While I completely agree that the stories in this article are hugely problematic and represent issues that need to be solved, I think books like "White Fragility" are not helpful in solving them. This is due to a focus on group identity, and describing "White" as if it's a monolithic group of people, all with the same culture, emotions, and reactions.
Another interesting aspect I identified while reading the book was it's description of the emotions that one can expect to see when confronting white people about race issues: the description could have been used to describe any human being you will ever meet when you accuse/blame them for something that they did not personally do. It really does read like a horoscope in that sense.
I find it ironic that people on HN, who are typically super data driven, get on board with works like "White Fragility". Diangelo is one of many academics from the humanities departments who are incredibly pseudo-scientific. Data is incredibly scarce, measurements and studies even less so. Statistical knowledge isn't present in the vast majority of these folks. Typically, the "scientific method" is reading and writing essays/novels. When you don't attempt to quantify a problem, you can't propose solutions and then measure their results. You instead just keep yourself busy finding ever more ways to describe the water to the drowning person.
You think that my response epitomized the thing I was complaining about. You are welcome to that opinion.
I think that your comment epitomizes the problem I was talking about, which is that this philosophy espouses that every thought in my head or word from my mouth is impossible to separate from my ethnicity. My ideas are beholden to and a product of my group identity in this worldview. I find that to be dangerous and regressive.
I should also add that "White Fragility" didn't "instantly" make me uncomfortable. I purchased and read the entire book. I was open minded about it, until the complete lack of scientific rigor and opinionated, essay-type qualities became clear.
Meanwhile, a central point of the book is one that should be self evident. Talking about racism makes white people[1] uncomfortable. I know this to be true from experience. And we can't make progress as a society until we own that discomfort and are willing to have frank conversations about racism.
I don't see how you need "statistical power" to recognize this or adopt this strategy.
Also, this:
> ccuse/blame them for something that they did not personally do
That's not what the discomfort is about. Of course none of us are _personally_ responsible for the systemic racism in the US. But if we can't even talk about it without getting uncomfortable, how are we going to fix it?
1: If this doesn't apply to you, great, I wasn't talking about you [2]
2: Except if this topic makes you annoyed enough to disagree then yes, I probably am talking about you.
This seems like a key moment to... cite data? Since you are broadly making pseudo-mathy sounding claims while complaining that others aren't as mathematically/statistically/factually rigorous as 'people on HN'.
I am all for having frank conversations, but I think the topic needs to be broader than "racism". It needs to be "systematic inequality of treatment". Or even better, "systematic violations of basic human rights". Then we can focus on why our society, which is supposed to be based on everybody having the same basic human rights, is not achieving that in practice, and how to fix it. Focusing on one particular group of people whose rights are being violated only distracts from that overall objective.
It's difficult to design a study around. Calling it post-modern is just a slur. It's easier to say that you don't believe it.
Are the only important problems universal ones?
When the basic premise of the argument is that white Americans are born irredeemably flawed[1], you're unlikely to win many white supporters other than the most guilt-ridden.
I suppose the tactic is to impart as much guilt as possible. But that doesn't make the argument a good one.
[1] https://twitter.com/DisrnNews/status/1266857347567190016
Why are they doing more harm than good? Because, after a claim like that, the conversation is over. There's absolutely no point in talking to someone who makes claims like that. And it makes you less likely to be willing to talk to the next person, either. So the net amount of whites willing to learn and talk about race and racism goes down when people say stuff like this.
(It's also factually untrue, blatantly unfair, and bigoted...)
You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying we have to fix everything at once. I'm saying that the "one thing that's bad" is not racism; racism is just one particular way the root problem manifests itself. The root of the problem is corruption: people in positions of public trust misusing the power they are granted to indulge their personal prejudices, whatever they are, instead of serving the public. Even if you could wave a magic wand and remove all racism from the world forever, that wouldn't fix the corruption problem; corrupt people in power would just find different excuses for violating people's rights. You have to fix the corruption.
And you won't fix corruption by focusing on one particular prejudice that the corrupt people happen to have, even if historically it has been the most common one (which, btw, I'm not sure is actually true--I think religious prejudice is at least as common historically if not more so--but I'm willing to assume it is for the sake of this discussion). The problem is not the particular prejudice the corrupt people have; the problem is that corrupt people are in power in the first place.
You want to broaden the topic but by doing so, you're erasing all nuance and approaches for solving a problem.
I've heard this before and don't understand it.
Why should talking about racial issues make people feel like they're being accused of something? I am a man. I have not be catcalled or threatened for rejecting someone's advances. I can't recall any prominent examples of witnessing a woman being threatened for rejecting a man's advances. But when a woman tells me that it happens to her, I don't feel guilty. So I don't understand how someone telling you about their experience leads to feeling like being accused or blamed for something you did not do.
Sanitizing discussions of race is something people have always done when it comes to Afrian-Americans. Notice the progression goes from African-Americans -> Systematic Inequality of Treatment -> Systematic Violations of Basic Human Rights -> Everybody. The intersection between race and power in this country is textbook White Fragility, so the go-to move is to "All-Lives-Matter" it
Hiring more black people, funding more black people, buying from black owned businesses, providing education opportunities to black people, making police accountable for how they treat black people, are all ways we can help black people.
