by liberal japonicus
I normally don’t do this. In fact, I’ve never done this. Not sure if I will again. But below the fold, there’s a youtube video. It’s long, but if you want to discuss it, you need to watch it. Some suggestions and yes, rules below the fold
I’m normally understanding about how we allot our time and I know that people will often skip links or even other people’s comments when making arguments. This is exacerbated by when comment threads get long.
But for this thread, if folks come in this thread to make an argument without watching the video, I’ll ask you to leave the thread. and then you won’t be in the blog until comments here stop.
Also, if you try to argue by hyperbole, I’ll ask you to stop and if you don’t, you’ll be banned until the conversation stops here. Which is unfair, but the tools the blog has cannot keep people out of one thread, it is either all or nothing. This includes attempts to make this about what the blog rules are and how this may go against them. Unfortunately, this will also extend to trying to take the discussion outside of this thread and make complaints in other threads.
If you think the premise is bullshit and it’s going to be a bunch of SocialJusticeWarriors, that’s you, I’m not going to rule on something that’s inside your head. But if you bring what is inside your head into the comments, you will get a warning and and then off you go. Also, if you use this to call out other commentators, same thing. One warning and out. You can refer to those arguments, but please don’t attach them to people.
Perhaps this will mean that everyone is too afraid to say anything and we’ll have no comments. If that’s the case, I’ll close this up next week sometime . Or I’ll get congratulatory messages about some ‘bravery’ I have in putting this up. Please don’t. I’m wrestling with this, and I want some discussion, but I could see this blowing a hole in the blog, so that is the reason for these rules. But I do believe that silence can be complicity, Here’s trying to navigate that.
GftNC requested a screenshot of the list of D’Angelo’s talk
I guess I cracked the whip a little too hard?
I guess I cracked the whip a little too hard?
It’s a long video, folks may needcsome time to absorb it.
It’s a long video, folks may needcsome time to absorb it.
Will be able to get to this in about five hours!
Will be able to get to this in about five hours!
Thanks, Hope people will watch the whole thing with an open mind.
Thanks, Hope people will watch the whole thing with an open mind.
I intend to (downloaded it) but I am not sure that I’ll manage to-day.
I intend to (downloaded it) but I am not sure that I’ll manage to-day.
I guess I cracked the whip a little too hard?
I’d guess that you lost track of which hours (in Japan) most of us are sleeping. đ
Personally, I hope to get to the video in another 3-4 hours. God willing and the creeks don’t rise….
I guess I cracked the whip a little too hard?
I’d guess that you lost track of which hours (in Japan) most of us are sleeping. đ
Personally, I hope to get to the video in another 3-4 hours. God willing and the creeks don’t rise….
I listened to every word. Ms. DiAngelo is very sure of herself. Very. Her only fault is that she, too, is a white person and therefore a racist. Most, maybe all, of her constructs and examples seemed strained, overly-simplified if not outright cliched and, highly selective.
She can’t understand why others would object to being compelled to listen to her “truth” in mandatory diversity workshops. She can only see White People (WP) in denial; whereas, in a truly complex and subtle world, one possible thing she is likely seeing is WP who don’t much care for mandatory political indoctrination and particularly not from someone as self-certain as Ms. DiAngelo explicitly says she is.
Very early in her presentation, she asserts that white people do not know their own historyâthat was news to me. She also casts the issue of white supremacy/racism/etc/etc/etc as being “complex and subtle”, yet there is nothing either complex or subtle about her endless repetition of the same talking points, rephrased and restated to sound as if she was saying something different.
Hers is the certainty of the true believer and those who do not agree are beyond the pale–they are unrepentant racists and always will be because they are white and white people are just that way.
That her logic is circular and her evidence, if you can call it that, is superficial and selective at best is lost on her and on her audience, which is a common feature when preaching the “truth” to the choir.
Hers is a secular religion. It is self-contained set of self-evident, self-proving dogmas that cannot be questioned, that control and define the universe and that, if rejected, lead to sin. She uses that word, “sin”. In a different time and in a different milieu, she’d be a fundamentalist preacher if not a willing participant in a religious pogrom. Here and now, she’s seen a different light, a light that gives her the authority to speak for and about all white people. Through her powerful insight, she knows what all white people think and how POC perceive and react to WP (and yet, she seems oblivious to the arrogance of treating every non-white as belonging to a single group with common set of goals and interests).
And, she will not tolerate whites who think of themselves as individuals, raising the question of whether she would afford non-whites the option of seeing themselves as individuals. She rails against white privilege, while completely blind to the privilege she confers on herself to judge an entire race based explicitly on that race’s imputed characteristics (imputed by her, no less).
She is nonplussed that white individuals do not wish to be categorized as a group of white supremacists. Then, to soften the blow, she trots out the “but we are all racists” (“we are all sinners”), again oblivious to her own condescension. The analogues with religious fundamentalism are just keep piling up.
Does her world view admit the possibility that a POC might call out a WP for racism and be wrong about it? That WP’s can and often do endeavor (successfully) to treat POC’s just as they would treat another WP and that there is nothing wrong with that either? That it is not unheard of for a POC to use race as a tool to deflect legitimate criticism or to gain advantage? Because all of these things happen, just like some WP’s are overtly or covertly destructively racist to one degree or another and let that racism influence, to one degree or another, how they deal with others. Others, out of ignorance, commit gaffes in attempting to reach out. Would Ms. DiAngelo prefer WP isolation or outreach, knowing that outreach involves human imperfection and therefore risk of unintended error? Itâs really hard to tell and Iâm pretty sure that, no matter what, anything that she doesnât personally approve of is probably in the âsinâ category. Single-minded True Believers tend to think that way.
Race, ethnicity, culture, religion, education level, personal appearance, personal hygiene, grammar (or lack thereof) and a hundred other cues inform pretty much what every person assumes and infers about others, at least on a presumptive basis.
It’s called being human. The more invested people are in a particular outlook or religion, the more they tend to evaluate others in light of their outlook or religion. Most of us–at least most of the people I’ve known over the course of living in a lot of places, traveling a lot, having married someone who was not born and raised in the US and having tried a lot of jury trials, meaning I’ve spent months communicating to and trying to persuade diverse juries throughout a very diverse state–try to work with, accommodate, get along, etc.
My education and experience tells me that Ms. DiAngelo has nothing useful to offer. Hers is a viewpoint that does not tolerate dissent, that (whether out of ignorance or design) denies the complex history of the western world (on balance, the best of places for people to live) and that implicitly calls for the destruction (misleadingly labeled as “deconstruction”) of a civilization that has done more for more people than any other in the course of human history.
Racism exists everywhere, to one degree or another. Dealing with it is not easy. In the US, certainly the most diverse country in the West, we’ve spent centuries trying to align our ideals with our human limitations. Fanatics who believe themselves favored with some new, revealed truth make the unification process more difficult, not less. Fanatics need villains. No villainy, nothing to get worked up over, nothing to work others up over. Therefore, hers is the tool of a bully: fall into line or be labeled the worst of all things, a racist.
So, make of my viewpoint what you will. In Ms. DiAngelo’s world, you have only one option: hers.
I listened to every word. Ms. DiAngelo is very sure of herself. Very. Her only fault is that she, too, is a white person and therefore a racist. Most, maybe all, of her constructs and examples seemed strained, overly-simplified if not outright cliched and, highly selective.
She can’t understand why others would object to being compelled to listen to her “truth” in mandatory diversity workshops. She can only see White People (WP) in denial; whereas, in a truly complex and subtle world, one possible thing she is likely seeing is WP who don’t much care for mandatory political indoctrination and particularly not from someone as self-certain as Ms. DiAngelo explicitly says she is.
Very early in her presentation, she asserts that white people do not know their own historyâthat was news to me. She also casts the issue of white supremacy/racism/etc/etc/etc as being “complex and subtle”, yet there is nothing either complex or subtle about her endless repetition of the same talking points, rephrased and restated to sound as if she was saying something different.
Hers is the certainty of the true believer and those who do not agree are beyond the pale–they are unrepentant racists and always will be because they are white and white people are just that way.
That her logic is circular and her evidence, if you can call it that, is superficial and selective at best is lost on her and on her audience, which is a common feature when preaching the “truth” to the choir.
Hers is a secular religion. It is self-contained set of self-evident, self-proving dogmas that cannot be questioned, that control and define the universe and that, if rejected, lead to sin. She uses that word, “sin”. In a different time and in a different milieu, she’d be a fundamentalist preacher if not a willing participant in a religious pogrom. Here and now, she’s seen a different light, a light that gives her the authority to speak for and about all white people. Through her powerful insight, she knows what all white people think and how POC perceive and react to WP (and yet, she seems oblivious to the arrogance of treating every non-white as belonging to a single group with common set of goals and interests).
And, she will not tolerate whites who think of themselves as individuals, raising the question of whether she would afford non-whites the option of seeing themselves as individuals. She rails against white privilege, while completely blind to the privilege she confers on herself to judge an entire race based explicitly on that race’s imputed characteristics (imputed by her, no less).
She is nonplussed that white individuals do not wish to be categorized as a group of white supremacists. Then, to soften the blow, she trots out the “but we are all racists” (“we are all sinners”), again oblivious to her own condescension. The analogues with religious fundamentalism are just keep piling up.
Does her world view admit the possibility that a POC might call out a WP for racism and be wrong about it? That WP’s can and often do endeavor (successfully) to treat POC’s just as they would treat another WP and that there is nothing wrong with that either? That it is not unheard of for a POC to use race as a tool to deflect legitimate criticism or to gain advantage? Because all of these things happen, just like some WP’s are overtly or covertly destructively racist to one degree or another and let that racism influence, to one degree or another, how they deal with others. Others, out of ignorance, commit gaffes in attempting to reach out. Would Ms. DiAngelo prefer WP isolation or outreach, knowing that outreach involves human imperfection and therefore risk of unintended error? Itâs really hard to tell and Iâm pretty sure that, no matter what, anything that she doesnât personally approve of is probably in the âsinâ category. Single-minded True Believers tend to think that way.
Race, ethnicity, culture, religion, education level, personal appearance, personal hygiene, grammar (or lack thereof) and a hundred other cues inform pretty much what every person assumes and infers about others, at least on a presumptive basis.
It’s called being human. The more invested people are in a particular outlook or religion, the more they tend to evaluate others in light of their outlook or religion. Most of us–at least most of the people I’ve known over the course of living in a lot of places, traveling a lot, having married someone who was not born and raised in the US and having tried a lot of jury trials, meaning I’ve spent months communicating to and trying to persuade diverse juries throughout a very diverse state–try to work with, accommodate, get along, etc.
My education and experience tells me that Ms. DiAngelo has nothing useful to offer. Hers is a viewpoint that does not tolerate dissent, that (whether out of ignorance or design) denies the complex history of the western world (on balance, the best of places for people to live) and that implicitly calls for the destruction (misleadingly labeled as “deconstruction”) of a civilization that has done more for more people than any other in the course of human history.
Racism exists everywhere, to one degree or another. Dealing with it is not easy. In the US, certainly the most diverse country in the West, we’ve spent centuries trying to align our ideals with our human limitations. Fanatics who believe themselves favored with some new, revealed truth make the unification process more difficult, not less. Fanatics need villains. No villainy, nothing to get worked up over, nothing to work others up over. Therefore, hers is the tool of a bully: fall into line or be labeled the worst of all things, a racist.
So, make of my viewpoint what you will. In Ms. DiAngelo’s world, you have only one option: hers.
Then, to soften the blow, she trots out the “but we are all racists” (“we are all sinners”)
If we are all racists, clearly it is impossible for anyone to be otherwise — else at least a few would have managed it.** In which case, it’s a waste of time to worry about something which cannot be changed. (Unless, I suppose, one revels in feeling guilty.)
** A common problem with a black and white world view.
Then, to soften the blow, she trots out the “but we are all racists” (“we are all sinners”)
If we are all racists, clearly it is impossible for anyone to be otherwise — else at least a few would have managed it.** In which case, it’s a waste of time to worry about something which cannot be changed. (Unless, I suppose, one revels in feeling guilty.)
** A common problem with a black and white world view.
Just to be absolutely clear, I am not opposing structural changes. On the contrary, I think they are needed. I’m just opposing the world view that says any variation in world views on race does not exist.
Just to be absolutely clear, I am not opposing structural changes. On the contrary, I think they are needed. I’m just opposing the world view that says any variation in world views on race does not exist.
I have now watched it.
Sigh.
those who do not agree are beyond the pale–they are unrepentant racists and always will be because they are white and white people are just that way.
This is the opposite of what she is saying. FWIW, she is not saying they are unrepentant, she is saying they are so scared of being seen as racist that they will perform extreme mental gymnastics to justify why they arenât.
she seems oblivious to the arrogance of treating every non-white as belonging to a single group with common set of goals and interests
She specifically says at the beginning that this is not so, and if I understood her correctly, for the purpose of her talk she speaks about âblackâ as opposed to âwhiteâ, as two âbookendsâ of a continuum of experience that she deals with for something like simplicity’s sake.
I found this interesting, and uncomfortable viewing and thinking. I was brought up by overtly anti-racist parents, who left South Africa because of apartheid. I have been through many of the stages Ms DiAngelo anatomises, and recognise them and some of my own hitherto unconscious racism in myself and other “non-racists” I have known – this process has been going on for me for years, and in fact we have touched on this subject here in the past, in a thread that I think russell initiated. It seems to me that what she says is largely true, and valuable, even if one finds her dogmatic or annoying. And it seems to me that this issue needs to be addressed, by everyone, to avert the schism that is building, and has been building for centuries, in our (white-dominated, white-defining and defined) societies.
I have now watched it.
Sigh.
those who do not agree are beyond the pale–they are unrepentant racists and always will be because they are white and white people are just that way.
This is the opposite of what she is saying. FWIW, she is not saying they are unrepentant, she is saying they are so scared of being seen as racist that they will perform extreme mental gymnastics to justify why they arenât.
she seems oblivious to the arrogance of treating every non-white as belonging to a single group with common set of goals and interests
She specifically says at the beginning that this is not so, and if I understood her correctly, for the purpose of her talk she speaks about âblackâ as opposed to âwhiteâ, as two âbookendsâ of a continuum of experience that she deals with for something like simplicity’s sake.
I found this interesting, and uncomfortable viewing and thinking. I was brought up by overtly anti-racist parents, who left South Africa because of apartheid. I have been through many of the stages Ms DiAngelo anatomises, and recognise them and some of my own hitherto unconscious racism in myself and other “non-racists” I have known – this process has been going on for me for years, and in fact we have touched on this subject here in the past, in a thread that I think russell initiated. It seems to me that what she says is largely true, and valuable, even if one finds her dogmatic or annoying. And it seems to me that this issue needs to be addressed, by everyone, to avert the schism that is building, and has been building for centuries, in our (white-dominated, white-defining and defined) societies.
In the US, certainly the most diverse country in the West…
not counting Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname, and Colombia.
(and, most of Africa, SE Asia and the ME.)
In the US, certainly the most diverse country in the West…
not counting Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname, and Colombia.
(and, most of Africa, SE Asia and the ME.)
not counting Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname, and Colombia.
(and, most of Africa, SE Asia and the ME.)
Did you read the article? I did. It is useless in determining ‘diversity’ in any meaningful sense. By any rational metric, the US is the single most diverse country in the West.
not counting Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname, and Colombia.
(and, most of Africa, SE Asia and the ME.)
Did you read the article? I did. It is useless in determining ‘diversity’ in any meaningful sense. By any rational metric, the US is the single most diverse country in the West.
I watched the whole video.
To me, if you interact with people in different ways based on the color of their skin, that is racism. More or less by definition. I can’t think of what that would be, other than racism.
I think people flinch at that because they associate racism with being a bad person, with being someone who has some animus toward people with a different color skin. There is no shortage of that, but I also think that seeing racism purely as an expression of ill intent prevents us from seeing exactly how pervasive it is.
I’m sure that there are people who are truly color blind, and whose interactions with other people are in no way influenced by skin color. I am not one of those people, and I feel comfortable saying that there are not all that many of those people.
I feel much more than comfortable saying that those people are rare among the kinds of “woke” liberal white people that DiAngelo specifically calls out in this lecture. Those folks are my cohort, I know them very very well. The phenomena DiAngelo talks about seem pretty damned real, to me.
Maybe I need to get out more.
If I take one thing away from DiAngelo’s talk, it’s that we need to stop thinking and talking about racism as if it was a purely personal flaw, a willfully chosen habit of bigotry, and start thinking and talking about it as a social, historical, and cultural phenomenon.
We need to stop flinching whenever the word comes up, and start owning whatever piece of it belongs to us.
If that doesn’t include you, personally, well done, you are miles and miles ahead of most of the rest of us. I’m not there, I have work to do.
I watched the whole video.
To me, if you interact with people in different ways based on the color of their skin, that is racism. More or less by definition. I can’t think of what that would be, other than racism.
I think people flinch at that because they associate racism with being a bad person, with being someone who has some animus toward people with a different color skin. There is no shortage of that, but I also think that seeing racism purely as an expression of ill intent prevents us from seeing exactly how pervasive it is.
I’m sure that there are people who are truly color blind, and whose interactions with other people are in no way influenced by skin color. I am not one of those people, and I feel comfortable saying that there are not all that many of those people.
I feel much more than comfortable saying that those people are rare among the kinds of “woke” liberal white people that DiAngelo specifically calls out in this lecture. Those folks are my cohort, I know them very very well. The phenomena DiAngelo talks about seem pretty damned real, to me.
Maybe I need to get out more.
If I take one thing away from DiAngelo’s talk, it’s that we need to stop thinking and talking about racism as if it was a purely personal flaw, a willfully chosen habit of bigotry, and start thinking and talking about it as a social, historical, and cultural phenomenon.
We need to stop flinching whenever the word comes up, and start owning whatever piece of it belongs to us.
If that doesn’t include you, personally, well done, you are miles and miles ahead of most of the rest of us. I’m not there, I have work to do.
Racism exists everywhere
I’m going to tweak this. “Racism” is too narrow a term, at least in the broader context of how different people react to one another. Religion, culture, ethnicity, etc all can drive decision making that discriminates, whether invidiously or as a means of rectification. Race is one subset of the reasons why people draw lines.
Racism exists everywhere
I’m going to tweak this. “Racism” is too narrow a term, at least in the broader context of how different people react to one another. Religion, culture, ethnicity, etc all can drive decision making that discriminates, whether invidiously or as a means of rectification. Race is one subset of the reasons why people draw lines.
We need to stop flinching whenever the word comes up, and start owning whatever piece of it belongs to us.
Which would be easier if the term wasn’t routinely being used as a personal attack. Should I expect to be denounced as an obvious racist because the vast majority of the women I dated over the years (including my wife) were of East Asian ancestry? Under your “if you interact with people in different ways based on the color of their skin, that is racism” that would be justified.
We need to stop flinching whenever the word comes up, and start owning whatever piece of it belongs to us.
Which would be easier if the term wasn’t routinely being used as a personal attack. Should I expect to be denounced as an obvious racist because the vast majority of the women I dated over the years (including my wife) were of East Asian ancestry? Under your “if you interact with people in different ways based on the color of their skin, that is racism” that would be justified.
I think the most telling part, beyond some obvious redefinition of racism, was the story about the lady that objected to her dismissing the questionnaire near the end.
Diangelo had no idea who made the list, there was literally nothing racial in her dismissal. The woman had every right to be insulted that her work was dismissed, but not to assign that insult to racism, of any sort.
Which is really my primary observation of this, and much of what I hear these days, no, as a black person you do not get to unilaterally define racism. No, I should not sit quietly while I am told how to act appropriately. There are many times that black people misconstrue things as racially based that simply are not. I should not be required to stop doing those things, they should be required to not interpret them as racism.
All to say that the solution requires a dialog with two groups with open minds, not a monologue.
I think the most telling part, beyond some obvious redefinition of racism, was the story about the lady that objected to her dismissing the questionnaire near the end.
Diangelo had no idea who made the list, there was literally nothing racial in her dismissal. The woman had every right to be insulted that her work was dismissed, but not to assign that insult to racism, of any sort.
Which is really my primary observation of this, and much of what I hear these days, no, as a black person you do not get to unilaterally define racism. No, I should not sit quietly while I am told how to act appropriately. There are many times that black people misconstrue things as racially based that simply are not. I should not be required to stop doing those things, they should be required to not interpret them as racism.
All to say that the solution requires a dialog with two groups with open minds, not a monologue.
Which would be easier if the term wasn’t routinely being used as a personal attack.
I’m sure that is so. I guess what I’m advocating, or asking for, is for people to stop using it as a personal attack. Not least because, it seems to me, we all partake of it.
I also think it’s fine to condemn, in the judgemental sense, deliberate acts that mean to harm black people, or people of whatever color, because of their color.
But I do think that racism is a much, much broader phenomenon.
The question of “how is that different than any other way we draw lines” is a reasonable one, and worthy of discussion. But it doesn’t take the race question off the table. IMO.
Which would be easier if the term wasn’t routinely being used as a personal attack.
I’m sure that is so. I guess what I’m advocating, or asking for, is for people to stop using it as a personal attack. Not least because, it seems to me, we all partake of it.
I also think it’s fine to condemn, in the judgemental sense, deliberate acts that mean to harm black people, or people of whatever color, because of their color.
But I do think that racism is a much, much broader phenomenon.
The question of “how is that different than any other way we draw lines” is a reasonable one, and worthy of discussion. But it doesn’t take the race question off the table. IMO.
I’m sure that there are people who are truly color blind, and whose interactions with other people are in no way influenced by skin color.
I would say there are people who try, in many cases, try very hard, to not “see” color and to not let someone else’s color play a role in negative or adverse thoughts or actions.
I can’t be color blind because I have African American, Hispanic and Asian employees and colleagues (and clients, for that matter). My practice area is not one that African Americans and Asians seem drawn to, although this appears to be less the case for Hispanics. This strikes me as either a mild cultural affect or possibly a situational, i.e. lack of exposure, result. I don’t spend much time worrying about it. For my employees, it’s a big plus if they stay the course since it allows them to carve out their own niche.
I don’t find working with different people, regardless of what makes them different, particularly difficult, since in my very small corner of the world, we have more in common that we have not in common–we are all lawyers or work in support of lawyers, all in the same practice area, and we work in teams that have to depend on each other. Two of my most promising attorneys are African American and Asian, both women.
I’m not alone in my experience. Pretty much every firm I work with, particularly those with north of 10 attorneys, run the same way. The reason why isn’t all that surprising either: look at who graduates from law school these days. If your hiring universe is diverse, you’re going to get a diverse work force.
I feel much more than comfortable saying that those people are rare among the kinds of “woke” liberal white people that DiAngelo specifically calls out in this lecture. Those folks are my cohort, I know them very very well. The phenomena DiAngelo talks about seem pretty damned real, to me.
Maybe I need to get out more.
If that’s how woke WP’s talk–and more importantly, if that’s how they think–about race, then maybe she does have a point. Some of the lefties I hang with may be woke, but I’ve never heard them talk as Ms. DiAngelo indicates they do.
I’m sure that there are people who are truly color blind, and whose interactions with other people are in no way influenced by skin color.
I would say there are people who try, in many cases, try very hard, to not “see” color and to not let someone else’s color play a role in negative or adverse thoughts or actions.
I can’t be color blind because I have African American, Hispanic and Asian employees and colleagues (and clients, for that matter). My practice area is not one that African Americans and Asians seem drawn to, although this appears to be less the case for Hispanics. This strikes me as either a mild cultural affect or possibly a situational, i.e. lack of exposure, result. I don’t spend much time worrying about it. For my employees, it’s a big plus if they stay the course since it allows them to carve out their own niche.
I don’t find working with different people, regardless of what makes them different, particularly difficult, since in my very small corner of the world, we have more in common that we have not in common–we are all lawyers or work in support of lawyers, all in the same practice area, and we work in teams that have to depend on each other. Two of my most promising attorneys are African American and Asian, both women.
I’m not alone in my experience. Pretty much every firm I work with, particularly those with north of 10 attorneys, run the same way. The reason why isn’t all that surprising either: look at who graduates from law school these days. If your hiring universe is diverse, you’re going to get a diverse work force.
I feel much more than comfortable saying that those people are rare among the kinds of “woke” liberal white people that DiAngelo specifically calls out in this lecture. Those folks are my cohort, I know them very very well. The phenomena DiAngelo talks about seem pretty damned real, to me.
Maybe I need to get out more.
If that’s how woke WP’s talk–and more importantly, if that’s how they think–about race, then maybe she does have a point. Some of the lefties I hang with may be woke, but I’ve never heard them talk as Ms. DiAngelo indicates they do.
It is useless in determining ‘diversity’ in any meaningful sense. By any rational metric
feel free to cite meaningful and rational sources.
It is useless in determining ‘diversity’ in any meaningful sense. By any rational metric
feel free to cite meaningful and rational sources.
Diangelo had no idea who made the list, there was literally nothing racial in her dismissal. The woman had every right to be insulted that her work was dismissed, but not to assign that insult to racism, of any sort.
Good point. I missed that one completely. I have to make hard points all the time to younger lawyers. If I had to worry about being called out for racism simply because I’m making the same point to a non-white attorney as I would make to a white attorney, I’d be out of business.
I guess what I’m advocating, or asking for, is for people to stop using it as a personal attack. Not least because, it seems to me, we all partake of it.
Not going to happen. It is used routinely, particularly by lefty bullies, not only as a personal attack, but also as a club to avoid difficult or even non-difficult conversations. Marty’s point above is a case in point.
Moreover, it should be a term of opprobrium, even if on a sliding scale. Racism–invidious racism, if that is not a redundancy–is bad and it is something to be identified and addressed. There would still remain a host of subsidiary questions that make ‘racism’ a matter of degree or create a continuum of neutral-to-bad faith. For example, if someone is raised in an isolated and racist environment, that person will not know better until he/she gets a chance to see and understand the wider world. People like that deserve a chance. People like that come in all colors too.
The word is terribly over-used, so much that its constant usage sounds stupid and anti-intellectual to those outside the bubble. It ought to mean something that is bad. Instead it means, more often than not, that the accuser is intellectually lazy and has a mean streak.
Diangelo had no idea who made the list, there was literally nothing racial in her dismissal. The woman had every right to be insulted that her work was dismissed, but not to assign that insult to racism, of any sort.
Good point. I missed that one completely. I have to make hard points all the time to younger lawyers. If I had to worry about being called out for racism simply because I’m making the same point to a non-white attorney as I would make to a white attorney, I’d be out of business.
I guess what I’m advocating, or asking for, is for people to stop using it as a personal attack. Not least because, it seems to me, we all partake of it.
Not going to happen. It is used routinely, particularly by lefty bullies, not only as a personal attack, but also as a club to avoid difficult or even non-difficult conversations. Marty’s point above is a case in point.
Moreover, it should be a term of opprobrium, even if on a sliding scale. Racism–invidious racism, if that is not a redundancy–is bad and it is something to be identified and addressed. There would still remain a host of subsidiary questions that make ‘racism’ a matter of degree or create a continuum of neutral-to-bad faith. For example, if someone is raised in an isolated and racist environment, that person will not know better until he/she gets a chance to see and understand the wider world. People like that deserve a chance. People like that come in all colors too.
The word is terribly over-used, so much that its constant usage sounds stupid and anti-intellectual to those outside the bubble. It ought to mean something that is bad. Instead it means, more often than not, that the accuser is intellectually lazy and has a mean streak.
feel free to cite meaningful and rational sources.
At the current time, there are at least 11 million or more recent arrivals from Central America and Mexico. If either place is diverse, it is because of tribal affiliation. That diversity will transfer to the US. Plus, if you haven’t noticed, we have Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Taiwanese, a whole range of Indian and Middle Eastern plus a whole range of African and Caribbean immigrants. If you can’t see this, I can’t see it for you.
feel free to cite meaningful and rational sources.
At the current time, there are at least 11 million or more recent arrivals from Central America and Mexico. If either place is diverse, it is because of tribal affiliation. That diversity will transfer to the US. Plus, if you haven’t noticed, we have Korean, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Taiwanese, a whole range of Indian and Middle Eastern plus a whole range of African and Caribbean immigrants. If you can’t see this, I can’t see it for you.
To Marty’s example – I think there is no question that black people may see some things as evidence of racial bias, when no such thing was intended.
The fact that black people might be overly sensitive to being treated differently because they are black should really not surprise anyone. It doesn’t surprise me.
Because it is not, remotely, uncommon for black people to be treated differently because they are black. It simply is not. I’m not sure it’s possible to have a conversation about any of this without at least acknowledging that basic point of fact.
And, the woman in DiAngelo’s example might have simply been wrong. She may have been overly defensive or sensitive, and have been seeing harm where none was intended, or even existed.
Maybe it was just a crap survey. Marty’s point is apt, DiAngelo dismissed the survey before she knew who wrote it, or knew the color of the author’s skin. Sometimes black people are wrong. Black people can also be guilty of pre-judging.
Why wouldn’t they be, they’re just people, like everybody else.
Which kind of gets at what I’m struggling to point out here. Racism, as a phenomenon, isn’t just a matter of any one person’s intent, ill or otherwise. It’s in the air. It’s part of our context, and it can be most corrosive when it’s not explicitly acknowledged.
To Marty’s example – I think there is no question that black people may see some things as evidence of racial bias, when no such thing was intended.
The fact that black people might be overly sensitive to being treated differently because they are black should really not surprise anyone. It doesn’t surprise me.
Because it is not, remotely, uncommon for black people to be treated differently because they are black. It simply is not. I’m not sure it’s possible to have a conversation about any of this without at least acknowledging that basic point of fact.
And, the woman in DiAngelo’s example might have simply been wrong. She may have been overly defensive or sensitive, and have been seeing harm where none was intended, or even existed.
Maybe it was just a crap survey. Marty’s point is apt, DiAngelo dismissed the survey before she knew who wrote it, or knew the color of the author’s skin. Sometimes black people are wrong. Black people can also be guilty of pre-judging.
Why wouldn’t they be, they’re just people, like everybody else.
Which kind of gets at what I’m struggling to point out here. Racism, as a phenomenon, isn’t just a matter of any one person’s intent, ill or otherwise. It’s in the air. It’s part of our context, and it can be most corrosive when it’s not explicitly acknowledged.
If you can’t see this, I can’t see it for you.
no sources cited.
noted.
If you can’t see this, I can’t see it for you.
no sources cited.
noted.
“Its in the air”
I dont think so. I think white people are taught to not discriminate against black people. I think black people are taught that they will be discriminated against.
This sets up a practically irreconcilable set of expectations.
Blacks consider almost every act they object to by a white person to be racially demeaning, because they have been taught that’s how white people act. White people are insulted that the default assumption that any action is racially motivated.
The current progressive mantra is that all whites are responsible for the actions of any white person, current or historical. White people are also responsible for understanding the black experience, while being told they never can.
There is no reason to expect that the majority of white people will accept that they are racists.
“Its in the air”
I dont think so. I think white people are taught to not discriminate against black people. I think black people are taught that they will be discriminated against.
This sets up a practically irreconcilable set of expectations.
Blacks consider almost every act they object to by a white person to be racially demeaning, because they have been taught that’s how white people act. White people are insulted that the default assumption that any action is racially motivated.
The current progressive mantra is that all whites are responsible for the actions of any white person, current or historical. White people are also responsible for understanding the black experience, while being told they never can.
There is no reason to expect that the majority of white people will accept that they are racists.
@russell at 1:43
Makes sense to me.
@russell at 1:43
Makes sense to me.
The current progressive mantra is that all whites are responsible for the actions of any white person, current or historical.
guess i need to update my learning.
There is no reason to expect that the majority of white people will accept that they are racists.
i’m not sure telling black people they’re just being overly sensitive is going to solve anything.
The current progressive mantra is that all whites are responsible for the actions of any white person, current or historical.
guess i need to update my learning.
There is no reason to expect that the majority of white people will accept that they are racists.
i’m not sure telling black people they’re just being overly sensitive is going to solve anything.
Blacks consider almost every act they object to by a white person to be racially demeaning, because they have been taught that’s how white people act.
You wrote this to demonstrate how little actual racism exists?
Blacks consider almost every act they object to by a white person to be racially demeaning, because they have been taught that’s how white people act.
You wrote this to demonstrate how little actual racism exists?
Some of the lefties I hang with may be woke, but I’ve never heard them talk as Ms. DiAngelo indicates they do.
What I would say about this is that some – many? – of the “woke” folks I know are prone to assume animus where it doesn’t need to be assumed.
Everybody’s got issues to work through.
Maybe it would be easier to talk about this if we think of race as being a stumbling block to us all seeing each other simply as people.
We notice it. It informs how we relate to other people. Absent other information, we are prone to making assumptions based on skin color.
There are people who are, straight up, haters. I think we all agree that they exist, and that that is wrong. Just like there is (hopefully) little argument that, frex, Nazism is wrong.
But simply not being among the haters doesn’t always free you from having people’s skin color affect how you interact with them.
That’s what I mean when I say it’s pervasive. It’s always, or nearly always, there, as a thing.
And that’s not just because SWJ’s are looking for a club to beat conservatives over the head with.
It’s there. It gets in the way. It makes some people’s lives very hard.
Some of the lefties I hang with may be woke, but I’ve never heard them talk as Ms. DiAngelo indicates they do.
What I would say about this is that some – many? – of the “woke” folks I know are prone to assume animus where it doesn’t need to be assumed.
Everybody’s got issues to work through.
Maybe it would be easier to talk about this if we think of race as being a stumbling block to us all seeing each other simply as people.
We notice it. It informs how we relate to other people. Absent other information, we are prone to making assumptions based on skin color.
There are people who are, straight up, haters. I think we all agree that they exist, and that that is wrong. Just like there is (hopefully) little argument that, frex, Nazism is wrong.
But simply not being among the haters doesn’t always free you from having people’s skin color affect how you interact with them.
That’s what I mean when I say it’s pervasive. It’s always, or nearly always, there, as a thing.
And that’s not just because SWJ’s are looking for a club to beat conservatives over the head with.
It’s there. It gets in the way. It makes some people’s lives very hard.
I think white people are taught to not discriminate against black people. I think black people are taught that they will be discriminated against.
I think we are all taught not to discriminate. I think there is a wider belief among African Americans that their individual situations are racially driven than there should be. I think a sense of black victim-hood is promoted by some with larger platforms than is useful and I think the impact–which varies widely–is generally negative.
This sets up a practically irreconcilable set of expectations.
I think race is given more credit and more blame for outcomes than is merited, and this heavy emphasis impedes useful conversation and advancement.
Blacks consider almost every act they object to by a white person to be racially demeaning, because they have been taught that’s how white people act.
This is not my experience. This brush is too broad. I’ve seen black race grievance advocates on TV and in the media who fit this mold. Folks I run into at the courthouse (a large percentage being black or Hispanic), and elsewhere, not really.
White people are insulted that the default assumption that any action is racially motivated.
No one likes being told they are racist/white supremacists/etc simply because they are white and with perfectly good reason. However, too many whites–given the overly-racialized atmosphere these days have their race-radar tuned up pretty high as well.
The current progressive mantra is that all whites are responsible for the actions of any white person, current or historical. White people are also responsible for understanding the black experience, while being told they never can.
I would say this differently. Yes, the intellectual horsepower behind the progressive left sees race and sex as the driving force behind the free market, democratic West. This is demonstrably wrong for too many reasons to enumerate. It’s their religion and they are hyper evangelistic.
There is no reason to expect that the majority of white people will accept that they are racists.
Correct. But if you’re black, young and poor, it’s easy to conclude that all the well off white folks you see have some kind of advantage grounded in skin color. They don’t see the poor white people and don’t see the common elements of poverty that transcend race. The conclusion is understandable even if mostly incorrect. Where young, poor blacks are getting screwed is by being told the reason they can’t get ahead is their skin color. If you are young and black and believe that to be true, then why even make the effort?
I think white people are taught to not discriminate against black people. I think black people are taught that they will be discriminated against.
I think we are all taught not to discriminate. I think there is a wider belief among African Americans that their individual situations are racially driven than there should be. I think a sense of black victim-hood is promoted by some with larger platforms than is useful and I think the impact–which varies widely–is generally negative.
This sets up a practically irreconcilable set of expectations.
I think race is given more credit and more blame for outcomes than is merited, and this heavy emphasis impedes useful conversation and advancement.
Blacks consider almost every act they object to by a white person to be racially demeaning, because they have been taught that’s how white people act.
This is not my experience. This brush is too broad. I’ve seen black race grievance advocates on TV and in the media who fit this mold. Folks I run into at the courthouse (a large percentage being black or Hispanic), and elsewhere, not really.
White people are insulted that the default assumption that any action is racially motivated.
No one likes being told they are racist/white supremacists/etc simply because they are white and with perfectly good reason. However, too many whites–given the overly-racialized atmosphere these days have their race-radar tuned up pretty high as well.
The current progressive mantra is that all whites are responsible for the actions of any white person, current or historical. White people are also responsible for understanding the black experience, while being told they never can.
I would say this differently. Yes, the intellectual horsepower behind the progressive left sees race and sex as the driving force behind the free market, democratic West. This is demonstrably wrong for too many reasons to enumerate. It’s their religion and they are hyper evangelistic.
There is no reason to expect that the majority of white people will accept that they are racists.
Correct. But if you’re black, young and poor, it’s easy to conclude that all the well off white folks you see have some kind of advantage grounded in skin color. They don’t see the poor white people and don’t see the common elements of poverty that transcend race. The conclusion is understandable even if mostly incorrect. Where young, poor blacks are getting screwed is by being told the reason they can’t get ahead is their skin color. If you are young and black and believe that to be true, then why even make the effort?
But simply not being among the haters doesn’t always free you from having people’s skin color affect how you interact with them.
That’s what I mean when I say it’s pervasive. It’s always, or nearly always, there, as a thing.
I’m going to give this some thought. My initial thought is: I think the extent to which race is a thing is mostly a function of not knowing and working with people who are different. Do enough of that and you move past it.
But simply not being among the haters doesn’t always free you from having people’s skin color affect how you interact with them.
That’s what I mean when I say it’s pervasive. It’s always, or nearly always, there, as a thing.
I’m going to give this some thought. My initial thought is: I think the extent to which race is a thing is mostly a function of not knowing and working with people who are different. Do enough of that and you move past it.
“This is not my experience. This brush is too broad. I’ve seen black race grievance advocates on TV and in the media who fit this mold. Folks I run into at the courthouse (a large percentage being black or Hispanic), and elsewhere, not really.”
I agree, it was way too broad.
“This is not my experience. This brush is too broad. I’ve seen black race grievance advocates on TV and in the media who fit this mold. Folks I run into at the courthouse (a large percentage being black or Hispanic), and elsewhere, not really.”
I agree, it was way too broad.
Yes, the intellectual horsepower behind the progressive left sees race and sex as the driving force behind the free market, democratic West. This is demonstrably wrong for too many reasons to enumerate. It’s their religion and they are hyper evangelistic.
pour one out for that strawman. he never stood a chance.
Yes, the intellectual horsepower behind the progressive left sees race and sex as the driving force behind the free market, democratic West. This is demonstrably wrong for too many reasons to enumerate. It’s their religion and they are hyper evangelistic.
pour one out for that strawman. he never stood a chance.
“White fragility” began back when “one drop of Negro blood” destroyed your whiteness. Since it was never true AFAIK that “one drop of white blood” destroyed your blackness, I suppose we could speak of “black resilience”. But of course DiAngelo is NOT talking about “white fragility” in THAT sense.
Her message seems aimed more at “woke” libruls like me than at anyone else. And I must say I take her analysis seriously. Don’t know whether that means I’m so “fragile” as to be duped by bullshit or so “resilient” that I’m not afraid to face it. All I know is that, man and boy, I have never been treated like a black person. Like everyone else, I have been dissed, bullied, patronized, subtly or overtly made to feel unwelcome — but never because of the color of skin I was born in.
There’s a South Park episode in which Stan’s dad, a “woke” liberal white suburbanite, is a contestant on Wheel of Fortune. He loses his shit when the clue is “People who annoy me” and the board reads “N_GGERS”. Fictional character, contrived situation, sure; but I confess I fell for it myself. So I can’t tell myself that I’m free of the sort of under-the-pier racism DiAngelo is talking about. Anyone who can tell themselves that must feel pretty good.
–TP
“White fragility” began back when “one drop of Negro blood” destroyed your whiteness. Since it was never true AFAIK that “one drop of white blood” destroyed your blackness, I suppose we could speak of “black resilience”. But of course DiAngelo is NOT talking about “white fragility” in THAT sense.
Her message seems aimed more at “woke” libruls like me than at anyone else. And I must say I take her analysis seriously. Don’t know whether that means I’m so “fragile” as to be duped by bullshit or so “resilient” that I’m not afraid to face it. All I know is that, man and boy, I have never been treated like a black person. Like everyone else, I have been dissed, bullied, patronized, subtly or overtly made to feel unwelcome — but never because of the color of skin I was born in.
There’s a South Park episode in which Stan’s dad, a “woke” liberal white suburbanite, is a contestant on Wheel of Fortune. He loses his shit when the clue is “People who annoy me” and the board reads “N_GGERS”. Fictional character, contrived situation, sure; but I confess I fell for it myself. So I can’t tell myself that I’m free of the sort of under-the-pier racism DiAngelo is talking about. Anyone who can tell themselves that must feel pretty good.
–TP
It’s a privilege to learn about
racism instead of experiencing
it your whole life
It seems to me that despite various criticisms of diAngelo, there was enough there to give some people serious pause for thought. It’s a start…
It’s a privilege to learn about
racism instead of experiencing
it your whole life
It seems to me that despite various criticisms of diAngelo, there was enough there to give some people serious pause for thought. It’s a start…
Certainly, some of our reactions seem to corroborate some of her points.
Certainly, some of our reactions seem to corroborate some of her points.
I think the extent to which race is a thing is mostly a function of not knowing and working with people who are different. Do enough of that and you move past it.
Which is to say, more than a grain of truth to your comment here, McK.
I’ll also say, FWIW, that it’s highly likely that you, as a resident of The Terrible South, have more contact with black people than I do. Just one reason, probably among several, that I’m not interested in challenging your claim to being personally relatively color-blind.
Liberal New England is a pretty segregated place.
I think the extent to which race is a thing is mostly a function of not knowing and working with people who are different. Do enough of that and you move past it.
Which is to say, more than a grain of truth to your comment here, McK.
I’ll also say, FWIW, that it’s highly likely that you, as a resident of The Terrible South, have more contact with black people than I do. Just one reason, probably among several, that I’m not interested in challenging your claim to being personally relatively color-blind.
Liberal New England is a pretty segregated place.
liberal Raleigh suburbs are, too.
liberal Raleigh suburbs are, too.
OK, I’ve listened to the whole thing now. Two lines, in particular, stood out to me.
About 23 minutes in, she says: “One of the aspects of institutional power is the ability to disseminate your world view to everyone. To position it as objective and universal.” Which, although I suspect she was unconscious of it, exactly reflects her. Her position is not objective (which she occasionally recognizes by saying in passing “I believe…”). And her position is definitely not universal.
And, about 1:07, she makes a caustic remark about white people who claim they are not racist. She has them saying: “As a white person, I will be the judge of whether racism has occurred.” She says this in the course of telling everyone what racism is and that it has occurred. And doesn’t even realize that she is doing exactly what she accuses others of.
Overall, she appears to assume her conclusions, and then offer a few examples that she feel support them. But it’s a long way from actually demonstrating that they are correct. As it happens, some of the things she says are correct. But they are a minority.
It is no doubt a prejudice from my years studying anthropology, but she acts like one would expect of a sociologist. Sociologists, you see, look only at their own culture, and assume that all mankind is the same. She is looking in particular at her own sub-culture, but the pattern is manifest.
OK, I’ve listened to the whole thing now. Two lines, in particular, stood out to me.
About 23 minutes in, she says: “One of the aspects of institutional power is the ability to disseminate your world view to everyone. To position it as objective and universal.” Which, although I suspect she was unconscious of it, exactly reflects her. Her position is not objective (which she occasionally recognizes by saying in passing “I believe…”). And her position is definitely not universal.
And, about 1:07, she makes a caustic remark about white people who claim they are not racist. She has them saying: “As a white person, I will be the judge of whether racism has occurred.” She says this in the course of telling everyone what racism is and that it has occurred. And doesn’t even realize that she is doing exactly what she accuses others of.
Overall, she appears to assume her conclusions, and then offer a few examples that she feel support them. But it’s a long way from actually demonstrating that they are correct. As it happens, some of the things she says are correct. But they are a minority.
It is no doubt a prejudice from my years studying anthropology, but she acts like one would expect of a sociologist. Sociologists, you see, look only at their own culture, and assume that all mankind is the same. She is looking in particular at her own sub-culture, but the pattern is manifest.
Sociologists, you see, look only at their own culture, and assume that all mankind is the same.
That’s a very interesting point, not something of which I was aware, and also something about which I’m happy to defer to you, given your educational background.
And, if we stipulate all of that, what I take away is this:
DiAngelo, speaking as a would-be “woke” liberal white person, finds that would-be “woke” liberal white people seem to express racist attitudes and behaviors, and are often unaware of doing so.
This shows up in where they live, why they choose where they live, who they work with, etc. Now and then the more or less sub-rosa attitudes bubble up in statements and actions that are sufficiently racist to put real, live black people’s teeth on edge.
It’s interesting to me that the people here who identify more or less with the would-be “woke” white liberals among us find all of this credible.
Those who don’t, less so, perhaps very much less so.
I’d be curious to know what a random sampling of black folks thought about it all. My guess, FWIW, is that they’d have a variety of points of view. But I don’t know that, and I can’t speak for them.
Mostly, for whatever reason, not a lot of black people here on ObWi.
My exposure to the “black experience” is primarily via my interest in music that grew out of that experience. Jazz, blues. That’s a real window into black culture, but also a very narrow one. And a second-hand one.
I don’t have a very clear idea of what it’s like to be black in America.
What seems pretty clear to me is that black people are treated differently than white people, and in ways, taken as a whole, that are to their detriment. Historically, certainly and more than obviously. And, also, now.
I could be wrong about that. I’m not black. I doubt I am wrong about it.
I’d be happy to be corrected by a reasonably representative random sampling of black people. I’m not really that open to taking the word of white people on the topic, because they’re not black, either.
Black people aren’t treated the same as white people. Because they’re black. And the ways they are treated differently are overwhelmingly not to their advantage.
And we pretty much all own some piece of that.
That’s where the conversation begins, IMVHO.
Sociologists, you see, look only at their own culture, and assume that all mankind is the same.
That’s a very interesting point, not something of which I was aware, and also something about which I’m happy to defer to you, given your educational background.
And, if we stipulate all of that, what I take away is this:
DiAngelo, speaking as a would-be “woke” liberal white person, finds that would-be “woke” liberal white people seem to express racist attitudes and behaviors, and are often unaware of doing so.
This shows up in where they live, why they choose where they live, who they work with, etc. Now and then the more or less sub-rosa attitudes bubble up in statements and actions that are sufficiently racist to put real, live black people’s teeth on edge.
It’s interesting to me that the people here who identify more or less with the would-be “woke” white liberals among us find all of this credible.
Those who don’t, less so, perhaps very much less so.
I’d be curious to know what a random sampling of black folks thought about it all. My guess, FWIW, is that they’d have a variety of points of view. But I don’t know that, and I can’t speak for them.
Mostly, for whatever reason, not a lot of black people here on ObWi.
