Ah, no, you do not get the article right.'Check your privilege' is normally used when someone is basically going, "I managed this, so it should be just as easy for people outside my group to, so why are they complaining about it? They should just shut up and do as well as I do," or otherwise show an ignorance for the differences in opportunities different people have. Overlooking that, hey, just because you had to work to get where you got, doesn't mean someone else even had the *opportunity* to get where you got with the same amount of work.
No, it does not necessarily mean he did something. It could just as well have been a defense mechanism response. Without proof that he did something, I'm going to have to disagree until there is proof.
I mean, an example of privilege is white felons and black non-felons have similar hiring rate.
Uh.. Yea if you have the stats handy for that assertion, i'd like to see them.
Checking your privilege doesn't mean anyone is asking you to say "I only have things because I am part of privileged groups". It does mean someone is asking you to say "By position of a characteristic I was born with, I have been helped, or at least not hurt, more than others without this characteristic". It does not mean anyone wants you to apologize for it; it does mean someone is asking for an acknowledgement of the implications of it.
Right, but if said person did nothing to instigate such a request, then he is justified.
Seriously, I find the idea that white people / male people / people from certain backgrounds (a redneck certainly has a disadvantage to someone who simply comes from a 'higher-class' background) etc, don't have entirely passive, 'gets fewer disadvantages in ways that are not blatantly obvious/auto wins at life, but are very easily measured to be there and to have an effect,' advantages to be silly. The stereotypes society paints different groups with are very clearly qualitatively different.And I find the defensive attitude of people who treat 'acknowledging people get treated differently' as a personal offense to be, not only missing the point, but a pretty dumb reaction to it too.
If a person does nothing to warrant hostility and required to acknowledge his lot in life, then I find those that question that person ridiculous and moronic. Apparently being rich is enough to warrant hostility. Not even rich, but well off, good family, "privileged" I guess. If the kid did something to instigate his hostility, then I would agree with you. But if the hostility was nothing more than a response to his "luck", then those people are tools.
I'm not denying privilege exists, I'm simply stating that one need not acknowledge it if there isn't just cause.