Isn't it ironically racist to assign negative properties ("white fragility" and racism in particular) to an entire group of people based on their skin color? Are we really just going to ignore that fact?
The treatment of racism in the book is tantamount to original sin (we are all born as sinners:we are all born as racists [whites only]). This book [and the affiliated movement] is laying the moral foundation for the oppression of white people, who will soon be a majority minority - and already are a minority globally.
What's worse, the very concept of "white fragility" is presented as a Kafkaesque, unfalsifiable trap. If you dare defend yourself against accusations of racism, well, we won't even address whether your argument is legitimate, we just dismiss your concerns as a "fragile whiteness". Just like the recent forced redefinition of racism (privilege+power), it is an intellectually dishonest concept designed to begin any argument from a position of advantage, not to actually communicate anything of substance.
If you replaced "white" with "black" or "Jewish" or any other race, this would be a blatantly, undeniably offensive and hurtful text - yet not only do we champion it, but it is being used effectively as a textbook for ramming diversity and inclusion down an increasing number of throats. The fact that this book is a best seller only proves that a growing faction in society has completely gone off the deep end.
Why are we letting irrational, self hating ideologues influence our society to this degree?
> Why are we letting irrational, self hating ideologues influence our society to this degree?
How do we stop them? The modern discourse has been completely hijacked by ideologues fanning the flames of division. Divide and conquer, divide and conquer. We've got people throwing themselves into a plague because they think it's some kind of political statement! The need for social belonging has always been stronger than the survival instinct, but sheesh.
I feel like it's all fundamentally the infopocalypse - pervasive fine-grained mass media is defining people's social zeitgeist more than their actual peer group. But that still doesn't point the way to a solution! It's tempting to blame the [social/incumbent] media giants for optimizing for engagement, but something tells me their bias isn't as significant as the sheer volume. The only way forward I can see is that we are all going to have to learn to adapt to the onslaught of memetic attacks and learn to ignore the feel-good (feel-something?) distractions. But it's not going to be quick process.
I haven’t read White Fragility and couldn’t read the entirety of the article linked here due to the paywall, so I cannot comment on those.
I have been trying to educate myself about the topic recently, though, and would strongly recommend looking into some of the excellent work on systemic racism in the US if you’re interested in learning more.
The documentary “13th” (available for free on YouTube at the moment), the 2nd season of the podcast Scene On Radio (“Seeing White”), and the book How to Be An Anti-Racist are three things I can recommend based on what I’ve read/heard from them so far.
What you’re calling the “recent forced redefinition of racism” is not especially recent. I first heard this argument around 30 years ago, and at the time dismissed it, but now understand why people want to emphasize that over the definition I recall learning as a child which was structured along the lines of a belief in superiority of one group over another.
Having a belief may impact how you feel towards someone and how you act towards them, and may even have an impact on that person if you are in a position to influence the course of their life.
Having a system that is designed and reinforced to encourage disparate outcomes is far more impactful to that group as a whole.
I’m not going to argue that both aren’t harmful, but I’ve certainly come around to the conclusion that systematic or policy-based racism (if you’re uncomfortable calling it racism, feel free to disregard the name and come up with something you’re more comfortable with) has disproportionately affected Black and non-black people of color in the US.
I would be willing to entertain the point that systematic racism exists if universities had roughly equivalent admission rates for all races for identical test scores, however black people tend to have significantly higher rates of admission than white people, and very significantly higher rates than Asian people.
If systemic racism exists in a specific direction as you imply, why do institutions have their fingers on the scale in favor of the oppressed race?
In fact, if students were treated identically without the consideration of race then black admission rates to universities would dramatically fall.
> If systemic racism exists in a specific direction as you imply, why do institutions have their fingers on the scale in favor of the oppressed race?
You are literally asking “if systemic racism exists, why are specific institutions taking specific steps to correct systemic racism”. Suggesting that you think that if anyone notices and attempts to address systemic racism, then it must not exist.