My exposure to the “black experience” is primarily via my interest in music that grew out of that experience. Jazz, blues. That’s a real window into black culture, but also a very narrow one. And a second-hand one.
I don’t have a very clear idea of what it’s like to be black in America.
What seems pretty clear to me is that black people are treated differently than white people, and in ways, taken as a whole, that are to their detriment. Historically, certainly and more than obviously. And, also, now.
I could be wrong about that. I’m not black. I doubt I am wrong about it.
I’d be happy to be corrected by a reasonably representative random sampling of black people. I’m not really that open to taking the word of white people on the topic, because they’re not black, either.
Black people aren’t treated the same as white people. Because they’re black. And the ways they are treated differently are overwhelmingly not to their advantage.
And we pretty much all own some piece of that.
That’s where the conversation begins, IMVHO.
I think the extent to which race is a thing is mostly a function of not knowing and working with people who are different. Do enough of that and you move past it.
I disagree with that. Outright bigotry aside, racism is not about how you interact with colleagues and neighbours. It’s about how you perceive people you don’t know.
…if you’re black, young and poor, it’s easy to conclude that all the well off white folks you see have some kind of advantage grounded in skin color…
It’s easy to conclude that many of them do, because it’s true. It comes from family wealth and connections, and there’s a reason why those things accrued much more to white people.
I think the extent to which race is a thing is mostly a function of not knowing and working with people who are different. Do enough of that and you move past it.
I disagree with that. Outright bigotry aside, racism is not about how you interact with colleagues and neighbours. It’s about how you perceive people you don’t know.
…if you’re black, young and poor, it’s easy to conclude that all the well off white folks you see have some kind of advantage grounded in skin color…
It’s easy to conclude that many of them do, because it’s true. It comes from family wealth and connections, and there’s a reason why those things accrued much more to white people.
Yes, wrs, and what Pro Bono said. And let’s not forget the dense page diAngelo put up, showing terrible legal and other openly institutionally racist practises, well into (as she kept saying) her lifetime. You’d have to be wilfully blind to ignore the impact and hangover, both conscious and unconscious, that those practises have had on both black and white people. If anybody knows (without too much trouble) how to screenshot that page, from the talk or from her book, and can post it here, I for one would find that useful.
Yes, wrs, and what Pro Bono said. And let’s not forget the dense page diAngelo put up, showing terrible legal and other openly institutionally racist practises, well into (as she kept saying) her lifetime. You’d have to be wilfully blind to ignore the impact and hangover, both conscious and unconscious, that those practises have had on both black and white people. If anybody knows (without too much trouble) how to screenshot that page, from the talk or from her book, and can post it here, I for one would find that useful.
The company I work for is majority-owned by a private equity company owned by a black man. A very astute and wealthy black man.
He’s normally a very private person, but after the Floyd killing he’s made some public statements and appearances. Also, some internal to companies in his portfolio.
One story he shared: when he was young, his uncle was killed. The uncle had just been hired by the state of Utah as some kind of inspector, and the job involved traveling around the state.
He stopped to buy gas. The gas station attendant assumed that a black man with a state-issued gas credit card must have stolen it.
So he shot him.
I don’t really know any white people with a story like that. Maybe you do, I don’t.
Black people are treated differently than white people. Seems to me.
The company I work for is majority-owned by a private equity company owned by a black man. A very astute and wealthy black man.
He’s normally a very private person, but after the Floyd killing he’s made some public statements and appearances. Also, some internal to companies in his portfolio.
One story he shared: when he was young, his uncle was killed. The uncle had just been hired by the state of Utah as some kind of inspector, and the job involved traveling around the state.
He stopped to buy gas. The gas station attendant assumed that a black man with a state-issued gas credit card must have stolen it.
So he shot him.
I don’t really know any white people with a story like that. Maybe you do, I don’t.
Black people are treated differently than white people. Seems to me.
Black people aren’t treated the same as white people. Because they’re black. And the ways they are treated differently are overwhelmingly not to their advantage.
Quite true. And the number and variety of people protesting these past couple of weeks suggest that much of the country is aware of it. And, at long last, wants that (or, to be precise, significant parts of it, at least) to change.
I just find the jump from “there is racist behavior in our society” to “all white people are necessary racist, and always will be” to be a bit much.
As for the narrow focus of sociologists, we might ask lj to talk about racial attitudes in Japan. Not because the Japanese are especially bad on race, but just because that’s where we have someone who can make first hand observations.
As an aside, there was a phenomena I encountered in college. The parents of Japanese/Chinese American kids routinely sat them down before they left for college. And said something close to “We know you will meet all kind of different people at college. And that’s OK. Just don’t being home any Chinese/Japanese; they’re inferior.”
Black people aren’t treated the same as white people. Because they’re black. And the ways they are treated differently are overwhelmingly not to their advantage.
Quite true. And the number and variety of people protesting these past couple of weeks suggest that much of the country is aware of it. And, at long last, wants that (or, to be precise, significant parts of it, at least) to change.
I just find the jump from “there is racist behavior in our society” to “all white people are necessary racist, and always will be” to be a bit much.
As for the narrow focus of sociologists, we might ask lj to talk about racial attitudes in Japan. Not because the Japanese are especially bad on race, but just because that’s where we have someone who can make first hand observations.
As an aside, there was a phenomena I encountered in college. The parents of Japanese/Chinese American kids routinely sat them down before they left for college. And said something close to “We know you will meet all kind of different people at college. And that’s OK. Just don’t being home any Chinese/Japanese; they’re inferior.”
Watched it all the way through.
As far as here just making assumptions and broad claims, let me just say that I had, by the end of that talk, about a dozen keywords and names that could be followed up on if I wanted to find out what scholarship she was building on in her framing. Likewise, her book contains both notes and further reading.
So there is that.
Watched it all the way through.
As far as here just making assumptions and broad claims, let me just say that I had, by the end of that talk, about a dozen keywords and names that could be followed up on if I wanted to find out what scholarship she was building on in her framing. Likewise, her book contains both notes and further reading.
So there is that.
I’ll take a brief break from lurking because I very much appreciated watching di Angelo’s video. She was born the same year as I was, and I’d like to recount some of my memories.
When I was a small child (kindergarten), I lived in a southern state, in a college town. I was playing in my front yard, by myself, when a car drove by with a bunch of young men in it, who yelled a racial slur at me. Although my heritage is European, I get very brown skin when I go in the sun unprotected, as I did in those days, and I had dark curly hair. I don’t remember what slur was used, but either they mistook me for black or for Mexican, or just called me the slur for one of those ethnicities to be hateful. It was very scary, although I had no idea what it meant. I went inside and told the adults. They were upset, and discussed the fact that it was a racial slur. The flip side of racism at that age is that I said something horribly insulting and racis to an African-American woman who worked as a housekeeper for my family. She told my parents, telling them that she didn’t think that they were that kind of people, and my parents gave me holy hell. I have no idea where I got the thing that I said – I know it wasn’t from my parents (who, although raised racist, were trying hard not to be racist).
I also remember, at an early age, seeing segregated water fountains and bathrooms. The white bathrooms were cleaned regularly; the “colored” bathrooms were not. The white water fountains were functional; the “colored” water fountains were not.
The African-Americans I knew before the Civil Rights movement worked as laborers, either housekeepers or yard helpers.
I went to elementary and high school in Northern Virginia, in a DC suburb. My school wasn’t integrated until the 6th grade when I changed schools to allow for the change. I liked my new school, but the black children in my class were loners (or that’s how I perceived it). There was a black neighborhood very close to my house, but it was in the woods, with no paved roads leading to the houses there.
My parents were supportive of civil rights. I was lucky that they taught me to try. In school, even after integration, kids mostly self-segregated, and interactions were awkward. In high school, (the early ’70’s) there were attempted therapeutic racial confrontation sessions facilitated by the teachers. (Maybe they were called something else? Don’t remember.)
My first normal peer interaction with African-Americans, where I made genuine friends, was my first job out of college when I worked in DC. Truly revelatory, and the only really deep interracial friendships I’ve ever had. Fortunately, they were close and real.
After that, some casual friendships with people at work or in civil life.
I’m not sure how helpful it is for whites to feel guilty about our obvious privilege, as compared to our African-American peers who grew up in neighborhoods with unpaved roads. But we do need to recognize that it happened, that it had an effect, and that the phenomenon of unequal treatment still exists. African-Americans are murdered by police over and over, and aren’t held to account for it. We have to demand justice for African-American lives. This is the very least we can do.
I’ll take a brief break from lurking because I very much appreciated watching di Angelo’s video. She was born the same year as I was, and I’d like to recount some of my memories.
When I was a small child (kindergarten), I lived in a southern state, in a college town. I was playing in my front yard, by myself, when a car drove by with a bunch of young men in it, who yelled a racial slur at me. Although my heritage is European, I get very brown skin when I go in the sun unprotected, as I did in those days, and I had dark curly hair. I don’t remember what slur was used, but either they mistook me for black or for Mexican, or just called me the slur for one of those ethnicities to be hateful. It was very scary, although I had no idea what it meant. I went inside and told the adults. They were upset, and discussed the fact that it was a racial slur. The flip side of racism at that age is that I said something horribly insulting and racis to an African-American woman who worked as a housekeeper for my family. She told my parents, telling them that she didn’t think that they were that kind of people, and my parents gave me holy hell. I have no idea where I got the thing that I said – I know it wasn’t from my parents (who, although raised racist, were trying hard not to be racist).
I also remember, at an early age, seeing segregated water fountains and bathrooms. The white bathrooms were cleaned regularly; the “colored” bathrooms were not. The white water fountains were functional; the “colored” water fountains were not.
The African-Americans I knew before the Civil Rights movement worked as laborers, either housekeepers or yard helpers.
I went to elementary and high school in Northern Virginia, in a DC suburb. My school wasn’t integrated until the 6th grade when I changed schools to allow for the change. I liked my new school, but the black children in my class were loners (or that’s how I perceived it). There was a black neighborhood very close to my house, but it was in the woods, with no paved roads leading to the houses there.
My parents were supportive of civil rights. I was lucky that they taught me to try. In school, even after integration, kids mostly self-segregated, and interactions were awkward. In high school, (the early ’70’s) there were attempted therapeutic racial confrontation sessions facilitated by the teachers. (Maybe they were called something else? Don’t remember.)
My first normal peer interaction with African-Americans, where I made genuine friends, was my first job out of college when I worked in DC. Truly revelatory, and the only really deep interracial friendships I’ve ever had. Fortunately, they were close and real.
After that, some casual friendships with people at work or in civil life.
I’m not sure how helpful it is for whites to feel guilty about our obvious privilege, as compared to our African-American peers who grew up in neighborhoods with unpaved roads. But we do need to recognize that it happened, that it had an effect, and that the phenomenon of unequal treatment still exists. African-Americans are murdered by police over and over, and aren’t held to account for it. We have to demand justice for African-American lives. This is the very least we can do.
An edit: “African-Americans are murdered by police over and over, without the police being held to account for it.”
An edit: “African-Americans are murdered by police over and over, without the police being held to account for it.”
I just find the jump from “there is racist behavior in our society” to “all white people are necessary racist, and always will be” to be a bit much.
i don’t. though it’s taken me a while to figure it out.
it’s been said here today by several people that all people are racist – in that they see race and, try and deny as they might, make assumptions based on it. and maybe that’s just humans doing their tribalism thing. c’est la vie? oui.
mais, non…
racist black people have no power. they aren’t setting the rules. even egalitarian black people have no power.
what makes white racism a problem in the US is that white people are firmly, solidly and unrelentingly in charge. they have ALL the power. they make the rules. they say what’s fair. [it’s lots of fun to have you there]. it’s created a system where white people don’t have to be explicitly racist to benefit; they merely have to accept the way things are, while ignoring or outright denying that “the way things are” is actually a system set up by white people to benefit white people – at the expense of everyone else. that is “structural” / “societal” racism.
it’s the collection of unspoken benefits white people gain by birth. i didn’t have to work for it, i was born into the club. it’s this great invisible ether of Things That Work Better If You Are White that we’re all walking around in.
you don’t have to harbor ill will towards people who aren’t white. you simply have to ignore how society in general (therefore government, institutions, the economy, etc) is set up to benefit you and not ‘them’. pretend it’s all good, that racial discrepancies are entirely the fault of people who didn’t get the same advantages you didn’t know you were getting. get mad when people point them out, because it can’t be your fault if you got something you didn’t notice and didn’t ask for, right?
that is also precisely the “privilege” in “white privilege”.
I just find the jump from “there is racist behavior in our society” to “all white people are necessary racist, and always will be” to be a bit much.
i don’t. though it’s taken me a while to figure it out.
it’s been said here today by several people that all people are racist – in that they see race and, try and deny as they might, make assumptions based on it. and maybe that’s just humans doing their tribalism thing. c’est la vie? oui.
mais, non…
racist black people have no power. they aren’t setting the rules. even egalitarian black people have no power.
what makes white racism a problem in the US is that white people are firmly, solidly and unrelentingly in charge. they have ALL the power. they make the rules. they say what’s fair. [it’s lots of fun to have you there]. it’s created a system where white people don’t have to be explicitly racist to benefit; they merely have to accept the way things are, while ignoring or outright denying that “the way things are” is actually a system set up by white people to benefit white people – at the expense of everyone else. that is “structural” / “societal” racism.
it’s the collection of unspoken benefits white people gain by birth. i didn’t have to work for it, i was born into the club. it’s this great invisible ether of Things That Work Better If You Are White that we’re all walking around in.
you don’t have to harbor ill will towards people who aren’t white. you simply have to ignore how society in general (therefore government, institutions, the economy, etc) is set up to benefit you and not ‘them’. pretend it’s all good, that racial discrepancies are entirely the fault of people who didn’t get the same advantages you didn’t know you were getting. get mad when people point them out, because it can’t be your fault if you got something you didn’t notice and didn’t ask for, right?
that is also precisely the “privilege” in “white privilege”.
wcs
wcs
sapient, I have nothing like your background. But I find myself mostly in agreement with your conclusions. (How often does that happen??)
sapient, I have nothing like your background. But I find myself mostly in agreement with your conclusions. (How often does that happen??)
How often does that happen??
Honestly, pretty often. But, with that said, I will relurk!
How often does that happen??
Honestly, pretty often. But, with that said, I will relurk!
you don’t have to harbor ill will towards people who aren’t white. you simply have to ignore how society in general (therefore government, institutions, the economy, etc) is set up to benefit you and not ‘them’. pretend it’s all good, that racial discrepancies are entirely the fault of people who didn’t get the same advantages you didn’t know you were getting. get mad when people point them out, because it can’t be your fault if you got something you didn’t notice and didn’t ask for, right?
Sure. But suppose you don’t “pretend it’s all good”? Suppose you don’t maintain that the disparities are “entirely the fault of people who didn’t get the same advantages”? Suppose you don’t get mad when someone points out the disparities? In Dr DiAngelo’s view (as I understood her), you are just as racist as those who do.
I really wonder at those who demand different behavior (which is definitely needed). But who simultaneously tell those who they want to change that they will remain racists (and be denounced for it) regardless. What incentive do they imagine they are providing for the changes that they say they desire?
you don’t have to harbor ill will towards people who aren’t white. you simply have to ignore how society in general (therefore government, institutions, the economy, etc) is set up to benefit you and not ‘them’. pretend it’s all good, that racial discrepancies are entirely the fault of people who didn’t get the same advantages you didn’t know you were getting. get mad when people point them out, because it can’t be your fault if you got something you didn’t notice and didn’t ask for, right?
Sure. But suppose you don’t “pretend it’s all good”? Suppose you don’t maintain that the disparities are “entirely the fault of people who didn’t get the same advantages”? Suppose you don’t get mad when someone points out the disparities? In Dr DiAngelo’s view (as I understood her), you are just as racist as those who do.
I really wonder at those who demand different behavior (which is definitely needed). But who simultaneously tell those who they want to change that they will remain racists (and be denounced for it) regardless. What incentive do they imagine they are providing for the changes that they say they desire?
The problem I see is this is not true
what makes white racism a problem in the US is that white people are firmly, solidly and unrelentinglyin charge. they have ALL the power
This and the paragraph around it assumes ALL white people have that power, and benefit from it. Which is not remotely true.
The problem I see is this is not true
what makes white racism a problem in the US is that white people are firmly, solidly and unrelentinglyin charge. they have ALL the power
This and the paragraph around it assumes ALL white people have that power, and benefit from it. Which is not remotely true.
OK, unfortunately, RL dealt some work and I was able to keep track, possibly because I was sleeping.
First off, I should have posted this with it, here is the transcript
https://www.spl.org/Seattle-Public-Library/documents/transcriptions/2018/18-06-28_Robin-DiAngelo.pdf
Also, I see an article being mentioned and I cannot find it. COuld someone point me to the link. Lastly, I hope everyone who hasn’t could confirm that they have watched the whole video? Thanks
OK, unfortunately, RL dealt some work and I was able to keep track, possibly because I was sleeping.
First off, I should have posted this with it, here is the transcript
https://www.spl.org/Seattle-Public-Library/documents/transcriptions/2018/18-06-28_Robin-DiAngelo.pdf
Also, I see an article being mentioned and I cannot find it. COuld someone point me to the link. Lastly, I hope everyone who hasn’t could confirm that they have watched the whole video? Thanks
wj – try thinking of it not as “being racist” but as “being more or less shaped by racism.” Being less racist, or sexist, is a worthy goal. Dismantling the apparatus of racism or sexism, even at the cost of personal privilege (often understood as “freedom”) even moreso. Mostly, though, it begins simply with listening and with empathy.
Marty – you seem to be discounting the discussion of intersectionality, which is referenced in the talk. Just because the system’s default design protects white supremacy that does not mean that all whites have equal access to that position of privilege, nor that some minority individuals do not have positions of relative privilege compared to some whites. All that it means is that, all other things being equal, things are still not equal for non-whites.
wj – try thinking of it not as “being racist” but as “being more or less shaped by racism.” Being less racist, or sexist, is a worthy goal. Dismantling the apparatus of racism or sexism, even at the cost of personal privilege (often understood as “freedom”) even moreso. Mostly, though, it begins simply with listening and with empathy.
Marty – you seem to be discounting the discussion of intersectionality, which is referenced in the talk. Just because the system’s default design protects white supremacy that does not mean that all whites have equal access to that position of privilege, nor that some minority individuals do not have positions of relative privilege compared to some whites. All that it means is that, all other things being equal, things are still not equal for non-whites.
wj wrote
Which would be easier if the term wasn’t routinely being used as a personal attack.
So how do we do that? It seems to me we have to do that by everyone acknowledging, as Russell notes, that it is baked into the system. Do we need to ‘feel guilty about it’ as sapient says? Well I think being aware of it doesn’t mean ‘feel guilty’. I don’t think acknowledging it means ‘feel guilty’. But believing that you don’t have it or claiming it is because of ‘bigger’ differences means that you haven’t acknowledged it.
wj asked about the situation in Japan (and Korea). It’s… complicated. I’ll try to put up a post, but let me think on it for a bit.
wj wrote
Which would be easier if the term wasn’t routinely being used as a personal attack.
So how do we do that? It seems to me we have to do that by everyone acknowledging, as Russell notes, that it is baked into the system. Do we need to ‘feel guilty about it’ as sapient says? Well I think being aware of it doesn’t mean ‘feel guilty’. I don’t think acknowledging it means ‘feel guilty’. But believing that you don’t have it or claiming it is because of ‘bigger’ differences means that you haven’t acknowledged it.
wj asked about the situation in Japan (and Korea). It’s… complicated. I’ll try to put up a post, but let me think on it for a bit.
And I’ve just added a screenshot of the list per GftNC’s request.
And I’ve just added a screenshot of the list per GftNC’s request.
I think it is necessary to make a distinction between ‘instinctively reacting differently to persons of different phenotype’, ‘reflecting on the former’ and ‘putting different values (apart from personal taste*) on a person due to different phenotype**’.
What we usually mean by ‘racism’ is the last but strictly it starts with the first. And (apart from actually blind people) I do not believe there is anyone not fitting the first.
Personally, I put myself in the second category. I am aware that my behaviour is influenced by both the phenotype and me being aware of it and this in turn influencing my behaviour. I take more care in what I say and do, if I deal with persons of color (or certain religions) because I know it is a minefield (one laid primarily by people of my general phenotype)***.
I will again add that local German example of kids knowing that calling someone a Jew is a grave insult without knowing what a Jew actually is.
And there are actual anti-semitism and claims of anti-semitism used as a club at the same time. Same with racism (as traditionally understood). The latter is extremly counterproductive when dealing with the former because it can be used to deflect justified charges.
*to be very crude: do I feel more desire to have a carnal encounter with a person of this phenotype than another?
**or learned perceptions of value of phenotype without any actual experience (see example below).
***’Don’t mention the war!’ describes a similar phenomenon.
I hope this is OK despite not specifically referring to a part of the video.
I think it is necessary to make a distinction between ‘instinctively reacting differently to persons of different phenotype’, ‘reflecting on the former’ and ‘putting different values (apart from personal taste*) on a person due to different phenotype**’.
What we usually mean by ‘racism’ is the last but strictly it starts with the first. And (apart from actually blind people) I do not believe there is anyone not fitting the first.
Personally, I put myself in the second category. I am aware that my behaviour is influenced by both the phenotype and me being aware of it and this in turn influencing my behaviour. I take more care in what I say and do, if I deal with persons of color (or certain religions) because I know it is a minefield (one laid primarily by people of my general phenotype)***.
I will again add that local German example of kids knowing that calling someone a Jew is a grave insult without knowing what a Jew actually is.
And there are actual anti-semitism and claims of anti-semitism used as a club at the same time. Same with racism (as traditionally understood). The latter is extremly counterproductive when dealing with the former because it can be used to deflect justified charges.
*to be very crude: do I feel more desire to have a carnal encounter with a person of this phenotype than another?
**or learned perceptions of value of phenotype without any actual experience (see example below).
***’Don’t mention the war!’ describes a similar phenomenon.
I hope this is OK despite not specifically referring to a part of the video.
Thanks for the screenshot, lj.
Thanks for the screenshot, lj.
Hartmut, consider that those kids knowing that calling someone a Jew is a grave insult would, in a racial context be taken as evidence of racism. Because it equate “Jew” and “insult”. Rather than as the kids just knowing not to do it.
Hartmut, consider that those kids knowing that calling someone a Jew is a grave insult would, in a racial context be taken as evidence of racism. Because it equate “Jew” and “insult”. Rather than as the kids just knowing not to do it.
If I understand you correctly, that is my point. The kids got somehow ‘taught’ to despise a group without having to know the underlying ‘theory’ of racism. And they simply ‘knew’ and probably could not even tell who taught them that. So, prejudices are carried on in society without an official (let alone legal) framework or blessing.
This got a satirist treatment already in 1931 btw (Sorry, no English version).
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_allem_sind_die_Juden_schuld
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhKtQASpbY0
(even a premonition of the ‘gay agenda’ here).
If I understand you correctly, that is my point. The kids got somehow ‘taught’ to despise a group without having to know the underlying ‘theory’ of racism. And they simply ‘knew’ and probably could not even tell who taught them that. So, prejudices are carried on in society without an official (let alone legal) framework or blessing.
This got a satirist treatment already in 1931 btw (Sorry, no English version).
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_allem_sind_die_Juden_schuld
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhKtQASpbY0
(even a premonition of the ‘gay agenda’ here).
nous,
I dont know that I’m discounting it, but white supremacy is both an emotionally charged description and a very inaccurate characterization.
The supremacy is economic class supremacy. While primarily occupied by whites, very few whites actually participate.
While some of the economic impact is specifically against blacks(redlining) there is considerable impact on the poor community in general(paycheck cashing, aggressive policing, poor schools, limited housing, subprime mortgages).
The term engenders what I feel like is a false narrative that many of the things on the slide, obviously the more recent ones, are not applicable to poor whites.
nous,
I dont know that I’m discounting it, but white supremacy is both an emotionally charged description and a very inaccurate characterization.
The supremacy is economic class supremacy. While primarily occupied by whites, very few whites actually participate.
While some of the economic impact is specifically against blacks(redlining) there is considerable impact on the poor community in general(paycheck cashing, aggressive policing, poor schools, limited housing, subprime mortgages).
The term engenders what I feel like is a false narrative that many of the things on the slide, obviously the more recent ones, are not applicable to poor whites.
Hartmut, on the other hand, it could have been a sign that anti-Semitism was being reined in. One generation learns not to say it. The next, thetefore, never hears it.
We saw something similar here in California with “yellow petil”. When my mother was growing up, adults said it and meant it seriously. Her generation learned not to say it. My generation never heard it (except maybe in history class). Now, we only hear that view from people like Trump, and even the vast majority of the right wing here thinks it’s ridiculous.
Hartmut, on the other hand, it could have been a sign that anti-Semitism was being reined in. One generation learns not to say it. The next, thetefore, never hears it.
We saw something similar here in California with “yellow petil”. When my mother was growing up, adults said it and meant it seriously. Her generation learned not to say it. My generation never heard it (except maybe in history class). Now, we only hear that view from people like Trump, and even the vast majority of the right wing here thinks it’s ridiculous.
the poor community in general
this feels like “all poor people matter”.
seems to me, the point of all this is: all other things being equal, many situations are likely to be harder for a black person than for a white person.
none of this is meant to say white people are all doing great, or that white lives don’t matter, or that all white people are living their dreams. it’s that black people face an additional headwind that white people don’t.
the poor community in general
this feels like “all poor people matter”.
seems to me, the point of all this is: all other things being equal, many situations are likely to be harder for a black person than for a white person.
none of this is meant to say white people are all doing great, or that white lives don’t matter, or that all white people are living their dreams. it’s that black people face an additional headwind that white people don’t.
The slide (from above) as a list:
01)KIDNAPPING & 300 YEARS OF ENSLAVEMENT, TORTURE, RAPE & BRUTALITY
02)MEDICAL experimentation
03)BLACK CODES
04)Sharecropping
05)BANS ON TESTIFYING AGAINST WHITES
06)MANDATORY SEGREGATION
07)BANS ON BLACK JURY SERVICE & VOTING
08)LYNCHINGS & MOB VIOLENCE
09)IMPRISONING people FOR unpaid WORK
10)BANS ON INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE
11)REDLINING TO PROFIT REALTORS & BANKERS
12)EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
13)EDUCATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
14)BIASED LAWS & POLICING PRACTICES
15)WHITE FLIGHT
16)Subprime mortgages
17)MASS incarceration
18)SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE
19)DISPROPORTIONATE SPECIAL ED REFERRALS & PUNISHMENTS
20)TESTING/TRACKING/school funding
21)BIASED MEDIA REPRESENTATION
22)HISTORICAL OMISSIONS
In my humble opinion and to the best of my knowledge:
ALL UPPERCASE means “applies to blacks as blacks”.
All lowercase means “applies to poor whites and blacks.
Mixed CASE means “arguably applies to class, not race”.
Not sure there’s much proof of a “false narrative” there.
–TP
The slide (from above) as a list:
01)KIDNAPPING & 300 YEARS OF ENSLAVEMENT, TORTURE, RAPE & BRUTALITY
02)MEDICAL experimentation
03)BLACK CODES
04)Sharecropping
05)BANS ON TESTIFYING AGAINST WHITES
06)MANDATORY SEGREGATION
07)BANS ON BLACK JURY SERVICE & VOTING
08)LYNCHINGS & MOB VIOLENCE
09)IMPRISONING people FOR unpaid WORK
10)BANS ON INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE
11)REDLINING TO PROFIT REALTORS & BANKERS
12)EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
13)EDUCATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
14)BIASED LAWS & POLICING PRACTICES
15)WHITE FLIGHT
16)Subprime mortgages
17)MASS incarceration
18)SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE
19)DISPROPORTIONATE SPECIAL ED REFERRALS & PUNISHMENTS
20)TESTING/TRACKING/school funding
21)BIASED MEDIA REPRESENTATION
22)HISTORICAL OMISSIONS
In my humble opinion and to the best of my knowledge:
ALL UPPERCASE means “applies to blacks as blacks”.
All lowercase means “applies to poor whites and blacks.
Mixed CASE means “arguably applies to class, not race”.
Not sure there’s much proof of a “false narrative” there.
–TP
Again, that’s intersectionality. White supremacy acts in parallel with classism and patriarchy and ableism, etc. and individuals may be more or less affected by any and all of those.
I’m intimately familiar with the economic class supremacy of which you speak, and of the panic that it causes when that comes up against white supremacy and pits minorities against poor whites for limited resources.
Again, that’s intersectionality. White supremacy acts in parallel with classism and patriarchy and ableism, etc. and individuals may be more or less affected by any and all of those.
I’m intimately familiar with the economic class supremacy of which you speak, and of the panic that it causes when that comes up against white supremacy and pits minorities against poor whites for limited resources.
TO, I think the mixed case list is longer. Biased policing practices are mixed, educational discrimination is mixed, disproportionate special ed referrals(from personal expeqrience) is mixed. All among poor white and black.
And I am not saying there is no discrimination, there are biases certainly. The white supremacy label is a misleading characterization of reality.
TO, I think the mixed case list is longer. Biased policing practices are mixed, educational discrimination is mixed, disproportionate special ed referrals(from personal expeqrience) is mixed. All among poor white and black.
And I am not saying there is no discrimination, there are biases certainly. The white supremacy label is a misleading characterization of reality.
Lastly, I hope everyone who hasn’t could confirm that they have watched the whole video?
I have, but I didn’t finish it until today. So I violated the letter of your post by commenting a couple of times before finishing it, but I tried to stay in the spirit of it by commenting minimally.
Maybe I’m some kind of SJW, but it made complete sense to me. Sometimes it was uncomfortable, but it was so because it rang true. I see much of the criticism of it on this thread as defensive misreading (unconscious straw-manning, maybe?).
Thanks, lj.
Lastly, I hope everyone who hasn’t could confirm that they have watched the whole video?
I have, but I didn’t finish it until today. So I violated the letter of your post by commenting a couple of times before finishing it, but I tried to stay in the spirit of it by commenting minimally.
Maybe I’m some kind of SJW, but it made complete sense to me. Sometimes it was uncomfortable, but it was so because it rang true. I see much of the criticism of it on this thread as defensive misreading (unconscious straw-manning, maybe?).
Thanks, lj.
I’m happy to stipulate that poor white people are subject to many of the same things that black people in general are subject to.
That can be true, and it can also be true that black people are subject to those things because their skin is black. Whether they are poor, or not.
Also, to the degree that folks of whatever color skin are subject to those things specifically because they are poor, we need to address the fact that a disproportionate number of the poor are black. What the reasons – cultural, historical, legal, social – for that?
I’m happy to stipulate that poor white people are subject to many of the same things that black people in general are subject to.
That can be true, and it can also be true that black people are subject to those things because their skin is black. Whether they are poor, or not.
Also, to the degree that folks of whatever color skin are subject to those things specifically because they are poor, we need to address the fact that a disproportionate number of the poor are black. What the reasons – cultural, historical, legal, social – for that?
I have watched the whole thing. Some parts a few times.
I have watched the whole thing. Some parts a few times.
One thing that these conversations about government and power, etc. have made me realize is how much of my own reception of DiAngelo’s talk hinges on what I expect must be overlap in our disciplinary backgrounds (which is an ironic description, given that the readings in question are largely about “discipline”). I’m talking about the work of Michel Foucault.
For Foucault, and much of the American academy after the 1980s, power is not something that individuals have or do not have. Power is the networks of interconnected social relations that shape all of those involved in a particular social context and which none of those involved are entirely able to escape.
You don’t have power – nor does your boss, king, religious leader have power. Power has us all.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever
Which is why I never hear DiAngelo making any of the claims that wj hears her making, or implying. Because none of us is free from that sort of power structure.
All of which is well beyond the scope of a casual blog conversation, since it is, on balance, the work of two or three years of upper division undergrad/graduate reading and seminar discussion.
But I’d venture a guess that well over half of that Seattle Library audience had at least the upper division undergrad intro readings for Foucault working in the background.
One thing that these conversations about government and power, etc. have made me realize is how much of my own reception of DiAngelo’s talk hinges on what I expect must be overlap in our disciplinary backgrounds (which is an ironic description, given that the readings in question are largely about “discipline”). I’m talking about the work of Michel Foucault.
For Foucault, and much of the American academy after the 1980s, power is not something that individuals have or do not have. Power is the networks of interconnected social relations that shape all of those involved in a particular social context and which none of those involved are entirely able to escape.
You don’t have power – nor does your boss, king, religious leader have power. Power has us all.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever
Which is why I never hear DiAngelo making any of the claims that wj hears her making, or implying. Because none of us is free from that sort of power structure.
All of which is well beyond the scope of a casual blog conversation, since it is, on balance, the work of two or three years of upper division undergrad/graduate reading and seminar discussion.
But I’d venture a guess that well over half of that Seattle Library audience had at least the upper division undergrad intro readings for Foucault working in the background.
Do fish think theyâre flying, because they donât know theyâre in water? (Deep thought…)
Do fish think theyâre flying, because they donât know theyâre in water? (Deep thought…)
why I never hear DiAngelo making any of the claims that wj hears her making, or implying
You may well be correct. (Sounds like something that came along in the social sciences after my college days.)
I would note that the vast majority of the population shares my ignorance of the field. Which means they are going to hear what I heard. However far that might be from what she intended to communicate. Not sure how you go about convincing the wider world of the validity of this new (to them) view of what power is.
why I never hear DiAngelo making any of the claims that wj hears her making, or implying
You may well be correct. (Sounds like something that came along in the social sciences after my college days.)
I would note that the vast majority of the population shares my ignorance of the field. Which means they are going to hear what I heard. However far that might be from what she intended to communicate. Not sure how you go about convincing the wider world of the validity of this new (to them) view of what power is.
I also watched the whole thing.
First, I found DiAngelo incredibly annoying, for many of the reasons given by McK and WJ.
On reflection, it seems to me that the whole thing hinges on what means by the specific term “racist.” And by my definition she’s full of it.
I went to Jr high school and high school in the middle of the Jim Crow South. My classmates, mostly, were racists. So were their parents. So was almost everybody, including especially the state and local politicians.
Sorry, Ms.DiAngelo, I decline to put myself in the same category as Bull Connor and George Wallace. And if you think I belong there you’re badly mistaken, as, I should add, you are badly mistaken wrt any of the OW commentariat and no doubt many others.
This is not to say that I don’t understand, and agree with, the idea that racism has deep roots in the country, including many of the issues around housing, education, and so on that she mentions. But the accusations of “fragility” are nonsense.
Take an example. DiAngelo talks about the narrative surrounding Jackie Robinson. Her claim seems to be that whites regarded him as the first black good enough to “break the color line,” and wishes that the narrative was more about how he was the first black allowed to play.
Well, guess what. That is the story that is commonly told.
I’m a baseball fan, and a reader of writing about baseball. I’ve never read anything that suggested there weren’t plenty of black players good enough to play in the major leagues. Instead the universally told tale is that Branch Rickey, operating in the liberal enclave of Brooklyn, decided to take the risk of signing Robinson over the opposition of others including some of his own players.
But hey. Per DiAngelo, Rickey was a racist.
Sorry, but I’m seriously unimpressed by her ideas.
I also watched the whole thing.
First, I found DiAngelo incredibly annoying, for many of the reasons given by McK and WJ.
On reflection, it seems to me that the whole thing hinges on what means by the specific term “racist.” And by my definition she’s full of it.
I went to Jr high school and high school in the middle of the Jim Crow South. My classmates, mostly, were racists. So were their parents. So was almost everybody, including especially the state and local politicians.
Sorry, Ms.DiAngelo, I decline to put myself in the same category as Bull Connor and George Wallace. And if you think I belong there you’re badly mistaken, as, I should add, you are badly mistaken wrt any of the OW commentariat and no doubt many others.
This is not to say that I don’t understand, and agree with, the idea that racism has deep roots in the country, including many of the issues around housing, education, and so on that she mentions. But the accusations of “fragility” are nonsense.
Take an example. DiAngelo talks about the narrative surrounding Jackie Robinson. Her claim seems to be that whites regarded him as the first black good enough to “break the color line,” and wishes that the narrative was more about how he was the first black allowed to play.
Well, guess what. That is the story that is commonly told.
I’m a baseball fan, and a reader of writing about baseball. I’ve never read anything that suggested there weren’t plenty of black players good enough to play in the major leagues. Instead the universally told tale is that Branch Rickey, operating in the liberal enclave of Brooklyn, decided to take the risk of signing Robinson over the opposition of others including some of his own players.
But hey. Per DiAngelo, Rickey was a racist.
Sorry, but I’m seriously unimpressed by her ideas.
russell, The simplest way to address black people disproportionately being poor is to effectively provide opportunity to poor people. If done successfully this will disproportionately help black people.
russell, The simplest way to address black people disproportionately being poor is to effectively provide opportunity to poor people. If done successfully this will disproportionately help black people.
Sorry, Ms.DiAngelo, I decline to put myself in the same category as Bull Connor and George Wallace.
Dr. DiAngelo has the luxury of not having lived thru George Wallace and Bull Conner. For those who only know them, and Jim Crow, as history, it frequently appears all too easy to ignore how much different things are today.
We still need lots of changes, of course. And we appear to be moving towards getting some of them. But equating most whites today to serious and proud racists like Wallace and Conner (which she does)? Amazing how someone who lifved thru the 50s and 60s might decline to accept her views.
Similarly on Jackie Robinson. Anyone who knows baseball has heard, routinely, how a flood of black players arrived to the majors in his wake. Because, as anyone who knows baseball history knows, there were some truly awesome players in the Negro Leagues. My personal favorite example is Satchel Paige, who was 42 (yes, 42!) when he started his first major league game. Only imagine how good he was in his prime.
Sorry, Ms.DiAngelo, I decline to put myself in the same category as Bull Connor and George Wallace.
Dr. DiAngelo has the luxury of not having lived thru George Wallace and Bull Conner. For those who only know them, and Jim Crow, as history, it frequently appears all too easy to ignore how much different things are today.
We still need lots of changes, of course. And we appear to be moving towards getting some of them. But equating most whites today to serious and proud racists like Wallace and Conner (which she does)? Amazing how someone who lifved thru the 50s and 60s might decline to accept her views.
Similarly on Jackie Robinson. Anyone who knows baseball has heard, routinely, how a flood of black players arrived to the majors in his wake. Because, as anyone who knows baseball history knows, there were some truly awesome players in the Negro Leagues. My personal favorite example is Satchel Paige, who was 42 (yes, 42!) when he started his first major league game. Only imagine how good he was in his prime.
The simplest way to address black people disproportionately being poor is to effectively provide opportunity to poor people. If done successfully this will disproportionately help black people.
Can’t argue with this on it’s face, but it seems like begging the question to me.
And being disproportionately poor is not the only hindrance black people experience.
it seems to me that the whole thing hinges on what means by the specific term “racist.”
I think this is exactly right.
To me, it’s sufficient to note that black people are generally not treated the same as people who aren’t black, and that that is generally to their disadvantage.
I don’t really care what label anybody puts on it.
And what I think is being asked of white people, by black people, and perhaps even by Dr. DiAngelo although she seems to be rubbing people the wrong way, is to treat black people the same way they treat white people.
I’m sure most folks reading this will say, yeah, I already do that. That may well be true, if so you’re probably not the problem. I congratulate you.
A lot of people aren’t like you.
Black people aren’t treated the same way as white people are. It’s a problem, for them, and actually it’s a problem for everyone, for the same reasons that all forms of ingrained and habitual inequity are a problem.
If the label is getting in the way, forget about the label. Look at the situation on the ground.
The simplest way to address black people disproportionately being poor is to effectively provide opportunity to poor people. If done successfully this will disproportionately help black people.
Can’t argue with this on it’s face, but it seems like begging the question to me.
And being disproportionately poor is not the only hindrance black people experience.
it seems to me that the whole thing hinges on what means by the specific term “racist.”
I think this is exactly right.
To me, it’s sufficient to note that black people are generally not treated the same as people who aren’t black, and that that is generally to their disadvantage.
I don’t really care what label anybody puts on it.
And what I think is being asked of white people, by black people, and perhaps even by Dr. DiAngelo although she seems to be rubbing people the wrong way, is to treat black people the same way they treat white people.
I’m sure most folks reading this will say, yeah, I already do that. That may well be true, if so you’re probably not the problem. I congratulate you.
A lot of people aren’t like you.
Black people aren’t treated the same way as white people are. It’s a problem, for them, and actually it’s a problem for everyone, for the same reasons that all forms of ingrained and habitual inequity are a problem.
If the label is getting in the way, forget about the label. Look at the situation on the ground.
If the label is getting in the way, forget about the label. Look at the situation on the ground.
Definitely the right approach. And one which puts the priority in the right place.
Unfortunately, presentations like Dr DiAngelo’s put the label center stage. Which is why I consider it an unforced error: doing so gets in the way of addressing a very real problem.
If the label is getting in the way, forget about the label. Look at the situation on the ground.
Definitely the right approach. And one which puts the priority in the right place.
Unfortunately, presentations like Dr DiAngelo’s put the label center stage. Which is why I consider it an unforced error: doing so gets in the way of addressing a very real problem.
But equating most whites today to serious and proud racists like Wallace and Conner (which she does)?
I didnât remotely get that out of what she said.
But equating most whites today to serious and proud racists like Wallace and Conner (which she does)?
I didnât remotely get that out of what she said.
And what I think is being asked of white people, by black people, and perhaps even by Dr. DiAngelo although she seems to be rubbing people the wrong way, is to treat black people the same way they treat white people.
I think this is the crux of it, I dont think that’s what she is asking. She is asking white people to treat black people the way black people define they should be treated. That is fundamentally different.
In some cases that is to be treated like white people. In other cases it is not at all that. And in some cases it is specifically to not be treated the way white people treat white people.
In some cases those things are perfectly reasonable, but they arent just wanting to be treated like white people.
And what I think is being asked of white people, by black people, and perhaps even by Dr. DiAngelo although she seems to be rubbing people the wrong way, is to treat black people the same way they treat white people.
I think this is the crux of it, I dont think that’s what she is asking. She is asking white people to treat black people the way black people define they should be treated. That is fundamentally different.
In some cases that is to be treated like white people. In other cases it is not at all that. And in some cases it is specifically to not be treated the way white people treat white people.
In some cases those things are perfectly reasonable, but they arent just wanting to be treated like white people.
She is asking white people to treat black people the way black people define they should be treated. That is fundamentally different.
I didn’t get that, listening to her. I think it’s closer to say that she wants white people to treat black people the way white progressives think black people ought (in their view) to want to be treated. Not quite the same thing.
She is asking white people to treat black people the way black people define they should be treated. That is fundamentally different.
I didn’t get that, listening to her. I think it’s closer to say that she wants white people to treat black people the way white progressives think black people ought (in their view) to want to be treated. Not quite the same thing.
Take an example. DiAngelo talks about the narrative surrounding Jackie Robinson. Her claim seems to be that whites regarded him as the first black good enough to “break the color line,” and wishes that the narrative was more about how he was the first black allowed to play.
Well, guess what. That is the story that is commonly told.
I’m a baseball fan, and a reader of writing about baseball. I’ve never read anything that suggested there weren’t plenty of black players good enough to play in the major leagues. Instead the universally told tale is that Branch Rickey, operating in the liberal enclave of Brooklyn, decided to take the risk of signing Robinson over the opposition of others including some of his own players.
I hear something different here when she tells this. She is pointing out that the way we tell the Jackie Robinson story is a way we ignore the systemic aspect of it. She actually agrees that this is the commonly told story. In fact, she says
And I want to do it through the Jackie Robinson story. You all know Jackie Robinson right. So Jackie Robinson has been quite celebrated
for doing something.
You note that no one ever says ‘Branch Rickey broke the color line’, though from one perspective that is true. But when we use ‘broke the color line’ we grant Jackie Robinson a sense of agency that he really didn’t have. This is not to deny his courage, his will, his stubborness. But by acknowledging that the story is commonly told as Jackie Robinson broke the color line, we fail to understand that nuance that he was _allowed_ to break the color line. Having it as Robinson, doing it thru his will and determination, suggests that it was just a question of, as Al Campanis said 40 years later, African Americans having the ‘necessities’
blacks “may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager” for these positions. Elsewhere in the interview, he said that blacks are often poor swimmers “because they don’t have the buoyancy.” Koppel says he gave Campanis several opportunities to clarify, (“Do you really believe that?”) or back down from his remarks, but Campanis confirmed his views with his replies. Koppel also pointed out that much of what Campanis was saying “sounds a lot like the garbage we heard 40 years ago.” Campanis was fired less than 48 hours later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Campanis
Yay! Al Campanis was fired! But what was done to remediate the lack of managers in MLB
https://theshadowleague.com/mlbs-black-manager-crisis-what-about-bo-porter/
https://sports.yahoo.com/dusty-baker-lack-of-african-american-mlb-managers-is-very-dangerous-trend-184238335.html
https://theundefeated.com/features/the-state-of-the-black-manager-in-major-league-baseball-would-disgust-jackie-robinson/
I don’t think Campanis is in the same catagory as Bull Connor or George Wallace (though Wallace is an interesting person and I may comment on that later)Al Campanis was basically a scapegoat for a system that refuses to change. And he was able to hold on to those views because, just as DiAngelo pointed out at 15:31.
So after civil rights racism got reduced to the following formula a racist is an individual who consciously does not like people based on race and is intentionally mean to them always an individual must be conscious must be intentional. And that definition exempts virtually all white people from the system of racism this definition I believe is the root of virtually all white defensiveness on racism. … It makes it virtually impossible to talk to the average white person about the inevitable absorption of a racist worldview that we get from being socialized in a racist culture in which white supremacy is the bedrock because you suggest anything I have done is racially problematic in any way and I’m going to hear a question to my moral character and I’m going to need to defend my moral character.
If you want, as Russell suggests, to call it something else, that’s fine. But the word needs to be as strong as ‘racist’ and make people stop doing it when it is pointed out that this is what they are doing.
I take the position that we are all racist and I’ve said it here. It’s baked into the system, in the way we have social relations with African Americans, in the way our society reinforces barriers and lines. This is how we are socialized into it.
Take an example. DiAngelo talks about the narrative surrounding Jackie Robinson. Her claim seems to be that whites regarded him as the first black good enough to “break the color line,” and wishes that the narrative was more about how he was the first black allowed to play.
Well, guess what. That is the story that is commonly told.
I’m a baseball fan, and a reader of writing about baseball. I’ve never read anything that suggested there weren’t plenty of black players good enough to play in the major leagues. Instead the universally told tale is that Branch Rickey, operating in the liberal enclave of Brooklyn, decided to take the risk of signing Robinson over the opposition of others including some of his own players.
I hear something different here when she tells this. She is pointing out that the way we tell the Jackie Robinson story is a way we ignore the systemic aspect of it. She actually agrees that this is the commonly told story. In fact, she says
And I want to do it through the Jackie Robinson story. You all know Jackie Robinson right. So Jackie Robinson has been quite celebrated
for doing something.
