ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Norman Teigen on June 11, 2020, 11:22:26 AM

Title: White Fragility
Post by: Norman Teigen on June 11, 2020, 11:22:26 AM
My pastor has sent a profound and moving Pastoral Letter to the congregation.  He was born and raised in south Minneapolis.  He is as Minnesota and Lutheran as one could be.    He deeply feels the pain and sorrow which we all are experiencing.   He has made several reading suggestions and I list  one near the top of his list:  Robin Diangelo. "White Fragility   Why It's So Hard for White People  to Talk About Racism".  I ordered this book from the iTunes Store.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on June 11, 2020, 04:01:02 PM
My pastor has sent a profound and moving Pastoral Letter to the congregation.  He was born and raised in south Minneapolis.  He is as Minnesota and Lutheran as one could be.    He deeply feels the pain and sorrow which we all are experiencing.   He has made several reading suggestions and I list  one near the top of his list:  Robin Diangelo. "White Fragility   Why It's So Hard for White People  to Talk About Racism".  I ordered this book from the iTunes Store.

A colleague recommended that very book in our Synod Clergy's weekly Zoom meeting with the Bishop, and I'm considering purchasing it to read.

I will confess in advance, though, that it is mainly to see 1) what's changed since I was required to read Judith Katz' White Awareness at PLTS 30 years ago and 2) what is capturing the imagination of those whose imaginations are so often easily captured.  I would be pleased to have any cynicism I have unrewarded.

Christe eleison, Steven+
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Voelker on June 28, 2020, 06:59:11 PM
Here's an excellent review essay of this livre du jour: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility (https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility).
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Coach-Rev on June 28, 2020, 07:22:48 PM
I much prefer Thomas Sowell's book from the mid 90's "Race and Culture:  A World View." 

He at least makes some reasoned arguments based on an analysis of all cultures, races, and societies.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 29, 2020, 09:28:17 AM
The Holy Grail of intellectual thought since there has been intellectual thought is the TOE, Theory Of Everything, the singular theory that will explain everything, unite everything, and allow us to manage everything. This can also feed into the age old Utopian impulse. If we could just get a handle on everything, we could get everything put together right, and get ourselves back to the Garden.

But life is messy and people and their interactions are complicated. In order to get a TOE that is comprehensible, people and their interactions must be simplified. Every adequately simplified accounting for everything ends up an over simplification that leaves out crucial factors and the resulting TOE becomes a Procrustean bed. Marx reduced everything to economics,  laissez-faire capitalism reduces everything to market forces, post-modernism to power, and now white fragility to race. The problem is that each of these schema does capture an accurate picture of part of the whole, the difficulty is that they only describe part and attempt to stretch or chop the rest of reality to fit their part.

And the cherubim still block the way back to the garden. Another Way, Truth, and Life is needed.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Robert Johnson on June 29, 2020, 12:59:08 PM
Here's an excellent review essay of this livre du jour: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility (https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility).

Taibbi’s article is excellent.  Recommended.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 08, 2020, 10:47:16 AM
Here's an excellent review essay of this livre du jour: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility (https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility).

Taibbi’s article is excellent.  Recommended.
Taibbi's essay is openly a hit piece, intended to prevent people from reading, or at least from getting any benefit from, DiAngelo's book.

White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism attacks what the author calls the Good/Bad Binary, where "Racist = Bad, Not Racist = Good," and where "ïgnorant, bigoted, prejudiced, mean-spirited, old and Southern" is contrasted with "progressive, educated, open-minded, well-intentioned, young and Northern" (p. 72). A lot of white people are stuck in that Good/Bad Binary, she claims, and it keeps them from engaging the real issues.

It's a good book, but (unlike Taibbi) subtle.

Peace,
Michael

Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 08, 2020, 11:06:53 AM
Here's an excellent review essay of this livre du jour: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility (https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility).

Taibbi’s article is excellent.  Recommended.
Taibbi's essay is openly a hit piece, intended to prevent people from reading, or at least from getting any benefit from, DiAngelo's book.

White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism attacks what the author calls the Good/Bad Binary, where "Racist = Bad, Not Racist = Good," and where "ïgnorant, bigoted, prejudiced, mean-spirited, old and Southern" is contrasted with "progressive, educated, open-minded, well-intentioned, young and Northern" (p. 72). A lot of white people are stuck in that Good/Bad Binary, she claims, and it keeps them from engaging the real issues.

It's a good book, but (unlike Taibbi) subtle.

Peace,
Michael

Perhaps. Granted I have not read it, but the reviews I've read praising it do not really give the impression you do.  They indicate that white people are "fragile" in that we avoid discussing race because it is too traumatic for us, and that this is (somewhat ironically) a form of bullying.  So maybe "fragility" is the wrong word here?

The issue I take with this line of thinking is simply this -- I grant there are systemic issues that negatively affect black people regardless of merit or ability, and that these ought to be discussed and addressed.  I grant that there are an unfortunate number of white people who simply get defensive and upset when they (or their institutions, or their preferences) are attacked as racist.  What I see lacking in the discussion, and perhaps you can confirm whether it is addressed by DiAngelo and if so, where, is this:  A discussion of the weaponization of words like "racist" and "white supremacy" over the years, primarily by partisan Democrats against partisan Republicans, and the effective that has on white people and how it may contribute to what the author calls "white fragility."  I mean, when Joe Biden says Mitt Romney wants to put black people back in chains, and some folks criticized him mildly but no one considered his comments to be racist, or race-baiting, or really problematic other than that they were dumb and ill-considered, and that is the sort of status quo Republicans are used to having to deal with, doesn't that affect how Republicans and Republican-leaning people are going to want to discuss racial issues?

If no matter what I do or say (short of joining their political team), people of a certain political persuasion will call me a racist and a white supremacist, wouldn't you expect that I would want to avoid such demeaning and slanderous "conversations?"  Even when they are started by well-meaning black people who may not even have a partisan motive in mind?  But best I can tell from reading reviews of this book, the author considers that my problem.  At best, none of the reviews I've read deal with that issue at all, which tells me it is likely not there at all.  Do you consider that to be a problem when we are talking about discussing racial issues?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 08, 2020, 11:27:59 AM
Perhaps. Granted I have not read it, but the reviews I've read praising it do not really give the impression you do.  They indicate that white people are "fragile" in that we avoid discussing race because it is too traumatic for us, and that this is (somewhat ironically) a form of bullying.  So maybe "fragility" is the wrong word here?

The issue I take with this line of thinking is simply this -- I grant there are systemic issues that negatively affect black people regardless of merit or ability, and that these ought to be discussed and addressed.  I grant that there are an unfortunate number of white people who simply get defensive and upset when they (or their institutions, or their preferences) are attacked as racist.  What I see lacking in the discussion, and perhaps you can confirm whether it is addressed by DiAngelo and if so, where, is this:  A discussion of the weaponization of words like "racist" and "white supremacy" over the years, primarily by partisan Democrats against partisan Republicans, and the effective that has on white people and how it may contribute to what the author calls "white fragility."  I mean, when Joe Biden says Mitt Romney wants to put black people back in chains, and some folks criticized him mildly but no one considered his comments to be racist, or race-baiting, or really problematic other than that they were dumb and ill-considered, and that is the sort of status quo Republicans are used to having to deal with, doesn't that affect how Republicans and Republican-leaning people are going to want to discuss racial issues?

If no matter what I do or say (short of joining their political team), people of a certain political persuasion will call me a racist and a white supremacist, wouldn't you expect that I would want to avoid such demeaning and slanderous "conversations?"  Even when they are started by well-meaning black people who may not even have a partisan motive in mind?  But best I can tell from reading reviews of this book, the author considers that my problem.  At best, none of the reviews I've read deal with that issue at all, which tells me it is likely not there at all.  Do you consider that to be a problem when we are talking about discussing racial issues?
I don't remember the words "Democrat" or "Republican" appearing in the book. If I had a machine-searchable text, I could check. I don't think that that binary interests her or (more importantly) bears on a solution of our issues with racism.

She does use the term white supremacy, but she clearly distinguishes its sociological meaning from the popular consciousness that solely associates it with radical groups (p. 28). As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 08, 2020, 11:36:02 AM
Here's an excellent review essay of this livre du jour: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility (https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility).

Taibbi’s article is excellent.  Recommended.
Taibbi's essay is openly a hit piece, intended to prevent people from reading, or at least from getting any benefit from, DiAngelo's book.

White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism attacks what the author calls the Good/Bad Binary, where "Racist = Bad, Not Racist = Good," and where "ïgnorant, bigoted, prejudiced, mean-spirited, old and Southern" is contrasted with "progressive, educated, open-minded, well-intentioned, young and Northern" (p. 72). A lot of white people are stuck in that Good/Bad Binary, she claims, and it keeps them from engaging the real issues.

It's a good book, but (unlike Taibbi) subtle.

Peace,
Michael

Respectfully, I disagree, the book is pretty bad.  And Taibbi's criticism is, imo, on point.  It isn't to say that there aren't some good things that can be gleaned from it, but DiAngelo makes some really gross assertions because of her foundational methodology. Her take on Jackie Robinson is historically inaccurate (pg. 26). Her claim that racism today is more sinister than the Jim Crow era is problematic and she doesn't support it with data or a footnote (pg. 50).  Having read it I couldn't help but equate white fragility with the notion of original sin; they run parallel to one another in the way she frames the issue.  It is a new form of religiosity in an age of disenchantment.

Peace,
Scott+

Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 08, 2020, 11:46:30 AM
As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

Peace,
Michael

I certainly agree with that sentiment.  It's a bait and switch from where I stand.

I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 08, 2020, 11:55:24 AM
As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

Peace,
Michael

I certainly agree with that sentiment.  It's a bait and switch from where I stand.

I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).

Yes, I would agree, it uses specific terminology ie signifiers, but does so very broadly.  So broadly that out of the gate persons are immediately cornered and labeled.  Thus, the defensiveness, which Diangelo calls "white fragility".  She is setting people up to fail.  Thus, anyone who agrees with her can read what I wrote and claim that I suffer from white fragility.  In a matter of seconds I can be generalized and dismissed.  It is incredibly dehumanizing.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 08, 2020, 12:04:59 PM
Respectfully, I disagree, the book is pretty bad.  And Taibbi's criticism is, imo, on point.  It isn't to say that there aren't some good things that can be gleaned from it, but DiAngelo makes some really gross assertions because of her foundational methodology. Her take on Jackie Robinson is historically inaccurate (pg. 26). Her claim that racism today is more sinister than the Jim Crow era is problematic and she doesn't support it with data or a footnote (pg. 50).  Having read it I couldn't help but equate white fragility with the notion of original sin; they run parallel to one another in the way she frames the issue.  It is a new form of religiosity in an age of disenchantment.
The text on p. 50 reads:
"I am often asked if I think the younger generation is less racist. No, I don't. In some ways, racism's adaptations over time are more sinister than concrete rules such as Jim Crow. The adaptations produce the same outcome (people of color are blocked from moving forward) but have been put in place by a dominant white society that won't or can't admit to its beliefs. This intransigence results in another pillar of white fragility: the refusal to know."

That ends a chapter. What data or footnote do you think she should have put there?

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 08, 2020, 12:07:45 PM
As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

I certainly agree with that sentiment.  It's a bait and switch from where I stand.

I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).
You're right, they don't. But of course you are no longer talking about the book under consideration--you've switched.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 08, 2020, 12:11:06 PM
Yes, I would agree, it uses specific terminology ie signifiers, but does so very broadly.  So broadly that out of the gate persons are immediately cornered and labeled.  Thus, the defensiveness, which DiAngelo calls "white fragility".  She is setting people up to fail.  Thus, anyone who agrees with her can read what I wrote and claim that I suffer from white fragility.  In a matter of seconds I can be generalized and dismissed.  It is incredibly dehumanizing.
QED

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 08, 2020, 12:31:25 PM
Respectfully, I disagree, the book is pretty bad.  And Taibbi's criticism is, imo, on point.  It isn't to say that there aren't some good things that can be gleaned from it, but DiAngelo makes some really gross assertions because of her foundational methodology. Her take on Jackie Robinson is historically inaccurate (pg. 26). Her claim that racism today is more sinister than the Jim Crow era is problematic and she doesn't support it with data or a footnote (pg. 50).  Having read it I couldn't help but equate white fragility with the notion of original sin; they run parallel to one another in the way she frames the issue.  It is a new form of religiosity in an age of disenchantment.
The text on p. 50 reads:
"I am often asked if I think the younger generation is less racist. No, I don't. In some ways, racism's adaptations over time are more sinister than concrete rules such as Jim Crow. The adaptations produce the same outcome (people of color are blocked from moving forward) but have been put in place by a dominant white society that won't or can't admit to its beliefs. This intransigence results in another pillar of white fragility: the refusal to know."

That ends a chapter. What data or footnote do you think she should have put there?

Peace,
Michael

Sure, give concrete examples of where things are far more sinister than Jim Crow and not just some abstract notion like implicit bias.  I mean Jim Crow was pretty darn bad; that was institutional racism.  Certainly, racism is an issue in our culture, but by making such statements she's going into very dangerous places.

Peace,
Scott+
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 08, 2020, 12:59:58 PM
As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

Peace,
Michael

I certainly agree with that sentiment.  It's a bait and switch from where I stand.

I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).

Yes, I would agree, it uses specific terminology ie signifiers, but does so very broadly.  So broadly that out of the gate persons are immediately cornered and labeled.  Thus, the defensiveness, which Diangelo calls "white fragility".  She is setting people up to fail.  Thus, anyone who agrees with her can read what I wrote and claim that I suffer from white fragility.  In a matter of seconds I can be generalized and dismissed.  It is incredibly dehumanizing.


Maybe that's a point. We, white folks, are put in the position of being "generalized and dismissed" and dehumanized.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: readselerttoo on July 08, 2020, 01:41:40 PM
As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

Peace,
Michael

I certainly agree with that sentiment.  It's a bait and switch from where I stand.

I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).

Yes, I would agree, it uses specific terminology ie signifiers, but does so very broadly.  So broadly that out of the gate persons are immediately cornered and labeled.  Thus, the defensiveness, which Diangelo calls "white fragility".  She is setting people up to fail.  Thus, anyone who agrees with her can read what I wrote and claim that I suffer from white fragility.  In a matter of seconds I can be generalized and dismissed.  It is incredibly dehumanizing.


Maybe that's a point. We, white folks, are put in the position of being "generalized and dismissed" and dehumanized.

Good point.  Generalization about any group has implicit dehumanization at the forefront.  In this way, no one has a "face" any longer but simply conforms to a group image, a public image.  That is dangerous for white privilege as well as for BLM, Anti-Fa or MAGA, etc.  The only way toward healing is in Jesus' teaching others and individuals, in how he does, to whom he teaches and what it is that he teaches.  How does or what does Jesus say in terms of teaching a group such as that which was gathered to hear the sermon on the Mount.  What does he say?  How does he proceed with individuals without the hearing of a public?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 08, 2020, 01:43:52 PM
As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

Peace,
Michael

I certainly agree with that sentiment.  It's a bait and switch from where I stand.

I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).

Yes, I would agree, it uses specific terminology ie signifiers, but does so very broadly.  So broadly that out of the gate persons are immediately cornered and labeled.  Thus, the defensiveness, which Diangelo calls "white fragility".  She is setting people up to fail.  Thus, anyone who agrees with her can read what I wrote and claim that I suffer from white fragility.  In a matter of seconds I can be generalized and dismissed.  It is incredibly dehumanizing.


Maybe that's a point. We, white folks, are put in the position of being "generalized and dismissed" and dehumanized.


I mean no disrespect, but in many ways I was expecting this kind of response because it plays into the Catch 22 nature of Diangelo's argument.  While I can even see your point I think that is a very dangerous position to argue from and to write a book from.  This is why I likened it to a theology of original sin; there's no way out from this problem of white supremacy because it is framed in such broad terms; rather than framing it as a piece within a larger picture.  Because her methodology is bound up with a critical theorist framework she succumbs to the binary that she decries regarding racist/nonracist persons.  Again, I think she does make valuable points, but like so much that passes for scholarship today there is a lack of nuance and attention paid to the complexity of the human experience.  Furthermore, such writings risk the further entrenchment of racial categories that got us into this mess in the first place and will continue to result in not only the radicalization of the left but also the right.  In the end, identitarianism and tribalism will be further solidified.

Peace,
Scott+ 
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Voelker on July 08, 2020, 03:19:50 PM
Yes, I would agree, it uses specific terminology ie signifiers, but does so very broadly.  So broadly that out of the gate persons are immediately cornered and labeled.  Thus, the defensiveness, which DiAngelo calls "white fragility".  She is setting people up to fail.  Thus, anyone who agrees with her can read what I wrote and claim that I suffer from white fragility.  In a matter of seconds I can be generalized and dismissed.  It is incredibly dehumanizing.
QED

Peace,
Michael
No. He's describing the Kafka Trap that is the argument of this book; when accurately describing something no longer has argumentative force...
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 08, 2020, 04:35:25 PM
As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

I certainly agree with that sentiment.  It's a bait and switch from where I stand.

I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).
You're right, they don't. But of course you are no longer talking about the book under consideration--you've switched.

Peace,
Michael

Well, I am talking about your description of what the book argues, to wit, that ...

She does use the term white supremacy, but she clearly distinguishes its sociological meaning from the popular consciousness that solely associates it with radical groups (p. 28). As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

Your response doesn't really seem to take counter-arguments to that concept seriously.  I think you granted the book doesn't either, but that strikes me as a problem.  Re-defining terms, especially terms that have a rightly pejorative gloss, strikes me as problematic.

