Fortunately, Matt Taibbi keeps his book review super-short and even so, he's risking committing the same writerly sin as DiAngelo — saying the same thing over and over. And it would be especially bad to say over and over that some other writer keeps saying the same thing over and over.
DiAngelo's main point is something I myself believe: Lots of people who think of themselves as good people — because they think of themselves as good people — are — obliviously — racist.
DiAngelo has cashed in with this insight, and who can blame her for slapping together another book? Taibbi dismisses it as "the booklike product released this week by the 'Vanilla Ice of Antiracism,' Robin DiAngelo."
DiAngelo presents herself — her past self — as an exemplar of the self-loving liberal who views racism as a sin that afflicts those other people — those awful people over there. She writes:
My progressive credentials were impeccable: I was a minority myself—a woman in a committed relationship with another woman…I knew how to talk about patriarchy and heterosexism. I was a cool white progressive, not an ignorant racist. Of course, what I was actually demonstrating was how completely oblivious I was.
It's an important insight, but how do you make it into a book and then another book? There isn't really any new material, just a need to bonk complacent liberals on the head again, and this new book is offered for that purpose.
Matt Taibbi cries out in pain:
Reading DiAngelo is like being strapped to an ice floe in a vast ocean while someone applies metronome hammer-strikes to the the same spot on your temporal bone over and over. You hear ideas repeated ten, twenty, a hundred times, losing track of which story is which....
CORRECTION: As originally posted, I had Matt Taibbi's name confused with that of another writer with a very similar name. Sorry!
AND: Embarrassing as it is to mix up 2 names — and I bet I've casually regarded them as the same person for years — I was just blogging, and I had about a dozen readers email me immediately to tell me about my mistake — at least I wasn't on television yelling at Matt Taibbi because I had him confused with Matt Bai. That's what David Gergen did — back in 2010, as reported in Rolling Stone, here, by Taibbi:
A few weeks back I participated in a post-election roundtable that included Peter Hart and former Nixon aide David Gergen. The session got unexpectedly hot, in particular over the whole issue of whether or not Obama had done enough to keep America’s CEOs happy.
Gergen kept pressing this idea that, even though finance-industry bonuses are back up to record highs at the same time that real human beings are facing horrific unemployment and foreclosure crises, Obama needed to work harder at jacking off the CEO class. When I got genuinely emotional in response to this idea, Gergen continually expressed not so much anger as surprise.
He made some cryptic comments (which didn’t appear in the printed transcript) that included one exchange in which he suggested that he didn’t expect to hear this sort of thing from me, among other things because my opinions clashed with something that had recently appeared in my own “newspaper.”
I thought, what newspaper? What is this guy talking about? In a quizzical voice I asked Gergen what he meant, but by then we were rolling onto the next subject. The whole thing was odd — clearly he had no idea who I was, but the interesting thing is that he seemed to think he knew who I was. After the event I smiled weakly, shook his hand, and walked out, confused. A few hours later, I figured it out.
Gergen clearly had me mixed up with Matt Bai, the New York Times reporter.
Thanks to a reader named — of all things — Matt for tipping me off about Gergen's so-much-larger-than-mine embarrassment.
पोस्ट्स
१० टिप्पण्या:
RoseAnne writes:
"DiAngelo's main point is something I myself believe: Lots of people who think of themselves as good people — because they think of themselves as good people — are — obliviously — racist."
I read and reread that statement formulating a long response as to why I disagree with it. I went on to something else and came back to read it again and write the e-mail.
That’s when I noticed you said “obliviously”, NOT “obviously” which is what I read. I now agree with the statement.
For 6 months, I have been inundated with comments from anti-Trump family members who celebrate the return of “decency” to public forums. From my POV the only thing that has changed is who is getting called what names. They don’t see that bigotry of low expectations is still bigotry.
I aspire to a world Dr. King envisioned where people are judged on the content of their character. We are getting farther from that goal, not closer.
Hombre writes:
“DiAngelo's main point is something I myself believe: Lots of people who think of themselves as good people — because they think of themselves as good people — are — obliviously — racist.”
Even with all the new, improved, progressive-inspired definitions of racism designed to smear everyone - except black people - with the taint of racism, this is a stretch. “Oh look, there’s Hortense, she thinks of herself as a good person. Beware. As a result she is likely (maybe? probably?) — obliviously — racist.”
No intent or awareness required. Damned white people! /Sarc.
I think of Jesus and the Pharisees.
Michael writes:
Philosopher Nicholas Shackel recognized a form of rhetoric that he calls the motte-and-bailey doctrine, after a design for medieval fortifications. In this kind of argument, there is an early defended "motte" position and a more expansive "bailey" position; the doctrine is to switch between the two as convenient for attack or defense.
