>Growing to overcome past problems is not sufficient.
Their assumption is moreso that we cant grow to overcome past problems. So the only way to build themselves up is to tear others down.
Thats why the popular "anti-racism" philosophy is so antithetical to and ignorant of the lives and philosophies of many of the greatest civil rights leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, and MLK.
Could you point me to the paragraph in question? I've read the article a few times now, and I don't see
A) anyone described as anti-racist or
B) anything saying people who do racist things cannot grow.
Sorry! Somehow I managed to paste completely the wrong link, and now it is too late for me to edit my previous comment. I realise now that scrolling down on that website automatically loads new articles and updates the address bar.
Here[0] is the article I had meant to link to.
Ah man… I really feel bad that you read the wrong article a few times after I unwittingly mislead you. I'm genuinely sorry about that.
Ah, thanks for the corrected link, I appreciate it. I hate when websites do that, it's super confusing.
I actually agree with her here, but I don't think that's the same as saying that racist people can't get better:
> While citizens can work on addressing racism, they can never be free of it, she said.
“We don’t arrive and now we are not racist,” DiAngelo said.
In her view (and mine), becoming "not racist" isn't really a thing that happens and then you're done, and you don't have to worry about not being racist anymore. Rather, it's an ongoing effort, the same way being a kind person or a hard worker is. In this understanding, "all white people are racist" is not a condemnation of white people or an attempt to cast white people as inherently bad or irredeemable. Rather, it's meant as a wake-up call - "Yes, all white people, even you, believe racist things and sometimes act in racist ways." If you want to be anti-racist, it is important to recognize these things within yourself and improve them, in the same way that you work to improve the world outside you.
Since this is a different definitional understanding (semantics?) than the person who says "I'm not racist," it can be a tricky point to communicate properly without being misunderstood or taken out of context.
I don't agree with all of DiAngelo's points or writing, but on this core one, I think she's not too far off the mark.
I mean sorry, but no amount of context to "all white people are racist" is going to make people see the nuance.
It's a stupid statement no matter the explanation.
And honestly even the intent at bwst is advocating purity over practice, her point will waste a lot of resources on people who are more or less on board with said idea of anti-racism but are flawed.
I'm going to have to start asking for better sources on antiracism than a white woman who makes a career out of corporate "diversity training." Like, of course that's her entire thesis.
White fragility is a very useful concept, for sure. But the way DiAngelo uses it seems to be more focused on making white people hem and haw and feel guilty for even trying instead of doing mutual aid, reading theory, forming community, anything actually helpful or useful.
If I wanted to set up a strawman, that's exactly what I'd do.
In case anyone finds this, I should probably clarify that my beef is with DiAngelo specifically rather than with CRT in general. I think that what she puts forth leads to unhelpful, performative activism, and I think she characterizes Black people erroneously as a monolith. In my opinion, the end result is white people getting bounced off of important work by one excessively moralizing book with a profit motive. For this and other reasons White Fragility is being taken off of some antiracism reading lists.
I'll probably read her new book that's coming out soon, but my prior assumption is that it's more of the same. I hope to be proven wrong.
I remain unconvinced that CRT is at all constructive and I find it peculiar that you recognise it as erroneous to characterise black people as a monolith when this is exactly what CRT does.
My perspective aligns neatly with that describe here[0].
As Trevor Phillips would say[1], Critical Race Theory is exactly the idea I would invent if I were a racist.
Could you expand on that? Are Phillips’ (a decorated former MP, and the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, and also a black man) positions on racism invalid in your view? Is he unqualified? Are you better qualified? Or do you just find his views heretical?
Oh absolutely, and that was never my claim. That is however the implicit claim of Critical Race Theorists. It’s a racist claim, which is why I’m challenging your support for it now.
> That is however the implicit claim of Critical Race Theorists.
You have provided evidence that it is the implicit claim of exactly one critical race theorist.
> which is why I'm challenging your support for it now.
This is a strawman. I began this discussion by pointing out that this very claim is counterproductive, which is why I'm not a fan of DiAngelo's work. Reasoning in the abstract about marginalized groups and the systemic issues they tend to face is not the same as asserting that they individually have all the same views or background.
Their assumption is moreso that we cant grow to overcome past problems. So the only way to build themselves up is to tear others down.
Thats why the popular "anti-racism" philosophy is so antithetical to and ignorant of the lives and philosophies of many of the greatest civil rights leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, and MLK.