I mean, we don't go around calling the issue Sunny privilege to describe it

We certainly would (or could) if we were discussing privilege in a Sunni-dominated area where other groups were oppressed! That would be completely correct, right?

    how would people X feel if we called crime instead of crime "people X" behavior as if only that group engaged in crime?

That's an awesome question actually. Let's say there was a city where nearly all of the muggings involved black people mugging white people. There are one million whites in this city, and one million blacks. There were also 10,000 muggings last year and most of them were black on white muggings.

First of all, that would suck, and in this hypothetical city it'd be hard to argue that there wasn't a racial component to those 10,000 muggings. It is, essentially, a black crime in this example.

But! In this hypothetical city, that also means there are 990,000 black people who didn't mug anybody and -- this is the key concept -- didn't profit from those muggings.

White privilege is a little different. As a white person I actually do profit from white privilege. My life hasn't always been easy, and I have generally worked my ass off. But I have also never had to deal with any of the big and small disadvantages that blacks face in America. Nearly every single day of my life -- and this includes some really shitty, tough, fucked up days -- my whiteness has either helped me or at least not been a disadvantage. I profit from white privilege all the time.

It doesn't mean I'm a bad person or that things are always easy, but I do want to recognize it.

Ok, I thought we were speaking "privilege" however now you're bringing up or conflating oppression, which to my understanding is different.

Never the less, even in Sunni areas, I dont think it would be helpful to describe the issue suffered by say Shias as Sunni privilege. This representation is apt to create a greater wedge between the groups.

Now, as it pertains people in general, within neighborhoods with a majority class there are oftentimes a classification of people who while may suffer disadvantage outside their neighborhood will most likely experience advantage in their neighborhoods. So let's say a recent poor immigrant from Bolivia going to a south Asian neighborhood, or a Bangladeshi going into a Mexican neighborhood. These two may experience privilege in one area and lack of privilege in another.

Or, see how easy it might be for you to get a stock boy job at a Mexican supermarket in for example LA, versus how easy it might be for a Mexican national to get the job.

So privilege can be found among the many groups within the US itself, not just among whites, as might be portrayed. It's something for which we can find expression, if we look enough.

I don't think you can have privilege without oppression of some sort, whether it's an extreme level of oppression like legalized slavery in America, or a more subdued kind like the economic inequality we have in America today.

   Never the less, even in Sunni areas, I dont think it
   would be helpful to describe the issue suffered by say
   Shias as Sunni privilege.

I'd tentatively agree. The value, if any, of "_____ privilege" terminology is get ______ to examine their own privileges, consider how they might benefit from and/or contribute to inequality, and consider how other groups don't share those same privileges.

So in an area where, say, Shia are openly and brutally oppressed by Sunnis there's probably no value to talking about "Sunni privilege" because (I'm assuming) the Sunnis in power are not in denial about the situation.

Contrast w/ America where the inequality is present but typically not as severe nor brutal, but a lot of whites are completely in denial of the fact that there is any systemic inequality at all.

Consider the urban/rural dichotomy that exists in many places. In such places, even in very homogenous places, you will find a pronounced "privilege". An Osakan in Tokyo, East Londoner in London proper, a farmboy from Högsby vs someone in Stockholm. A mestizo from the country side vs a mestizo MDFer. It's more than race or religious and it's something beside "oppression". Alike people tend to help people like themselves. Sometimes that breaks along class, color, accent, political leanings, ethnicity, physique, etc. You can find someone disadvantaged and someone else privileged by being considered part of a given group.

It seems to me the better way is to empower those groups. Give them resources --be it educational facilities with an emphasis on overcoming a different framework etc. If we want people from East end London to be able to compete with people from London proper, while not building "posers" we'd want to have them understand how one can better fit into that structure (attempting to modify that structure may not be the best approach. For a look at changing an entrenched structure refer to the many revolutions which failed in their grand ambitions at changing their societies (even homogenous ones).

Further, let's say I wanted to do well in China. Do I keep on insisting on being a Yank? Or do I try to adapt to the mainstream culture, learn their "language" -which is more than just knowing Mandarin but other aspects of friendship and interpersonal relationships? It may depend if I want to work for a foreign (non_Chinese company) or local.

I agree with you. Unequal opportunity is morally and practically bad. We do not want to prevent the next Einstein or Newton from becoming the next Einstein or Newton because of their gender, birthplace, or anything else.

Again, though: I don't feel that addressing one particular facet of inequality is bad for the struggle against inequality as a whole any more than focusing on colon cancer is some kind of insult to say, breast cancer survivors.

So, it's a pretty common problem. I think everyone knows that. Does that mean we shouldn't address the problems in front of us?

Yes, the problem is presenting it as a zero-sum issue where what one has is at the expense of someone else and in addition posing something as intrinsic and inextricable from a class of people. It's their disease it's a bad disease and really they should be ashamed, rather than addressing the system we're addressing it as a people issue.