You note that no one ever says ‘Branch Rickey broke the color line’, though from one perspective that is true. But when we use ‘broke the color line’ we grant Jackie Robinson a sense of agency that he really didn’t have. This is not to deny his courage, his will, his stubborness. But by acknowledging that the story is commonly told as Jackie Robinson broke the color line, we fail to understand that nuance that he was _allowed_ to break the color line. Having it as Robinson, doing it thru his will and determination, suggests that it was just a question of, as Al Campanis said 40 years later, African Americans having the ‘necessities’
blacks “may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager” for these positions. Elsewhere in the interview, he said that blacks are often poor swimmers “because they don’t have the buoyancy.” Koppel says he gave Campanis several opportunities to clarify, (“Do you really believe that?”) or back down from his remarks, but Campanis confirmed his views with his replies. Koppel also pointed out that much of what Campanis was saying “sounds a lot like the garbage we heard 40 years ago.” Campanis was fired less than 48 hours later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Campanis
Yay! Al Campanis was fired! But what was done to remediate the lack of managers in MLB
https://theshadowleague.com/mlbs-black-manager-crisis-what-about-bo-porter/
https://sports.yahoo.com/dusty-baker-lack-of-african-american-mlb-managers-is-very-dangerous-trend-184238335.html
https://theundefeated.com/features/the-state-of-the-black-manager-in-major-league-baseball-would-disgust-jackie-robinson/
I don’t think Campanis is in the same catagory as Bull Connor or George Wallace (though Wallace is an interesting person and I may comment on that later)Al Campanis was basically a scapegoat for a system that refuses to change. And he was able to hold on to those views because, just as DiAngelo pointed out at 15:31.
So after civil rights racism got reduced to the following formula a racist is an individual who consciously does not like people based on race and is intentionally mean to them always an individual must be conscious must be intentional. And that definition exempts virtually all white people from the system of racism this definition I believe is the root of virtually all white defensiveness on racism. … It makes it virtually impossible to talk to the average white person about the inevitable absorption of a racist worldview that we get from being socialized in a racist culture in which white supremacy is the bedrock because you suggest anything I have done is racially problematic in any way and I’m going to hear a question to my moral character and I’m going to need to defend my moral character.
If you want, as Russell suggests, to call it something else, that’s fine. But the word needs to be as strong as ‘racist’ and make people stop doing it when it is pointed out that this is what they are doing.
I take the position that we are all racist and I’ve said it here. It’s baked into the system, in the way we have social relations with African Americans, in the way our society reinforces barriers and lines. This is how we are socialized into it.
wj, I can hear what what you’re saying too.
wj, I can hear what what you’re saying too.
though Wallace is an interesting person and I may comment on that later.
One fascinating thing about Wallace is that there is some reason to suspect that he was, for lack of a better term, a racist of convenience, rather than a true believer. That is, he postured like a racist for what he took to be electoral advantage. Little known fact: in his first run for office, Wallace ran as a (relative) progressive on race. His opponent hammered him for it. Wallace lost, and vowed never to make that mistake again.
though Wallace is an interesting person and I may comment on that later.
One fascinating thing about Wallace is that there is some reason to suspect that he was, for lack of a better term, a racist of convenience, rather than a true believer. That is, he postured like a racist for what he took to be electoral advantage. Little known fact: in his first run for office, Wallace ran as a (relative) progressive on race. His opponent hammered him for it. Wallace lost, and vowed never to make that mistake again.
Actually, what she explicitly says is that white people mostly have no idea what black people want because black people don’t trust white people enough to have that conversation.
Which is something I have heard from combat veterans about civilians as well. Those people – those other people – don’t want to have a conversation. They want reassurances that they are not bad people and aren’t willing to hear anything that might make them uncomfortable.
I’ve heard lots of uncomfortable things from combat veterans. I haven’t heard them from blacks because I haven’t done the work to build the trust, though I do get the start of that in some of the things that are written for me.
DiAngelo is also not saying these things for herself. She’s saying them for the black people she works with because those black people are tired of carrying white people’s emotional baggage around for them. At least that is what my black colleagues say. They are tired of doing that work. She tells that story at the end as part of her bit about her joke about her co-worker’s hair.
I do agree with wj, though, that most people will not hear what is being said. That’s not because of how she says it, though, it’s because they only want small talk and reassurance for themselves, and not the burden of the real shit.
We live on the surface of a Southern Gothic story in the US and pretend that the ghosts aren’t real. But the strange fruit is still growing on the trees.
Actually, what she explicitly says is that white people mostly have no idea what black people want because black people don’t trust white people enough to have that conversation.
Which is something I have heard from combat veterans about civilians as well. Those people – those other people – don’t want to have a conversation. They want reassurances that they are not bad people and aren’t willing to hear anything that might make them uncomfortable.
I’ve heard lots of uncomfortable things from combat veterans. I haven’t heard them from blacks because I haven’t done the work to build the trust, though I do get the start of that in some of the things that are written for me.
DiAngelo is also not saying these things for herself. She’s saying them for the black people she works with because those black people are tired of carrying white people’s emotional baggage around for them. At least that is what my black colleagues say. They are tired of doing that work. She tells that story at the end as part of her bit about her joke about her co-worker’s hair.
I do agree with wj, though, that most people will not hear what is being said. That’s not because of how she says it, though, it’s because they only want small talk and reassurance for themselves, and not the burden of the real shit.
We live on the surface of a Southern Gothic story in the US and pretend that the ghosts aren’t real. But the strange fruit is still growing on the trees.
most people will not hear what is being said. That’s not because of how she says it, though, it’s because they only want small talk and reassurance for themselves, and not the burden of the real shit.
What you appear to be saying here is that there is simply no way to get the message across. And yet, we are currently seeing protests across the country which have (if you believe the polls) better than 2/3 of the population behind them. Something got thru to them. Is watching someone murdered on video the only way to reach people?
Or might there also be a way to accomplish it with words? The right words.
most people will not hear what is being said. That’s not because of how she says it, though, it’s because they only want small talk and reassurance for themselves, and not the burden of the real shit.
What you appear to be saying here is that there is simply no way to get the message across. And yet, we are currently seeing protests across the country which have (if you believe the polls) better than 2/3 of the population behind them. Something got thru to them. Is watching someone murdered on video the only way to reach people?
Or might there also be a way to accomplish it with words? The right words.
Looking at our history I’d say that making people watch it happen *and seeing people they identify with doing it* is about the only way to accomplish it. Otherwise it is, with a nod to Douglas Adams, Somebody Else’s Problem.
Looking at our history I’d say that making people watch it happen *and seeing people they identify with doing it* is about the only way to accomplish it. Otherwise it is, with a nod to Douglas Adams, Somebody Else’s Problem.
Something got thru to them. Is watching someone murdered on video the only way to reach people?
Helluva way to get change. If I wanted to be sarcastic, I’d say well, at least white folks don’t have to worry that they are going to get sacrificed for it.
And I think Russell is saying it shouldn’t be this hard. The harder it is, the more it reinforces DiAngelo’s thesis.
I also have to say that I’m closest to Nous’ views on this. The question is how do I as an individual, do the work to bridge that gap? Some could argue that I ran away from it, I moved to Japan so I could preserve my sense of liberality as a neo-minority on the other side of the world. Someone could say I chickened out, I wasn’t prepared to fight. Probably true. But if I think I should have stayed home, exactly what should I have done?
Something got thru to them. Is watching someone murdered on video the only way to reach people?
Helluva way to get change. If I wanted to be sarcastic, I’d say well, at least white folks don’t have to worry that they are going to get sacrificed for it.
And I think Russell is saying it shouldn’t be this hard. The harder it is, the more it reinforces DiAngelo’s thesis.
I also have to say that I’m closest to Nous’ views on this. The question is how do I as an individual, do the work to bridge that gap? Some could argue that I ran away from it, I moved to Japan so I could preserve my sense of liberality as a neo-minority on the other side of the world. Someone could say I chickened out, I wasn’t prepared to fight. Probably true. But if I think I should have stayed home, exactly what should I have done?
they arent just wanting to be treated like white people.
white people mostly have no idea what black people want because black people don’t trust white people enough to have that conversation.
I’m generally on board with nous.
Here’s my super-secret plan: let’s all of us white people start treating black people like we treat other white people, and see how far that gets us.
If there are still issues to sort out after that, we can sort them out. From that baseline.
Until we get to that baseline, I don’t think we get to tell black people what they should and should not expect from us.
Just my opinion.
What I, personally, take away from DiAngelo is that I, as a white person, probably think about and interact with black people differently than I do with white people. Because their skin is black.
And, that’s true of a lot of white people.
And, due to our history and culture, that ends up being harmful to black people.
And, a lot of white people have a hard time hearing all of that, because the tendency to think about and interact with black people differently than we do other white people can justifiably be called ‘racism’, and nobody wants to think of themselves as being racist.
Least of all people who see themselves as, for lack of a better word, ‘woke’.
That’s what I hear her saying. It seems pretty much accurate, to me.
What I see in this thread and in the other thread where this is being discussed is that a lot of people are reacting to the idea that they may think and behave in ways that could be characterized as ‘racist’.
So, my suggestion is don’t worry about the label. Just see if you can be candid with yourself. See if there are ways that you think about and interact with black people differently than you do with white people. Think about how a black person might receive that.
Maybe even try to develop relationships with black people that are sufficiently candid and trusting, that they can tell you how they receive it.
Or at least extend the benefit of the doubt when black people publicly talk about how they receive it.
Right?
And I’m sure that black people are prone to some of the same bullshit. I’m sure that a lot of black people make assumptions about white people, and interact with us in ways that are different than how they interact with other black people.
And all of that is harmful, too.
But in general, all of that ends up working to the disadvantage of black people, and to the advantage of white people. Because, our history and culture is what it is.
So the way I see it, we – white people – need to go first.
We need to achieve the baseline of thinking about and treating black people the way we think about and treat each other.
If we get that far, then we can start telling them what we need them to do. If anything, maybe just getting that far will be sufficient.
That’s my point of view.
But none of this conversation is going to amount to much if we can’t at least recognize and candidly acknowledge that, as a generalization but an accurate one, white people think about and treat black people differently than they do other white people, and that generally ends up to the disadvantage of black people.
A generalization. It might not apply to you, there are always exceptions to every rule. But a pretty accurate generalization. In my opinion and experience.
If we can’t at least get that on the table, the whole conversation is an exercise in denial.
In my opinion.
they arent just wanting to be treated like white people.
white people mostly have no idea what black people want because black people don’t trust white people enough to have that conversation.
I’m generally on board with nous.
Here’s my super-secret plan: let’s all of us white people start treating black people like we treat other white people, and see how far that gets us.
If there are still issues to sort out after that, we can sort them out. From that baseline.
Until we get to that baseline, I don’t think we get to tell black people what they should and should not expect from us.
Just my opinion.
What I, personally, take away from DiAngelo is that I, as a white person, probably think about and interact with black people differently than I do with white people. Because their skin is black.
And, that’s true of a lot of white people.
And, due to our history and culture, that ends up being harmful to black people.
And, a lot of white people have a hard time hearing all of that, because the tendency to think about and interact with black people differently than we do other white people can justifiably be called ‘racism’, and nobody wants to think of themselves as being racist.
Least of all people who see themselves as, for lack of a better word, ‘woke’.
That’s what I hear her saying. It seems pretty much accurate, to me.
What I see in this thread and in the other thread where this is being discussed is that a lot of people are reacting to the idea that they may think and behave in ways that could be characterized as ‘racist’.
So, my suggestion is don’t worry about the label. Just see if you can be candid with yourself. See if there are ways that you think about and interact with black people differently than you do with white people. Think about how a black person might receive that.
Maybe even try to develop relationships with black people that are sufficiently candid and trusting, that they can tell you how they receive it.
Or at least extend the benefit of the doubt when black people publicly talk about how they receive it.
Right?
And I’m sure that black people are prone to some of the same bullshit. I’m sure that a lot of black people make assumptions about white people, and interact with us in ways that are different than how they interact with other black people.
And all of that is harmful, too.
But in general, all of that ends up working to the disadvantage of black people, and to the advantage of white people. Because, our history and culture is what it is.
So the way I see it, we – white people – need to go first.
We need to achieve the baseline of thinking about and treating black people the way we think about and treat each other.
If we get that far, then we can start telling them what we need them to do. If anything, maybe just getting that far will be sufficient.
That’s my point of view.
But none of this conversation is going to amount to much if we can’t at least recognize and candidly acknowledge that, as a generalization but an accurate one, white people think about and treat black people differently than they do other white people, and that generally ends up to the disadvantage of black people.
A generalization. It might not apply to you, there are always exceptions to every rule. But a pretty accurate generalization. In my opinion and experience.
If we can’t at least get that on the table, the whole conversation is an exercise in denial.
In my opinion.
Is watching someone murdered on video the only way to reach people?
The sad truth of social progress in this country is that, yes, it generally takes something on the order of watching somebody getting murdered to get people’s asses in gear.
Pick a civil rights topic – any civil rights topic – and look at the history. And then tell me I’m wrong. We need to be shamed into it before substantive change happens.
Maybe that’s true of all people. Maybe it’s just a human trait. But it is certainly true of us – of Americans.
Inertia is a powerful force.
Is watching someone murdered on video the only way to reach people?
The sad truth of social progress in this country is that, yes, it generally takes something on the order of watching somebody getting murdered to get people’s asses in gear.
Pick a civil rights topic – any civil rights topic – and look at the history. And then tell me I’m wrong. We need to be shamed into it before substantive change happens.
Maybe that’s true of all people. Maybe it’s just a human trait. But it is certainly true of us – of Americans.
Inertia is a powerful force.
what everyone said
what everyone said
Here’s my super-secret plan: let’s all of us white people start treating black people like we treat other white people, and see how far that gets us.
Absolutely the right way to go. The only thing we really seem to be having any disagreement about is how to get the population in general to behave that way.
Here’s my super-secret plan: let’s all of us white people start treating black people like we treat other white people, and see how far that gets us.
Absolutely the right way to go. The only thing we really seem to be having any disagreement about is how to get the population in general to behave that way.
lj,
Here is what she says about Jackie Robinson;
And I want to do it through the Jackie
Robinson story. You all know Jackie Robinson right. So Jackie Robinson has been quite celebrated
for doing something. What’s the tag line that goes with Jackie Robinson. He he broke the color line
right. Now so let’s do a little discourse analysis.
[00:13:40] Because every year on the anniversary we celebrate him breaking the color line so think about what that invokes. He was exceptional. He was special. He did it. Finally one of them had what
it took to break through and play with us up until him. Nobody had what it took. So subtext inferior
group. But he did it. And of course the day he did it the day he broke the color line racism in sports ended so imagine if we told a story like this Jackie Robinson the first black man that whites allowed to
play Major League Baseball. And I want you to notice the difference in that story one that’s the truth.
This reads to me pretty clearly as if she is saying the standard story is that finally a black player came along who was good enough to play in the major leagues. And then she says the true story is that he was the first allowed to play, and that there were other exceptional black players who weren’t allowed to do so, and that’s the one that should be told.
And my point is that that what she accurately calls the true story is also the standard story. Never have I heard or read anything that says Robinson was the first sufficiently talented black player. Quite the contrary. The opposite is universally acknowledged.
Nor have I ever heard or read a claim that the signing of Robinson ended racism in sports. That’s absurd beyond belief.
Now, I don’t feel like this is nitpicking. I put it with the point Marty raised about her criticism of the survey to say that DiAngelo seems to want to fit everything into her frame, whether it goes there or not. What else has she misinterpreted?
Russell says, referring to the definition of racism:
I don’t really care what label anybody puts on it.
I do care. First, if DiAngelo wants to convince me of some point about race, starting off by insulting me is not a good plan. Second, if everybody is racist the word loses its meaning. We need to be able to condemn the Bull Connors and Orval Faubus’s of the world, and distinguish them from the mass of white people.
lj,
Here is what she says about Jackie Robinson;
And I want to do it through the Jackie
Robinson story. You all know Jackie Robinson right. So Jackie Robinson has been quite celebrated
for doing something. What’s the tag line that goes with Jackie Robinson. He he broke the color line
right. Now so let’s do a little discourse analysis.
[00:13:40] Because every year on the anniversary we celebrate him breaking the color line so think about what that invokes. He was exceptional. He was special. He did it. Finally one of them had what
it took to break through and play with us up until him. Nobody had what it took. So subtext inferior
group. But he did it. And of course the day he did it the day he broke the color line racism in sports ended so imagine if we told a story like this Jackie Robinson the first black man that whites allowed to
play Major League Baseball. And I want you to notice the difference in that story one that’s the truth.
This reads to me pretty clearly as if she is saying the standard story is that finally a black player came along who was good enough to play in the major leagues. And then she says the true story is that he was the first allowed to play, and that there were other exceptional black players who weren’t allowed to do so, and that’s the one that should be told.
And my point is that that what she accurately calls the true story is also the standard story. Never have I heard or read anything that says Robinson was the first sufficiently talented black player. Quite the contrary. The opposite is universally acknowledged.
Nor have I ever heard or read a claim that the signing of Robinson ended racism in sports. That’s absurd beyond belief.
Now, I don’t feel like this is nitpicking. I put it with the point Marty raised about her criticism of the survey to say that DiAngelo seems to want to fit everything into her frame, whether it goes there or not. What else has she misinterpreted?
Russell says, referring to the definition of racism:
I don’t really care what label anybody puts on it.
I do care. First, if DiAngelo wants to convince me of some point about race, starting off by insulting me is not a good plan. Second, if everybody is racist the word loses its meaning. We need to be able to condemn the Bull Connors and Orval Faubus’s of the world, and distinguish them from the mass of white people.
Here’s my super-secret plan: let’s all of us white people start treating black people like we treat other white people, and see how far that gets us.
Most people think this is the way to go, so I’ll be the outlier. For a lot of reasons, I think this is problematic. Reason One–just as African Americans can use certainly racially charged words in conversation with one another, WP’s are–or should be–very conscious of not using those words. Far too often, we see WP’s who use a particularly problematic word in the context of quoting another person yet being called out and t-mobbed for having done so. So, no, do not treat AA’s the same as WP’s if you are a WP. Instead, keep in mind that there is a limited but very real number of topics that require careful word choice, avoiding making assumptions and trying to be aware of how your words land. Whether you actually create an issue or create the pretext for a faux issue is beside the point.
Here’s an illustration, but not using AA’s. I have an Asian, female employee (Taiwanese is her preferred form of ID). I would never ask her for a recommendation for a good Chinese restaurant. Why? She’s culturally American, doesn’t really like Chinese food (I found this out by happenstance) and prefers Mexican food. So, if someone who didn’t know her asked about a good Chinese restaurant, they would be stereotyping. However, asking me about a good Chinese restaurant would be, well, asking me about a good Chinese restaurant.
However, in a different context, my dentist–a friend and someone I’ve known 20 plus years–is Vietnamese and is very well connected in the Vietnamese community in Houston. I wouldn’t hesitate to ask her for a restaurant reference, and she wouldn’t think anything of it if I did (and, I have!).
Reason Two: speaking only for myself, I address men in one voice, women in a different voice and mixed crowds in yet another voice, but it is closer to my “female audience” voice. My word choice is softer, my metaphors and language selection less edgy and I pitch my voice differently. Am I condescending, patronizing, etc? I hope not. Rather, I’m trying to not be an assertive, intimidating “male” and just a person. I’m pretty good at it, actually, given that most of my colleagues are female and prefer working with me to working with a lot of other male attorneys.
If I’m speaking to an AA, particularly someone I don’t know well, I’m pretty neutral on a lot of topics that I would be less reticent on with a WP recent acquaintance. Why? Because I don’t want black people I meet to think I’m putting them on the spot because they are black. I can agree/disagree comfortably with a WP on a variety of topics and not worry that the other person will think I have some unspoken agenda or that they are being tested.
I don’t mind, for example, poking fun at friends’ politics (right or left), but I would be much less likely to do so with any POC for fear of sending the unintended message that I’m stereotyping their politics and putting them in an uncomfortable position of having to justify their beliefs when in fact, all I’m doing with WP’s is making a joke. IOW, what’s funny to one person in one context is not funny to another person in a different context.
As I get to know someone who is AA or Hispanic or what-have-you–or better, as they get to know me and have better sense of where I’m coming from–it’s a lot easier for both of us to be more open.
My general rules of engagement are: be polite, try to avoid making assumptions, make eye contact, smile or say hello, keep an open mind, maintain situational awareness and signal an interest in engaging, if the situation warrants, e.g. sitting next to someone on a flight.
I could go on and on but I’ve already spent more time this week here at ObWi than is professionally responsible. I hope we come back to this topic, particularly the subject of ‘structural racism’ and Foucault. If we do, I promise not to use any scatological terms.
Here’s my super-secret plan: let’s all of us white people start treating black people like we treat other white people, and see how far that gets us.
Most people think this is the way to go, so I’ll be the outlier. For a lot of reasons, I think this is problematic. Reason One–just as African Americans can use certainly racially charged words in conversation with one another, WP’s are–or should be–very conscious of not using those words. Far too often, we see WP’s who use a particularly problematic word in the context of quoting another person yet being called out and t-mobbed for having done so. So, no, do not treat AA’s the same as WP’s if you are a WP. Instead, keep in mind that there is a limited but very real number of topics that require careful word choice, avoiding making assumptions and trying to be aware of how your words land. Whether you actually create an issue or create the pretext for a faux issue is beside the point.
Here’s an illustration, but not using AA’s. I have an Asian, female employee (Taiwanese is her preferred form of ID). I would never ask her for a recommendation for a good Chinese restaurant. Why? She’s culturally American, doesn’t really like Chinese food (I found this out by happenstance) and prefers Mexican food. So, if someone who didn’t know her asked about a good Chinese restaurant, they would be stereotyping. However, asking me about a good Chinese restaurant would be, well, asking me about a good Chinese restaurant.
However, in a different context, my dentist–a friend and someone I’ve known 20 plus years–is Vietnamese and is very well connected in the Vietnamese community in Houston. I wouldn’t hesitate to ask her for a restaurant reference, and she wouldn’t think anything of it if I did (and, I have!).
Reason Two: speaking only for myself, I address men in one voice, women in a different voice and mixed crowds in yet another voice, but it is closer to my “female audience” voice. My word choice is softer, my metaphors and language selection less edgy and I pitch my voice differently. Am I condescending, patronizing, etc? I hope not. Rather, I’m trying to not be an assertive, intimidating “male” and just a person. I’m pretty good at it, actually, given that most of my colleagues are female and prefer working with me to working with a lot of other male attorneys.
If I’m speaking to an AA, particularly someone I don’t know well, I’m pretty neutral on a lot of topics that I would be less reticent on with a WP recent acquaintance. Why? Because I don’t want black people I meet to think I’m putting them on the spot because they are black. I can agree/disagree comfortably with a WP on a variety of topics and not worry that the other person will think I have some unspoken agenda or that they are being tested.
I don’t mind, for example, poking fun at friends’ politics (right or left), but I would be much less likely to do so with any POC for fear of sending the unintended message that I’m stereotyping their politics and putting them in an uncomfortable position of having to justify their beliefs when in fact, all I’m doing with WP’s is making a joke. IOW, what’s funny to one person in one context is not funny to another person in a different context.
As I get to know someone who is AA or Hispanic or what-have-you–or better, as they get to know me and have better sense of where I’m coming from–it’s a lot easier for both of us to be more open.
My general rules of engagement are: be polite, try to avoid making assumptions, make eye contact, smile or say hello, keep an open mind, maintain situational awareness and signal an interest in engaging, if the situation warrants, e.g. sitting next to someone on a flight.
I could go on and on but I’ve already spent more time this week here at ObWi than is professionally responsible. I hope we come back to this topic, particularly the subject of ‘structural racism’ and Foucault. If we do, I promise not to use any scatological terms.
Reason One–just as African Americans can use certainly racially charged words in conversation with one another, WP’s are–or should be–very conscious of not using those words.
i’ve mentioned this here before, but TN Coates’s explanation of this is perfect: my wife and her friends all call each other “bitch”, freely, happily, with great affection – or sometimes in anger! but i would never expect to be able to call any of them a “bitch”, in any situation, without, um, severe negative repercussions.
you can call members of your family names that nobody outside your family would use without expecting severe negative repercussions.
same with your close friends.
so it goes with ‘those words’.
Reason One–just as African Americans can use certainly racially charged words in conversation with one another, WP’s are–or should be–very conscious of not using those words.
i’ve mentioned this here before, but TN Coates’s explanation of this is perfect: my wife and her friends all call each other “bitch”, freely, happily, with great affection – or sometimes in anger! but i would never expect to be able to call any of them a “bitch”, in any situation, without, um, severe negative repercussions.
you can call members of your family names that nobody outside your family would use without expecting severe negative repercussions.
same with your close friends.
so it goes with ‘those words’.
I think russell and McKinney are both right. I think what russell says may be more applicable on a societal level, whereas what McKinney says may be more applicable on an interpersonal level.
Also, too, deep down McKinney is one of us, but he can’t bring himself to admit it. ;^)
I think russell and McKinney are both right. I think what russell says may be more applicable on a societal level, whereas what McKinney says may be more applicable on an interpersonal level.
Also, too, deep down McKinney is one of us, but he can’t bring himself to admit it. ;^)
Most people think this is the way to go, so I’ll be the outlier.
All of the examples you raise are apt and on point, IMO.
I’ll rephrase:
My new, improved, super-secret plan is, let’s all of us white people treat black people the way we would like to be treated ourselves, and see how far that takes us.
Feel free to adjust “the way we would like to be treated ourselves” to account for differences in sensibility, social standing, how well you know the other party, and/or whatever other concerns seem relevant, as long as those are motivated by concern for the other party’s well-being.
If you’re not sure what the right thing to do is, you can always ask. Might be awkward, for a minute. If asking seems inappropriate, just do your best.
OK?
Let’s all do that, and see where we end up. If we get that far, I suspect the issue will suddenly be a whole lot more tractable.
Most people think this is the way to go, so I’ll be the outlier.
All of the examples you raise are apt and on point, IMO.
I’ll rephrase:
My new, improved, super-secret plan is, let’s all of us white people treat black people the way we would like to be treated ourselves, and see how far that takes us.
Feel free to adjust “the way we would like to be treated ourselves” to account for differences in sensibility, social standing, how well you know the other party, and/or whatever other concerns seem relevant, as long as those are motivated by concern for the other party’s well-being.
If you’re not sure what the right thing to do is, you can always ask. Might be awkward, for a minute. If asking seems inappropriate, just do your best.
OK?
Let’s all do that, and see where we end up. If we get that far, I suspect the issue will suddenly be a whole lot more tractable.
Test
Test
I tried to post after Russell’s 5:08 (is that just for my time zone or what?) and I haven’t read anything after that because I have 3 online classes today. apologies for not taking in anything after Russell’s, it’s all I can do to get this up.
=====
I’m a huge fan of the wrs tag, but here, I’ve got to push back a little. I’m sure that everyone here would say (and I’d say the vast majority of us are probably white here?) that they treat black people the same as they do white people. In fact, I’m sure that in everyday living, they probably do. The issue is not ‘treating black people like white people’, it is ‘letting black people tell us what we should do’.
Easy for me to say. I can count the number of African Americans I speak with on one hand. Of course, I treat them just like White people (I say confidently and with no trace of irony)
On a journey, it is always nice if we can point to an epiphany, a moment when we realize, like Paul, that the scales have been removed from our eyes. Yet, in relating them, we can construct them out of raw material and set them up, even though back then, they weren’t that evident. For me, when Katrina hit and they had a photo of African Americans getting supplies from a large box store and the photo was captioned as looting and I thought boy things must be bad. And then, not more than a few hours later, whites doing the same thing and that was captioned as ‘organizing relief supplies’. I realized, even though I never spoke to an African American about it, I had classified them. Now, I could just try to justify it, say ‘oh, they should have contacted the owner, I’m sure if they had told the police what was up, etc etc.’ But, (and I get no pleasure out of pointing this out) would they have been treated the same as whites? So despite my individual treatement of AA, my lazy reflexes classified them. I was racist. I have to own that.
So what do I do now? I shut up. I listen. If I meet an African American, I say hi and I spend all my time listening. And asking questions. And not using their experiences as some anecdata to justify my opinions. I treat it as something revealed in strictest confidence and I can’t and won’t use it to prop up any arguments I make.
Strangely enough, that whole process has made me a better teacher. I listen to my students more. I still fall into talking to much and I enjoy analyzing things.
To me, I see a link between COVID and George Floyd. It’s not just one death that is causing this, it is just the tip of the iceberg. Just like DiAngelo’s example of Jackie Robinson, if we think that it just was George Floyd’s death, or even if we add a roll call after that. Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, Amadou Diallo, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Philando Castile, Samuel DuBose. So when you say is watching someone murdered on video, well, it is if only because it requires an nearly 9 minute demonstration (with 3 other police around him doing nothing) to have people wake up. So maybe you might understand why people call other people racists and get angry.
I’m addressing this to Russell and I know he groks it, so I hope he won’t mind if I use him as a stand in for everyone else on the blog. If you just say I’m enlightened, I’m not racist, I treat African Americans the same as I treat whites, you still don’t get it. And just because I’m doing the lecturing in this comment, I don’t get it, not in my bones and my lived experience.
In the Gary Younge talk that I posted in the other thread and I post here
https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/5/june/black-lives-matter-george-floyd-the-question-of-violence-gary-young
He points out that he doesn’t think that COVID and George Floyd are not unrelated and I think that is on the money. By placing so much stress on the system and exposing how the system has African Americans suffering much more than Whites, you begin to realize that if it wasn’t George Floyd’s death that was the straw, it would have been another. It’s as if someone says X was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and everyone leaps up to analyze the straw, determine what straw properties did this, how can we make better straws when the problem is never going to be that, it’s going to be the system that keeps dumping shittons of straw on the backs of camels.
Getting back to COVID, a facebook picture meme said something like ‘treat racism like COVID, act as if you and everyone else has it. Take steps not to let it spread. Don’t blame anyone if they have it’ Which seems exactly right to me.
I tried to post after Russell’s 5:08 (is that just for my time zone or what?) and I haven’t read anything after that because I have 3 online classes today. apologies for not taking in anything after Russell’s, it’s all I can do to get this up.
=====
I’m a huge fan of the wrs tag, but here, I’ve got to push back a little. I’m sure that everyone here would say (and I’d say the vast majority of us are probably white here?) that they treat black people the same as they do white people. In fact, I’m sure that in everyday living, they probably do. The issue is not ‘treating black people like white people’, it is ‘letting black people tell us what we should do’.
Easy for me to say. I can count the number of African Americans I speak with on one hand. Of course, I treat them just like White people (I say confidently and with no trace of irony)
On a journey, it is always nice if we can point to an epiphany, a moment when we realize, like Paul, that the scales have been removed from our eyes. Yet, in relating them, we can construct them out of raw material and set them up, even though back then, they weren’t that evident. For me, when Katrina hit and they had a photo of African Americans getting supplies from a large box store and the photo was captioned as looting and I thought boy things must be bad. And then, not more than a few hours later, whites doing the same thing and that was captioned as ‘organizing relief supplies’. I realized, even though I never spoke to an African American about it, I had classified them. Now, I could just try to justify it, say ‘oh, they should have contacted the owner, I’m sure if they had told the police what was up, etc etc.’ But, (and I get no pleasure out of pointing this out) would they have been treated the same as whites? So despite my individual treatement of AA, my lazy reflexes classified them. I was racist. I have to own that.
So what do I do now? I shut up. I listen. If I meet an African American, I say hi and I spend all my time listening. And asking questions. And not using their experiences as some anecdata to justify my opinions. I treat it as something revealed in strictest confidence and I can’t and won’t use it to prop up any arguments I make.
Strangely enough, that whole process has made me a better teacher. I listen to my students more. I still fall into talking to much and I enjoy analyzing things.
To me, I see a link between COVID and George Floyd. It’s not just one death that is causing this, it is just the tip of the iceberg. Just like DiAngelo’s example of Jackie Robinson, if we think that it just was George Floyd’s death, or even if we add a roll call after that. Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, Amadou Diallo, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Philando Castile, Samuel DuBose. So when you say is watching someone murdered on video, well, it is if only because it requires an nearly 9 minute demonstration (with 3 other police around him doing nothing) to have people wake up. So maybe you might understand why people call other people racists and get angry.
I’m addressing this to Russell and I know he groks it, so I hope he won’t mind if I use him as a stand in for everyone else on the blog. If you just say I’m enlightened, I’m not racist, I treat African Americans the same as I treat whites, you still don’t get it. And just because I’m doing the lecturing in this comment, I don’t get it, not in my bones and my lived experience.
In the Gary Younge talk that I posted in the other thread and I post here
https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/5/june/black-lives-matter-george-floyd-the-question-of-violence-gary-young
He points out that he doesn’t think that COVID and George Floyd are not unrelated and I think that is on the money. By placing so much stress on the system and exposing how the system has African Americans suffering much more than Whites, you begin to realize that if it wasn’t George Floyd’s death that was the straw, it would have been another. It’s as if someone says X was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and everyone leaps up to analyze the straw, determine what straw properties did this, how can we make better straws when the problem is never going to be that, it’s going to be the system that keeps dumping shittons of straw on the backs of camels.
Getting back to COVID, a facebook picture meme said something like ‘treat racism like COVID, act as if you and everyone else has it. Take steps not to let it spread. Don’t blame anyone if they have it’ Which seems exactly right to me.
I’ll co-sign that meme, lj.
I’ll co-sign that meme, lj.
Pretty much a lurker here, but thought I would make a couple of points.
Russell: “My new, improved, super-secret plan is, let’s all of us white people treat black people the way we would like to be treated ourselves, and see how far that takes us.”
So in other words, the Golden Rule? You just earned yourself an ‘Amen’.
I think a useful distinction regarding white people and racism is the one between *fault* and *responsibility*.
While a white person who does not personally harbor racist attitudes and thoughts and does not outwardly behave in a racist fashion may not be at ‘fault’ for racism, he or she is still RESPONSIBLE because they are a citizen and/or participant in a society that has been built on a racist basis. They benefit from being in that society. They are an heir to its legacy and continuation. And they owe a duty to try to correct it.
Whereas the outright racist bears BOTH fault and responsibility. Not only do they have responsibility, but also fault, because they are helping to perpetuate the injustice and probably inculcating their kids and others they might influence with the malignancy.
Just my $.02.
Pretty much a lurker here, but thought I would make a couple of points.
Russell: “My new, improved, super-secret plan is, let’s all of us white people treat black people the way we would like to be treated ourselves, and see how far that takes us.”
So in other words, the Golden Rule? You just earned yourself an ‘Amen’.
I think a useful distinction regarding white people and racism is the one between *fault* and *responsibility*.
While a white person who does not personally harbor racist attitudes and thoughts and does not outwardly behave in a racist fashion may not be at ‘fault’ for racism, he or she is still RESPONSIBLE because they are a citizen and/or participant in a society that has been built on a racist basis. They benefit from being in that society. They are an heir to its legacy and continuation. And they owe a duty to try to correct it.
Whereas the outright racist bears BOTH fault and responsibility. Not only do they have responsibility, but also fault, because they are helping to perpetuate the injustice and probably inculcating their kids and others they might influence with the malignancy.
Just my $.02.
Trying again.
lj,
Here is what she says about Jackie Robinson;
And I want to do it through the Jackie
Robinson story. You all know Jackie Robinson right. So Jackie Robinson has been quite celebrated
for doing something. What’s the tag line that goes with Jackie Robinson. He he broke the color line
right. Now so let’s do a little discourse analysis.
[00:13:40] Because every year on the anniversary we celebrate him breaking the color line so think about what that invokes. He was exceptional. He was special. He did it. Finally one of them had what
it took to break through and play with us up until him. Nobody had what it took. So subtext inferior
group. But he did it. And of course the day he did it the day he broke the color line racism in sports ended so imagine if we told a story like this Jackie Robinson the first black man that whites allowed to
play Major League Baseball. And I want you to notice the difference in that story one that’s the truth.
This reads to me pretty clearly as if she is saying the standard story is that finally a black player came along who was good enough to play in the major leagues. And then she says the true story is that he was the first allowed to play, and that there were other exceptional black players who weren’t allowed to do so, and that’s the one that should be told.
And my point is that that what she accurately calls the true story is also the standard story. Never have I heard or read anything that says Robinson was the first sufficiently talented black player. Quite the contrary. The opposite is universally acknowledged.
Nor have I ever heard or read a claim that the signing of Robinson ended racism in sports. That’s absurd beyond belief.
Now, I don’t feel like this is nitpicking. I put it with the point Marty raised about her criticism of the survey to say that DiAngelo seems to want to fit everything into her frame, whether it goes there or not. What else has she misinterpreted?
Russell says, referring to the definition of racism:
I don’t really care what label anybody puts on it.
I do care. First, if DiAngelo wants to convince me of some point about race, starting off by insulting me is not a good plan. Second, if everybody is racist the word loses its meaning. We need to be able to condemn the Bull Connors and Orval Faubus’s of the world, and distinguish them from the mass of white people.
Trying again.
lj,
Here is what she says about Jackie Robinson;
And I want to do it through the Jackie
Robinson story. You all know Jackie Robinson right. So Jackie Robinson has been quite celebrated
for doing something. What’s the tag line that goes with Jackie Robinson. He he broke the color line
right. Now so let’s do a little discourse analysis.
[00:13:40] Because every year on the anniversary we celebrate him breaking the color line so think about what that invokes. He was exceptional. He was special. He did it. Finally one of them had what
it took to break through and play with us up until him. Nobody had what it took. So subtext inferior
group. But he did it. And of course the day he did it the day he broke the color line racism in sports ended so imagine if we told a story like this Jackie Robinson the first black man that whites allowed to
play Major League Baseball. And I want you to notice the difference in that story one that’s the truth.
This reads to me pretty clearly as if she is saying the standard story is that finally a black player came along who was good enough to play in the major leagues. And then she says the true story is that he was the first allowed to play, and that there were other exceptional black players who weren’t allowed to do so, and that’s the one that should be told.
And my point is that that what she accurately calls the true story is also the standard story. Never have I heard or read anything that says Robinson was the first sufficiently talented black player. Quite the contrary. The opposite is universally acknowledged.
Nor have I ever heard or read a claim that the signing of Robinson ended racism in sports. That’s absurd beyond belief.
Now, I don’t feel like this is nitpicking. I put it with the point Marty raised about her criticism of the survey to say that DiAngelo seems to want to fit everything into her frame, whether it goes there or not. What else has she misinterpreted?
Russell says, referring to the definition of racism:
I don’t really care what label anybody puts on it.
I do care. First, if DiAngelo wants to convince me of some point about race, starting off by insulting me is not a good plan. Second, if everybody is racist the word loses its meaning. We need to be able to condemn the Bull Connors and Orval Faubus’s of the world, and distinguish them from the mass of white people.
I think a useful distinction regarding white people and racism is the one between *fault* and *responsibility*.
I think this is a useful distinction.
But I think I would parse it a little finer. In particular, I would distinguish between those who are actually in a position to make changes, whether to society or to a single organization, but fail to do so — that fits my definition of “responsible”. Then there are those of us who are not in such a position. We have a “duty to try” to get changes made. But “responsibility” overstates the amount of agency we actually have in the real world.
I think a useful distinction regarding white people and racism is the one between *fault* and *responsibility*.
I think this is a useful distinction.
But I think I would parse it a little finer. In particular, I would distinguish between those who are actually in a position to make changes, whether to society or to a single organization, but fail to do so — that fits my definition of “responsible”. Then there are those of us who are not in such a position. We have a “duty to try” to get changes made. But “responsibility” overstates the amount of agency we actually have in the real world.
Perhaps a better way to phrase what I’m trying to say is, there’s a difference between being responsible for the persistence of a situation and having a responsibility to work to change it. Is that clearer?
Perhaps a better way to phrase what I’m trying to say is, there’s a difference between being responsible for the persistence of a situation and having a responsibility to work to change it. Is that clearer?
byomtov – the word to distinguish Bull Connors is “bigot.”
As for DiAngelo’s story about Jackie Robinson, the part of that I pay attention to as an important qualifier and indicator of what she is doing is:
Now so let’s do a little discourse analysis.
So she’s looking specifically at how people, in ordinary conversation, talk about what Jackie Robinson did.
Here’s what it says in Wikipedia right now:
Jack Roosevelt Robinson (January 31, 1919 â October 24, 1972) was an American professional baseball player who became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the modern era. Robinson broke the baseball color line when he started at first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947. When the Dodgers signed Robinson, they heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball that had relegated black players to the Negro leagues since the 1880s. Robinson was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1962.
And, indeed, when we shorthand the story, or give the version of the story that most history students would have memorized, it focuses on exactly the details that DiAngelo highlights.
We have a single figure, who is the Hall of Fame player, who “heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball.”
The story she describes is the story that hangs on the bones of that brief thumbnail.
The version she calls the “true” version highlights the fact that it was whites that kept him from playing in the first place and whites that gave him the job in defiance of other whites. And that until whites allowed that to happen, no black player of even greater talent than Robinson would have worn that uniform and sat on that bench.
It’s not about the details of the story per se, it’s about the narrative that the details we focus on constructs – what rhetoricians would call an “enthymeme.”
There is no doubt that the story of Jackie Robinson has been told and understood and argued over in detail by baseball fans and baseball historians, and her bit of discourse analysis was not calling any of that into question.
And if you are getting upset because of how her analysis oversimplifies things, that’s kinda the point she is making.
byomtov – the word to distinguish Bull Connors is “bigot.”
As for DiAngelo’s story about Jackie Robinson, the part of that I pay attention to as an important qualifier and indicator of what she is doing is:
Now so let’s do a little discourse analysis.
So she’s looking specifically at how people, in ordinary conversation, talk about what Jackie Robinson did.
Here’s what it says in Wikipedia right now:
Jack Roosevelt Robinson (January 31, 1919 â October 24, 1972) was an American professional baseball player who became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the modern era. Robinson broke the baseball color line when he started at first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947. When the Dodgers signed Robinson, they heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball that had relegated black players to the Negro leagues since the 1880s. Robinson was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1962.
And, indeed, when we shorthand the story, or give the version of the story that most history students would have memorized, it focuses on exactly the details that DiAngelo highlights.
We have a single figure, who is the Hall of Fame player, who “heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball.”
The story she describes is the story that hangs on the bones of that brief thumbnail.
The version she calls the “true” version highlights the fact that it was whites that kept him from playing in the first place and whites that gave him the job in defiance of other whites. And that until whites allowed that to happen, no black player of even greater talent than Robinson would have worn that uniform and sat on that bench.
It’s not about the details of the story per se, it’s about the narrative that the details we focus on constructs – what rhetoricians would call an “enthymeme.”
There is no doubt that the story of Jackie Robinson has been told and understood and argued over in detail by baseball fans and baseball historians, and her bit of discourse analysis was not calling any of that into question.
And if you are getting upset because of how her analysis oversimplifies things, that’s kinda the point she is making.
We have a single figure, who is the Hall of Fame player, who “heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball.”
Not accurate, according to what you quoted, nous. It says:
“When the Dodgers signed Robinson, they heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball.”
Very different, right? The Dodgers did it, not Robinson, according to the quotation that you posted.
We have a single figure, who is the Hall of Fame player, who “heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball.”
Not accurate, according to what you quoted, nous. It says:
“When the Dodgers signed Robinson, they heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball.”
Very different, right? The Dodgers did it, not Robinson, according to the quotation that you posted.
I think I agree wj, if I interpret you correctly…you mean to say there are *degrees* of responsibility. E.g. those with more power (in the past and the present) bear more responsibility.
I do agree with that. I still think that, especially in a democracy, we all bear at least SOME responsibility. For sure, some more than others.
But I think there is a certain amount of responsibility that we all share simply by virtue of being a member of the polity, and benefitting from a system built largely on racism.
If that makes sense.
I think I agree wj, if I interpret you correctly…you mean to say there are *degrees* of responsibility. E.g. those with more power (in the past and the present) bear more responsibility.
I do agree with that. I still think that, especially in a democracy, we all bear at least SOME responsibility. For sure, some more than others.
But I think there is a certain amount of responsibility that we all share simply by virtue of being a member of the polity, and benefitting from a system built largely on racism.
If that makes sense.
“there’s a difference between being responsible for the persistence of a situation and having a responsibility to work to change it. Is that clearer?”
And yes, I agree with this 100%.
“there’s a difference between being responsible for the persistence of a situation and having a responsibility to work to change it. Is that clearer?”
And yes, I agree with this 100%.
I’m addressing this to Russell and I know he groks it, so I hope he won’t mind if I use him as a stand in for everyone else on the blog. If you just say I’m enlightened, I’m not racist, I treat African Americans the same as I treat whites, you still don’t get it.
I don’t mind, no worries. And I don’t claim to treat African Americans the same as I treat whites, and I acknowledge that, to the degree that I don’t, I’m participating in the general ambient racism that is baked into our daily lives.
If racism is the wrong word, I’m open to whatever word folks prefer. The phenomenon I’m talking about is that I notice the color of people’s skin, especially with people I don’t know well, and the way I interact with black people is not the same as the way I interact with white people.
In my own case that mostly that takes the form of a kind of caution, for lack of a better word. A deliberate taking care that I be polite, that I not do or say anything that might give offense.
I have no idea how that is received. Maybe they just think I’m a nice guy. Maybe it’s annoying. Maybe I come off like a condescending ass. I have no idea. It’s probably different for different people, and is likely as much in their heads as it is in mine.
The point overall is that it gets in the way, and it’s based on skin color, full stop.
And yeah, if we could wave a magic wand and tomorrow everybody just suddenly started treating people who are different from them the same way they treat people who are like them, we’d still have a million things left to address.
I’m just suggesting it as a starting point. Notice how you relate to white people, notice how you relate to black people, notice if there’s a difference, think about why that might be. Don’t give it a label, just notice, and consider.
It’s just an exercise in self-awareness, not a solution to the whole ugly mess. A tiny first step.
First, if DiAngelo wants to convince me of some point about race, starting off by insulting me is not a good plan. Second, if everybody is racist the word loses its meaning.
I think the sticking point here is that the word ‘racist’ is seen as indicating animus. IMO racism is broader than that.
All I’m getting at with the “don’t worry about the label” thing is, if the term gets in the way of thinking about how we might participate in thinking about people of different colors in different ways, don’t worry about the label and just deal with the ground reality.
If none of it applies to you, which is entirely possible, no worries.
Regarding DiAngelo, she doesn’t really bug me, but I can see about 100 reasons why she might bug folks. If DiAngelo’s persona or way of presenting the information gets in the way of thinking about the various ways in which the experience of black and white people in this country is really quite different – not historically, but today – then ignore DiAngelo and consider the ground truth.
As a friend likes to say, eat the meat, and spit out the bones.
I’m addressing this to Russell and I know he groks it, so I hope he won’t mind if I use him as a stand in for everyone else on the blog. If you just say I’m enlightened, I’m not racist, I treat African Americans the same as I treat whites, you still don’t get it.
I don’t mind, no worries. And I don’t claim to treat African Americans the same as I treat whites, and I acknowledge that, to the degree that I don’t, I’m participating in the general ambient racism that is baked into our daily lives.
If racism is the wrong word, I’m open to whatever word folks prefer. The phenomenon I’m talking about is that I notice the color of people’s skin, especially with people I don’t know well, and the way I interact with black people is not the same as the way I interact with white people.
In my own case that mostly that takes the form of a kind of caution, for lack of a better word. A deliberate taking care that I be polite, that I not do or say anything that might give offense.
I have no idea how that is received. Maybe they just think I’m a nice guy. Maybe it’s annoying. Maybe I come off like a condescending ass. I have no idea. It’s probably different for different people, and is likely as much in their heads as it is in mine.
The point overall is that it gets in the way, and it’s based on skin color, full stop.
