Very Liberal Workplace

[Jen95]

Jesus said “the _______ you will always have with you”.

The Church teaches “the preferential option for the ______”.

Just for starters!

 

[Jen95]

If I’m a person of color, can I move into a ritzy suburb with good schools?
Yes, if I have the money.

Yes, that used to happen, and that truly was explicit systemic racism. But now that is against the law. If it happens now that would be illegal. But it’s legal for realtors not to show houses to poor people.

 

[Jen95]

These “is racism really as bad as x” scenarios are what one might safely call silly.

Your argument:
“You say we should treat heart disease but is it really as bad as cancer?”

No, my argument:
“You’re talking a lot about heart disease, but you realize there are other fatal diseases as well? Why are we ignoring them?”

 

[RobertAdams]

Still bizarrely antagonistic.

“Hey look there’s a squirrel in that tree.”

“What’s your problem dont you know there are rabbits around here too.”

 

[Jen95]

Still bizarrely antagonistic.

“Hey look there’s a squirrel in that tree.”

“What’s your problem dont you know there are rabbits around here too.”

“Hey look, there’s a hole in that tree.”
“It must be squirrels! Get rid of all the squirrels!”

Ignores woodpeckers, beavers, all other tree-destroying critters around…

 

[RobertAdams]

“Because other animals can make holes, and I am incapable of identifying them, you must be wrong in your claims of being able to correctly identify a woodpecker hole.”

 

[blackforest]

The concept of “white fragility” is insidious; built into the idea already is that whites are A) guilty of racist social oppression and B) unwilling or unable to face the truth of it. The first premise places white people automatically on the defensive and the second reinforces the first premise by noting how defensive white people get over it.

There are different ways of expressing disagreement. People who do NOT feel threatened by other positions or beliefs, e.g. a book they’ve never read called White Fragility, may respond, “Interesting thought. I haven’t yet read the book. But from what you’ve told me, the premise sounds weak. I would counter that x, y, and z.”

People who do feel threatened respond precisely as I’ve seen in this thread, shooting out words like “insidious,” “racist,” “opposed to Catholic teaching” before even reading the book. (It’s OK if you haven’t read it yet; that deficit just needs to be acknowledged as a limit).

It is possible to counter arguments in a way that allows reasoned civility to trump mere reactivity.

 

[Patri]

You are very correct. I am mixed race and so I have family and friends from both sides. People that have never experienced racism have no idea how it feels, it does exist but now because it is no longer seen as something positive, it is just done in a different way. It was really sad visiting Cape Town and learning first hand about the history of apartheid and how people were treated or seeing the cells Mandela and other political prisoners were kept in. There are a lot of white people that are not racist and have married and adopted from other races, but there are still people that do not want black neighbours, or will suspect someone walking down the street different from them. We have come a long way from slavery but, there is still much to be done. So normally when people protect or help the race they belong to, their personal experiences influence them. I do wish we could do away with everything and really treat each other fairly, it feels like in different ways, we keep making the same mistakes.

 

[Asinner]

Leveling an insult at an entire race in the title is racist.

Oh, and if anyone wants to try to tell me “calling someone fragile is not an insult,” spare me.

 

[Calliope]

Leveling an insult at an entire race in the title is racist.

Oh, and if anyone wants to try to tell me “calling someone fragile is not an insult,” spare me.

The title “White Fragility” is not saying that all white people, everywhere, in all time and situations exhibit defensiveness and paranoia towards all persons of color. It refers to a specific, real cultural (probably basic human tendency) issue. It’s not a blanket assessment and insult, it refers to a particular issue.

Rather like a book of “dirty jokes” is not implying that all jokes are dirty, it’s just that those considered dirty by the author are included in the book.

The book in question in this thread is about an issue identified as White Fragility, it is not implying that all White people are fragile.

 

[Jen95]

Asinner:

Leveling an insult at an entire race in the title is racist.

