Previously on The Glob I promised to buy the book, “White Fragility”, read it, and report on it. I’ve only read the dust cover art on the back of the book, the glowing reviews on the inner flaps, scanned the introduction and forward, and read the first chapter titled, “You Can’t Get There From Here.”
First the back cover – it is an image of shattered glass, a white pane against a black background, and each shard has some words. The one that caught my eye and triggered (heh heh) this article was the one that said, “How can you call me racist? You don’t even know me.” Just to clearly paint the picture, this is one of the shards representing white fragility.
Regarding the first chapter – I remember in my youth sometimes people would ask for directions, and some wag would say, “You can’t get there from here.” I remember thinking, Yes you can! and so I started saying, “You can’t get there from here, you have to go somewhere else first.” I’m going to guess that is the point of this chapter. To move forward, we have to leave where we are. Well and good.
However, in this chapter she addresses the shard that caught my eye. She comments that most people have this idea that racism is a bad thing done by bad people, and most white people do not believe they themselves are racist. She goes on to say that if that is what you think racism is, then you are right to be offended if she calls you a bad person doing bad things.
I find myself agreeing with her. I realize that many people, including myself, have racist mindsets or tendencies even if they don’t act on them. And many people are in denial about these thoughts and feelings.
But, that’s not what she means by racism. DiAngelo doesn’t just redefine racism; she collapses it entirely into whiteness itself. Under her framework, racism isn’t something one does—it’s something one is. If you’re white, you’re racist. Full stop.
It’s a bait and switch in my mind. She says she is going to talk about racism, but what she means by that is she is going to talk about white people. She also asserts that she has every right to paint with a broad brush and generalize, because, well, because all her time giving seminars has taught her that she is right. Basically, the below cartoon represents all, and she does mean all, white people:
All white people in the United States are freaked out if someone wants to discuss race. All of them. How does she know this? From her seminars.
This is the classic 'heads I win, tails you lose' argument. If her audience agrees with her, she’s right. If they push back, she’s even more right. Either way, her conclusions remain unchallenged—by design.
Somewhere in these first few pages she acknowledges that she realized that she needed to get her message out via book, because in an audience it was just too hard.
For an outsider looking in, it raises a question: why does she struggle to get her ideas across? Instead of reconsidering her approach, she assumes the problem is the audience. I think she should consider the possibility that her approach is the problem since she is the common denominator. She may simply be a poor speaker.
So, these are my first impressions of this book. She makes a lot of assertions as if they are demonstrated fact with precious little to support her opinion. What support she does give amounts to her personal experience in a charged environment (seminars that tell people they are racists because they are white), and other people’s opinions.
Do you hear the echo?
Rather than think through how she is presenting her information, she doubles down, counting it a good that she’s pissing people off.
I am interested to see where she goes with this. Not sure how often I’ll report in, but I suspect my white fragility will dictate my pace. If I disappear entirely, assume I’ve been shattered like the book cover.