Search Results

Right from the onset DiAngelo gives her readers a factually inaccurate definition of racism: "racism...that includes the acknowledgement that whites hold social institutional power over people of color." THIS is the factually accurate definition of racism: racism rā′sĭz″əm noun The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes. Nowhere in that definition, one that has held for nearly 100 years, does not include, hint at or even remotely allude to any measure of social and/or institutional power of one group over another based on race. At its core, racism is the belief that one race is better than another. That's it. It has nothing to do with social and/or institutional power. Those in power change the institution every term based on their own agendas and prejudices, not to mention greed and lust for more power. Those are the two driving factors of social and/or institutional change via politics: greed and lust for power. Not racism. Whenever someone begins a theory based on a false premise, the conclusion is equally false. And to DiAngelo's on detriment, the entirety of her book and her concepts are all based on false premises that basically discriminate not against whites, but rather black Americans. Which is the a-typical modus operandi of white guilt liberals such as DiAngelo. The delusions are absolutely astounding, take this statement for instance: "White people in North America live in a society that is deeply separate and unequal by race, and white people are the beneficiaries of that separation and inequality." Will and Jada Pinkett Smith have a combined net worth of $400 million dollars. Your average white family's net worth is $141,000.00. So where exactly is the "separation and inequality" there? Oprah's net worth is $3.5 billion dollars. Again, where exactly is the "separation and inequality"? I can go on and on with numerous black American celebrities, professionals, scholars, so on and so forth who account for the majority of the black population that disproves DiAngelo's statement above. Fact is that whites make up 42 percent of America’s poor, blacks about 28 percent. Granted there are more whites than blacks in America, but proportionally whites are at a greater disadvantage than blacks, despite what the liberal progressive left and democrats are falsely claiming otherwise. DiAngelo goes on to describe "white fragility" as a means to an end towards "racial control and the protection of white advantage." Exactly what control and advantage does white America have over Barrack and Michelle Obama? Beyonce? Cardi B? Rhianna? Morgan Freeman? Denzel Washington? Thomas Sowell? James McWhorter? Clarence Thomas? Candace Owens? The list is long...and the answer is the same for all, none. Whites have absolutely no "racial control" over any of the aforementioned in the "protection of white advantage." None. Even when we look back in time, back to the late 1800s, what "racial control and the protection of white advantage" was there that stopped Madam C.J. Walker from becoming the very first female millionaire? The answer is the same as before, none. What about Booker T. Washington? W. E. B. Du Bois? Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander? Richard Allen? James Baldwin? So on and so forth!?! Again the answer is the same: none. The following passage found on page 4 of her book, the irony here clearly escapes DiAngelo... "Given our racial insulation, coupled with misinformation, any suggestion that we are complicit in racism is a kind of unwelcome and insulting shock to the system." Misinformation? That's laughable coming from her, given the glaring fact that the entirety of her book is nothing short or shy of pure "misinformation." Another ironic statement made by DiAngelo is both psychological projection and an inadvertent admission of her own guilt that she clearly doesn't even realize. "I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color." "White progressives can be the most difficult for people of color because, to the degree that we think we have arrived, we will put our energy into making sure that others see us as having arrived." "White progressives do indeed uphold and perpetuate racism, but our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain to us how we do so." Um, hate to break it to you DiAngelo, but YOU ARE a "white progressive." Here is a perfect example of DiAngelo's white progressive racism directed at black Americans: "Race will influence whether we will survive our birth, where we are most likely to live, which schools we will attend, who our friends and partners will be, what careers we will have, how much money we will earn, how healthy we will be, and even how long we can expect to live." Dr. Ben Carson's mother didn't believe in how race would influence her sons' lives. Despite dropping out of school at age 13 to get married, after being divorced when Ben was just eight years old, she took charge and raised her children to be strong, independent and intelligent members of society. Ben thrived and became a Neurosurgeon. Ben made his wealth, chose where he wanted to live, who his friends and partners would be, and how healthy he would be. Race had nothing to do with it. Never does, for anyone, regardless of race. Dr. Carson is but one example among thousands upon thousands of successful individuals: black, brown, yellow, red or even white. Bottom line, DiAngelo is nothing more than a white guilt liberal closet racist, as are all white guilt liberals. Together with liberal democrat blacks, they destroy any measure of peace and promises of the civil rights era Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. fought so hard to establish and preserve.

