I have been reading some Negroes mocking White Americans for believing that anti-White discrimination is a serious problem. The Negroes scoff: "Nonsense! Look at how well Whites are doing compared to Backs. They have more net worth, longer life spans, greater college attendance, etc. Those damn Whiteys just want to return to the 1950s, and oppress we beautiful people of color..."
The problem with that is the assumption that the races are equal in ability, and that differences in outcome that favor Whites must be due to a lack of discrimination against Whites, or even "White Privilege."
An example. Imagine two populations, X and Y, sharing the same polity. X is an intelligent, disciplined, and productive race. Y is a stupid, useless, and violent race. In the absence of any outside influences, we can model a situation in which the per capita net worth of X will be, say, five times that of Y, with fifteen years longer lifespan, and 100% greater rate of college attendance.
Then assume the polity adopts an extensive and vicious program of anti-X discrimination, favoring Y in every manner. After decades of this, X now has only two times more per capita net worth, the lifespan difference is only five years in X's favor, and the rate of college attendance for X is 25% greater than that for Y.
Is X still better off - based on these metrics - than Y? Yes. Is X still being viciously discriminated against? Also, yes. Does X have a legitimate reason to complain about, and oppose, that discrimination? Yes, most definitely. If members of Y make comments that X faces no discrimination due to the smaller advantages still enjoyed by X as a result of X's own innate abilities, does that demonstrate the intellectual inferiority of Y? Yes, it does.
We live in an age of Black Privilege.