And yeah, if we could wave a magic wand and tomorrow everybody just suddenly started treating people who are different from them the same way they treat people who are like them, we’d still have a million things left to address.
I’m just suggesting it as a starting point. Notice how you relate to white people, notice how you relate to black people, notice if there’s a difference, think about why that might be. Don’t give it a label, just notice, and consider.
It’s just an exercise in self-awareness, not a solution to the whole ugly mess. A tiny first step.
First, if DiAngelo wants to convince me of some point about race, starting off by insulting me is not a good plan. Second, if everybody is racist the word loses its meaning.
I think the sticking point here is that the word ‘racist’ is seen as indicating animus. IMO racism is broader than that.
All I’m getting at with the “don’t worry about the label” thing is, if the term gets in the way of thinking about how we might participate in thinking about people of different colors in different ways, don’t worry about the label and just deal with the ground reality.
If none of it applies to you, which is entirely possible, no worries.
Regarding DiAngelo, she doesn’t really bug me, but I can see about 100 reasons why she might bug folks. If DiAngelo’s persona or way of presenting the information gets in the way of thinking about the various ways in which the experience of black and white people in this country is really quite different – not historically, but today – then ignore DiAngelo and consider the ground truth.
As a friend likes to say, eat the meat, and spit out the bones.
By the way, my brief autobiographical narrative in response to the video (which I watched in full) was meant to lead to a conclusion (which maybe I should have stated). I don’t see how people could have grown up in my generation in the US without having racism play a part in their psyche. Whether “racist” is the right term, I will leave to others.
I know that when I first encountered black students in my class, in the sixth grade, we didn’t interact much at all. I thought that they were shy, and I was shy. Maybe that was true. The idea that they were terrified never crossed my mind. They were probably terrified. I think we should examine our assumptions.
By the way, my brief autobiographical narrative in response to the video (which I watched in full) was meant to lead to a conclusion (which maybe I should have stated). I don’t see how people could have grown up in my generation in the US without having racism play a part in their psyche. Whether “racist” is the right term, I will leave to others.
I know that when I first encountered black students in my class, in the sixth grade, we didn’t interact much at all. I thought that they were shy, and I was shy. Maybe that was true. The idea that they were terrified never crossed my mind. They were probably terrified. I think we should examine our assumptions.
Nous,
I’m sorry, but what you say makes no sense to me.
The story she describes is the story that hangs on the bones of that brief thumbnail.
But it’s not. The story that “hangs on the bones” is that blacks were denied the opportunity to play until Rickey signed Robinson, and that this denial was a tremendous injustice to many talented athletes.
The version she calls the “true” version highlights the fact that it was whites that kept him from playing in the first place and whites that gave him the job in defiance of other whites. And that until whites allowed that to happen, no black player of even greater talent than Robinson would have worn that uniform and sat on that bench.
Yes. And this is the standard story. DiAngelo is not a brave iconoclast for telling it. It’s not the story that only the truly enlightened tell. It’s the story that is the accepted, commonplace, version. That she wants to make a big deal of telling the “true” version is ridiculous. Pretending that it’s not the standard version is just dishonest.
There is no doubt that the story of Jackie Robinson has been told and understood and argued over in detail by baseball fans and baseball historians, and her bit of discourse analysis was not calling any of that into question.
Actually, it hasn’t much been argued about, AFAIK.
And if you are getting upset because of how her analysis oversimplifies things, that’s kinda the point she is making.
This is just offensive. First, she didn’t “oversimplify.” She misrepresented. Second, one of the things that really turns me off about the whole lecture is her smug assurance that she is just right and if we don’t agree it’s because of our own blindness.
Are you really telling me that my disagreement with a point she makes just proves her point is accurate? Really?
Nous,
I’m sorry, but what you say makes no sense to me.
The story she describes is the story that hangs on the bones of that brief thumbnail.
But it’s not. The story that “hangs on the bones” is that blacks were denied the opportunity to play until Rickey signed Robinson, and that this denial was a tremendous injustice to many talented athletes.
The version she calls the “true” version highlights the fact that it was whites that kept him from playing in the first place and whites that gave him the job in defiance of other whites. And that until whites allowed that to happen, no black player of even greater talent than Robinson would have worn that uniform and sat on that bench.
Yes. And this is the standard story. DiAngelo is not a brave iconoclast for telling it. It’s not the story that only the truly enlightened tell. It’s the story that is the accepted, commonplace, version. That she wants to make a big deal of telling the “true” version is ridiculous. Pretending that it’s not the standard version is just dishonest.
There is no doubt that the story of Jackie Robinson has been told and understood and argued over in detail by baseball fans and baseball historians, and her bit of discourse analysis was not calling any of that into question.
Actually, it hasn’t much been argued about, AFAIK.
And if you are getting upset because of how her analysis oversimplifies things, that’s kinda the point she is making.
This is just offensive. First, she didn’t “oversimplify.” She misrepresented. Second, one of the things that really turns me off about the whole lecture is her smug assurance that she is just right and if we don’t agree it’s because of our own blindness.
Are you really telling me that my disagreement with a point she makes just proves her point is accurate? Really?
Look, here’s a thought experiment.
Let’s say we ran the numbers on crime in the US, and found that left-handed people disproportionately show up as perps.
So, the cops decide to randomly stop left-handed people on the street and frisk them.
The numbers back it up!! What’s your problem?
Run the same exercise for any of 100 indicators of social dysfunction, and plug in factors like big feet, red hair, blue eyes, male pattern baldness, whatever. Take your pick.
And say that discrimination based on any of those J-random physical attributes had been maintained for, like, 400 years.
Red hair? Don’t want to be alone on an elevator with that person.
Big feet? Better follow them around the store, everyone knows people with big feet have light fingers.
Blue eyes? Better examine their credit history very, very closely before making that loan.
Balding man? Better pull them over and check their license and reg, just because.
Do that for a few hundred years. What would your experience be, as a balding blue-eyed red-headed guy with big feet, living in that culture?
Kind of a silly thought experiment. For some people, it’s their life.
Look, here’s a thought experiment.
Let’s say we ran the numbers on crime in the US, and found that left-handed people disproportionately show up as perps.
So, the cops decide to randomly stop left-handed people on the street and frisk them.
The numbers back it up!! What’s your problem?
Run the same exercise for any of 100 indicators of social dysfunction, and plug in factors like big feet, red hair, blue eyes, male pattern baldness, whatever. Take your pick.
And say that discrimination based on any of those J-random physical attributes had been maintained for, like, 400 years.
Red hair? Don’t want to be alone on an elevator with that person.
Big feet? Better follow them around the store, everyone knows people with big feet have light fingers.
Blue eyes? Better examine their credit history very, very closely before making that loan.
Balding man? Better pull them over and check their license and reg, just because.
Do that for a few hundred years. What would your experience be, as a balding blue-eyed red-headed guy with big feet, living in that culture?
Kind of a silly thought experiment. For some people, it’s their life.
byomtov – as someone who has taught many classes with many readings that take on topics steeped in American history to many very smart students from China, I can tell you with some assurance that the story she outlines there is pretty close to the one that any one of those students would put together if what they had in front of them was that Wikipedia summary.
I know a lot of primary and middle grade teachers who would say the same thing based on their experience with student written reports.
If that story misrepresents the facts, then the quoted summary is not helping to tell the correct story.
Which is the point.
byomtov – as someone who has taught many classes with many readings that take on topics steeped in American history to many very smart students from China, I can tell you with some assurance that the story she outlines there is pretty close to the one that any one of those students would put together if what they had in front of them was that Wikipedia summary.
I know a lot of primary and middle grade teachers who would say the same thing based on their experience with student written reports.
If that story misrepresents the facts, then the quoted summary is not helping to tell the correct story.
Which is the point.
Those “left handed people” seem a bit sinister to me, y’know?
Those “left handed people” seem a bit sinister to me, y’know?
Which is the point.
My point, at 9:48, is that you misread the wikipedia entry. It’s a small thing, but maybe important.
Which is the point.
My point, at 9:48, is that you misread the wikipedia entry. It’s a small thing, but maybe important.
sapient – you are correct in that interpretation, but it is a matter of some ambiguity in the way that the sentence is structured. It could be read as the Dodgers doing it, or it could be read as the Dodgers succumbing to the case that Robinson presents them with. And the way that most students skim a story like that, I’d say the chances are good that more than a handful come away with the reading that I provide there.
It’s not a good reading. Most readers do not make good, careful readings. If they did, I’d be out of a job.
sapient – you are correct in that interpretation, but it is a matter of some ambiguity in the way that the sentence is structured. It could be read as the Dodgers doing it, or it could be read as the Dodgers succumbing to the case that Robinson presents them with. And the way that most students skim a story like that, I’d say the chances are good that more than a handful come away with the reading that I provide there.
It’s not a good reading. Most readers do not make good, careful readings. If they did, I’d be out of a job.
I’d be out of a job.
Hope that’s never the case. My guess is that you are great at it.
I’d be out of a job.
Hope that’s never the case. My guess is that you are great at it.
Are you really telling me that my disagreement with a point she makes just proves her point is accurate? Really?
Once you accept assuming the conclusions to be a valid and appropriate approach, this necessarily follows. Surely this isn’t the first time you have encountered the mindset.
Are you really telling me that my disagreement with a point she makes just proves her point is accurate? Really?
Once you accept assuming the conclusions to be a valid and appropriate approach, this necessarily follows. Surely this isn’t the first time you have encountered the mindset.
I had no problem with DiAngelo and found her lecture clarifying, but Iâm not all that motivated to convince anyone that they should like her or her talk. I do wonder who disputes the main idea that we are socialized into having at least some racial bias by living in this country. And Iâm not concerned about Bernard being some particularly un-self-aware perpetuator of white supremacy simply because he found DiAngelo insulting and unimpressive. I donât give DiAngelo that much credit. She didnât suddenly become God.
I guess thatâs my long-winded way of saying âthen ignore DiAngelo and consider the ground truth.â
I had no problem with DiAngelo and found her lecture clarifying, but Iâm not all that motivated to convince anyone that they should like her or her talk. I do wonder who disputes the main idea that we are socialized into having at least some racial bias by living in this country. And Iâm not concerned about Bernard being some particularly un-self-aware perpetuator of white supremacy simply because he found DiAngelo insulting and unimpressive. I donât give DiAngelo that much credit. She didnât suddenly become God.
I guess thatâs my long-winded way of saying âthen ignore DiAngelo and consider the ground truth.â
Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. There is nothing in his story that should diminish the dedication and courage it took for him to accept the opportunity presented to him by Rickey. The challenge only started there, he endured and excelled.
Whatever Rickeys motives, Robinson achieved being the first black player to successfully play in the majors.
Shorter, Rickey provided the opportunity, necessary but not sufficient to break the color barrier.
This is interesting: https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/2/15/10991906/black-baseball-players-history-before-jackie-robinson-negro-leagues
Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. There is nothing in his story that should diminish the dedication and courage it took for him to accept the opportunity presented to him by Rickey. The challenge only started there, he endured and excelled.
Whatever Rickeys motives, Robinson achieved being the first black player to successfully play in the majors.
Shorter, Rickey provided the opportunity, necessary but not sufficient to break the color barrier.
This is interesting: https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2016/2/15/10991906/black-baseball-players-history-before-jackie-robinson-negro-leagues
Are you really telling me that my disagreement with a point she makes just proves her point is accurate? Really?
No. I was telling you that if you were upset that her version oversimplified Robinson’s story, that she was also saying that the commonly used thumbnail (a version of which I quoted in my reply) oversimplifies the story.
The other side of that would be that if you are arguing that the interpretation she gave of what “breaking the color barrier” meant is inaccurate, then the version of the story that I found on Wikipedia does very little to help someone unfamiliar with the details to draw the right conclusions about the actual story. She is not arguing for this, though, she is merely demonstrating how that story gets interpreted because of how it is framed.
Once you do know more of the details and the context for the story, though, the thumbnail seems like a decent and memorable version of the events (see Marty’s reply here for confirmation of that) because the readers can fill in that context for themselves.
Whatever the case, though, her analysis was concerned with the form that soundbite takes and what that form implies.
Are you really telling me that my disagreement with a point she makes just proves her point is accurate? Really?
No. I was telling you that if you were upset that her version oversimplified Robinson’s story, that she was also saying that the commonly used thumbnail (a version of which I quoted in my reply) oversimplifies the story.
The other side of that would be that if you are arguing that the interpretation she gave of what “breaking the color barrier” meant is inaccurate, then the version of the story that I found on Wikipedia does very little to help someone unfamiliar with the details to draw the right conclusions about the actual story. She is not arguing for this, though, she is merely demonstrating how that story gets interpreted because of how it is framed.
Once you do know more of the details and the context for the story, though, the thumbnail seems like a decent and memorable version of the events (see Marty’s reply here for confirmation of that) because the readers can fill in that context for themselves.
Whatever the case, though, her analysis was concerned with the form that soundbite takes and what that form implies.
Hi, I wanted to respond to Bernie, but I’ll quote nous’ comment. Bernie is worried that I could say it is nitpicking, but I don’t, and one shouldn’t, if someone you respect brings up a point, you should treat it with seriousness, not brush it asked.
So nous says
Once you do know more of the details and the context for the story, though, the thumbnail seems like a decent and memorable version of the events (see Marty’s reply here for confirmation of that) because the readers can fill in that context for themselves.
I’d argue that it is the ‘fill in the context’ which is the problem. Because the way it is told is that _Jackie Robinson_ broke the color line. And the context we could fill in is that it requires someone to do something extraordinary to make changes. Now maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But if the problems are systemic, then we take the people who aspire to greatness and have them break themselves on the barriers until someone is able to break thru. Josh Gibson couldn’t break the color line, Satchel Paige couldn’t, Papa Bell couldn’t, so were they less than Jackie Robinson? I think a lot of people might fill in the context that way, that it took someone like Jackie Robinson to do this (which, in a way, is very true. There were several ‘better’ ball players than Robinson, Rickey chose Robinson because he correctly felt that he had the ability to make it thru the first year without breaking)
I don’t think they fill in the context as ‘black ball players who were just as good if not better than white ball players were not allowed to play’, they focus on Jackie Robinson as ‘doing something’.
We are all familiar with the line that African Americans have to be twice as good to get half as much. Yet the Jackie Robinson story elides that. This shouldn’t be taken as a slight on Robinson and people who twist this in that way are arguing in bad faith it seems to me. But the story does not point you to the hundreds of other players who were just as good as Robinson but just didn’t have the chance. Until he ‘broke’ the barrier.
Other news, I was asked how long I was going to keep this open. I’m figuring to close it Monday Morning Japan time, which is Sunday evening US time. I appreciate everyone’s thoughtful responses.
Hi, I wanted to respond to Bernie, but I’ll quote nous’ comment. Bernie is worried that I could say it is nitpicking, but I don’t, and one shouldn’t, if someone you respect brings up a point, you should treat it with seriousness, not brush it asked.
So nous says
Once you do know more of the details and the context for the story, though, the thumbnail seems like a decent and memorable version of the events (see Marty’s reply here for confirmation of that) because the readers can fill in that context for themselves.
I’d argue that it is the ‘fill in the context’ which is the problem. Because the way it is told is that _Jackie Robinson_ broke the color line. And the context we could fill in is that it requires someone to do something extraordinary to make changes. Now maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But if the problems are systemic, then we take the people who aspire to greatness and have them break themselves on the barriers until someone is able to break thru. Josh Gibson couldn’t break the color line, Satchel Paige couldn’t, Papa Bell couldn’t, so were they less than Jackie Robinson? I think a lot of people might fill in the context that way, that it took someone like Jackie Robinson to do this (which, in a way, is very true. There were several ‘better’ ball players than Robinson, Rickey chose Robinson because he correctly felt that he had the ability to make it thru the first year without breaking)
I don’t think they fill in the context as ‘black ball players who were just as good if not better than white ball players were not allowed to play’, they focus on Jackie Robinson as ‘doing something’.
We are all familiar with the line that African Americans have to be twice as good to get half as much. Yet the Jackie Robinson story elides that. This shouldn’t be taken as a slight on Robinson and people who twist this in that way are arguing in bad faith it seems to me. But the story does not point you to the hundreds of other players who were just as good as Robinson but just didn’t have the chance. Until he ‘broke’ the barrier.
Other news, I was asked how long I was going to keep this open. I’m figuring to close it Monday Morning Japan time, which is Sunday evening US time. I appreciate everyone’s thoughtful responses.
LJ and nous,
Let me repeat myself for the last time on this subject.
I’d argue that it is the ‘fill in the context’ which is the problem. Because the way it is told is that _Jackie Robinson_ broke the color line. And the context we could fill in is that it requires someone to do something extraordinary to make changes. ….
I don’t think they fill in the context as ‘black ball players who were just as good if not better than white ball players were not allowed to play’,
And I think they do, which is where we differ. My evidence is what I read and hear people say about the whole matter. Have you ever actually read or heard the opposite, that Robinson was simply far better than Gibson et al? I haven’t. Besides, it would be a ridiculous belief. Since Robinson we’ve seen the likes of Aaron, Mays,.. others too numerous to name. You’d have to believe that there was suddenly some new strain of black ballplayers that suddenly popped up (so to speak).
I went to college at Vanderbilt. While I was there the school recruited a basketball player named Perry Wallace, who was the first black athlete in the SEC. Now, Vanderbilt had been all white until just a year or two earlier (yes, privilege), so it’s fair to assume that racial enlightenment was not universal on campus. It wasn’t. But though Wallace was an excellent player no one believed that he was the very first black player good enough to play basketball in the SEC. Instead, it was thought that the school had taken a certain step, which some regarded as progress.
(Not incidentally, Wallace endured many of the same trials that Robinson suffered.)
There are plenty of racial issues in sports and the way we talk about sports (again contra DiAngelo, no one believes that Robinson “ended racism in sports.”) and they need to be discussed. It’s a standard trope, for example that a baseball player described as “gritty” is white, while a “gifted athlete” is black.
Manufacturing non-existent issues doesn’t help.
the story does not point you to the hundreds of other players who were just as good as Robinson but just didn’t have the chance. Until he ‘broke’ the barrier.
I think it does precisely that.
LJ and nous,
Let me repeat myself for the last time on this subject.
I’d argue that it is the ‘fill in the context’ which is the problem. Because the way it is told is that _Jackie Robinson_ broke the color line. And the context we could fill in is that it requires someone to do something extraordinary to make changes. ….
I don’t think they fill in the context as ‘black ball players who were just as good if not better than white ball players were not allowed to play’,
And I think they do, which is where we differ. My evidence is what I read and hear people say about the whole matter. Have you ever actually read or heard the opposite, that Robinson was simply far better than Gibson et al? I haven’t. Besides, it would be a ridiculous belief. Since Robinson we’ve seen the likes of Aaron, Mays,.. others too numerous to name. You’d have to believe that there was suddenly some new strain of black ballplayers that suddenly popped up (so to speak).
I went to college at Vanderbilt. While I was there the school recruited a basketball player named Perry Wallace, who was the first black athlete in the SEC. Now, Vanderbilt had been all white until just a year or two earlier (yes, privilege), so it’s fair to assume that racial enlightenment was not universal on campus. It wasn’t. But though Wallace was an excellent player no one believed that he was the very first black player good enough to play basketball in the SEC. Instead, it was thought that the school had taken a certain step, which some regarded as progress.
(Not incidentally, Wallace endured many of the same trials that Robinson suffered.)
There are plenty of racial issues in sports and the way we talk about sports (again contra DiAngelo, no one believes that Robinson “ended racism in sports.”) and they need to be discussed. It’s a standard trope, for example that a baseball player described as “gritty” is white, while a “gifted athlete” is black.
Manufacturing non-existent issues doesn’t help.
the story does not point you to the hundreds of other players who were just as good as Robinson but just didn’t have the chance. Until he ‘broke’ the barrier.
I think it does precisely that.
First thought of this morning was that the US has gained enough ground to provide the exceptional black person better opportunity than Robinson had.
Blatant aggression is almost universally frowned on,education may (or may not) have improved some, many companies are hiring minority candidates by preference, social programs proliferate.
We have not achieved, overall, the same level of opportunity that players in baseball have today. The general acceptance, without thought, that it is just normal for them to be there.
Even then, there is racial conflict on a micro level in baseball. But people will always exist that are blatantly against the other.
First thought of this morning was that the US has gained enough ground to provide the exceptional black person better opportunity than Robinson had.
Blatant aggression is almost universally frowned on,education may (or may not) have improved some, many companies are hiring minority candidates by preference, social programs proliferate.
We have not achieved, overall, the same level of opportunity that players in baseball have today. The general acceptance, without thought, that it is just normal for them to be there.
Even then, there is racial conflict on a micro level in baseball. But people will always exist that are blatantly against the other.
We have not achieved, overall, the … general acceptance, without thought, that it is just normal for them to be there.
Yes, precisely, well said, and thank you.
Apologies for my edit, I think I’ve retained the sense of your original.
We have not achieved, overall, the … general acceptance, without thought, that it is just normal for them to be there.
Yes, precisely, well said, and thank you.
Apologies for my edit, I think I’ve retained the sense of your original.
byomtov, this question is not to do with Jackie Robinson, and baseball, but relates to something I have often been made uneasy by.
How do you feel, if I may ask, if you hear an otherwise OK seeming non-Jew mention, apparently approvingly, “clever Jewish lawyers”? Or, as I recently heard an old Chinese man say of an old friend of his way back “He was my best Jewish friend!” Does this make you uneasy? Because to me, it implies that such people see the Jewishness first, just as russell implies many (or most) of us see the blackness first. It is this phenomenon, I think, that can lead to unconscious bias, even if sometimes in what might be considered benign preconceptions.
byomtov, this question is not to do with Jackie Robinson, and baseball, but relates to something I have often been made uneasy by.
How do you feel, if I may ask, if you hear an otherwise OK seeming non-Jew mention, apparently approvingly, “clever Jewish lawyers”? Or, as I recently heard an old Chinese man say of an old friend of his way back “He was my best Jewish friend!” Does this make you uneasy? Because to me, it implies that such people see the Jewishness first, just as russell implies many (or most) of us see the blackness first. It is this phenomenon, I think, that can lead to unconscious bias, even if sometimes in what might be considered benign preconceptions.
GftNC,
I think that’s right, and I agree it’s sometimes, not always, well-intentioned. There’s a difference between your two examples, I think. The first relies on a stereotype. In the second the implication seems to be that Jews, or perhaps just non-Chinese, occupy a secondary status in the hierarchy of his friends.
I react more to the first example. One of the marks of a bigot, it seems to me, is that he turns a characteristic, real or imagined, of the disliked group into a flaw, when the same characteristic is more commonly regarded as positive.
Clever Jews. Meticulous Germans. Blacks who are good musicians.
The second case is a bit more complicated, and I’m still thinking it through.
GftNC,
I think that’s right, and I agree it’s sometimes, not always, well-intentioned. There’s a difference between your two examples, I think. The first relies on a stereotype. In the second the implication seems to be that Jews, or perhaps just non-Chinese, occupy a secondary status in the hierarchy of his friends.
I react more to the first example. One of the marks of a bigot, it seems to me, is that he turns a characteristic, real or imagined, of the disliked group into a flaw, when the same characteristic is more commonly regarded as positive.
Clever Jews. Meticulous Germans. Blacks who are good musicians.
The second case is a bit more complicated, and I’m still thinking it through.
Bernie,
It sounds to me like you’re more offended as a baseball fan than as a white guy. I can’t help remembering the Seinfeld episode where Jerry is complaining to a priest about his dentist telling Jewish jokes.
Priest: “Does that offend you as a Jew, my son?”
Jerry: “No. It offends me as a comedian.”
FWIW, you get no argument from me about DiAngelo’s tone. But I have watched enough lectures, book talks, and Powerpoint presentations by management consultants, to know that “experts” generally speak to audiences with a self-assurance bordering on smugness, using buzzwords that border on bullshit, and defining terms idiosyncratically to make their theses sound both good and original (which can be a hard combination to pull off). An aw-shucks-I-could-be-wrong style of presentation is rare, not least because it more-readily invites the question “Why are we all sitting here listening to you, then?”
Somebody speaking of the Copernican revolution once said that due to the heliocentric model of the solar system “Nothing had changed, yet everything had changed”. I think that observation has some relevance to the Robinson-centric versus Rickey-centric view of “breaking the color line”.
–TP
Bernie,
It sounds to me like you’re more offended as a baseball fan than as a white guy. I can’t help remembering the Seinfeld episode where Jerry is complaining to a priest about his dentist telling Jewish jokes.
Priest: “Does that offend you as a Jew, my son?”
Jerry: “No. It offends me as a comedian.”
FWIW, you get no argument from me about DiAngelo’s tone. But I have watched enough lectures, book talks, and Powerpoint presentations by management consultants, to know that “experts” generally speak to audiences with a self-assurance bordering on smugness, using buzzwords that border on bullshit, and defining terms idiosyncratically to make their theses sound both good and original (which can be a hard combination to pull off). An aw-shucks-I-could-be-wrong style of presentation is rare, not least because it more-readily invites the question “Why are we all sitting here listening to you, then?”
Somebody speaking of the Copernican revolution once said that due to the heliocentric model of the solar system “Nothing had changed, yet everything had changed”. I think that observation has some relevance to the Robinson-centric versus Rickey-centric view of “breaking the color line”.
–TP
Just to add to what Tony P. wrote, DiAngelo is selling a book. Maybe it’s a good book, but she’s selling it. “I might not know what I’m talking about” isn’t the best sales pitch.
Just to add to what Tony P. wrote, DiAngelo is selling a book. Maybe it’s a good book, but she’s selling it. “I might not know what I’m talking about” isn’t the best sales pitch.
One last pass through the subject of discourse analysis. Before yesterday, I had not done any reading whatsoever about Robinson. I knew from history that he was the player who broke the color barrier, and I knew enough history to know that the matter must be more complex than just Robinson being a great player whose talent could not be denied. I knew Satchel Paige’s name, but not much else. I did not know Josh Gibson at all. And until yesterday I did not ever feel the need to dig deeper than the knowledge I had.
So let’s try a different thumbnail sketch in the spirit of Alexandra Bell’s “radical editing” project.
“Jack Roosevelt Robinson (January 31, 1919 â October 24, 1972) was an American professional baseball player [and World War Two veteran] who became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the [post-war] era. [In 1945 Branch Rickey signed the veteran to a farm league contract with the shared intent of challenging the color barrier. Robinson broke the baseball color line when he started at first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947. When the Dodgers signed Robinson, they heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball that had relegated black players to the Negro leagues since the 1880s, [and paved the way for the desegregation of the US Military one year later].”
This version is no more or less true than the other version, but the bones of the story create a very different narrative and start readers questioning very different aspects of the historical moment.
Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson were not veterans. Robinson had been court martialed for refusing to go to the back of a military bus.
Discourse analysis.
One last pass through the subject of discourse analysis. Before yesterday, I had not done any reading whatsoever about Robinson. I knew from history that he was the player who broke the color barrier, and I knew enough history to know that the matter must be more complex than just Robinson being a great player whose talent could not be denied. I knew Satchel Paige’s name, but not much else. I did not know Josh Gibson at all. And until yesterday I did not ever feel the need to dig deeper than the knowledge I had.
So let’s try a different thumbnail sketch in the spirit of Alexandra Bell’s “radical editing” project.
“Jack Roosevelt Robinson (January 31, 1919 â October 24, 1972) was an American professional baseball player [and World War Two veteran] who became the first African American to play in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the [post-war] era. [In 1945 Branch Rickey signed the veteran to a farm league contract with the shared intent of challenging the color barrier. Robinson broke the baseball color line when he started at first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947. When the Dodgers signed Robinson, they heralded the end of racial segregation in professional baseball that had relegated black players to the Negro leagues since the 1880s, [and paved the way for the desegregation of the US Military one year later].”
This version is no more or less true than the other version, but the bones of the story create a very different narrative and start readers questioning very different aspects of the historical moment.
Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson were not veterans. Robinson had been court martialed for refusing to go to the back of a military bus.
Discourse analysis.
many (or most) of us see the blackness first
^^^^^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^^^^
This applies to me. And I generally think of myself as “being on their side”, whatever that means. And it’s harmful, because it gets in the way of people being able to be themselves and live their lives, in ways small and large.
If it doesn’t apply to you, no worries. Well done. But I think it applies to a lot of people.
And I think a lot of people have some level of discomfort being candid about it, because it is inescapably about race, and being ‘racist’ is, justifiably, seen as a bad thing.
FWIW, if you sift through the academic-sociologist-with-a-book-to-sell tone and verbiage, I think that’s pretty much DiAngelo’s message in a nutshell. If the tone and verbiage gets in the way, just ignore DiAngelo altogether and get to the facts on the ground.
I know the thoughts and reactions I have. I don’t know the thoughts and reactions anyone else have. I known this is an issue for me to be attentive to. Everyone has to do their own head check.
But it’s worth doing. IMVHO.
many (or most) of us see the blackness first
^^^^^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^^^^^
This applies to me. And I generally think of myself as “being on their side”, whatever that means. And it’s harmful, because it gets in the way of people being able to be themselves and live their lives, in ways small and large.
If it doesn’t apply to you, no worries. Well done. But I think it applies to a lot of people.
And I think a lot of people have some level of discomfort being candid about it, because it is inescapably about race, and being ‘racist’ is, justifiably, seen as a bad thing.
FWIW, if you sift through the academic-sociologist-with-a-book-to-sell tone and verbiage, I think that’s pretty much DiAngelo’s message in a nutshell. If the tone and verbiage gets in the way, just ignore DiAngelo altogether and get to the facts on the ground.
I know the thoughts and reactions I have. I don’t know the thoughts and reactions anyone else have. I known this is an issue for me to be attentive to. Everyone has to do their own head check.
But it’s worth doing. IMVHO.
GftNC, I have friends who are Jewish. I also have friends with blue eyes.** Which I mention because I am aware of both on some level, but neither is significant when it comes to our relationship. And that is where I hope we all get to on race as well: it’s not that we are oblivious, but it simply isn’t a significant factor in how we interact with each other.
** And one who is both. As I recall, she converted while in college.
GftNC, I have friends who are Jewish. I also have friends with blue eyes.** Which I mention because I am aware of both on some level, but neither is significant when it comes to our relationship. And that is where I hope we all get to on race as well: it’s not that we are oblivious, but it simply isn’t a significant factor in how we interact with each other.
** And one who is both. As I recall, she converted while in college.
Tony,
It sounds to me like you’re more offended as a baseball fan than as a white guy.
Well, I don’t think I’m offended as a white guy at all. I am offended as a baseball fan, and also as a person. I don’t think the story she thinks people hear is in fact the one they hear. I think her point is wrong, and of course that leads me to think she may be misinterpreting other information as well.
Nous,
as someone who has taught many classes with many readings that take on topics steeped in American history to many very smart students from China, I can tell you with some assurance that the story she outlines there is pretty close to the one that any one of those students would put together if what they had in front of them was that Wikipedia summary.
Well, OK. I believe you. If you take someone who knows virtually nothing of the history of racial discrimination in the US, and give them only that Wikipedia article to read, they might well draw the conclusion you describe.
But who is that person? A student from China. (And might not even that smart student wonder whether it was all about ability, rather than racism?) Or, maybe, a grade school student with no other information. And why would that be the only information they had on the subject?
Your examples are not typical of the American public, not even the less-well-educated segment. You are conducting a lab experiment. If you give me a brief description some event I’ve never heard of, and about the context of which I know nothing, I’m likely to misunderstand. But so what. DiAngelo seems, to me, to be claiming that the American public is like your Chinese students. I disagree, and I will ask the following: Take a random sample of people and ask the following:
Why was it that there were no black players in major league baseball until 1947:
1. There were no black players good enough to play in the majors until then.
or
2. Blacks were systematically excluded, regardless of their abilities.
How would this survey come out, do you think?
Tony,
It sounds to me like you’re more offended as a baseball fan than as a white guy.
Well, I don’t think I’m offended as a white guy at all. I am offended as a baseball fan, and also as a person. I don’t think the story she thinks people hear is in fact the one they hear. I think her point is wrong, and of course that leads me to think she may be misinterpreting other information as well.
Nous,
as someone who has taught many classes with many readings that take on topics steeped in American history to many very smart students from China, I can tell you with some assurance that the story she outlines there is pretty close to the one that any one of those students would put together if what they had in front of them was that Wikipedia summary.
Well, OK. I believe you. If you take someone who knows virtually nothing of the history of racial discrimination in the US, and give them only that Wikipedia article to read, they might well draw the conclusion you describe.
But who is that person? A student from China. (And might not even that smart student wonder whether it was all about ability, rather than racism?) Or, maybe, a grade school student with no other information. And why would that be the only information they had on the subject?
Your examples are not typical of the American public, not even the less-well-educated segment. You are conducting a lab experiment. If you give me a brief description some event I’ve never heard of, and about the context of which I know nothing, I’m likely to misunderstand. But so what. DiAngelo seems, to me, to be claiming that the American public is like your Chinese students. I disagree, and I will ask the following: Take a random sample of people and ask the following:
Why was it that there were no black players in major league baseball until 1947:
1. There were no black players good enough to play in the majors until then.
or
2. Blacks were systematically excluded, regardless of their abilities.
How would this survey come out, do you think?
One other thought on Robinson. He had one personal characteristic which was important in what happened. Important enough that he and Rickey talked about it at some length before going forward. He had the strength to throttle his justifiable fury at the way he was treated. That man went thru hell, without exploding. Especially for someone know for his temper, that was impressive.
Could other black players have done so equally well? Some of them, sure. But it was something about him that wasn’t true of all the great players in the Negro Leagues. So while it was actions of whites (specifically Rickey) which made it happen, Robinson wasn’t just an interchangeable part of events.
One other thought on Robinson. He had one personal characteristic which was important in what happened. Important enough that he and Rickey talked about it at some length before going forward. He had the strength to throttle his justifiable fury at the way he was treated. That man went thru hell, without exploding. Especially for someone know for his temper, that was impressive.
Could other black players have done so equally well? Some of them, sure. But it was something about him that wasn’t true of all the great players in the Negro Leagues. So while it was actions of whites (specifically Rickey) which made it happen, Robinson wasn’t just an interchangeable part of events.
âRacism in America is like dust in the air. It seems invisible â even if youâre choking on it â until you let the sun in. Then you see itâs everywhere.â
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
âRacism in America is like dust in the air. It seems invisible â even if youâre choking on it â until you let the sun in. Then you see itâs everywhere.â
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
byomtov – Why was it that there were no black players in major league baseball until 1947:
1. There were no black players good enough to play in the majors until then.
or
2. Blacks were systematically excluded, regardless of their abilities.
How would this survey come out, do you think?
Probably b.
But both of those still try to reframe the issue in terms of bright lines and neither tell us anything about why it is that Jackie Robinson’s moment precipitated the change or why it happened when it did.
Students get the big principles and the dramatic examples handed to them. Those things do not give them an instrumental understanding of how to actually achieve change. It’s worth considering how we can frame those big moments better in order to provoke further productive thought.
In the production of knowledge, questions are more important than answers.
byomtov – Why was it that there were no black players in major league baseball until 1947:
1. There were no black players good enough to play in the majors until then.
or
2. Blacks were systematically excluded, regardless of their abilities.
How would this survey come out, do you think?
Probably b.
But both of those still try to reframe the issue in terms of bright lines and neither tell us anything about why it is that Jackie Robinson’s moment precipitated the change or why it happened when it did.
Students get the big principles and the dramatic examples handed to them. Those things do not give them an instrumental understanding of how to actually achieve change. It’s worth considering how we can frame those big moments better in order to provoke further productive thought.
In the production of knowledge, questions are more important than answers.
I’d say 2, but what made them stop doing that? That’s what’s actually in question. You (or a significant number of people) don’t have to believe 1 for DiAngelo’s argument to hold (not that that means she’s right).
I’d say 2, but what made them stop doing that? That’s what’s actually in question. You (or a significant number of people) don’t have to believe 1 for DiAngelo’s argument to hold (not that that means she’s right).
wj – So while it was actions of whites (specifically Rickey) which made it happen, Robinson wasn’t just an interchangeable part of events.
Agreed. And I don’t think that DiAngelo would disagree, either, or wish to discount Robinson’s contributions and achievements.
At its heart, I think what she intends to say there is that it would not have taken someone as resolute as Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier if whites had not insisted on maintaining that barrier so fiercely, nor would Robinson have been able to do it on his own despite his manifest courage and skill unless enough whites were willing to challenge that barrier themselves. And even then, it was Robinson that personally bore the brunt of that backlash because the whites were insulated by their wealth and standing.
Is there anything to disagree with here?
wj – So while it was actions of whites (specifically Rickey) which made it happen, Robinson wasn’t just an interchangeable part of events.
Agreed. And I don’t think that DiAngelo would disagree, either, or wish to discount Robinson’s contributions and achievements.
At its heart, I think what she intends to say there is that it would not have taken someone as resolute as Jackie Robinson to break the color barrier if whites had not insisted on maintaining that barrier so fiercely, nor would Robinson have been able to do it on his own despite his manifest courage and skill unless enough whites were willing to challenge that barrier themselves. And even then, it was Robinson that personally bore the brunt of that backlash because the whites were insulated by their wealth and standing.
Is there anything to disagree with here?
Has anyone read Robinson’s I Never Had It Made? I haven’t so I don’t know to what degree what he wrote addresses the question.
Has anyone read Robinson’s I Never Had It Made? I haven’t so I don’t know to what degree what he wrote addresses the question.
I don’t even think she was trying to say that Robinson wasn’t exceptional in some way or another. I think she was trying to say that you can’t let that obscure the fact that white people were in charge and had the power to keep him and any other black player out. And I get that, if you answer 2, you should already know that, but it’s a question of what the emphasis is on that particular story. Is Robinson’s heroism first and foremost in people’s minds? And does that imply that other blacks weren’t heroic enough to break the color barrier (even if subconsciously)? Is there a bias toward that emphasis because it somehow assuages white guilt?
(I don’t know the answers to those questions, and the whole line of thinking may be out in left field. Baseball pun!)
I don’t even think she was trying to say that Robinson wasn’t exceptional in some way or another. I think she was trying to say that you can’t let that obscure the fact that white people were in charge and had the power to keep him and any other black player out. And I get that, if you answer 2, you should already know that, but it’s a question of what the emphasis is on that particular story. Is Robinson’s heroism first and foremost in people’s minds? And does that imply that other blacks weren’t heroic enough to break the color barrier (even if subconsciously)? Is there a bias toward that emphasis because it somehow assuages white guilt?
(I don’t know the answers to those questions, and the whole line of thinking may be out in left field. Baseball pun!)
I think follow-up questions are often more important than the original questions. Lawyers who have cross-examined witnesses can correct me if I’m wrong.
So, 2. Blacks were systematically excluded, regardless of their abilities is indeed the most probable answer to the question Why was it that there were no black players in major league baseball until 1947? Almost certainly from baseball fans; more than likely from Americans in general, although it would not shock me if “I dunno” turned out to be the most common answer in the latter case.
But if I were a pollster, I’d be tempted to follow up with
“Question 2: Were black players systematically excluded because …
a) white team owners were personally racist;
b) white team owners feared the fans were racist;
c) white players were afraid of the competition;
d) some other reason?
I’m not enough of a baseball historian to know whether it’s true that some people advocated integrating the major leagues at the team level: black teams playing in the same league with (meaning, “against”) white teams. Had that been tried — and I’m glad it wasn’t — I suspect integration within teams would have happened eventually. And it would be interesting to know whether, in that alternate universe, some black team would have signed a white player before any white team signed a black player, or vice versa.
–TP
I think follow-up questions are often more important than the original questions. Lawyers who have cross-examined witnesses can correct me if I’m wrong.
So, 2. Blacks were systematically excluded, regardless of their abilities is indeed the most probable answer to the question Why was it that there were no black players in major league baseball until 1947? Almost certainly from baseball fans; more than likely from Americans in general, although it would not shock me if “I dunno” turned out to be the most common answer in the latter case.
But if I were a pollster, I’d be tempted to follow up with
“Question 2: Were black players systematically excluded because …
a) white team owners were personally racist;
b) white team owners feared the fans were racist;
c) white players were afraid of the competition;
d) some other reason?
I’m not enough of a baseball historian to know whether it’s true that some people advocated integrating the major leagues at the team level: black teams playing in the same league with (meaning, “against”) white teams. Had that been tried — and I’m glad it wasn’t — I suspect integration within teams would have happened eventually. And it would be interesting to know whether, in that alternate universe, some black team would have signed a white player before any white team signed a black player, or vice versa.
–TP
Is there anything to disagree with here?
Nope. Just that there is a reason that MLB honors Robinson rather than Rickey. And it isn’t that Robinson’s baseball skills (which were substantial enough to have gotten him into the Hall of Fame regardless) were so exceptional.
Is there anything to disagree with here?
Nope. Just that there is a reason that MLB honors Robinson rather than Rickey. And it isn’t that Robinson’s baseball skills (which were substantial enough to have gotten him into the Hall of Fame regardless) were so exceptional.
Tony, a), b), and d). All three were factors.
Not to say that white baseball players weren’t racists, too. And/or afraid of competition. Just that they weren’t what was in the minds of the owners on this.
By d) I mean that, by the late 1940s, excluding blacks from MLB had been happening long enough that inertia/tradition was also a factor. When something has been in place long enough, for many people it simply doesn’t occur to them that things might be different. Especially, it doesn’t occur to them that they personally might act to make things different.
Tony, a), b), and d). All three were factors.
Not to say that white baseball players weren’t racists, too. And/or afraid of competition. Just that they weren’t what was in the minds of the owners on this.
By d) I mean that, by the late 1940s, excluding blacks from MLB had been happening long enough that inertia/tradition was also a factor. When something has been in place long enough, for many people it simply doesn’t occur to them that things might be different. Especially, it doesn’t occur to them that they personally might act to make things different.
byomtov, thank you for your answer. I’ve been busy doing other stuff all afternoon, sorry I couldn’t get to this sooner.
I wrestle with the first example (“clever Jewish lawyers”), even when well-intentioned and complimentary, (i.e. not turning a a characteristic, real or imagined, of the disliked group into a flaw), because it reveals that the speaker seems always aware of Jewishness. It’s the awareness which makes me uneasy, because it implies “other”. The kinds of racial stereotypes you mention are particularly problematic, because so often based in some reality (e.g. the so-called higher IQ average among Ashkenazi Jews – if in fact true, understandable to my mind, although not a geneticist, because as I understand it, until the 20th Century most Jews were engaging in a probably millenia-old selective breeding program, by matchmakers who took particular note of school results, intellectual attainment etc). And black athletes of certain heritages have been found (in the case of some running events) to have certain musculo-skeletal advantages. So to what extent does (possibly valid) generalisation about a race shade into something problematic?
I don’t have an answer, I just know it often makes me uneasy.
And your point about the old Chinese man also has validity. But I suppose my uneasiness boils down to the observation that many people are aware of “Jewishness”, which implies that it is “otherness” (forgive me wj, but I don’t think “blue eyedness” engenders the same kind of awareness).
And whereas plenty of Jews are not immediately identifiable, although perhaps they will hear these kinds of remarks and be, like me, uneasy, black people are immediately identifiable, and subject to generalisations and unconscious bias, and have to be aware of it and its problematic “othering” aspects, all the time.
byomtov, thank you for your answer. I’ve been busy doing other stuff all afternoon, sorry I couldn’t get to this sooner.
I wrestle with the first example (“clever Jewish lawyers”), even when well-intentioned and complimentary, (i.e. not turning a a characteristic, real or imagined, of the disliked group into a flaw), because it reveals that the speaker seems always aware of Jewishness. It’s the awareness which makes me uneasy, because it implies “other”. The kinds of racial stereotypes you mention are particularly problematic, because so often based in some reality (e.g. the so-called higher IQ average among Ashkenazi Jews – if in fact true, understandable to my mind, although not a geneticist, because as I understand it, until the 20th Century most Jews were engaging in a probably millenia-old selective breeding program, by matchmakers who took particular note of school results, intellectual attainment etc). And black athletes of certain heritages have been found (in the case of some running events) to have certain musculo-skeletal advantages. So to what extent does (possibly valid) generalisation about a race shade into something problematic?
I don’t have an answer, I just know it often makes me uneasy.
And your point about the old Chinese man also has validity. But I suppose my uneasiness boils down to the observation that many people are aware of “Jewishness”, which implies that it is “otherness” (forgive me wj, but I don’t think “blue eyedness” engenders the same kind of awareness).
And whereas plenty of Jews are not immediately identifiable, although perhaps they will hear these kinds of remarks and be, like me, uneasy, black people are immediately identifiable, and subject to generalisations and unconscious bias, and have to be aware of it and its problematic “othering” aspects, all the time.
Comment from byomtov from 8:53 yesterday, which was stuck in the Spam folder, has been published above.
— wj
Comment from byomtov from 8:53 yesterday, which was stuck in the Spam folder, has been published above.
— wj
And one who is both. As I recall, she converted while in college.
My mother had green eyes – no conversion necessary!
And one who is both. As I recall, she converted while in college.
My mother had green eyes – no conversion necessary!
Yeah, I know plenty of blue- and green-eyed Jewish people. I got a bit disoriented by the conversion thing.
Yeah, I know plenty of blue- and green-eyed Jewish people. I got a bit disoriented by the conversion thing.
I think she was trying to say that you can’t let that obscure the fact that white people were in charge and had the power to keep him and any other black player out.
ISTM, the focus on JR is out of context and therefore misplaced. WWII wasn’t just an allied victory over some tyrants (the USSR remained standing), it also had lasting social ramifications in the world and in the US. It was the beginning of the end of European colonialism and the beginning of a modern USA.
AA’s played a significant role in fighting WWII. A role that was hard to ignore and harder still to square with how AA’s were treated in the US. Truman did not de-segretat the armed forces because of a sudden inspiration and JR wasn’t brought into MLB because someone had an extemporaneous mood swing. Stuff builds over time. Twenty years passed between the end of WWII and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This was a building movement at time when the Bull Connor’s of this world did not bother to hide their true feelings and THEY LOST! Almost sixty years ago, a much less enlightened, overwhelmingly white population started putting paid, in a clear and public way, to the country’s awful history of mistreating minorities.
A long time before being favored by the revealed wisdom of the Robin DiAngelo’s of this world, our very white country, eyes opened by the AA role in WWII and our own awful history, started turning things around, completely unaided by accusations of structural racism or implicit bias or microaggressions or the other, very recent stuff that passes for academic advancement.
Oddly, enough white peeps were able to look at themselves and the world about them and agree that things just weren’t right and needed to be fixed. Did white peeps do it on their own, in a vacuum? Not even remotely. Brave people, mostly black, faced down the worst of our country in the streets. More eyes opened and things got better, not worse. The move toward equality of opportunity, under the law, in the eyes of society, has been almost entirely continuous.
I don’t know where RD grew up, but our family moved to Millington TN in July of 1968. Millington is in Shelby County and so is Memphis, where MLK had been murdered the previous April. Millington was a “Navy Town” and so our high school was integrated. There was an all-AA high school not 5 miles away that was, by court order, integrated into MCHS in September 1970, after I left in August 1970.
You know what? Most of the black and most of the white kids tried to get along. Previous to our move to TN, I attended junior high school in Houston–fully integrated and, for the most part, we all got along. By “get along”, I mean talking, having lunch, playing sports, etc. As far as I can tell, that is still the case. Which is why I find lectures from people like BD to be not only tedious but insulting.
