Author Topic: White Fragility  (Read 15798 times)

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11530
    • View Profile
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #90 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
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12578
    • View Profile
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #91 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

Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Julio

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Still awaiting the Certified Election Results!
    • View Profile
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #92 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’.

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7351
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #93 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
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7351
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #94 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."
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4082
    • View Profile
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #95 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


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.

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5327
    • View Profile
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #96 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
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4082
    • View Profile
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #97 on: July 15, 2020, 11:42:52 PM »
John McWhorter, a professor at Columbia University, has written in The Atlantic about White Fragility.  Link  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.

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7351
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #98 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.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7351
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #99 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. 
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5327
    • View Profile
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #100 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
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7351
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #101 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.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5327
    • View Profile
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #102 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

Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2572
    • View Profile
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #103 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.
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7351
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: White Fragility
« Reply #104 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.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).