White Fragility

[Tree of Life]

I'm working my way through DiAngelo's "White Fragility" for the second time and trying to understand what she is saying. I'm also interested in critically analyzing her book from a Christian worldview and teaching a class on it. So far I've managed to gather this:

1. All people are prejudice and discriminatory. We pick this up from the societies we live in. This is nothing to be ashamed of.
   
   
2. Prejudice is an internal, mental thing whereby we prejudge a person based on a group they belong to.
   
   
3. Discrimination is when we act based on that prejudice.
   
   
4. Racism is not a discrete act. Racism is prejudice + discrimination + power. Racism is an oppressive system(s) put in place by prejudiced people. All of American life is infected with racism and racist systems.
   
   
5. The antidote to racism is recognizing the racist systems and amending them or destroying them.
   
   
6. Since the concept of biological race is incoherent, all racial disparities can be explained by systemic racism.
   
   
7. When a white person disagree with any of the above, they suffer from the condition of White Fragility.

Am I missing or misrepresenting anything?

I think as Christians we can accept an amended version of (1). The amendment I would make is that we should be ashamed of our biases and prejudices. Not only are we prejudiced, but we are guilty of the sin of prejudice. DiAngelo wants to avoid the idea that individuals are bad because she is influenced by Marx. Marx rejected the concept of human nature and only thought that systems were bad. There are no bad people, only bad systems. So we may accept an amended version of (1) once we remove the Marxism.

Christians can accept (2)-(4) in theory.

Christians might accept some version of (5).

Christians must reject (6). Systemic racism might explain or contribute to some disparities. But DiAngelo is too simplistic. She says that disparities are either explained by biology or systemic racism. And since the idea of biological race is laughable, it must be systemic racism. But she ignores cultural momentum and generational curses and blessings. She may ignore other things too.

Christians must reject (7). All of us are fragile. But just because we might disagree with DiAngelo does not make us guilty of trying to protect racism.

 

[Tree of Life]

No one read it, did they?

 

[tulc]

Problem might be this isn't really the place for this discussion, you might ask a mod about it but this seems more a philosophy or ethics sort of thread.
tulc(just a suggestion)

 

[Tree of Life]

Problem might be this isn't really the place for this discussion, you might ask a mod about it but this seems more a philosophy or ethics sort of thread.
tulc(just a suggestion)

It's really a sociological discussion but it has political implications with deconstructing systems and all that. These are the ideas behind the "defund the police" movement.

 

[Ophiolite]

No one read it, did they?

Given that I have differed from you, often markedly, on several subjects, it is a pleasant surprise to find myself in strong agreement with you.

1. We do pick up our prejudices and discriminatory tendencies from our cultures, but anything that is picked up can also be set down, or even cast far from us. Failure to do so is, as you suggest, something to be ashamed of.
   
2. I can't argue with the definition of prejudice.
3. I would extend the definition of discrimination to include inaction that failed to challenge prejudicial attitudes.
4. Again, I find the definition of racism somewhat limited. I would view it as any action or inaction that leads to or supports prejudicial action/systems.
5. Seems a no brainer, if somewhat simplistic
6. I am in strong agreement with you here, if I understand you correctly. My view is that a great deal of prejudice identified as racial prejudice is actually cultural prejudice. I think you are implicitly saying the same thing.
   
7. Perhaps something is lost in your summary. If that's how White Fragility is defined then that's what it is. I remain puzzled by this item.

 

[tulc]

It's really a sociological discussion but it has political implications with deconstructing systems and all that. These are the ideas behind the "defund the police" movement.

But it isn't really political. And the "defund the police" doesn't have anything to do with white fragility.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[Tree of Life]

But it isn't really political. And the "defund the police" doesn't have anything to do with white fragility.
tulc(just a thought)

Thanks for the thought.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm working my way through DiAngelo's "White Fragility" for the second time and trying to understand what she is saying. I'm also interested in critically analyzing her book from a Christian worldview and teaching a class on it. So far I've managed to gather this:

1. All people are prejudice and discriminatory. We pick this up from the societies we live in. This is nothing to be ashamed of.
   
   
2. Prejudice is an internal, mental thing whereby we prejudge a person based on a group they belong to.
   
   
3. Discrimination is when we act based on that prejudice.
   
   
4. Racism is not a discrete act. Racism is prejudice + discrimination + power. Racism is an oppressive system(s) put in place by prejudiced people. All of American life is infected with racism and racist systems.
   
   
5. The antidote to racism is recognizing the racist systems and amending them or destroying them.
   
   
6. Since the concept of biological race is incoherent, all racial disparities can be explained by systemic racism.
   
   
7. When a white person disagree with any of the above, they suffer from the condition of White Fragility.

Am I missing or misrepresenting anything?

I think as Christians we can accept an amended version of (1). The amendment I would make is that we should be ashamed of our biases and prejudices. Not only are we prejudiced, but we are guilty of the sin of prejudice. DiAngelo wants to avoid the idea that individuals are bad because she is influenced by Marx. Marx rejected the concept of human nature and only thought that systems were bad. There are no bad people, only bad systems. So we may accept an amended version of (1) once we remove the Marxism.

Christians can accept (2)-(4) in theory.

Christians might accept some version of (5).

