White Fragility

[JoeMorgue]

Reba McEntire's two biggest hits are cover songs one about murder and another about a mother selling her child into sex slavery. Eric Clapton's two biggest hits are about killing a police officer and the word "Cocaine" repeating over and over on top of a sweet guitar rhythm.

So anyway what rap songs are we pretending to be bothered by now?

 

[Mumbles]

I have always held onto the plain old definition or at least conventional usage of racism; prejudice and discrimination against a particular ethnic or cultural group. We can talk about racism that is systemic and racism that isn't.

The redefinition or alternative definition of racism (I can't be racist in the U.S. because I'm not white) is grossly contrived and fatally flawed, imo.

Not really. Even your definition can vary from "briefly clutches her purse, but then catches herself" to "black guy who screams racist things at white people as they walk past him on the street""shoots up a mosque while screaming about the sand-*******" to, say "Head of state tells four women of color, three of whom were born in the country, to 'go back to whatever country you came from'."

*cough*

There's no reason why academics can't have their own, specialized, definition - such as people studying the effects of racism on overall societal trends being uninterested in purse clutchers and knuckleheads yelling on street corners. The mass murderer, and the head of state examples are more significant to what they are studying, but even that's questionable compared to, say, nation-wide restrictions on housing, banking, voting, and the like.

As far as Robin DiAngelo's book - haven't read, heard bad things but can't vouch for them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So anyway what rap songs are we pretending to be bothered by now?

It's difficult to listen to Hilltop Hoods "Cosby Sweater" now that we know what Cosby was doing besides just wearing colorful sweaters. Still a good song, though.

 

[Venom]

But overall, I agree that there's not a humongous amount of systemic racism. There is, however, a lot of deeply ingrained and largely subconscious bias. That's a much harder nut to crack... and I don't think it can be cracked through legislation. My opinion is that the most effective way to change that bias is to portray more black people in everyday art, not as "black people", but just as people. Make a doctor in a TV show about a hospital drama be a black woman... but don't make it a TV show about a "black woman doctor". It's just a show about a hospital doctor, and the doctor happens to be a black woman, which is irrelevant to the story because it's not noteworthy for a doctor to be a black woman. As soon as we can create art that doesn't portray black characters as noteworthy in any way, the sooner we overcome bias based on assumed differences and limitations.

Missed this post when the thread was active but I think this is definitely what needs to happen.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's no reason why academics can't have their own, specialized, definition

It isn't their own specialized definition. It's being pushed as the only definition.

 

[trustbutverify]

Not really. Even your definition can vary from "briefly clutches her purse, but then catches herself" to "black guy who screams racist things at white people as they walk past him on the street""shoots up a mosque while screaming about the sand-*******" to, say "Head of state tells four women of color, three of whom were born in the country, to 'go back to whatever country you came from'."

*cough*

There's no reason why academics can't have their own, specialized, definition - such as people studying the effects of racism on overall societal trends being uninterested in purse clutchers and knuckleheads yelling on street corners. The mass murderer, and the head of state examples are more significant to what they are studying, but even that's questionable compared to, say, nation-wide restrictions on housing, banking, voting, and the like.

As far as Robin DiAngelo's book - haven't read, heard bad things but can't vouch for them.

The problem with this particular, specialized definition is it's unfalsifiable. Every possible outcome supports the fragility theory. That's not a definition- it's an article of faith.

 

[Venom]

I only learned about this new definition recently and to me it sounds extremely American-centric and logically inconsistent.

Yeah my view so far is it seems too American centric, redefined in the second half of the 20th century and the distance it puts between racism and other -isms like tribalism, nationalism, fascism, colonialism just doesn't sit quite right with me.

I'm not totally against misnomers but the reasoning seems a bit contrived, to address Mumbles' reply.

 

[Mumbles]

Yeah my view so far is it seems too American centric, redefined in the second half of the 20th century and the distance it puts between racism and other -isms like tribalism, nationalism, fascism, colonialism just doesn't sit quite right with me.

I'm not totally against misnomers but the reasoning seems a bit contrived, to address Mumbles' reply.

Well, yes, it's specific to academics discussing white supremacism in the US - although it could be transferred to other countries.

Again, *if* I'm discussing the noise factor of a communication system, and explain that I'm discussing a very specific parameter that I can use to predict the ideal range between transmitter and receiver, and relate it to weather, and then every time I say "noise" you start insisting that you turned the tv off so there's no noise and why won't I just accept that...you're being a clown.

And if you say "there's too much noise in here, turn off the tv" and I begin demanding that noise is actually based on the temperature of the room and has nothing to do with the tv...well, then I'm the clown. Which is why I've always said that the "Power + prejudice" definition just shouldn't be brought into everyday discussion.

