In the first two decades of the twentieth century, especially around 2010–2011, academic concepts such as “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and related terms migrated into popular discourse. This shift was driven largely by progressive activists influenced by critical race theory and sympathetic media. These concepts are often invoked to explain average group differences—most notably income disparities—between black and white Americans. The claim is that such differences are primarily, if not entirely, the result of racial privilege enjoyed by whites and racial oppression experienced by blacks. This framework, however, rests on two fundamental errors: (1) conflating cause and effect; (2) the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
Advocates of the “white privilege” explanation often point to statistical differences as evidence of racism, treating the observed disparity itself as proof of its cause. But this reverses the proper direction of rational analysis. If racism is proposed as the independent variable, one must clearly define what racism means in this context and how it causally produces specific economic outcomes. Simply labeling the disparity as racism sidesteps the actual causal investigation. In this model, the conclusion is smuggled into the premise. It’s sophistry.
A second error lies in treating demographic averages as if they directly describe every individual within a group. This assumes that each white person is a concrete instance of the abstract statistical average for whites, and likewise for blacks. In reality, both groups contain enormous internal variation: homeless whites living under bridges, wealthy and professionally successful whites; the same range among black Americans. Treating individuals as embodiments of group averages obscures more than it reveals.
A more grounded analysis begins by acknowledging that white Americans, on average, do earn more—but then asks why. These explanations look beyond racial identity and toward a broader set of variables associated with life outcomes: Are whites more likely to graduate from high school? Are they more likely to have some college or a completed college degree? Are they more likely to grow up in stable, intact families? Are they more likely to live in safer neighborhoods? Are they more likely to obtain jobs with higher wages? Are they more likely to save and accumulate wealth?
Not every white person enjoys these advantages, nor does every black person lack them. But if these factors correlate with income, then average differences between groups can emerge even without invoking racial privilege as the driving causal mechanism. These variables describe patterns of behavior, social structures, and personal or community-level achievements—not racialized systems of privilege.
The progressive explanation based on white privilege and white supremacy does not grapple with these underlying variables. Instead, it reframes the discussion into a moral narrative of “oppressors” and “victims”. This moral binary, borrowed conceptually from the French revolutionary categories of “perpetrators” and “victims,” stands in for genuine analysis (“Franz Fanon says…”). Consequently, it prevents a clear understanding of the factors actually constraining average black outcomes.
Among these relevant factors are: Higher crime rates in many black neighborhoods, lower high school and college graduation rates, lower workforce participation, lower prevalence of stable, intact families, lower likelihood of obtaining higher-wage jobs, etc. None of these observations is offered to “blame the victim”—for that would assume that blacks, as a collective, are victims, which is precisely the assumption this argument rejects. The concern is that by attributing all disparities to white wrongdoing, progressive rhetoric prevents society from addressing the real obstacles to black advancement. Critical race theory in practice tice undermines the life chances of black Americans.
Woke progressive rhetoric sabotages them; if the goal is to improve average outcomes for Black Americans, then solutions should target the factors that truly drive opportunity. These include: strengthening public safety so that communities can thrive; increasing mentorship and support in schools; reinforcing norms of achievement, discipline, and work ethic; pursuing public policies that expand employment opportunities
Economic policy also plays a big role in this. For example, the post-1965 surge in mass immigration introduced large numbers of low-wage workers into the labor market. This had real displacement effects on black workers, particularly those without advanced education, while also suppressing wages across several sectors. These are material realities, not ideological constructs.
Reducing complex socioeconomic differences to a narrative of white privilege not only rests on flawed reasoning; it actively diverts attention from the cultural, economic, educational, and structural factors that more plausibly explain group outcomes. Addressing these real causes—rather than blaming whites as an abstract categorical group—offers a path toward genuine improvement in the lives of black Americans and a clearer, more honest national conversation.
freedom and reason 