It's as if the term is now re-defined and cannot be un-defined or even explained.  Now that it is in popular use as a synonym for Klansmen and Neo-Nazis, we'll now just use it to describe broader concepts (like America), with no concern that the change in terms won't be well understood.  Worse, we'll blame those subject to the new pejorative for not making the distinction and objecting to the characterization.  Leftist thought policing tends to be a one-way ratchet that way, but those of us who find it dishonest aren't likely to simply concede the point, especially when the rhetoric is aimed in our direction.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Charles Austin on July 08, 2020, 04:48:54 PM
I don’t think I would contend that “white supremacy” today equals Nazis or the mentality of 1870. At least, not for most people.
I think it probably means something else than those horrors.
But it’s still bad. Real bad.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 08, 2020, 05:20:52 PM
Yes, I would agree, it uses specific terminology ie signifiers, but does so very broadly.  So broadly that out of the gate persons are immediately cornered and labeled.  Thus, the defensiveness, which DiAngelo calls "white fragility".  She is setting people up to fail.  Thus, anyone who agrees with her can read what I wrote and claim that I suffer from white fragility.  In a matter of seconds I can be generalized and dismissed.  It is incredibly dehumanizing.
QED

Peace,
Michael
No. He's describing the Kafka Trap that is the argument of this book; when accurately describing something no longer has argumentative force...

Yes, thanks for that, the book is basically a Kafka Trap. And it is mostly based on her experiences as a corporate consultant wherein she, a white woman, makes $6,000 an hour telling other white people how racist they are.  Because she is able to define racism so broadly, she always has an out and the goal posts can always be moved, and in the process she makes rather racist claims herself.  Due note, too, that not once does she consider that maybe her role as a consultant is one based in power and privilege.  After all, she comes and she goes, doesn't really have to put in the sweat equity with the people she teaches.  She's brought in by the company or "corporate" because of a problematic situation.  So, right from the start, the power dynamic is in her favor. She's got corporate backing and she herself brings credibility to a company now at risk of being considered racist.  She notes how often people get defensive at the things she says or claims failing to consider that maybe that also has to do with her very presence and the power differential she represents. If we are going to follow her line of argumentation, I can argue that her presentations are form of white supremacy and micro-aggressions simply because of these dynamics.  Right here, is critical theory at work.

Peace,
Scott+

 
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 09, 2020, 12:18:28 PM
I don’t think I would contend that “white supremacy” today equals Nazis or the mentality of 1870. At least, not for most people.
I think it probably means something else than those horrors.
But it’s still bad. Real bad.

But, Charles, this is part of the issue.  How can there be a constructive conversation or dialogue without clear definitions or with definitions that are so fluid that the goal posts can always be moved?  I was recently part of a conversation wherein the umbrella theme of white supremacy was being used continually and I noticed how as a signifier I kept thinking of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.  It took me a few moments to realize that this wasn’t what the person was referring to when using the term white supremacy.  But still I never got a concise or clear definition of what it was and is, which is problematic because if it is in the eye of the beholder then it can be anything.  That’s how micro-aggressions operate.  And this goes to what Diangelo would call the issue of intent versus impact which is a good and helpful distinction, but still it is very subjective. We should always seek to be considerate of others, but offenses caused may be the result of various factors that have nothing to do with the offended per se.  Some such behaviors are the result of benign ignorance which affects all of us in some way.  For example, I married into a family that grew up with a parent who is disabled.  My wife sees things in very specific ways because of that and marrying into her family has been a learning curve for me because I did not grow up with a parent with a disability.  Before this experience there were things that I never once considered simply out of my own ignorance and lack of experience.  Was that a character flaw on my part? Was I somehow morally flawed? Does this mean I am a body supremacist?  This is where the critical theory framework leads as it provides simplified takes on the complexity of the human experience.

Peace,
Scott+
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 09, 2020, 12:30:15 PM
I'll probably be accused of white fragility for making this observation, but using words like "fragility" and "supremacy" are inherently negative labels, that in my opinion, potentially shut down productive conversation and dialog rather than further it.  The conversation begins with a not so thinly veiled accusation that causes a defensive reaction.  In a culture that is so sensitive to labels, it is disappointing that they can be used in this way, especially when it is clear that they evoke reactions far beyond the original intention, as seen in Pastor Geminn's post.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 09, 2020, 01:47:32 PM
I don’t think I would contend that “white supremacy” today equals Nazis or the mentality of 1870. At least, not for most people.
I think it probably means something else than those horrors.
But it’s still bad. Real bad.

But, Charles, this is part of the issue.  How can there be a constructive conversation or dialogue without clear definitions or with definitions that are so fluid that the goal posts can always be moved?  I was recently part of a conversation wherein the umbrella theme of white supremacy was being used continually and I noticed how as a signifier I kept thinking of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.  It took me a few moments to realize that this wasn’t what the person was referring to when using the term white supremacy.  But still I never got a concise or clear definition of what it was and is, which is problematic because if it is in the eye of the beholder then it can be anything.  That’s how micro-aggressions operate.  And this goes to what Diangelo would call the issue of intent versus impact which is a good and helpful distinction, but still it is very subjective. We should always seek to be considerate of others, but offenses caused may be the result of various factors that have nothing to do with the offended per se.  Some such behaviors are the result of benign ignorance which affects all of us in some way.  For example, I married into a family that grew up with a parent who is disabled.  My wife sees things in very specific ways because of that and marrying into her family has been a learning curve for me because I did not grow up with a parent with a disability.  Before this experience there were things that I never once considered simply out of my own ignorance and lack of experience.  Was that a character flaw on my part? Was I somehow morally flawed? Does this mean I am a body supremacist?  This is where the critical theory framework leads as it provides simplified takes on the complexity of the human experience.


There are times we say or do things out of ignorance, like when I, as a two-year old, saw my first black person and said something about her "dirty skin." My mother quickly corrected me and apologized to the lady. Ignorance can be corrected. When someone continues to use derogatory words after being informed that they are not appropriate, then it becomes racism.


In terms of language, I think "white supremacy" tends to be, (and should be,) limited to the radical groups that promote caucasians as the better race. However, "white privilege," is something that most, if not all, of us have experienced simply by virtue of our skin color.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 09, 2020, 02:40:49 PM
In terms of language, I think "white supremacy" tends to be, (and should be,) limited to the radical groups that promote caucasians as the better race.

I agree.  Here's the problem -- it isn't.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Charles Austin on July 09, 2020, 02:46:50 PM
Once again, it seems that some only want to take part in tough discussions when they, in advance, get to define all the terms.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 09, 2020, 02:51:33 PM
Once again, it seems that some only want to take part in tough discussions when they, in advance, get to define all the terms.
Indeed, and some people not only want to get to define all the terms but to change those definitions along the way when it is to their advantage. I suspect that we would disagree however, Charles, as to who is trying to define and redefine terms.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on July 09, 2020, 02:57:49 PM
Once again, it seems that some only want to take part in tough discussions when they, in advance, get to define all the terms.

Your comment is ironic in that this is exactly the issue that Pr. Stoffregen and Mr. Garner are discussing.  That some of those who are protesting racism refuse to distinguish between white supremacy and white privilege.  That any discussion to seek common definition of terms is characterized by some from the protesting side as racist in and of itself.

To be sure, this is true of only a fringe group of those protesting endemic racism.  They also tend to be the loudest though.

In short, by your snide comment, you mischaracterize and undermine the very discussion of definitions you understand is necessary.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 09, 2020, 03:22:19 PM
Once again, it seems that some only want to take part in tough discussions when they, in advance, get to define all the terms.


I guess that you can define your terms any way you'd like.  But as Pr. Stoffregen rightly noted, "white supremacy" has for decades (at least) been understood universally to apply only to those "radical groups that promote caucasians as the better race."  These groups and this belief have been roundly rejected by the vast majority of Americans for a very long time.


Now, radical groups and pop sociologists want to extend the term, and the condemnation that goes with it, to any number of vaguely defined, mostly mainstream groups, institutions, beliefs, etc.  (The lack of clear definition, by the way, is a feature not a bug.  It permits never-ending use of the term to expand the net to cover more and more and more.)  And for some reason, you think that this is a good thing.


This is ultimately nothing more or less than a power-seeking exercise, having little to do with race, racism, or justice.
  [size=78%]Everyone will be far better served when we reject the ways of the self-described Marxists and get back to reality.  Let's define with specificity specific problems within our institutions and then fix those problems.  Let's start with asking why the murder of innocent people of color has skyrocketed since BLM and Antifa started their anti-law-enforcement crusade.  Unless you think that the radicals and their pop [/size][/size]sociology are more important than black lives.[size=78%]
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: passerby on July 09, 2020, 04:18:43 PM
As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

I certainly agree with that sentiment.  It's a bait and switch from where I stand.

I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).
You're right, they don't. But of course you are no longer talking about the book under consideration--you've switched.

Peace,
Michael

Well, I am talking about your description of what the book argues, to wit, that ...

She does use the term white supremacy, but she clearly distinguishes its sociological meaning from the popular consciousness that solely associates it with radical groups (p. 28). As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

Your response doesn't really seem to take counter-arguments to that concept seriously.  I think you granted the book doesn't either, but that strikes me as a problem.  Re-defining terms, especially terms that have a rightly pejorative gloss, strikes me as problematic.

It's as if the term is now re-defined and cannot be un-defined or even explained.  Now that it is in popular use as a synonym for Klansmen and Neo-Nazis, we'll now just use it to describe broader concepts (like America), with no concern that the change in terms won't be well understood.  Worse, we'll blame those subject to the new pejorative for not making the distinction and objecting to the characterization.  Leftist thought policing tends to be a one-way ratchet that way, but those of us who find it dishonest aren't likely to simply concede the point, especially when the rhetoric is aimed in our direction.

White Fragility is just another popularized version of critical race theory that has found its way from academia into corporate life. The movement from universities to the workplace is not so surprising given that the same thing has happened with feminism and LGBTQ activism. Whatever one thinks of DiAngelo's ideas, keep in mind that this ideology (that systemic racism is baked into American society) has had a chilling effect in academic discourse and freedom. I will be teaching criminology in a summer course next week and feel I am stepping on to a minefield of topics where a the wrong phrasing of a concept (maybe I forgot to upper case "Blacks" in my Powerpoint presentations) or trying to portray policing realistically can get me in trouble with a very woke sociology/criminology department. I do not have the privilege of tenure and am hired on a year-by-year basis, so please keep this concern in your prayers.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 09, 2020, 04:38:16 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.


On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Julio on July 09, 2020, 05:24:21 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.


On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Please do not forget Officer Dorn .. also killed by a black man ... it is becoming clear that the horror expressed by those who despise the statement “All lives matter” is because really only some black lives matter. :(

Muchas Gracias

Julio
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 09, 2020, 06:50:12 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.


On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?


Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Chuck on July 09, 2020, 07:36:36 PM
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
"At least 336 people have been murdered in Chicago through July 2, according to the Chicago Police Department; because murders typically increase in the summer, the city is on track to match the 778 deaths in 2016, its deadliest year since the mid-1990s. (New York City, with almost three times the population, had 176 murders as of June 28.)"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/us/chicago-shootings.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/us/chicago-shootings.html)
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Chuck on July 09, 2020, 07:45:04 PM
Or for June only:"There was a 34% increase in the number of murders over the same period, last year. There were also 45% more shootings."
https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/chicago-crime-statistics-for-june-spike-in-murders-shootings/ (https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/chicago-crime-statistics-for-june-spike-in-murders-shootings/)
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 09, 2020, 07:49:01 PM
But if they didn't go viral on the internet, weren't by a police officer, they don't matter? We should make policing policy, indict an entire race for racism on the basis of what goes viral on the internet? Not important if just a murder.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Julio on July 09, 2020, 09:00:00 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 09, 2020, 10:00:31 PM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.
So yah, people say "defund the police," dismantle the police," or "disband the police" but they don't really mean that, they just mean let's make the police better. Please share your secret decoder ring. But then you always figure that you know better than we do what we really mean, so why not?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 09, 2020, 10:27:49 PM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.


The president of the Minneapolis City Council is.  So are others. 
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Julio on July 10, 2020, 12:17:43 AM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.
Who is being real about defunding police?? The deliberate absurdity of eliminating the police was introduced by yourself.

Seattle had CHOP ... and its murders and rape in the ‘police free zone’. Defunded police at its best.

One can only wonder what kind of anarchy will be tolerated in Seattle when they defund the police according to this newspaper article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/majority-of-seattle-council-pledges-to-support-police-department-defunding-plan-laid-out-by-advocates/%3famp=1

How many dead Seattle residents will result from their social experiment?

Buenas Noches!

Julio
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 10, 2020, 12:55:31 AM
Are you folks really so clueless about political and movement rhetoric? Do you not understand the sloganeering and overstatements and boisterous shouts that people use when rallying troops at the beginning of a campaign or when passions are high?
"Don't trust anyone over 30!" (way back in the day)
"Lock her up!" 
Furthermore, movement rhetoric shouts are not policy statements or program suggestions.
And, since socially and politically, the prospect of eliminating police forces is pretty remote, why get all mind-foundering manic about those particular words?
So regarding the shouts about abolishing police forces, I urge upon those projecting a city without police officers another word from closer to our time: Chill.


Just the partial defunding and disempowering of the police in NYC, Chicago, and elsewhere has led directly to the murder of innocent people of color.  And you tell us to chill.  Do Black lives not matter to you?   


As for your statement that the shouted "rhetoric" is not intended as "policy statements" or "program suggestions," that's simply not true.  Just ask Minneapolis's mayor, who made the mistake of sharing your assumption that protestors didn't really mean what they said.  As one of BLM's senior leaders from Philadelphia said in the last day, the goal is the "complete abolition" of the police department "within five years."   Link  (https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-lives-matter-leader-outlines-five-year-plan-to-eliminate-police/) She and other BLM leaders have rejected the notion that reforms will do any good.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 10, 2020, 02:10:06 AM
But if they didn't go viral on the internet, weren't by a police officer, they don't matter? We should make policing policy, indict an entire race for racism on the basis of what goes viral on the internet? Not important if just a murder.


When murders are committed by police officers they have often been covered up. Public opinion, e.g. viral internet posts has caused law enforcement officers to be charged when they probably wouldn’t have been without the video evidence. I would venture to guess that whenever there are videos of murders the perpetrators are convicted.


When the internet includes racial slurs, especially by a group against a black or Latino or Asian, then there is likely racism involved.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Jeremy_Loesch on July 10, 2020, 06:31:27 AM
Political and movement sloganeering:

"Since the Bible is unlear on this topic we will totally respect all church members who hold to one of these four beliefs on human sexuality and marriage."  ;)

That will fit nicely on a sandwich board.

Jeremy
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 10, 2020, 07:47:09 AM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.
Who is being real about defunding police?? The deliberate absurdity of eliminating the police was introduced by yourself.

Seattle had CHOP ... and its murders and rape in the ‘police free zone’. Defunded police at its best.

One can only wonder what kind of anarchy will be tolerated in Seattle when they defund the police according to this newspaper article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/majority-of-seattle-council-pledges-to-support-police-department-defunding-plan-laid-out-by-advocates/%3famp=1

How many dead Seattle residents will result from their social experiment?

Buenas Noches!

Julio

“One of the things that we are demanding over five years is the complete abolition. We don’t want to see any police in our community,” Ndgo told Fox News in an interview Tuesday.

Nobody.  Nowhere.

https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-lives-matter-leader-outlines-five-year-plan-to-eliminate-police/

Granted, she goes on to say the idea is to replace police with something else, unstated, unclear, but that "safety" will not be ignored.  But she states expressly, in no uncertain terms, she wants to do exactly that which Pastor Austin says "nobody, nowhere" wants to do.

She isn't alone either.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 10, 2020, 07:57:21 AM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.
Who is being real about defunding police?? The deliberate absurdity of eliminating the police was introduced by yourself.

Seattle had CHOP ... and its murders and rape in the ‘police free zone’. Defunded police at its best.

One can only wonder what kind of anarchy will be tolerated in Seattle when they defund the police according to this newspaper article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/majority-of-seattle-council-pledges-to-support-police-department-defunding-plan-laid-out-by-advocates/%3famp=1

How many dead Seattle residents will result from their social experiment?

Buenas Noches!

Julio

“One of the things that we are demanding over five years is the complete abolition. We don’t want to see any police in our community,” Ndgo told Fox News in an interview Tuesday.

Nobody.  Nowhere.

https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-lives-matter-leader-outlines-five-year-plan-to-eliminate-police/

Granted, she goes on to say the idea is to replace police with something else, unstated, unclear, but that "safety" will not be ignored.  But she states expressly, in no uncertain terms, she wants to do exactly that which Pastor Austin says "nobody, nowhere" wants to do.

She isn't alone either.

Now David- Who are you going to believe? Charles, or your lying eyes?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 10, 2020, 08:06:42 AM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.

Quote from: https://www.mpd150.com/about/
The goal of this initiative is to shift the discussion of police violence in Minneapolis from one of procedural reforms to one of meaningful structural change. We will achieve this by presenting a practical pathway for the dismantling of the Minneapolis Police Department; the transference of its social service functions to community-based agencies and organizations; the replacement of its emergency intervention functions with models not based on military methods; and the redirection of resources to support community resilience and people-directed development.

Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 10, 2020, 09:33:20 AM
Bringing us back to Robin DiAngelo's book, White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism, I have not found anyplace where she advocates defunding the police. Maybe I just haven't tried hard enough  :o , but I suspect that she simply doesn't think that has anything to do with reducing the effects of racism.

I did find a pretty good interview https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/07/health/white-fragility-robin-diangelo-wellness/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/07/health/white-fragility-robin-diangelo-wellness/index.html), which presents the gist of her book.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: John_Hannah on July 10, 2020, 09:34:29 AM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.
Who is being real about defunding police?? The deliberate absurdity of eliminating the police was introduced by yourself.

Seattle had CHOP ... and its murders and rape in the ‘police free zone’. Defunded police at its best.