We, as a country, have been on a steady arc of improving race relations since WWII ended. Today is light years better for POC’s than 1950. Light years. Yet, you’d think that the very air we breathe is toxin-infused with the stench of deep and abiding racism. That is total nonsense. Obviously, prejudice and racism continues. It is a universal characteristic, not unique to the US, but rather a human condition, one that we–the US–has done a pretty good job of dealing with by any reasonable standard.
JR was one of the more visible signs of the initial, downhill movement of a snowball that began with WWII and grew and grew, overcoming much more entrenched opposition than anything POC’s face today. For every JR, there were many other examples here and there that were part of the gathering momentum. That said, JR and the other early AA public figures served the vital function of showing white Americans that AA’s were not only people like they were, but in many cases, exceptionally talented people.
I think she was trying to say that you can’t let that obscure the fact that white people were in charge and had the power to keep him and any other black player out.
ISTM, the focus on JR is out of context and therefore misplaced. WWII wasn’t just an allied victory over some tyrants (the USSR remained standing), it also had lasting social ramifications in the world and in the US. It was the beginning of the end of European colonialism and the beginning of a modern USA.
AA’s played a significant role in fighting WWII. A role that was hard to ignore and harder still to square with how AA’s were treated in the US. Truman did not de-segretat the armed forces because of a sudden inspiration and JR wasn’t brought into MLB because someone had an extemporaneous mood swing. Stuff builds over time. Twenty years passed between the end of WWII and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This was a building movement at time when the Bull Connor’s of this world did not bother to hide their true feelings and THEY LOST! Almost sixty years ago, a much less enlightened, overwhelmingly white population started putting paid, in a clear and public way, to the country’s awful history of mistreating minorities.
A long time before being favored by the revealed wisdom of the Robin DiAngelo’s of this world, our very white country, eyes opened by the AA role in WWII and our own awful history, started turning things around, completely unaided by accusations of structural racism or implicit bias or microaggressions or the other, very recent stuff that passes for academic advancement.
Oddly, enough white peeps were able to look at themselves and the world about them and agree that things just weren’t right and needed to be fixed. Did white peeps do it on their own, in a vacuum? Not even remotely. Brave people, mostly black, faced down the worst of our country in the streets. More eyes opened and things got better, not worse. The move toward equality of opportunity, under the law, in the eyes of society, has been almost entirely continuous.
I don’t know where RD grew up, but our family moved to Millington TN in July of 1968. Millington is in Shelby County and so is Memphis, where MLK had been murdered the previous April. Millington was a “Navy Town” and so our high school was integrated. There was an all-AA high school not 5 miles away that was, by court order, integrated into MCHS in September 1970, after I left in August 1970.
You know what? Most of the black and most of the white kids tried to get along. Previous to our move to TN, I attended junior high school in Houston–fully integrated and, for the most part, we all got along. By “get along”, I mean talking, having lunch, playing sports, etc. As far as I can tell, that is still the case. Which is why I find lectures from people like BD to be not only tedious but insulting.
We, as a country, have been on a steady arc of improving race relations since WWII ended. Today is light years better for POC’s than 1950. Light years. Yet, you’d think that the very air we breathe is toxin-infused with the stench of deep and abiding racism. That is total nonsense. Obviously, prejudice and racism continues. It is a universal characteristic, not unique to the US, but rather a human condition, one that we–the US–has done a pretty good job of dealing with by any reasonable standard.
JR was one of the more visible signs of the initial, downhill movement of a snowball that began with WWII and grew and grew, overcoming much more entrenched opposition than anything POC’s face today. For every JR, there were many other examples here and there that were part of the gathering momentum. That said, JR and the other early AA public figures served the vital function of showing white Americans that AA’s were not only people like they were, but in many cases, exceptionally talented people.
Brave people, mostly black, faced down the worst of our country in the streets. More eyes opened and things got better, not worse.
Very true. And you are obviously a person who tries to make their own contribution to this progression for the better.
We, as a country, have been on a steady arc of improving race relations since WWII ended. Today is light years better for POC’s than 1950. Light years.
Aso true, ISTM.
Yet, you’d think that the very air we breathe is toxin-infused with the stench of deep and abiding racism. That is total nonsense.
In all fairness, McKinney, this is not your call. The testimony of African Americans, if we had any here, would be of value. And your AA colleagues, if not talking to a white, senior partner, might also have something interesting to say on this subject.
Brave people, mostly black, faced down the worst of our country in the streets. More eyes opened and things got better, not worse.
Very true. And you are obviously a person who tries to make their own contribution to this progression for the better.
We, as a country, have been on a steady arc of improving race relations since WWII ended. Today is light years better for POC’s than 1950. Light years.
Aso true, ISTM.
Yet, you’d think that the very air we breathe is toxin-infused with the stench of deep and abiding racism. That is total nonsense.
In all fairness, McKinney, this is not your call. The testimony of African Americans, if we had any here, would be of value. And your AA colleagues, if not talking to a white, senior partner, might also have something interesting to say on this subject.
Aso = Also
Aso = Also
I have friends who are Jewish. I also have friends with blue eyes…And one who is both. As I recall, she converted while in college.
That reads almost as if you’re telling me what colour my Jewish eyes should be.
I have friends who are Jewish. I also have friends with blue eyes…And one who is both. As I recall, she converted while in college.
That reads almost as if you’re telling me what colour my Jewish eyes should be.
one that we–the US–has done a pretty good job of dealing with by any reasonable standard
then why are we having this discussion?
one that we–the US–has done a pretty good job of dealing with by any reasonable standard
then why are we having this discussion?
My mother had green eyes – no conversion necessary!
Yeah. But in this case, I know her well enough to know that she converted.
Me, I discovered a couple of years back (courtesy of Ancestry DNA) that my all-blue-eyed family is 1/8 Ashkenazi. No idea which great-grandparent to look towards.
Truth is, we’re none of as a pure-blooded anything as the xenophobes would like to believe.
My mother had green eyes – no conversion necessary!
Yeah. But in this case, I know her well enough to know that she converted.
Me, I discovered a couple of years back (courtesy of Ancestry DNA) that my all-blue-eyed family is 1/8 Ashkenazi. No idea which great-grandparent to look towards.
Truth is, we’re none of as a pure-blooded anything as the xenophobes would like to believe.
Is there a transcript of this talk somewhere? Byomtov quoted a big chunk of it, so I assume there is.
Is there a transcript of this talk somewhere? Byomtov quoted a big chunk of it, so I assume there is.
That reads almost as if you’re telling me what colour my Jewish eyes should be.
Not intentionally. Just that I am aware that most Jews (at least the ones I know) have brown eyes. Which one would expect from people originally (albeit generations back) from the Middle East.
That reads almost as if you’re telling me what colour my Jewish eyes should be.
Not intentionally. Just that I am aware that most Jews (at least the ones I know) have brown eyes. Which one would expect from people originally (albeit generations back) from the Middle East.
From lj’s earlier comment, the transcript:
First off, I should have posted this with it, here is the transcript
https://www.spl.org/Seattle-Public-Library/documents/transcriptions/2018/18-06-28_Robin-DiAngelo.pdf
From lj’s earlier comment, the transcript:
First off, I should have posted this with it, here is the transcript
https://www.spl.org/Seattle-Public-Library/documents/transcriptions/2018/18-06-28_Robin-DiAngelo.pdf
one that we–the US–has done a pretty good job of dealing with by any reasonable standard
then why are we having this discussion?
I wish I had the time to answer in detail. Very briefly, globally and leaving out a lot of context: aggregate outcomes by ethnicity vary widely in the US even today, although there has been improvement across the board. Nonetheless, the farther left one moves on the spectrum, the view of disparate outcomes for AA’s in particular–which ignores much different and more favorable outcomes for other POC’s–is taken as proof, in and of itself, of racism (systemic, implicit, etc) and that viewpoint still drives much of the conversation in this country today and this is why we are having this conversation. My view–I’m not alone in this–is that the role race plays is more of a legacy-type role and the difficulties faced more in the AA community than elsewhere–but still a thing elsewhere–are driven by here-and-now factors that are not race-centric but rather seem more in the nature of cultural or environmental. Addressing and remediating these factors is far more complex and difficult than simply attributing bad outcomes to systemic racism and demanding more money for teachers or mentoring programs or what have you. Moreover, in attributing the AA situation to systemic racism, there is an implicit logical deficiency since so many other ethnicities do anywhere from well to extremely well. As I’ve said before, our “system”, to behave in so focused a manner, must be very finely tuned indeed. But, of course, it is anything but finely tuned. It is 330,000,000 peeps scrambling to make a living, have a life and deal with the never-ending stuff that is life.
Unfortunately, my other desk is on fire right now, so everyone have a nice weekend!
one that we–the US–has done a pretty good job of dealing with by any reasonable standard
then why are we having this discussion?
I wish I had the time to answer in detail. Very briefly, globally and leaving out a lot of context: aggregate outcomes by ethnicity vary widely in the US even today, although there has been improvement across the board. Nonetheless, the farther left one moves on the spectrum, the view of disparate outcomes for AA’s in particular–which ignores much different and more favorable outcomes for other POC’s–is taken as proof, in and of itself, of racism (systemic, implicit, etc) and that viewpoint still drives much of the conversation in this country today and this is why we are having this conversation. My view–I’m not alone in this–is that the role race plays is more of a legacy-type role and the difficulties faced more in the AA community than elsewhere–but still a thing elsewhere–are driven by here-and-now factors that are not race-centric but rather seem more in the nature of cultural or environmental. Addressing and remediating these factors is far more complex and difficult than simply attributing bad outcomes to systemic racism and demanding more money for teachers or mentoring programs or what have you. Moreover, in attributing the AA situation to systemic racism, there is an implicit logical deficiency since so many other ethnicities do anywhere from well to extremely well. As I’ve said before, our “system”, to behave in so focused a manner, must be very finely tuned indeed. But, of course, it is anything but finely tuned. It is 330,000,000 peeps scrambling to make a living, have a life and deal with the never-ending stuff that is life.
Unfortunately, my other desk is on fire right now, so everyone have a nice weekend!
Oh, sweet Jesus! Someone being interviewed on NPR discussing Paul Robeson says, when the interviewer mentions he didn’t know Robeson was an athlete and only knew him as a singer, that Robeson was a start athlete at Princeton. Princeton!!!??? Rutgers, dammit! RUTGERS!!! (I only put this here because they’re also talking about Jackie Robinson, among others.)
P.S. I went to Rutgers, so this outrages me. More so because he said Princeton.
Oh, sweet Jesus! Someone being interviewed on NPR discussing Paul Robeson says, when the interviewer mentions he didn’t know Robeson was an athlete and only knew him as a singer, that Robeson was a start athlete at Princeton. Princeton!!!??? Rutgers, dammit! RUTGERS!!! (I only put this here because they’re also talking about Jackie Robinson, among others.)
P.S. I went to Rutgers, so this outrages me. More so because he said Princeton.
Star athlete, though that would mean he started.
Star athlete, though that would mean he started.
My mother had green eyes – no conversion necessary!
Yeah. But in this case, I know her well enough to know that she converted.
Excellent joke! Took me a while to actually get it.
Just that I am aware that most Jews (at least the ones I know) have brown eyes. Which one would expect from people originally (albeit generations back) from the Middle East.
You’re ignoring the rapine of the various Cossack etc incursions, wj. And the variable colouring of the Ashkenazi Jews has led to all sorts of (probably incorrect) theories about mass conversions to Judaism (see the Khazar theory among others). I have a blond, blue-eyed cousin, for example, who survived the holocaust because a German woman was able to pass her off as her own illegitimate grandchild.
My mother had green eyes – no conversion necessary!
Yeah. But in this case, I know her well enough to know that she converted.
Excellent joke! Took me a while to actually get it.
Just that I am aware that most Jews (at least the ones I know) have brown eyes. Which one would expect from people originally (albeit generations back) from the Middle East.
You’re ignoring the rapine of the various Cossack etc incursions, wj. And the variable colouring of the Ashkenazi Jews has led to all sorts of (probably incorrect) theories about mass conversions to Judaism (see the Khazar theory among others). I have a blond, blue-eyed cousin, for example, who survived the holocaust because a German woman was able to pass her off as her own illegitimate grandchild.
Actually, I assumed (having, as I say, no actual information) that rape somewhere along the line was involved.
Actually, I assumed (having, as I say, no actual information) that rape somewhere along the line was involved.
No doubt it took a lot of courage and perseverance and other things for Robinson to take the pressure of his role, all the while playing brilliantly, and he deserves the admiration he gets. I have no wish to detract from that.
Why did the owners not previously sign black players? I’d say all the reasons Tony suggests, though especially (b), as applied to different owners, and there certainly was resistance from players, both from outright racism and no doubt fear of competition. In fact, IIRC, Rickey traded one or two Dodgers for that reason, and threatened to trade others if they didn’t behave themselves.
Why then? Well, WWII was surely critical, as McK says. But don’t discount that it was Brooklyn – heavily liberal – likely to support the move. Read Roger Kahn’s The Boys of Summer. Some franchises were quite slow to integrate. The Red Sox waited until 1959 and then the best they could do was Pumpsie Green. Imagine that, with all the black talent readily available. But there, or rather here, Yawkey, the then owner, was a quite blatant racist.
As an aside, I once read a story about how the Cardinals came to integrate, a few years later. It seems they were about to move out of St. Louis, for lack of fan support, when the mayor prevailed upon Gussie Busch, the beer magnate, to buy the team and keep it there to avoid damage to the city’s reputation. This was not, then, a major transaction for Busch, so he did it, despite having little interest in baseball, hoping that the promotional benefits would make it worthwhile.
Soon after the deal closed Busch met with team management, to find out what he had on his hands. He asked whether the team had any black players. No, he was told. “Well, then, go get some. I don’t even care if they’re any good. The last thing I need is the NAACP calling for a boycott of Budweiser.” Possibly apocryphal.
No doubt it took a lot of courage and perseverance and other things for Robinson to take the pressure of his role, all the while playing brilliantly, and he deserves the admiration he gets. I have no wish to detract from that.
Why did the owners not previously sign black players? I’d say all the reasons Tony suggests, though especially (b), as applied to different owners, and there certainly was resistance from players, both from outright racism and no doubt fear of competition. In fact, IIRC, Rickey traded one or two Dodgers for that reason, and threatened to trade others if they didn’t behave themselves.
Why then? Well, WWII was surely critical, as McK says. But don’t discount that it was Brooklyn – heavily liberal – likely to support the move. Read Roger Kahn’s The Boys of Summer. Some franchises were quite slow to integrate. The Red Sox waited until 1959 and then the best they could do was Pumpsie Green. Imagine that, with all the black talent readily available. But there, or rather here, Yawkey, the then owner, was a quite blatant racist.
As an aside, I once read a story about how the Cardinals came to integrate, a few years later. It seems they were about to move out of St. Louis, for lack of fan support, when the mayor prevailed upon Gussie Busch, the beer magnate, to buy the team and keep it there to avoid damage to the city’s reputation. This was not, then, a major transaction for Busch, so he did it, despite having little interest in baseball, hoping that the promotional benefits would make it worthwhile.
Soon after the deal closed Busch met with team management, to find out what he had on his hands. He asked whether the team had any black players. No, he was told. “Well, then, go get some. I don’t even care if they’re any good. The last thing I need is the NAACP calling for a boycott of Budweiser.” Possibly apocryphal.
the role race plays is more of a legacy-type role and the difficulties faced more in the AA community than elsewhere–but still a thing elsewhere–are driven by here-and-now factors that are not race-centric but rather seem more in the nature of cultural or environmental.
Aha, I think we are verging here on the argument about absent fathers, and consequent problems of one-parent families: drugs, poor educational attainment etc. Not race-centric, you see. Totally coincidental to mass incarceration of black men, among other phenomena, for example.
Moreover, in attributing the AA situation to systemic racism, there is an implicit logical deficiency since so many other ethnicities do anywhere from well to extremely well
This argument does rather assume that “blackness” is no different from any other ethnic signifier, in the eyes of most racists, and in fact the system as a whole (be it police, courts, schools etc), which I believe has been demonstrated not to be the case.
the role race plays is more of a legacy-type role and the difficulties faced more in the AA community than elsewhere–but still a thing elsewhere–are driven by here-and-now factors that are not race-centric but rather seem more in the nature of cultural or environmental.
Aha, I think we are verging here on the argument about absent fathers, and consequent problems of one-parent families: drugs, poor educational attainment etc. Not race-centric, you see. Totally coincidental to mass incarceration of black men, among other phenomena, for example.
Moreover, in attributing the AA situation to systemic racism, there is an implicit logical deficiency since so many other ethnicities do anywhere from well to extremely well
This argument does rather assume that “blackness” is no different from any other ethnic signifier, in the eyes of most racists, and in fact the system as a whole (be it police, courts, schools etc), which I believe has been demonstrated not to be the case.
The model minority myth.
The model minority myth.
Rutgers, Princeton, arent they really all the same?
Rutgers, Princeton, arent they really all the same?
“In all fairness, McKinney, this is not your call. The testimony of African Americans, if we had any here, would be of value.”
In all fairness it is as much his call as anyone’s. While black people get to point out what they perceive as racism, and we should be inclined to consider their input, they dont get to define it all by themselves.
“In all fairness, McKinney, this is not your call. The testimony of African Americans, if we had any here, would be of value.”
In all fairness it is as much his call as anyone’s. While black people get to point out what they perceive as racism, and we should be inclined to consider their input, they dont get to define it all by themselves.
I’m sorry Marty, I disagree. When McKinney (or any white person) says this:
Yet, you’d think that the very air we breathe is toxin-infused with the stench of deep and abiding racism. That is total nonsense.
it is not his call, or the call of any white person. The existence of “deep and abiding” racism, which is never experienced and rarely seen by white people, cannot therefore be dismissed by them, as “total nonsense”. But the incidence of murders of unarmed black people, usually (but not always) men, suggests that McKinney’s judgement is quite wrong, as indeed how could it not be? He is a well-meaning, well-off white professional man. It would be quite surprising if he knew much about racism in America at all. I don’t know about black people’s right to “define” racism, but I sure as hell expect they know it when it stops and searches them, or slams them up against a car.
I’m sorry Marty, I disagree. When McKinney (or any white person) says this:
Yet, you’d think that the very air we breathe is toxin-infused with the stench of deep and abiding racism. That is total nonsense.
it is not his call, or the call of any white person. The existence of “deep and abiding” racism, which is never experienced and rarely seen by white people, cannot therefore be dismissed by them, as “total nonsense”. But the incidence of murders of unarmed black people, usually (but not always) men, suggests that McKinney’s judgement is quite wrong, as indeed how could it not be? He is a well-meaning, well-off white professional man. It would be quite surprising if he knew much about racism in America at all. I don’t know about black people’s right to “define” racism, but I sure as hell expect they know it when it stops and searches them, or slams them up against a car.
Chappelle ties up the loose ends:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dave-chappelle-hits-out-at-don-lemon-candace-owens-and-laura-ingraham-in-netflix-special-on-george-floyd-3?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Regarding the Jackie Robinson story, Ben Chapman, Solly Hemus, Enos Slaughter and countless other ballplayers were gratuitous beneficiaries of traditional institutionalized affirmative action for whites and had a “tough time” graciously thanking black ballplayers for forfeiting and in Robinson’s case, delaying their professional major baseball careers so the former could get more at bats in then they deserved and in Hemus’s case, get promoted to management where he could give Bob Gibson and company a load of racist shit years later.
Actually, Hemus should have been sent “up” to the Negro Leagues to see if he could cut it there.
Spikes up and high cheese, Solly.
https://theundefeated.com/features/after-jackie-robinson-players-who-followed-faced-ongoing-racism-mlb/
Yes, of course, things are much better now, but EVERY step forward was only grudgingly “accepted” by the usual suspects.
If the race situation had been reversed for 230 years and we whites were subjected to the treatment meted out to blacks, events would have moved much faster because we whites, without patience and forbearance regarding our freedoms, would have sued and killed everyone in sight at the first sign of foot dragging.
Can you imagine if black leadership was making us wear masks?
Hell, Steve King just lost his job a mere week ago, and will receive a hefty pension to honor his racist crap.
Chappelle ties up the loose ends:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dave-chappelle-hits-out-at-don-lemon-candace-owens-and-laura-ingraham-in-netflix-special-on-george-floyd-3?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Regarding the Jackie Robinson story, Ben Chapman, Solly Hemus, Enos Slaughter and countless other ballplayers were gratuitous beneficiaries of traditional institutionalized affirmative action for whites and had a “tough time” graciously thanking black ballplayers for forfeiting and in Robinson’s case, delaying their professional major baseball careers so the former could get more at bats in then they deserved and in Hemus’s case, get promoted to management where he could give Bob Gibson and company a load of racist shit years later.
Actually, Hemus should have been sent “up” to the Negro Leagues to see if he could cut it there.
Spikes up and high cheese, Solly.
https://theundefeated.com/features/after-jackie-robinson-players-who-followed-faced-ongoing-racism-mlb/
Yes, of course, things are much better now, but EVERY step forward was only grudgingly “accepted” by the usual suspects.
If the race situation had been reversed for 230 years and we whites were subjected to the treatment meted out to blacks, events would have moved much faster because we whites, without patience and forbearance regarding our freedoms, would have sued and killed everyone in sight at the first sign of foot dragging.
Can you imagine if black leadership was making us wear masks?
Hell, Steve King just lost his job a mere week ago, and will receive a hefty pension to honor his racist crap.
If anyone is dying to hear more from DiAngelo, she appears in the last interview segment in tonight’s Amanpour & Co. on PBS, just finished uploading the show to WNET in NY. It’s a re-airing of an interview from September 2018, so the discussion is not reacting to or informed by our current situation.
If anyone is dying to hear more from DiAngelo, she appears in the last interview segment in tonight’s Amanpour & Co. on PBS, just finished uploading the show to WNET in NY. It’s a re-airing of an interview from September 2018, so the discussion is not reacting to or informed by our current situation.
I understood your point GftNC. I just dont agree.The incidence of murders of black people, 1200 by cops guns between 2013 and 2018, with 700,000 cops, 37 million black citizens doesnt suggest his description is wrong.
Yes its 2.5 times the number per million of white people, but statistically that’s not pervasive.
I’ve already stated my acknowledgement that racism exists. But his statement is, in my opinion, accurate.
I understood your point GftNC. I just dont agree.The incidence of murders of black people, 1200 by cops guns between 2013 and 2018, with 700,000 cops, 37 million black citizens doesnt suggest his description is wrong.
Yes its 2.5 times the number per million of white people, but statistically that’s not pervasive.
I’ve already stated my acknowledgement that racism exists. But his statement is, in my opinion, accurate.
Lj, my apologies, I thought my last few comments were on the other thread. Feel free to delete them. They were not on topic.
Lj, my apologies, I thought my last few comments were on the other thread. Feel free to delete them. They were not on topic.
Is the only measure of racism killings by police, even as regards policing? How many times have you been pulled over in the past year, Marty? Has your car been searched? Ever been stopped and frisked walking down the street?
Is the only measure of racism killings by police, even as regards policing? How many times have you been pulled over in the past year, Marty? Has your car been searched? Ever been stopped and frisked walking down the street?
The answer is yes, to the last question. Regularly as a kid growing up, several times as an adult, not recently.
Patted down, boots off, pockets turned inside out, a few times had the front seat removed from my truck. In Texas the locals did that just to show they could, the Staties were worse. I’ve watched perfectly white people get beat close to death for running from the cops, or just mouthing off. Me? Yes officer, no officer, no quick moves, hands in plain sight, follow directions immediately. Just another fuckin day growing up.
Have you?
The answer is yes, to the last question. Regularly as a kid growing up, several times as an adult, not recently.
Patted down, boots off, pockets turned inside out, a few times had the front seat removed from my truck. In Texas the locals did that just to show they could, the Staties were worse. I’ve watched perfectly white people get beat close to death for running from the cops, or just mouthing off. Me? Yes officer, no officer, no quick moves, hands in plain sight, follow directions immediately. Just another fuckin day growing up.
Have you?
Yes its 2.5 times the number per million of white people, but statistically that’s not pervasive.
?!?!?
If “pervasive” doesn’t suit, how about “a hell of a lot”? Specifically “a hell of a lot more than you all”?
Pick any measure you like, black people probably are at or near the bottom of the ladder.
Saying that it’s due to “factors that are not race-centric but rather seem more in the nature of cultural or environmental”, if I may pick on McK for a moment, seems to beg the question. Excluding historical factors because that was then and this is now, likewise.
How did those “not race-centric” factors come to be? Why do they persist?
2.5 times the white population, for any negative outcome, seems pretty damned significant. To me, anyway.
Yes its 2.5 times the number per million of white people, but statistically that’s not pervasive.
?!?!?
If “pervasive” doesn’t suit, how about “a hell of a lot”? Specifically “a hell of a lot more than you all”?
Pick any measure you like, black people probably are at or near the bottom of the ladder.
Saying that it’s due to “factors that are not race-centric but rather seem more in the nature of cultural or environmental”, if I may pick on McK for a moment, seems to beg the question. Excluding historical factors because that was then and this is now, likewise.
How did those “not race-centric” factors come to be? Why do they persist?
2.5 times the white population, for any negative outcome, seems pretty damned significant. To me, anyway.
See russell, those numbers reflect how many more white people live in nice upper class suburbs. The closer you get to matching people where I grew up to black people in the same economic strata those numbers get a lot closer.
Maybe you grew up in those neighborhoods, never had a cruiser just pull over to ask you where you’re going at 8 pm, and then not like your answer. We used to walk from the Majestic theater in east Dallas to our apartment, about 15 blocks, and get questioned about every 3rd time. We all knew xwhich cops to avoid and which were ok.
Then, when I moved to Farmers Branch, we had to try and literally get out of the town limits so we wouldnt get pulled over because they didnt want the poor kids near the country club.
So no, I dont find the statistics compelling.
See russell, those numbers reflect how many more white people live in nice upper class suburbs. The closer you get to matching people where I grew up to black people in the same economic strata those numbers get a lot closer.
Maybe you grew up in those neighborhoods, never had a cruiser just pull over to ask you where you’re going at 8 pm, and then not like your answer. We used to walk from the Majestic theater in east Dallas to our apartment, about 15 blocks, and get questioned about every 3rd time. We all knew xwhich cops to avoid and which were ok.
Then, when I moved to Farmers Branch, we had to try and literally get out of the town limits so we wouldnt get pulled over because they didnt want the poor kids near the country club.
So no, I dont find the statistics compelling.
I begin to see why Marty sees some much more economic than racial components in events.
Perhaps it would help to consider that all blacks get treated the way Marty remembers poor whites are. Regardless of the black individual’s socio-economic status.
I begin to see why Marty sees some much more economic than racial components in events.
Perhaps it would help to consider that all blacks get treated the way Marty remembers poor whites are. Regardless of the black individual’s socio-economic status.
Marty, the form of my comment did invite the statistics on murder by cop, so it’s my fault for limiting the discussion in that way. I agree with russell though, two and half times the white numbers is pretty awful. And as for the other forms of racist harassment, I take your point that poor whites get it a helluva lot worse than rich (or even middling) whites, at least from the police/authorities. But black people get it from racist white thugs as well, plenty of it, so there’s that. I understand that we disagree, and you’re entitled to your view of course, but I don’t see how a rich white guy’s opinion on the prevalence of racism is particularly valuable, unless he is a criminologist or someone really knowledgeable about the statistics on different forms of racist harassment.
Marty, the form of my comment did invite the statistics on murder by cop, so it’s my fault for limiting the discussion in that way. I agree with russell though, two and half times the white numbers is pretty awful. And as for the other forms of racist harassment, I take your point that poor whites get it a helluva lot worse than rich (or even middling) whites, at least from the police/authorities. But black people get it from racist white thugs as well, plenty of it, so there’s that. I understand that we disagree, and you’re entitled to your view of course, but I don’t see how a rich white guy’s opinion on the prevalence of racism is particularly valuable, unless he is a criminologist or someone really knowledgeable about the statistics on different forms of racist harassment.
The incidence of murders of black people, 1200 by cops guns between 2013 and 2018
Plus, of course, guns are not the only way cops murder people.
The incidence of murders of black people, 1200 by cops guns between 2013 and 2018
Plus, of course, guns are not the only way cops murder people.
GftNC,
While I don’t disagree at all with your point about “clever Jewish lawyers” fully, I will say that my personal gut reaction is mild, maybe milder than is justified. I react much more strongly to talk of global Jewish financiers, partly because I sense more threat there and partly maybe because I’m kind of a small-scale financial type myself.
A friend who is a retired law professor told me that his dean once assigned him to teach a course on notes and bonds because, as the dean told him, “You people are good at that sort of thing.” His reaction was more “WTF?” than outrage, as was mine when I heard the story.
By the way, my sister has blue eyes, as does one of her daughters. I was going to launch into a disquisition on recessive genes and whatnot but a glance at Wikipedia informed me that all that business is nonsense, so I’ll skip it.
GftNC,
While I don’t disagree at all with your point about “clever Jewish lawyers” fully, I will say that my personal gut reaction is mild, maybe milder than is justified. I react much more strongly to talk of global Jewish financiers, partly because I sense more threat there and partly maybe because I’m kind of a small-scale financial type myself.
A friend who is a retired law professor told me that his dean once assigned him to teach a course on notes and bonds because, as the dean told him, “You people are good at that sort of thing.” His reaction was more “WTF?” than outrage, as was mine when I heard the story.
By the way, my sister has blue eyes, as does one of her daughters. I was going to launch into a disquisition on recessive genes and whatnot but a glance at Wikipedia informed me that all that business is nonsense, so I’ll skip it.
The only kind of reliable numbers comparing those things come from the Post study and a couple of other nonprofits. The numbers are 2 to 2.5 times per million. 2300 whites to 1200 blacks in the gun study, but the others track.
The only kind of reliable numbers comparing those things come from the Post study and a couple of other nonprofits. The numbers are 2 to 2.5 times per million. 2300 whites to 1200 blacks in the gun study, but the others track.
,i>in Hemus’s case, get promoted to management where he could give Bob Gibson and company a load of racist shit years later.
I think Hemus would have kept his mouth shut had he been an active player who had to bat against Gibson.
Kahn tells the story of a game where some players in the opposing dugout sang a loud chorus of “Old Black Joe” while Joe Black was pitching for the Dodgers. According to Kahn each of the next seven batters got a fastball aimed at his head. “Must’ve been some singers in the bunch,” Black mused later, because the music stopped.
,i>in Hemus’s case, get promoted to management where he could give Bob Gibson and company a load of racist shit years later.
I think Hemus would have kept his mouth shut had he been an active player who had to bat against Gibson.
Kahn tells the story of a game where some players in the opposing dugout sang a loud chorus of “Old Black Joe” while Joe Black was pitching for the Dodgers. According to Kahn each of the next seven batters got a fastball aimed at his head. “Must’ve been some singers in the bunch,” Black mused later, because the music stopped.
Hi everyone, some thread maintenance points. First, thanks to wj for pulling bernie’s response out of the spam folder. I should have kept that window open, though my time online doesn’t match with most of yours. And note, this breaking up of the timeline can make it difficult to answer points etc, so try to give space and time, it may be that the person you are addressing is there, but something else is happening.
And again, planning on closing this Monday morning Japan time which is Sunday nite US time unless people say they want to talk more. I’m not sure I do, I’m pretty exhausted and it would be nice to forget all this, but I hope you can understand why, though I may feel that, I wouldn’t think it is the right thing to do.
Hi everyone, some thread maintenance points. First, thanks to wj for pulling bernie’s response out of the spam folder. I should have kept that window open, though my time online doesn’t match with most of yours. And note, this breaking up of the timeline can make it difficult to answer points etc, so try to give space and time, it may be that the person you are addressing is there, but something else is happening.
And again, planning on closing this Monday morning Japan time which is Sunday nite US time unless people say they want to talk more. I’m not sure I do, I’m pretty exhausted and it would be nice to forget all this, but I hope you can understand why, though I may feel that, I wouldn’t think it is the right thing to do.
The closer you get to matching people where I grew up to black people in the same economic strata those numbers get a lot closer.
Yes, because apparently you grew up poor and disadvantaged.
And the reason that the numbers for black people get closer to your experience is because a lot them grow up poor and disadvantaged.
Which raises the question –
****Why the hell do so many black people grow up poor and disadvantaged?****
Right?
Nobody’s challenging the validity of your personal experience. I, personally, am sorry you went through all of that.
The point is that, if you’re black, you are more likely to live that experience.
That is why I say black people are treated differently than white people.
Get it?
The closer you get to matching people where I grew up to black people in the same economic strata those numbers get a lot closer.
Yes, because apparently you grew up poor and disadvantaged.
And the reason that the numbers for black people get closer to your experience is because a lot them grow up poor and disadvantaged.
Which raises the question –
****Why the hell do so many black people grow up poor and disadvantaged?****
Right?
Nobody’s challenging the validity of your personal experience. I, personally, am sorry you went through all of that.
The point is that, if you’re black, you are more likely to live that experience.
That is why I say black people are treated differently than white people.
Get it?
McTX: We, as a country, have been on a steady arc of improving race relations since WWII ended …
… and up until the modern GOP decided to disenfranchise as many black people as possible, enlisting the GOP Supremes as collaborators and endorsers.
Or maybe only until Nixon’s “southern strategy”, which succeeded in the year MLK was gunned down.
The notion that black people in the US are in the same “people of color” category as any other ethnic group is just plain ridiculous, BTW.
The suggestion that poor whites are subject to just the same indignities as poor blacks is another knee-slapper. Even now, when mentioning knees is probably in poor taste.
–TP
McTX: We, as a country, have been on a steady arc of improving race relations since WWII ended …
… and up until the modern GOP decided to disenfranchise as many black people as possible, enlisting the GOP Supremes as collaborators and endorsers.
Or maybe only until Nixon’s “southern strategy”, which succeeded in the year MLK was gunned down.
The notion that black people in the US are in the same “people of color” category as any other ethnic group is just plain ridiculous, BTW.
The suggestion that poor whites are subject to just the same indignities as poor blacks is another knee-slapper. Even now, when mentioning knees is probably in poor taste.
–TP
In case you don’t click on links from John Thullen, you may want to check out Dave Chappelle’s talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tR6mKcBbT4
Not that I really want to, but I’ll make another try at trying to try.
Does anyone think it is _not_ possible to be an unconscious racist? To be able to hold opinions about the worth of African Americans that are problematic and not be able to acknowledge them? One of the key points that DiAngelo makes is that racism is defined as a _conscious_ dislike.
[00:15:31] So after civil rights racism got reduced to the following formula a racist is an individual who consciously does not like people based on race and is intentionally mean to them always an individual must be conscious must be intentional.
(I’d also note that the transcript has a number of errors in it so you may want to double check if you quote)
It seems that most of us would accept that there can be unconscious racism. So the question is whether American culture (which obviously isn’t conscious of what it is or isn’t) can be racist. Perhaps setting it out there, away from questions of individuals. The only problem with that is that it becomes very easy to defend American culture. How can American culture be racist? We love jazz and pop, we lift up African American individuals and celebrate their achievements. How can a culture that does that be racist?
I can’t remember if this was shared, but this discusses the epidemic of amputations in black america.
https://features.propublica.org/diabetes-amputations/black-american-amputation-epidemic/
There is not any one neck, no one place where decisions are made, it is a huge number of small choices that end up creating the situation we see, a situation that, as the article points out, looks like this:
two maps why Fakorede has stayed in the Mississippi Delta. One shows Americaâs amputations from vascular disease. The second shows the enslaved population before the Civil War; he saw it at a plantation museum and was stunned by how closely they tracked. On his phone, he pulls up the images, showing doctors, or history buffs, or anyone who will listen. âLook familiar?â he asks, toggling between the maps. He watches the realization set in that amputations are a form of racial oppression, dating back to slavery.
It is not about you, it is about the system.
In case you don’t click on links from John Thullen, you may want to check out Dave Chappelle’s talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tR6mKcBbT4
Not that I really want to, but I’ll make another try at trying to try.
Does anyone think it is _not_ possible to be an unconscious racist? To be able to hold opinions about the worth of African Americans that are problematic and not be able to acknowledge them? One of the key points that DiAngelo makes is that racism is defined as a _conscious_ dislike.
[00:15:31] So after civil rights racism got reduced to the following formula a racist is an individual who consciously does not like people based on race and is intentionally mean to them always an individual must be conscious must be intentional.
(I’d also note that the transcript has a number of errors in it so you may want to double check if you quote)
It seems that most of us would accept that there can be unconscious racism. So the question is whether American culture (which obviously isn’t conscious of what it is or isn’t) can be racist. Perhaps setting it out there, away from questions of individuals. The only problem with that is that it becomes very easy to defend American culture. How can American culture be racist? We love jazz and pop, we lift up African American individuals and celebrate their achievements. How can a culture that does that be racist?
I can’t remember if this was shared, but this discusses the epidemic of amputations in black america.
https://features.propublica.org/diabetes-amputations/black-american-amputation-epidemic/
There is not any one neck, no one place where decisions are made, it is a huge number of small choices that end up creating the situation we see, a situation that, as the article points out, looks like this:
two maps why Fakorede has stayed in the Mississippi Delta. One shows Americaâs amputations from vascular disease. The second shows the enslaved population before the Civil War; he saw it at a plantation museum and was stunned by how closely they tracked. On his phone, he pulls up the images, showing doctors, or history buffs, or anyone who will listen. âLook familiar?â he asks, toggling between the maps. He watches the realization set in that amputations are a form of racial oppression, dating back to slavery.
It is not about you, it is about the system.
This seems to address a number of the points we have been discussing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-you-dont-believe-systemic-racism-is-real-explain-these-statistics/2020/06/12/ce0dff6e-acc7-11ea-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html
This seems to address a number of the points we have been discussing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-you-dont-believe-systemic-racism-is-real-explain-these-statistics/2020/06/12/ce0dff6e-acc7-11ea-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html
lj, an awful lot of us thought that DiAngelo had something worthwhile to impart, and recognise her concept of white fragility. We have seen many examples of how unbearable the suggestion is that people can be racist without intending to be, or without having conscious bias against black people, and that such attitudes are common.
Whenever you decide to close this thread, I think it has been valuable, and that important things got said (and actually are continuing to be said).
lj, an awful lot of us thought that DiAngelo had something worthwhile to impart, and recognise her concept of white fragility. We have seen many examples of how unbearable the suggestion is that people can be racist without intending to be, or without having conscious bias against black people, and that such attitudes are common.
Whenever you decide to close this thread, I think it has been valuable, and that important things got said (and actually are continuing to be said).
russell, does it really mean that? Or does it mean they started out poor and they have been, for some period of time, treated mostly like the rest of the poor people? If we didnt measure by race we would have 24 million poor (38 with other races) people with lots of overlapping experiences that we could address.
But we spend so much time, energy and effort on how we got here. Why are there 16 million poor white people? What policies have failed to give them enough opportunity to move out of poverty? What historical impacts turned them into generational poor? It cant be white privilege or supremacy. So are some of those factors common with poor black and Hispanics? If we addressed those would we disproportionately help black and Hispanics?
Or are those white people just the percentage that are going to be poor no matter what? Are they lazy or stupid so if we get the black percentage down to that level we can be satisfied we fixed racism and the poor are just a problem?
Dont get me wrong, there are lots of racists, we should have dialog about the fact that in too many places blacks arent considered ordinary. But so many of the effects and impacts of poverty are common I believe we should focus on those with an eye toward making sure the solutions are helping consistantly across those 38m people.
russell, does it really mean that? Or does it mean they started out poor and they have been, for some period of time, treated mostly like the rest of the poor people? If we didnt measure by race we would have 24 million poor (38 with other races) people with lots of overlapping experiences that we could address.
But we spend so much time, energy and effort on how we got here. Why are there 16 million poor white people? What policies have failed to give them enough opportunity to move out of poverty? What historical impacts turned them into generational poor? It cant be white privilege or supremacy. So are some of those factors common with poor black and Hispanics? If we addressed those would we disproportionately help black and Hispanics?
Or are those white people just the percentage that are going to be poor no matter what? Are they lazy or stupid so if we get the black percentage down to that level we can be satisfied we fixed racism and the poor are just a problem?
Dont get me wrong, there are lots of racists, we should have dialog about the fact that in too many places blacks arent considered ordinary. But so many of the effects and impacts of poverty are common I believe we should focus on those with an eye toward making sure the solutions are helping consistantly across those 38m people.
Since I raised the issue of Robinson’s military service, I got curious and went looking for some information about our desegregated military:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/politics/military-minorities-leadership.html
If you enter the Pentagon at the Potomac River entrance, where foreign dignitaries are greeted by the defense secretary, you will walk down the E Ring hall with its portraits of the men who have led the United States armed forces for the past century. To nearly a one, the African-American service members interviewed for this article said they paused when they walked by the painting of Gen. Colin L. Powell, the first and only black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His portrait, they said, came as both a relief â that he was there at all â and a reminder that no one else with their skin color had made it.
âI walk their halls, and nobody on their wall looks like me,â said Lila Holley, a former Army chief warrant officer. Until she gets to the portrait. âI exhale when I see Colin Powell.â she said.
Side note…given the (up until now, at least)increasing militarization of the US police forces, might the lack of black soldiers in combat arms and the increase of white soldiers with “warrior” backgrounds not spill over into our law enforcement institutions?
It would seem to me that these problems both might be described as structural problems.
Since I raised the issue of Robinson’s military service, I got curious and went looking for some information about our desegregated military:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/politics/military-minorities-leadership.html
If you enter the Pentagon at the Potomac River entrance, where foreign dignitaries are greeted by the defense secretary, you will walk down the E Ring hall with its portraits of the men who have led the United States armed forces for the past century. To nearly a one, the African-American service members interviewed for this article said they paused when they walked by the painting of Gen. Colin L. Powell, the first and only black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His portrait, they said, came as both a relief â that he was there at all â and a reminder that no one else with their skin color had made it.
âI walk their halls, and nobody on their wall looks like me,â said Lila Holley, a former Army chief warrant officer. Until she gets to the portrait. âI exhale when I see Colin Powell.â she said.
Side note…given the (up until now, at least)increasing militarization of the US police forces, might the lack of black soldiers in combat arms and the increase of white soldiers with “warrior” backgrounds not spill over into our law enforcement institutions?
It would seem to me that these problems both might be described as structural problems.
russell, does it really mean that? Or does it mean they started out poor and they have been, for some period of time, treated mostly like the rest of the poor people?
I’m sort of at a loss here.
First, no, black people aren’t treated mostly like the rest of poor people. Black people are treated badly whether they are poor, rich, living in the city, living in the suburbs, have no money, have more money than god. Black people are treated badly who are household names.
Because before people take the time to understand who that person is, they see black skin, and their response begins from there.
Do you doubt that? If so, please say so, and we’ll end this conversation right now.
Black people “started out poor” because they started out as property. They have been prevented from building wealth since the day they were emancipated, through any of 1,000 different means, both legal and other than legal, including murder and the utter wanton destruction of their property.
I have absolutely no argument with the fact that a lot of white people are poor, and are treated badly because they are poor. That is wrong, and we should extend ourselves in every available way to do what we can to alleviate that.
And, no doubt, black people who are poor are also treated badly because they are poor.
Black people who are poor, rich, middle class, any and everything in between, are also treated badly *because they are black*, and for no other reason.
White people, of whatever socio-economic stratum, are generally not treated badly specifically because they are white.
Black people – regularly treated badly because their skin color is black. White people – extraordinarily rarely treated badly because they are white. And certainly not by cops, or the law, or employers, or banks, or landlords, or whoever else.
That is the difference.
If you’re white, your skin color is probably not an impediment. It probably doesn’t interfere with your life in any meaningful way.
If you’re black, it likely does. You can get around it, but it’s something you have to get around.
That is the difference.
If we want to talk about what to do about that, that’s all good. If you want to argue that that is not in fact the case, I’m not really interested in pursuing it, because life is just too fncking short.
People think what they want to think, for whatever reasons they have for thinking it. I’m all out of patience with debating some topics, and that by god is one of them.
russell, does it really mean that? Or does it mean they started out poor and they have been, for some period of time, treated mostly like the rest of the poor people?
I’m sort of at a loss here.
First, no, black people aren’t treated mostly like the rest of poor people. Black people are treated badly whether they are poor, rich, living in the city, living in the suburbs, have no money, have more money than god. Black people are treated badly who are household names.
Because before people take the time to understand who that person is, they see black skin, and their response begins from there.
Do you doubt that? If so, please say so, and we’ll end this conversation right now.
Black people “started out poor” because they started out as property. They have been prevented from building wealth since the day they were emancipated, through any of 1,000 different means, both legal and other than legal, including murder and the utter wanton destruction of their property.
I have absolutely no argument with the fact that a lot of white people are poor, and are treated badly because they are poor. That is wrong, and we should extend ourselves in every available way to do what we can to alleviate that.
And, no doubt, black people who are poor are also treated badly because they are poor.
Black people who are poor, rich, middle class, any and everything in between, are also treated badly *because they are black*, and for no other reason.
White people, of whatever socio-economic stratum, are generally not treated badly specifically because they are white.
Black people – regularly treated badly because their skin color is black. White people – extraordinarily rarely treated badly because they are white. And certainly not by cops, or the law, or employers, or banks, or landlords, or whoever else.
That is the difference.
If you’re white, your skin color is probably not an impediment. It probably doesn’t interfere with your life in any meaningful way.
If you’re black, it likely does. You can get around it, but it’s something you have to get around.
That is the difference.
If we want to talk about what to do about that, that’s all good. If you want to argue that that is not in fact the case, I’m not really interested in pursuing it, because life is just too fncking short.
People think what they want to think, for whatever reasons they have for thinking it. I’m all out of patience with debating some topics, and that by god is one of them.
russell, It’s not a one dimendional discussion. I have, in this thread, discussed how I thought black people get treated differently. But sometimes they just arent treated as differently today as believe they are. Which creates opportunities to have common solutions.
russell, It’s not a one dimendional discussion. I have, in this thread, discussed how I thought black people get treated differently. But sometimes they just arent treated as differently today as believe they are. Which creates opportunities to have common solutions.
Marty: Why are there 16 million poor white people? What policies have failed to give them enough opportunity to move out of poverty? What historical impacts turned them into generational poor? It cant be white privilege or supremacy.
Could it be, is it at all possible, is it even conceivable, that opposition to policies like expanding Medicaid, regulating payday lenders, increasing the minimum wage, and adequately funding public education at all levels, is part of the reason?
Could it be, is it remotely conceivable, that glorifying “job creators” and “shareholder value”, and structuring the tax code accordingly, has something to do with persistent poverty among job consumers at the low end of the income spectrum?
Is there an off chance that poor white people often vote for politicians who embody that opposition and that glorification?
I keep hearing that the “black vote” skews heavily toward the sort of politicians who propose things like Medicare and SS and ACA and SNAP and LIHEAP and the CFPB and the rest of the alphabet soup, from which I infer that black people are smarter, in the aggregate, than “poor whites” who I never heard accused of voting, in the aggregate, for such politicians. If we’re going to talk about “economic class” rather than “race”, we have to explain why one segment of “the poor” can’t seem to make common cause with their fellow downtrodden who happen to be black.
I’m not forgetting, by the way, that most black folks are NOT poor. But if black folks overall regularly vote 80-90% a certain way, I have to assume that POOR black folks, unlike poor white folks, are NOT split 50-50 (at best) between politicians who propose and politicians who oppose policies aimed at improving the lot of “the poor” in This Great Country of Ours.