(and if I say Bettie White was the star of Golden girls, and you start blabbering about fusion...)

If some black guy beats a white guy and shouts "I HATE THESE CRACKERS!" Um, yeah, that's racist. There's no point in using anything but the common dictionary definition here.

But if iI want to discuss why that guy was quickly arrested and convicted, while white guys who spout stereotypes and murder black people are allowed to roam around freely, it may be a time to look at the legal system in the US, and this is where "Power + prejudice" may be more useful.

This isn't a misnomer, it's just jargon - many specialized fields (academics, professions, and industries - and often just groups of friends) develop it's own specialized vocabulary, that newcomers and outsiders will find terribly confusing. That's just how it's been, and how it will be.

As for a great example of "white fragility" , check out the number of people that insist that teaching the 1619 project will make white children suffer horribly. "What? Some other white guy in the 1920s designed NYCs highways to block black kids from going to the beach!? I AM INFERIOR TO THE MIGHTY BLACK MAN!!!!!" Absurd - and it's almost entirely white people claiming that white children are this weak and pathetic. I mean, *if* we take them at face value, which is questionable at best.

Personally, I think most white high school kids can easily handle a study of race in US history that's more than "Lincoln freed the slaves, and then Rosa Park sparked a movement, and MLK Jr told us to be colorblind and we elected Obama. YAAAAAYYY!" (although I don't think most of them would actually get far living *as* black people for a few years, but that's a very different matter - much like I'd be wildly unprepared to suddenly be trans).

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, yes, it's specific to academics discussing white supremacism in the US

No, it isn't. That may be the origin of that definition, but it's being actively pushed beyond that context.

 

[theprestige]

There's no reason why academics can't have their own, specialized, definition

There's no reason they can't, but I think there's one obvious reason maybe they shouldn't: To avoid confusion and misrepresentation when communicating their ideas outside of their own echo chambers.

What good are academics, if they can't intelligibly transmit their findings to the rest of society? What value do they offer, if the get so caught up in their specialized jargon that nobody else can understand them anymore?

 

[Paul2]

There's no reason they can't, but I think there's one obvious reason maybe they shouldn't: To avoid confusion and misrepresentation when communicating their ideas outside of their own echo chambers.

What good are academics, if they can't intelligibly transmit their findings to the rest of society? What value do they offer, if the get so caught up in their specialized jargon that nobody else can understand them anymore?

The problem isn't so much that academics have a specialized vocabulary. *Any* academic discipline with any complexity whatsoever is going to have to use words that lay people don't know.

The problem is when common words are given a specialized meaning that is not highlighted when that word is used in the general public that quite naturally imagines the unintended, common meaning and not the specialized one.

The further problem is when academics don't care about such misunderstandings.

The further further problem is when academics count on such misunderstandings to advance an agenda.

 

[theprestige]

The problem isn't so much that academics have a specialized vocabulary. *Any* academic discipline with any complexity whatsoever is going to have to use words that lay people don't know.

The problem is when common words are given a specialized meaning that is not highlighted when that word is used in the general public that quite naturally imagines the unintended, common meaning and not the specialized one.

The further problem is when academics don't care about such misunderstandings.

The further further problem is when academics count on such misunderstandings to advance an agenda.

I think you and I are in perfect agreement.

 

[Mumbles]

The problem isn't so much that academics have a specialized vocabulary. *Any* academic discipline with any complexity whatsoever is going to have to use words that lay people don't know.

The problem is when common words are given a specialized meaning that is not highlighted when that word is used in the general public that quite naturally imagines the unintended, common meaning and not the specialized one.

The further problem is when academics don't care about such misunderstandings.

The further further problem is when academics count on such misunderstandings to advance an agenda.

No, the problem is when people introduce the academic/professional/industry definition in conversations where the dictionary definition is the one being used. In this case, it's usually jerks on social media, while academics already know to avoid this sort of mistake, and do so very deliberately. They already know it's as important to convey ideas as clearly as possible for your audience, that's why they developed their jargon to begin with - it's a very precise set of words used to communicate within their field. The "evil academics plotting to create confusion to destroy the west" thing is typically the stuff of delusion.

 

[Paul2]

No, the problem is when people introduce the academic/professional/industry definition in conversations where the dictionary definition is the one being used. In this case, it's usually jerks on social media, while academics already know to avoid this sort of mistake, and do so very deliberately. They already know it's as important to convey ideas as clearly as possible for your audience, that's why they developed their jargon to begin with - it's a very precise set of words used to communicate within their field. The "evil academics plotting to create confusion to destroy the west" thing is typically the stuff of delusion.

OK, I can walk it back. I agree.