One can only wonder what kind of anarchy will be tolerated in Seattle when they defund the police according to this newspaper article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/majority-of-seattle-council-pledges-to-support-police-department-defunding-plan-laid-out-by-advocates/%3famp=1

How many dead Seattle residents will result from their social experiment?

Buenas Noches!

Julio

The masked man rides in again, shooting his silver bullets (toxic replies)!  Hi! Ho! Silver!!!   :)

Peace, JOHN

Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 10, 2020, 09:39:14 AM
The idea of proactively eliminating the causes of crime rather than reactively responding after crime has been committed is a very attractive one. To implement it and either eliminate the police or cut police departments by half as is being advocated will be more difficult. To eliminate the causes for crime makes two key assumptions. One is that we actually know the causes of crime, and two that the remedies for those causes that are proposed will actually work.


There are many different kinds of crime. Some are crimes of economic desperation born out of poverty. Eliminate poverty and presumably those crimes would go away. I have no idea what kind of percentage of crimes would come under that category. But there are many other crimes. Some are crimes not of desperation but of greed. It's not that the person is in desperate need but that the person is greedy for more and resorts to crime to get that more. I doubt that we can come up with a plan that would result in everybody getting as much as they want.


Eliminating poverty has been a goal of government since the 30s and the 60s. Much effort, expertise, and dollars has been spent on the effort and poverty is still with us. Even if we take it slower and propose a five year plan for eliminating the police or greatly reducing it, it would take an extreme optimist to assume that we can solve poverty and thus eliminate poverty driven crime in the next five years. The roots of poverty are many which indicates that solving poverty is not a simple solution. Simply replacing capitalism with some form of socialism or its cousin communism doesn't solve poverty. Mass starvation and the spread of poverty has followed the implementation of socialistic economies and government control in a number of large countries where it has been tried.


Poverty driven crime is only one segment of crime, although it is likely a large component of crime. Can we also readily solve the causes of crime because of mental illness, domestic abuse, anger management, interpersonal disputes, and the like? We've been working on those causes of crime for decades, centuries, millennia and they are still with us. While economic need is a major source of crime, other needs can also come into play. The greed for power over others, domination motivates some, the desire for otherwise unobtainable luxury, sexual appetites, and more. Can we realistically expect the idealists who want to eliminate police by solving the causes for crime to come up with workable programs to eliminate all of that?


Certainly, policing can and should be improved. Having mental health professionals to respond to mental health issues rather than, or in addition to, the police sounds like a very good idea. I think that we really need to rethink the militarization of the police as well as the SWAT utilization. We also need to look at the roots of poverty and work on that. Some of these roots, seems to me, are poor educational opportunities, the need to teach children the skills that will assist them in getting and holding jobs. Employment opportunities need to be increased.


But whether we call it theologically original sin, or some secular equivalent, it needs to be recognized that people are imperfect and not perfectible. Everyone is capable of doing bad things, everyone will on occasion do what they should not, and some are simply going to be bad dudes. We can reduce the causes of crime, but not eliminate them, because people are not perfectible.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on July 10, 2020, 09:51:29 AM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Matt Staneck on July 10, 2020, 09:52:20 AM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.
Who is being real about defunding police?? The deliberate absurdity of eliminating the police was introduced by yourself.

Seattle had CHOP ... and its murders and rape in the ‘police free zone’. Defunded police at its best.

One can only wonder what kind of anarchy will be tolerated in Seattle when they defund the police according to this newspaper article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/majority-of-seattle-council-pledges-to-support-police-department-defunding-plan-laid-out-by-advocates/%3famp=1

How many dead Seattle residents will result from their social experiment?

Buenas Noches!

Julio

The masked man rides in again, shooting his silver bullets (toxic replies)!  Hi! Ho! Silver!!!   :)

Peace, JOHN

I noticed that too. Someone, who has an extraordinary amount of time on their hands, is now posting as a cartoon character version of a Latino. I'm sure the irony is lost on this person that they are doing this in a thread called "White Fragility."

M. Staneck
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 10, 2020, 09:53:24 AM
And you are all fearful that the fringe element will prevail?
No confidence at all in our democratic process?
Part of the democratic process is discussing proposals to improve out life together. That also includes talking about and giving opinions of fringe elements? Right now, there is a super majority on the Seattle City Council committed to some form of police defunding. Does that constitute a fringe element?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 10, 2020, 10:06:29 AM
Pastor Fienen:
Part of the democratic process is discussing proposals to improve out life together. That also includes talking about and giving opinions of fringe elements? Right now, there is a super majority on the Seattle City Council committed to some form of police defunding. Does that constitute a fringe element?
Me:
Yes. Shouldn’t the fringe elements of a voice to?


We're making progress.  Yesterday, you said that calls to defund the police were just rhetoric and was not a policy proposal that anyone was seriously considering.  This morning, you admit that this was wrong, but claim that those actually considering the defunding of the police are a "fringe element."  Of course, that fringe element controls the city councils of Seattle, Minneapolis, and elsewhere. 
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 10, 2020, 10:12:23 AM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html)
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke


I'm all for giving these kinds of approaches a try.  They may well bear substantial fruit.  But part of the solution must also be found in the lessons of the late 1990s, when violent crime in New York plummeted.  I hope and pray that the programs with which you and others are involved bring new and fruitful cooperation between the police and the communities they serve.  But vigilant law enforcement must be part of the equation if those communities are to be protected.  During this current stretch, the new programs are not in place and the police have been pulled back from law enforcement.  The results have not been good as violent crime has spiked.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 10, 2020, 10:15:54 AM
Pastor Fienen:
Part of the democratic process is discussing proposals to improve out life together. That also includes talking about and giving opinions of fringe elements? Right now, there is a super majority on the Seattle City Council committed to some form of police defunding. Does that constitute a fringe element?
Me:
Yes. Shouldn’t the fringe elements of a voice to?
You really should proofread, your response as printed makes little sense, although I think I can figure it out. Yes, fringe elements have a voice too, so why should the rest of us not be allowed to voice our opinions of what the fringe elements say? Fringe elements regularly call us racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and other pathologies, can't we call them unrealistic or uninformed?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 10, 2020, 10:23:17 AM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.
Who is being real about defunding police?? The deliberate absurdity of eliminating the police was introduced by yourself.

Seattle had CHOP ... and its murders and rape in the ‘police free zone’. Defunded police at its best.

One can only wonder what kind of anarchy will be tolerated in Seattle when they defund the police according to this newspaper article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/majority-of-seattle-council-pledges-to-support-police-department-defunding-plan-laid-out-by-advocates/%3famp=1

How many dead Seattle residents will result from their social experiment?

Buenas Noches!

Julio

The masked man rides in again, shooting his silver bullets (toxic replies)!  Hi! Ho! Silver!!!   :)

Peace, JOHN

I noticed that too. Someone, who has an extraordinary amount of time on their hands, is now posting as a cartoon character version of a Latino. I'm sure the irony is lost on this person that they are doing this in a thread called "White Fragility."

M. Staneck

Rev. Staneck and Rev. Hannah,

Why do you assume that the person posting is not Hispanic?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Julio on July 10, 2020, 10:46:13 AM
Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.
Who is being real about defunding police?? The deliberate absurdity of eliminating the police was introduced by yourself.

Seattle had CHOP ... and its murders and rape in the ‘police free zone’. Defunded police at its best.

One can only wonder what kind of anarchy will be tolerated in Seattle when they defund the police according to this newspaper article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/majority-of-seattle-council-pledges-to-support-police-department-defunding-plan-laid-out-by-advocates/%3famp=1

How many dead Seattle residents will result from their social experiment?

Buenas Noches!

Julio

The masked man rides in again, shooting his silver bullets (toxic replies)!  Hi! Ho! Silver!!!   :)

Peace, JOHN
‘PEACE’ ... after a toxic statement such as that???

Toxic replies ?? Padre Austin’s ‘eliminate the police’ statement was the toxic off thread comment. I NEVER suggested or used the word ‘eliminate’ ... and simply cited the Times article.

It seems that the toxic reply is attacking a newbie who disagrees with you.  Rather than attempting to discredit the Times article, it is fair game to attack the new guy?  Are you this welcoming to those who visit your congregation? Perhaps this is an example of the abuse handed out by you as a military officer ... and no I would not encourage defunding the military because of your toxic comments.

Maybe you and Padre Staneck should take a lesson in civility from Padre Benke ... his response addressed my post ...not attacked me.

I pray for you!

Julio
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on July 10, 2020, 12:02:22 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html)
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke


I'm all for giving these kinds of approaches a try.  They may well bear substantial fruit.  But part of the solution must also be found in the lessons of the late 1990s, when violent crime in New York plummeted.  I hope and pray that the programs with which you and others are involved bring new and fruitful cooperation between the police and the communities they serve.  But vigilant law enforcement must be part of the equation if those communities are to be protected.  During this current stretch, the new programs are not in place and the police have been pulled back from law enforcement.  The results have not been good as violent crime has spiked.

The program that gained the most attention in the Giuliani era was the attention paid to nuisance issues - the guys who washed car windows on the street corner were given misdemeanor summonses, etc.  In our part of the world, the high crime zone, what the police who weren't on the take would do is stop all traffic at certain areas and then check the license plates for violations like parking tickets, use that as the way to search the car, and take it from there.  So they did that on Sunday from 9-12.  Because the idea was the evildoers were just then coming from the clubs and would be half asleep and fall for the trap.  But - this made it impossible for any of our folks with cars to get to church.  We got them to stop doing that at that time and on those corners, after lengthy negotiations.  We were being punished by a police tactic.

My opinion is that bad guys should be in jail, that gun control is absolutely necessary in a big city connected to strict laws with enforcement on those who violate those laws.  And that's what in my opinion actually drove crime down.  People who had done the bad stuff paid for it.  People who were carrying around weapons without reason paid with jail sentences.  The nuisance stuff was not my favorite at all, because in many cases it just hassled homeless people, of which we have plenty in our neighborhood who mostly need a place to lay their heads at night.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 10, 2020, 12:36:31 PM
Pastor Fienen:
You really should proofread, your response as printed makes little sense, although I think I can figure it out. Yes, fringe elements have a voice too, so why should the rest of us not be allowed to voice our opinions of what the fringe elements say?
Me:
Yes, I should. My apologies for dictating an answer on the run. You do know that sometimes even we old folks have to run to various duties.

Pastor Fienen:
Fringe elements regularly call us racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and other pathologies, can't we call them unrealistic or uninformed?
Me:
Call them whatever you want. But rather than calling them anything, why not take their complaints seriously? Why not stick to dialogue? Why not say, well you’re over there and we’re over here how can we move closer together?
It’s almost playground language to say “Wah wah! He called me a bad name!” And then say you’re not gonna play with him anymore.
This is more serious than a playground spat. You keep looking for reasons not to have dialogue, you keep not taking other’s complaint seriously, that’s not good.
NoW you are about to respond, “but they do it too!” Boring. We have to move beyond that. Maybe you could be the one party to do it.
But I doubt it.
I have a hard time understanding how what you post to me actually responds to the general tenor of what I've posted. Are you sure you are actually responding to me and not someone else. You do at times respond to me for what someone else posted. 


How have I indicated an unwillingness to dialogue or an unwillingness to listen to the complaints of others and take them seriously? Please, point it out. There has been some discussion of just what is meant by defunding or dismantling the police. First you scold us for taking the heated rhetoric of demonstrations as serious proposals/demands. Then when it is pointed out that people are saying just that, you dismiss that as just fringe elements that apparently we should not respond to.


I do take the dialogue that is essential for a working democracy seriously. I listen to the complaints and consider what merits that I find in them. Sure, I point out what seems to me to be inadequate about the reasoning behind the complaints, and how what is being proposed may not actually accomplish all that they suggest it may accomplish. I thought that was dialogue. Perhaps dialogue in your understanding is that those who demonstrate talk and the rest of us just shut up and go along.


I find merit in some of the proposals for reform in policing that have been suggested.  As I posted:



Certainly, policing can and should be improved. Having mental health professionals to respond to mental health issues rather than, or in addition to, the police sounds like a very good idea. I think that we really need to rethink the militarization of the police as well as the SWAT utilization. We also need to look at the roots of poverty and work on that. Some of these roots, seems to me, are poor educational opportunities, the need to teach children the skills that will assist them in getting and holding jobs. Employment opportunities need to be increased.



Was that me dismissing those who are calling for defunding the police out of hand and ignoring their complaints and suggestions?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 10, 2020, 12:48:33 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html)
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke


I'm all for giving these kinds of approaches a try.  They may well bear substantial fruit.  But part of the solution must also be found in the lessons of the late 1990s, when violent crime in New York plummeted.  I hope and pray that the programs with which you and others are involved bring new and fruitful cooperation between the police and the communities they serve.  But vigilant law enforcement must be part of the equation if those communities are to be protected.  During this current stretch, the new programs are not in place and the police have been pulled back from law enforcement.  The results have not been good as violent crime has spiked.

The program that gained the most attention in the Giuliani era was the attention paid to nuisance issues - the guys who washed car windows on the street corner were given misdemeanor summonses, etc.  In our part of the world, the high crime zone, what the police who weren't on the take would do is stop all traffic at certain areas and then check the license plates for violations like parking tickets, use that as the way to search the car, and take it from there.  So they did that on Sunday from 9-12.  Because the idea was the evildoers were just then coming from the clubs and would be half asleep and fall for the trap.  But - this made it impossible for any of our folks with cars to get to church.  We got them to stop doing that at that time and on those corners, after lengthy negotiations.  We were being punished by a police tactic.

My opinion is that bad guys should be in jail, that gun control is absolutely necessary in a big city connected to strict laws with enforcement on those who violate those laws.  And that's what in my opinion actually drove crime down.  People who had done the bad stuff paid for it.  People who were carrying around weapons without reason paid with jail sentences.  The nuisance stuff was not my favorite at all, because in many cases it just hassled homeless people, of which we have plenty in our neighborhood who mostly need a place to lay their heads at night.

Dave Benke

Something worthy of note or of consideration regarding this conversation is that many who are protesting only know the drastic impact of police militarization.  Many were born in the mid-late 90s so the idea of a crime-laden city is mostly foreign to them which could also prove to be their Achilles’ heel.  It’s a weird pendulum change so to say.  I was born in 82, grew up on the Yonkers/Bronx borderline and have very distinct memories of that period from my childhood.  In the summers my mom would often take me to the park in Woodlawn (The Bronx) because it had a sprinkler and was a big park.  On the short walk to the park up Van Cortlandt Park East there were always burnt out and abandoned cars on the side of the street.  The park itself always smelled of dried pee, specifically around the bathroom area.  To this day when I smell dried pee I think of NYC.  Not to mention the fact that this strip of street was notorious for being a place where bodies would be dumped because it was a long wooded area.  I also spent my childhood years playing little league baseball in these parks which weren’t really maintained at all. I also remember the car window cleaners that you speak of, they were everywhere.  I haven’t seen one in over 25 years.  Also, everything was grafittied. Back in the late 80s/early 90s we only went to day games at Yankee Stadium because the neighborhood was considered unsafe.  George Steinbrenner would often threaten to move the Yankees because of the neighborhood, it’s funny how that conversation has been completely forgotten with a new stadium eventually being built.  There was even talk of moving the Yankees to Yonkers which thrilled my 10 year old baseball loving heart.  I even remember our car getting broken into, though, “they” were obviously unsuccessful in stealing it which was def the goal. These things were just a normal part of growing up in NYC or the NYC area.  In some ways I am grateful for the experience, however strange it may seem to outsiders.  It really was a different world then.  I have many more such memories.

Peace,
Scott+
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Julio on July 10, 2020, 12:51:50 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html)
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke


I'm all for giving these kinds of approaches a try.  They may well bear substantial fruit.  But part of the solution must also be found in the lessons of the late 1990s, when violent crime in New York plummeted.  I hope and pray that the programs with which you and others are involved bring new and fruitful cooperation between the police and the communities they serve.  But vigilant law enforcement must be part of the equation if those communities are to be protected.  During this current stretch, the new programs are not in place and the police have been pulled back from law enforcement.  The results have not been good as violent crime has spiked.

The program that gained the most attention in the Giuliani era was the attention paid to nuisance issues - the guys who washed car windows on the street corner were given misdemeanor summonses, etc.  In our part of the world, the high crime zone, what the police who weren't on the take would do is stop all traffic at certain areas and then check the license plates for violations like parking tickets, use that as the way to search the car, and take it from there.  So they did that on Sunday from 9-12.  Because the idea was the evildoers were just then coming from the clubs and would be half asleep and fall for the trap.  But - this made it impossible for any of our folks with cars to get to church.  We got them to stop doing that at that time and on those corners, after lengthy negotiations.  We were being punished by a police tactic.

My opinion is that bad guys should be in jail, that gun control is absolutely necessary in a big city connected to strict laws with enforcement on those who violate those laws.  And that's what in my opinion actually drove crime down.  People who had done the bad stuff paid for it.  People who were carrying around weapons without reason paid with jail sentences.  The nuisance stuff was not my favorite at all, because in many cases it just hassled homeless people, of which we have plenty in our neighborhood who mostly need a place to lay their heads at night.

Dave Benke
Not good to keep your saints from their church home ... but there has to be enforcement of parking laws for them to be effective. My city doesn’t enforce graffiti laws ... and it is quite evident .. including all the vulgarities these selfish law breaker use.

Some time ago my neighbor was late to church because his drive way was blocked. Lives are threatened when failure to enforce parking laws encourages law breakers to block driveways and other essential areas.

What will happen to your good Explorer program .. hopefully they will not throw the baby out with the bath water.  If the “old school” retires and is replaced be the “new school” why defund? The remaining good officers as evidenced by your explorer program?

Gracias!

