[manuelabeledo]

> This is a ridiculous and racist statement.

Is it "racist" to point out that a racist will not look at someone's background, and will focus on evident skin features to make a character judgement? Really?

It's called prejudice for a reason.

> This places the children of Bill Gates on the same "privilege" footing as a newly arrived Mexican immigrant who happens to have enough European ancestry to have white skin.

This is a ridiculous comparison, because you are adding a new component, which is loads of money.

I myself am a hispanic white living in the US. I'm not rich by any means. But even I can tell how differently people look at me, compared to other hispanics with darker skin.

[lolinder]

I'm not arguing that people don't treat people differently based on the color of their skin, it's obvious that they do. I'm arguing that that differential treatment cannot be more significant than the vast array of other socioeconomic factors that contribute to privilege, and defining privilege as being primarily about skin color is racist.

[manuelabeledo]

> ...defining privilege as being primarily about skin color is racist.

I didn't say that. Mine was a comment limited to OP's assumption that some people (it wasn't clarified "who" these people are), think he is privileged because of him being of a certain ancestry, which is not true.

[lolinder]

I may have misunderstood you, then. You quoted OP saying that people tell them they should "check their privilege" and you said that privilege is about skin color more than ethnic background. It seemed to me as though you were saying that OP should, in fact, check their privilege, which given what they told us about their family background seemed patently absurd.