By putting your finger on the scale, you disadvantage everyone else (including other minorities, by the way).
This throws Asian minorities under the bus to help black minorities. Replacing racism with more racism. Your argument appears to be "systemic racism is okay against certain minorities because other minorities deserve more chances in life". You are encouraging the establishment of systems that systematically discriminate against Asian people by substantial margins.
Sorry, but having different standards for different races is the definition of racism.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"
Lowering the bar for black people is not judging them by the content of their character, or treating them as individuals. In fact, it's judging them primarily on the color of their skin.
At some point people are going to wake up and figure out that we are all human, and we all have a collection of unique threads in our fabric. There is an recent and pervasive behavior in American media and MegaCorp that is now engaged in straight out Rules for Radicals:
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it"
The emergent behavior in media is a closed loop cycle fueled by viewership. If we can increase outrage on each end of the "political spectrum" we can keep people watching. The same feedback loop is taking place on social networks with "The Stream(tm)".
I don't know what the solution is- But Hacker News commentators. I love you all.
This would be v tribal thinking. (to generalise) white people are to blame for racism, but whites university applicants are not to blame for racism.
This paradox arises from the nebulous grouping of "white people" to include all whites, past and present, and ignoring any relevant differences or disproportion of blame.
Hence, a white 18 year old somehow inherits crimes of the past committed by white people in the past. That that white person may have entered the country just a few years ago is not taken into account - It is assumed they receive "white privilege" to amount that justifies any magnitude of countermeasure.
Do you believe that the NFL is biased against non-blacks?
Do you think the ratio of imprisoned men/women in US (or globally) is indicative of institutional sexism?
Is the gender disparity in nursing/teaching also evidence of a system which unfairly discriminates against men?
And then, if we are truly interested in erasing demographic inequities, why does it seem like the only fields under attack for racism are those occupied predominantly by [straight] white men? Are we going to come for Asians next? And then Jews again, just like in Germany, and the Soviet Union?
>I have been trying to educate myself about the topic recently, though, and would strongly recommend looking into some of the excellent work on systemic racism in the US if you’re interested in learning more.
The fact that people write about this doesn't make it necessarily true. You should bear in mind that people are at least partly incentivised to write about this topic because it gives them soft power over individuals and society when it enters the mainstream - regardless of whether it's true. In other words you should recognize that you are potentially consuming propaganda.
>The documentary “13th” (available for free on YouTube at the moment), the 2nd season of the podcast Scene On Radio (“Seeing White”), and the book How to Be An Anti-Racist are three things I can recommend based on what I’ve read/heard from them so far.
All of this theory is based on the assumption that any two demographics with different cultures (i.e. with different notions of good/evil and just/unjust, varied attitudes toward the prioritization of work/study/sport, gender roles, etc) are equally suited, on average, for any field where we expect demographic parity. This is a fundamentally unproven modern assumption - and it doesn't make much sense when you consider how much influence culture has over individual interests and practiced abilities.
Now we are extrapolating from this unproven (and I suspect unprovable) assumption and using it as justification for discrimination against whites. Not only that, but we don't even have valid metrics for the degree to which racism influences society - because again there is no scientific justification for equal representation of all demographics in groups of individuals selected by merit.
>What you’re calling the “recent forced redefinition of racism” is not especially recent. I first heard this argument around 30 years ago, and at the time dismissed it, but now understand why people want to emphasize that over the definition I recall learning as a child which was structured along the lines of a belief in superiority of one group over another.
If you want to emphasize a new concept, you create a new word, you don't hijack an existing word and use it to denigrate or gain social power over others.
>Having a system that is designed and reinforced to encourage disparate outcomes is far more impactful to that group as a whole
Even if it were true, that all, or even the majority, of outcome disparity in modern western society is due to a broken system, that doesn't change the fact that this movement is effectively labeling white people as implicitly, innately, and inescapably evil. Where does it end? Isn't this literally the foundation for violence and atrocity?
