Month: October 2020

American culture is currently embroiled in an ideological battle over which worldview will determine the course of the nation’s future.  One of the most vocal ideologies in this battle is Critical Race Theory which is seeking to supplant the existing framework of Western Culture.  This theoretical ideology essentially states that the existing American culture is a direct result of hundreds of year of ethnic oppression of blacks by white persons. The oppression is so ingrained in the fabric of American life that white persons will always have a built in advantage to grow and succeed where black persons will always be relegated to being an oppressed class. This systemic racism has allegedly been built into the foundations of our government, schools, businesses, and so much more.  It is entirely pervasive, there is no aspect of our lives it has not impacted.  

Under this ideology, racism is a system, not an act.  A person is not a racist because they actively hate or mistreat another on the basis of ethnicity. Rather, a person is a racist because they are part of the white oppressor class, born with innate privileges over the black oppressed class. One simply has this privilege on the basis of their skin color and they will live, think and act in such ways as the dominant white culture has taught them to act, as person who see themselves as superior to those who are being oppressed.  One need not hate or mistreat the oppressed class to be racist.  One need only exist as a member of the privileged class, receiving the benefits of their privilege, failing to recognize or admit that they are privileged, failing to be fighting against their privilege, and by nature they are racist.  The ideology of Critical Race Theory teaches that the white person must not only admit they are racist by nature, but work actively to absolve themselves by renouncing their white privilege and working to overthrow the racist system in order to make some level of atonement.

Enter “White Fragility” by Robin DiAngelo.  This book, authored by Ms. DiAngelo, has become a best seller and the go-to instruction manual for many who are seeking to teach and train white persons to actively repent of white privilege and overturn the systemic racism of our culture.  It has become almost synonymous with the anti-racism movement and has even been used in local municipalities as a training manual for city diversity classes.  This is not an obscure or unknown book.  Ms. DiAngelo has become a sought after speaker and training coordinator in anti-racism/white privilege seminars.  Her material has become a go-to resource throughout the country.  Therefore, it behooves us, especially as Christians, to read and understand such materials so that we can not only rightly understand the arguments, but rightly refute what Ms. DiAngelo and others are actually saying as opposed to straw man representations.  

To that end, I spent several weeks reading and interacting with the text. For transparency, the extensive time it took to read the book was simply because I could not make it through more than a couple of paragraphs before I felt the need to highlight and write responses in the margins to DiAngelo’s various claims throughout the book.  Thus, I often had days go by before I could pick the text back up and devote time to critically reading the book.  And critical thinking is a must with “White Fragility.” To tip my hand early, this text is not a book which encourages you to think deeply, question things and respond thoughtfully whether you agree or disagree.  “White Fragility” is a prime example of leftist propaganda and indoctrination. DiAngelo does not encourage her readers to examine her claims critically.  She dictates from page one what you must believe and what you must do.  

I felt it important to write this review and address several problems I discovered while reading the book. As the issues are pervasive throughout the text, rather than take the review as a chapter by chapter examination, I have chosen to highlight the issues in a series of themes that I found as I read the text.  I hope this review helps our readers understand why the current debate over Critical Race Theory is important and ought not be dismissed as having no real impact in our lives.

Biased Presupposition:

Ms. DiAngelo starts her book stating she does not intend to prove to her readers that systemic racism is real.  She pointedly states that she starts with the assumption that it is real and writes entirely from that perspective.  Admittedly, DiAngelo has not written a book discussing what Critical Race Theory is and is not seeking to prove that systemic racism exists.  Rather, she has written a book that intends to address what she believes are the evidences of white persons acting on their racist foundations and failing to, or being unwilling to, change the system that has benefitted them for so long.  Thus, since the premise of her book is to get people to renounce their privilege and work toward dismantling a racist system, it is understood that she would start with the concept that systemic racism is real.

The problem lies in the fact that Ms. DiAngelo is so settled in the assumption that systemic racism is real that she must treat any disagreement with that premise as de facto proof of a conspiratorial effort to maintain white dominance in culture.  DiAngelo’s standard drum beat throughout the course of her book is that, when white persons are confronted with their “racism,” any reaction other than immediate acceptance and contrition is evidence of their white fragility.  By asserting a narrative that is to be considered as absolute fact, DiAngelo deftly avoids any need to honestly interact with opposing viewpoints and narratives.  