The only thing that "making white people uncomfortable" accomplishes is making more money for white women like Robin DiAngelo selling their books and consulting services.
No the "go-to move" is to refuse to realize that we as a society have been trying to "fix" racism for decades now (arguably centuries), and it's not helping. The very people all the landmark civil rights laws and court decisions were supposed to help are worse off now than they were in the 1960s when those laws were passed.
So instead of continuing to do this not-working thing, maybe we should ask whether the root problem is something else, and work on fixing that instead.
You're looking at it backwards. The inequality black people face is systematic inequality. (I would argue that it's actually as much based on culture and poverty as on race.) But you can't fix it by focusing on the racial aspect of it. You have to focus on the systematic aspect, because that's the root problem.
> You want to broaden the topic but by doing so, you're erasing all nuance and approaches for solving a problem.
We've been trying "all nuance and approaches" based on the racial aspect for decades, if not longer, and it hasn't helped. The systematic problems, if anything, are worse now than they were in the 1960s when the landmark civil rights laws were passed. If those laws, plus the huge structure of regulations, affirmative action, and so on that has grown up around them, hasn't fixed the problem in more than half a century, maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the root problem is something else, like the system as a whole being corrupt, and try to fix that instead.
Back in the 1960s, yes, that was a reasonable approach, and we took it. In your coding analogy, we believed there was a specific bug and started applying patches to address it.
But we've been doing that for more than half a century now and it hasn't helped. So now maybe we should consider whether the actual bug might be something else, requiring different patches to fix.
The tactic is to get people to actually listen so that they might agree its an actual problem and then actually do something about it.
This is particularly grating when considering that white people are a very diverse group and the experience of a white male in Iran is completely different to the one of a white upper-class female in the US or a lower-income white male in the US.
The US media and social-media have infected Europe with this us-vs-them attitude and are ironically fueling racism against white people.
You've never catcalled. You've never been catcalled. You've never been threatened for rejecting someone's advances and you've never threatened when yours were rejected.
That same woman comes to you and says "All men are sexist and do not respect women, and that includes you. You are horrible. You deserve to know how I feel."
How would you respond? I would think "favorably" would not be high on your list.
THAT is the type of discourse being used about race. It is not helpful. It doesn't identify the problems. It doesn't empower people to fix them. It doesn't inspire them to. I'm truly not sure what people think they are accomplishing to be honest.
And if you really want to put a strawman for anti-white-racism up there, use some of the actually happened atrocities against white land owners in some Africna countries after de-colonisation. Obviously without the historic context, because it wouldn't work otherwise. Don't pick Iran, besides being the current boogey man for conservative circles, it really is a bad example for racism. Unless you want to go deep into the shiit-suunit conflict in the Arab World. Which would obviously totally off-topic for this thread.
Buying some books can feel like the lower friction option.
Iirc, in the UK, around half of victims of race hate crimes are white.
This is exactly what's happening these days as white people are all put into one bucket and blamed for all the injustice in the US.
Iran is a good example. Turkey too or any country that has a different religion/political system but where a part of the population is in fact "white".
Mexico's another good example.
I am white for most people aside from some racists. The real ones that think skin color to be indicative of quality.
If that comment makes you feel anything, it was probably directed at you.
- Percentage of adults affected by hate crime by ethnicity 2015/16 to 2017/18: White 0.1, Mixed 0.5, Asian 1.1, Black/African/Caribean/Black British 0.6 and other 1.0
- Same, by religion: Chistian 0.1, Buddhist 0.1, Hindu 0.7, Muslim 1.5, other 0.5, none 0.1
All adults: 0.2
Conclusion: White christian are by any number underaffected by hate crime in the UK
Additonal numbers form London's MOPAC for victims of racist hate cimes in the 12 months up to June 2017: 56% male, 30% black, Asian 25%, White-North European 25%. Obviously, percentages cannot be summed up here. Again, whites are underaffected. perosnal view: Numbers in London might be higher than elsewhere for whites, I don't have a source for that, so.
Anyway, both numbers are an order of magnitude away from the 50% you mentioned.
Some back of the envelope calculations suggest that my 'roughly half' is correct given the figures you provide. Of 1000 people in the UK, 920 will be white, and 80 non-white. Given the rate of white hate crime victimisation you gave, .92 white people in that 1000 will be a victim of hate crime. If we lump all the non-white people together and use the highest rate of victimisation (Asian:1.1%) that gives us .88 non-white victims.
The comment I replied to claimed that racism against white people does not exist in the western world. That claim does not appear to be true.
Forget back-off-envelop calculations, take official numbers. And that is 25% for London.
The calculation I made was from official figures. A smaller percentage of a larger demographic can make up a large percentage of the total.
Even if you want to ignore every number except your 25%, those white victims of racially motivated hate crimes presumably exist, do they not?
Not some calculation I cannot follw. Not press reports. And unless you go and read the official report (there is even a spreadsheet, so you can use prime sources directly), I gonna stop now.
That doesn't mean we haven't been trying to fix racism for more than half a century. It just means the "fix" hasn't been working.
To do so is scapegoating and white Americans have every right to resist it.
There's been no penance. There's been no justice. And people aren't even asking for that, they're asking for a seat at the table and a chance to play the game, which is STILL constantly being denied. Its not scapegoating, its fighting against systematic oppression that you yourself continue to support.