SJW on the outside, old timey huckster on the inside

Post Reply New Topic

The wholesale intellectual fraud that is “white fragility” has so infested our culture that Oprah Winfrey, the world’s first female black billionaire, is criticizing America as hopelessly and intractably racist.

For this we can thank the white liberal academic Robin DiAngelo, whose book “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism” — first published in 2018 by a small press — has become a textbook of liberal orthodoxy and a totem of radical chic.

DiAngelo’s thesis: All white Americans are racist. All white Americans are a product of white supremacy and are actively or unwittingly complicit in maintaining this power structure. If you say you are not racist, that is only proof that you are racist. If you believe you are not racist, same thing. Black people exist in America only to be oppressed by whites. In DiAngelo’s worldview, any progress black Americans have made is because white Americans have allowed such growth as pacifiers.

She conveniently has no answer to this most terrible problem, but since DiAngelo’s business model is predicated on racism as unfixable, this is a cynical and wonderful outcome for her. So the only thing for a racist white liberal to do is buy “White Fragility” (which has made her a reported $2 million so far) or hire her for diversity training (anywhere from $30,000-$40,000 for a few hours) — as major corporations from Levi’s to Amazon to Goldman Sachs have done, with little to no actual diversity in top-level jobs resulting.

DiAngelo, in her earnest, infuriating, Goopy, Pacific-Northwest-liberal-way, can only offer prescriptions to us white racists as: “Breathe. Listen. Reflect . . . Take the time you need to process your feelings.”

This, in short, is everything that’s wrong with her book: It’s all about privileged white people. It not only doesn’t see blacks, it doesn’t explore the black experience in America in any meaningful way. Instead DiAngelo degrades the legacies of the few black icons she briefly invokes. Her book is actually deeply racist — blacks barely exist here. It’s all about white privilege and pain, but I suppose, in the funhouse-mirror logic a trickster like DiAngelo employs, this only makes sense.

DiAngelo on Jackie Robinson:

“Robinson is often celebrated as the first African American to break the color line and play in major league baseball . . . this story line depicts him as racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong enough to compete at that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this: Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play in major league baseball.’”

Yes, how much better and more accurate to strip Robinson of not just his courage, fortitude, athleticism and dignity but his legacy as a nonviolent civil rights activist who became the first black television color commentator for Major League Baseball, a key figure in founding the black-owned Freedom National Bank in Harlem, and the first black vice president of a major company — a beloved American hero.

DiAngelo on Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech:

“One line of King’s speech in particular — that one day he might be judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin — was seized upon by the white public because the words were seen to provide a simple and immediate solution to racial tensions: pretend that we don’t see race, and racism will end. Color blindness was now promoted as the remedy for racism, with white people insisting that they didn’t see race or, if they did, that it had no meaning to them.”

DiAngelo’s perversion of King’s original meaning is immoral and disgusting.

As for Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Marco Rubio, Barack Obama? “They support the status quo,” DiAngelo writes, “and do not challenge racism in any way significant enough to be threatening.”

To cite other prominent, influential black leaders who dominate American politics and culture — from Michelle Obama (the most admired woman in America in 2019, according to Gallup) to LeBron James to Beyoncé to Jay-Z, Michael Jordan, #MeToo founder Tarana Burke, Serena Williams, Susan Rice, Condoleezza Rice, Chris Rock, Rihanna, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ryan Coogler, Stacey Abrams, Tiger Woods, Virgil Abloh, Spike Lee, Chadwick Boseman, Colson Whitehead, Pharrell, Stephen Curry, Donald Glover, Issa Rae, Janet Mock, Bryant Gumbel, Tiffany Haddish, Simone Biles, Dave Chappelle, Kanye West, Jacqueline Woodson, Colin Kaepernick, Viola Davis, Lester Holt, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Meghan Markle, Samuel L. Jackson (highest-grossing actor ever), the late Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna, both subjects of deep national mourning — would negate DiAngelo’s dangerous, bulls—t thesis that America values only whiteness in thought, leadership and culture.

“To put it bluntly,” she writes, “I believe that the white collective fundamentally hates blackness for what it reminds us of: that we are capable and guilty of perpetrating immeasurable harm and that our gains come through the subjugation of others. We have a particular hatred for ‘uppity’ blacks, those who dare step out of their place and look us in the eye as equals.”

In DiAngelo’s uncompromising opinion, America has an incurable birth defect. And you fevered white liberals rending your garments, taking her workshops, launching deep internal investigations into your own racism — DiAngelo considers you, her customers and cult members, the worst offenders of all. Part of the white liberal motive in attending her seminars, she told the New York Times, was so “they can say they heard Robin DiAngelo speak.”

Wow.

Let me say it again: If anyone is racist here, it’s Robin DiAngelo. She peddles the kind of sophomoric, solipsistic, illogical crap on par with “The Secret,” another pop-culture phenomenon brought to us by Oprah and one positing that getting what you want is a matter of wishing hard enough.

