White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.

"Doing the hard work of achieving the ideals of the civil rights movement is the message of white academic and diversity trainer Robin DiAngelo’s recent book “White Fragility.” It has spent seven months near the top ofTheNew York Times bestseller list despite a challenging message to white people, its intended audience: When — not if — you perpetuate racism, don’t get defensive.

“In my experience, day in and day out, most white people are absolutely not receptive to finding out their impact on other people,” DiAngelo told Nosheen Iqbal forThe Guardian. She recounted the way that “They insist, ‘Well, it’s not me’, or say ‘I’m doing my best, what do you want from me?’”

One problem, DiAngelo says, is that white progressives often define racism as something obvious and violent — like when police beat civil rights marchers in Selma in 1965 — when the reality is that it is much more insidious.

“We have to stop thinking about racism simply as someone who says the N-word,” she told Iqbal. “This book is centered in the white western colonial context, and in that context white people hold institutional power.” SPLC siter

quote:

Originally posted by CHAS:
Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.

As everybody is well aware, white people face the social death penalty for saying anything about racism which doesn't toe the political correctness line. It's cute that the progressives then look accusingly at white folk for not saying anything at all.

I'm pretty sure that most people, if they choose to be honest, wouldn't expect "open and honest dialog" in a topic where one side of the discussion has a gun pointed to their head, held with an itchy trigger finger just waiting to be offended.

So the problem is that victims of racism aren't being nice enough about it? not showing enough empathy?

IMO, blatant racists don't have difficulty talking about racism; they're quite proud of it. But, again imo, it's hard for a lot of white people to talk about racism because they don't feel they are personally racist--they know that they were born well after the years of slavery, so I think there's defensiveness. They don't realize that racism is systemic; we've inherited the sins of our forebearers.

I am not one of those who thinks all white people are racist, but I do think all white people are born into racial privilege. It's not something we choose, it's just something that is. I also think African Americans inherit a position, and it does not include this privilege. That's why I support reparations.

quote:

Originally posted by Bernard:
IMO, blatant racists don't have difficulty talking about racism; they're quite proud of it. But, again imo, it's hard for a lot of white people to talk about racism because they don't feel they are personally racist--they know that they were born well after the years of slavery, so I think there's defensiveness. They don't realize that racism is systemic; we've inherited the sins of our forebearers.

I am not one of those who thinks all white people are racist, but I do think all white people are born into racial privilege. It's not something we choose, it's just something that is. I also think African Americans inherit a position, and it does not include this privilege. That's why I support reparations.

It is systenic
Would reparations end the systemic racism?

quote:

Originally posted by CHAS:
It is systenic
Would reparations end the systemic racism?

No, I don't think so. I view the two issues separately. We can't address one and ignore the other.

What is this thing you call "white people"? As Nancy Pelosi might say: we have to agree on facts and [then] weigh the equities.

I'll read this more closely, Chas. Thanks!

“White fragility” always struck me as more of a rhetorical power grab than a topic for serious discussion.

It basically attempts to pathologize dissent from the views of the person who uses the word. Or maybe I should say wields the word.

Let me expand on that a bit...


If you decenter the white experience zoom out a bit, it's pretty easy to recognize that people of all stripes have certain psychological defense mechanisms. In particular we like to think of ourselves as good people, we don't want to think of large societal problems being in any way 'our fault'. We recoil from blame.

(as an aside, it's my view that blame is hyper-important to human beings, and that many of our arguments about social policy are really just disguised arguments about blame - I actually think this is a huge impediment to finding solutions to these problems)


Many whites don't want to consider the role that white people (today) might play in perpetuating racial injustice. They might get stressed, agitated, defensive etc. when exposed to these ideas. In that Ms DiAngelo is correct.

However it's also true that many blacks don't want to consider the idea that pathologies in the black community and culture might play a substantial role - perhaps even a more substantial role than do whites today - in perpetuating said inequalities. They might get stressed, agitated, defensive etc. when exposed to these ideas.


It seems like both of those reactions should be expected and guarded against. Ms DiAngelo labeled the first one 'white fragility' and now activists use that phrase to shut down any dissent from their structural racism narrative of the causes and remedies of racial injustice.

One could just as easily label the latter reaction 'black fragility' and use it to shut down any dissent from the personal agency narrative of racial inequality.


In my view doing either is a simple rhetorical trick, a power grab as I said above. Either would be an impediment to the 'national conversation on race' we apparently need to have.

Very well put. The conversation today, what there is of it, is completely one-sided.

quote:

However it's also true that many blacks don't want to consider the idea that pathologies in the black community and culture might play a substantial role - perhaps even a more substantial role than do whites today - in perpetuating said inequalities. They might get stressed, agitated, defensive etc. when exposed to these ideas.

The Moynihan Report once was an important document. The left, as early as the 1970s dismissed it as victim-blaming.

quote:

Originally posted by Bernard:

I am not one of those who thinks all white people are racist, but I do think all white people are born into racial privilege. It's not something we choose, it's just something that is. I also think African Americans inherit a position, and it does not include this privilege.

+1

quote:

That's why I support reparations.

I see no way to get there, and I don't support things that are impractical.

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:

quote:

However it's also true that many blacks don't want to consider the idea that pathologies in the black community and culture might play a substantial role - perhaps even a more substantial role than do whites today - in perpetuating said inequalities. They might get stressed, agitated, defensive etc. when exposed to these ideas.

The Moynihan Report once was an important document. The left, as early as the 1970s dismissed it as victim-blaming.

Are those pathologies the result of the history of the black community in the United States?

Note I said 'perpetuating' not causing.

I made the side comment above that social policy arguments are often disguised arguments about blame. No where is this more true than in discussions having to do with race.


One way this manifests itself is in conflating liability with remedy. The conversation about how we solve these problems really needs to be a different conversation than the one about how we got to where we are.



Also note that nowhere in this thread have I expressed a view about the underlying social problem of race inequality. All of my posts here have been about the poor quality of the discussion.

Cause does not have single trigger. I think part of the anger, resentment, etc., has to do with the tendency to gloss over past historical inequities, as if they are actually history and not occurring today. The conversation goes something like, "well, I don't see (color/race/religion), so it's irrelevant," without acknowledging that discrimination occurs every day.

There's no question that minorities, in many cases, are perpetuating the social problems. But so are non-minorities. It's not in the past, whether individuals do or don't "see color."

I agree with you about the tenor of the discussion. I'm also intrigued by your comments about assigning blame, and tend to agree with you. But if neither side is willing to accept their role in the historical and ongoing problems, we're at a standstill. Simply saying "I didn't do it," isn't going to remedy that.

Now before everyone flips out, let me point out that yes, I realize no one on this thread has said "I didn't do it." I'm trying to make a broader point, you hair-splitters.