Julio
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 10, 2020, 12:54:29 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html)
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke


I'm all for giving these kinds of approaches a try.  They may well bear substantial fruit.  But part of the solution must also be found in the lessons of the late 1990s, when violent crime in New York plummeted.  I hope and pray that the programs with which you and others are involved bring new and fruitful cooperation between the police and the communities they serve.  But vigilant law enforcement must be part of the equation if those communities are to be protected.  During this current stretch, the new programs are not in place and the police have been pulled back from law enforcement.  The results have not been good as violent crime has spiked.

The program that gained the most attention in the Giuliani era was the attention paid to nuisance issues - the guys who washed car windows on the street corner were given misdemeanor summonses, etc.  In our part of the world, the high crime zone, what the police who weren't on the take would do is stop all traffic at certain areas and then check the license plates for violations like parking tickets, use that as the way to search the car, and take it from there.  So they did that on Sunday from 9-12.  Because the idea was the evildoers were just then coming from the clubs and would be half asleep and fall for the trap.  But - this made it impossible for any of our folks with cars to get to church.  We got them to stop doing that at that time and on those corners, after lengthy negotiations.  We were being punished by a police tactic.

My opinion is that bad guys should be in jail, that gun control is absolutely necessary in a big city connected to strict laws with enforcement on those who violate those laws.  And that's what in my opinion actually drove crime down.  People who had done the bad stuff paid for it.  People who were carrying around weapons without reason paid with jail sentences.  The nuisance stuff was not my favorite at all, because in many cases it just hassled homeless people, of which we have plenty in our neighborhood who mostly need a place to lay their heads at night.

Dave Benke


It does sound as if you confronted some inappropriate police behavior in the 1990s.  I'll just say that I experienced those years very differently.  But admittedly my perspective was as a Manhattan resident. 


One thing about those years is clear, though.  Violent crime dropped markedly.  Something was working even other things were not.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on July 10, 2020, 01:29:42 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html)
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke


I'm all for giving these kinds of approaches a try.  They may well bear substantial fruit.  But part of the solution must also be found in the lessons of the late 1990s, when violent crime in New York plummeted.  I hope and pray that the programs with which you and others are involved bring new and fruitful cooperation between the police and the communities they serve.  But vigilant law enforcement must be part of the equation if those communities are to be protected.  During this current stretch, the new programs are not in place and the police have been pulled back from law enforcement.  The results have not been good as violent crime has spiked.

The program that gained the most attention in the Giuliani era was the attention paid to nuisance issues - the guys who washed car windows on the street corner were given misdemeanor summonses, etc.  In our part of the world, the high crime zone, what the police who weren't on the take would do is stop all traffic at certain areas and then check the license plates for violations like parking tickets, use that as the way to search the car, and take it from there.  So they did that on Sunday from 9-12.  Because the idea was the evildoers were just then coming from the clubs and would be half asleep and fall for the trap.  But - this made it impossible for any of our folks with cars to get to church.  We got them to stop doing that at that time and on those corners, after lengthy negotiations.  We were being punished by a police tactic.

My opinion is that bad guys should be in jail, that gun control is absolutely necessary in a big city connected to strict laws with enforcement on those who violate those laws.  And that's what in my opinion actually drove crime down.  People who had done the bad stuff paid for it.  People who were carrying around weapons without reason paid with jail sentences.  The nuisance stuff was not my favorite at all, because in many cases it just hassled homeless people, of which we have plenty in our neighborhood who mostly need a place to lay their heads at night.

Dave Benke


It does sound as if you confronted some inappropriate police behavior in the 1990s.  I'll just say that I experienced those years very differently.  But admittedly my perspective was as a Manhattan resident. 


One thing about those years is clear, though.  Violent crime dropped markedly.  Something was working even other things were not.

a) it's way way better than it used to be here.  And some of that goes to Rudy.  Who is more than an acquaintance to me on a personal level.  And who I voted for twice.  I have a lovely letter of support from him as the Mayor who called on religious and community leaders to hold a civic event at Yankee Stadium on September 23, 2001.  Which we did, at his request.
b) view the documentary The 75, and watch Michael Dowd and his partner crowing about their relationship to the drug dealers.  The corners they mention on Fulton Street are within a chip shot of St. Peter's and a seven iron from our home.  Meaning people died because these cops were taking money from drugs not to catch anybody. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 10, 2020, 01:52:04 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html)
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke


I'm all for giving these kinds of approaches a try.  They may well bear substantial fruit.  But part of the solution must also be found in the lessons of the late 1990s, when violent crime in New York plummeted.  I hope and pray that the programs with which you and others are involved bring new and fruitful cooperation between the police and the communities they serve.  But vigilant law enforcement must be part of the equation if those communities are to be protected.  During this current stretch, the new programs are not in place and the police have been pulled back from law enforcement.  The results have not been good as violent crime has spiked.

The program that gained the most attention in the Giuliani era was the attention paid to nuisance issues - the guys who washed car windows on the street corner were given misdemeanor summonses, etc.  In our part of the world, the high crime zone, what the police who weren't on the take would do is stop all traffic at certain areas and then check the license plates for violations like parking tickets, use that as the way to search the car, and take it from there.  So they did that on Sunday from 9-12.  Because the idea was the evildoers were just then coming from the clubs and would be half asleep and fall for the trap.  But - this made it impossible for any of our folks with cars to get to church.  We got them to stop doing that at that time and on those corners, after lengthy negotiations.  We were being punished by a police tactic.

My opinion is that bad guys should be in jail, that gun control is absolutely necessary in a big city connected to strict laws with enforcement on those who violate those laws.  And that's what in my opinion actually drove crime down.  People who had done the bad stuff paid for it.  People who were carrying around weapons without reason paid with jail sentences.  The nuisance stuff was not my favorite at all, because in many cases it just hassled homeless people, of which we have plenty in our neighborhood who mostly need a place to lay their heads at night.

Dave Benke


It does sound as if you confronted some inappropriate police behavior in the 1990s.  I'll just say that I experienced those years very differently.  But admittedly my perspective was as a Manhattan resident. 


One thing about those years is clear, though.  Violent crime dropped markedly.  Something was working even other things were not.

a) it's way way better than it used to be here.  And some of that goes to Rudy.  Who is more than an acquaintance to me on a personal level.  And who I voted for twice.  I have a lovely letter of support from him as the Mayor who called on religious and community leaders to hold a civic event at Yankee Stadium on September 23, 2001.  Which we did, at his request.
b) view the documentary The 75, and watch Michael Dowd and his partner crowing about their relationship to the drug dealers.  The corners they mention on Fulton Street are within a chip shot of St. Peter's and a seven iron from our home.  Meaning people died because these cops were taking money from drugs not to catch anybody. 

Dave Benke


I will track down the documentary.


I lived in NYC in 2001 and remember the Yankee Stadium gathering.  (I also was very aware of the aftermath.  I followed developments over the long months that followed.)
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on July 10, 2020, 02:41:29 PM
A little side note about the old days and times in NYC concerning the Times, that is, the New York Times.  In the 70s-80s and through the 90s, the last person you would expect to see in the outer boroughs and in the tougher parts of the outer boroughs in particular was a reporter from the Times.  The tabloids were tasked with that, in particular the Daily News.  So Jimmy Breslin knew all the outer borough locations according to which Roman Catholic parish was represented n which neighborhood.  Ocean Hill - Our Lady of Presentation.  Brownsville - Our Lady of Mercy.  Ridgewood - Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (we lived down the block from Miraculous Medal when we first moved to NY), etc. etc.  And he knew people and politicians in all of those outer borough areas.  The Times - not only not so much.  Not at all. 

So for the Times to take this ginormous leap now into the rewriting of history through the eyes of black people strikes an old-timer such as me as a johnny-come-lately move, inauthentic.  And when it comes to the Pro-life movement and the percentages of abortions to black mothers including here in this city, NYC, nary a mention - ever. 

Anyway, when East Brooklyn Churches got the Nehemiah Plan going back in the early-mid 80s, with full ecumenical commitments, somebody from the Times showed up for one of our rallies, which drew around 10,000 people.  And all us locals said, "they finally found their way out here to East New York and Brownsville.  I wonder if they know how to get back to the City (Manhattan)?"

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 10, 2020, 03:01:32 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html)
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke


I'm all for giving these kinds of approaches a try.  They may well bear substantial fruit.  But part of the solution must also be found in the lessons of the late 1990s, when violent crime in New York plummeted.  I hope and pray that the programs with which you and others are involved bring new and fruitful cooperation between the police and the communities they serve.  But vigilant law enforcement must be part of the equation if those communities are to be protected.  During this current stretch, the new programs are not in place and the police have been pulled back from law enforcement.  The results have not been good as violent crime has spiked.

The program that gained the most attention in the Giuliani era was the attention paid to nuisance issues - the guys who washed car windows on the street corner were given misdemeanor summonses, etc.  In our part of the world, the high crime zone, what the police who weren't on the take would do is stop all traffic at certain areas and then check the license plates for violations like parking tickets, use that as the way to search the car, and take it from there.  So they did that on Sunday from 9-12.  Because the idea was the evildoers were just then coming from the clubs and would be half asleep and fall for the trap.  But - this made it impossible for any of our folks with cars to get to church.  We got them to stop doing that at that time and on those corners, after lengthy negotiations.  We were being punished by a police tactic.

My opinion is that bad guys should be in jail, that gun control is absolutely necessary in a big city connected to strict laws with enforcement on those who violate those laws.  And that's what in my opinion actually drove crime down.  People who had done the bad stuff paid for it.  People who were carrying around weapons without reason paid with jail sentences.  The nuisance stuff was not my favorite at all, because in many cases it just hassled homeless people, of which we have plenty in our neighborhood who mostly need a place to lay their heads at night.

Dave Benke


It does sound as if you confronted some inappropriate police behavior in the 1990s.  I'll just say that I experienced those years very differently.  But admittedly my perspective was as a Manhattan resident. 


One thing about those years is clear, though.  Violent crime dropped markedly.  Something was working even other things were not.

a) it's way way better than it used to be here.  And some of that goes to Rudy.  Who is more than an acquaintance to me on a personal level.  And who I voted for twice.  I have a lovely letter of support from him as the Mayor who called on religious and community leaders to hold a civic event at Yankee Stadium on September 23, 2001.  Which we did, at his request.
b) view the documentary The 75, and watch Michael Dowd and his partner crowing about their relationship to the drug dealers.  The corners they mention on Fulton Street are within a chip shot of St. Peter's and a seven iron from our home.  Meaning people died because these cops were taking money from drugs not to catch anybody. 

Dave Benke


I will track down the documentary.


I lived in NYC in 2001 and remember the Yankee Stadium gathering.  (I also was very aware of the aftermath.  I followed developments over the long months that followed.)

It's on Netflix.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 10, 2020, 03:36:33 PM
I came across this comment over at Reason in a posting about the Harper's Anti-Cancel culture open letter (https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/).  I like how it pushes back on this idea that "other voices" deserve to be heard because white males have had more than there fair share of the conversation.  Earlier (on another thread) someone mocked the idea of Marxist suppositions, but this is really one of them:  that I don't deserve to speak because (as this post says), white men a hundred years ago used up my time.  Treating people according to an arbitrary category is Marxist and contrary to individual liberty.

I am happy to listen to other voices.  The problem may be the content of their speech, not the category in which they self-identify.  The correctness of an idea should not be dependent on the category in which that person might be placed.

Quote from: https://reason.com/2020/07/09/are-we-living-in-crazytown/#comment-8341547
Being white or male does not mean your voice was used in the name if whiteness or maleness. It is actually very possible, and likely, that a large number of voices that happened to come from whites and males, were used on the behalf of universalist ideas such as equal rights, equal standing before the law, etc. An example would be any white male speaking for free speech rights. To impose meaning onto the message because of the genetics of the speakers says volumes about your commitment to judging people on character and merit rather than race or gender. And simply because a white man 100 years ago spoke does not invalidate my right to speak or the validity of my arguments. That people are even talking about intersectionality or whatever progressive claptrap is the topic of the day proves that there IS a voice for the historically ignored. Fredrick Douglass lived as a slave, the lowest station a black man has held in American society. And during that era… he was able to eventually have a voice that went directly to the ear of the President. Some 200 years later a black man was president himself. MLK is taught to every school child. Both of them have had a voice on the topic far outweighing mine. Do I get to claim a spot at the table and special pleading to be heard? Or, perhaps, we buy into freedom of speech and NO ONE gets special pleading. Minorities are heard more today than they ever have been. In fact, they are heard from in respectable circles (universities, news rooms, refined public conversations, etc.) than young white men who feel disaffected by the pendulum swinging from white supremacy to an inverse rather than a neutralization. I was told as a kid that we are all equal. I took that to heart. And now that I am older I am treated with disdain because of my race… that I already had my say (even if no one spoke my message… I am white therefore any white man 200 years already used up my clock). I am befuddled. I feel cheated… I spent my life not judging people by their race. I listened to them, laughed with them, fought with them, loved with them. But now those who are the self-proclaimed champions of equality and anti-racism do not treat me in kind. I was either lied to and treating people based on skin tone is right… or these people who do it today are wrong. Both positions can’t be right at the same time. At least one position is morally bankrupt. From studying history I am quite confident I know which one.

Personally I don't share his expressed grievance mentality--maybe because I have not experienced it as intensively as this person.  But I think there are some who do, and it points out the fallacy that white males always have power.  Those that don't (especially working class whites who come from families that never sent anyone to college) are angry and bitter about being disparaged because large numbers in the racial category are (more) successful and people attribute that success to racial identity.   I suspect many of them were Obama voters who switched allegiance to Trump in 2016.  I can't believe they are happy about being accused of responsibility for systematic racism when they have never had any power in their lives.  If that's fragility to some, I suggest they reconsider their frame of reference.

To further illustrate my point, I'd suggest watching this SNL Black Jeopardy skit with contestant Tom Hanks (wearing a MAGA hat) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7VaXlMvAvk).
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 10, 2020, 04:35:26 PM
And you are all fearful that the fringe element will prevail?
No confidence at all in our democratic process?

Gaslighting.  First you deny it exists.  Then you pretend we are all lunatics for pointing out that it does, in fact, exist.

Can you please just try being honest?
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 10, 2020, 06:17:45 PM
A little side note about the old days and times in NYC concerning the Times, that is, the New York Times.  In the 70s-80s and through the 90s, the last person you would expect to see in the outer boroughs and in the tougher parts of the outer boroughs in particular was a reporter from the Times.  The tabloids were tasked with that, in particular the Daily News.  So Jimmy Breslin knew all the outer borough locations according to which Roman Catholic parish was represented n which neighborhood.  Ocean Hill - Our Lady of Presentation.  Brownsville - Our Lady of Mercy.  Ridgewood - Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (we lived down the block from Miraculous Medal when we first moved to NY), etc. etc.  And he knew people and politicians in all of those outer borough areas.  The Times - not only not so much.  Not at all. 

So for the Times to take this ginormous leap now into the rewriting of history through the eyes of black people strikes an old-timer such as me as a johnny-come-lately move, inauthentic.  And when it comes to the Pro-life movement and the percentages of abortions to black mothers including here in this city, NYC, nary a mention - ever. 

Anyway, when East Brooklyn Churches got the Nehemiah Plan going back in the early-mid 80s, with full ecumenical commitments, somebody from the Times showed up for one of our rallies, which drew around 10,000 people.  And all us locals said, "they finally found their way out here to East New York and Brownsville.  I wonder if they know how to get back to the City (Manhattan)?"

Dave Benke


I rarely get back to NYC.  If I ever am there on a weekend, I'd love to come worship with you and your congregation.  The best part of travel is listening to and learning from people whose experiences are different.  Sometimes that travel is to the other side of the globe.  And sometimes the other side of the river.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 10, 2020, 06:18:41 PM
On May 25, a Black man, George Floyd was murdered by a white police officer in Minneapolis while three other officers watched. His murder sparked protests around the world, also anger and outrage over his killing sparked riots, looting, arson, and other assaults and mayhem.

On June 20, a 19 year old Black man, Lorenzo Anderson was shot and killed in the Seattle CHOP area. On June 29, a 16 year old Black man was shot and killed in the same CHOP area. Where have been the protests and outrage for the murder of these two young men? Where have been the demands for justice? These deaths passed with hardly a ripple. Did their lives not matter because they were most likely not murdered by the police? Should their deaths be allowed to fade from attention because their deaths do not support but even tends to give the lie to the narrative police are an occupying force that brings violence to neighborhoods and that without the police neighborhoods would be safer places where young Black men can live and move about without fear?
Their murders did not become a viral video on the internet. We could also talk about how many people have been shot and killed in Chicago over the last month - and they don't make national news. (I don't even know how many make local Chicago news.)
The New York Times reports on violence in The City.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/murders-nyc-guns-crime.html)
Just imagine how much safer The City will be next year when they defund the police. :(

Gracias!  Julio

Bueno, Julio - the way it works in NYC is going to be considerably different from most cities because of the size of the police force.  Several categories included police presence inside schools.  At present that's done by the School Safety Officers under the command of the police.  That was shifted to NYPD from our Department of Education some years back, and will be headed back to the DOE.  That's hundreds of millions of dollars.  School safety officers haven't had weapons at any time.  Additionally monies will be re-allocated towards more community based youth programming and counselors.  The church I serve in Brooklyn hosts the Explorers, which is an NYPD youth program designed not only to keep kids off the streets but to prepare some of them for recruitment to the NYPD.  It's led by NYPD officers in conjunction with the host group, in this case our church. 

Many officers from the "old school" are seeking retirement.  What will happen at the end of the day is that the newer recruits will understand and be trained in different policing methods in conjunction with community servants and institutions.  We will be hosting our neighborhood/sector community meeting with the NYPD again in August. 

Having been part of the crime waves of the 80s and early 90s, with rampant police corruption, this direction is to me both helpful and hopeful.