Are you white? Robin DeAngelo defines you as evil for the color of your skin. You are fundamentally evil for you skin color. You must atone for your skin color for as long as you live. You cannot be forgiven for the sin of your skin color. You may not disagree. You may not consider this over-generalization as bad, even if it is a total over generalization. Ignore class entirely, as if it has nothing to do with how to fix the problem.
You are not to critically analyze, and you aren't supposed to think.
No the problem is your skin color and only that.
She is a divider and contemptible. What's so funny is how she's a white woman who can make broad brushstrokes but other whites cannot.
This is the racism of Robin DeAngelo and those that
speak like her. She's made a ton of money off being a racist and a bigot. But she's white, so I guess she gets to make money? There's some irony there.
And I mean the word "racism" in its plain sense, not in whatever racist redefinition of the word racism that excuses racism on the basis of race.
The problem is solved by uniting against evil, where ever it may be, and not this trash.
I'm not sure we should dismiss race because it has "no basis in science" - this is a very high bar; It means we shouldn't reply on it for specific, technical things, but as a lay-term there's no need to dismiss it.
It's also clear that the soft science are as yet in their infancy (or teens), so that we can't find a basis now doesn't mean we can't find one in the future; I mention this b/c it's clear to me the concept of "race" needn't be about genetics.
It's interesting this article is not treading higher on HN. With the general rational / enlightenment perspective that HN has this should be a hot button. The denial of rationality and logic as a way to know things is antithetical to most of what gets posted here (and this view is gaining traction).
I was hoping for a strong defense (steelmanning) of the pro intersectionality view. When I don't see how anyone could believe the claims, I question if I really understand the counter arguments.
John McWhorter is a great read and watch generally. Even if you don’t agree with him it’s clear he’s a smart and well-read guy who you should respect.
His videos with Glenn Loury on The Glenn Show are great fun, smart and for me what the mainstream media is generally missing (Neil DeGrasse Tyson being the exception) in that these black academics are not solely defined by their race and whilst not completely ignoring it they show their expertise as being their thing and with that has come excellence in their field (and being interesting thinkers outside of it). The media seems to love the “Hey you’re black so you must want to talk about the black angle/aspect of this subject” even when there is none and the black person almost certainly wants to bring their own angle on the subject matter founded on years of study and experience.
Glenn also rips apart White Fragility and there’s a “soft racism of low expectations” angle about DiAngelo that you can tell really frustrates Loury and McWhorter. As an onlooker they are intellectual heavyweights in comparison to DiAngelo so can imagine that they feel patronised.
What gets brought up in addressing the problems of White Fragility by this writer are not the same objections I hear from white people, for the most part. While the article's author has valid critiques, they are not "racism doesn't exist" nor "we shouldn't be taking this time to better understand the role of racism in our culture," nor "most white people are not fairly ignorant when it comes to the role race plays in dealings with police, economic position, or status in many industries including tech."
I would highly recommend doing additional reading that is less concerned with "how white people should feel," and more related to the history and construction of the idea of race in America. Fatal Invention, by Dorothy Roberts, is a good look at the role of science, and the Warmth of Other Suns is an interesting look at migration, for example.
18 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 51.3 ms ] threadThe treatment of racism in the book is tantamount to original sin (we are all born as sinners:we are all born as racists [whites only]). This book [and the affiliated movement] is laying the moral foundation for the oppression of white people, who will soon be a majority minority - and already are a minority globally.
What's worse, the very concept of "white fragility" is presented as a Kafkaesque, unfalsifiable trap. If you dare defend yourself against accusations of racism, well, we won't even address whether your argument is legitimate, we just dismiss your concerns as a "fragile whiteness". Just like the recent forced redefinition of racism (privilege+power), it is an intellectually dishonest concept designed to begin any argument from a position of advantage, not to actually communicate anything of substance.
