counter-examples to relegate white privilege to subjective experience (albeit common) rather than a fact of society (like apartheid in ZA was).
So does it exist? It depends how you define it.
Yes it does in the form of common subjective experience as you've described.
No it doesn't when in the form of it being an all-encompassing
head-start to life for all whites. If I believe the latter, it doesn't make me a racist.
More useful than debating its existence is considering what happens if you choose to sell it like the all-encompassing
head-start to life for all whites.
Ultimately it's divisive to focus on who has what privilege, even more so to assign all people from that group with all possible privileges. It breeds contempt as the non-privileged & priviliged groups view each other with increased suspicion. Jealousy, for one, becomes more present than it should. Resentment too. Ostensibly innocent people (of all shades) get negative vibes. There's less positive
be-yourself vibes, less
treat others how you would like to be treated. More
he has unfair advantages over me. It's not healthy.
I believe it's more beneficial to focus on specific wrongs: protect victims, punish offenders, educate wider society. The police-brutality/panicked-fatal-shooting examples should've been a far bigger scandal than they have been. It's beyond outrageous, beyond disgusting. These are real horrendous things that have happened, with real victims and real perps. We should focus incessantly on that rather than abstract catch-all concepts which label entire groups negatively.
After I wrote this, I was curious what exactly JP said about white privilege. Here's his quote and he does word it a lot stronger than I do, and language matters. His more provocative & aggressive style may put off some who'd otherwise be willing to understand his reasoning. But we're roughly on the same page, especially the bold bit, tho' I wouldn't call being labelled privileged a
crime, I'd argue it's a potential burden:
"I think the idea of white privilege is absolutely reprehensible. And it's not because white people aren't privileged. You know, we have all sorts of privileges, and most people have privileges of all sorts, and you should be grateful for your privileges and work to deserve them, I would say. But, the idea that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime, regardless of the specific innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, there is absolutely nothing that's more racist than that. It's absolutely abhorrent."