Dave Benke


I'm all for giving these kinds of approaches a try.  They may well bear substantial fruit.  But part of the solution must also be found in the lessons of the late 1990s, when violent crime in New York plummeted.  I hope and pray that the programs with which you and others are involved bring new and fruitful cooperation between the police and the communities they serve.  But vigilant law enforcement must be part of the equation if those communities are to be protected.  During this current stretch, the new programs are not in place and the police have been pulled back from law enforcement.  The results have not been good as violent crime has spiked.

The program that gained the most attention in the Giuliani era was the attention paid to nuisance issues - the guys who washed car windows on the street corner were given misdemeanor summonses, etc.  In our part of the world, the high crime zone, what the police who weren't on the take would do is stop all traffic at certain areas and then check the license plates for violations like parking tickets, use that as the way to search the car, and take it from there.  So they did that on Sunday from 9-12.  Because the idea was the evildoers were just then coming from the clubs and would be half asleep and fall for the trap.  But - this made it impossible for any of our folks with cars to get to church.  We got them to stop doing that at that time and on those corners, after lengthy negotiations.  We were being punished by a police tactic.

My opinion is that bad guys should be in jail, that gun control is absolutely necessary in a big city connected to strict laws with enforcement on those who violate those laws.  And that's what in my opinion actually drove crime down.  People who had done the bad stuff paid for it.  People who were carrying around weapons without reason paid with jail sentences.  The nuisance stuff was not my favorite at all, because in many cases it just hassled homeless people, of which we have plenty in our neighborhood who mostly need a place to lay their heads at night.

Dave Benke


It does sound as if you confronted some inappropriate police behavior in the 1990s.  I'll just say that I experienced those years very differently.  But admittedly my perspective was as a Manhattan resident. 


One thing about those years is clear, though.  Violent crime dropped markedly.  Something was working even other things were not.

a) it's way way better than it used to be here.  And some of that goes to Rudy.  Who is more than an acquaintance to me on a personal level.  And who I voted for twice.  I have a lovely letter of support from him as the Mayor who called on religious and community leaders to hold a civic event at Yankee Stadium on September 23, 2001.  Which we did, at his request.
b) view the documentary The 75, and watch Michael Dowd and his partner crowing about their relationship to the drug dealers.  The corners they mention on Fulton Street are within a chip shot of St. Peter's and a seven iron from our home.  Meaning people died because these cops were taking money from drugs not to catch anybody. 

Dave Benke


I will track down the documentary.


I lived in NYC in 2001 and remember the Yankee Stadium gathering.  (I also was very aware of the aftermath.  I followed developments over the long months that followed.)

It's on Netflix.


That makes it easy.  Thanks for letting me know.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Terry W Culler on July 10, 2020, 08:29:24 PM
Thugs and criminals are thugs and criminals. They are not protesters.  And they have harmed the lives of who knows how many innocent people.  But for the left it's always you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.  As long as we don't know any of the eggs we can be smug and think ourselves morally enlightened.  But it's really just nonsense.  Anyone who thinks crimes are acceptable during the early phases of a movement shouldn't bother calling for help when the movement comes for them.  Charles' argument reminds me of Durant of the NY Times covering for the butchers in Russia and who knows how many Germans making excuses for Hitler and his National Socialist "movement. (ref. Rev. Niemoller)
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 10, 2020, 09:17:37 PM
I was very young when MLK was assassinated, so I have no living memory of him or his work.  That said, I know that he was committed to non-violent protests.  And some can correct me, but I don't recall hearing from him or those around him the kind of 'labeling' and shaming that seems to be a part of what is going on now.  This thread is evidence of that: "white fragility." The word "fragile" is not positive and not intended to be. It implies people who are overly sensitive and defensive.  Those people exist, but to label all who are "white" with the word "fragile" is a no-starter for many.  Likewise with the misuse of the word "white supremacy."  I can't imagine that MLK would approve either of the violence and destruction and vandalism that became so prevalent in the wake of George Floyd's murder. And I don't think that he would engage in public shaming for shaming sake. But maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe there is more to MLK that I don't know.

Perhaps one side of this issue has already written the other off and are looking only to convince those who have shown prior support. But right now dialogue is hard when the rhetoric among some is inflammatory and demeaning.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 10, 2020, 09:35:08 PM
For heaven’s sake! The people I cited were far from butchers. They took suffering upon themselves for the sake of their movement.
Yes, they did criminal things. So did the people who sat in at lunch counters in the American south in the 1960s. The unjust punishment and treatment they received made a point.
Were Dr. King and Ralph Abernathy and Stokely Carmichael thugs and criminals?

apples and oranges Charles, but you knew that.  Dr. King himself was specifically, unabashedly, and outspoken AGAINST violence.  But you knew that as well.


Quote
Or did their actions show us, in ways we could not avoid, the injustices that needed correction?
Almost no one took opposition to the Vietnam war seriously until Demonstrators took to the streets and young men began resisting the draft.
“Criminals”? Technically, yes. And I knew a few of them, A couple of them solid Lutherans.
Do you equate the millions of people who were in the streets these last couple of months with Stalinists and Nazis?

Do YOU justify the deaths of over 30 people in the Floyd Aftermath, the deaths in CHOP, the shooting of the little girl (who happened to be black) in Atlanta BY other black protesters, the hundreds dead on big city streets since the calls to "defund/abolish" the police?  Do you justify the wanton destruction of monuments, many of whom were those who bled and fought to end slavery in America?

Good grief, you often come across as rabidly insane in your thinking.  Here's a fact, and you can google it:  More black lives have been lost (largely at the hands of other blacks) since the George Floyd murder than were killed by police over the past 20 years.  Facts put everything into perspective.  You should try them on sometime.   >:(

Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 10, 2020, 09:54:32 PM
Do YOU justify . . . .
Gee, on a Lutheran forum I didn't expect to hear that!  :o

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Terry W Culler on July 11, 2020, 07:42:13 AM
In fact I do equate the new Left in America with Nazis and Communists of the past.  Did you happen to note the response to the open letter signed by many journalists, writers, professors, etc. condemning the modern "cancel culture"?  There was a new letter published by so-called journalists defending the silencing of opposing viewpoints.  These people are not liberals, they are thugs who seek an authoritarian system in which they govern the rest of us.  If anyone can't see that they are like the capitalists that Lenin said would sell them the rope with which they would be hanged.  Saying these people are just part of some "movement" and the fringe at that is no more effective than saying that because the Bolsheviks were a small group they couldn't possibly take over Russia.  Paraphrasing George Santayana, those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 11, 2020, 08:47:10 AM
The "Cancel Culture," like the pervasive labeling, will have a chilling effect on the very dialogue people think should happen.  Eventually, real dialogue (not just shouting back and force - 'you are right, you are wrong') will go silent and all we will hear is the current politically correct speech, however it is defined at the moment. And with the need to dig deep into people's past (sometimes going back decades into one's youth) to find potentially offensive material to exploit, you will have yet another reason for people to withdraw from the public realm.  Now I do not believe people should have absolute free reign to publish and broadcast deliberately hurtful and hateful speech.  But the disagreements we have in the public square are not all about hateful and hurtful speech. Yet the substance of those honest disagreements is being lost in the rhetoric that seeks to shame those with differing opinions and views.  Forcing apologies and acts of humiliation, even for perceived wrongs done by others, only shuts everything down.  We stop talking and just find safe ways to agree with whoever is yelling the loudest.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 11, 2020, 09:09:10 AM
In fact I do equate the new Left in America with Nazis and Communists of the past.  Did you happen to note the response to the open letter signed by many journalists, writers, professors, etc. condemning the modern "cancel culture"?  There was a new letter published by so-called journalists defending the silencing of opposing viewpoints.  These people are not liberals, they are thugs who seek an authoritarian system in which they govern the rest of us.  If anyone can't see that they are like the capitalists that Lenin said would sell them the rope with which they would be hanged.  Saying these people are just part of some "movement" and the fringe at that is no more effective than saying that because the Bolsheviks were a small group they couldn't possibly take over Russia.  Paraphrasing George Santayana, those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

A commentary echoing some of your ideas.  Interesting parallels.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/remember-the-red-guards-before-you-cheer-the-woke-mobs/ (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/remember-the-red-guards-before-you-cheer-the-woke-mobs/)
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Voelker on July 11, 2020, 09:43:26 AM
real dialogue (not just shouting back and force - 'you are right, you are wrong') will go silent and all we will hear is the current politically correct speech, however it is defined at the moment.
I'd love to have the time (or find someone who does) to dig back into the archives and pull out every old call for "dialog(ue)" — my bet is that at least 50% of those calls turn out to have been, "dialog until the majority gives in and starts saying what we say", usually through exhaustion or force (perhaps you can think of examples of this "death by a thousand cuts" within organizations). Another study would be to see which things were claimed would never happen but which have become orthodoxy today; if a consistent pattern can be found, we would then have a good way to accurately predict what the next few pushes of the envelope will be.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Terry W Culler on July 11, 2020, 09:54:55 AM
I'm not at all sure that preventing "hateful and hurtful speech" is even defensible.  Who defines what is hateful and hurtful.  Who then gets to determine what can be accepted and what rejected?  There are lots of folks of seem to think that quoting the Scripture is hateful and hurtful, how would we then prevent the harnessing of the Gospel?  Bad ideas will generally fail in the public arena, but the arena must be a place where things can be debated and argued about.  What is going on today is an attempt to make America a great big echo chamber in which only approved speech is acceptable and all else must be stymied.  That isn't America and never has been and, pray God, never will be.  But I'm very afraid that my grandchildren will have to live in that world.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 11, 2020, 11:11:26 AM
And I thought, Pastor Culler, I was pessimistic!
Do you have any confidence in the general population? Do you believe that we are decent enough people to turn aside the worst of the extreme whether they are on the right on the left? Do you have any confidence that our ability to vote, to electro our leaders, give us a chance to do these things? I like to think that we are a decent enough people to turn aside the worst of the worst.
But, going back into the pessimistic mode, we have a (Sort of) majority party attempting to limit voting rights, to rule by executive order, to lie and lie and lie until more people begin to believe the Big Lie, encourage the racists among us, rewrite history, ignore constitutional limits and see  that convicted criminals who are friends of the big leader don’t have to pay for their crimes.  :(
In my view, knowing that I could be wrong, the people in the streets protesting those aspects of our life. I believe the first affect will be on the vote this November.
If the general population by a large majority affirms what has happened in the last three years, then I believe we have a different, and much more dangerous situation. I try to hold on my optimism, and the view that as a whole we are not going to do that.
P.S. WJV seems to be bothered when Dialogue brings others around to a new opinion that becomes the majority. Sorry, but I thought that’s how things worked. People can be convinced that they should change their mind. (I know that sounds terrible to some people here.)
WJV fears that people may change because of “exhaustion,” or because they tire of the discussion.
If we are that morally and intellectually weak as a people, then, sad to say, we deserve what happens to us.
Sincerely Yours for optimism and trust in the American public,
The Humble Correspondent.


Wow. 


Your litany of complaints against Republicans includes a few half-truths, some rhetorical frills, and several dollops of bunk.  It's the kind of statement that is all too common in a world in which nuance and sophistication are shunned.  As a result, the insults hurled about generally apply at least as fairly to the hurler's own party as to the intended target.


Here is your diatribe with notes showing how it could be read:  "we have a (Sort of) majority party (the Democrats who won the so-called popular vote in the last presidential election and a majority of votes for House candidates in both 2016 and 2018?) attempting to limit voting rights (by eliminating safeguards against rampant voter fraud), to rule by executive order (President Obama--"I have a phone and a pen"--was a master at this), to lie and lie and lie until more people begin to believe the Big Lie (If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  We did not lie to the FISA court about Christopher Steele.  We did not prosecute General Flynn for lying even though our records show we knew that he had not lied.  Oh, and we're sorry that we somehow forgot to produce the documents proving all this.), encourage the racists among us (The whole critical race theory approach now in its ascendancy is racist to its core), rewrite history (The Democrats are rewriting history now and are proud of it.  They don't even hide what they're doing.), ignore constitutional limits (The Democrats are actively subverting First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech.  They are trying to impose authoritarian and extraconstitutional overlords by creating unaccountable agencies like the CFPB) and see  that convicted criminals who are friends of the big leader don’t have to pay for their crimes (Hillary)."

So your diatribe works against Trump.  It works against Obama/Biden.  But it's unhelpful and fundamentally dishonest.  At your advanced age, and with your extensive experience, you should know better.

As for your claim that we should trust the general population, that's not really the problem.  (Although a general population for a time can support or at least abide very wrong policies and practices.  That's precisely why the principles from the Declaration of Independence are enshrined in our Constitution, to protect individuals from the whims of the majority.)  Rather, the problem is that the mob now is having great success at canceling those who dare to support free-speech rights or anything else that it decides to label as racist.  If you don't understand the threat posed by this, and what can come of it, you truly have not paid attention to history.


Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 11, 2020, 02:44:31 PM
I've been thinking about the U.S. population and the normal distribution curve. If we consider neutral to be the center and extra-extreme right and extra-extreme left to be 4 standard deviations from neutral, our 328 million population ends up theoretically divided like this:


4sd Left 442,800
3sd Left 7,019,200
2sd Left 44,575,200
1sd Left 111,962,800
1sd Right 111,962,800
2sd Right 44,575,200
3sd Right 7,019,200
4sd Right 442,800


It may be that the 0.27% of the population at the extreme ends are causing nearly all the problems. It's still a large number of people: 885,600, but a small percentage of the whole population.


If our population is somewhat "normal," about 2/3rds (68.27%) of us are 1 standard deviation from the "neutral" or we might say, slightly right or slightly left. If we add in those who are 2 standard deviations from the "neutral," we might call the moderate right and moderate left folks, these two groups would be 95.45% of the population. Those at the extreme ends are only about 0.5% of the population, but they are likely to get most of the attention.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Voelker on July 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
P.S. WJV seems to be bothered when Dialogue brings others around to a new opinion that becomes the majority. Sorry, but I thought that’s how things worked. People can be convinced that they should change their mind. (I know that sounds terrible to some people here.)


WJV fears that people may change because of “exhaustion,” or because they tire of the discussion. If we are that morally and intellectually weak as a people, then, sad to say, we deserve what happens to us.


Sincerely Yours for optimism and trust in the American public,
The Humble Correspondent.
More unvarnished drivel from your keyboard. What do we have here: the well-worn "fear" trope, the "look at the weaklings" canard, and the refusal to see that this tactic has been used over and over again by radicals bent on taking over organizations and, now, the nation. Look at your own church body — the answer was no, no, and no again on all manner of issue, but here it comes again, year after year, with enough resisters finally wearing out, dying, or leaving, leaving things in the hands of people who would not take no for an answer, but had to have their way, no matter the consequences ("We had to destroy the village to save it" comes to mind). You might think I'm blaming those pushing for what they want — and I do, in that they're invariably wrong — but the real blame is on the leadership who refused to say, "The answer is no. Now go away and bother someone else or get in line with what we actually believe, teach, and confess." As annoying as Trump can be, whatever blame that can legitimately be attached to him (and there's plenty), he's (amazingly) at least trying to play the adult in the room — but the squalling of the infants at his every move is deafening, it increases daily, and if you can't hear it, you should get your ears checked.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Voelker on July 11, 2020, 04:18:20 PM
WJV:
Look at your own church body — the answer was no, no, and no again on all manner of issue, but here it comes again, year after year, with enough resisters finally wearing out, dying, or leaving, leaving things in the hands of people who would not take no for an answer, but had to have their way, no matter the consequences.
Me:
Your premise is that what was being sought was wrong. My premise is that it wasn’t. And there you are.
Again, I recall the struggle I mentioned upstream to get women the vote in England and in this country. It took decades. It took going back again and again, to legislators, the states, to the public, to anyone in the federal government, and asking again and again, and using the democratic process again and again until the right thing was done. And on occasion, along the way things got a little impolite and rough.
What will it take to ensure better equality of opportunity, of experience, and better access to the blessings of this land for everyone in it? It’s going to take some changes, and some of the changes might seem radical to today’s mind.
And some people exposing those changes might not act as politely as you want them to act.
There are some here, I believe, who have such a pathological hatred of liberals, or Democrats that they will excuse almost anything done by people the perceive to be on “their side.”
List the lies by the president and they say “ No big deal, everybody lies.”
Point out the foolishness of the president, and they say “well, he will appoint the supreme court judges as we like.”
And so it goes...
Wow.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Voelker on July 11, 2020, 06:03:21 PM
WJV writes:
Wow.
I comment:
I’ll take that as a yes.
You’re welcome.
It's a massive no. Your posts are childlike in the worst ways, and the stances you defend are tribal and have nothing to do with principles or general beliefs. Keep your poison to yourself.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 11, 2020, 07:52:51 PM
Once again, I learn the irritation and futility of "discussing" with a nameless someone who can call me names and mock my comments and the church body I serve from behind the cowardly cloak of anonymity.
I'll try to be done here.


Pastor Fienen:Fringe elements regularly call us racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and other pathologies, can't we call them unrealistic or uninformed?Me:Call them whatever you want. But rather than calling them anything, why not take their complaints seriously? Why not stick to dialogue? Why not say, well you’re over there and we’re over here how can we move closer together? It’s almost playground language to say “Wah wah! He called me a bad name!” And then say you’re not gonna play with him anymore.This is more serious than a playground spat. You keep looking for reasons not to have dialogue, you keep not taking other’s complaint seriously, that’s not good.NoW you are about to respond, “but they do it too!” Boring. We have to move beyond that. Maybe you could be the one party to do it.But I doubt it.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 11, 2020, 08:01:11 PM
Once again, I learn the irritation and futility of "discussing" with a nameless someone who can call me names and mock my comments and the church body I serve from behind the cowardly cloak of anonymity.
I'll try to be done here.