–TP
Marty: Why are there 16 million poor white people? What policies have failed to give them enough opportunity to move out of poverty? What historical impacts turned them into generational poor? It cant be white privilege or supremacy.
Could it be, is it at all possible, is it even conceivable, that opposition to policies like expanding Medicaid, regulating payday lenders, increasing the minimum wage, and adequately funding public education at all levels, is part of the reason?
Could it be, is it remotely conceivable, that glorifying “job creators” and “shareholder value”, and structuring the tax code accordingly, has something to do with persistent poverty among job consumers at the low end of the income spectrum?
Is there an off chance that poor white people often vote for politicians who embody that opposition and that glorification?
I keep hearing that the “black vote” skews heavily toward the sort of politicians who propose things like Medicare and SS and ACA and SNAP and LIHEAP and the CFPB and the rest of the alphabet soup, from which I infer that black people are smarter, in the aggregate, than “poor whites” who I never heard accused of voting, in the aggregate, for such politicians. If we’re going to talk about “economic class” rather than “race”, we have to explain why one segment of “the poor” can’t seem to make common cause with their fellow downtrodden who happen to be black.
I’m not forgetting, by the way, that most black folks are NOT poor. But if black folks overall regularly vote 80-90% a certain way, I have to assume that POOR black folks, unlike poor white folks, are NOT split 50-50 (at best) between politicians who propose and politicians who oppose policies aimed at improving the lot of “the poor” in This Great Country of Ours.
–TP
As (some people) believe
As (some people) believe
nous, you may be interested in this book, I read a friend’s copy.
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Officer-White-Reuben-Keith/dp/1975747542
nous, you may be interested in this book, I read a friend’s copy.
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Officer-White-Reuben-Keith/dp/1975747542
I have been trying to write something about McT’s comment at the beginning. The transcript that I shared was not the same one, so I went to the youtube video. Unfortunately, that has no punctuation as it is automated, so I have added that, apologies for any mistakes. I’ve also added links to screenshots, not sure how to embed them into the comment. I’ve also deleted some of the speech fillers. I hope that I haven’t made any changes in meaning, but if I have, please feel free to point them out to me.
McT says (in italics)
She can’t understand why others would object to being compelled to listen to her “truth” in mandatory diversity workshops. She can only see White People (WP) in denial; whereas, in a truly complex and subtle world, one possible thing she is likely seeing is WP who don’t much care for mandatory political indoctrination and particularly not from someone as self-certain as Ms. DiAngelo explicitly says she is.
at 10:40 she says (in bold italics)
this book is intended for us for white progressives who so often despite our conscious intentions make life so difficult for people of color. I believe that white progresses caused the most daily damage to people of color and I define white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist or is less racist or is in the choir or already gets it. White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because to the degree that we think we have it [and] we’re gonna put all of our energy into making sure you think that we have it and none of it into what we need to be doing for the rest of our lives. White progressives do indeed uphold and perpetrate racism but our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain to us how we do so, so I’m pretty sure I’m speaking to a room filled with white progressives, so let me just be clear, you are not the choir, there is no choir, I am NOT the choir, that when I say there is no choir, it’s because my learning will never be finished and the moment I think I’m the choir I think I’m gonna be done and I’m gonna have certitude. I often joke but [at] some of the levels it’s kind of true, when I first applied to be that diversity trainer back in the early 90s I I thought well course I’m qualified to lead a discussions on racism I’m a vegetarian how could I be racist?
Very early in her presentation, she asserts that white people do not know their own historyâthat was news to me.
I think that you must be thinking of this at 3:50
white people are not taught their history. we don’t know our history so I want to acknowledge that I want to position myself of course as a white person,
However, later, she points to this at 22:59 which could be taken to stand as evidence
this is the board after the grand champion college Jeopardy round
https://www.imageupload.net/image/screen-shot-2020-06-13-at-180912.lZFAy
and for me it just it just speaks volumes right again [not] knowing our history and being able to trace it into the present is one of the volumes that speaks. Another one is that is the history of this country, it is not their history didn’t happen in a vacuum
She also casts the issue of white supremacy/racism/etc/etc/etc as being “complex and subtle”, yet there is nothing either complex or subtle about her endless repetition of the same talking points, rephrased and restated to sound as if she was saying something different.
That is also something from the beginning of the video (3:25)
this is arguably the most complex nuanced social dilemma since the beginning of this country and there are myriad roads in and all of them are essential but so consistently left off the table is whiteness right so we often learn about this group or that group and their struggles and their triumphs and their heroes and heroines and yet we don’t ask ourselves struggles and triumphs in relation to whom and so again I’m going to focus on white folks.
Hers is the certainty of the true believer and those who do not agree are beyond the pale–they are unrepentant racists and always will be because they are white and white people are just that way. [emphasis mine]
A quick check of the transcript as a corpus shows 144 instances of âweâ and 44 instances of âtheyâ. The tokens of âtheyâ are grouped in particular grouping. For example, I think this passage is indicative(7:10):
In my early days of work of what was then termed a diversity trainer I was taken aback by how angry and defensive so many white people became at the suggestion that they were connected to racism in any way. The very idea that they would be required to attend a workshop on racism outraged them. They entered the room angry and made that feeling clear to us throughout the day as they slammed their notebooks down on the table refused to participate in exercises and argued against any and all points. I couldn’t understand their resentment or disinterest in learning more about such a complex social dynamic as racism these reactions were especially perplexing when there were few or no people of color in their workplace and they had the opportunity to learn from my co-facilitators of color. I assumed that in these circumstances an educational workshop on racism would be appreciated. After all didn’t the lack of diversity indicate a problem or at least suggest that some perspectives were missing or that the participants might be undereducated about race because of scant cross racial interactions. It took me several years to see beneath these reactions at first. I was intimidated by them and they held me back and kept me careful and quiet but over time I began to see what lay beneath this anger and resistance to discuss race or listen to people of color. I observed consistent responses from a variety of participants, for example many white participants who lived in white suburban neighborhoods and had no sustained relationships with people of color were absolutely certain that they held no racial prejudice or animosity. Other participants to simplistically reduce racism to a matter of nice people versus mean people. Most appeared to believe that racism ended in 1865 with the end of enslavement there was both knee-jerk defensiveness about any suggestion that being white had meaning and a refusal to acknowledge any advantage to being white.
So I think she is talking about white people as ‘we’ and not ‘they’.
That her logic is circular and her evidence, if you can call it that, is superficial and selective at best is lost on her and on her audience, which is a common feature when preaching the “truth” to the choir.
I posted the screenshot of her list of examples, so readers can decide if it is superficial or not.
Hers is a secular religion. It is self-contained set of self-evident, self-proving dogmas that cannot be questioned, that control and define the universe and that, if rejected, lead to sin. She uses that word, “sin”.
That is at 22:18. If you go to that point in the video, you notice that she puts the words in quotes and when she says it, she uses air-quotes.
it’s a moral trauma and it’s a piece of white fragility not being able to face our complicity in this system Well historically were projected our sins onto the black body right? lazy shiftless criminal we projected our sins onto the black body.
This is the only mention of sins in the talk.
In a different time and in a different milieu, she’d be a fundamentalist preacher if not a willing participant in a religious pogrom. Here and now, she’s seen a different light, a light that gives her the authority to speak for and about all white people. Through her powerful insight, she knows what all white people think and how POC perceive and react to WP (and yet, she seems oblivious to the arrogance of treating every non-white as belonging to a single group with common set of goals and interests).
Iâm not sure where you are thinking this is in the talk. Here is where she says something about what people of color think. (37:29)
let’s start with the first set color blind probably the number one color blind racial narrative is I was taught to treat everyone the same anybody. Ever heard that one? Okay we just tell you when I hear this from a white person and I hear frequently, there’s a bubble over my head and it has a few things in it. The first thing is oh this person doesn’t understand basic socialization. This person doesn’t understand culture. This person is not particularly self-aware and I need to give a heads up to the white folks in the room when people of color hear us say this they’re generally not thinking all right I am talking to a woke white person right now
And, she will not tolerate whites who think of themselves as individuals, raising the question of whether she would afford non-whites the option of seeing themselves as individuals.
The 7:10 passage above continues with this
And over time I began to see what I think of as the pillars of whiteness the unexamined beliefs that prop up our racial responses. I could see the power of the belief that only bad people were racist as well as how individualism allowed white people to exempt themselves from the forces of socialization. I could see how taught to think about racism only as discrete acts committed by individual people rather than as a complex interconnected system and in light of so many white expressions of resentment toward people of color I realized that we see ourselves as entitled to and deserving of more than people of color deserve. I saw our investment in a system that serves us. I also saw how hard we work to deny all this and how defensive we became when these dynamics were named in turn I saw how our defensiveness maintained the racial status quo.
She rails against white privilege, while completely blind to the privilege she confers on herself to judge an entire race based explicitly on that race’s imputed characteristics (imputed by her, no less).
This is from 16:13
The second is individualism. Apparently white people do not understand socialization because we really think that we are exempt from it and of course with the irony of that is because we’re socialized to value the individual, we put a lot of effort there, but we think that you know just because I say I am or want to be I could be exempt from these forces
She is nonplussed that white individuals do not wish to be categorized as a group of white supremacists. Then, to soften the blow, she trots out the “but we are all racists” (“we are all sinners”), again oblivious to her own condescension. The analogues with religious fundamentalism are just keep piling up.
Here is her mention of white supremacy (17:39)
Racism and white supremacy racism is a system not an event, it’s the system we’re in and none of us could be and none of us were exempt from its forces but the way we’re taught to think of racism functions beautifully to not only obscure this system but to exempt us from its forces or to have us believe we are exempted from its forces now.
Does her world view admit the possibility that a POC might call out a WP for racism and be wrong about it? That WP’s can and often do endeavor (successfully) to treat POC’s just as they would treat another WP and that there is nothing wrong with that either? That it is not unheard of for a POC to use race as a tool to deflect legitimate criticism or to gain advantage? Because all of these things happen, just like some WP’s are overtly or covertly destructively racist to one degree or another and let that racism influence, to one degree or another, how they deal with others. Others, out of ignorance, commit gaffes in attempting to reach out.
She uses this picture at 1:09:39
https://www.imageupload.net/image/screen-shot-2020-06-13-at-191630.lZYeb
and gives this example
the reason I like this picture when I do presentations is because for me this is an amplified visual of institutional power and if I walked in that room as a woman because that would be the salient identity for me in that room I would it would be visceral to me the lifetime of entitlement exuding out of these men’s pores, right? And so if you can see that if you can see not only a lifetime of entitlement but if you were to suggest to them that maybe they should have some women or people of color in that group. I can’t know but I believe to my core they would feel contempt because they don’t see the perspectives of women and people of color as that valuable. I believe that to my core. I don’t know them but I’m pretty damn sure if I can see it in them then and I don’t relate to them right? But what version of that is coming from my pores? What version of that is visceral for people of color when I’m in the room right?
She then shows this picture (1:10:56)
https://www.imageupload.net/image/screen-shot-2020-06-13-at-192639.lZchr
so women of color you want to be the one that goes in there and helps those white women see their racism? That sound good? All by yourself? They need some diversity all right. So my point is I can be in this room experiencing sexism and patriarchy and I can be in this room perpetrating racism.
Would Ms. DiAngelo prefer WP isolation or outreach, knowing that outreach involves human imperfection and therefore risk of unintended error? Itâs really hard to tell and Iâm pretty sure that, no matter what, anything that she doesnât personally approve of is probably in the âsinâ category. Single-minded True Believers tend to think that way.
Given that she has worked as a diversity trainer, I think the answer to that is no.
Race, ethnicity, culture, religion, education level, personal appearance, personal hygiene, grammar (or lack thereof) and a hundred other cues inform pretty much what every person assumes and infers about others, at least on a presumptive basis.
It’s called being human. The more invested people are in a particular outlook or religion, the more they tend to evaluate others in light of their outlook or religion.
She also uses the word âinvestedâ at 79:39
I might see myself as just an individual. The people of color in my life see me as a white individual. The question is not if but how. Nothing exempts me from the forces of racism. Whites are unconsciously invested in racism. I am unconsciously invested in racism. I want you to imagine if white people internalize this framework, how revolutionary it would be Bias is implicit. I don’t expect to be aware of mine without a lot of effort [and the] right feedback from people of color indicates trust because it is a huge moment of risk across a deep history of harm.
Most of us–at least most of the people I’ve known over the course of living in a lot of places, traveling a lot, having married someone who was not born and raised in the US and having tried a lot of jury trials, meaning I’ve spent months communicating to and trying to persuade diverse juries throughout a very diverse state–try to work with, accommodate, get along, etc.
Earlier in the talk (13:57) she says this:
that has nothing to do with whether they’re informed and in fact if you are white and you have not devoted years of sustained study, struggle and focus on this topic. your opinions are necessarily very limited and no. a trip to Costa Rica. multiracial nieces and nephews. these are not sustained study. struggle and focus Now how can I say that when I don’t know most of the people in this room and this of course is the first thing that tends to trigger white fragility, generalizing about white people. As a sociologist, I’m really comfortable generalizing about white people. Social life is predictable and patterned in really observable ways and we’ve got to grapple with those patterns but I can say this, that your opinions without sustained study, struggle, focus you know, mistake making, relationship build and repair, theyâre superficial because nothing, nothing in society gives you the information you need to have more than that.
To give McT the last work, I put his summation here
Racism exists everywhere, to one degree or another. Dealing with it is not easy. In the US, certainly the most diverse country in the West, we’ve spent centuries trying to align our ideals with our human limitations. Fanatics who believe themselves favored with some new, revealed truth make the unification process more difficult, not less. Fanatics need villains. No villainy, nothing to get worked up over, nothing to work others up over. Therefore, hers is the tool of a bully: fall into line or be labeled the worst of all things, a racist.
So, make of my viewpoint what you will. In Ms. DiAngelo’s world, you have only one option: hers.
I have been trying to write something about McT’s comment at the beginning. The transcript that I shared was not the same one, so I went to the youtube video. Unfortunately, that has no punctuation as it is automated, so I have added that, apologies for any mistakes. I’ve also added links to screenshots, not sure how to embed them into the comment. I’ve also deleted some of the speech fillers. I hope that I haven’t made any changes in meaning, but if I have, please feel free to point them out to me.
McT says (in italics)
She can’t understand why others would object to being compelled to listen to her “truth” in mandatory diversity workshops. She can only see White People (WP) in denial; whereas, in a truly complex and subtle world, one possible thing she is likely seeing is WP who don’t much care for mandatory political indoctrination and particularly not from someone as self-certain as Ms. DiAngelo explicitly says she is.
at 10:40 she says (in bold italics)
this book is intended for us for white progressives who so often despite our conscious intentions make life so difficult for people of color. I believe that white progresses caused the most daily damage to people of color and I define white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist or is less racist or is in the choir or already gets it. White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because to the degree that we think we have it [and] we’re gonna put all of our energy into making sure you think that we have it and none of it into what we need to be doing for the rest of our lives. White progressives do indeed uphold and perpetrate racism but our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain to us how we do so, so I’m pretty sure I’m speaking to a room filled with white progressives, so let me just be clear, you are not the choir, there is no choir, I am NOT the choir, that when I say there is no choir, it’s because my learning will never be finished and the moment I think I’m the choir I think I’m gonna be done and I’m gonna have certitude. I often joke but [at] some of the levels it’s kind of true, when I first applied to be that diversity trainer back in the early 90s I I thought well course I’m qualified to lead a discussions on racism I’m a vegetarian how could I be racist?
Very early in her presentation, she asserts that white people do not know their own historyâthat was news to me.
I think that you must be thinking of this at 3:50
white people are not taught their history. we don’t know our history so I want to acknowledge that I want to position myself of course as a white person,
However, later, she points to this at 22:59 which could be taken to stand as evidence
this is the board after the grand champion college Jeopardy round
https://www.imageupload.net/image/screen-shot-2020-06-13-at-180912.lZFAy
and for me it just it just speaks volumes right again [not] knowing our history and being able to trace it into the present is one of the volumes that speaks. Another one is that is the history of this country, it is not their history didn’t happen in a vacuum
She also casts the issue of white supremacy/racism/etc/etc/etc as being “complex and subtle”, yet there is nothing either complex or subtle about her endless repetition of the same talking points, rephrased and restated to sound as if she was saying something different.
That is also something from the beginning of the video (3:25)
this is arguably the most complex nuanced social dilemma since the beginning of this country and there are myriad roads in and all of them are essential but so consistently left off the table is whiteness right so we often learn about this group or that group and their struggles and their triumphs and their heroes and heroines and yet we don’t ask ourselves struggles and triumphs in relation to whom and so again I’m going to focus on white folks.
Hers is the certainty of the true believer and those who do not agree are beyond the pale–they are unrepentant racists and always will be because they are white and white people are just that way. [emphasis mine]
A quick check of the transcript as a corpus shows 144 instances of âweâ and 44 instances of âtheyâ. The tokens of âtheyâ are grouped in particular grouping. For example, I think this passage is indicative(7:10):
In my early days of work of what was then termed a diversity trainer I was taken aback by how angry and defensive so many white people became at the suggestion that they were connected to racism in any way. The very idea that they would be required to attend a workshop on racism outraged them. They entered the room angry and made that feeling clear to us throughout the day as they slammed their notebooks down on the table refused to participate in exercises and argued against any and all points. I couldn’t understand their resentment or disinterest in learning more about such a complex social dynamic as racism these reactions were especially perplexing when there were few or no people of color in their workplace and they had the opportunity to learn from my co-facilitators of color. I assumed that in these circumstances an educational workshop on racism would be appreciated. After all didn’t the lack of diversity indicate a problem or at least suggest that some perspectives were missing or that the participants might be undereducated about race because of scant cross racial interactions. It took me several years to see beneath these reactions at first. I was intimidated by them and they held me back and kept me careful and quiet but over time I began to see what lay beneath this anger and resistance to discuss race or listen to people of color. I observed consistent responses from a variety of participants, for example many white participants who lived in white suburban neighborhoods and had no sustained relationships with people of color were absolutely certain that they held no racial prejudice or animosity. Other participants to simplistically reduce racism to a matter of nice people versus mean people. Most appeared to believe that racism ended in 1865 with the end of enslavement there was both knee-jerk defensiveness about any suggestion that being white had meaning and a refusal to acknowledge any advantage to being white.
So I think she is talking about white people as ‘we’ and not ‘they’.
That her logic is circular and her evidence, if you can call it that, is superficial and selective at best is lost on her and on her audience, which is a common feature when preaching the “truth” to the choir.
I posted the screenshot of her list of examples, so readers can decide if it is superficial or not.
Hers is a secular religion. It is self-contained set of self-evident, self-proving dogmas that cannot be questioned, that control and define the universe and that, if rejected, lead to sin. She uses that word, “sin”.
That is at 22:18. If you go to that point in the video, you notice that she puts the words in quotes and when she says it, she uses air-quotes.
it’s a moral trauma and it’s a piece of white fragility not being able to face our complicity in this system Well historically were projected our sins onto the black body right? lazy shiftless criminal we projected our sins onto the black body.
This is the only mention of sins in the talk.
In a different time and in a different milieu, she’d be a fundamentalist preacher if not a willing participant in a religious pogrom. Here and now, she’s seen a different light, a light that gives her the authority to speak for and about all white people. Through her powerful insight, she knows what all white people think and how POC perceive and react to WP (and yet, she seems oblivious to the arrogance of treating every non-white as belonging to a single group with common set of goals and interests).
Iâm not sure where you are thinking this is in the talk. Here is where she says something about what people of color think. (37:29)
let’s start with the first set color blind probably the number one color blind racial narrative is I was taught to treat everyone the same anybody. Ever heard that one? Okay we just tell you when I hear this from a white person and I hear frequently, there’s a bubble over my head and it has a few things in it. The first thing is oh this person doesn’t understand basic socialization. This person doesn’t understand culture. This person is not particularly self-aware and I need to give a heads up to the white folks in the room when people of color hear us say this they’re generally not thinking all right I am talking to a woke white person right now
And, she will not tolerate whites who think of themselves as individuals, raising the question of whether she would afford non-whites the option of seeing themselves as individuals.
The 7:10 passage above continues with this
And over time I began to see what I think of as the pillars of whiteness the unexamined beliefs that prop up our racial responses. I could see the power of the belief that only bad people were racist as well as how individualism allowed white people to exempt themselves from the forces of socialization. I could see how taught to think about racism only as discrete acts committed by individual people rather than as a complex interconnected system and in light of so many white expressions of resentment toward people of color I realized that we see ourselves as entitled to and deserving of more than people of color deserve. I saw our investment in a system that serves us. I also saw how hard we work to deny all this and how defensive we became when these dynamics were named in turn I saw how our defensiveness maintained the racial status quo.
She rails against white privilege, while completely blind to the privilege she confers on herself to judge an entire race based explicitly on that race’s imputed characteristics (imputed by her, no less).
This is from 16:13
The second is individualism. Apparently white people do not understand socialization because we really think that we are exempt from it and of course with the irony of that is because we’re socialized to value the individual, we put a lot of effort there, but we think that you know just because I say I am or want to be I could be exempt from these forces
She is nonplussed that white individuals do not wish to be categorized as a group of white supremacists. Then, to soften the blow, she trots out the “but we are all racists” (“we are all sinners”), again oblivious to her own condescension. The analogues with religious fundamentalism are just keep piling up.
Here is her mention of white supremacy (17:39)
Racism and white supremacy racism is a system not an event, it’s the system we’re in and none of us could be and none of us were exempt from its forces but the way we’re taught to think of racism functions beautifully to not only obscure this system but to exempt us from its forces or to have us believe we are exempted from its forces now.
Does her world view admit the possibility that a POC might call out a WP for racism and be wrong about it? That WP’s can and often do endeavor (successfully) to treat POC’s just as they would treat another WP and that there is nothing wrong with that either? That it is not unheard of for a POC to use race as a tool to deflect legitimate criticism or to gain advantage? Because all of these things happen, just like some WP’s are overtly or covertly destructively racist to one degree or another and let that racism influence, to one degree or another, how they deal with others. Others, out of ignorance, commit gaffes in attempting to reach out.
She uses this picture at 1:09:39
https://www.imageupload.net/image/screen-shot-2020-06-13-at-191630.lZYeb
and gives this example
the reason I like this picture when I do presentations is because for me this is an amplified visual of institutional power and if I walked in that room as a woman because that would be the salient identity for me in that room I would it would be visceral to me the lifetime of entitlement exuding out of these men’s pores, right? And so if you can see that if you can see not only a lifetime of entitlement but if you were to suggest to them that maybe they should have some women or people of color in that group. I can’t know but I believe to my core they would feel contempt because they don’t see the perspectives of women and people of color as that valuable. I believe that to my core. I don’t know them but I’m pretty damn sure if I can see it in them then and I don’t relate to them right? But what version of that is coming from my pores? What version of that is visceral for people of color when I’m in the room right?
She then shows this picture (1:10:56)
https://www.imageupload.net/image/screen-shot-2020-06-13-at-192639.lZchr
so women of color you want to be the one that goes in there and helps those white women see their racism? That sound good? All by yourself? They need some diversity all right. So my point is I can be in this room experiencing sexism and patriarchy and I can be in this room perpetrating racism.
Would Ms. DiAngelo prefer WP isolation or outreach, knowing that outreach involves human imperfection and therefore risk of unintended error? Itâs really hard to tell and Iâm pretty sure that, no matter what, anything that she doesnât personally approve of is probably in the âsinâ category. Single-minded True Believers tend to think that way.
Given that she has worked as a diversity trainer, I think the answer to that is no.
Race, ethnicity, culture, religion, education level, personal appearance, personal hygiene, grammar (or lack thereof) and a hundred other cues inform pretty much what every person assumes and infers about others, at least on a presumptive basis.
It’s called being human. The more invested people are in a particular outlook or religion, the more they tend to evaluate others in light of their outlook or religion.
She also uses the word âinvestedâ at 79:39
I might see myself as just an individual. The people of color in my life see me as a white individual. The question is not if but how. Nothing exempts me from the forces of racism. Whites are unconsciously invested in racism. I am unconsciously invested in racism. I want you to imagine if white people internalize this framework, how revolutionary it would be Bias is implicit. I don’t expect to be aware of mine without a lot of effort [and the] right feedback from people of color indicates trust because it is a huge moment of risk across a deep history of harm.
Most of us–at least most of the people I’ve known over the course of living in a lot of places, traveling a lot, having married someone who was not born and raised in the US and having tried a lot of jury trials, meaning I’ve spent months communicating to and trying to persuade diverse juries throughout a very diverse state–try to work with, accommodate, get along, etc.
Earlier in the talk (13:57) she says this:
that has nothing to do with whether they’re informed and in fact if you are white and you have not devoted years of sustained study, struggle and focus on this topic. your opinions are necessarily very limited and no. a trip to Costa Rica. multiracial nieces and nephews. these are not sustained study. struggle and focus Now how can I say that when I don’t know most of the people in this room and this of course is the first thing that tends to trigger white fragility, generalizing about white people. As a sociologist, I’m really comfortable generalizing about white people. Social life is predictable and patterned in really observable ways and we’ve got to grapple with those patterns but I can say this, that your opinions without sustained study, struggle, focus you know, mistake making, relationship build and repair, theyâre superficial because nothing, nothing in society gives you the information you need to have more than that.
To give McT the last work, I put his summation here
Racism exists everywhere, to one degree or another. Dealing with it is not easy. In the US, certainly the most diverse country in the West, we’ve spent centuries trying to align our ideals with our human limitations. Fanatics who believe themselves favored with some new, revealed truth make the unification process more difficult, not less. Fanatics need villains. No villainy, nothing to get worked up over, nothing to work others up over. Therefore, hers is the tool of a bully: fall into line or be labeled the worst of all things, a racist.
So, make of my viewpoint what you will. In Ms. DiAngelo’s world, you have only one option: hers.
and in fact if you are white and you have not devoted years of sustained study, struggle and focus on this topic. your opinions are necessarily very limited and no. a trip to Costa Rica. multiracial nieces and nephews. these are not sustained study. struggle and focus
This whole paragraph is the essence of whatever objection I have to her talk. Embedded directly in her talk is the assertion that everyone else’s opinion is only superficial, so any disagreement therefore is uninformed thus invalid.
It is a common argument from intellectuals that allows them to “talk among themselves” limiting the practical value to the society they study. Unless one has the time and inclination to do years of intense study then one can’t overcome their socialization rendering them an uninformed racist by definition.
And I say “whatever objection” because it is a lecture on an intellectual treatise from a sociologist. The justification that her years of study is the reason you should listen to her is a natural part of any sales pitch, in this case to a group that she is giving a nod and a wink to that we in this room are the smart kids.
I am sure they all left feeling more woke, and those that weren’t already strongly considered becoming vegan.
and in fact if you are white and you have not devoted years of sustained study, struggle and focus on this topic. your opinions are necessarily very limited and no. a trip to Costa Rica. multiracial nieces and nephews. these are not sustained study. struggle and focus
This whole paragraph is the essence of whatever objection I have to her talk. Embedded directly in her talk is the assertion that everyone else’s opinion is only superficial, so any disagreement therefore is uninformed thus invalid.
It is a common argument from intellectuals that allows them to “talk among themselves” limiting the practical value to the society they study. Unless one has the time and inclination to do years of intense study then one can’t overcome their socialization rendering them an uninformed racist by definition.
And I say “whatever objection” because it is a lecture on an intellectual treatise from a sociologist. The justification that her years of study is the reason you should listen to her is a natural part of any sales pitch, in this case to a group that she is giving a nod and a wink to that we in this room are the smart kids.
I am sure they all left feeling more woke, and those that weren’t already strongly considered becoming vegan.
Marty, that is point you could make, but as a linguist, I see lots of people who assume that because they speak a language, they know all about languages. so I am much more sympathetic to her argument. That might classify me as an ‘intellectual’ and therefore my opinion is not valid in your mind, but it seems to me that there has always been a trend of anti intellectualism in American life and it has gotten steadily worse. One reason why Asian countries have dealt with COVID better than western countries may have been there is still some respect of what intellectuals say.
Marty, that is point you could make, but as a linguist, I see lots of people who assume that because they speak a language, they know all about languages. so I am much more sympathetic to her argument. That might classify me as an ‘intellectual’ and therefore my opinion is not valid in your mind, but it seems to me that there has always been a trend of anti intellectualism in American life and it has gotten steadily worse. One reason why Asian countries have dealt with COVID better than western countries may have been there is still some respect of what intellectuals say.
Also, I don’t think your ‘study’ needs to be academic. How much knowledge to you have about African American’s lived experience? Take these quizzes and see how many you can get right.
https://theundefeated.com/features/black-history-quiz-like-youve-never-seen-before/
Unfortunately, for some, this can be like trivia collection. But if I imagine it for Japanese, it is knowing the cultural knowledge and behavior. I doubt any of us here have that for the black community.
Also, I don’t think your ‘study’ needs to be academic. How much knowledge to you have about African American’s lived experience? Take these quizzes and see how many you can get right.
https://theundefeated.com/features/black-history-quiz-like-youve-never-seen-before/
Unfortunately, for some, this can be like trivia collection. But if I imagine it for Japanese, it is knowing the cultural knowledge and behavior. I doubt any of us here have that for the black community.
Embedded directly in her talk is the assertion that everyone else’s opinion is only superficial, so any disagreement therefore is uninformed thus invalid.
it’s a common problem among people with strong feelings on this topic.
Embedded directly in her talk is the assertion that everyone else’s opinion is only superficial, so any disagreement therefore is uninformed thus invalid.
it’s a common problem among people with strong feelings on this topic.
I should also warn, looking up quizzes for African American cultural information can bring up a lot of really vile trash.
I should also warn, looking up quizzes for African American cultural information can bring up a lot of really vile trash.
But sometimes they just arent treated as differently today as believe they are.
I don’t disagree with this.
What would cause people to see bias or even animus, where none exists? Are they all clinically paranoid? Or is there some larger context that would explain this misperception on their part?
But sometimes they just arent treated as differently today as believe they are.
I don’t disagree with this.
What would cause people to see bias or even animus, where none exists? Are they all clinically paranoid? Or is there some larger context that would explain this misperception on their part?
lj, I took a few quizzes, I got a lot right. I miss a lot of the current culture references, but I’m not good at white current culture references.
Interesting stuff.
lj, I took a few quizzes, I got a lot right. I miss a lot of the current culture references, but I’m not good at white current culture references.
Interesting stuff.
It’s interesting, I have 30 years of experience living side by side with Japanese and I still am pretty tentative with my conclusions about why they do or don’t do things, and what makes them tick. Married from 25 years to a Japanese woman and I am still not sure about a lot of things. My knowledge of African American culture is several magnitudes smaller than that. I played jazz in uni, so probably had more contact than most and I still consider it to be minimal. So I wonder how being exposed to lots of diversity could possibly get anyone over the hump if they don’t actually have experience with African Americans.
It’s interesting, I have 30 years of experience living side by side with Japanese and I still am pretty tentative with my conclusions about why they do or don’t do things, and what makes them tick. Married from 25 years to a Japanese woman and I am still not sure about a lot of things. My knowledge of African American culture is several magnitudes smaller than that. I played jazz in uni, so probably had more contact than most and I still consider it to be minimal. So I wonder how being exposed to lots of diversity could possibly get anyone over the hump if they don’t actually have experience with African Americans.
lj,
I have to confess. I posted a link above before viewing the DiAngelo talk. My bad. I have undergone maoist rectification and sat down and watched it last night. I will come as no surprise to folks here that I found it to be very good. The one annoying aspect, to me, was her saying âright?â after every third or fourth sentenceâŚ.a minor elocution tick.
At the beginning, I thought, âOh, boy, here we goâ a feminist Thomas Frank does a âListen Liberalâ on racism before an audience of grok liberals. If you are from Seattle, you will know the lingo about âgood schoolsâ and âgood neighborhoodsââŚclassic white defensive mechanisms that strike home to me. Those are emblematic, used by both white liberals and white conservatives. So, Iâm really not understanding the anger and defensiveness of liberals such as Pollo and byomtov. If you take the time to listen, you may start to realize the extent and pervasiveness of white racism. I really donât see anything to get huffy about here. Smug condescension? I, for one, donât buy it. For example, maybe somebody here can take these folks to task for weaponizing the term âsystemic racismâ. Go ahead. Be my guest.
As a member of the wrs club in good standing, I agree âitâs complicatedâ. But beware, if WE (you know, the WE who ended racism by passing the 13th Amendment, and the WE who allowed Jackie Robinson to play major league baseball) donât get our act together on the pernicious extent of white racism in our society, we may prove Clarence Thomas right.
You donât really want that, do you?
PS: The last 20 minutes of the presentation were the best part.
lj,
I have to confess. I posted a link above before viewing the DiAngelo talk. My bad. I have undergone maoist rectification and sat down and watched it last night. I will come as no surprise to folks here that I found it to be very good. The one annoying aspect, to me, was her saying âright?â after every third or fourth sentenceâŚ.a minor elocution tick.
At the beginning, I thought, âOh, boy, here we goâ a feminist Thomas Frank does a âListen Liberalâ on racism before an audience of grok liberals. If you are from Seattle, you will know the lingo about âgood schoolsâ and âgood neighborhoodsââŚclassic white defensive mechanisms that strike home to me. Those are emblematic, used by both white liberals and white conservatives. So, Iâm really not understanding the anger and defensiveness of liberals such as Pollo and byomtov. If you take the time to listen, you may start to realize the extent and pervasiveness of white racism. I really donât see anything to get huffy about here. Smug condescension? I, for one, donât buy it. For example, maybe somebody here can take these folks to task for weaponizing the term âsystemic racismâ. Go ahead. Be my guest.
As a member of the wrs club in good standing, I agree âitâs complicatedâ. But beware, if WE (you know, the WE who ended racism by passing the 13th Amendment, and the WE who allowed Jackie Robinson to play major league baseball) donât get our act together on the pernicious extent of white racism in our society, we may prove Clarence Thomas right.
You donât really want that, do you?
PS: The last 20 minutes of the presentation were the best part.
This pretty much sums it up for me. Get on board. We have work to do.
Thanks.
This pretty much sums it up for me. Get on board. We have work to do.
Thanks.
I have undergone maoist rectification
It really should be ‘self criticism’ăďźjiantao in Chinese, hansei in Japanese). It’s up to you to keep the system alive…
I have undergone maoist rectification
It really should be ‘self criticism’ăďźjiantao in Chinese, hansei in Japanese). It’s up to you to keep the system alive…
Marty, it would be good if you could share those quizzes with us.
Marty, it would be good if you could share those quizzes with us.
The one annoying aspect, to me, was her saying âright?â after every third or fourth sentenceâŚ.a minor elocution tick.
An annoying elocution tick for me is millennials peppering their sentences with the word, “like.” When I was a kid, that was Valley Girl talk. Who knew it would sweep the country.
The one annoying aspect, to me, was her saying âright?â after every third or fourth sentenceâŚ.a minor elocution tick.
An annoying elocution tick for me is millennials peppering their sentences with the word, “like.” When I was a kid, that was Valley Girl talk. Who knew it would sweep the country.
and no. a trip to Costa Rica. multiracial nieces and nephews. these are not sustained study. struggle and focus.
It seems to me that this really does reflect poorly on Dr DiAngelo. She’s right, of course, that a trip to Costa Rica isn’t going to give you serious insights (although it might inspire you to learn more).
But interracial nieces and nephews? I’d say that this damn well could give you a close up view of race relations. I’d say that could give you at least as much insight as DiAngelo has. Depending, of course, on how close you are to that part of your family.
Being in an interracial family myself, I’d say it might even give you a better perspective than she has. Just for one, in my experience little kids will give a more unfiltered view to those they know and trust than adults who have learned caution. No matter how eager for the “real story” the researcher is.
and no. a trip to Costa Rica. multiracial nieces and nephews. these are not sustained study. struggle and focus.
It seems to me that this really does reflect poorly on Dr DiAngelo. She’s right, of course, that a trip to Costa Rica isn’t going to give you serious insights (although it might inspire you to learn more).
But interracial nieces and nephews? I’d say that this damn well could give you a close up view of race relations. I’d say that could give you at least as much insight as DiAngelo has. Depending, of course, on how close you are to that part of your family.
Being in an interracial family myself, I’d say it might even give you a better perspective than she has. Just for one, in my experience little kids will give a more unfiltered view to those they know and trust than adults who have learned caution. No matter how eager for the “real story” the researcher is.
I read the transcript and for once didnât agree with bobbyp but am closer to Bernard.
I found it to be in large part about basic social etiquette in the form of a Wokist sermon asking a congregation of the Wokist church if they are really truly saved or only think they are. It is probably the kind of talk you would expect to see funded by the HR department at some large corporation. The concept of â white fragilityâ is a specific example of something normal with humans â if you accuse people ( rightly or wrongly) of doing something bad or of being something bad or saying something bad, very very often they will feel humiliated and become defensive. It is in some ways a sign of progress that white people react that way when someone says they did something racist. Go to the comments section at Dreherâs blog and you will find a few white nationalists who come pretty close to embracing the label of racist. They are mad it is considered a bad thing, which is not at all what DiAngelo is talking about.
DiAngelo gives some examples of white people saying racist things unwittingly, because that seems to be what the talk is about. There was the teacher who imitated a black womanâs accent and there was DiAngelo herself, who probably thought she was engaged in edgy humor back in the early 90âs when she made a joke about some white people being scared of a black womanâs hair style. That was cringe inducing. And my own reaction to the story is an example of â white fragilityâ, because while I donât think I would ever been stupid enough to do that particular thing, I did inadvertently offend a person of Sri Lankan background once ( back around when DiAngelo was making offensive hair jokes) and feel cringey about it 20 years later when I think about it. But the thing is, it is not different from a handful of other times when I have said something really stupid that hurt someone when I didnât intend to hurt them. If I were called out in public as a bad person, I woulld have felt defensive and humiliated. I automatically cringe when I read or hear about some white person unconsciously saying something racist, but I also feel something similar when someone unwittingly does something Idiotic or stupid or insensitive. This is â humanâ fragility.
White people should be taught not to be stupid and say racist things and apparently some still need to be told what not to say. I needed to be told not to ask an American where she was from originally. What a moron I was. But if all of us middle class white people learn not to shove our feet down our throats that isnât going to solve the problem of structural racism. It will make the world a better place if people are more sensitive, but beyond that I didnât find DiAngeloâs talk had much to offer. GftNC and MkT were on the verge of having an argument about policy. Bobbyp linked to a Loomis piece and Loomis mentioned paying janitors better. And we need a group of people who can deal with violent crime without being violent criminals themselves.
I donât really think DiAngeloâs talk contributes much towards solving structural racism. It was more like a religious talk about self improvement, as somebody said. Yeah, you go to church regularly, but have you truly repented and if so, there is still the ongoing process of sanctification. Maybe I am wrong. If these kinds of talks lead to people fighting for policies that help eliminate poverty and police brutality, then I am wrong.
I read the transcript and for once didnât agree with bobbyp but am closer to Bernard.
I found it to be in large part about basic social etiquette in the form of a Wokist sermon asking a congregation of the Wokist church if they are really truly saved or only think they are. It is probably the kind of talk you would expect to see funded by the HR department at some large corporation. The concept of â white fragilityâ is a specific example of something normal with humans â if you accuse people ( rightly or wrongly) of doing something bad or of being something bad or saying something bad, very very often they will feel humiliated and become defensive. It is in some ways a sign of progress that white people react that way when someone says they did something racist. Go to the comments section at Dreherâs blog and you will find a few white nationalists who come pretty close to embracing the label of racist. They are mad it is considered a bad thing, which is not at all what DiAngelo is talking about.
DiAngelo gives some examples of white people saying racist things unwittingly, because that seems to be what the talk is about. There was the teacher who imitated a black womanâs accent and there was DiAngelo herself, who probably thought she was engaged in edgy humor back in the early 90âs when she made a joke about some white people being scared of a black womanâs hair style. That was cringe inducing. And my own reaction to the story is an example of â white fragilityâ, because while I donât think I would ever been stupid enough to do that particular thing, I did inadvertently offend a person of Sri Lankan background once ( back around when DiAngelo was making offensive hair jokes) and feel cringey about it 20 years later when I think about it. But the thing is, it is not different from a handful of other times when I have said something really stupid that hurt someone when I didnât intend to hurt them. If I were called out in public as a bad person, I woulld have felt defensive and humiliated. I automatically cringe when I read or hear about some white person unconsciously saying something racist, but I also feel something similar when someone unwittingly does something Idiotic or stupid or insensitive. This is â humanâ fragility.
White people should be taught not to be stupid and say racist things and apparently some still need to be told what not to say. I needed to be told not to ask an American where she was from originally. What a moron I was. But if all of us middle class white people learn not to shove our feet down our throats that isnât going to solve the problem of structural racism. It will make the world a better place if people are more sensitive, but beyond that I didnât find DiAngeloâs talk had much to offer. GftNC and MkT were on the verge of having an argument about policy. Bobbyp linked to a Loomis piece and Loomis mentioned paying janitors better. And we need a group of people who can deal with violent crime without being violent criminals themselves.
I donât really think DiAngeloâs talk contributes much towards solving structural racism. It was more like a religious talk about self improvement, as somebody said. Yeah, you go to church regularly, but have you truly repented and if so, there is still the ongoing process of sanctification. Maybe I am wrong. If these kinds of talks lead to people fighting for policies that help eliminate poverty and police brutality, then I am wrong.
wk, I Iet that go because well how do you explain that? The racial diversity of my in laws, thus nieces and nephews includes black, Puerto Rican, and Mexican. Two of my grandkids have a father who is Puerto Rican and they are pretty culturally Puerto Rican.
In my family a culturally mixed household is more the norm. But I will say that most of those kids live a different life than the black people i knew growing up. They live in mixed neighborhoods, they are more comfortable around white people than the kids I grew up with, but they do experience bias from both white and minority people at times.
wk, I Iet that go because well how do you explain that? The racial diversity of my in laws, thus nieces and nephews includes black, Puerto Rican, and Mexican. Two of my grandkids have a father who is Puerto Rican and they are pretty culturally Puerto Rican.
In my family a culturally mixed household is more the norm. But I will say that most of those kids live a different life than the black people i knew growing up. They live in mixed neighborhoods, they are more comfortable around white people than the kids I grew up with, but they do experience bias from both white and minority people at times.
â GftNC and MkT were on the verge of having an argument about policy. Bobbyp linked to a Loomis piece and Loomis mentioned paying janitors better. And we need a group of people who can deal with violent crime without being violent criminals themselves.â
I wasnât clear. I meant that policy changes and arguments about policy are what is needed to deal with structural racism.
â GftNC and MkT were on the verge of having an argument about policy. Bobbyp linked to a Loomis piece and Loomis mentioned paying janitors better. And we need a group of people who can deal with violent crime without being violent criminals themselves.â
I wasnât clear. I meant that policy changes and arguments about policy are what is needed to deal with structural racism.
Understood, Marty. I just sometimes find the self-righteous, whether motivated by religion or ideology, particularly irritating.
Understood, Marty. I just sometimes find the self-righteous, whether motivated by religion or ideology, particularly irritating.
donald,
I don’t disagree entirely with your points, but what offputs me in this discussion is the incessant critique of her tone and not the substance of what she said. So I guess whenever I interact with a conservative in future political arguments, a legitimate defense is to immediately attack their tone, because I guess that is all that matters.
Was DiAngelo’s talk just so much rah-rah for a bunch of woke Seattle libs? Time will tell. But we (white folks) need to acknowledge the racism in our society and in ourselves.
It’s not much to ask, really.
donald,
I don’t disagree entirely with your points, but what offputs me in this discussion is the incessant critique of her tone and not the substance of what she said. So I guess whenever I interact with a conservative in future political arguments, a legitimate defense is to immediately attack their tone, because I guess that is all that matters.
Was DiAngelo’s talk just so much rah-rah for a bunch of woke Seattle libs? Time will tell. But we (white folks) need to acknowledge the racism in our society and in ourselves.
It’s not much to ask, really.
In case DiAngelo drops by and reads this, she will probably notice that I called myself a moron rather than a racist and use this in future talks, so let me spell that out, I made the moronic racist assumption ( subconsciously) that someone of Asian heritage that had grown up in the South was an immigrant. That had been my experience growing up. If I had thought about it Imwould have realized that making that assumption was stupid and expressing it out loud would be offensive to someone who in fact was born in this country.
Notice all the defensive navel gazing in the preceding paragraph. I think it is good for people to not be assholes, but when I found my unconscious racist assumption exposed to the light, it would not necessarily have had any impact whatsoever on my policy views. I bet the white libertarians and conservatives in this thread are every bit as sensitive in their day to day life as the white lefties, but that leaves the policy disagreements right where they were.
In case DiAngelo drops by and reads this, she will probably notice that I called myself a moron rather than a racist and use this in future talks, so let me spell that out, I made the moronic racist assumption ( subconsciously) that someone of Asian heritage that had grown up in the South was an immigrant. That had been my experience growing up. If I had thought about it Imwould have realized that making that assumption was stupid and expressing it out loud would be offensive to someone who in fact was born in this country.
Notice all the defensive navel gazing in the preceding paragraph. I think it is good for people to not be assholes, but when I found my unconscious racist assumption exposed to the light, it would not necessarily have had any impact whatsoever on my policy views. I bet the white libertarians and conservatives in this thread are every bit as sensitive in their day to day life as the white lefties, but that leaves the policy disagreements right where they were.
Dusting off and restoring structural racism in Texas:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2020/06/12/late-night-horrorshow-open-thread-the-president-went-to-dallas/
Dusting off and restoring structural racism in Texas:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2020/06/12/late-night-horrorshow-open-thread-the-president-went-to-dallas/
we (white folks) need to acknowledge the racism in our society and in ourselves.
It’s not much to ask, really.
The reason DiAngelo’s (and others’) tone matters is that the way they present their views can, and does, make that acknowledgment less likely. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it does.
we (white folks) need to acknowledge the racism in our society and in ourselves.
It’s not much to ask, really.
The reason DiAngelo’s (and others’) tone matters is that the way they present their views can, and does, make that acknowledgment less likely. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it does.
Bobbyp,
So, Iâm really not understanding the anger and defensiveness of liberals such as Pollo and byomtov.
I think describing my response as “defensiveness,” or “fragility,” as DiAngelo might call, it illustrates the problem.
I am being told by her that I am a racist, and that what I think about it, or any response I might make in my defense, doesn’t matter, or is just wrong, because she has “devoted years of sustained study, struggle and focus on this topic,â and my âopinions are necessarily very limited and no. a trip to Costa Rica. multiracial nieces and nephews. these are not sustained study.” Iâm expected to accept her verdict, and any disagreement is taken as confrimation of her idea. No. I donât like that.
OK. She knows a lot about how people deal with race. That doesn’t mean she knows a lot about how I or any other individual deals with it.
And what’s that condescension about multiracial nieces and nephews? If you have multiracial nieces and nephews that means a sibling married a black person, and it is entirely possible that you have spent a fair amount of time in family-level conversation with members of that spouseâs family. Equating that to a vacation in Costa Rica is insulting. Hey, I’ve taken vacations in Africa, which I suppose trumps Costa Rica, but wouldn’t claim that gave me any insight into African-American life. Who would? But conversation with African-Americans does give insight, not that I have many such conversations. I suspect I’d learn more from that than from DiAngelo.