If you replaced "white" with "black" or "Jewish" or any other race, this would be a blatantly, undeniably offensive and hurtful text - yet not only do we champion it, but it is being used effectively as a textbook for ramming diversity and inclusion down an increasing number of throats. The fact that this book is a best seller only proves that a growing faction in society has completely gone off the deep end.
Why are we letting irrational, self hating ideologues influence our society to this degree?
How do we stop them? The modern discourse has been completely hijacked by ideologues fanning the flames of division. Divide and conquer, divide and conquer. We've got people throwing themselves into a plague because they think it's some kind of political statement! The need for social belonging has always been stronger than the survival instinct, but sheesh.
I feel like it's all fundamentally the infopocalypse - pervasive fine-grained mass media is defining people's social zeitgeist more than their actual peer group. But that still doesn't point the way to a solution! It's tempting to blame the [social/incumbent] media giants for optimizing for engagement, but something tells me their bias isn't as significant as the sheer volume. The only way forward I can see is that we are all going to have to learn to adapt to the onslaught of memetic attacks and learn to ignore the feel-good (feel-something?) distractions. But it's not going to be quick process.
I have been trying to educate myself about the topic recently, though, and would strongly recommend looking into some of the excellent work on systemic racism in the US if you’re interested in learning more.
The documentary “13th” (available for free on YouTube at the moment), the 2nd season of the podcast Scene On Radio (“Seeing White”), and the book How to Be An Anti-Racist are three things I can recommend based on what I’ve read/heard from them so far.
What you’re calling the “recent forced redefinition of racism” is not especially recent. I first heard this argument around 30 years ago, and at the time dismissed it, but now understand why people want to emphasize that over the definition I recall learning as a child which was structured along the lines of a belief in superiority of one group over another.
Having a belief may impact how you feel towards someone and how you act towards them, and may even have an impact on that person if you are in a position to influence the course of their life.
Having a system that is designed and reinforced to encourage disparate outcomes is far more impactful to that group as a whole.
I’m not going to argue that both aren’t harmful, but I’ve certainly come around to the conclusion that systematic or policy-based racism (if you’re uncomfortable calling it racism, feel free to disregard the name and come up with something you’re more comfortable with) has disproportionately affected Black and non-black people of color in the US.
If systemic racism exists in a specific direction as you imply, why do institutions have their fingers on the scale in favor of the oppressed race?
In fact, if students were treated identically without the consideration of race then black admission rates to universities would dramatically fall.
You are literally asking “if systemic racism exists, why are specific institutions taking specific steps to correct systemic racism”. Suggesting that you think that if anyone notices and attempts to address systemic racism, then it must not exist.
This throws Asian minorities under the bus to help black minorities. Replacing racism with more racism. Your argument appears to be "systemic racism is okay against certain minorities because other minorities deserve more chances in life". You are encouraging the establishment of systems that systematically discriminate against Asian people by substantial margins.
Sorry, but having different standards for different races is the definition of racism.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"
Lowering the bar for black people is not judging them by the content of their character, or treating them as individuals. In fact, it's judging them primarily on the color of their skin.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it"
The emergent behavior in media is a closed loop cycle fueled by viewership. If we can increase outrage on each end of the "political spectrum" we can keep people watching. The same feedback loop is taking place on social networks with "The Stream(tm)".
I don't know what the solution is- But Hacker News commentators. I love you all.
This paradox arises from the nebulous grouping of "white people" to include all whites, past and present, and ignoring any relevant differences or disproportion of blame.
Hence, a white 18 year old somehow inherits crimes of the past committed by white people in the past. That that white person may have entered the country just a few years ago is not taken into account - It is assumed they receive "white privilege" to amount that justifies any magnitude of countermeasure.
Do you think the ratio of imprisoned men/women in US (or globally) is indicative of institutional sexism?
Is the gender disparity in nursing/teaching also evidence of a system which unfairly discriminates against men?