Christians must reject (6). Systemic racism might explain or contribute to some disparities. But DiAngelo is too simplistic. She says that disparities are either explained by biology or systemic racism. And since the idea of biological race is laughable, it must be systemic racism. But she ignores cultural momentum and generational curses and blessings. She may ignore other things too.

Christians must reject (7). All of us are fragile. But just because we might disagree with DiAngelo does not make us guilty of trying to protect racism.

The problem is you are reading a book written by a racist from her racists perspective. Such people should be ignored

 

[Tree of Life]

The problem is you are reading a book written by a racist from her racists perspective. Such people should be ignored

Sadly I don't think we can afford to ignore her and people like her. They have become incredibly influential.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think as Christians we can accept an amended version of (1). The amendment I would make is that we should be ashamed of our biases and prejudices. Not only are we prejudiced, but we are guilty of the sin of prejudice. DiAngelo wants to avoid the idea that individuals are bad because she is influenced by Marx. Marx rejected the concept of human nature and only thought that systems were bad. There are no bad people, only bad systems. So we may accept an amended version of (1) once we remove the Marxism.

Problem with #1
I suspect because DiAngelo is prejudice and discriminatory, she assumes everybody is. She has no right to proclaim without evidence everybody else shares her shortcomings; and anybody who is prejudice and discriminatory should be ashamed of it.

I Christians can accept (2)-(4) in theory.

Problem with #4
Racism does not require power, if it did the KKK would no longer be a racist organization due to the fact they no longer have power as an organization.
As far as the claim that all of american life is infected with racism, she needs to provide evidence of this because just because she says it doesn’t make it so. If there are racist systems in place, she needs to name the racist systems and what makes them racist; just saying stuff doesn’t make it so.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Racism is more often a pet belief than an objective reality. It is also the most commonly played 'get out of jail' card. Any accusation of systemic racism should be deconstructed so the truth can be known.

 

[bèlla]

I broach race, poverty, and all disparities from the perspective of class. That’s the elephant in the room and deeper motivation for social ills. Unlike race, wealth, and the like, its narrowness sets the tone others emulate.

Understanding their mindset and behavior provides a trickle down effect of insight and hidden motivations behind current events. You must grasp the puppet master to understand the game.

Read The Velvet Rope Economy and revisit your theories in light of your discoveries. Billionaire Wilderness is a nice complement.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[public hermit]

• Since the concept of biological race is incoherent, all racial disparities can be explained by systemic racism.

I apologize in advance. I have not read the book, but still have a question. Systemic racism, like all systems, is dependant on the parts by which it is constituted. So, you can't explain a system by reference to the system itself, which she seems to be doing.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that biological race is incoherent, we still have to explain how racist systems develop. It seems to me the obvious place to look is the prejudice of individuals, which has already been admitted by 1. So, there is an inconsistency in her argument, and it's so glaring I'm tempted to say she has a blind spot in not allowing individual prejudice a larger stake in how racist systems develop. Does that sound right? Perhaps she addresses this in detail.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I broach race, poverty, and all disparities from the perspective of class. That’s the elephant in the room and deeper motivation for social ills. Unlike race, wealth, and the like, its narrowness sets the tone others emulate.

Understanding their mindset and behavior provides a trickle down effect of insight and hidden motivations behind current events. You must grasp the puppet master to understand the game.

Read The Velvet Rope Economy and revisit your theories in light of your discoveries. Billionaire Wilderness is a nice complement.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

A snapshot in time only.

The Velvet Rope Economy - Bing video

I suggest studying the domino theory.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Race is only skin deep, but culture goes clear to the bone."

-OldWiseGuy

 

[Ken-1122]

I broach race, poverty, and all disparities from the perspective of class. ~bella

What does that mean? Is it your view that people of certain races are above or below others regardless of individual accomplishment, fame, or fortune? Or am I misunderstanding you.

 

[bèlla]

What does that mean? Is it your view that people of certain races are above or below others regardless of individual accomplishment, fame, or fortune? Or am I misunderstanding you.

It means the starting point for all ideologies on disparity begins at the highest echelon which relates to class. You must be in a position of supremacy and capable of enforcing your philosophies on the masses.

Only those at the highest strata of society are able to do so. What you witness from others is the domino effect of their beliefs.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[bèlla]

I suggest studying the domino theory.

Experience is the best teacher. The OP is retired that’s why I suggested books. The only way to grasp their character is by working with or for them. Negative press is minimal and reserved for celebrities. Elite depictions are controlled.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Ken-1122]

It means the starting point for all ideologies on disparity begins at the highest echelon which relates to class. You must be in a position of supremacy and capable of enforcing your philosophies on the masses.

Only those at the highest strata of society are able to do so. What you witness from others is the domino effect of their beliefs.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

But there are people of all races who occupy the highest echelon of society, and thus are in the same class who enforce their philosophies on the masses. How does this relate to race?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No one read it, did they?

Nope, I haven't read it. But it is the kind of thing I would have read in class if it had been published 15 years ago.

As for your brief evaluation of it, I think I can generally agree with what you've said. The caveat to my agreement with you would be that I'd also affirm what @public hermit and @bèlla have stated above from their own perspectives.

For me, that's the short of it.