Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by privilege. Much of the kvetching about "white privilege" is just the fact that whites are more successful than blacks and Hispanics. Of course, lefties always ignore Asians. The left attributes this gap in success with "institutional racism" because whites built the country to benefit themselves and their offspring. Of course, when your world view relies on the delusion of believing that races are all exactly the same except skin color, this gap in success makes no sense sans environmental factors. The concept of white privilege in this instance is simply an attempt to explain away group performance without acknowledging different groups' capabilities. This phenomena of different group behavior and group capabilities, and people's respective response to it, is simply slapped together and called" white privilege."
Then there's the more innocuous forms of "white privilege" Peggy McIntosh derails in he work. I simply call this "majority privilege." When she decries Band-Aids being light to match white skin tones or shampoos working better on European hair, essentially what she's doing is decrying the fact that this (the US) is a white country built by whites for whites, and it is still majority white. God forbid the majority group in the country get catered to. As if hair care products in Nigeria wouldn't cater to nappy hair, or that it's even wrong to suggest they shouldn't. Give me a break. So she's half-right in pointing out that whiteness is a dominant force in the country; where we'd all disagree with her is that it's a bad thing. Notice how this kind of kvetching is only aimed at white countries and never other nations comprised of other racial groups. When people complain about this kind of "white privilege," what it's really saying is "You, white people, are not allowed sovereign nations of your own. Give up your nations and become minorities immediately." It's purely anti-white propaganda.