Furthermore, she makes the claim that the traditional understanding of racism – a conscious, directed hatred or discrimination against an ethnic group or person – is not actually racism.  Racism is not an act, it is a system.  Traditionally understood racism is actually just an obvious manifestation of real racism which works systemically in culture to oppress people of color and elevate white persons. This effectively neutralizes any effort by a white person to deny they are racist.  You cannot ever not be racist because pointing out that you don’t have racist attitudes or behaviors is an insidious effort to maintain your white dominance.  The systemic nature of DiAngelo’s racism definition makes it nebulous, without any real evidences that can be addressed and repented of. Rather, it is a constant moving of the goal posts that a person can never reach and a constant state of guilt of which no one can be absolved. 

DiAngelo’s biased presupposition sets the standard for the entire book and she controls the narrative by never treating competing perspectives as ever having equal weight or value. 

Reductionistic History:

Ms. DiAngelo does attempt to address the history of American culture with regard to racism.  However, her treatment of history is terribly reductionistic, boiling everything down to racist motivations and intentions.  The problem with history and cultural development of attitudes and behaviors is that one cannot simply ever point to one singular stream from which they developed.  Attitudes and actions develop over time in culture, coming from multiple streams and sources.  Religion, society, family, ethnic traditions, and more often work together to develop how a society acts and thinks. Additionally, one cannot simply attribute one ethnicity as being solely responsible for these developments. Cultural development can often cross ethnic lines, especially in a diverse society as America.  To boil down everything to white supremacist racism is to to intentionally ignore all of the rich history, both good and evil, many people and groups have brought to the table.  It is an exercise in intentional ignorance.

Also to be considered is that DiAngelo’s efforts to address history are solely based in race and power dynamics.  The only motivations ascribed to groups in American history are either to gain and maintain racial power, or to survive as a racially oppressed group.  There is no allowance for any other possible motivations. DiAngelo always describes history as developing specifically under the quest for racial dominance, thus painting everyone existing today as either having benefitted from or as being oppressed by this history. And the reader is specifically told they are never allowed to be divorced from their history. You own it, you belong to it, and you will be held responsible for it.  There is no escaping the reductionistic history she has assigned white persons and they are expected to bear the guilt of that burden perpetually.

Lack of Competing Citations:

Ms. DiAngelo cites numerous scholars, books, and studies throughout the book.  However, virtually every citation given is from a source that favors Critical Race Theory.  While it would make sense that an author will use sources friendly to their stated premise, proper research mandates that they consider other arguments as well.  Remember that DiAngelo gives no credence to objections to systemic racism.  She argues repeatedly that any opposition is de facto proof of white fragility.  Therefore, by failing to cite any sources which challenge Critical Race Theory or systemic racism, DiAngelo further cements that her narrative is the only possible narrative that can ever be allowed to exist.  

When one researches for the purpose of writing an article, paper, or book, it is necessary to challenge one’s presuppositions by looking at what those who take alternate positions believe.  By doing so, one is not compromising their premise, but is often helping to refine their argument.  Understanding the opposition helps one avoid the inevitable straw man argument and may even challenge the writer to abandon a poorly held premise in favor of a better position.  By rightly and respectfully researching those arguments which challenge one’s own, the end product is made all the better.

However, true and respectful research also means treating the opposition as though they have thoughts and ideas that may be on an equal playing field.  When we choose to not interact with those arguments, we relegate them as to having no value and will likely treat those who hold those views as being beneath our recognition.  And this, DiAngelo evidences in spades. She does not show any willingness to listen to opposing positions. To do so would undermine the very foundation of her book.  Thus, her singular acceptance of Critical Race Theory only citations is evidence that DiAngelo is not at all interested in dialogue, but indoctrination.

Lack of Context and Emotional Manipulation:

Throughout the course of “White Fragility,” Ms. DiAngelo uses anecdotes, stories, and studies as evidence for her claims.  Unfortunately, there is a consistent lack of context in her use of these evidences.  For example, DiAngelo often refers to the percentages of white persons who hold positions of government and corporate authority as well as those who have extensive wealth. Yet, no explanation is ever given as to how or why these persons attained those places.  She decries the idea of meritocracy, that people can earn places of power or wealth by their own merit, as part of systemic racism. Thus, the high percentages of white persons in those positions can only be the result of racism.  