"Lots of people who think of themselves as good people — because they think of themselves as good people — are — obliviously — racist."
This is the motte version of the argument. The bailey version of the argument goes "inaction = consent", or "If you are not actively anti-racist, you are racist." (See also
https://reason.com/2021/07/01/robin-diangelo-is-very-disappointed-in-the-white-people-making-her-rich/
.)
Another major argument by DiAngelo is what Taibbi noted about individualism: that individualism is problematic because it discourages viewing everyone in a racial lens.
What would be interesting is further explanation of
the question that Taibbi raised in passing about whether DiAngelo is herself one of those "nice racists".
Yeah, I depart when it gets to the "bailey."
It's the same thing I've seen all my life from activists, and I am a nonactivist by nature.
When I see "inaction = consent," I translate it into the 1960s catchphrase: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
Their central passion must become your central passion. You're not entitled to your own life.
Amadeus 48 writes:
“Of course, what I was actually demonstrating was how completely oblivious I was.”
That right there is the key to her personality and her career. “Oblivious” is the way she leads her life—or else she is self-aware that she is a hate-strewing monster from the deepest bowels of an exceptionally dim corporate human resources department.
Hunter writes:
"DiAngelo's main point is something I myself believe: Lots of people who think of themselves as good people — because they think of themselves as good people — are — obliviously — racist”
For the benefit of your devoted readers, could you define what you mean by “racist” in this context? I’m interested in understanding what you mean by the word, not what Robin diAngelo might mean.
What actions by these good people are racist? What attitudes held by these good people are racist? Is it anything they realistically could or should change?
Okay. I'll answer.
1. "Could you define what you mean by “racist” in this context?" I mean that in some way they have bad thoughts, beliefs, or motivations that distinguish people by race. They may think, though they won't say it, that a particular race is superior or inferior in some way or that a particular race has negative character traits or behavior patterns.
2. "What actions by these good people are racist?" I didn't say anyone was good, so the question is assuming a fact that I don't hold to be true. I think we are all sinners and we should look at ourselves and try to do better. It's hard to know what actions are motivated by racism. I think trying to help people of a particular race or make special allowances can be motivated by racism. I'm not out to prove people guilty of racism. You can't know what's in another person's head.
3. "What attitudes held by these good people are racist?" Answered above.
4. "Is it anything they realistically could or should change?" I don't have an overarching plan. Just keep trying to understand yourself and others and to make a positive contribution in this world. Don't get smug and don't assume you've become good. And don't get into thinking it's the other people who are bad.
Temujin writes:
"Their central passion must become your central passion. You're not entitled to your own life."
Well, exactly. What they want is not only your active compliance, but your full investment in their collective. And to do that you have to eliminate the very essence of you- your individualism. Your individual thinking, your determination of your own actions, your worldview. You have to take on not only their world view, but their urgency- because activists always have urgent needs.
DiAngelo is a race-grifter. Nothing new in that. It's just a new era in which she's making her millions. Jesse Jackson had to go through so much more to earn his. I'll bet he watches her crap and thinks, "Racism."
I bet he's irked that she's done such a good job at getting the money channeling her way.
Chris writes:
When I read Robin DiAngelo's story, I remember Bishop Sheen's old comment, how it used to be only Catholics who believed in the Immaculate Conception (of Mary), but now everyone believes they are immaculately conceived. DiAngelo, it seems, believed she was immaculately conceived, free from original sin, but then she discovered she wasn't. Her story sounds like a secular version of a sin and salvation religious journey.
The Bible teaches the fundamental goodness of humanity as created by God, along with the universality of sin and guilt in human experience. Where DiAngelo and her allies err, in my view, is in assigning sin and guilt according to race. This is a road I will never follow.
Hunter writes back:
"1. "Could you define what you mean by “racist” in this context?" I mean that in some way they have bad thoughts, beliefs, or motivations that distinguish people by race. They may think, though they won't say it, that a particular race is superior or inferior in some way or that a particular race has negative character traits or behavior patterns."
Then I would be racist by your definition, since I do believe that there are negative behavior patterns and learned character traits that are more prevalent among blacks than among whites. Does anyone really dispute that?
Many of these pathologies have been spreading from the black underclass to poor whites, so maybe in time we’ll lose their association with race.
Assistant Village Idiot writes: "Either McWhorter or Loury chuckled on The Glenn Show about a month ago that conservatives wouldn't be so upset with White Fragility if they recognised how much it is directed almost entirely against liberals."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा