That having been said ... What is expected of me? How should I act? How should I feel?
When people get angry about this subject, I understand their feelings and I don't think for a minute that everyone was born with equal opportunity -- but, should I be throwing money at people? Should I give up my life dreams to go even the odds? I'm not sure what the expected response is? Is it enough if I hang my head at my ancestors, pay my taxes, and do my best to not sound entitled? I'm quite serious, because for all of the complaining about how good people like me have it, I never hear a series of actions that makes my life "acceptable" instead of "something that just causes seething rage in people when they think about it."
EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, I don't understand what the appropriate response is when someone says, "You don't own slaves but that doesn't mean you didn't get the benefits from it!". Is the answer "yes", "no", "I see", "I'm sorry"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness:_A_Restate...
Libertarians rightly believe this is incompatible with liberty, and thus reject this view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia
On the whole, I love Nozick's argument but think ultimately anarchy is a utopian (unrealistic) end that ignores history and presupposes too much. Thus I lean Rawls.
Among philosophers, his 1970's Theory of Justice is considered the greatest work of political philosophy and ethics of the 20th century, and the first real attempt at a foundational political ethics system since the 19th century with utilitarianism and Marxism. I linked to the shorter, updated book intended for a mainstream audience, as the original is a bit heavy going.
Nozick's book can be said to be the definitive rejoinder to Rawls, and the ethical foundation of much of American libertarianism today.
Most US political ethics debates still to this day boil down to Rawls vs. Nozick in my view, though many still harken back to 19th century ideas of utilitarianism and liberty as they go more "extreme" (eg. hard Marxists, or hard anarcho-capitalists). Rawls and Nozick at least attempt to deal with history and disadvantaged peoples.
As usual, its hard to separate politics, justice, and economics, though we often try: the end result is intertwingled.
Someone says stupid at X convention, and they are 'MALE opperssers!' We all seem to be colored with this brush, simply because we are male.
What can I do about men whom say rude things? Honestly, I think the answer is similar to your response... "I'm sorry?"
But when talking about issues like white privilege, it's important to realize that centuries of discrimination and mass theft have a lasting effect, and you can't simply say "well the offending laws themselves are gone, now it's all a clean slate!"
In short, I'm saying "Help me understand what the right thing to do now. I can't undo history." I hear far too much debate about guilt assignment and not enough about practical advise.
Why don't you focus on helping people who are disadvantaged with respect to their current disadvantage, rather than on shaming or punishing categories of people resembling abusers of the past?
If a Puerto Rican living in the US has been crippled by corrupt police, it becomes irrelevant that Puerto Ricans were not as historically disadvantaged as blacks. That person should be helped as a person, not moved down in priority for being a Puerto Rican. And so on.
This is not true.
>Arguing over what countries have done in the far distant past
There are people alive who are still dealing with devastating consequences from the past. There are also people who are living pretty comfortable lives because of the past. It's a lot easier for the beneficiaries to deal with it.