Pastor Fienen:Fringe elements regularly call us racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and other pathologies, can't we call them unrealistic or uninformed?Me:Call them whatever you want. But rather than calling them anything, why not take their complaints seriously? Why not stick to dialogue? Why not say, well you’re over there and we’re over here how can we move closer together? It’s almost playground language to say “Wah wah! He called me a bad name!” And then say you’re not gonna play with him anymore.This is more serious than a playground spat. You keep looking for reasons not to have dialogue, you keep not taking other’s complaint seriously, that’s not good.NoW you are about to respond, “but they do it too!” Boring. We have to move beyond that. Maybe you could be the one party to do it.But I doubt it.


When name calling hooks the "reptilian brain," there can be no more discussion. The rational mind has shut down. The defensive mind is in control. It fights back or withdraws. It doesn't engage in dialogue. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. If the name doesn't fit, don't accept it. Don't let it bother you.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Voelker on July 11, 2020, 08:05:52 PM
Once again, I learn the irritation and futility of "discussing" with a nameless someone who can call me names and mock my comments and the church body I serve from behind the cowardly cloak of anonymity.
I'll try to be done here.
You were called no names, then whine about being called names, finally turning to calling names yourself. Nice. Yes, your posts and the stances you take are identified for what they are. You? No. You're (on this board) a set of pixels, just like everyone else on this board. Until you learn that you (on this board) don't matter, that your claimed experiences don't matter, that your opinions don't matter, but only actually defending the stances you take by making reasoned arguments instead of running off feigning injury time and again, your posts will continue to have no value. Do you care about your church body? Defend it through means other than saying, "We're right, live with it." Do you care about the posts you make? Then have the common decency to pay attention to editing and formatting while using the quote function, all in the service of providing clear, understandable, defensible arguments that are more than today's political talking points. Do you have a position you'd like to convince others of? Then give that a try for once — you might be surprised at the results and what you learn from thinking through your position and working to explain it. You could start by trying to defend as right the taking over of organizations from within with the full intent of subverting and overturning the beliefs and teachings of those organizations.

And, Pastor Fienen: spot on.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 11, 2020, 10:25:54 PM
Dr. King broke laws and got arrested.
No, I don’t think he would approve of the violence. But, As I tried to explain, a movement may have many sides.
Pastor Cottingham, you (not surprisingly) miss the point. And when you have something to say other than to call me insane; when you show any indication that you can comment on the heart of the matter, maybe I’ll consider responding.
Hint: the heart of the matter is not African Americans violence against others of their race.


If you'd bother to do your homework, you would find quotes from MLK in which he condemned violence.
I got your point precisely.  You, as usual, miss mine, in that there is a broader issue here that you choose to ignore.  And also as usual, you twist the words as I did not call you insane, but your thinking.  For a so-called wordsmith, you sure twist things to say that which was not said.

And finally, you'll "consider responding?"  Yeah, the very post I am replying to shows you can't even follow your own rules. 

and now enough responding to you.  You clearly are not worth my time, since you can't even be troubled to look up things that MLK ACTUALLY said.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on July 11, 2020, 11:56:40 PM
Can we get something straight? Name-calling is bad. By definition it is "abusive language or insults."  It's been stated, "Name-calling is one of the most damaging and painful types of bullying."

This is not name-calling. It addresses another's comments, not the person.

It's a massive no. Your posts are childlike in the worst ways, and the stances you defend are tribal and have nothing to do with principles or general beliefs. Keep your poison to yourself.

This, however, is blatant, rude name-calling.

I think you're a clown. And clowns are for birthday parties, not conversations. So unless I see you at a birthday party I won't be engaging you in conversation.

Save your energy.

M. Staneck
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 12, 2020, 10:42:21 PM
Here is what I dare to suggest someone who sought healing and not division might say regarding some of the tune in the Presidential songbook. It bothers me that I hear nothing about unity and reconciliation from the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Defund the Police:
Of course we are not going to abolish police departments or take away all their funding. We need police. And everyone knows that. We understand that rhetoric need not be the demand for future reality. Let's talk about making policing better, better training, better pay, better standard; and using some funds for the police for things that will allow them to be law enforcement officers, rather than social workers, psychologists, or community organizers.

Let’s get real. Nobody nowhere is  talking about taking all the money away from the police and closing up police departments. Nobody is talking about eliminating police; the conversation is about making them better.

Apparently AOC didn't get the memo.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/505307-ocasio-cortez-dismisses-proposed-1b-cut-defunding-police-means-defunding (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/505307-ocasio-cortez-dismisses-proposed-1b-cut-defunding-police-means-defunding)

Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Julio on July 13, 2020, 12:53:35 AM
Can we get something straight? Name-calling is bad. By definition it is "abusive language or insults."  It's been stated, "Name-calling is one of the most damaging and painful types of bullying."

This is not name-calling. It addresses another's comments, not the person.

It's a massive no. Your posts are childlike in the worst ways, and the stances you defend are tribal and have nothing to do with principles or general beliefs. Keep your poison to yourself.

This, however, is blatant, rude name-calling.

I think you're a clown. And clowns are for birthday parties, not conversations. So unless I see you at a birthday party I won't be engaging you in conversation.

Save your energy.

M. Staneck

Gracias Padre Kirchner ... in light of the Eighth commandment teaching link at the end of this post, the following is a further example of blatant rude name calling ....
Someone, who has an extraordinary amount of time on their hands, is now posting as a cartoon character version of a Latino.

M. Staneck
Doesn’t appear to address another’s comments ... just ridicules another poster ...

And then there is making apparently baseless accusations concerning off topic subjects (unless ‘packing heat’ has REALLY been a topic of the Gottesdienst blog) that is apparently the intended butt of the following ridiculing post ...

That blog site has writers who would advocate packing heat in church to protect from life's dangers,

M. Staneck
Provide a link to a thus far unlocatable Gottesdienst blog post concerning “packing heat” and this will be removed) ... and finally ...

...  the passage selected for this diatribe,

Dave Benke
Was it really Padre Benke’s intent to “ defend him, speak well of him and explain everything in the kindest way” Dr Karl Fabrizius when he referred to his writings as “diatribe” given that diatribe is defined as “a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something“?

Perhaps a review of the Eighth commandment is in order as in this link that was shared with me earlier this week.

https://catechismlockdown.blogspot.com/2020/07/10-eighth-commandment.html

A neighbor this evening indicated that a forum he participates on was in need of a new moderator ... he suggested that a requirement to post on that neighborhood forum should that posters should be stone sober.

Maybe ALPB posters should review the Eighth commandment before posting as well.

Señor, ten piedad!

Julio
PS Padre Staneck ... you are forgiven for your ill placed, off color Latino ‘joke’.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 15, 2020, 06:50:38 PM
Mollie Hemingway's dear husband recently wrote this excellent piece about the book in question:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/15/what-to-read-instead-of-white-fragility
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 15, 2020, 06:51:20 PM
This lovely bit so far is my favorite:

"While frustration over perceived lack of racial progress since the MLK era is understandable, it beggars belief that anyone, let alone someone who professes to oppose racism, would look at the last 70 or so years of American history and say, 'I think we need to get white people to start thinking about how their skin color unites them.' But here we are."
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 15, 2020, 07:38:38 PM
Mollie Hemingway's dear husband recently wrote this excellent piece about the book in question:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/15/what-to-read-instead-of-white-fragility (https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/15/what-to-read-instead-of-white-fragility)


Even those not disposed to agree with Hemingway, David, or me might want to check out the proposed reading list at the end of the essay.  I'm ashamed that I have yet to read most of what he's listed.  He warns his conservative readers up front that much of what he's recommending will "not be comfortable" to us or our world view.  But some of what he listed will challenge our friends on the left as well.  That's as it should be.  We all should be challenged constantly and forced to think and rethink and rethink again.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 15, 2020, 09:23:15 PM
Mollie Hemingway's dear husband recently wrote this excellent piece about the book in question:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/15/what-to-read-instead-of-white-fragility
He seems not to have read the book, White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism, that I just finished. I haven't read several of the other things he complains about, but I have read Taibbi (whom he likes), and I just think he bypasses DiAngelo's actual thesis and foists upon her one that meets his expectations (prejudices?).

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 15, 2020, 11:42:52 PM
John McWhorter, a professor at Columbia University, has written in The Atlantic about White Fragility.  Link (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/)  Dr. McWhorter happens to be Black.  He writes:


In 2020—as opposed to 1920—I neither need nor want anyone to muse on how whiteness privileges them over me. Nor do I need wider society to undergo teachings in how to be exquisitely sensitive about my feelings. I see no connection between DiAngelo’s brand of reeducation and vigorous, constructive activism in the real world on issues of import to the Black community. And I cannot imagine that any Black readers could willingly submit themselves to DiAngelo’s ideas while considering themselves adults of ordinary self-regard and strength. Few books about race have more openly infantilized Black people than this supposedly authoritative tome.

.  .  .  .  .


White Fragility is, in the end, a book about how to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children within this self-gratifying fantasy about how white America needs to think—or, better, stop thinking. Her answer to white fragility, in other words, entails an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people. The sad truth is that anyone falling under the sway of this blinkered, self-satisfied, punitive stunt of a primer has been taught, by a well-intentioned but tragically misguided pastor, how to be racist in a whole new way.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 16, 2020, 09:08:01 AM
Mollie Hemingway's dear husband recently wrote this excellent piece about the book in question:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/15/what-to-read-instead-of-white-fragility
He seems not to have read the book, White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism, that I just finished. I haven't read several of the other things he complains about, but I have read Taibbi (whom he likes), and I just think he bypasses DiAngelo's actual thesis and foists upon her one that meets his expectations (prejudices?).

Peace,
Michael

Yes, we discussed all that pages ago.  It began here:

http://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7504.msg482928#msg482928

And culminated with this:

As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

I certainly agree with that sentiment.  It's a bait and switch from where I stand.

I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).
You're right, they don't. But of course you are no longer talking about the book under consideration--you've switched.

Peace,
Michael

Well, I am talking about your description of what the book argues, to wit, that ...

She does use the term white supremacy, but she clearly distinguishes its sociological meaning from the popular consciousness that solely associates it with radical groups (p. 28). As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."

Your response doesn't really seem to take counter-arguments to that concept seriously.  I think you granted the book doesn't either, but that strikes me as a problem.  Re-defining terms, especially terms that have a rightly pejorative gloss, strikes me as problematic.

It's as if the term is now re-defined and cannot be un-defined or even explained.  Now that it is in popular use as a synonym for Klansmen and Neo-Nazis, we'll now just use it to describe broader concepts (like America), with no concern that the change in terms won't be well understood.  Worse, we'll blame those subject to the new pejorative for not making the distinction and objecting to the characterization.  Leftist thought policing tends to be a one-way ratchet that way, but those of us who find it dishonest aren't likely to simply concede the point, especially when the rhetoric is aimed in our direction.

It's great that you like the book.  It is supremely unhelpful that your criticisms of those who do not amount basically to "well they must not have read it like I did."

Put simply, this is twice now you've responded to specific criticism with ad hominem.  Either the things Taibbi and Hemingway say are in the book are in there or they are not.  I grant it's hard to prove absence of evidence, and I don't put that burden on you.  But going somewhere beyond "well, they must not have read it" would go a long way toward having a productive conversation.  As it is, from my perspective and with all due respect (and a lot of respect is due), you're coming across as more of a fanboy than a legitimate apologist.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 16, 2020, 09:10:29 AM
For the record, Mark Hemingway had White Fragility and How To Be an Anti-Racist on his reading list.  Since you failed to mention that, leaping instead to the whole "well, they must not have read the book" trope you started on the first page of this thread, perhaps it is the case that you are guilty of what you accuse them of -- not reading what you are critiquing. 
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 16, 2020, 12:55:29 PM
A useful thought experiment, IMO, is to test one's reactions to "systemic sexism." Is there a male bias built into our society, or not? I have had the sexism of my behavior or language (or of my "mansplaining") pointed out often enough so that I just try to learn from the occasion. I never (well, almost never) get defensive and try to talk my way out of it or bull my way through. I've had more than sixty years of correction starting with my big sister, and I'm not so fragile any more, and probably don't act out male bias as much as I did. Many men I know, including married men, have experienced a similar course of study, and yet we are told and can see for ourselves that a bias in favor of men over women is still endemic in our society in many ways, earning power being only one of them.

That is what DiAngelo would have us do with racism (though the sexism comparison isn't from her): get beyond taking the accusation of racism as a personal affront that would make me a bad person doing wicked acts and learn from the occasion how the bias in favor of whiteness in our society hurts people of color, sometimes in very concrete ways as well as in emotional challenges. Whites need to be tougher and more humble and recognize that this painful dynamic is built in to our society. White people need to practice to absorb more of the pain ourselves and push less of it off on to those who are hurt by it.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 16, 2020, 05:02:37 PM
A useful thought experiment, IMO, is to test one's reactions to "systemic sexism." Is there a male bias built into our society, or not? I have had the sexism of my behavior or language (or of my "mansplaining") pointed out often enough so that I just try to learn from the occasion. I never (well, almost never) get defensive and try to talk my way out of it or bull my way through. I've had more than sixty years of correction starting with my big sister, and I'm not so fragile any more, and probably don't act out male bias as much as I did. Many men I know, including married men, have experienced a similar course of study, and yet we are told and can see for ourselves that a bias in favor of men over women is still endemic in our society in many ways, earning power being only one of them.

That is what DiAngelo would have us do with racism (though the sexism comparison isn't from her): get beyond taking the accusation of racism as a personal affront that would make me a bad person doing wicked acts and learn from the occasion how the bias in favor of whiteness in our society hurts people of color, sometimes in very concrete ways as well as in emotional challenges. Whites need to be tougher and more humble and recognize that this painful dynamic is built in to our society. White people need to practice to absorb more of the pain ourselves and push less of it off on to those who are hurt by it.

I do think those are laudable goals and in keeping with the Christian understanding of humility.  However, what do we do with the fact that racism is most often (from my perspective as a white, Christian, conservative man at least) used as a bludgeon not by black people harmed by my racist actions, but by other white people who wish for me to adopt their policy stances and political preferences?  In order to understand why white people tend to be defensive about racism, you have to be willing to understand how the weaponization of the word "racist" has been used against us.  Not defensively by black people who are harmed by our actions, deeds, words.  But by other white people who want to big boy us into thinking, acting, doing and voting as they wish, not as we wish.  After all, it wasn't President Obama who said Mitt Romney wanted to put black people back in chains.  And certainly not Clarence Thomas, or JC Watt, or any other number of black conservatives.  No, it was Joe Biden that said that.  They don't get much whiter than Joe Biden.

Of course, he also said President Obama was the first black candidate for president who was bright and clean and articulate -- a storybook, I think he said? -- anyway, I think you can see the double standard here.  I'm quite certain Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes can, but that's probably because I recognize that they are also clean, bright and articulate.

The point is, Joe Biden never has to answer for his racism.  You know why?  Nobody ever really calls him out on it.  At least not in the cancel culture, he's an evil bad person who should be shunned way they do, ironically, someone like Mitt Romney (not to mention the president).  And to the point, I'd wager Robin DiAngelo hasn't either.  So the whole "let's not be defensive" coming from people who never have to defend themselves because they're on the right side of the political aisle, and especially coming from those hurling the bombs to begin with, leaves me a bit cold.  It reminds me of the time Chelsea Clinton spoke out passionately against the evils of our materialistic culture.  Trying to pay the bills and keep my family fed while someone who has never wanted for any material thing rails against my iPad is a bit too much to take, honestly.  This is of a piece.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 16, 2020, 07:27:23 PM
A useful thought experiment, IMO, is to test one's reactions to "systemic sexism." Is there a male bias built into our society, or not? I have had the sexism of my behavior or language (or of my "mansplaining") pointed out often enough so that I just try to learn from the occasion. I never (well, almost never) get defensive and try to talk my way out of it or bull my way through. I've had more than sixty years of correction starting with my big sister, and I'm not so fragile any more, and probably don't act out male bias as much as I did. Many men I know, including married men, have experienced a similar course of study, and yet we are told and can see for ourselves that a bias in favor of men over women is still endemic in our society in many ways, earning power being only one of them.

That is what DiAngelo would have us do with racism (though the sexism comparison isn't from her): get beyond taking the accusation of racism as a personal affront that would make me a bad person doing wicked acts and learn from the occasion how the bias in favor of whiteness in our society hurts people of color, sometimes in very concrete ways as well as in emotional challenges. Whites need to be tougher and more humble and recognize that this painful dynamic is built in to our society. White people need to practice to absorb more of the pain ourselves and push less of it off on to those who are hurt by it.

I do think those are laudable goals and in keeping with the Christian understanding of humility.  However, what do we do with the fact that racism is most often (from my perspective as a white, Christian, conservative man at least) used as a bludgeon not by black people harmed by my racist actions, but by other white people who wish for me to adopt their policy stances and political preferences?  In order to understand why white people tend to be defensive about racism, you have to be willing to understand how the weaponization of the word "racist" has been used against us.  Not defensively by black people who are harmed by our actions, deeds, words.  But by other white people who want to big boy us into thinking, acting, doing and voting as they wish, not as we wish.  After all, it wasn't President Obama who said Mitt Romney wanted to put black people back in chains.  And certainly not Clarence Thomas, or JC Watt, or any other number of black conservatives.  No, it was Joe Biden that said that.  They don't get much whiter than Joe Biden.

Of course, he also said President Obama was the first black candidate for president who was bright and clean and articulate -- a storybook, I think he said? -- anyway, I think you can see the double standard here.  I'm quite certain Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes can, but that's probably because I recognize that they are also clean, bright and articulate.