Consider that DiAngelo promotes the idea, taught by other racial-sensitivity groups and outlined on the African-American History Museum’s website, that traits such as self-reliance, independence, hard work, rational thinking, planning for the future and delaying gratification, being on time, having a love for the written tradition, proper use of language and politeness all belong to white culture and are used to keep black Americans down.

While reading “White Fragility,” I also came across a reprint of a 2003 profile of the late author Toni Morrison in The New Yorker. “Being a black woman writer is not a shallow place but a rich place to write from,” Morrison said. “It doesn’t limit my imagination; it expands it. It’s richer than being a white male writer because I know more and I’ve experienced more.”

DiAngelo would no doubt have told Morrison — a genius, an American original, Pulitzer winner for fiction and Nobel Prize Winner for Literature — that she was delusional. After all, DiAngelo’s philosophy would tar Morrison as a traitor to her race for embodying such inherently white values, ones that don’t come easily to blacks and therefore keep them at sociocultural, legal and economic disadvantages.

Now that’s a theory David Duke could love.

One of my favorite metrics for how out-of-touch The New York Times has become is their reader comments section. It’s amazing to see their paying readership grow increasingly apostate, especially in response to a recent and lengthy profile of DiAngelo.

Of 1,125 comments, here’s reader favorite No. 1, from someone named Itunu:

“I’m a Nigerian living in Senegal, and I suppose living in a place where everyone looks like me is a privilege in itself. So perhaps my critique is colored by this privilege, but I must admit that I’m deeply offended by some of the claims of her training. Rationality and writing are ‘white values’? Is anyone else seeing how condescending and disempowering it is to be told that our fate as black people rests in white people finally deciding to change their ways? Jackie Robinson was ‘allowed’ to play. What about: Jackie Robinson fought and won his struggle to play. Let’s fight for greater equality without upholding and rehashing racist tropes and stereotypes.”

Reader favorite No. 2, from Kali in San Jose, California:

“DiAngelo’s grift in selling lawsuit protection to Fortune 500 companies packaged as antiracist workshops is cynical. It is also potentially dangerous. If workshop attendees actually take her ‘theories’ seriously: whites are more rational, scientifically inclined, binary etc than blacks and therefore hiring criteria should be altered? This is nonsense on stilts and in normal times an eyeroll and soft chuckle would suffice. These are not normal times. Fortune 500 companies pay this scam artist $15k a pop to spew this nonsensical racialism masquerading as antiracism so [they] can continue to underpay their employees, relentlessly chase share price, export jobs overseas to reduce labor costs — all with a nice ‘antiracist’ smile . . . This New York Times piece takes her way too seriously with a perfunctorily skeptical footnote barely detectable.”

Also barely detectable: Just how much DiAngelo has profited and what she’s doing with all that money. The Washington Free Beacon reported last month that once they began investigating DiAngelo’s online claims of charitable donations to “racial justice” groups — including rent to the Native American tribe that once lived in Seattle! — she took them all down. Days later that page was edited, with DiAngelo promising to donate 15 percent of her after-tax income, “suggesting,” the Beacon said, “she had not previously, as the page exhorts, given a percentage of her income large enough that she could ‘feel it.’”

Last weekend, Internet sleuths posted photos implying DiAngelo may own at least four homes. Any reference to such wealth is near impossible to find. Seems the only thing worse than being a white lady in America who profits off stoking racism is being transparent about it.

Yes, whites don’t see racism because they aren’t a target of it. If you aren’t a racist, then you don’t hang around racists. And if you aren’t black then you don’t have it hurled in your face. 99% of the problem is created by 1% of whites who other whites don’t see.

The same would be true for misogyny. 99% of rapes are caused by 1% of perps, and the 99% of innocent men don’t see it because the perps aren’t harassing them.

So men need to listen without being defensive. Whites need to listen without being defensive. It’s wrong to say, “But I’m not doing it” as if that will make it go away.

But it’s also wrong to say that the non-harassing men or the non-harassing whites are guilty BECAUSE of their innocence.

No, they aren’t being bad. They are being clueless. And instead of being accused they need to be engaged.

Especially when they WANT to listen and be helpful.

Yes, whites don’t see racism because they aren’t a target of it.

Instead of taking offense, I think it's best to challenge it by asking questions.

To me taking offense means guilt.

I guess it's like how some kids might be upset when the teacher decides to talk to the whole class about behavior students have been doing and this one student takes offense and gets upset because they feel accused because they did none of it but they took it as a accusation. This is how I see it. I never felt that way as a
kid.

If you aren’t a racist, then you don’t hang around racists. And if you aren’t black then you don’t have it hurled in your face. 99% of the problem is created by 1% of whites who other whites don’t see.

And the rest of their comment they said in their book review:
The same would be true for misogyny. 99% of rapes are caused by 1% of perps, and the 99% of innocent men don’t see it because the perps aren’t harassing them.

So men need to listen without being defensive. Whites need to listen without being defensive. It’s wrong to say, “But I’m not doing it” as if that will make it go away.

No, they aren’t being bad. They are being clueless. And instead of being accused they need to be engaged.

Especially when they WANT to listen and be helpful.

So, in your example the kid is upset because they felt accused of something they didn't do. But since you equate getting upset with being guilty, the kid must be guilty despite not being guilty?

I am under no obligation to accept the authority of someone who'd attack my character, my sex or my genetic heritage just because they're being pseudo-intellectual about it. They are not my moral authority. They are not the arbiters of truth. They are, in fact, morally repugnant and I reject them outright.

SJW word redefinitions aside, this is blatantly untrue, and invalidates the rest of the argument. And don't let's forget that Deangelo is a self-proclaimed racist, and insists that 100% of white people are all racist as well. Not being racist isn't an option for white people, in her view. Apparently racism works like original sin.

Imagine if I backhanded you across the face, and told you that if you're upset by that it just means that you deserved it. Maybe instead of you getting upset, we could have an intellectual discussion where you ask me why you deserve to be slapped around because of your sex and skin colour and I tell you why I'm your moral superior and you must submit to me in order to be less of a terrible person. Not my equal, mind, just less bad.

Nice straw man.

I notice you seem to think every post is about you when someone says their opinion you don't agree with so you see it as an attack.

Yes, this is how humans act in general and this is something that always boggles my mind.

Under her eyes, I don't exist because everything she says about white people, none of it relates to me.

You really need to stop it with the pseudo-psychoanalysis. It's not insightful, and it borders on ad hominem.

Thank you, though you mispelled "accurate analogy".

If someone says "all men are rapists", then all men are well within reason to see that as an attack on them individually. If someone says "all white people are racist" and others argue against it on an individual basis, you can't then say "shut up, not everything is about you."

You being able to stare right at this blatant internal contradiction of your own reasoning and not even flinch boggles my mind.

I don't know your ethnicity, but if you're white she is absolutely talking about you as well. And if you're not, well that's another can of worms entirely...

The concept of white fragility is a strong one. Unfortunately DiAngelo turned that into White Fragility, a terrible book full of unverified, unfalsifiable claims.

I wonder why it won an award?

I couldn’t find any evidence of it winning an award, but depending on the award that is not necessarily evidence of quality.

You did the same to me in the gun thread when you told me I don't seem to understand the difference between people disagreeing with me and them being angry.

Same as when you told me I kept doing ad hominens

or when you told me how nice my mom did about when she told me those people are like my ex so they are taking it as an attack when they get upset about why I broke up with him is like saying "they are just jealous of you" about bullies.

No, that was not my argument and so it was not the right analogy. This would be the correct one.

Me going up and I start talking about how people keep hitting each other in the face and you somehow take that as me saying you are doing that. Somehow this applied to you. If you are not going around hitting people in their face, why are you taking this as an attack? Just because I said people? Do you hit people in their face? if not, how does this apply to you and why are you feeling attacked when I started talking about it?

Now do you understand what my argument is about?

If you want to use an analogy with me, it has to fit my line of thinking or else it makes no sense.

But that reviewer didn't say that.

Then again, why is that kid acting like he is guilty when he is not? That is my argument. This is what I do not understand about people. Why do they get offended and upset when something is not about them?

The analogy was for the views presented by the book combined with you defending it. Also, I notice you sneakily drop the word "all" from you example. If you went around saying "everyone is hitting each other in the face", the obvious retort would be "I'm not hitting anyone.". Or, more relevant to the book; "all white people are hitting all black people in the face all the time, and being white and not hitting black people in the face isn't enough to fight it!"

Book: all white people are racist
Me: I reject that.
you: don't take it as an attack, ask questions instead.

Yes, that is your argument, and it's a terrible, victim-blaming one.

All I get out of your post is double standards. If you are allowed to tell me I am doing this or that or what you observe about me, I am allowed to do it to you. If I see hypocrisy, I will call it out. If it's an attack here to tell someone they are being racist even if it is true, then this should be an attack too what you are doing even if you think it is true.

What I get out of this is when people talk about things people do, you somehow think they mean all. I always think they mean people who do it. When I see members talking about bullying that goes on this forum or passive aggressive posts, I don't think they mean me too if I am not doing it or think they mean all members.

So someone is a victim if someone talks about an issue and the other person gets upset

"Yes, hello. I'd like to talk to you about the issue of you being a horrible person. Why are you getting upset? I just want to talk about issues!"

If the framing of the "issue" is already an attack, why would you expect anyone be willing to engage with the question on those terms?

I call you on things you are plainly doing, with specific examples. You speculate about things neither you nor anyone else on this board can verify, such as my state of mind or alleged ulterior motives, with no more solid a foundation than some bad advice your mother gave you once.

Yes,when I see someone saying "All white people are racist", I "somehow" read that as them saying "All white people are racist" and approach it as such. I don't reshape in in my head into something other than that. If I said "all black people are criminals" and people started protesting, I couldn't then turn around and say "why are you so upset? I just want to talk about issues!". I also couldn't say something like "If you get angry because I said that, that proves that I'm right". Because I know what a Kafka-trap is.