And I’m going to quibble again about the use of the term “racist.” as it’s applied to individuals. First, it’s counterproductive. However she wants to define it, lots of people, myself included, read it more strongly. So if you want me, and others, to be aware of some of our stupid, negative, behaviors and attitudes then don’t start with name-calling, even if you oh-so magnanimously include yourself in the category.
On top of all that, as Iâve made clear, some of what she uses as examples seem wrong.
Does that help?
Bobbyp,
So, Iâm really not understanding the anger and defensiveness of liberals such as Pollo and byomtov.
I think describing my response as “defensiveness,” or “fragility,” as DiAngelo might call, it illustrates the problem.
I am being told by her that I am a racist, and that what I think about it, or any response I might make in my defense, doesn’t matter, or is just wrong, because she has “devoted years of sustained study, struggle and focus on this topic,â and my âopinions are necessarily very limited and no. a trip to Costa Rica. multiracial nieces and nephews. these are not sustained study.” Iâm expected to accept her verdict, and any disagreement is taken as confrimation of her idea. No. I donât like that.
OK. She knows a lot about how people deal with race. That doesn’t mean she knows a lot about how I or any other individual deals with it.
And what’s that condescension about multiracial nieces and nephews? If you have multiracial nieces and nephews that means a sibling married a black person, and it is entirely possible that you have spent a fair amount of time in family-level conversation with members of that spouseâs family. Equating that to a vacation in Costa Rica is insulting. Hey, I’ve taken vacations in Africa, which I suppose trumps Costa Rica, but wouldn’t claim that gave me any insight into African-American life. Who would? But conversation with African-Americans does give insight, not that I have many such conversations. I suspect I’d learn more from that than from DiAngelo.
And I’m going to quibble again about the use of the term “racist.” as it’s applied to individuals. First, it’s counterproductive. However she wants to define it, lots of people, myself included, read it more strongly. So if you want me, and others, to be aware of some of our stupid, negative, behaviors and attitudes then don’t start with name-calling, even if you oh-so magnanimously include yourself in the category.
On top of all that, as Iâve made clear, some of what she uses as examples seem wrong.
Does that help?
I meant that policy changes and arguments about policy are what is needed to deal with structural racism.
Of course this is true. But before people from different (and often already privileged and empowered) groups can see the need for policy changes, they have to see that they are part of the problem which necessitates the policy changes. And I think DiAngelo speaks to one subset of white people, in Donald’s witty words the Wokist church. I guess some of us are members of that church, from our acceptance of her basic concept. And she makes it clear, as lj illustrates, that she is talking to “white progressives”. So maybe white progressives have to see the light, and attain critical mass, before change becomes overpowering enough that it even reaches white racists, of the lesser toxic type. Or at least whites who would never call themselves progressives, although they would dissociate themselves from open white supremacists.
I meant that policy changes and arguments about policy are what is needed to deal with structural racism.
Of course this is true. But before people from different (and often already privileged and empowered) groups can see the need for policy changes, they have to see that they are part of the problem which necessitates the policy changes. And I think DiAngelo speaks to one subset of white people, in Donald’s witty words the Wokist church. I guess some of us are members of that church, from our acceptance of her basic concept. And she makes it clear, as lj illustrates, that she is talking to “white progressives”. So maybe white progressives have to see the light, and attain critical mass, before change becomes overpowering enough that it even reaches white racists, of the lesser toxic type. Or at least whites who would never call themselves progressives, although they would dissociate themselves from open white supremacists.
So maybe white progressives have to see the light, and attain critical mass, before change becomes overpowering enough that it even reaches white racists, of the lesser toxic type.
Sorry, posted before I meant to add this: from reactions here, it looks like there’s still a long way to go.
lj: I think this conversation has illustrated that when people watch a talk, as opposed to reading an article (because I’m guessing many here, like me, did not read the whole transcript) it’s easy to react to things that push one’s buttons and not hear certain parts that would neutralise that reaction, e.g. her insistence that she’s talking about a system, not individuals, and that the system achieves its result by means of (often very early) socialisation.
So maybe white progressives have to see the light, and attain critical mass, before change becomes overpowering enough that it even reaches white racists, of the lesser toxic type.
Sorry, posted before I meant to add this: from reactions here, it looks like there’s still a long way to go.
lj: I think this conversation has illustrated that when people watch a talk, as opposed to reading an article (because I’m guessing many here, like me, did not read the whole transcript) it’s easy to react to things that push one’s buttons and not hear certain parts that would neutralise that reaction, e.g. her insistence that she’s talking about a system, not individuals, and that the system achieves its result by means of (often very early) socialisation.
The one thing that I keep coming back to, between the talk and the discussion of the talk, is how much the policing of DiAngelo’s tone and the worries about it being counterproductive – both of which I can understand – also strike me as examples of white fragility. Or perhaps male fragility. Those two seem to be close cousins.
I think a lot of people – especially older males, but older females as well – have a really hard time with middle aged female academics who do not couch their expertise in self deprication. Read any analysis of Warren’s campaign and you will see this subtext writ large in people’s reactions, not to her content or qualifications, but to her tone.
And I get the reaction to tone. I interact with a lot of very left, very activism oriented women of color, many of whom I met in grad school. There’s one in particular that I have been tempted to mute since FB first gave us that functionality because her tone dial is set on eleven all the time. I don’t mute her, though, because what she says is often instructive, even though it is offensive and annoying.
It’s been instructive for me to go back through those conversations and reflect on whether I disagree with her substantively or tactically, or if I am using my annoyance as an excuse to find fault with her arguments (which is, after all, one of the things that our neurology is very good at).
The one thing that I keep coming back to, between the talk and the discussion of the talk, is how much the policing of DiAngelo’s tone and the worries about it being counterproductive – both of which I can understand – also strike me as examples of white fragility. Or perhaps male fragility. Those two seem to be close cousins.
I think a lot of people – especially older males, but older females as well – have a really hard time with middle aged female academics who do not couch their expertise in self deprication. Read any analysis of Warren’s campaign and you will see this subtext writ large in people’s reactions, not to her content or qualifications, but to her tone.
And I get the reaction to tone. I interact with a lot of very left, very activism oriented women of color, many of whom I met in grad school. There’s one in particular that I have been tempted to mute since FB first gave us that functionality because her tone dial is set on eleven all the time. I don’t mute her, though, because what she says is often instructive, even though it is offensive and annoying.
It’s been instructive for me to go back through those conversations and reflect on whether I disagree with her substantively or tactically, or if I am using my annoyance as an excuse to find fault with her arguments (which is, after all, one of the things that our neurology is very good at).
In the US there’s an almost endless list of policies and policy changes that would benefit all low-income people including minorities. But many of those policies and changes can’t be agreed on because some people see them as benefits while others see them of little benefit or outright harm. And the ones that can be agreed on won’t be made if we have to wait until racism is almost non-existent.
In the US there’s an almost endless list of policies and policy changes that would benefit all low-income people including minorities. But many of those policies and changes can’t be agreed on because some people see them as benefits while others see them of little benefit or outright harm. And the ones that can be agreed on won’t be made if we have to wait until racism is almost non-existent.
“I suspect I’d learn more from that than from DiAngelo.”
That’s where you and I appear to part ways, Byomtov. Just because you (not you in particular, the great white “you”) “talk” to or “know” a black person does not automatically mean you listened, does not guarantee you learned anything, and does not necessarily imply that they told you anything of great importance wrt race relations (she covered this, too). So I would opine that such assertions may well be presumptuous, and dare I say it, condescending.
As for the condescension about nieces and nephews, I remember those days when, “Well, I have black friends” was the conversation stopper employed for the same purpose. I see similarities. Does that make me condescending?
I had a great black friend back in the day. He was a college professor. We met at the bar 3 times a week for after work drinks. We spent innumerable hours together playing poker (he bluffed too often), we played a good deal of golf at the local crappy course…but we never had any deep personal talks about race, and he certainly never brought it up. So just how much did I learn about race relations in our country from that experience? In retrospect, I see a vast unspoken chasm of experience not shared.
As for DiAngelo, it could just be me, because I try to understand at least some of the time, that it is not all about me, so I feel she imparted some valuable concepts.
As for the example(s), when she asserted the real story about Robinson was that some white people decided it was time for a black major league ball player, to me that is an insight.
Thanks for your reply.
“I suspect I’d learn more from that than from DiAngelo.”
That’s where you and I appear to part ways, Byomtov. Just because you (not you in particular, the great white “you”) “talk” to or “know” a black person does not automatically mean you listened, does not guarantee you learned anything, and does not necessarily imply that they told you anything of great importance wrt race relations (she covered this, too). So I would opine that such assertions may well be presumptuous, and dare I say it, condescending.
As for the condescension about nieces and nephews, I remember those days when, “Well, I have black friends” was the conversation stopper employed for the same purpose. I see similarities. Does that make me condescending?
I had a great black friend back in the day. He was a college professor. We met at the bar 3 times a week for after work drinks. We spent innumerable hours together playing poker (he bluffed too often), we played a good deal of golf at the local crappy course…but we never had any deep personal talks about race, and he certainly never brought it up. So just how much did I learn about race relations in our country from that experience? In retrospect, I see a vast unspoken chasm of experience not shared.
As for DiAngelo, it could just be me, because I try to understand at least some of the time, that it is not all about me, so I feel she imparted some valuable concepts.
As for the example(s), when she asserted the real story about Robinson was that some white people decided it was time for a black major league ball player, to me that is an insight.
Thanks for your reply.
But before people from different (and often already privileged and empowered) groups can see the need for policy changes, they have to see that they are part of the problem which necessitates the policy changes.
I’m not so sure about that. I think they can well be in denial about being part of the problem (if they are), and still see the need for policy changes.
But before people from different (and often already privileged and empowered) groups can see the need for policy changes, they have to see that they are part of the problem which necessitates the policy changes.
I’m not so sure about that. I think they can well be in denial about being part of the problem (if they are), and still see the need for policy changes.
nous, you may be able to look past irritating tone to benefit from the substance of what someone is saying. And you have my admiration for that. But, I think you will find that the vast majority of the population is not. And if you are trying to persuade people of the need to do something, you need to be aware of that and act accordingly.
nous, you may be able to look past irritating tone to benefit from the substance of what someone is saying. And you have my admiration for that. But, I think you will find that the vast majority of the population is not. And if you are trying to persuade people of the need to do something, you need to be aware of that and act accordingly.
Wow, so who here do you think is reacting to her out of their misogynistic reaction to female academics? So if a 35 year old guy wrote a book called White Fragility and gave that talk, word for word, someone would have agreed with it more?
I find that a way to try to deflect disagreement by making it some emotional or mental weakness to disagree. White, Male fragility seems a good way to make any criticism invalid and disappear any conflicting ideas so the merits of them dont have to be considered.
But I have not done an in depth multiyear graduate level study of the impacts of today’s society on older males so you could be right
Wow, so who here do you think is reacting to her out of their misogynistic reaction to female academics? So if a 35 year old guy wrote a book called White Fragility and gave that talk, word for word, someone would have agreed with it more?
I find that a way to try to deflect disagreement by making it some emotional or mental weakness to disagree. White, Male fragility seems a good way to make any criticism invalid and disappear any conflicting ideas so the merits of them dont have to be considered.
But I have not done an in depth multiyear graduate level study of the impacts of today’s society on older males so you could be right
And some people say we need a sarcasm font!
And some people say we need a sarcasm font!
But I have not done an in depth multiyear graduate level study of the impacts of today’s society on older males so you could be right
Your honesty is refreshing, Marty. Well done.
But I have not done an in depth multiyear graduate level study of the impacts of today’s society on older males so you could be right
Your honesty is refreshing, Marty. Well done.
And if you are trying to persuade people of the need to do something, you need to be aware of that and act accordingly.
And all too many people use this excuse to avoid being persuaded of just about anything their “gut” disagrees with. So my take is this, If I can find some excuse to discount your tone, I am justified in discounting your argument, correct?
And if you are trying to persuade people of the need to do something, you need to be aware of that and act accordingly.
And all too many people use this excuse to avoid being persuaded of just about anything their “gut” disagrees with. So my take is this, If I can find some excuse to discount your tone, I am justified in discounting your argument, correct?
If nothing else, this post sure as hell got us talking. This thread belongs in the Obsidian Wings Hall of Fame.
It is not about you, it is about the system.
Yeah.
If nothing else, this post sure as hell got us talking. This thread belongs in the Obsidian Wings Hall of Fame.
It is not about you, it is about the system.
Yeah.
That’s where you and I appear to part ways, Byomtov. Just because you (not you in particular, the great white “you”) “talk” to or “know” a black person does not automatically mean you listened, does not guarantee you learned anything, and does not necessarily imply that they told you anything of great importance wrt race relations (she covered this, too). So I would opine that such assertions may well be presumptuous, and dare I say it, condescending.
Sure, bobby. It doesn’t have to happen. I’ve had lots of superficial conversations, including some with black people. But I’ve also had a handful where I learned something. I’m not saying I’m an expert because of it, just that I learned a thing or two.
As for the nieces and nephews business, well, I said it was possible, not automatic. What I oblect to is DiAngelo’s assertion that it’s impossible. That if you say something like, “My brother-in-law is black, and we are fairly close, and I have talked about race with him and his family members from time to time,” she will discount the possibility that you learned anything. Instead you should buy her book.
That’s where you and I appear to part ways, Byomtov. Just because you (not you in particular, the great white “you”) “talk” to or “know” a black person does not automatically mean you listened, does not guarantee you learned anything, and does not necessarily imply that they told you anything of great importance wrt race relations (she covered this, too). So I would opine that such assertions may well be presumptuous, and dare I say it, condescending.
Sure, bobby. It doesn’t have to happen. I’ve had lots of superficial conversations, including some with black people. But I’ve also had a handful where I learned something. I’m not saying I’m an expert because of it, just that I learned a thing or two.
As for the nieces and nephews business, well, I said it was possible, not automatic. What I oblect to is DiAngelo’s assertion that it’s impossible. That if you say something like, “My brother-in-law is black, and we are fairly close, and I have talked about race with him and his family members from time to time,” she will discount the possibility that you learned anything. Instead you should buy her book.
What I oblect to is DiAngelo’s assertion that it’s impossible.
Perhaps. I would say “improbable”, and that concentrated study, self reflection, and engaging with folks who study this deeply is also quite valuable, and not to be dismissed merely because one objects to their “tone”. Neither of us has been discussing race with fellow white folks for a living for decades. She has. I simply cannot dismiss the insights she had derived from this experience out of hand.
And lj has given me a mission, so here.
đ
What I oblect to is DiAngelo’s assertion that it’s impossible.
Perhaps. I would say “improbable”, and that concentrated study, self reflection, and engaging with folks who study this deeply is also quite valuable, and not to be dismissed merely because one objects to their “tone”. Neither of us has been discussing race with fellow white folks for a living for decades. She has. I simply cannot dismiss the insights she had derived from this experience out of hand.
And lj has given me a mission, so here.
đ
I’m generally in agreement with the idea that People Like Me could learn more from conversations with actual black people, than from DiAngelo’s book.
I also agree that the kind of candid conversation that would really get into something substantive can be hard to have, especially with people you don’t know very well, and with whom you don’t already have a solid basis of trust.
But right now, there are tens of thousands of black people telling us that daily life with the rest of us is causing them a lot of pain. They are going to some extraordinary lengths to bring this to our attention.
Maybe we should believe them.
We can all have whatever opinion we like about our own thoughts and intentions.
The thing we do not get to do is tell other people what their experience is.
The thing that DiAngelo does that everyone reacts to – telling them that they don’t really understand their own experience, what they *think* they are thinking and experiencing is not *really* what they are thing or experiencing – it’s enraging, in’t it?
Tens of thousands of black people are telling the rest of us, loudly, in the face of serious and sometimes brutal opposition, that they are in profound pain, to the point of despair, and it’s largely because of how we all relate to each other.
They’re telling us this. Again.
Maybe we should believe them.
I’m generally in agreement with the idea that People Like Me could learn more from conversations with actual black people, than from DiAngelo’s book.
I also agree that the kind of candid conversation that would really get into something substantive can be hard to have, especially with people you don’t know very well, and with whom you don’t already have a solid basis of trust.
But right now, there are tens of thousands of black people telling us that daily life with the rest of us is causing them a lot of pain. They are going to some extraordinary lengths to bring this to our attention.
Maybe we should believe them.
We can all have whatever opinion we like about our own thoughts and intentions.
The thing we do not get to do is tell other people what their experience is.
The thing that DiAngelo does that everyone reacts to – telling them that they don’t really understand their own experience, what they *think* they are thinking and experiencing is not *really* what they are thing or experiencing – it’s enraging, in’t it?
Tens of thousands of black people are telling the rest of us, loudly, in the face of serious and sometimes brutal opposition, that they are in profound pain, to the point of despair, and it’s largely because of how we all relate to each other.
They’re telling us this. Again.
Maybe we should believe them.
If nothing else, this post sure as hell got us talking. This thread belongs in the Obsidian Wings Hall of Fame.
Completely agree.
They’re telling us this. Again.
Maybe we should believe them.
Yup.
If nothing else, this post sure as hell got us talking. This thread belongs in the Obsidian Wings Hall of Fame.
Completely agree.
They’re telling us this. Again.
Maybe we should believe them.
Yup.
DiAngelo would not say that you have not learned anything, byomtov. She would say that what you have learned is not an inoculation against racism, it’s just a deeper understanding of the nature of racism.
You can be anti-racist, which is good, even if being anti-racist does not keep you from being affected by internalized racism.
DiAngelo would not say that you have not learned anything, byomtov. She would say that what you have learned is not an inoculation against racism, it’s just a deeper understanding of the nature of racism.
You can be anti-racist, which is good, even if being anti-racist does not keep you from being affected by internalized racism.
Iâm not sure why I was called out as âangry and defensive” in a thread where I was only lurking, but I guess Iâll respond.
I wasnât particularly irritated with DiAngelo other than the Jackie Robinson thing. As previously pointed out, DiAngelo did not reveal any hidden truths about racism keeping back players out of the major leagues. This has been acknowledged for as long as I can remember. I think Negro League players and managers were being inducted in Cooperstown as far back as the early 70s, so clearly they were good enough and the only explanation that I’ve ever heard is that racism kept them out of MLB. That failed vignette does not invalidate her points, but it does cause me to think that like most folks, she sees what she wants to see sometimes. The reason that it stands out is this wasnât a casual after-dinner conversation over drinks among friends. This was part of a professional presentation that was slated for wider release.
As for the substance, perhaps being the product of a small southern town has something to do with it, but Iâve always assumed that I was raised in an essentially racist society and you donât go through that without some of it rubbing off on you. Iâve previously acknowledged that I think weâre hard wired for tribalism. I donât think that being âniceâ to black folks or volunteering my legal time absolves me of continuing responsibility in responding to pervasive racism. All that is to say Iâm not particularly triggered by being called a racist in this context.
Where I part ways with her is the notion that Iâm somehow incapable of sufficiently overcoming this or that I get no voice (or a greatly diminished voice) in working through issues of structural racism. Not only am I pretty certain that Iâm capable of engaging on these issues based on my pro bono work in a poor AA community, my experience in conflict resolution tells me that if your goal is real change, you wonât get buy in from enough white folks if they donât get a seat at the table.
So there you have it; Iâm not angry or defensive. I simply disagree with her on the path forward.
Iâm not sure why I was called out as âangry and defensive” in a thread where I was only lurking, but I guess Iâll respond.
I wasnât particularly irritated with DiAngelo other than the Jackie Robinson thing. As previously pointed out, DiAngelo did not reveal any hidden truths about racism keeping back players out of the major leagues. This has been acknowledged for as long as I can remember. I think Negro League players and managers were being inducted in Cooperstown as far back as the early 70s, so clearly they were good enough and the only explanation that I’ve ever heard is that racism kept them out of MLB. That failed vignette does not invalidate her points, but it does cause me to think that like most folks, she sees what she wants to see sometimes. The reason that it stands out is this wasnât a casual after-dinner conversation over drinks among friends. This was part of a professional presentation that was slated for wider release.
As for the substance, perhaps being the product of a small southern town has something to do with it, but Iâve always assumed that I was raised in an essentially racist society and you donât go through that without some of it rubbing off on you. Iâve previously acknowledged that I think weâre hard wired for tribalism. I donât think that being âniceâ to black folks or volunteering my legal time absolves me of continuing responsibility in responding to pervasive racism. All that is to say Iâm not particularly triggered by being called a racist in this context.
Where I part ways with her is the notion that Iâm somehow incapable of sufficiently overcoming this or that I get no voice (or a greatly diminished voice) in working through issues of structural racism. Not only am I pretty certain that Iâm capable of engaging on these issues based on my pro bono work in a poor AA community, my experience in conflict resolution tells me that if your goal is real change, you wonât get buy in from enough white folks if they donât get a seat at the table.
So there you have it; Iâm not angry or defensive. I simply disagree with her on the path forward.
I would co-sign this as well.
I would co-sign this as well.
DiAngelo would not say that you have not learned anything, byomtov. She would say that what you have learned is not an inoculation against racism, it’s just a deeper understanding of the nature of racism.
You can be anti-racist, which is good, even if being anti-racist does not keep you from being affected by internalized racism.
I do not claim to be inoculated against racism. I think a deeper understanding of the nature of racism makes one less stupid, to use Donald’s term, about one’s own behavior and that of others.
Does DiAngelo think that she can inoculate people? I doubt it. So all we can do is improve.
DiAngelo would not say that you have not learned anything, byomtov. She would say that what you have learned is not an inoculation against racism, it’s just a deeper understanding of the nature of racism.
You can be anti-racist, which is good, even if being anti-racist does not keep you from being affected by internalized racism.
I do not claim to be inoculated against racism. I think a deeper understanding of the nature of racism makes one less stupid, to use Donald’s term, about one’s own behavior and that of others.
Does DiAngelo think that she can inoculate people? I doubt it. So all we can do is improve.
Maybe we should believe them.
Yes.
Maybe we should believe them.
Yes.
my take is this, If I can find some excuse to discount your tone, I am justified in discounting your argument, correct?
Just out of curiosity, are you deliberately being silly here?
It doesn’t matter whether your audience is justified in discounting your arguments because of your tone. If your goal is to persuade them (rather than just to score debate points), you need to take their predictable reaction to your tone into account.
my take is this, If I can find some excuse to discount your tone, I am justified in discounting your argument, correct?
Just out of curiosity, are you deliberately being silly here?
It doesn’t matter whether your audience is justified in discounting your arguments because of your tone. If your goal is to persuade them (rather than just to score debate points), you need to take their predictable reaction to your tone into account.
“sustained study” makes it sound like i’m supposed to be doing anthropology. which feels condescending.
“sustained study” makes it sound like i’m supposed to be doing anthropology. which feels condescending.
Nous,
I think a lot of people – especially older males, but older females as well – have a really hard time with middle aged female academics who do not couch their expertise in self deprication. Read any analysis of Warren’s campaign and you will see this subtext writ large in people’s reactions, not to her content or qualifications, but to her tone.
Since I was, and remain, a fan of Warren, I don’t think that analysis holds in my case.
Nous,
I think a lot of people – especially older males, but older females as well – have a really hard time with middle aged female academics who do not couch their expertise in self deprication. Read any analysis of Warren’s campaign and you will see this subtext writ large in people’s reactions, not to her content or qualifications, but to her tone.
Since I was, and remain, a fan of Warren, I don’t think that analysis holds in my case.
I’ve not placed much of my own thoughts, that is going to be in a post tentatively titled ‘who (I think) I am. I think’. On reflection, I shouldn’t have put anything in. I also should have, again on reflection, prepared a transcript, so people could have taken it in in that way. (And I do realize that quoting the transcript is similar to what I complain that CharlesWT does, which is to post a link and a paragraph and not explain why.)
I should also confess that when I made the OP, if it isn’t obvious, I didn’t really have an idea of what I was doing. Still not quite sure. But will talk more about that when I talk about me.
Of course, everything carries information, so even if I were silent the whole time, I’d be conveying something. the problem is you wouldn’t know if it was me waiting for someone to get out of line or me applauding or what.
Anyway, keeping this open for a while at least a few days longer.
I’ve not placed much of my own thoughts, that is going to be in a post tentatively titled ‘who (I think) I am. I think’. On reflection, I shouldn’t have put anything in. I also should have, again on reflection, prepared a transcript, so people could have taken it in in that way. (And I do realize that quoting the transcript is similar to what I complain that CharlesWT does, which is to post a link and a paragraph and not explain why.)
I should also confess that when I made the OP, if it isn’t obvious, I didn’t really have an idea of what I was doing. Still not quite sure. But will talk more about that when I talk about me.
Of course, everything carries information, so even if I were silent the whole time, I’d be conveying something. the problem is you wouldn’t know if it was me waiting for someone to get out of line or me applauding or what.
Anyway, keeping this open for a while at least a few days longer.
Since I was, and remain, a fan of Warren, I don’t think that analysis holds in my case.
In general I think your responses to DiAngelo were substantive. Not all responses to tone are disingenuous. As I said, I find myself responding this way at times as well.
I worked for many years in call centers. It’s hard not to react to a perceived tone of challenge (even if it is not always easy to judge tone).
It’s especially hard for both when there is a perceived threat to ones self-identity.
Since I was, and remain, a fan of Warren, I don’t think that analysis holds in my case.
In general I think your responses to DiAngelo were substantive. Not all responses to tone are disingenuous. As I said, I find myself responding this way at times as well.
I worked for many years in call centers. It’s hard not to react to a perceived tone of challenge (even if it is not always easy to judge tone).
It’s especially hard for both when there is a perceived threat to ones self-identity.
Just out of curiosity, are you deliberately being silly here?
No. You discount her tone in lieu of discounting her arguments. So, who is the one being silly? You may not find her persuasive, but given the sales of her books and books like hers, I’d think you might wish to give that a second look.
I’m generally in agreement with the idea that People Like Me could learn more from conversations with actual black people, than from DiAngelo’s book.
All well and good. But we live in a hugely segregated society with built in racial mores that act to inhibit having those kinds of conversations. So, whattaya’ gonna’ do?
I may have missed it, but I have yet to see anybody here state, “I’m not a big fan of her approach, but by golly, what she says has weight.”
Again….not a big ask. IMHO
Just out of curiosity, are you deliberately being silly here?
No. You discount her tone in lieu of discounting her arguments. So, who is the one being silly? You may not find her persuasive, but given the sales of her books and books like hers, I’d think you might wish to give that a second look.
I’m generally in agreement with the idea that People Like Me could learn more from conversations with actual black people, than from DiAngelo’s book.
All well and good. But we live in a hugely segregated society with built in racial mores that act to inhibit having those kinds of conversations. So, whattaya’ gonna’ do?
I may have missed it, but I have yet to see anybody here state, “I’m not a big fan of her approach, but by golly, what she says has weight.”
Again….not a big ask. IMHO
Iâm not sure why I was called out as âangry and defensive” in a thread where I was only lurking, but I guess Iâll respond.
Yes, I was referring to the other thread where you came out swinging against racial justice warriors who “weaponized” the R word. My initial reaction was hugely negative as this is a common conservative trope, you know, “liberals are the real racists” or “liberals are the real fascists”. Your further explanations dulled my anger. Interestingly, you went on later to condemn those well meaning (Libruls?) who were satisfied with “another commission” masking as reform. In this, you are in agreement with folks of the more leftier persuasion. So—good on you.
As to Robinson: You do not see a difference between “he broke the racial barrier in MLB” vs. “Some white people decided the time had come to break the color line”? I do.
Thank you.
Iâm not sure why I was called out as âangry and defensive” in a thread where I was only lurking, but I guess Iâll respond.
Yes, I was referring to the other thread where you came out swinging against racial justice warriors who “weaponized” the R word. My initial reaction was hugely negative as this is a common conservative trope, you know, “liberals are the real racists” or “liberals are the real fascists”. Your further explanations dulled my anger. Interestingly, you went on later to condemn those well meaning (Libruls?) who were satisfied with “another commission” masking as reform. In this, you are in agreement with folks of the more leftier persuasion. So—good on you.
As to Robinson: You do not see a difference between “he broke the racial barrier in MLB” vs. “Some white people decided the time had come to break the color line”? I do.
Thank you.
Maybe we should believe them.
Yup.
Maybe we should believe them.
Yup.
â I think a lot of people – especially older males, but older females as well – have a really hard time with middle aged female academics who do not couch their expertise in self depricationâ
I read it and would be just as annoyed if it had been some professional male antiracist. This is like being told I disliked Hilary because she is a woman when I dislike Joe even more. ( And yes, he is far preferable to Trump.)
There is a certain type of leftism that sets my teeth on edge, where much of the emphasis seems to be about individual moral virtue rather than policy. I get outraged all the time, but it is always about policy ( usually some horrific one). This type of leftism comes across as a substitute religion to me.
For me it would be vastly more interesting to hear what people mean when they want to abolish the police. Some mean it literally. I know this means they want to put more money into other things, which is fine, but I am still very unclear on how violent crime is dealt with. But the whole thing is very new to me. I have read very little about it.
Anyway, it is possible DiAngeloâs talks will lead more people to support better policies, whatever those might be, in which case my own feelings about her talk donât matter. I am doubtful about that, but could be wrong.
â I think a lot of people – especially older males, but older females as well – have a really hard time with middle aged female academics who do not couch their expertise in self depricationâ
I read it and would be just as annoyed if it had been some professional male antiracist. This is like being told I disliked Hilary because she is a woman when I dislike Joe even more. ( And yes, he is far preferable to Trump.)
There is a certain type of leftism that sets my teeth on edge, where much of the emphasis seems to be about individual moral virtue rather than policy. I get outraged all the time, but it is always about policy ( usually some horrific one). This type of leftism comes across as a substitute religion to me.
For me it would be vastly more interesting to hear what people mean when they want to abolish the police. Some mean it literally. I know this means they want to put more money into other things, which is fine, but I am still very unclear on how violent crime is dealt with. But the whole thing is very new to me. I have read very little about it.
Anyway, it is possible DiAngeloâs talks will lead more people to support better policies, whatever those might be, in which case my own feelings about her talk donât matter. I am doubtful about that, but could be wrong.
You may not find her persuasive, but given the sales of her books and books like hers, I’d think you might wish to give that a second look.
I’d start with looking at who is buying her books. I’d bet that it isn’t the folks that need to be persuaded. “Preaching to the choir” — rarely expands the congregation.
You may not find her persuasive, but given the sales of her books and books like hers, I’d think you might wish to give that a second look.
I’d start with looking at who is buying her books. I’d bet that it isn’t the folks that need to be persuaded. “Preaching to the choir” — rarely expands the congregation.
I may have missed it, but I have yet to see anybody here state, “I’m not a big fan of her approach, but by golly, what she says has weight.”
Okay, I’ll say that.
I’ll also say that I agree with a lot of the objections mentioned here, by mostly everybody who has made them.
First, let’s talk about the term “racist”. I do think that there is structural racism in our society, that white people have been privileged by it (materially, not spiritually – spiritually, we’ve been robbed). But I do think that any privileged group has blinders, and has to work at seeing things that they have been insulated from. I don’t mind thinking of myself as a “racist” as a thought experiment, believing that I have been damaged in my perspective by institutional racism, segregation, and privilege.
But (and I stick to my guns regarding the words I use to describe the right-wing in this country), I’ll take a brief page from GftNC’s book about precision of language. If structural racism makes us all racists, then everyone is a racist, including African-Americans, just as everyone is a misogynist, including women professors who (studies show) have graded their female students less generously than their male students.
I’m not sure that the term “racist” has any meaning then. So on that point, I’m totally with those who object to the term being used to describe “white people” who are aware of racism, and have tried to overcome it in their own lives. (Maybe that’s too broad a brush, but there’s certainly a difference between people who vote for civil rights initiatives, and people who vote against them.)
I also agree that lived experience is important. People who have genuine human relationships with other people learn from that. Yes, they still may suffer from structural racism, but willingness to accept the humanity and equality of other people on a day to day level is a fairly strong indication of progress.
I recounted the early experience (and well-remembered – not so many 4 or 5-year-old memories exist) of being harassed as a child. I remember being really scared. That maybe isn’t an unusual story if you grew up being black or brown. What does that do to people? For me, I was called something, and probably learned somehow that 1) those were horrible people, but also 2) no, they wouldn’t hate you if they knew you were white. A lot of people don’t get the second message. Also, let me repeat: my parents were opposed to racism.
So diAngelo’s talk had flaws, and since I love to argue, I would argue about them. The discussion itself though is important.
I may have missed it, but I have yet to see anybody here state, “I’m not a big fan of her approach, but by golly, what she says has weight.”
Okay, I’ll say that.
I’ll also say that I agree with a lot of the objections mentioned here, by mostly everybody who has made them.
First, let’s talk about the term “racist”. I do think that there is structural racism in our society, that white people have been privileged by it (materially, not spiritually – spiritually, we’ve been robbed). But I do think that any privileged group has blinders, and has to work at seeing things that they have been insulated from. I don’t mind thinking of myself as a “racist” as a thought experiment, believing that I have been damaged in my perspective by institutional racism, segregation, and privilege.
But (and I stick to my guns regarding the words I use to describe the right-wing in this country), I’ll take a brief page from GftNC’s book about precision of language. If structural racism makes us all racists, then everyone is a racist, including African-Americans, just as everyone is a misogynist, including women professors who (studies show) have graded their female students less generously than their male students.
I’m not sure that the term “racist” has any meaning then. So on that point, I’m totally with those who object to the term being used to describe “white people” who are aware of racism, and have tried to overcome it in their own lives. (Maybe that’s too broad a brush, but there’s certainly a difference between people who vote for civil rights initiatives, and people who vote against them.)
I also agree that lived experience is important. People who have genuine human relationships with other people learn from that. Yes, they still may suffer from structural racism, but willingness to accept the humanity and equality of other people on a day to day level is a fairly strong indication of progress.
I recounted the early experience (and well-remembered – not so many 4 or 5-year-old memories exist) of being harassed as a child. I remember being really scared. That maybe isn’t an unusual story if you grew up being black or brown. What does that do to people? For me, I was called something, and probably learned somehow that 1) those were horrible people, but also 2) no, they wouldn’t hate you if they knew you were white. A lot of people don’t get the second message. Also, let me repeat: my parents were opposed to racism.
So diAngelo’s talk had flaws, and since I love to argue, I would argue about them. The discussion itself though is important.
So, assuming that DiAngelo’s message is ‘correct’, how should we try to convey that to other white people? (again making the assumption that this is pretty much a white space)
Also, (and I’m sorry if this sets teeth on edge), but DiAngelo specifically says this:
I’m pretty sure I’m speaking to a room filled with white progressives, so let me just be clear, you are not the choir, there is no choir, I am NOT the choir, that when I say there is no choir, it’s because my learning will never be finished and the moment I think I’m the choir I think I’m gonna be done and I’m gonna have certitude.
It is common rhetorically to say something and mean the opposite (‘I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about [xxxxx]’), so if you believe that DiAngelo is lying or doesn’t understand what she is saying, that’s one thing, but if you agree that there is a choir that needs to change its behavior, how do you propose to tell them?
So, assuming that DiAngelo’s message is ‘correct’, how should we try to convey that to other white people? (again making the assumption that this is pretty much a white space)
Also, (and I’m sorry if this sets teeth on edge), but DiAngelo specifically says this:
I’m pretty sure I’m speaking to a room filled with white progressives, so let me just be clear, you are not the choir, there is no choir, I am NOT the choir, that when I say there is no choir, it’s because my learning will never be finished and the moment I think I’m the choir I think I’m gonna be done and I’m gonna have certitude.
It is common rhetorically to say something and mean the opposite (‘I’m not talking about you, I’m talking about [xxxxx]’), so if you believe that DiAngelo is lying or doesn’t understand what she is saying, that’s one thing, but if you agree that there is a choir that needs to change its behavior, how do you propose to tell them?
I think it may be helpful to remember that her talk here was based on the introduction from her book and that the book itself has full chapters on many of the things she merely outlines. And given that this is an author talk at a library, she’s definitely preaching to a choir that has, by and large, either already read her book and come to hear her or have heard about her book and are interested in getting a taste of it before committing to reading it themselves.
A couple of reviews for the book itself:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-examines-the-white-fragility-that-prevents-white-americans-from-confronting-racism
https://www.lareviewofbooks.org/article/on-the-defensive-navigating-white-advantage-and-white-fragility
…and the LARB review has a link to the predictable frothing of the National Review’s Grande Flat White.
I have not read the book. I have two other books already in the queue and other titles about anti-racism that would be more productive for me and for the world at large. But I think (and hope) that the book itself might do more good in the world than a short talk that has to truncate and simplify everything.
I think it may be helpful to remember that her talk here was based on the introduction from her book and that the book itself has full chapters on many of the things she merely outlines. And given that this is an author talk at a library, she’s definitely preaching to a choir that has, by and large, either already read her book and come to hear her or have heard about her book and are interested in getting a taste of it before committing to reading it themselves.
A couple of reviews for the book itself:
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-examines-the-white-fragility-that-prevents-white-americans-from-confronting-racism
https://www.lareviewofbooks.org/article/on-the-defensive-navigating-white-advantage-and-white-fragility
…and the LARB review has a link to the predictable frothing of the National Review’s Grande Flat White.
I have not read the book. I have two other books already in the queue and other titles about anti-racism that would be more productive for me and for the world at large. But I think (and hope) that the book itself might do more good in the world than a short talk that has to truncate and simplify everything.
FWIW, I think there’s a lot to what sapient says at 07.40.
FWIW, I think there’s a lot to what sapient says at 07.40.
Iâm still at a loss as why youâd initially think thatâs where Iâm coming from. Just because Iâm a moderate Democrat, you think Iâm posting here to pwn libruls?
As for Jackie Robinson, only the strawman is saying “Some white people decided the time had come to break the color line”.
Iâm still at a loss as why youâd initially think thatâs where Iâm coming from. Just because Iâm a moderate Democrat, you think Iâm posting here to pwn libruls?
As for Jackie Robinson, only the strawman is saying “Some white people decided the time had come to break the color line”.
And a couple links (National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the National Equity Project) that might be useful for thinking about the concerns and questions that sapient raises:
https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/social-identities-and-systems-oppression
https://nationalequityproject.org/resources/featured-resources/lens-of-systemic-oppression
Both of which might be useful for getting the discussion out from underneath the effect of personal reactions to DiAngelo herself.
And a couple links (National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the National Equity Project) that might be useful for thinking about the concerns and questions that sapient raises:
https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/social-identities-and-systems-oppression
https://nationalequityproject.org/resources/featured-resources/lens-of-systemic-oppression
Both of which might be useful for getting the discussion out from underneath the effect of personal reactions to DiAngelo herself.
but if you agree that there is a choir that needs to change its behavior, how do you propose to tell them?
Which behavior? I think that’s the problem. When well-meaning white people have the opportunity to interact with African-American people on a deep enough level to talk about important things, we can look to some of her examples of insensitivity as good advice. What else does she teach us about how we should change, especially when we don’t have the opportunity for day to day contact?
By the way, her hair example was interesting to me, because (another personal vignette – sorry), I have extremely curly, unruly hair. It’s been a curse and a blessing, and I won’t go into that for now, but it’s definitely been an issue in my identity. So, recently I went from brown (having colored it to its original shade for years) to closer to its now natural color of white (but because I bleached the color out, it was platinum blonde, and now is showing white – and who knows, I’m not committed to keeping anything). People have reacted very strangely. Some very supportive friends (not strange! Thank you!). Some very skeptical. The only out and out against? An African-American woman who I see in volunteer situations. She definitely liked the “before”. I had to laugh when I heard diAngelo’s hair story.
but if you agree that there is a choir that needs to change its behavior, how do you propose to tell them?
Which behavior? I think that’s the problem. When well-meaning white people have the opportunity to interact with African-American people on a deep enough level to talk about important things, we can look to some of her examples of insensitivity as good advice. What else does she teach us about how we should change, especially when we don’t have the opportunity for day to day contact?
By the way, her hair example was interesting to me, because (another personal vignette – sorry), I have extremely curly, unruly hair. It’s been a curse and a blessing, and I won’t go into that for now, but it’s definitely been an issue in my identity. So, recently I went from brown (having colored it to its original shade for years) to closer to its now natural color of white (but because I bleached the color out, it was platinum blonde, and now is showing white – and who knows, I’m not committed to keeping anything). People have reacted very strangely. Some very supportive friends (not strange! Thank you!). Some very skeptical. The only out and out against? An African-American woman who I see in volunteer situations. She definitely liked the “before”. I had to laugh when I heard diAngelo’s hair story.
Which behavior?
If we atomize behaviors, it is probably the case that nothing we do will specifically impact African Americans. I doubt there is anything that anyone has done here that has _directly_ impacted on African Americans. I’m sure that if there was, if someone pointed it out, they would stop.
The NewYorker article that nous points to is very good.
last thing, Pollo, I specifically asked to that there be no hyperbolic posts. I’m really sorry, but I’m giving you a warning. Perhaps you didn’t look at the ‘rules’ closely, but please take a look at them and try to stay within them. Thanks.
Which behavior?
If we atomize behaviors, it is probably the case that nothing we do will specifically impact African Americans. I doubt there is anything that anyone has done here that has _directly_ impacted on African Americans. I’m sure that if there was, if someone pointed it out, they would stop.
The NewYorker article that nous points to is very good.
last thing, Pollo, I specifically asked to that there be no hyperbolic posts. I’m really sorry, but I’m giving you a warning. Perhaps you didn’t look at the ‘rules’ closely, but please take a look at them and try to stay within them. Thanks.
Iâm still at a loss as why youâd initially think thatâs where Iâm coming from.
I thought that because you were repeating, just about word for word, what I could hear from somebody like Tucker Carlson without much of any further elaboration. I see no reason why that should not get some pushback on an otherwise liberal blog.
Straw: I don’t see it that way, but as a different take on a commonly held belief. But whatever, you’re the attorney.
Have a good day.
Iâm still at a loss as why youâd initially think thatâs where Iâm coming from.
I thought that because you were repeating, just about word for word, what I could hear from somebody like Tucker Carlson without much of any further elaboration. I see no reason why that should not get some pushback on an otherwise liberal blog.
Straw: I don’t see it that way, but as a different take on a commonly held belief. But whatever, you’re the attorney.
Have a good day.
nous,
Thanks for the links. The second one should be read by all here…only one page.
nous,
Thanks for the links. The second one should be read by all here…only one page.
Thank you for your 7:54, GftNC.
Thank you for your 7:54, GftNC.
I’d start with looking at who is buying her books. I’d bet that it isn’t the folks that need to be persuaded. “Preaching to the choir” — rarely expands the congregation.
LOL, wj. OK. We had 60,000 folks out here in Seattle yesterday in a silent peaceful demonstration in support of #BLM. They were overwhelmingly younger. I pray they catch the bug and become preachers and build choirs.
I’d start with looking at who is buying her books. I’d bet that it isn’t the folks that need to be persuaded. “Preaching to the choir” — rarely expands the congregation.
LOL, wj. OK. We had 60,000 folks out here in Seattle yesterday in a silent peaceful demonstration in support of #BLM. They were overwhelmingly younger. I pray they catch the bug and become preachers and build choirs.
I pray they catch the bug and become preachers and build choirs.
Seems like it’s already happening. Thanks for the image.
I pray they catch the bug and become preachers and build choirs.
Seems like it’s already happening. Thanks for the image.
I donât watch Tucker Carlson, but Iâm pretty sure I gave context for my comments w/r/t weaponizing charges of racism.
This isnât my take or opinion. Show me where a legitimate baseball commentator has ever argued that Jackie Robinson should not get credit for breaking the color barrier. Iâm honestly not aware of that. Iâm sure that someone has suggested that the management of the Dodgers should get some acknowledgement too, but no serious baseball commentator or historian has taken any credit away from Robinson.
I donât watch Tucker Carlson, but Iâm pretty sure I gave context for my comments w/r/t weaponizing charges of racism.
This isnât my take or opinion. Show me where a legitimate baseball commentator has ever argued that Jackie Robinson should not get credit for breaking the color barrier. Iâm honestly not aware of that. Iâm sure that someone has suggested that the management of the Dodgers should get some acknowledgement too, but no serious baseball commentator or historian has taken any credit away from Robinson.
The NewYorker article that nous points to is very good.
Seconded.
The NewYorker article that nous points to is very good.
Seconded.
Another potential bomb for the day.
I note that in the scope of this discussion we have read both that black people are too sensitive and need to be less reactive, and that anti-racists need to be more sensitive to the feelings of the people they are talking to.
Is this an ironic commentary on how we conduct these conversations or a tacit acknowledgement of the power differential involved in conversations about race or something else that needs further elucidation?
Another potential bomb for the day.
I note that in the scope of this discussion we have read both that black people are too sensitive and need to be less reactive, and that anti-racists need to be more sensitive to the feelings of the people they are talking to.
Is this an ironic commentary on how we conduct these conversations or a tacit acknowledgement of the power differential involved in conversations about race or something else that needs further elucidation?
Show me where a legitimate baseball commentator has ever argued that Jackie Robinson should not get credit for breaking the color barrier.
I doubt there is any such person, so that could be a very hard task to pull off.
Robinson certainly deserves a lot of credit….but he had a lot of help. As I read it, DiAngelo is taking on two common totems (1.) the American myth of individuality and achievement; and (2.) The fact that it was white people who ultimately made the decision.
But perhaps I might be overstating my case…everybody here knows I rarely do that (badda bing).
Show me where a legitimate baseball commentator has ever argued that Jackie Robinson should not get credit for breaking the color barrier.
I doubt there is any such person, so that could be a very hard task to pull off.
Robinson certainly deserves a lot of credit….but he had a lot of help. As I read it, DiAngelo is taking on two common totems (1.) the American myth of individuality and achievement; and (2.) The fact that it was white people who ultimately made the decision.
But perhaps I might be overstating my case…everybody here knows I rarely do that (badda bing).
nous, that is an interesting point. It could, on first thought, reflect the power differential in that the issue is observed by one group and experienced by the other. Or, even without the context of the power inequity, just the difference in the urgency of the discussion between the two groups.
nous, that is an interesting point. It could, on first thought, reflect the power differential in that the issue is observed by one group and experienced by the other. Or, even without the context of the power inequity, just the difference in the urgency of the discussion between the two groups.
lj: but if you agree that there is a
choirmassive number of white people that needs to change its behavior, how do you propose to tell them?Good question! And here is a person (DiAngelo) who has spent decades in workshops and other personal settings trying to do exactly that….
So where do we go from here?
lj: but if you agree that there is a
choirmassive number of white people that needs to change its behavior, how do you propose to tell them?Good question! And here is a person (DiAngelo) who has spent decades in workshops and other personal settings trying to do exactly that….
So where do we go from here?
The NewYorker article that nous points to is very good.
Sad for Katy Waldman that there is also a Katie Waldman.
The NewYorker article that nous points to is very good.
Sad for Katy Waldman that there is also a Katie Waldman.
DiAngelo giving her talk in Cape Town. Given the current conditions in South Africa, her assertion that POC can’t be racist is a bit unconvincing. Although I suppose, the white advantage could still prevail in Cape Town.
“On the 05th of November 2019, The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation and the Social Justice Agency hosted a social justice engagement with Dr. Robin DiAngelo, talking about her book, White Fragility: Why itâs so hard for white people to talk about racism.”
White Fragility: Why itâs so hard for white people to talk about racism
DiAngelo giving her talk in Cape Town. Given the current conditions in South Africa, her assertion that POC can’t be racist is a bit unconvincing. Although I suppose, the white advantage could still prevail in Cape Town.