And then, if we are truly interested in erasing demographic inequities, why does it seem like the only fields under attack for racism are those occupied predominantly by [straight] white men? Are we going to come for Asians next? And then Jews again, just like in Germany, and the Soviet Union?
The fact that people write about this doesn't make it necessarily true. You should bear in mind that people are at least partly incentivised to write about this topic because it gives them soft power over individuals and society when it enters the mainstream - regardless of whether it's true. In other words you should recognize that you are potentially consuming propaganda.
>The documentary “13th” (available for free on YouTube at the moment), the 2nd season of the podcast Scene On Radio (“Seeing White”), and the book How to Be An Anti-Racist are three things I can recommend based on what I’ve read/heard from them so far.
All of this theory is based on the assumption that any two demographics with different cultures (i.e. with different notions of good/evil and just/unjust, varied attitudes toward the prioritization of work/study/sport, gender roles, etc) are equally suited, on average, for any field where we expect demographic parity. This is a fundamentally unproven modern assumption - and it doesn't make much sense when you consider how much influence culture has over individual interests and practiced abilities.
Now we are extrapolating from this unproven (and I suspect unprovable) assumption and using it as justification for discrimination against whites. Not only that, but we don't even have valid metrics for the degree to which racism influences society - because again there is no scientific justification for equal representation of all demographics in groups of individuals selected by merit.
>What you’re calling the “recent forced redefinition of racism” is not especially recent. I first heard this argument around 30 years ago, and at the time dismissed it, but now understand why people want to emphasize that over the definition I recall learning as a child which was structured along the lines of a belief in superiority of one group over another.
If you want to emphasize a new concept, you create a new word, you don't hijack an existing word and use it to denigrate or gain social power over others.
>Having a system that is designed and reinforced to encourage disparate outcomes is far more impactful to that group as a whole
Even if it were true, that all, or even the majority, of outcome disparity in modern western society is due to a broken system, that doesn't change the fact that this movement is effectively labeling white people as implicitly, innately, and inescapably evil. Where does it end? Isn't this literally the foundation for violence and atrocity?
You are not to critically analyze, and you aren't supposed to think.
No the problem is your skin color and only that.
She is a divider and contemptible. What's so funny is how she's a white woman who can make broad brushstrokes but other whites cannot.
This is the racism of Robin DeAngelo and those that speak like her. She's made a ton of money off being a racist and a bigot. But she's white, so I guess she gets to make money? There's some irony there.
And I mean the word "racism" in its plain sense, not in whatever racist redefinition of the word racism that excuses racism on the basis of race.
The problem is solved by uniting against evil, where ever it may be, and not this trash.
It's also clear that the soft science are as yet in their infancy (or teens), so that we can't find a basis now doesn't mean we can't find one in the future; I mention this b/c it's clear to me the concept of "race" needn't be about genetics.
I was hoping for a strong defense (steelmanning) of the pro intersectionality view. When I don't see how anyone could believe the claims, I question if I really understand the counter arguments.
His videos with Glenn Loury on The Glenn Show are great fun, smart and for me what the mainstream media is generally missing (Neil DeGrasse Tyson being the exception) in that these black academics are not solely defined by their race and whilst not completely ignoring it they show their expertise as being their thing and with that has come excellence in their field (and being interesting thinkers outside of it). The media seems to love the “Hey you’re black so you must want to talk about the black angle/aspect of this subject” even when there is none and the black person almost certainly wants to bring their own angle on the subject matter founded on years of study and experience.
Glenn also rips apart White Fragility and there’s a “soft racism of low expectations” angle about DiAngelo that you can tell really frustrates Loury and McWhorter. As an onlooker they are intellectual heavyweights in comparison to DiAngelo so can imagine that they feel patronised.
I would highly recommend doing additional reading that is less concerned with "how white people should feel," and more related to the history and construction of the idea of race in America. Fatal Invention, by Dorothy Roberts, is a good look at the role of science, and the Warmth of Other Suns is an interesting look at migration, for example.