White Fragility

[bèlla]

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?

Class is a birthright. It isn’t the result of hard work and financial gain. That’s one of the reasons bloodlines and eugenics are a common focus.

Race is a vehicle for dissemination. Just like media and politics. They distribute propaganda to the masses. If I can direct your attention to the lesser problems of my creation; you’ll never get wind of the real agenda.

Race keeps you occupied, divided, and in conflict. If you’ve ever seen he said she said play out, you’ll remember the instigator works both sides. Telling one this and the other that. Same game. Different scale.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[LightLoveHope]

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.

I do not agree with this non-biological view of social interaction.
Living in London my whole life, I see people from many backgrounds, races and cultures.

I grew up with the idea the north of England was friendly and nice, while London was cold and hard. The truth was quite different. Up north people grew up in communities where people knew each other and their families. The society that existed was based on long term associations and knowledge, and outsiders were always outsiders. What often went alongside being an insider was accent, look, clothing, cultural queues in all social interactions. By all this you were a known entity or foriegn.

This is how all human communities work across the world, without exception.
Large towns and cities where everyone is a stranger, and contact is new and superficial is not human community but stranger lifestyles.

It is simply impossible to take someone from an integrated community and move them to a different setup, and they not feel an outsider and lost. Equally droping someone into anthe integrated community and they will unlikely ever fit in.

Now label this behaviour racism, and the seeing obvious differences as defining someone an outsider as bigotory, you have missed the nature of community.
Probably our community upbringing up to the age of 20 years old, comes to define us and who we are. Through exposure to new groups and cultures we can adapt, but our belonging stays fairly set. You see this in expate communities which tend to emphasise the obvious cultural signs of their group more strongly than the home culture to make them feel more secure.

Racism occurs when you take the differences and run down the outsiders as automatically inferiour. Unfortunately all cultures do this, to support the group dynamic of why its important to follow the parent culture.

The only antidote is through education, acceptance and exposure.
There is no such thing as stopping the process of us being humans and appreciating our own origins, but there is a door to loving and serving people from all cultures.

God bless you

 

[LightLoveHope]

I am better than you.

If peoples first attitude to everything was failure, nothing would get done. The youth always believe they can do better than their parents, and they will show x how it is done.

But this is so humans always expand and try the impossible until they learn what is actually impossible. You could argue going into a boxing match both are guilty of racism against their opponent, but then why fight, as the outcome is already known.

So all cultures are racist, as are all humans, even those who say I am a white privileged male, because that label is used to make themselves superior over me based on a label. What has shocked me, is how racist all groups are. But then I think of school. The kid who was different, could easily be picked on, and for bullies was the safest bet for no comeback. It is part of the nature of heirachies, which always develop, as some are successful and some not. That is a fact of life, nothing to do with bias or racism. In a true meritocracy, each prove their value and worth through skill and performance, and everything is open to all.

All cultures to a degree have this, because without it they would not function.
As some state, one can believe in equality of opportunity, but reward to the successful. In Gods reign he brings in scrubbing debts, so eveything gets reset over time, meaning the group benefit dominates over individual success.

The bringing debt cancelling is something our society has not conquered yet, but we are beginning to need this is some form or another, else you get the wealthy being rediculously wealthy and the general society losing out, with little point to get involved.

God bless you

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

No need to use force. Most are susceptible to mass marketing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What you witness from others is the domino effect of their beliefs.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

Zackly. We must deconstruct present snapshots in time, so often used as a complete argument, to the time when the first domino related to the current issue, fell.

 

[bèlla]

No need to use force. Most are susceptible to mass marketing.

Reference Public Opinion by Walter Lippman. He compared the masses to a “bewildered herd” and a “great beast” that needed to be guided by the ruling class through mass media.

And Propaganda by Edward Bernays. He said:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

Additional reads on marketing and advertising are helpful. Including David Ogilvy and Robert Cialdini. They’ll sharpen your thinking skills and help you discern the audience, message, and call-to-action (what they desire you to do) in media messages.

We began with radio and television programs. The word is a homonym. It also means:

• a plan or system under which action may be taken toward a goal
• a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism
  
• to predetermine the thinking, behavior, or operations of

Programs influence our thoughts, feelings, and behavior. They’re highly suggestive. So does music, news, etc.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[Ken-1122]

Class is a birthright. It isn’t the result of hard work and financial gain. That’s one of the reasons bloodlines and eugenics are a common focus.

Perhaps in some countries, but in the US I don’t agree most people see class as something you are born with. There are countless cases of people born bottom poor, and climb on top of the world; and many other cases where people are born into rich families but due to their behavior, are considered without class

Race is a vehicle for dissemination. Just like media and politics. They distribute propaganda to the masses. If I can direct your attention to the lesser problems of my creation; you’ll never get wind of the real agenda.

Race keeps you occupied, divided, and in conflict. If you’ve ever seen he said she said play out, you’ll remember the instigator works both sides. Telling one this and the other that. Same game. Different scale.

I agree there may be those who attempt to do this, but it doesn’t work for everybody

 

[bèlla]

There are countless cases of people born bottom poor, and climb on top of the world; and many other cases where people are born into rich families but due to their behavior, are considered without class.

You cannot climb to the top through wealth. You must marry into that echelon or be invited. The gatekeepers make sure of it. The old and new money terms point to this. Today we use aristocracy and plutocracy to echo the same.

If you’re familiar with the robber barons and scions of the Gilded Age you’ll recall the difficulty many experienced with being accepted in society. And society meant the London season. They developed their own traditions in the US.

But many coveted acceptance and titles were the grand prize. As the economic downturn loomed the influx of American wealth was welcomed. The transatlantic exchange began. They traded dowries for position and kept many noble lines afloat.

Those familiar with Downton Abbey heard a reference to the practice from Cora’s mother who “saved Downton” through her daughter’s marriage.

The phenomenon was so disturbing it attracted government notice. American wealth was heading overseas. They spearheaded a promotion for local unions to stem the tide. So history suggests. The alignments were strategic and intentional. It concentrated power globally for their benefit.

The whole premise of elitism is supremacy. They keep company with their equals. You don’t enter their world championing the little guy. Disconnection is necessary.

You must demonstrate a lack of concern for those unlike yourself while paying lip speak to projects that don’t address the challenges and disparities we face (which you—the collective you—set in motion). The arts and the environment are notable favorites.

They’re bred to rule and view life from that vantage point. Lesser is all encompassing. Divisions prohibit unity and revolt.

You defeat your enemy from within and without and place agents in every rung to solidify his position and yours. Some wear sheets, others lead classes, businesses, government and legal offices, health providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers, financial institutions, religious organizations and so on.

You can’t reach this level of depravity without cooperation. Detecting the operatives and deception requires mental recalibration and a willingness to accept the probability you’ve been duped. They’ve nurtured the American ego to the point that few can. We’re wedded to our beliefs.

All the world is a stage. —Shakespeare

I have to resume my DIY activities. Ken, I’ve enjoyed our discourse. Have a wonderful day.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Reference Public Opinion by Walter Lippman. He compared the masses to a “bewildered herd” and a “great beast” that needed to be guided by the ruling class through mass media.

And Propaganda by Edward Bernays. He said:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

Additional reads on marketing and advertising are helpful. Including David Ogilvy and Robert Cialdini. They’ll sharpen your thinking skills and help you discern the audience, message, and call-to-action (what they desire you to do) in media messages.

We began with radio and television programs. The word is a homonym. It also means:

• a plan or system under which action may be taken toward a goal
• a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism
  
• to predetermine the thinking, behavior, or operations of

Programs influence our thoughts, feelings, and behavior. They’re highly suggestive. So does music, news, etc.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

We're living in a real life "Truman Show".

 

[Ken-1122]

You cannot climb to the top through wealth. You must marry into that echelon or be invited. The gatekeepers make sure of it. The old and new money terms point to this. Today we use aristocracy and plutocracy to echo the same.

That may have been the case 200 years ago, but not today. 80% Today’s wealthiest are only first generation rich. The days of old money where the richest families have had wealth passed down from one generation to the next are gone. Look at the top 10 richest people in America; how many of them are the result of old money? Today there are no longer any upper echelons remaining secluded by gate keepers; anyone with a successful idea like Gates, Bezos, Musk, or Zuckerberg will get rich and will become the standard of success; no gate keepers needed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wealth doesn't have the luster it once had. Millionaires are a dime a dozen today, and most don't flaunt their wealth.

 

[Ken-1122]

Wealth doesn't have the luster it once had. Millionaires are a dime a dozen today, and most don't flaunt their wealth.

Agreed! It is easier to get rich today than ever before, it is no longer the exclusive class it used to be. So many people are poor today, rich tomorrow, and others are rich today, poor tomorrow; it is no longer as big of a deal that it used to be.

 

[All Englands Skies]

That may have been the case 200 years ago, but not today. 80% Today’s wealthiest are only first generation rich. The days of old money where the richest families have had wealth passed down from one generation to the next are gone. Look at the top 10 richest people in America; how many of them are the result of old money? Today there are no longer any upper echelons remaining secluded by gate keepers; anyone with a successful idea like Gates, Bezos, Musk, or Zuckerberg will get rich and will become the standard of success; no gate keepers needed.

Certain periods re-shuffle the top of society and they evolve through time, but under the surface they remain the same. Those who started off poor and rise to the top buy into it, a poor man with certain political views has no input in anything or listened to, (except if he manages to start or becomes leader of a mass movement that forces those in power to listen, Example; Lech Wałęsa) if that same man does something and becomes mega-rich from it, but retains the same political beliefs, than he is listened to and given a platform, his wealth made his views matter more than when he was a poor man, even if they are the same views. The lie we're all equal is a joke.

 

[rjs330]

Certain periods re-shuffle the top of society and they evolve through time, but under the surface they remain the same. Those who started off poor and rise to the top buy into it, a poor man with certain political views has no input in anything or listened to, (except if he manages to start or becomes leader of a mass movement that forces those in power to listen, Example; Lech Wałęsa) if that same man does something and becomes mega-rich from it, but retains the same political beliefs, than he is listened to and given a platform, his wealth made his views matter more than when he was a poor man, even if they are the same views. The lie we're all equal is a joke.

There's some truth to that. I mean we use celebrities to speak for certain policies and scientific ideas even though they are not really experts in the field. But hey, they are rich and well known so they can testify to the validity of certain things.

Politicians are of the same cloth.

The the idea of the constitution is that all men are created equal. We are not guaranteed equal outcomes. And no it's not fair that a rich guy gets more access than a poor guy to a platform like you mention.

No one man is "better" than another man. Money or the lack thereof does not make you better or worse than anyone else. What really matters is what you do with what you have. And I don't mean just money. Cause there are a lot of rich people who are very good people. There are rich people who are big jerks. There are poor people that are very good people. There are poor people who are big jerks.

Money doesn't make you better or worse. In some circumstances it does make you worth listening to, if it is a subject for which your talents have allowed you to succeed. But it certainly doesn't make you an expert on everything.

 

[Ken-1122]

Certain periods re-shuffle the top of society and they evolve through time, but under the surface they remain the same. Those who started off poor and rise to the top buy into it, a poor man with certain political views has no input in anything or listened to, (except if he manages to start or becomes leader of a mass movement that forces those in power to listen, Example; Lech Wałęsa) if that same man does something and becomes mega-rich from it, but retains the same political beliefs, than he is listened to and given a platform, his wealth made his views matter more than when he was a poor man, even if they are the same views. The lie we're all equal is a joke.

People with money can advertise their views in a way those without money cannot

 

[Albion]

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.

Those 3 are basically what every educated person knew to be the case before the Civil Rights movement began tinkering with the definition some years back.

Racism is not a discrete act. Racism is prejudice + discrimination + power.

False. That is a rather recent change in the definition that was created by activists in order to exonerate all blacks from the possibility of being racists themselves. Of course, it doesn't actually accomplish that end, since there are situations in which the black population has the power, but this is never mentioned.

All of American life is infected with racism and racist systems.

Not if racism is defined correctly. If it isn't, affirming the statement could indicate that the speaker is prejudiced himself.

When a white person disagree with any of the above, they suffer from the condition of White Fragility.

.
...a completely artificial term and concept that was generated only in recent days. Similar to the white supremacy and white nationalism myths.

Where does Christianity enter in? Here> Don't bear false witness against your neighbor, whoever you may be.

 

[Landon Caeli]

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.

I think it's important to recognize that while "all people are prejudice and discriminatory", it is beneficial to not settle with that in my experience, but rather, to work against it like any other sin. For example, in politics, I now consider myself a Democrat, and I consider myself a Republican... By viewing myself this way, I no longer have a need to insult the liberal mindset, because I now see these people as my peers... So essentially, I have reduced my sinfulness.

...This idea could possibly be furthered in the realm of "race". Perhaps. If such a realm even really exists or matters... Personally, I think it's culture that people struggle with more than "race".

 

[Ken-1122]

I think it's important to recognize that while "all people are prejudice and discriminatory", it is beneficial to not settle with that in my experience, but rather, to work against it like any other sin.

I have no doubt everybody may have some things they are prejudice and discriminatory towards in life, but to claim everybody is racially prejudice, and racially discriminatory, is unfounded.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I have no doubt everybody may have some things they are prejudice and discriminatory towards in life, but to claim everybody is racially prejudice, and racially discriminatory, is unfounded.

I agree.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think most people are like Lily Tomlin's "little girl in the big rocking chair" character on the old "Laugh In" show. In one episode she gleefully revealed that although she was wearing a dress she was actually running around naked underneath it.

People tend to be secretive, holding opinions close to the vest, and often just expressing what they believe is appropriate regardless of whether they believe it themselves. And perhaps we don't even realize it. A long-time friend of mine told my sister that although he had known me for many years he didn't really know me, because I didn't offer my opinions on everything. While this surprised me at first I realized that I didn't really know much about him either.