“On the 05th of November 2019, The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation and the Social Justice Agency hosted a social justice engagement with Dr. Robin DiAngelo, talking about her book, White Fragility: Why itâs so hard for white people to talk about racism.”
White Fragility: Why itâs so hard for white people to talk about racism
DiAngelo giving her talk in Cape Town. Given the current conditions in South Africa, her assertion that POC can’t be racist is a bit unconvincing.
Charles, if you could point me to where she said that, I would appreciate it. If you can’t, please stop.
DiAngelo giving her talk in Cape Town. Given the current conditions in South Africa, her assertion that POC can’t be racist is a bit unconvincing.
Charles, if you could point me to where she said that, I would appreciate it. If you can’t, please stop.
I’ve just finished listening to the link CharlesWT provided to DiAngelo’s talk in South Africa. In some ways, it is probably better, some of the examples are crisper. At 15:19, she says this:
right let me let me say all people have bias, in this case racial, all people have racial bias, my friend Edwin could be on [just looking at my] face [when] meeting me, dismiss me because I’m white and snub me and that wouldn’t be nice. That would be bias or prejudice and discrimination. He can do that and I can do that but when you back my groups bias with power, it is transformed and we have to reserve language for that difference.
I’ve just finished listening to the link CharlesWT provided to DiAngelo’s talk in South Africa. In some ways, it is probably better, some of the examples are crisper. At 15:19, she says this:
right let me let me say all people have bias, in this case racial, all people have racial bias, my friend Edwin could be on [just looking at my] face [when] meeting me, dismiss me because I’m white and snub me and that wouldn’t be nice. That would be bias or prejudice and discrimination. He can do that and I can do that but when you back my groups bias with power, it is transformed and we have to reserve language for that difference.
She seems to be saying that white racism is global. And anyone who is not white can only be biased, not racist.
19:19: “So, let us look at racial oppression or systemic racism. It is a global system. It encompasses economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that institutionalize and perpetuates an unequal distribution of resources between white people and black people. In this context, I’m going to say people of color as a kind of umbrella term. And this system works to the benefit of white people. And to the disadvantages of people of color. OK, white people. Put on your seatbelts. There’s no such thing as reverse racism. OK. These are not fluid systems. Everyone has a bias. And if that’s important to you. And if I may add, that a five-year-old’s argument. But if that’s important to you, you can have it. Yes, they are just as bias as we are. But when you back my groups with power, you going to get what I’m about to show you.”
She seems to be saying that white racism is global. And anyone who is not white can only be biased, not racist.
19:19: “So, let us look at racial oppression or systemic racism. It is a global system. It encompasses economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that institutionalize and perpetuates an unequal distribution of resources between white people and black people. In this context, I’m going to say people of color as a kind of umbrella term. And this system works to the benefit of white people. And to the disadvantages of people of color. OK, white people. Put on your seatbelts. There’s no such thing as reverse racism. OK. These are not fluid systems. Everyone has a bias. And if that’s important to you. And if I may add, that a five-year-old’s argument. But if that’s important to you, you can have it. Yes, they are just as bias as we are. But when you back my groups with power, you going to get what I’m about to show you.”
Charles, I believe she is saying that POC cannot be systemically racist because they do not have access to the same levers of power. It is certainly possible, indeed probably, that they could be if the power differential were reversed.
Charles, I believe she is saying that POC cannot be systemically racist because they do not have access to the same levers of power. It is certainly possible, indeed probably, that they could be if the power differential were reversed.
I haven’t been following events in South Africa closely but it doesn’t seem that whites have much power at the moment. They seem to be a persecuted minority.
I haven’t been following events in South Africa closely but it doesn’t seem that whites have much power at the moment. They seem to be a persecuted minority.
I assume you have some familiarity with what happened before. And how does this surprise you?
I assume you have some familiarity with what happened before. And how does this surprise you?
It doesn’t surprise me. Whites use to have the upper hand in South Africa. I would be surprised if they weren’t being mistreated. It just seems a little strange that she would be giving a talk on white racism there at the moment.
It doesn’t surprise me. Whites use to have the upper hand in South Africa. I would be surprised if they weren’t being mistreated. It just seems a little strange that she would be giving a talk on white racism there at the moment.
i doubt white racism has disappeared from SA, even though the systematic racism that favors whites is being dismantled there.
i doubt white racism has disappeared from SA, even though the systematic racism that favors whites is being dismantled there.
But DiAngelo says you can be racist only if you have power. Perhaps there are still enclaves in SA where whites are still in control.
But DiAngelo says you can be racist only if you have power. Perhaps there are still enclaves in SA where whites are still in control.
This is a huge subject, but:
a) Economic assets, land and power (apart from political power) are still overwhelmingly in white hands, despite the fact that
b) There are now growing numbers of poor whites, who no longer enjoy a systemic advantage in gaining jobs etc (and many of whom are therefore deeply resentful).
c) Because of a), and the corruption of the modern ANC, and their failure to sufficiently address the appalling living conditions etc of most poor blacks in townships etc, there is certainly a growing “threat” to white interests from various directions (e.g. land reforms), the possible consequences of which are extremely hard to sympathise with given the way in which those advantages were gained and maintained.
d) Because of the intentional, systematic and openly acknowledged degradation of the black education system under the apartheid regime, and the consequent reaction of black youth (on the day Mandela got out of prison, almost the first thing he said was “Go back to school”), there is a generational lack of skills and expertise, which (combined with corruption) has had the effect of destabilising the structural robustness of SA institutions.
and
d) The continuing poverty and therefore resentment of the black population have had the effect of increasing general violence, not at all just, or even mainly, towards whites, but for example towards black migrants from other African countries who are drawn to SA because of its (even yet) more economically attractive prospects than some other countries.
I am absolutely no authority on modern SA, but I have been to modern Capetown and all its Malibu-like splendour seems almost entirely white, and then you get to the townships outside…
I am reasonably confident in the above info, but there is plenty of properly researched data available, and good SA newspapers, for anybody who is interested.
This is a huge subject, but:
a) Economic assets, land and power (apart from political power) are still overwhelmingly in white hands, despite the fact that
b) There are now growing numbers of poor whites, who no longer enjoy a systemic advantage in gaining jobs etc (and many of whom are therefore deeply resentful).
c) Because of a), and the corruption of the modern ANC, and their failure to sufficiently address the appalling living conditions etc of most poor blacks in townships etc, there is certainly a growing “threat” to white interests from various directions (e.g. land reforms), the possible consequences of which are extremely hard to sympathise with given the way in which those advantages were gained and maintained.
d) Because of the intentional, systematic and openly acknowledged degradation of the black education system under the apartheid regime, and the consequent reaction of black youth (on the day Mandela got out of prison, almost the first thing he said was “Go back to school”), there is a generational lack of skills and expertise, which (combined with corruption) has had the effect of destabilising the structural robustness of SA institutions.
and
d) The continuing poverty and therefore resentment of the black population have had the effect of increasing general violence, not at all just, or even mainly, towards whites, but for example towards black migrants from other African countries who are drawn to SA because of its (even yet) more economically attractive prospects than some other countries.
I am absolutely no authority on modern SA, but I have been to modern Capetown and all its Malibu-like splendour seems almost entirely white, and then you get to the townships outside…
I am reasonably confident in the above info, but there is plenty of properly researched data available, and good SA newspapers, for anybody who is interested.
SA is still in the throes of working out the effects of colonialism and apartheid. Blacks have political power, but the struggle over economic power is ongoing.
As ye reap, so shall ye sow? For CharlesWT.
SA is still in the throes of working out the effects of colonialism and apartheid. Blacks have political power, but the struggle over economic power is ongoing.
As ye reap, so shall ye sow? For CharlesWT.
bobbyp, interesting. Thanks.
bobbyp, interesting. Thanks.
mentioning this feels like an example of what it talks about…
mentioning this feels like an example of what it talks about…
For better or worse, depending on your point of view, South Africa has a libertarian party. Johannesburg’s previous mayor was a libertarian.
For better or worse, depending on your point of view, South Africa has a libertarian party. Johannesburg’s previous mayor was a libertarian.
Point taken, cleek. Black people have actually expressed (in writing!) what “they want”. Here’s another. There’s no big secret here.
At a bare minimum, all of us should be on board with public policies such as these. You will notice that almost 1/2 of the voting public in this nation is not.
For the most part, they are not persuadable. The caterwauling about persuading them is a distraction. They need to lose, and lose permanently.
Point taken, cleek. Black people have actually expressed (in writing!) what “they want”. Here’s another. There’s no big secret here.
At a bare minimum, all of us should be on board with public policies such as these. You will notice that almost 1/2 of the voting public in this nation is not.
For the most part, they are not persuadable. The caterwauling about persuading them is a distraction. They need to lose, and lose permanently.
If you are concerned about “giving black people undue advantage thus fueling white resentment” (a concept I take issue with, but whatever), then how about some common sense structural reforms to our economy?
There’s a lot in the way of good public policy out there that is not necessarily particularly radical. Support it. Support politicians who can get on board. If they win…push them again. Never stop. Never give up.
If you are concerned about “giving black people undue advantage thus fueling white resentment” (a concept I take issue with, but whatever), then how about some common sense structural reforms to our economy?
There’s a lot in the way of good public policy out there that is not necessarily particularly radical. Support it. Support politicians who can get on board. If they win…push them again. Never stop. Never give up.
I haven’t been following events in South Africa closely but it doesn’t seem that whites have much power at the moment. They seem to be a persecuted minority.
I am rather puzzled by your totally ignoring my comment of 10.46, CharlesWT, which (despite the carelessness of two point d)s) seemed to have bearing on your comment here italicised. I’d be interested to know the reason, if you would care to give it.
I haven’t been following events in South Africa closely but it doesn’t seem that whites have much power at the moment. They seem to be a persecuted minority.
I am rather puzzled by your totally ignoring my comment of 10.46, CharlesWT, which (despite the carelessness of two point d)s) seemed to have bearing on your comment here italicised. I’d be interested to know the reason, if you would care to give it.
I am rather puzzled by your totally ignoring my comment of 10.46, …
Unfortunately, I’m unable to afford a temporal bus for my computer so I was unable to view your comment before making my own…
I am rather puzzled by your totally ignoring my comment of 10.46, …
Unfortunately, I’m unable to afford a temporal bus for my computer so I was unable to view your comment before making my own…
I am now even more puzzled. I made my comment two hours after yours, partly in reply since your information was so incomplete, to put it politely. What have I missed? Is “temporal bus” a computer term of which I am unaware?
I am now even more puzzled. I made my comment two hours after yours, partly in reply since your information was so incomplete, to put it politely. What have I missed? Is “temporal bus” a computer term of which I am unaware?
Perhaps we’re commenting pass each other. I took your comment to be questioning why I would make the comment that you quoted in part given your 10.46 comment.
The article linked to in bobbyp‘s 10.58 comment largely comfirms and expands upon your 10.46 comment.
The temporal bus is a fictional data bus that would, for example, allow me to view the contents of my browser at some arbitrary point in the future.
Perhaps we’re commenting pass each other. I took your comment to be questioning why I would make the comment that you quoted in part given your 10.46 comment.
The article linked to in bobbyp‘s 10.58 comment largely comfirms and expands upon your 10.46 comment.
The temporal bus is a fictional data bus that would, for example, allow me to view the contents of my browser at some arbitrary point in the future.
I think we may possibly be talking a different language! No worries, as they say in Australia (yet another language).
I think we may possibly be talking a different language! No worries, as they say in Australia (yet another language).
almost 1/2 of the voting public in this nation is not [on board].
For the most part, they are not persuadable. [emphasis added]
Which is to say, when you think about it, that persuading that persuadable minority, small as it may be, could well be critical for getting changes made. I agree that those who are not persuadable need to lose, and lose permanently. But persuading those few is far from being a mere distraction.
almost 1/2 of the voting public in this nation is not [on board].
For the most part, they are not persuadable. [emphasis added]
Which is to say, when you think about it, that persuading that persuadable minority, small as it may be, could well be critical for getting changes made. I agree that those who are not persuadable need to lose, and lose permanently. But persuading those few is far from being a mere distraction.
wj,
persuade, well perhaps. Pander? Never.
Folks always bring up these mythical voters, but when challenged to tell us ignoramuses just “who” they are, and what actually motivates them….we get crickets or paeons to “the middle”.
Political scientists tell us that nearly every voter is a mishmash of deeply held (i.e., not exactly persuadable) opinions.
So I’d say when you cite some “persuadable minority” that you would have to be a good deal more specific.
Sun’s out. Back to the weeding for me.
wj,
persuade, well perhaps. Pander? Never.
Folks always bring up these mythical voters, but when challenged to tell us ignoramuses just “who” they are, and what actually motivates them….we get crickets or paeons to “the middle”.
Political scientists tell us that nearly every voter is a mishmash of deeply held (i.e., not exactly persuadable) opinions.
So I’d say when you cite some “persuadable minority” that you would have to be a good deal more specific.
Sun’s out. Back to the weeding for me.
Political scientists tell us that nearly every voter is a mishmash of deeply held (i.e., not exactly persuadable) opinions.
So I’d say when you cite some “persuadable minority” that you would have to be a good deal more specific.
Either some people are persuadable, or they are not. If they aren’t, there’s obviously no point in making arguments on the topic; all you can reasonably do is kick back and wait for those who disagree to die off. Is that what you are saying? Because it sounds more like a rationalization for inaction.
Political scientists tell us that nearly every voter is a mishmash of deeply held (i.e., not exactly persuadable) opinions.
So I’d say when you cite some “persuadable minority” that you would have to be a good deal more specific.
Either some people are persuadable, or they are not. If they aren’t, there’s obviously no point in making arguments on the topic; all you can reasonably do is kick back and wait for those who disagree to die off. Is that what you are saying? Because it sounds more like a rationalization for inaction.
OK, fair warning, at around 6 pm here, (which is about midnite on the west coast) I’m going to close the comments.
OK, fair warning, at around 6 pm here, (which is about midnite on the west coast) I’m going to close the comments.
Either some people are persuadable, or they are not. If they aren’t, there’s obviously no point in making arguments on the topic; all you can reasonably do is kick back and wait for those who disagree to die off. Is that what you are saying?
This is the thesis that white fragility has to deal with. What you seem to be saying is that white fragility doesn’t exist OR that DiAngelo’s tone makes it impossible to talk about. Given that it took an 8:46 video to wake people up, I think anyone who believes the former is basically unconvincable. So assuming you are in the latter group, how exactly do you propose to convince the former?
Either some people are persuadable, or they are not. If they aren’t, there’s obviously no point in making arguments on the topic; all you can reasonably do is kick back and wait for those who disagree to die off. Is that what you are saying?
This is the thesis that white fragility has to deal with. What you seem to be saying is that white fragility doesn’t exist OR that DiAngelo’s tone makes it impossible to talk about. Given that it took an 8:46 video to wake people up, I think anyone who believes the former is basically unconvincable. So assuming you are in the latter group, how exactly do you propose to convince the former?
Is that what you are saying?
Nope. You build coalitions. You take action. You find other issues that these folks may agree with you on that might override their position on a given issue. Say, for example, you promote effective labor unions that brings people to your side, even though they may still harbor racist sentiments. Or you find new political participants. The argument you are making is a dead loser because you are basically saying it’s all or nothing….we convince the “global” 5-10% swing folks or we lose, and it is over. Politics does not work that way. I don’t care how many times one makes that assertion, it is not how it works.
How about answering lj’s question? He has asked it more than once.
Alternatively, how about taking a stab at how the political position of anti-gay rights basically crumbled in a matter of a few (20?) years. How did it come about? I’d be interested in how you see it. Was it because the “middle” was “persuaded”? Why were they persuadable on that issue, but apparently not the issue of race?
I feel that would be a more fruitful discussion.
Is that what you are saying?
Nope. You build coalitions. You take action. You find other issues that these folks may agree with you on that might override their position on a given issue. Say, for example, you promote effective labor unions that brings people to your side, even though they may still harbor racist sentiments. Or you find new political participants. The argument you are making is a dead loser because you are basically saying it’s all or nothing….we convince the “global” 5-10% swing folks or we lose, and it is over. Politics does not work that way. I don’t care how many times one makes that assertion, it is not how it works.
How about answering lj’s question? He has asked it more than once.
Alternatively, how about taking a stab at how the political position of anti-gay rights basically crumbled in a matter of a few (20?) years. How did it come about? I’d be interested in how you see it. Was it because the “middle” was “persuaded”? Why were they persuadable on that issue, but apparently not the issue of race?
I feel that would be a more fruitful discussion.
Alternatively, how about taking a stab at how the political position of anti-gay rights basically crumbled in a matter of a few (20?) years. How did it come about?
Just a suggestion: Gay people are unidentifiable unless they come out. A lot of my gay friends were financially or professionally (or both) successful before coming out. Rich people have power. Also, lots of them are white males. As to women, many gay women are more assertive, for whatever reason (possibly because their self-esteem doesn’t depend on bending their views to men), and that helped too.
All kinds of arguments can be made, because this is anecdotal. I get it if I am wrong, and I am sure to be corrected by some here who have more data than me.
Alternatively, how about taking a stab at how the political position of anti-gay rights basically crumbled in a matter of a few (20?) years. How did it come about?
Just a suggestion: Gay people are unidentifiable unless they come out. A lot of my gay friends were financially or professionally (or both) successful before coming out. Rich people have power. Also, lots of them are white males. As to women, many gay women are more assertive, for whatever reason (possibly because their self-esteem doesn’t depend on bending their views to men), and that helped too.
All kinds of arguments can be made, because this is anecdotal. I get it if I am wrong, and I am sure to be corrected by some here who have more data than me.
I’ve always assumed that white folks were much more likely to have a close family member who is gay as compared to a close family member who was AA (and those would be generally by marriage or adoption).
I think that makes some difference. I fear we can’t hope for a break through on racism like we had with gay rights (not that we are done there either).
I’ve always assumed that white folks were much more likely to have a close family member who is gay as compared to a close family member who was AA (and those would be generally by marriage or adoption).
I think that makes some difference. I fear we can’t hope for a break through on racism like we had with gay rights (not that we are done there either).
What you seem to be saying is that white fragility doesn’t exist OR that DiAngelo’s tone makes it impossible to talk about.
I realy must work on expressing myself more clearly.
Does “white fragility” exist? Absolutely. I beg leave to doubt that it is as all-pervasive as Dr DiAngelo suggests, but that’s a long way from saying it doesn’t exist.
Does DiAngelo’s tone make it impossible to talk about. No, but it does make the conversation more difficult. And when it comes to persuading those outside her piece of white American culture, it reduces the chances of success enormously.
Unfortunately, everybody here is in, or at least very close to, her subculture. At least on social views. Even the most conservative among us, You may have noticed the negative reactions here — among the white working class folks that you’d like to persuade, the reaction would hardly be more positive. Do you doubt it.
What you seem to be saying is that white fragility doesn’t exist OR that DiAngelo’s tone makes it impossible to talk about.
I realy must work on expressing myself more clearly.
Does “white fragility” exist? Absolutely. I beg leave to doubt that it is as all-pervasive as Dr DiAngelo suggests, but that’s a long way from saying it doesn’t exist.
Does DiAngelo’s tone make it impossible to talk about. No, but it does make the conversation more difficult. And when it comes to persuading those outside her piece of white American culture, it reduces the chances of success enormously.
Unfortunately, everybody here is in, or at least very close to, her subculture. At least on social views. Even the most conservative among us, You may have noticed the negative reactions here — among the white working class folks that you’d like to persuade, the reaction would hardly be more positive. Do you doubt it.
You build coalitions. You take action. You find other issues that these folks may agree with you on that might override their position on a given issue.
Certainly worthwhile. But I submit that, if you insist on pushing DiAngelo’s views in their face, coalition building will be harder.
The argument you are making is a dead loser because you are basically saying it’s all or nothing….we convince the “global” 5-10% swing folks or we lose, and it is over. Politics does not work that way. I don’t care how many times one makes that assertion, it is not how it works.
No, I’m saying that if you don’t, success will take longer and be more difficult. For progressive whites, taking longer may be an acceptable price for maintaining ideological purity. For others, perhaps not so much.
You raise the example of opposition to gay rights crumbling in a couple of decades. As Pollo notes, lots of people discovered that they already had friends and relatives who turned out to be gay. That was a huge contributor. To get the same effect, you’d need the racially insensitive to acquire relatives of other races. Which is happening, of course, but it’s slow and never likely to be as pervasive.
What arguments do I feel would work? I wish I had a magic wand on this. But I don’t. Which doesn’t keep me from seeing the shortcomings of DiAngelo’s. My guess is that what would work better is the kind of coalition-building you suggest. While carefully avoiding the antagonism of DiAngelo’s presentation.
Does that reduce racism? Not much. (Although reducing economic stress on working class whites would reduce the motivation for some.) But it would reduce black poverty. As sapient notes, money is power. Perhaps more to the point politically, more blacks who are less poor means more who can afford the time and attention for voting and for politics generally. Which is another plus for getting structural changes to happen.
You build coalitions. You take action. You find other issues that these folks may agree with you on that might override their position on a given issue.
Certainly worthwhile. But I submit that, if you insist on pushing DiAngelo’s views in their face, coalition building will be harder.
The argument you are making is a dead loser because you are basically saying it’s all or nothing….we convince the “global” 5-10% swing folks or we lose, and it is over. Politics does not work that way. I don’t care how many times one makes that assertion, it is not how it works.
No, I’m saying that if you don’t, success will take longer and be more difficult. For progressive whites, taking longer may be an acceptable price for maintaining ideological purity. For others, perhaps not so much.
You raise the example of opposition to gay rights crumbling in a couple of decades. As Pollo notes, lots of people discovered that they already had friends and relatives who turned out to be gay. That was a huge contributor. To get the same effect, you’d need the racially insensitive to acquire relatives of other races. Which is happening, of course, but it’s slow and never likely to be as pervasive.
What arguments do I feel would work? I wish I had a magic wand on this. But I don’t. Which doesn’t keep me from seeing the shortcomings of DiAngelo’s. My guess is that what would work better is the kind of coalition-building you suggest. While carefully avoiding the antagonism of DiAngelo’s presentation.
Does that reduce racism? Not much. (Although reducing economic stress on working class whites would reduce the motivation for some.) But it would reduce black poverty. As sapient notes, money is power. Perhaps more to the point politically, more blacks who are less poor means more who can afford the time and attention for voting and for politics generally. Which is another plus for getting structural changes to happen.
I’m in the middle of writing a post about my mother which was supposed to be my return here, but it will probably have to wait a few more days for that.
I mostly agree with Byomtov so I will cosign most of what he said and try to go in a few different directions.
DiAngelo hit a real hot button for me in her talk which I might not be able to get past–so I’m trying to disclose it up front. In essentially every way–tone, style, organizing structure, and analysis method–she sounds exactly like the evangelical ministers that I grew up with and whom I have developed an intellectual allergy to in my adulthood. I’ve never really felt the experience of being triggered before, but every five minutes or so I would really feel like I was being drawn back to my youth listening to Pastor Rickard, or Pastor Henderson (at my church) or Rev. Falwell (on TV). She really invokes the idea of original sin (as an indelible taint in the organizational structure of the world) that we must first admit has corrupted us deep into our souls, that we must second understand touches everything we do, third that we must guard against in our every waking moment, and fourth that we must seek the advice of our betters in order to be made clean.
It was super unpleasant, so I want to fully admit that a bunch of my analysis of it might be colored by that.
I’ve read the comments so I’d like to go in a few different directions.
First, using a single word to cover a full range of things from unconscious thoughts, to personal animus, to disparate impact system wide, to systems intentionally meant to destroy people, doesn’t lead to good analysis because we can never tell when different ones are supposed to be included and when they are not. Further, using it in a sense very different from common usage is always problematic. I have the same complaint about ‘love’ so I’m not just exhibiting fragility in the objection.
Second, on the issue of the survey, it feels like there is so much to unpack there. I can’t imagine being a white ‘expert’ on racial sensitivity making a joke about a someone’s hair like that. Especially not a black woman. Anyone who knows any black women personally should know that the hair is a huge source of pride and a very sensitive subject. It really made me question her mastery of the subject matter (or at least the ‘listening’ part) that she didn’t know that already. She talked about it as trying to hard at ‘credentialing’ but in my eyes it is anti-credentialing.
But the focus of the discussion tends to go to Angela’s incorrect leap to the assumption that the survey was ignored because she was black. As a frequent subcontractor I would like to offer a different reading. Imagine you are working with someone who has already proven to be a super difficult client. She won’t do the key thing that will let you do your job–answer the survey which will let you tailor things to her specific situation. DiAngelo shows classic client entitlement with “I found the survey kind of annoying and it was tedious and it didn’t really speak to what we do. So I kind of shoved it aside and I said let me explain….” I promise you that specialist contractors hate that. She comes to you to ask forgiveness for her joke but STILL hasn’t done the darn survey. She offers you an opening about further racial insensitivities. How do you get her to fill out the survey you need?
On intersectionality–I think it can be a great tool, but like its parent post-modernism, it is often horribly misused. The key insight of intersectionality is that oppression can operate against somebody across multiple dimensions. The classic example is that a lesbian black woman will often experience oppression because of her gender AND her race AND her sexuality. These end up being experienced differently from a straight white woman who (if we restrict ourselves to only those three dimensions) experiences only the oppressions of gender.
Properly done, intersectionality lets you talk about why a rich black straight man fighting with a corporation in San Francisco might have certain problems while a poor white gay man fighting with the police in South Dakota might have other problems.
My key problem with DiAngelo and others of the systemic racism discourse is that they fail to understand the intersectionality of oppressive *purposes*. So certain policies may be bad because they attempt to oppress black people, others because they attempt to oppress gay people, and others because they attempt to oppress poor people. DiAngelo talks about systemic racism as if it is the most important oppressive purpose. And in many situations it is. And other situations other oppressive purposes are at play. There are a bunch of situations where the oppressive purpose is to keep rich people ahead of poor people. One of the *methods* of doing that is to divide poor people into various groups that won’t act together, and systemic racism is great at that. But if you fail to diagnose which intersectional *purpose* is being served, you can actually play into the systemic problem by encouraging the divisive cleave between poor white people and poor black people. DiAngelo doesn’t analyze things that way, which strikes me as a serious failing.
I’m in the middle of writing a post about my mother which was supposed to be my return here, but it will probably have to wait a few more days for that.
I mostly agree with Byomtov so I will cosign most of what he said and try to go in a few different directions.
DiAngelo hit a real hot button for me in her talk which I might not be able to get past–so I’m trying to disclose it up front. In essentially every way–tone, style, organizing structure, and analysis method–she sounds exactly like the evangelical ministers that I grew up with and whom I have developed an intellectual allergy to in my adulthood. I’ve never really felt the experience of being triggered before, but every five minutes or so I would really feel like I was being drawn back to my youth listening to Pastor Rickard, or Pastor Henderson (at my church) or Rev. Falwell (on TV). She really invokes the idea of original sin (as an indelible taint in the organizational structure of the world) that we must first admit has corrupted us deep into our souls, that we must second understand touches everything we do, third that we must guard against in our every waking moment, and fourth that we must seek the advice of our betters in order to be made clean.
It was super unpleasant, so I want to fully admit that a bunch of my analysis of it might be colored by that.
I’ve read the comments so I’d like to go in a few different directions.
First, using a single word to cover a full range of things from unconscious thoughts, to personal animus, to disparate impact system wide, to systems intentionally meant to destroy people, doesn’t lead to good analysis because we can never tell when different ones are supposed to be included and when they are not. Further, using it in a sense very different from common usage is always problematic. I have the same complaint about ‘love’ so I’m not just exhibiting fragility in the objection.
Second, on the issue of the survey, it feels like there is so much to unpack there. I can’t imagine being a white ‘expert’ on racial sensitivity making a joke about a someone’s hair like that. Especially not a black woman. Anyone who knows any black women personally should know that the hair is a huge source of pride and a very sensitive subject. It really made me question her mastery of the subject matter (or at least the ‘listening’ part) that she didn’t know that already. She talked about it as trying to hard at ‘credentialing’ but in my eyes it is anti-credentialing.
But the focus of the discussion tends to go to Angela’s incorrect leap to the assumption that the survey was ignored because she was black. As a frequent subcontractor I would like to offer a different reading. Imagine you are working with someone who has already proven to be a super difficult client. She won’t do the key thing that will let you do your job–answer the survey which will let you tailor things to her specific situation. DiAngelo shows classic client entitlement with “I found the survey kind of annoying and it was tedious and it didn’t really speak to what we do. So I kind of shoved it aside and I said let me explain….” I promise you that specialist contractors hate that. She comes to you to ask forgiveness for her joke but STILL hasn’t done the darn survey. She offers you an opening about further racial insensitivities. How do you get her to fill out the survey you need?
On intersectionality–I think it can be a great tool, but like its parent post-modernism, it is often horribly misused. The key insight of intersectionality is that oppression can operate against somebody across multiple dimensions. The classic example is that a lesbian black woman will often experience oppression because of her gender AND her race AND her sexuality. These end up being experienced differently from a straight white woman who (if we restrict ourselves to only those three dimensions) experiences only the oppressions of gender.
Properly done, intersectionality lets you talk about why a rich black straight man fighting with a corporation in San Francisco might have certain problems while a poor white gay man fighting with the police in South Dakota might have other problems.
My key problem with DiAngelo and others of the systemic racism discourse is that they fail to understand the intersectionality of oppressive *purposes*. So certain policies may be bad because they attempt to oppress black people, others because they attempt to oppress gay people, and others because they attempt to oppress poor people. DiAngelo talks about systemic racism as if it is the most important oppressive purpose. And in many situations it is. And other situations other oppressive purposes are at play. There are a bunch of situations where the oppressive purpose is to keep rich people ahead of poor people. One of the *methods* of doing that is to divide poor people into various groups that won’t act together, and systemic racism is great at that. But if you fail to diagnose which intersectional *purpose* is being served, you can actually play into the systemic problem by encouraging the divisive cleave between poor white people and poor black people. DiAngelo doesn’t analyze things that way, which strikes me as a serious failing.
Sebastian, nice to see you. The “intersectionality of oppressive *purposes*” is an interesting term, I’ve not seen it before and I’m wondering if that is from the literature on intersectionality or your own take.
Obviously, I put this up there, so I thought it was worth listening to, but I respect that it might not be something that other people respond to. I can see the problems of tone, of over-intellectualization. And I’ll go into my reasons for posting it in a later post that I hope to make.
I agree that intersectionality is an attempt to acknowledge all of the purposes. However, this can be problematic when we rhetorically privilege one purpose over another and not come to some agreement about which ‘purposes’ are more problematic than others. We have to tackle all the different purposes, we can’t address all of them at the same time. So we need some agreement on which purposes are things that we need to do now and others which might be dealt with later.
This is not to say I don’t acknowledge the various purposes, be it keeping poor people poor, keeping women down, keeping african Americans down, keeping LGTB people down, keeping people with different ethnicity down. However, given that the unrest that is gripping the nation now, while possibly related to all of those, is most definitely a reaction to systemic racism above all, I think that is the purpose that needs discussing.
Or actually, listening, by which I mean allowing voices the space to state those uncomfortable and unpleasant truths. Unfortunately (and this is evidence of the problems the US and the world has to face) this forum is pretty much white middle uppper class. Protestations that some people here have had difficult lives, and may be continuing to have difficulties isn’t really to the point.
Your contrast of a rich black man fighting a corporation in SF and a poor white gay man dealing with the cops in South Dakota also misses a point. If the poor white gay man chooses to hide, chooses to ‘pass’. he’s not going to be in for as much trouble as the rich black man. Even fame is not a shield for blacks
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-25-sp-1378-story.html
Or one that happened _after_ George Floyds was murdered
https://www.okayplayer.com/culture/jay-pharoah-details-recent-arrest-shares-footage-of-lapd-kneeling-on-his-neck.html
Yes, none of us would do that. But we (and I include myself in that) create the context where this is allowed to take place. Hope to discuss this more later. But here, roughly 12 more hours.
Sebastian, nice to see you. The “intersectionality of oppressive *purposes*” is an interesting term, I’ve not seen it before and I’m wondering if that is from the literature on intersectionality or your own take.
Obviously, I put this up there, so I thought it was worth listening to, but I respect that it might not be something that other people respond to. I can see the problems of tone, of over-intellectualization. And I’ll go into my reasons for posting it in a later post that I hope to make.
I agree that intersectionality is an attempt to acknowledge all of the purposes. However, this can be problematic when we rhetorically privilege one purpose over another and not come to some agreement about which ‘purposes’ are more problematic than others. We have to tackle all the different purposes, we can’t address all of them at the same time. So we need some agreement on which purposes are things that we need to do now and others which might be dealt with later.
This is not to say I don’t acknowledge the various purposes, be it keeping poor people poor, keeping women down, keeping african Americans down, keeping LGTB people down, keeping people with different ethnicity down. However, given that the unrest that is gripping the nation now, while possibly related to all of those, is most definitely a reaction to systemic racism above all, I think that is the purpose that needs discussing.
Or actually, listening, by which I mean allowing voices the space to state those uncomfortable and unpleasant truths. Unfortunately (and this is evidence of the problems the US and the world has to face) this forum is pretty much white middle uppper class. Protestations that some people here have had difficult lives, and may be continuing to have difficulties isn’t really to the point.
Your contrast of a rich black man fighting a corporation in SF and a poor white gay man dealing with the cops in South Dakota also misses a point. If the poor white gay man chooses to hide, chooses to ‘pass’. he’s not going to be in for as much trouble as the rich black man. Even fame is not a shield for blacks
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-25-sp-1378-story.html
Or one that happened _after_ George Floyds was murdered
https://www.okayplayer.com/culture/jay-pharoah-details-recent-arrest-shares-footage-of-lapd-kneeling-on-his-neck.html
Yes, none of us would do that. But we (and I include myself in that) create the context where this is allowed to take place. Hope to discuss this more later. But here, roughly 12 more hours.
Because it heightens the emotional reaction a little, the Pharoah incident happened in mid February.
Because it heightens the emotional reaction a little, the Pharoah incident happened in mid February.
Having Sebastian reappear at this moment in this thread is a welcomed refreshed and insightful voice for OBWI.
I’ll be brief with this comment, but I look forward to reading, as a lurker, Sebastian’s post about his mother.
Sebastian’s take on intersectionality is, in my memory, the most fully realized discussion of the phenomenon expressed in comments here, whether one fully agrees with his take or not, as the subject has been been glossed over either with outright rejection and contempt OR fully presumed to be the way things are in all of its particulars as described in the academic literature.
The mere term “intersectionality, as with perhaps the words “baroque” and “existential” in art and philosophy, invites a certain lassitude in ferreting out exact meaning, because meaning is hard to nail down in such “squishy” subjects, as it is with much of social science jargon, but Sebastian succeeds here.
This is food for thought:
“But if you fail to diagnose which intersectional *purpose* is being served, you can actually play into the systemic problem by encouraging the divisive cleave between poor white people and poor black people. DiAngelo doesn’t analyze things that way, which strikes me as a serious failing.”
I expect I’m not the one to raise the subject, but something that keeps bubbling up in my thoughts as I’ve followed the comments regarding the video, is the difference from either side of the political spectrum,(Marty was perhaps getting at this with his observations about race versus economic class as prime movers) in the way in certain segments of what passes for American discourse “we” talk about the black community as a collection of endemic pathologies (black on black violence being the most prevalent; also drug addition), from which we generalize about the entire black population, and the recent valorization, for want of a better, less squishy word, of the poor white working class and very same “assumed” pathologies (J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” comes to the fore here; I’ll bet most of the gun violence among poor whites is against fellow poor whites as well, just as Covid-19 is transmitted mostly among those closest to us) by political operatives, when really, the commonality between poor blacks and poor whites is extensive (both are poor, both have suffered from the hollowing out of working class jobs and trade policies, despite whatever good things derive from trade; I can also hold the parallel thought that the current demolishing of the world trading system, particularly vis a vis an obviously imperfect China, at the hands of a cynically manipulated American populism is a looming economic catastrophe) but instead their commonalities become levers of political division between the two groups, which I certainly do not have to explain after the past 15 (is that all?) and more years of American history.
I found Vance’s elegiacal descriptions of his grandparents, his Mamaw and his Papaw, to be be sincere and touching (I was born in his hometown, Middletown Ohio, as well) but then also thought about how Lorraine Hansberry’s depiction of Mama in “A Raisin in the Sun” had to earn, after centuries, its sense of emotional, familial weight, only to be degraded among the usual suspects to “welfare queen”.
That is all, except to note that lj is good at tweezing out what shouldn’t be subtle layers of perhaps overlooked meaning as well.
Welcome back, Sebastian.
Having Sebastian reappear at this moment in this thread is a welcomed refreshed and insightful voice for OBWI.
I’ll be brief with this comment, but I look forward to reading, as a lurker, Sebastian’s post about his mother.
Sebastian’s take on intersectionality is, in my memory, the most fully realized discussion of the phenomenon expressed in comments here, whether one fully agrees with his take or not, as the subject has been been glossed over either with outright rejection and contempt OR fully presumed to be the way things are in all of its particulars as described in the academic literature.
The mere term “intersectionality, as with perhaps the words “baroque” and “existential” in art and philosophy, invites a certain lassitude in ferreting out exact meaning, because meaning is hard to nail down in such “squishy” subjects, as it is with much of social science jargon, but Sebastian succeeds here.
This is food for thought:
“But if you fail to diagnose which intersectional *purpose* is being served, you can actually play into the systemic problem by encouraging the divisive cleave between poor white people and poor black people. DiAngelo doesn’t analyze things that way, which strikes me as a serious failing.”
I expect I’m not the one to raise the subject, but something that keeps bubbling up in my thoughts as I’ve followed the comments regarding the video, is the difference from either side of the political spectrum,(Marty was perhaps getting at this with his observations about race versus economic class as prime movers) in the way in certain segments of what passes for American discourse “we” talk about the black community as a collection of endemic pathologies (black on black violence being the most prevalent; also drug addition), from which we generalize about the entire black population, and the recent valorization, for want of a better, less squishy word, of the poor white working class and very same “assumed” pathologies (J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” comes to the fore here; I’ll bet most of the gun violence among poor whites is against fellow poor whites as well, just as Covid-19 is transmitted mostly among those closest to us) by political operatives, when really, the commonality between poor blacks and poor whites is extensive (both are poor, both have suffered from the hollowing out of working class jobs and trade policies, despite whatever good things derive from trade; I can also hold the parallel thought that the current demolishing of the world trading system, particularly vis a vis an obviously imperfect China, at the hands of a cynically manipulated American populism is a looming economic catastrophe) but instead their commonalities become levers of political division between the two groups, which I certainly do not have to explain after the past 15 (is that all?) and more years of American history.
I found Vance’s elegiacal descriptions of his grandparents, his Mamaw and his Papaw, to be be sincere and touching (I was born in his hometown, Middletown Ohio, as well) but then also thought about how Lorraine Hansberry’s depiction of Mama in “A Raisin in the Sun” had to earn, after centuries, its sense of emotional, familial weight, only to be degraded among the usual suspects to “welfare queen”.
That is all, except to note that lj is good at tweezing out what shouldn’t be subtle layers of perhaps overlooked meaning as well.
Welcome back, Sebastian.
Thank you for the correction Marty. I missed this in the Guardian
Pharoah said the incident took place about a week before Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by two white men while jogging in Glynn county, Georgia. He said the officers told him he was held because he fit the description of âa black man in this area, with gray sweatpants on and a gray shirtâ.
It’s sad, but I can’t even place the dates of these anymore, it’s just one damn thing after another.
Thank you for the correction Marty. I missed this in the Guardian
Pharoah said the incident took place about a week before Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by two white men while jogging in Glynn county, Georgia. He said the officers told him he was held because he fit the description of âa black man in this area, with gray sweatpants on and a gray shirtâ.
It’s sad, but I can’t even place the dates of these anymore, it’s just one damn thing after another.
Welcome, Sebastian.
John,
the commonality between poor blacks and poor whites is extensive ….. but instead their commonalities become levers of political division between the two groups, which I certainly do not have to explain after the past 15 (is that all?) and more years of American history.
Those levers have been used for way longer than fifteen years. One important example is that business interests in the South long encouraged racism as means of discouraging white workers from joining with blacks to form unions, or otherwise pursue common economic interests.
Welcome, Sebastian.
John,
the commonality between poor blacks and poor whites is extensive ….. but instead their commonalities become levers of political division between the two groups, which I certainly do not have to explain after the past 15 (is that all?) and more years of American history.
Those levers have been used for way longer than fifteen years. One important example is that business interests in the South long encouraged racism as means of discouraging white workers from joining with blacks to form unions, or otherwise pursue common economic interests.
For as long as I can remember, I’ve been taught that the reason poor, i.e., non slave holding, southerners enthusiastically participated in the Civil War was based in large part on maintaining their pecking order in society. They were poor, but at least they could look down on black slaves.
Reconstruction deepened these resentments.
The Republican Southern Strategy and union busting appear to be icing on the cake to me.
For as long as I can remember, I’ve been taught that the reason poor, i.e., non slave holding, southerners enthusiastically participated in the Civil War was based in large part on maintaining their pecking order in society. They were poor, but at least they could look down on black slaves.
Reconstruction deepened these resentments.
The Republican Southern Strategy and union busting appear to be icing on the cake to me.
I agree with a lot of what Marty has to say on this.
The purpose of the Republican Party is to make the rich more powerful. It tries to stop non-rich black people voting because they tend not to support its aims. It supports police violence because it needs the police onside to sustain minority rule. It uses racist dog whistles as a way to get the support of racist voters. But it is not racist in intent, merely indifferent to the racist effects of its actions.
The police are mostly not racist in intent either. A lot of police killings happen because police officers are scared of being shot. And some because aggressive policemen know they can get away with almost anything, and their colleagues know they’ll get little support if they try to stop it.
If we could give poor people a fairer chance, and make the police less threatening, things like white liberals making insensitive remarks about hairstyles would hardly matter.
I agree with a lot of what Marty has to say on this.
The purpose of the Republican Party is to make the rich more powerful. It tries to stop non-rich black people voting because they tend not to support its aims. It supports police violence because it needs the police onside to sustain minority rule. It uses racist dog whistles as a way to get the support of racist voters. But it is not racist in intent, merely indifferent to the racist effects of its actions.
The police are mostly not racist in intent either. A lot of police killings happen because police officers are scared of being shot. And some because aggressive policemen know they can get away with almost anything, and their colleagues know they’ll get little support if they try to stop it.
If we could give poor people a fairer chance, and make the police less threatening, things like white liberals making insensitive remarks about hairstyles would hardly matter.
“They were poor, but at least they could look down on black slaves”
Not to make light of this at all,but this reminded me that Jesus Was a Capricorn.
https://youtu.be/yCdfYkUPvTs
“They were poor, but at least they could look down on black slaves”
Not to make light of this at all,but this reminded me that Jesus Was a Capricorn.
https://youtu.be/yCdfYkUPvTs
The purpose of the Republican Party is to make the rich more powerful.
But don’t those rich people have to be white? Let’s say there is some undefined problem that prevents Republicans from reaching black conservatives. Setting that aside, there was a moment when the Republicans were pushing/being pushed to embrace the Latin population. They were more conservative, they were anti abortion. It is possible that there is still a sizable Latino population supporting Republicans
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-latino-voters-havent-completely-abandoned-the-gop/
And pitting one group of Latinos against another is pretty much par for the course. Certainly, white liberals are guilty of treating them as an undifferentiated mass (the same as asian americans are treated), but the Republicans seem to actively get policies that are designed to fracture Latinas along pretty typical faultlines.
The purpose of the Republican Party is to make the rich more powerful.
But don’t those rich people have to be white? Let’s say there is some undefined problem that prevents Republicans from reaching black conservatives. Setting that aside, there was a moment when the Republicans were pushing/being pushed to embrace the Latin population. They were more conservative, they were anti abortion. It is possible that there is still a sizable Latino population supporting Republicans
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-latino-voters-havent-completely-abandoned-the-gop/
And pitting one group of Latinos against another is pretty much par for the course. Certainly, white liberals are guilty of treating them as an undifferentiated mass (the same as asian americans are treated), but the Republicans seem to actively get policies that are designed to fracture Latinas along pretty typical faultlines.
Bernard Yomtov: the 15 years
Yes, forever really, thus my added parenthetical.
But like the recent spike in Covid-19 cases, in some cases deliberately wished upon us, during the past 15 years, roughly dating from Barack Obama’s election, we’ve seen a clearly and bluntly enunciated resurgence in the attempt on the part of the conservative movement to divide and conquer among the poor,(and desperate Clintonian triangulation was no help, either) and to replace and reinstate yet more roadblocks, see voting rights, etc, to the full de-institutionalization of racism, not only against black citizens, in America, after so much progress has by fits and starts over time been accomplished.
The conservative movement can be conveniently pro-union, as when it incited construction union members, some perhaps Democrats when it comes to supporting the benefits of unions to the working class, to storm and enter college dormitories to beat the crap out of leftist hippies and protestors back in the day.
By the way, recent rulings by the trump conservative movement regarding LGBT rights and the primary defeat of the GOP rep in Virginia because he officiated at a gay wedding prove yet again that installing their prejudices structurally in our political and economic institutions is what they are all about.
Ok, see ya one day again.
Bernard Yomtov: the 15 years
Yes, forever really, thus my added parenthetical.
But like the recent spike in Covid-19 cases, in some cases deliberately wished upon us, during the past 15 years, roughly dating from Barack Obama’s election, we’ve seen a clearly and bluntly enunciated resurgence in the attempt on the part of the conservative movement to divide and conquer among the poor,(and desperate Clintonian triangulation was no help, either) and to replace and reinstate yet more roadblocks, see voting rights, etc, to the full de-institutionalization of racism, not only against black citizens, in America, after so much progress has by fits and starts over time been accomplished.
The conservative movement can be conveniently pro-union, as when it incited construction union members, some perhaps Democrats when it comes to supporting the benefits of unions to the working class, to storm and enter college dormitories to beat the crap out of leftist hippies and protestors back in the day.
By the way, recent rulings by the trump conservative movement regarding LGBT rights and the primary defeat of the GOP rep in Virginia because he officiated at a gay wedding prove yet again that installing their prejudices structurally in our political and economic institutions is what they are all about.
Ok, see ya one day again.
Could be a sign of good things to come?
Could be a sign of good things to come?
Certainly, white liberals are guilty of treating them as an undifferentiated mass
the undifferentiated mass of white liberals have a lot to answer for.
Certainly, white liberals are guilty of treating them as an undifferentiated mass
the undifferentiated mass of white liberals have a lot to answer for.
Well, since we are talking about conservatives, it is only fair to treat liberals as a counter weight. It is an aspect of white fragility to demand that they be treated as individuals while treating other groups as, well, groups.
Not the best comment to end on, but I’m going to close comments. Thanks to everyone for commenting. Looking forward to Sebastian’s post on his mother, though I hope it wasn’t prompted by her passing. Everyone, stay safe.
Well, since we are talking about conservatives, it is only fair to treat liberals as a counter weight. It is an aspect of white fragility to demand that they be treated as individuals while treating other groups as, well, groups.
Not the best comment to end on, but I’m going to close comments. Thanks to everyone for commenting. Looking forward to Sebastian’s post on his mother, though I hope it wasn’t prompted by her passing. Everyone, stay safe.