Likewise, she discusses several issues within the legal system, such as sentencings in criminal cases. Disparities between white and black sentencings for similar crimes is considered racist; however, she gives no context as to the reason for the disparate sentences (i.e. prior criminal history, victim impact, nature of the crime versus plea negotiations).  Without these specifics, all the reader can see is the differences and is directed to conclude that racism is the cause.

DiAngelo is also fond of using personal anecdotes from training seminars wherein persons who are white are shown as reacting, she would say, with white fragility toward their racism being exposed.  Yet, repeatedly, she fails to give specific context as to what was said, how a person was treated, and what prior interactions lead up to the response which could explain the reaction.  This again leads the reader to believe that the person described is displaying white fragility.

DiAngelo uses these examples as steps to stand upon a soapbox and decry white persons in America as refusing to recognize and own their racism.  Every effort to address the reasons these reactions or incidents as having any validity is seen as yet more proof that she is correct in her assessment and that she must be the one to show the readers the error of their ways.  DiAngelo never allows her readers to believe that there could be reasons that explain or justify what she terms white fragility.  She pounds a steady drum beat in every chapter that each example has no other possible explanation other than a systemic effort to maintain white solidarity and dominance.  The reader is told over and over again they are racist, they must accept their racism, and they can have no reason for their actions except racism.  This is akin to Chinese water torture wherein the reader receives the steady, unnerving drip of the charge of racism page after page. By the end, you either must capitulate to her charges and meet her demands, or you will be outed as the racist you clearly are. This is emotional manipulation on a grand scale, and it is a being peddled in bookstores, schools, governments and churches everywhere.

Ethnic Gnosticism:

The last theme that I wish to discuss is perhaps the one that is most troubling.  I believe it was Voddie Bauchum who coined the term “Ethnic Gnosticism.” Gnostics were heretics that the early church had to contend with.  They taught there was special knowledge they possessed from God and only by adhering to their teachings could one come to gain this knowledge.  Ethnic Gnosticism takes this a step further by ascribing to oppressed ethnic groups a knowledge only they can have, what racism and oppression actually is.  Persons of color are believed to have been oppressed by whites for so long that they have an innate knowledge of racism. This knowledge is almost magically passed down from generation to generation endowing each person of color with the ability to know what is racist in any given circumstance.

This knowledge is not to be questioned in DiAngelo’s book.  She makes it quite clear that if a person of color says something was racist, it is absolutely racist.  She states that it is impact, not intention that matters.  When a person of color feels that a white person said or did something offensive, that offense is real and legitimate.  The white person cannot be allowed to explain their intent, there can be no reason given as to why what was said or done was not actually racist.  The special knowledge possessed by those black persons, or persons of color, prevents them from ever misunderstanding what a white person said, did, or meant.  Thus, there is never a time when the person of color can be held accountable for a false charge of racism, because they can never be wrong.  The white person is always in the wrong (he or she is already motivated by white dominance) and the person of color is always right (as they have an infallible knowledge of racism).

This ethnic gnosticism is the penultimate point of DiAngelo’s book. There can never be a time when a white person is not guilty of racism because there is always an oppressed person who receives the impact of that person’s racism.  Thus, the only hope the racist can find is a never ending treadmill where they chase the ever-elusive goal of anti-racism in hopes divesting themselves of privilege and seeking to reduce offense to the oppressed party.

Conclusion:

Robin DiAngelo has authored a work propaganda for the express purpose of indoctrination.   She makes no effort to prove her primary premise, it is simply assumed and asserted as fact, never to be questioned.  History is reduced to having only one possible motivation, white dominance in Western Culture.  She intentionally ignores and excludes any competing worldview and does not engage critical works which challenge her premise.  Context is often ignored and emotions of the readers are manipulated to a predetermined outcome.  DiAngelo grants special knowledge only available to those of the oppressed group and never allows for her readers to believe that group can ever be wrong.  Readers are expected to take this information as gospel truth and react with appropriate, never-ending penance.  One must accept their guilt and simply now do as they are told.  

Critical thinking is prohibited in DiAngelo’s work. The person who seeks to question and examine the claims of “White Fragility” is written off as asserting their privilege and white dominance.  As such, DiAngelo’s work should be seen for the propaganda it is and rejected wholeheartedly.