texasbeerguide.com ↠ 0 read
Penguin presents the audiobook edition of White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo. Anger. Fear. Guilt. Denial. Silence. These are the ways in which ordinary white people react when it is pointed out to them that they have done or said something that has unintentionally caused racial offence or hurt. After, all, a racist is the worst thing a person can be, right? But these reactions only serve to silence people of colour, who cannot give honest feedback to 'liberal' white people lest they provoke a dangerous emotional reaction. Robin DiAngelo coined the term 'White Fragility' in 2011 to describe this process and is here to show us how it serves to uphold the system of white supremacy. Using knowledge and insight gained over decades of running racial awareness workshops and working on this idea as a Professor of Whiteness Studies, she shows us how we can start having honest conversations, listen to each other better and react to feedback with grace and humility. It is not enough to simply hold abstract progressive views and condemn the obvious racists on social media change starts with us all at a practical, granular level, and it is time for all white people to take responsibility for relinquishing their own racial supremacy. White Fragility: Why Its So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism Audio Download: Robin DiAngelo, Amy Landon, Penguin Books Ltd
white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy
To be less white is to be less racially opressive.
This book is essentially a great way to radicalise white men to the far right through its alienation and discrimination. Lesbotronic I will start by saying that I think that the fundamental underlying thesis of this book is correct. There are clearly and empirically validated systems of oppression that sit under many institutions and organisations as well as within groups and societies. These “inherent oppressions” (I think inherent is a accurate characterisation than institutional) impact many different groups of people in various way but this book deals specifically with a black white divide and I don’t think that makes it any less accurate. The notion is broadly accurate in principle. However, we encounter some issues when we try to apply the underlying assumptions specifically and rigorously.
Firstly, I think it’s fair to say that DiAngelo and related movements broadly have made quite frankly ridiculous linguistic choices. White people suffer from inherent “racism” and they are supportive of an existing system of “white supremacy”. DiAngelo recognises explicitly that she is not using these terms the way that they are used commonly but that redefining existing (incredibly strongly and negatively charged) terms is definitely the most productive way to proceed. This sets up and obvious problem which DiAngelo again recognises that “racists are bad people” and therefore labelling someone a racist immediately instigates confrontation because they feel they are being “mischaracterised” as bad. It is felt that this is a perfect example of “white fragility”. This makes absolutely no sense even within DiAngelo’s thesis which does not equate this sort of inherent oppressive systems with overt racism/Nazism/etc. The result of this is that DiAngelo simply insults people constantly by conflating their actions with that of historical and current villains and then uses the inevitable outcries as some sort of further evidence to the truth of her claim. It is not further proof. It is poor linguistic choice.
I don’t doubt that white people in her classes have ardently resisted the notion that they benefit from inherent privileges. But she’s making her job harder and it raises a very real problem; the difficulty with which this book can be negatively evaluated is arguably one of its biggest criticisms as it simply seems to result in further evidence to support the thesis. This is designing a hypothesis such that it can’t be disproved. It’s pseudoscience. Keep in mind that I agree with the overarching points being made.
There is a massive question here about the scope and size of the “systems” and “institutions” being discussed. It is frequently pointed out how we live within a society that precludes escaping from racial stereotypes and bigotry. Therefore, we all internalise these and white people are essentially all (under DiAngelo’s definition) racist. An example is raised of a child who belonged to a majority black school but immediately dismissed without examination. The problem is that it would seem quite likely that at a certain scale it would be possible for racism to flow in another direction. It might need to be extreme circumstances, perhaps even outside of DiAngelo’s Western context, to be true within her definition. But the failure to examine this leave the feeling that DiAngelo is perhaps concerned with ideology than accuracy in this regard.