"Being seen racially is a common trigger of white fragility, and thus, to build our stamina, white people must face the first challenge: naming our race." Why do white Americans, or white people in general, need to "name our race"? We do not. It is not necessary. Only white guilt liberal progressives like DiAngelo make it necessary for the sake of political correctness. In this day and age, everyone regardless of their background knows exactly who and what they are and where they came from. No one needs to "name" their race. We know. They know. Everyone knows. The focus on race is evidence in and of itself of one's implicit racism. "Yet our simplistic definition of racism - as intentional acts of racial discrimination committed by immoral individuals - engenders a confidence that we are not part of the problem and that our learning is thus complete." "Many white people simply do not understand the process of socialization, and this is our next challenge." Yet again DiAngelo gives us a factually inaccurate definition of racism. Close, but not on par with what it truly is. Nevertheless, whites and blacks alike can be equally racist. One of the finest current examples is Joy-Ann Reid. Long time examples are Al Sharpton, Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson, and even whites who claim to be black can be incredibly racist towards whites like fraud Jeffrey "Shaun" King. All people, white, black, brown, yellow, etc. understand the process of socialization. There is no inherent challenge there. We learn it through social-psychology. It's called growing up, coming of age. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Occasionally DiAngelo says something actually factually accurate, like the following: "Individualism claims that there are no intrinsic barriers to individual success and that failure is not a consequence of social structures but comes from individual character." "According to the ideology of individualism, race is irrelevant." This is a truism. Individualism clearly establishes the fact that personal (individual) success is purely based on the initiative, drive, effort and conviction of the individual (character); and it has absolutely nothing to do with race or otherwise. One only gets out of life what they put into it. The following passage found on page 11 is quite telling, and should have awoken DiAngelo to a truth other than the politically correct garbage she put forth after the fact. "We gain our understanding of group meaning collectively through aspects of the society around us that are shared and unavoidable: television, movies, news items, song lyrics, magazines, textbooks, schools, religion, literature, stories, jokes, traditions and practices, history, and so on. These dimensions of our culture shape our identities." "We come to understand who we are by understanding who we are not." This is true, to a certain extent. Individuals still make their own individual choices (i.e. - free will) based on their character premised on their upbringing. That upbringing plays a very specific and direct role in how an individual turns out in life. And when you have a racial population with a 72% + out of wedlock birth rate (i.e. - fatherless homes), many young boys will become wards of the state via the criminal justice system. More than that, it also accounts for the longstanding epidemic of intraracial violence as well. For those born without fathers and numerous siblings, and for many without mothers who abandon them to their grandmother or aunt, they have no male role model. Their upbringing is comprised of other female family members as the male members are in and out of correctional institutions; as a result, their male peers are their primary role models. Inspiration that is undoubtedly negative and counterproductive to a positive and prosperous lifestyle. Hence the high rates of incarceration and involvement with the criminal justice among black and brown males in America. "We cannot understand modern forms of racism if we cannot or will not explore patterns of group behavior and their effects on individuals." Does this go both ways, DiAngelo? As of late blacks have been making it a point as a group to self-segregate from whites. Why? Because it is what they have been conditioned to do through the divisive racist rhetoric you and your cohorts (white & black) espouse. It is also the very reason why these two young women went on a racist attack upon two white males in the multicultural center on the Arizona State University (ASU) campus. Fortunately for the integrity of the campus and educational environment of ASU, the administration staff saw the blatant reverse racism for what it was and found them guilty of said offense. Despite that just finding, the two women further lambasted ASU for their ruling. A ruling that needs to be upheld, and in all honesty, the girls should be expelled for their follow-up response. Throughout the book DiAngelo makes some really bizarre statements that make absolutely no sense, like this one, for example: "...tackling group identity also challenges our belief in objectivity. If group membership is relevant, then we don't see the world from the universal human perspective but from the perspective of a particular kind of human.... Thus, reflecting on our racial frames is particularly challenging for many white people, because we are taught that to have a racial viewpoint is to be biased." In the previous cited example, it is clear that the two female ASU students' group identity was being challenged subjectively rather than objectively; and they both failed to see the world from the universal human perspective. That I get; but what I do not get is if people fail to see the world from that universal perspective, then they are left with "the perspective of a particular kind of human." What the hell does that mean? A... kind of human? This makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever.