White fragility

Here's the thing about this book, if you disagree with anything, you're proving the author's point; and if you agree with anything, you're proving the author's point.

There are things in here that I agree with, or I never thought about a particular way and like, but there are also things I disagree with.

Agreements/good points. The last chapter is the best (though I still had some issues). The information about affirmative action was interesting in that it was not at all what I'd been under the impression it was. She also gave good historical context to some things. Not getting defensive outright is a good thing to keep in mind. The thing that made “colorblindness” the most clear was actually equating it with not seeing gender and how it's inherent - that's good to keep in mind as well. Also, I agree that people who think they're progressive can be the least receptive to some of the concepts.

Disagreements. Like I said, the whole book is a Kafkatrap. She also contradicts herself on a number of occasions and repeats herself in others. She also comes up with her own definitions for things, but also says those definitions are only applicable in this particular situation, not generally. She's also incredibly patronizing at times, and not against the people I'd have thought. I disagree with that there can never be a positive white identity, but... whatever. Reacting at all is also apparently racist, but at least I cry in the right way. Intent apparently never matters, and past personal history either.

Look, I don't deny that living in our society has repercussions that can be inherently racist. I think that's good to remember! But I disagree that just being white in the society makes you a racist. (But there I go again, just proving her point I guess.)

I'll read other books on the topic - I've already borrowed So You Want to Talk About Race from the library. I'm receptive to learning (especially given the current climate), but this book just didn't do it for me.

I was a few chapters in when I read that some people labeled this “problematic.” At that point, I scoffed a bit, because I was finding it really valuable.

Now that I'm done, I understand better, and I had to really think about how to rate this.

The TL:DR version - it explores some vital concepts for white people who consider themselves against racism. But it undermines its own effectiveness by ignoring empathy and nuance in favor of punitive repetition.

Pros:

A white person talking to other white people. Yeah, it would be great if more white people would listen to BIPOC writers and educators, but if the point is to break down defensiveness, a white author may have more success with certain people.

Pointing out that we white people are able to move through life unconsciously thinking of ourselves as the “default.” This really rang true to me as a feminist who notices the “men are people, women are women” phenomenon.

Calling out the problem of “colorblindness.” I was raised with this point of view, and it can definitely stymie racial progress. For instance . . .

THE CRITICAL FAILURE OF WELL-MEANING WHITES - believing that you don't have racist thoughts and behaviors because You're A Good Person. The narrative that racism is ONLY expressed by KKK types really hampers progress on so many levels. You can't correct for unconscious bias if you don't think you have it! If you think “racist action” = “evil incarnate” of course you will be defensive all over the place when someone points out a problematic behavior of yours.

The idea of preparing to hear feedback with openness, gratitude, and “racial stamina” by reminding yourself that we're all soaking in it and you can be unintentionally racist. Also, how risky it is for people (especially BIPOC) to give you that feedback.

The idea to frame comments to other white people in terms of our own personal understanding - it's harder to be defensive and discount something when it's presented as a personal experience being shared rather than a “You are being racist . . . statement”

Cons:

Explicitly acknowledges that “racist” and “white supremacy” are monumentally emotionally loaded and have ambiguous meanings, and then proceeds to use them.

Hamstrings its own revolutionary unpacking of “I'm a good person” as a blocker by using charged language that denotes malicious, conscious choice: “strategy,” “choose,” “I use the system to my advantage” “aggressor” “target” “Our institutions were designed to reproduce racial inequality.” “I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color.”

Flat out discounts intent as having ANY relevance. Only impact is relevant. I get that DiAngelo is trying to get people to stop deflecting valid feedback by talking about their intent, but acting like it's totally irrelevant is crazy. We even take intent into account in homicide cases!

Doesn't say much at all about what an individual can DO to compensate for being a product of a racist system with baked-in biases. Seems to call more for self-flagellation by individuals than any action that could dismantle the system.

By the end, the tone definitely feels like, “You're a racist. You perpetrate racism against your colleagues, friends, spouses, and your own children. Nothing you can do can fix it. Your positive traits around race are irrelevant. Focus only on how much of an irredeemable racist you are.” Wait, I thought the point was to get people over their defensiveness?

I think this is best expressed in mark monday's review:

“It's like she perfectly understands white privilege but has no actual comprehension about how to reach people. Does she not understand that gathering people in a room and telling them all how wrong they are, and will always be, is not an effective mechanism for genuine change or understanding?”

Av de seks bøkene jeg har lest om rasisme i høst, er dette den mest uinteressante selv om den ser ut til å være den mest uttalte og den store bestselgeren. Det er ikke det at jeg ikke kjøper premissene, jeg innser at selv om jeg egentlig vil nekte for det, så er jeg som del av et rasistisk system medskyldig, så betyr det ikke at jeg liker innpakningen kritikken får. Torkjell Brekke beskylte i Morgenbladet sammenligner CRT-bevegelsen med religiøse bevegelser, noe jeg har vanskelig for å forstå, men når jeg leser DiAngelo får jeg samme følelsen som når jeg leser Ole Hallesbys “Fra Bønnens verden”. Sistnevnte bok tar fra meg all lyst til å be, på grunn av sin stereotypifisering i et unødvendig tungt språk der jeg tvinges inni båser jeg ikke kjenner meg hjemme.
Og da kan man jo si at nettopp dette bekrefter DiAngelos påstand, hvite er for sårbare til å innse at vi er rasister. Men dette premisset kjøper jeg ikke. Kanskje, og sikkert ganske sannsynlig i USA, men ikke for min egen del - og da handler boken likevel ikke om meg, og det skulle jeg ønske at den gjorde i langt større grad.
Det er pussig, av de seks bøkene jeg har lest, er det de personlige historiene som får meg til å åpne øynene, det er Coates, Sibeko, Shanmugaratnam og Joof som får meg til å akseptere min fram til nå snevre måte å se tingene på, ikke pekefingermoralismen hos DiAngelo og Eddo-Lodge som først og fremst snakker til sin egen menighet i forsøket på å overbevise alle andre som virkelig trenger å bli overbevist. Og slik tror jeg som regel det er: Det er de personlige historiene som forandrer lytterne og leserne.
Hva jeg egentlig prøver å si: Rasisme er et alt for alvorlig problem til at man forenkler mennesker og virkeligheter på den måten DiAngel gjør. Jeg tror det virker mot sin hensikt.