White Fragility, Chapter 1
McLeod
1
Garrett McLeod
Professor Heather
Stewart-Steele
ENGL-1303
7 February 2021
White Fragility Ch.1
Blog
The main thrust of her argument in this chapter is that
the ideologies of individualism and objectivity contribute to our
misunderstanding of how racism manifests itself in the twenty-first century. Also,
that individualism and objectivity are only able to have the impact that they
do on American political discourse, because of our lack of mainstream sources
for understanding this new form of racism. A new form in which it is far easier
than in the past to simply argue that the amount of institutionalized racism
has been dramatically reduced since the days of slavery and Jim Crow, and
therefore any difference in outcome on a large scale between sub-groups is a
consequence of their own individual failings. Of course, ignoring the fact that
it was social justice activists first and foremost using collective action who
have fought against, and defeated those institutions.
Even more appalling though is the ignorance,
or dishonesty surrounding the legacy of institutionalized racism, as the worst
of it (not all of it) was only done away with within the past half-century,
which is not enough time for an entire population to recover socially and
McLeod
2
economically from two
hundred years of first being treated as domesticated livestock, and then as
citizens with extremely little civil rights even in comparison to other forms
of second-class citizenship throughout history. Take red-lining for example,
which was a term for the legalized segregation of neighborhoods, resulting in
the formation of either Black or White only neighborhoods, they remain just as
segregated today as they were fifty years ago or so. This is because once the
Civil Rights Movement was over, the responsibility was placed on African
American individuals to assimilate with the rest of American society and
economy, with virtually no real help from the government. The inability to
accumulate inter-generational wealth is a massive part of why African Americans
are disproportionately poor compared to other groups, a very clear line of
cause and effect, that is brushed away with ease because the fault is put on
the individuals within those communities, as if there is even close to the same
amount of Capital to operate of off, which African Americans largely do not
have because of the obstacles to wealth accumulation up until very recently.
The
idea that one can be objective, free of bias, is one of the most personally
frustrating things I come across in American political discourse. First of all,
on a basic level it is just absurdly pompous to think of yourself as being free
of biases. But when this false assuredness in one’s own objectivity comes into
contact with the discourse on racism, it becomes especially toxic as people can
then convince themselves with ease that the context in which they grew up, the
jokes, opinions, and media that they have consumed since before they could even
have a coherent thought, has not dramatically shaped their opinions.
As
far as DiAngelo’s presentation of her arguments goes, I think that even though
people may react like a petulant child, which they certainly do in this
context, she does not need to talk
McLeod
3
to them, or us, as if we
are children who need to just slow down and take a breather if we are feeling
upset about what she is putting forward. I cannot help but feel condescended
to, and I do not think it is conducive to the effort of enlightening people.
I understand where you are coming from. I feel as though the tone of the author and the way she writes as you mentioned , slow and as if we need a breather seems very uncalled for. The tone if anything should be a little aggressive as this is a human rights issue! The fact that we should all be treated equally and talked to equally is not something one needs to talk slowly about or carefully about. However if we do see it from the side of which the book is targeting, white people, we can can give benefit of doubt to the author as she must have talked to dozens and dozens of white people about racism before writing this book and it must've made sense for the author to write in a careful tone in order to not offend someone too much that they stop reading the book. I guess to certain people, the topic of racism is too sensitive for them and reading about someone attacking your ethnic group about racism could be tricky. Moreover I found what you said about generational wealth very interesting, many white people do not understand that colored people in America have had to fight through a system which has been against them from the start. Segregation plays such an important role in our society. For example when I was a kid I lived in an extremely diverse neighborhood and hung out with kids of all different types of ethnicities, this subconsciously broke down any racial biases I had because I came to realize that no matter what your skin color or background is, we are all the same. We all bleed the same blood. We all share the same feelings. Kids who grow up in neighborhoods of only white people will never understand that other skin colors and people of different ethnicities can be the same as them, and this is where I think the idea of individualism plays a big role in the up bringing of white kids.
ReplyDeleteThis response seems like more of a synopsis of racial segregation in America than a chapter summary of "White Fragility". It is important to remember when writing these assignments that our job is to discuss the theory that the writer is presenting rather than creating our own argument. That being said, I do agree with you that it is nearly impossible to be free from bias in the American social climate. From birth we are presented with specific racial and cultural identities which block us off from the unbiased state of full tolerance. I personally have had the most luck in avoiding my white privilege by having plentiful experiences with people who have vastly different backgrounds than I. It is much easier to see someone's humanity when you are actually talking to them one-on-one. I challenge you Garrett to make friends who are vastly different racially then you, and see how that experience changes your racial perspective. Also I understand how you felt condescended to when Soze began discussing white ignorance towards racism. Like, duh, obviously the definition of race is actively disliking someone for having a different skin color than you, everyone knows that. But the author feels the need to present that definition here since there are individuals that are so forgone in their social sheltering and isolation that they have no concept of the word "racist". This book was written for everybody, not just you. And sometimes its necessary to read through a passage you already understood fully in order to reach the true meat of the text.
ReplyDelete