This sort of problem reimmerges when the topic of historically oppressed “white” groups is raised. There is a broader problem in so far as there is a complete lack of a comprehensive definition defining white. DiAngelo dismiss things like questions about Irish oppression and there are persistent realities here that are simply not acknowledged. Where DiAngelo might have used these as a vehicle to help “Irish” people think about how that historical oppression impacted as a vehicle for discussion of modern black oppression she instead essentially completely dismisses it off hand. It feels cheap and, as above, leads to a feeling that ideology is creeping in to disrupt otherwise good reasoning.
There is a discussion of “white women’s tears” that is particularly illustrative. The response of white women is characterised and particular responses are advised against when discussing black issues. White women are lumped as an amorphous group as are the reasons behind their reactions and, as before, any resistance to this is happily dismissed as white fragility. Overt stereotyping (and racism “classic”? aside), at no point in the book does DiAngelo actually lay out a coherent axiomatic position as to why any of this should play out as she describes.
Oppression acknowledged, why are the feelings of an individual black women in the group or less important than any individual white women? Again, I find myself having to take pains to remind anyone reading this that I agree with DiAngelo. But the reason for raising this point is that how we choose to value anything necessarily shapes how we act and interact with the world. I would have really benefitted from a explicit analysis of DiAngelo’s assumptions about why seeking to rectify this is desirable. I have my own reasons for feeling that this is something worthwhile acknowledging and I’d like to know DiAngelo’s and how closely we are aligned. Built into some of my concerns here is a question about how DiAngelo views free will in a scientific sense and how this plays into our notions of responsibility and rights. This is not necessarily something I would have expected to see drawn out in this book but some kind of clarity of her fundamental axioms might have alluded to her broader perspective regarding “why” and that would have been informative.
I questioned giving this 3 stars rather than 2 for a bit because I fundamentally do agree with the central argument and I think she does argue it well in places. The reason I have dropped it further is that it is written for people who already agree with her, at the very least by degrees. The people it really needs to reach I think she will fail to communicate well with, partly for the reasons above, and for that reason I can’t help but feel this book has failed. Lesbotronic This is the overtly religious, evidence free poison that is infecting every university department and public institution across the west. Being white is the original sin for which you must undergo a show trial in front of The Party. If you don't think loons like this were heading the Salem Witch Trials or Mao's struggle sessions then you simply aren't paying attention. Incredibly dangerous which is why they demand safe spaces and no platforming. Their ridiculous claims can't stand up to interrogation or data so they must maintain that echo chamber. Imagine this goon come head to head with Heather McDonald for example. Hideous that Penguin puts its name to this. Lesbotronic I find it amusing that at no point does the author consider the following possibility that 'white people' do not react negatively to conversations about race per se, but that it is simply the way SHE has such conversations that upsets people. Since almost all the 'evidence' base for this book is entirely from the authors own experience..the clear conclusion is that she just pisses people off when she gives her seminars. Should she be surprised that when you tell people that somehow they are not individuals and are a monolith driven by forces that they do not understand.but magically she DOES understand.that they will be pissed off?
Does she make any attempt to actually understand what people who have objected to 'conversations about race' are actually thinking and feeling.of course not because they are white so must all be thinking and feeling the same thing. After all, 'socialisation' is everything. Obviously everyone grows up and watches exactly the same films, listens to exactly the same music, has exactly the same interactions with teachers, different ethnic groups and reacts in exactly the same way to all of these things and its all because they are white that this happens. Jesus.
I would want to give the author the following advice: stop addressing people by their group identification, stop making assumptions about people that are unfounded and take responsibility to provide proper evidence for your assertions that consider critically different possible interpretations. If you do that, PEOPLE WILL STOP BEING ANGRY AT YOUR SEMINARS AND PRESENTATIONS. And they will actually listen. People get angry when you demean them, try to mislead them, make unfounded assumptions about them and do not listen to their perspective or give them the respect of feeling the need to justify properly your objections to their viewpoint. The vast majority of people, regardless of race, are happy to have conversations about it if it is respectful and evidence based. Period. Lesbotronic