The concept of "white privilege" coined by Du Bois, developed by Peggy McIntosh, and mainstreamed by BLM is useless, if not dangerous, resulting most often in self-hatred on the part of whites who fall for it and racial defensiveness in those who don't.

Yet like all bad ideas, it contains a sliver of truth. Can anyone deny having privileges, such as being born in a prosperous country, sound of health and mind, or, say, living in close proximity to a grocery store? And yet like all bad ideas it puts truth in service of error.

The "privilege" of whiteness, which (if existent) is in truth no different than the privilege of being Hanzu in China, Hausa in Nigeria, or a jellyfish in the Pacific, is almost always made into a summons wherein the entire white "race" and Western Civilization is put on trial.

Of course, this show trial metes out naught but guilty verdicts and whites of all classes are condemned to castigate their confreres, or otherwise make reparations for the product of circumstances outside their control, ones that often fail to benefit them in any material way.

And this guilt trip is meant to produce justice, but how? If the privilege is real it can't be lost except by demographic collapse or racial annihilation - since it would continue to exist in any predominantly white community be it ever so small - or is privilege without fault?

If faultless why seek to eradicate it? If white privilege is simply one privilege among many, a circumstantial one no less, like Roman privilege in the Roman Empire, does drawing attention to it justify the very real racial division and self-hatred that results? I think not.

The concept leads either to Rwandan slaughter or in a nodding recognition of a bit of science trivia, such as, people tend to marry those who look similar to them, and since the present usage of term shows the former is far more likely than the latter we're better off without it.