A lot of people misunderstand Robin DiAngelo.
Here is
her 2011 scholarly article that popularized the term "White Fragility" among race-baiting academics:
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hil-liard, 1992).
So while people commonly define "racism" as judging someone by the color of his skin, or something like that, today's scholars used a different definition. Racism means support some system, such as capitalism or any other known political or economic system, that results in inequality.
In a
recent interview, she makes it clear that capitalism is inherently racist, as she uses the term:
Capitalism is so bound up with racism. I avoid critiquing capitalism — I don’t need to give people reasons to dismiss me. But capitalism is dependent on inequality, on an underclass. If the model is profit over everything else, you’re not going to look at your policies to see what is most racially equitable.
She has now left the university, and makes millions of dollars doing corporate anti-racism workshops. These largely consist of telling Whites that they are racist, regardless of them being color-blind or having Black friends or anything like that. It has nothing to do with what they think or do.
All Whites are racists because people of color envy them. (I use the term "people of color" because that is the term she uses.) People of color see Western Civilization, and everything great about it, as being created by White people, and White is what is normal, good, and acceptable. Nothing Whites say or do will change that. Whites can become more understanding of the hostility that non-whites have against them, or take some affirmative action to placate them, but it won't address the underlying issue. Non-whites will still envy and resent Whites.
In case you think DiAngelo is married to a Black man, see
her husband's web page. Yes, he is White. She does not appear to like Blacks or want anything to do with them. Her game is educating White people on how privileged they are by not being Black, and making money off of corporations who get shamed into anti-racism training.
The above interview notes that there is evidence that these anti-racism seminars do not work. Whites attend these will no ill-will towards Blacks at all, and then learn that Blacks reject White values and will resent and hate Whites no matter what. Whites are told to be especially considerate of such Blacks. For example, Whites may be told that Blacks see it as unfair that hard-working Whites make more money that lazy Blacks, and that Whites need to understand that it is part of White supremacist culture to reward hard work. The obvious conclusion is that a White culture should never bring in non-whites that will never assimilate.
I sometimes get accused of saying racially insensitive things on this blog, but DiAngelo's NY Times bestseller is much more offensive to Blacks.
Here is a
similar view, expressed differently:
The biggest reason why Whites are believed to be racist is that they are far the greatest achievers in human history and they created the nations non-whites crave to inhabit. The very existence of White Men goes against the principle of equality since they are responsible for almost 100% of the greatest achievements in all the fields of human endeavor since ancient historical times. This is a big reason why White nations are earmarked for total race mixing, and why White Males are the most resented group. ...
These lists (and some exaggerate a bit, for the sake of argument) will show that White men are responsible for almost everything that is noble, beautiful, and excellent in history, far surpassing the achievements of all the other races combined. The sheer fact that White men came up with all the disciplinary fields taught in our universities speaks volumes: archaeology, botany, economics, sociology, anthropology, history, biology, chemistry, genetics, physics, medicine, literature, theology, architecture...all of them.
The greatest painters, novelists, historians, biologists, physicists, classical composers, poets, car designers, mathematicians, architects are White men. White men were the greatest nation builders in history. They discovered and mapped the entire earth, every river, mountain, sea, desert -- including every territory inhabited by non-whites.
He goes on to list great achievements, and nearly all are credited to White men.
Or as DiAngelo wrote in her 2011 paper:
Living in a white dominant context, we receive constant messages that we are better and more important than people of color. These messages operate on multiple levels and are conveyed in a range of ways. For example: our centrality in history textbooks, historical representations and perspectives; ... and, the lack of a sense of loss about the absence of people of color in most white people's lives. While one may explicitly reject the notion that one is inherently better than another, one cannot avoid internalizing the message of white superiority, as it is ubiquitous in mainstream culture (Tatum, 1997; Doane, 1997)
Again, she is saying that nearly all the great achievers in history were White men, and nearly everyone, White or colored, comes to the conclusion that Whites are better and more important.
She says Whites dominate popular TV shows, but since 2011 we have a lot more coloreds on TV.
Her last item is a funny one. She says that if Whites have no people of color in their lives, then they have no sense of loss about it! Yes, I think that is right. Millions of coloreds all over the world emigrate in attempts to live among White people. However, Whites show no great desire to live among people of color.