Oh, and if anyone wants to try to tell me “calling someone fragile is not an insult,” spare me.

The title “White Fragility” is not saying that all white people, everywhere, in all time and situations exhibit defensiveness and paranoia towards all persons of color. It refers to a specific, real cultural (probably basic human tendency) issue. It’s not a blanket assessment and insult, it refers to a particular issue.

Rather like a book of “dirty jokes” is not implying that all jokes are dirty, it’s just that those considered dirty by the author are included in the book.

The book in question in this thread is about an issue identified as White Fragility, it is not implying that all White people are fragile.

So you would be okay with a book title “Black __________” ( fill in unflattering noun here). Or “Latino __________”. “Chinese _____________”. “Muslim ___________”. “Jewish _____________”. Etc? It doesn’t seem to imply something about the whole race / group to you?

 

[RobertAdams]

Rather than speculating on books that dont exist, I’m going to say that I am ok with this book. You guys realize it was written by a white woman right? And the title is “White Fragility,” not “All White People are Fragile.”

It’s a worthwhile read in the genre that includes Coming Apart, Hillbilly Elegy, White Trash, and How the Irish Became White among others. But because the area of white experience it explores is white discomfort with talking about racism people lose their minds in ways that conform to many of the patterns described in the book.

 

[Calliope]

Yes I am. There are books written about all kinds of issues within various races. They are valid issues. Black on Black Crime for instance. There are books, classes and symposiums on the issue. It’s hard to address a problem if people won’t even identify and name the issue.

 

[Jen95]

Yes I am. There are books written about all kinds of issues within various races. They are valid issues. Black on Black Crime for instance. There are books, classes and symposiums on the issue. It’s hard to address a problem if people won’t even identify and name the issue.

Okay. If you think that would be fine and appropriate to have a book discussion in the workplace on “Black Fragility” or “Latinx Fragility” or “Muslim Fragility”, then okay. Seems weird to me though!

 

[Servant31]

So I’m not taking one side or another in this debate. I truthfully think there are good points on both sides. But you stated that people are becoming defensive. From where I’m sitting I see people digging in on both sides.

Your stating that because people debate their point, “they” are being defensive, and thereby proving the point in the book. Isn’t this THEIR point…that if they disagree with a premise, then they are automatically proving the premise, in this case white fragility. People don’t like getting maneuvered, no matter who they are.

To me that’s part of the larger issue, even bringing the point up paralyzes the discussion with accusations, and many people simply avoid the whole project. From my POV if one side was “proved” correct in this thread, hen so was the other. I think many people do want to engage in a constructive debate, and challenge established methods, even if that’s uncomfortable. But why show up if the only result is, “if you disagree your guilty”. I think both sides need to be constructive in something as difficult as these issues.

 

[Servant31]

@4gospels. Are you getting what your needing from this thread in reference to your situation?

 

[RobertAdams]

I dont exactly see it that way. The premise isnt really “if you debate this you prove my point.” It’s more like “here are some things you do when discussing race that make it hard to talk about this” …

Just curious here, who else has actually read this book?

 

[Servant31]

I dont exactly see it that way. The premise isnt really “if you debate this you prove my point.” It’s more like “here are some things you do when discussing race that make it hard to talk about this” …
I

I think both sides see it this way

 

[Shasta-Rose]

Yes, this sounds like it’s not part of the curriculum, but mainly his pet projects. I would not lead the study group if I couldn’t be enthusiastic about it.

 

[RobertAdams]

Not clear on what you’re saying. Both sides correctly understand the arguments made in this book (in many cases without reading it) or more than one group is correct in describing the difficulties said group runs into when discussing race?

If the first, not quite sure how to respond, if the latter, wouldnt you be arguing that “both” sides should in fact be trying to understand one another? Because in this thread the debate is “can I ignore this material I assume is wrong” not “here are the opinions which one is most accurate”