The point is, Joe Biden never has to answer for his racism.  You know why?  Nobody ever really calls him out on it.  At least not in the cancel culture, he's an evil bad person who should be shunned way they do, ironically, someone like Mitt Romney (not to mention the president).  And to the point, I'd wager Robin DiAngelo hasn't either.  So the whole "let's not be defensive" coming from people who never have to defend themselves because they're on the right side of the political aisle, and especially coming from those hurling the bombs to begin with, leaves me a bit cold.  It reminds me of the time Chelsea Clinton spoke out passionately against the evils of our materialistic culture.  Trying to pay the bills and keep my family fed while someone who has never wanted for any material thing rails against my iPad is a bit too much to take, honestly.  This is of a piece.
I won't get into party politics with you, as long as we are talking about White Fragility at least. As I said earlier, I don't believe that Robin DiAngelo mentions either Republicans or Democrats, much less more incendiary partisan terms. Others on this Forum may feel like taking you up in that area--at least, so as I've noticed.

The problem is a real one and likely to occupy us for several years. I think DiAngelo has made a positive contribution to showing what the social dynamics are. That may help in some small way. I at least have found her analysis illuminating, even if (or perhaps because) it isn't a partisan screed.

Peace,
Michael

Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 16, 2020, 07:52:36 PM
A useful thought experiment, IMO, is to test one's reactions to "systemic sexism." Is there a male bias built into our society, or not? I have had the sexism of my behavior or language (or of my "mansplaining") pointed out often enough so that I just try to learn from the occasion. I never (well, almost never) get defensive and try to talk my way out of it or bull my way through. I've had more than sixty years of correction starting with my big sister, and I'm not so fragile any more, and probably don't act out male bias as much as I did. Many men I know, including married men, have experienced a similar course of study, and yet we are told and can see for ourselves that a bias in favor of men over women is still endemic in our society in many ways, earning power being only one of them.

That is what DiAngelo would have us do with racism (though the sexism comparison isn't from her): get beyond taking the accusation of racism as a personal affront that would make me a bad person doing wicked acts and learn from the occasion how the bias in favor of whiteness in our society hurts people of color, sometimes in very concrete ways as well as in emotional challenges. Whites need to be tougher and more humble and recognize that this painful dynamic is built in to our society. White people need to practice to absorb more of the pain ourselves and push less of it off on to those who are hurt by it.

I do think those are laudable goals and in keeping with the Christian understanding of humility.  However, what do we do with the fact that racism is most often (from my perspective as a white, Christian, conservative man at least) used as a bludgeon not by black people harmed by my racist actions, but by other white people who wish for me to adopt their policy stances and political preferences?  In order to understand why white people tend to be defensive about racism, you have to be willing to understand how the weaponization of the word "racist" has been used against us.  Not defensively by black people who are harmed by our actions, deeds, words.  But by other white people who want to big boy us into thinking, acting, doing and voting as they wish, not as we wish.  After all, it wasn't President Obama who said Mitt Romney wanted to put black people back in chains.  And certainly not Clarence Thomas, or JC Watt, or any other number of black conservatives.  No, it was Joe Biden that said that.  They don't get much whiter than Joe Biden.

Of course, he also said President Obama was the first black candidate for president who was bright and clean and articulate -- a storybook, I think he said? -- anyway, I think you can see the double standard here.  I'm quite certain Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes can, but that's probably because I recognize that they are also clean, bright and articulate.

The point is, Joe Biden never has to answer for his racism.  You know why?  Nobody ever really calls him out on it.  At least not in the cancel culture, he's an evil bad person who should be shunned way they do, ironically, someone like Mitt Romney (not to mention the president).  And to the point, I'd wager Robin DiAngelo hasn't either.  So the whole "let's not be defensive" coming from people who never have to defend themselves because they're on the right side of the political aisle, and especially coming from those hurling the bombs to begin with, leaves me a bit cold.  It reminds me of the time Chelsea Clinton spoke out passionately against the evils of our materialistic culture.  Trying to pay the bills and keep my family fed while someone who has never wanted for any material thing rails against my iPad is a bit too much to take, honestly.  This is of a piece.

People forget, or pay no attention to the fact that geographically, DE is below the Mason Dixon Line. It may have stayed in the Union, but it was a slave state, and the ramifications of that echo to this day, including in DE politics. He may have been born in Scranton, but he was raised in Wilmington, and is a product of the Democratic  machine there. Good liberal DE has the highest per capita private school enrollment, because all those enlightened progressives wouldn’t think for a moment of putting their children in integrated schools.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: David Garner on July 16, 2020, 09:48:56 PM
A useful thought experiment, IMO, is to test one's reactions to "systemic sexism." Is there a male bias built into our society, or not? I have had the sexism of my behavior or language (or of my "mansplaining") pointed out often enough so that I just try to learn from the occasion. I never (well, almost never) get defensive and try to talk my way out of it or bull my way through. I've had more than sixty years of correction starting with my big sister, and I'm not so fragile any more, and probably don't act out male bias as much as I did. Many men I know, including married men, have experienced a similar course of study, and yet we are told and can see for ourselves that a bias in favor of men over women is still endemic in our society in many ways, earning power being only one of them.

That is what DiAngelo would have us do with racism (though the sexism comparison isn't from her): get beyond taking the accusation of racism as a personal affront that would make me a bad person doing wicked acts and learn from the occasion how the bias in favor of whiteness in our society hurts people of color, sometimes in very concrete ways as well as in emotional challenges. Whites need to be tougher and more humble and recognize that this painful dynamic is built in to our society. White people need to practice to absorb more of the pain ourselves and push less of it off on to those who are hurt by it.

I do think those are laudable goals and in keeping with the Christian understanding of humility.  However, what do we do with the fact that racism is most often (from my perspective as a white, Christian, conservative man at least) used as a bludgeon not by black people harmed by my racist actions, but by other white people who wish for me to adopt their policy stances and political preferences?  In order to understand why white people tend to be defensive about racism, you have to be willing to understand how the weaponization of the word "racist" has been used against us.  Not defensively by black people who are harmed by our actions, deeds, words.  But by other white people who want to big boy us into thinking, acting, doing and voting as they wish, not as we wish.  After all, it wasn't President Obama who said Mitt Romney wanted to put black people back in chains.  And certainly not Clarence Thomas, or JC Watt, or any other number of black conservatives.  No, it was Joe Biden that said that.  They don't get much whiter than Joe Biden.

Of course, he also said President Obama was the first black candidate for president who was bright and clean and articulate -- a storybook, I think he said? -- anyway, I think you can see the double standard here.  I'm quite certain Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes can, but that's probably because I recognize that they are also clean, bright and articulate.

The point is, Joe Biden never has to answer for his racism.  You know why?  Nobody ever really calls him out on it.  At least not in the cancel culture, he's an evil bad person who should be shunned way they do, ironically, someone like Mitt Romney (not to mention the president).  And to the point, I'd wager Robin DiAngelo hasn't either.  So the whole "let's not be defensive" coming from people who never have to defend themselves because they're on the right side of the political aisle, and especially coming from those hurling the bombs to begin with, leaves me a bit cold.  It reminds me of the time Chelsea Clinton spoke out passionately against the evils of our materialistic culture.  Trying to pay the bills and keep my family fed while someone who has never wanted for any material thing rails against my iPad is a bit too much to take, honestly.  This is of a piece.
I won't get into party politics with you, as long as we are talking about White Fragility at least. As I said earlier, I don't believe that Robin DiAngelo mentions either Republicans or Democrats, much less more incendiary partisan terms. Others on this Forum may feel like taking you up in that area--at least, so as I've noticed.

The problem is a real one and likely to occupy us for several years. I think DiAngelo has made a positive contribution to showing what the social dynamics are. That may help in some small way. I at least have found her analysis illuminating, even if (or perhaps because) it isn't a partisan screed.

Peace,
Michael

I’m sorry there isn’t a better way to point out the weaponization of false claims of racism by liberal whites without discussing partisanship. I’m sorrier you dismiss that valid discussion as a “screed.”

Have a nice day Father.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 16, 2020, 10:08:15 PM
A useful thought experiment, IMO, is to test one's reactions to "systemic sexism." Is there a male bias built into our society, or not? I have had the sexism of my behavior or language (or of my "mansplaining") pointed out often enough so that I just try to learn from the occasion. I never (well, almost never) get defensive and try to talk my way out of it or bull my way through. I've had more than sixty years of correction starting with my big sister, and I'm not so fragile any more, and probably don't act out male bias as much as I did. Many men I know, including married men, have experienced a similar course of study, and yet we are told and can see for ourselves that a bias in favor of men over women is still endemic in our society in many ways, earning power being only one of them.

That is what DiAngelo would have us do with racism (though the sexism comparison isn't from her): get beyond taking the accusation of racism as a personal affront that would make me a bad person doing wicked acts and learn from the occasion how the bias in favor of whiteness in our society hurts people of color, sometimes in very concrete ways as well as in emotional challenges. Whites need to be tougher and more humble and recognize that this painful dynamic is built in to our society. White people need to practice to absorb more of the pain ourselves and push less of it off on to those who are hurt by it.

I do think those are laudable goals and in keeping with the Christian understanding of humility.  However, what do we do with the fact that racism is most often (from my perspective as a white, Christian, conservative man at least) used as a bludgeon not by black people harmed by my racist actions, but by other white people who wish for me to adopt their policy stances and political preferences?  In order to understand why white people tend to be defensive about racism, you have to be willing to understand how the weaponization of the word "racist" has been used against us.  Not defensively by black people who are harmed by our actions, deeds, words.  But by other white people who want to big boy us into thinking, acting, doing and voting as they wish, not as we wish.  After all, it wasn't President Obama who said Mitt Romney wanted to put black people back in chains.  And certainly not Clarence Thomas, or JC Watt, or any other number of black conservatives.  No, it was Joe Biden that said that.  They don't get much whiter than Joe Biden.

Of course, he also said President Obama was the first black candidate for president who was bright and clean and articulate -- a storybook, I think he said? -- anyway, I think you can see the double standard here.  I'm quite certain Jesse Jackson and Alan Keyes can, but that's probably because I recognize that they are also clean, bright and articulate.

The point is, Joe Biden never has to answer for his racism.  You know why?  Nobody ever really calls him out on it.  At least not in the cancel culture, he's an evil bad person who should be shunned way they do, ironically, someone like Mitt Romney (not to mention the president).  And to the point, I'd wager Robin DiAngelo hasn't either.  So the whole "let's not be defensive" coming from people who never have to defend themselves because they're on the right side of the political aisle, and especially coming from those hurling the bombs to begin with, leaves me a bit cold.  It reminds me of the time Chelsea Clinton spoke out passionately against the evils of our materialistic culture.  Trying to pay the bills and keep my family fed while someone who has never wanted for any material thing rails against my iPad is a bit too much to take, honestly.  This is of a piece.
I won't get into party politics with you, as long as we are talking about White Fragility at least. As I said earlier, I don't believe that Robin DiAngelo mentions either Republicans or Democrats, much less more incendiary partisan terms. Others on this Forum may feel like taking you up in that area--at least, so as I've noticed.

The problem is a real one and likely to occupy us for several years. I think DiAngelo has made a positive contribution to showing what the social dynamics are. That may help in some small way. I at least have found her analysis illuminating, even if (or perhaps because) it isn't a partisan screed.

Peace,
Michael

I’m sorry there isn’t a better way to point out the weaponization of false claims of racism by liberal whites without discussing partisanship. I’m sorrier you dismiss that valid discussion as a “screed.”

Have a nice day Father.
What discussion did I dismiss as a screed? I said DiAngelo's book is not a screed, but I don't recall applying that word to any other writing.  ???  And I was discussing her book, not the "weaponization of false claims of racism made by liberal whites," which you apparently think should have been the focus of her book. One can't demand that authors write the book one wishes they would. There may be other books out there that match your desires. I'm stuck discussing this book.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: jebutler on July 17, 2020, 05:06:23 PM
A review of White Fragility by a black professor at Columbia

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

BTW, how can anyone take seriously a book that says, “Imagine if instead the story, went something like this: ‘Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball’”?

That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. She obviously doesn't know baseball.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Weedon on July 18, 2020, 08:41:31 AM
Insightful review, Jim. Thanks for the link. I’ve loved McWhorter since I listened to his fascinating lectures on the history of language.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: jebutler on July 18, 2020, 11:52:50 AM
Another interesting take from Jonathan Chait,

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/antiracism-training-white-fragility-robin-diangelo-ibram-kendi.html
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 18, 2020, 12:41:58 PM
Since the paragraph about Jackie Robinson is the most frequently referred to in these last two linked articles and other interventions, it may be useful to quote it in full from White Fragility, p. 26:
Quote
    "The story of Jackie Robinson is a classic example of how whiteness obscures racism by rendering whites, white privilege, and racist institutions invisible. Robinson is often celebrated as the first African American to break the color line and play in major-league baseball. While Robinson was certainly an amazing baseball player, this story line depicts him as racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong enough to compete at that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this: 'Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.' This version makes a critical distinction because no matter how fantastic a player Robinson was, he simply could not play in the major leagues is whites--who controlled the institution--did not allow it. Were he to walk onto the field before being granted permission by white owners and policy makers, the police would have removed him."
     Nowadays most whites who care about baseball realize that what happened with Robinson (and in the AL with Larry Doby) was controlled by the white executives who finally and gradually lowered the barrier to black players that had been raised with Jim Crow in the late 1800s. We are already "woke" to that, and our reaction may be "Doh!" The example doesn't much help to show how "the reality of ongoing institutional white control" has been obscured by the way we tell his story.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 18, 2020, 12:57:26 PM
I am not a baseball expert, but from all that I have heard and read, the story of Jackie Robinson is more nuanced that Diangelo gives him or anyone else involved credits. I doubt that many who are actually knowledgeable about baseball hold the theory that Robinson was the first Black to play baseball well enough to play on the white major leagues. There were other Black professional baseball players at that time and earlier that were as good or ever better than Robinson. Leroy "Satchel" Paige comes to mind. It was a combination of factors that made Robinson the first, not the least of which was Robinson's skill and determination, being at the right place and at the right time and at the right position in his career, and his courage and willingness to work through the guff he received. It was a credit to Robinson that he was able to pioneer and help bring about that change.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Terry W Culler on July 18, 2020, 01:25:50 PM
I am not a baseball expert, but from all that I have heard and read, the story of Jackie Robinson is more nuanced that Diangelo gives him or anyone else involved credits. I doubt that many who are actually knowledgeable about baseball hold the theory that Robinson was the first Black to play baseball well enough to play on the white major leagues. There were other Black professional baseball players at that time and earlier that were as good or ever better than Robinson. Leroy "Satchel" Paige comes to mind. It was a combination of factors that made Robinson the first, not the least of which was Robinson's skill and determination, being at the right place and at the right time and at the right position in his career, and his courage and willingness to work through the guff he received. It was a credit to Robinson that he was able to pioneer and help bring about that change.


There was also a time when blacks did play pro ball with whites.  I've read, but am not sure, that it ended in the early 1900's when Cap Anson, one of the greatest players of his era and manager of the Chicago Whitestockings, refused to allow his team to play against any team with black players.  While all of that may not be correct, it is correct to say that both blacks and whites played in the "majors; early on. 
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on July 18, 2020, 01:39:25 PM
I am not a baseball expert, but from all that I have heard and read, the story of Jackie Robinson is more nuanced that Diangelo gives him or anyone else involved credits. I doubt that many who are actually knowledgeable about baseball hold the theory that Robinson was the first Black to play baseball well enough to play on the white major leagues. There were other Black professional baseball players at that time and earlier that were as good or ever better than Robinson. Leroy "Satchel" Paige comes to mind. It was a combination of factors that made Robinson the first, not the least of which was Robinson's skill and determination, being at the right place and at the right time and at the right position in his career, and his courage and willingness to work through the guff he received. It was a credit to Robinson that he was able to pioneer and help bring about that change.

As a baseball nut, there's a wow factor in one thing you said, Dan.  Because many of the black players were way better than the white players who were in the (all-white except for the occasional Cuban) Major League.   Right at the beginning edge of Queens - "city line" being the invisible line that divides Brooklyn from Queens, notorious for many years because the Brooklyn street signs were black with white lettering while the Queens street signs were white with blue lettering - there was a ball park.  Dexter Park.  And it's where the Bushwicks and other top-shelf amateur teams played.  In the off-season, the "barnstorming" season, the major leaguers would play these teams in exhibition games.  And the Grays and other black teams would play straight up against the white amateur teams or the major league barnstormers.  My old-time members regaled me with stories about a pail of beer for a nickel and actual knotholes in the wall to watch the game, and who were the best players then.  One of my elderly elders played 1B for the Bushwicks.  He was a big fella even in his 70s, and I guess he had some major league power. 

In other words, since baseball was "it" at the time in terms of pro sports, there was a lot of mixing and matching going on.  So Babe Ruth and others appeared at Dexter Park and played against the black players.  Pretty much even-steven.  Outspoken racist players on the white side of the aisle kept Jim Crow alive and well in the big leagues until the breakthroughs of the late 40s. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: jebutler on July 18, 2020, 01:49:20 PM
Since the paragraph about Jackie Robinson is the most frequently referred to in these last two linked articles and other interventions, it may be useful to quote it in full from White Fragility, p. 26:
Quote
    "The story of Jackie Robinson is a classic example of how whiteness obscures racism by rendering whites, white privilege, and racist institutions invisible. Robinson is often celebrated as the first African American to break the color line and play in major-league baseball. While Robinson was certainly an amazing baseball player, this story line depicts him as racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong enough to compete at that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this: 'Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.' This version makes a critical distinction because no matter how fantastic a player Robinson was, he simply could not play in the major leagues is whites--who controlled the institution--did not allow it. Were he to walk onto the field before being granted permission by white owners and policy makers, the police would have removed him."
     Nowadays most whites who care about baseball realize that what happened with Robinson (and in the AL with Larry Doby) was controlled by the white executives who finally and gradually lowered the barrier to black players that had been raised with Jim Crow in the late 1800s. We are already "woke" to that, and our reaction may be "Doh!" The example doesn't much help to show how "the reality of ongoing institutional white control" has been obscured by the way we tell his story.

Peace,
Michael

Except that every line there is filled with stupidity (not a term that I use lightly).

No one who knows anything about baseball--which, apparently, she does not--believes Robinson was "racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself." Nor do they believe "that Robinson finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong enough to compete at that level." Many of the players in the Negro Leagues could have played MLB, Satchel Paige among them. But just about any player on the Kansas City Monarchs could have played Major League ball at the time.

The only thing that held them back was, "racism by...whites, white privilege, and racist institutions" which are certainly not invisible in this story. The sheer hatred that Robinson received by white fans is well documented. His grace under pressure, his sheer skill, and the support his received from his teammates--Pee Wee Reese among them--is what finally won the fans over.

Now, she wants us to "imagine" a different story--which is exactly the story that everyone tells. In this story, " no matter how fantastic a player Robinson was, he simply could not play in the major leagues is whites--who controlled the institution--did not allow it. Were he to walk onto the field before being granted permission by white owners and policy makers, the police would have removed him." Well, yes, That's exactly the story. That's the story that every book about Jackie Robinson tells. That's the story I told my kids when I pointed out the retired number 42 in Kaufmann Stadium and Fenway and told my kids that number is retired across MLB. She's the one who is imagining a different story. As far as I can tell, what she writes makes as much sense as someone saying, "Let's imagine a different story about Jesus--one in which he was crucified and raised again in three days."

Sorry, but putting her in context doesn't do her any favors. It just illustrates how little she actually knows about Jackie Robinson.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2020, 02:22:23 PM
Since the paragraph about Jackie Robinson is the most frequently referred to in these last two linked articles and other interventions, it may be useful to quote it in full from White Fragility, p. 26:
Quote
    "The story of Jackie Robinson is a classic example of how whiteness obscures racism by rendering whites, white privilege, and racist institutions invisible. Robinson is often celebrated as the first African American to break the color line and play in major-league baseball. While Robinson was certainly an amazing baseball player, this story line depicts him as racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong enough to compete at that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this: 'Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.' This version makes a critical distinction because no matter how fantastic a player Robinson was, he simply could not play in the major leagues is whites--who controlled the institution--did not allow it. Were he to walk onto the field before being granted permission by white owners and policy makers, the police would have removed him."
     Nowadays most whites who care about baseball realize that what happened with Robinson (and in the AL with Larry Doby) was controlled by the white executives who finally and gradually lowered the barrier to black players that had been raised with Jim Crow in the late 1800s. We are already "woke" to that, and our reaction may be "Doh!" The example doesn't much help to show how "the reality of ongoing institutional white control" has been obscured by the way we tell his story.

Peace,
Michael

Except that every line there is filled with stupidity (not a term that I use lightly).

No one who knows anything about baseball--which, apparently, she does not--believes Robinson was "racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself." Nor do they believe "that Robinson finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong enough to compete at that level." Many of the players in the Negro Leagues could have played MLB, Satchel Paige among them. But just about any player on the Kansas City Monarchs could have played Major League ball at the time.

The only thing that held them back was, "racism by...whites, white privilege, and racist institutions" which are certainly not invisible in this story. The sheer hatred that Robinson received by white fans is well documented. His grace under pressure, his sheer skill, and the support his received from his teammates--Pee Wee Reese among them--is what finally won the fans over.

Now, she wants us to "imagine" a different story--which is exactly the story that everyone tells. In this story, " no matter how fantastic a player Robinson was, he simply could not play in the major leagues is whites--who controlled the institution--did not allow it. Were he to walk onto the field before being granted permission by white owners and policy makers, the police would have removed him." Well, yes, That's exactly the story. That's the story that every book about Jackie Robinson tells. That's the story I told my kids when I pointed out the retired number 42 in Kaufmann Stadium and Fenway and told my kids that number is retired across MLB. She's the one who is imagining a different story. As far as I can tell, what she writes makes as much sense as someone saying, "Let's imagine a different story about Jesus--one in which he was crucified and raised again in three days."

Sorry, but putting her in context doesn't do her any favors. It just illustrates how little she actually knows about Jackie Robinson.


As I read the reports about this here, it strikes me that she takes issue with the language that is often used: "Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier." That makes it sound like he decided to play in the major league with the whites. Thinking people know that's not the real story line, but we continue to use language like that. I believe she is arguing that there is language that better reflects the actual circumstances.


In a similar way, I dislike the language: "Jesus rose from the dead." That makes it sound like Jesus made himself rise. If he were truly dead, he could do nothing for himself. I prefer the passive, "Jesus was raised from the dead." The Father, the Creator, who gave life to dirt, was the power behind raising the corpse of Jesus.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 18, 2020, 02:40:42 PM
Since the paragraph about Jackie Robinson is the most frequently referred to in these last two linked articles and other interventions, it may be useful to quote it in full from White Fragility, p. 26:
Quote
    "The story of Jackie Robinson is a classic example of how whiteness obscures racism by rendering whites, white privilege, and racist institutions invisible. Robinson is often celebrated as the first African American to break the color line and play in major-league baseball. While Robinson was certainly an amazing baseball player, this story line depicts him as racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong enough to compete at that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this: 'Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.' This version makes a critical distinction because no matter how fantastic a player Robinson was, he simply could not play in the major leagues is whites--who controlled the institution--did not allow it. Were he to walk onto the field before being granted permission by white owners and policy makers, the police would have removed him."
     Nowadays most whites who care about baseball realize that what happened with Robinson (and in the AL with Larry Doby) was controlled by the white executives who finally and gradually lowered the barrier to black players that had been raised with Jim Crow in the late 1800s. We are already "woke" to that, and our reaction may be "Doh!" The example doesn't much help to show how "the reality of ongoing institutional white control" has been obscured by the way we tell his story.

Peace,
Michael

Father,

I've said as much previously and I'll say it again the book is just bad, and dangerously so.  Her generalization of the term "white supremacy" should be enough to discredit her argument and could be likened to a theology of original sin.  Her methodology is deeply flawed which is why she sees "white fragility" everywhere.  She believes that the defensiveness of the whites she works with is proof of white fragility rather than simple human dynamics that can be explained via biology and human development.  She also claims that white women's tears at racist actions are a result of their white fragility and racist legacy. Again, she believes that racism is worse today than during the Jim Crow era which makes sense if you frame racism in such a generalized and nebulous way as she does. 

Peace,
Scott+
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Likeness on July 18, 2020, 02:44:44 PM
Branch Rickey was the President & General Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers in the mid-1940's.
He was scouting the Negro Leagues for a good ball player.  He would interview them & ask them
if they would fight back against the racial taunts that might come their way in MLB.

He finally decided on Jackie Robinson who had the right temperament and would not fight every
racial slur he heard. Jackie was a good athlete. he was the first guy to letter in 4 sports at UCLA,
namely football, basketball, baseball, and track.  Branch Rickey promised Jackie that he would
eventually put him on the roster of  the Dodgers.  The perseverance and patience of Branch
Rickey is largely responsible for Jackie Robinson breaking the MLB color barrier.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on July 18, 2020, 04:54:34 PM

In a similar way, I dislike the language: "Jesus rose from the dead." That makes it sound like Jesus made himself rise. If he were truly dead, he could do nothing for himself. I prefer the passive, "Jesus was raised from the dead." The Father, the Creator, who gave life to dirt, was the power behind raising the corpse of Jesus.

The ole Stoffregen heresy gratuitously rears its ugly head again.   ::)
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RDPreus on July 18, 2020, 05:15:08 PM

In a similar way, I dislike the language: "Jesus rose from the dead." That makes it sound like Jesus made himself rise. If he were truly dead, he could do nothing for himself. I prefer the passive, "Jesus was raised from the dead." The Father, the Creator, who gave life to dirt, was the power behind raising the corpse of Jesus.


"Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:19
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2020, 07:27:43 PM
Thread drift.


I started a new discussion on the drift.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 20, 2020, 02:58:49 PM
Following up on the McWhorter review of White Fragility, this video uses satire to illustrate the racism at the core of "wokeness" and critical theory.  Fair warning:  Some of the language is a little crude.  Link:  When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Ev373c7wSRg&feature=emb_title)
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on July 20, 2020, 03:11:23 PM
Following up on the McWhorter review of White Fragility, this video uses satire to illustrate the racism at the core of "wokeness" and critical theory.  Fair warning:  Some of the language is a little crude.  Link:  When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Ev373c7wSRg&feature=emb_title)

That's actually pretty funny.  I'm trying to figure out where they are and which bridge they're near. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: James_Gale on July 20, 2020, 03:18:02 PM
Following up on the McWhorter review of White Fragility, this video uses satire to illustrate the racism at the core of "wokeness" and critical theory.  Fair warning:  Some of the language is a little crude.  Link:  When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Ev373c7wSRg&feature=emb_title)

That's actually pretty funny.  I'm trying to figure out where they are and which bridge they're near. 

Dave Benke


I was trying to figure that out as well.  And the accent. 


I looked up the comedian (Ryan Long) on the Google machine.  It says that he's from Toronto and currently lives in NYC.  The accent now makes sense.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on July 20, 2020, 03:47:08 PM
I'm going to chew on this all night for the location - bridge, Con Ed plant, pathway along river's edge, park/playground, buildings in the background on the other side of the river are not Manhattan, and almost look like NJ - but - at the 9 second mark, it definitely looks like the 59th street bridge in the background, so - two locations?  Because the other bridge in second 28 is not the 59th street.  They are in New York, that's for sure.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 20, 2020, 05:05:59 PM
If it was, at least in part, the 59th Street Bridge, too bad they didn't use as background the Paul Simon song for that bridge.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on July 20, 2020, 05:54:30 PM
If it was, at least in part, the 59th Street Bridge, too bad they didn't use as background the Paul Simon song for that bridge.

Slow down/you're movin' too fast

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 21, 2020, 10:42:15 AM
I'm going to chew on this all night for the location - bridge, Con Ed plant, pathway along river's edge, park/playground, buildings in the background on the other side of the river are not Manhattan, and almost look like NJ - but - at the 9 second mark, it definitely looks like the 59th street bridge in the background, so - two locations?  Because the other bridge in second 28 is not the 59th street.  They are in New York, that's for sure.

Dave Benke

They move around a bit, but for most of it it looks like they're down at East River Park at Houston Street which has a great view of the Williamsburg Bridge.  We played LaSalle High School there, the fields were awful then and we were worried we might slide into some old needles or viles.  The Con Ed plant is the one at 14 st.  Jacob Riis projects are on the other side of the FDR.

Great video, saw it last night on Twitter.

Peace,
Scott+
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on July 21, 2020, 12:34:24 PM
I'm going to chew on this all night for the location - bridge, Con Ed plant, pathway along river's edge, park/playground, buildings in the background on the other side of the river are not Manhattan, and almost look like NJ - but - at the 9 second mark, it definitely looks like the 59th street bridge in the background, so - two locations?  Because the other bridge in second 28 is not the 59th street.  They are in New York, that's for sure.

Dave Benke

They move around a bit, but for most of it it looks like they're down at East River Park at Houston Street which has a great view of the Williamsburg Bridge.  We played LaSalle High School there, the fields were awful then and we were worried we might slide into some old needles or viles.  The Con Ed plant is the one at 14 st.  Jacob Riis projects are on the other side of the FDR.

Great video, saw it last night on Twitter.

Peace,
Scott+

So then the other side of the Willy B that looked to me like New Jersey is actually Brooklyn.  It's frightening to me that I would ever mistake Brooklyn for New Jersey.  Although I'm not a hater.

Regarding the Fields of Dreams in Manhattan, when I was coaching baseball at Martin Luther we played Collegiate Prep in Central Park.  Children of privilege against the working class.  They (back then) had metal bats, and we had three wooden bats.  I asked their coach if we could borrow one of their many metal bats, and he refused.  We then sent them to a stinging defeat on their home turf.  But the baseball fields in Central Park were nice, even then.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: RevG on July 22, 2020, 03:26:10 PM
I'm going to chew on this all night for the location - bridge, Con Ed plant, pathway along river's edge, park/playground, buildings in the background on the other side of the river are not Manhattan, and almost look like NJ - but - at the 9 second mark, it definitely looks like the 59th street bridge in the background, so - two locations?  Because the other bridge in second 28 is not the 59th street.  They are in New York, that's for sure.

Dave Benke

They move around a bit, but for most of it it looks like they're down at East River Park at Houston Street which has a great view of the Williamsburg Bridge.  We played LaSalle High School there, the fields were awful then and we were worried we might slide into some old needles or viles.  The Con Ed plant is the one at 14 st.  Jacob Riis projects are on the other side of the FDR.

Great video, saw it last night on Twitter.

Peace,
Scott+

So then the other side of the Willy B that looked to me like New Jersey is actually Brooklyn.  It's frightening to me that I would ever mistake Brooklyn for New Jersey.  Although I'm not a hater.

Regarding the Fields of Dreams in Manhattan, when I was coaching baseball at Martin Luther we played Collegiate Prep in Central Park.  Children of privilege against the working class.  They (back then) had metal bats, and we had three wooden bats.  I asked their coach if we could borrow one of their many metal bats, and he refused.  We then sent them to a stinging defeat on their home turf.  But the baseball fields in Central Park were nice, even then.

Dave Benke

Nice. We played Regis (Tony Fauci's alma mater) in Central Park, I remember that the fields were surprisingly nice.

Peace,
Scott+
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 26, 2020, 08:16:21 AM
Interesting information on the author:
https://freebeacon.com/culture/the-wages-of-woke-2/

It's like that great Demotivator Poster slogan-
"If you aren't part of the solution, there is still good money to be made as a consultant."
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Julio on July 27, 2020, 05:48:05 PM
Mollie Hemingway's dear husband recently wrote this excellent piece about the book in question:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/15/what-to-read-instead-of-white-fragility
For the record, Mark Hemingway had White Fragility and How To Be an Anti-Racist on his reading list.  Since you failed to mention that, leaping instead to the whole "well, they must not have read the book" trope you started on the first page of this thread, perhaps it is the case that you are guilty of what you accuse them of -- not reading what you are critiquing.
Mr Garner:  Mr Hemingway further discusses the material you reference in this podcast

ANTI-RACISM AND THE BOOKS, “WHITE FRAGILITY” AND “HOW TO BE AN ANTI-RACIST” – MARK HEMINGWAY

https://issuesetc.org/2020/07/16/1981-anti-racism-and-the-books-white-fragility-and-how-to-be-an-anti-racist-mark-hemingway-7-16-20/
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: jebutler on August 04, 2020, 02:46:59 PM
Ed Stetzer, and a group of ten Evangelical writers, will be discussing aspects of this book on the Christianity Today website. Should be an interesting discussion.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/july/white-fragility-conversation-on-race-and-racism.html
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: DeHall1 on August 06, 2020, 02:42:24 PM
Dr. Stanley K. Ridgley ( Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at Drexel University) has some interesting things to say regarding Robin DiAngelo's UW dissertation, which became the basis for "White Fragility".

You can read it here:

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2020/07/29/minute-14-for-robin-diangelo/
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Coach-Rev on August 07, 2020, 10:19:25 AM
Dr. Stanley K. Ridgley ( Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at Drexel University) has some interesting things to say regarding Robin DiAngelo's UW dissertation, which became the basis for "White Fragility".

You can read it here:

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2020/07/29/minute-14-for-robin-diangelo/

fascinating read.  Glad to know that there are those out there who can still think critically and analytically.  Seems also to confirm once again the extreme liberal bias on campuses across the nation.

If I want to learn more about race and racial relations, I'll still defer to Dr. Thomas Sowell, and especially his book "Race and Culture."
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: Dave Benke on August 07, 2020, 01:20:51 PM
Dr. Stanley K. Ridgley ( Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at Drexel University) has some interesting things to say regarding Robin DiAngelo's UW dissertation, which became the basis for "White Fragility".

You can read it here:

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2020/07/29/minute-14-for-robin-diangelo/

Thanks for this!

First, we Lutherans are at the top of the heap when it comes to the originator and self-flagellation.   Luther was worried about sin, today we are to be worried about being white, which is then construed as sinful per se.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Second, the bad research project gone to seed eventuating a multi-million dollar book deal is a nice American success story, no?  Rooting for capitalism all the way!  The other guy who was kind of bizarre and punted around for whackiness for a long time and made it big in the 20th century was Marx.  Unfortunately for him, he didn't get the dinero. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: DeHall1 on August 07, 2020, 01:33:47 PM
Dr. Stanley K. Ridgley ( Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at Drexel University) has some interesting things to say regarding Robin DiAngelo's UW dissertation, which became the basis for "White Fragility".

You can read it here:

https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2020/07/29/minute-14-for-robin-diangelo/

Thanks for this!

First, we Lutherans are at the top of the heap when it comes to the originator and self-flagellation.   Luther was worried about sin, today we are to be worried about being white, which is then construed as sinful per se.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Second, the bad research project gone to seed eventuating a multi-million dollar book deal is a nice American success story, no?  Rooting for capitalism all the way!  The other guy who was kind of bizarre and punted around for whackiness for a long time and made it big in the 20th century was Marx.  Unfortunately for him, he didn't get the dinero. 

Dave Benke
You're welcome.

Oh -- L. Ron Hubbard also comes to mind.     

I wouldn't be surprised to find someone researching the "religion angle" of White Fragility at some point.
Title: Re: White Fragility
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 07, 2020, 03:44:18 PM
This in interesting, especially as it relates to how the major media introduce concepts and terminology gradually into their stories and then leap to assuming the validity of them in future stories as a way of advancing a worldview without a ruckus.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/america-racialist-liberal-media-othering-civil-war-zach-goldberg/